[CQ-Contest] Not-In-Log

[Eric Scace]

   According to my understanding, log checking does NOT work in the way
described below for this scenario.

   The problem cited (HC8A losing the KL7Y QSO, multiplier, and penalty
QSOs) would occur if KL7Y:
   -- did not send in a log, AND
   -- worked just a handful of contacts, most of whom did not send in a log,
AND
   -- K*7Y worked many stations.
The last two points are important.

   Stations who do not send in a log, but work more than a few people in the
contest, are detected by log checking software and noted as "callsign active
in the contest but no log received".  If KL7Y fell into this category, HC8A
would not be penalized for his logged QSO with KL7Y.  K*7Y (in the example
below) would get dinged for a not-in-log in this case.

   If K*7Y did not exist, and KL7Y did not send in his log, there is no
issue.  With a few exceptions, contests do not require all QSOs to be
confirmed by logs received by the contest organizer.  Log checking would
determine that (a) KL7Y is a valid callsign: proper format and currently
issued... and, most likely, (b) multiple stations have sent in logs showing
QSOs with KL7Y.

   No one is claiming that log checking and penalty calculations are
perfect.  The detailed log cross-checking which is now occurring is an
improvement over what was accomplished in the past.  There will still be
cases where logging errors are overlooked... where invalid claimed QSOs
remain undetected... and where valid QSOs are incorrect judged to be
invalid.  But the results of log checking are much better than what was done
in the past.

   I expect:
-- that my logs will always contain some errors...
-- that some of these will be properly detected and my score 'adjusted'
downwards...
-- that a few of my errors will remain undetected...
-- that a few valid QSOs will be erroneously judged as invalid (either
because of a mistake by the log checker or something the remote station did
or did not do)
-- that, over the years, I will benefit more from undetected errors than I
will lose from QSOs erroneously judged as invalid.

   My standings over time will improve faster if I focus on improving my
station and my operating/logging skills.  Focusing on finding the tiny
number of log checking errors will not significantly improve my standings.

   And I am eternally grateful to those who volunteer to spend THOUSANDS of
hours, year after year, checking logs and compiling the results (instead of
operating and building antennas).  Without these people there would be NO
contests.  I am happy they enjoy log checking, and I do not expect them to
be perfect.  Thanks to all of you.

-- Eric  K3NA


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
[mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Dan Robbins
Sent: 1999 August 11 Wednesday 09:17
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Not-In-Log



Bruce Horn wrote:

> Some have commented that it is unfair to lose points when the "other"
> station doesn't send in a log. I know of no contest where a contestant who
> submits a log loses points solely based on logging a QSO with someone who
> didn't submit a log.

Hypothetical WW SSB QSO:

HC8A: HOTEL CHARLIE EIGHT ALPHA
KL7Y: KILO LIMA SEVEN YANKEE
HC8A: KILO LIMA SEVEN YANKEE FI-NI TEN
KL7Y: ROGER, FIVE NINE ONE
HC8A: HOTEL CHARLIE EIGHT ALPHA

Nothing wrong there, right?  Assume there was another station with a
similar call in the pileup, say K*7Y (so as not to offend anybody).  At
EXACTLY the same time....

HC8A:  HOTEL CHARLIE EIGHT ALPHA
K*7Y:  KILO STAR SEVEN YANKEE
HC8A:  KILO-STATIC CRASH-SEVEN YANKEE FI NI TEN (as heard by K*7Y)
K*7Y:  FIVE NINE OH THREE
HC8A:  HOTEL CHARLIE EIGHT ALPHA

K*7Y screwed up, HC8A really worked KL7Y.  K*7Y sends in a log.  KL7Y
does not.  The log checkers find the KL7Y QSO in the log of HC8A and
cross checking erroneously shows that the QSO was with K*7Y.  The
checking program removes the QSO, plus a penalty of 3 QSOs and takes
away the KL7 multiplier.  Had this single mistake happened in the real
world with the claimed scores, HC8A would have dropped from number one
in the world to number two and the PY0 gets the honors, so a single
mistake can have a large reaction.

By going through thousands of QSLs received from contests, I have found
that this scenario is not uncommon for stations who run pileups.  Most
of the time you never hear the second guy, but often you can hear two
different guys giving you reports.  Based on QSLs received during one
10K QSO multi-multi, for example, the number of "doubles" was estimated
well over 100, greater than one percent.  I know of no way to calculate
how many of those would lead to the situation where the right guy does
NOT send in a log (and the wrong guy does), my best guess in this
example would be 25 to 30.  Neglecting possible lost multipliers, there
would be approximately a one percent or more score reduction for
perfectly good QSOS!

I think the best way to tolerate log checking shortcomings while still
retaining its usefulness is to eliminate the 3 QSO penalty for busted
calls and just remove the offending QSO.  The purpose of the 3 QSO
penalty was to prevent guys from deliberately leaving in dupes.  Back in
the old days, logs with 2% or more dupes were disqualified.  So a few
less than honest yokels would leave in 1.99% dupes - if their log got
checked they lost a few but they didn't get disqualified.  OTOH, if
their log didn't get close scrutiny, they got a boost in their score.
The 3 QSO penalty alleviated this practice.  The advent of computerized
logging made the 2% dupe rule pretty irrelevant as the dupes are set to
zero points by the computer doing the log checking.  You can't leave in
1.99% dupes anymore.

While the reduction of the penalty may lead to more guessing, this is
not all bad.  With some uncertainty in the call under the present 3 QSO
penalty, the common choice is to delete the call (not many would set it
to zero points - would the log checking catch this anyway??).  With only
the single QSO penalty, it would hurt nothing to leave it in.  Chances
are it will still get bounced, but at least the other guy may not get
dinged for a NIL.  Suppose you're contesting away with S9 static and
having trouble copying calls.  With a 3 QSO penalty you might actually
be reducing your score! With the single QSO penalty you may have a
tendency to hang around longer - important if you are a low band mult
for the rest of us.  Finally, reducing the penalty will help those who
are poor typists.  You'll still get dinged, but not so bad.

Has the time come to boot the 3 QSO penalty?

						Dan KL7Y


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



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