[CQ-Contest] Sctns, abrviatns, et al

W1HIJCW at aol.com W1HIJCW at aol.com
Wed Apr 28 01:21:39 EDT 1999

At the risk of becoming too serious -- I'd like to suggest that the 
discussions of logging programs filling in the blanks, etc. are in fact 
missing the point.

Starting with the premise that the intention of the SS exchange is to test 
one's ability to receive and record correctly a sent "message", then one 
issue is that the content of the message, wherever possible, should be as 
unambiguous as it can reasonably be. Clearly the CK is chosen from a set of 
possible 2 digit numbers, so while there is no way of telling what the number 
should be from the other elements of the message, at least the listener knows 
that it is 2 digits.

But section abbreviations don't enjoy that luxury. They can be 2 characters 
or 3 characters, and worse there can be two and three character valid 
abbreviations where the first two characters of a three element abbreviation 
are the same as a valid two element abbreviation (LAX and LA, ORG and OR).

"information science" dictates that if the purpose is accurate information 
transfer, then ambiguity in the message should be eliminated wherever 
possible. So one possible solution:

Make all section abbreviations 3 characters; and

Eliminate the duplication of the first two: LAX is alright, but Louisiana 
becomes LOU, Maine is MNE and Massachusetts is MAS, SCV remains, but 
Sacramento Valley becomes SVY, Michigan is MIC and Mississippi is MSS.

Just a thought ---

73, Bill

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list