[CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check

LU5CW Ernesto Grueneberg lu5cw at geocities.com
Mon Feb 8 20:52:44 EST 1999

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
> [mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com]On Behalf Of K5GA at aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 1999 12:15 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check
> I just got the answers back from Tree for my SS CW operation at WX0B.
> It was quite interesting, but I have some personal observations
> that I want to
> share with the masses. However, before doing so, everyone please
> understand
> that I appreciate the log checking being done, but also
> understand I see some
> harm in it as well.
> #1..........SS is not Sprint. I don't feel SS should be checked as hard as
> Sprint because of the tremendous amount of unique information that is
> exchanged in SS. Too many variables with QRM and fading that
> allows one dit to
> be lost which causes TWO QSOs lost. The penalty thing is ridiculous.

As I stated in a previous message, what are you complaining about? I am sure
everyone operating the way you are is having the same % of this kind of
¨errors¨. So I gets balanced at the end.

> #2..........Too much "professionalizing" of SS will chase off many casual
> operators who give us the Qs. Why should a station who is trying for a pin
> etc. waste his time knowing that some professional log checker is going to
> nick-pick his log to death to the point of  possibly losing the pin. Or,
> consider a small pistol who is trying to improve last year's
> score  ( which
> will bring the person back next year for more improvement ), but
> finds  the
> log was penalized to the Nth degree, thus making the person mad enough to
> quit. I know some of you will think logging accuracy is part of the
> improvement process. Well, it is, but don't slap these people too
> hard over
> this 100% accuracy thing

I disagree. I feel the guys trying to get a pin, certificate, improve last
year´s score want it to be fair. They can buy a pin or print their own
certificates, the fun is doing it the right way (taking proper care when
copying the station)
OTOH, i guess most casual guys don´t send their logs, so the contest base is

> #3..........The idea of checking so diligently is going to force
> the Top 10
> stations to record the contest and edit it afterward. Pesonally,
> I find this
> distasteful and not in the spirit of competition. If it comes to
> this, I will
> most likely drop out of SS because my life does not revolve
> around contesting
> to the point of having to edit my log because all the other
> stations of which
> I am competing against is editing. Sorry, but give me a big BREAK. Enough.

Then let´s argue if this practice should be prohibited... Besides seems you
have forgot the poor PINS chasers.
> I see one thing which could possibly solve this dilemma. For all stations
> wishing to compete for Top 10 status, make it mandatory for these
> stations to
> email their log within 2 hours after the end of the contest. No
> editing,,, no
> perusing...just the real thing as it happened. Then, the
> log-checkers who wish
> to give up their lives for the sake of 100% accuracy, have at it,
> and may the
> best set of ears and DSP-equipped stations win.

Hey! what a great idea, how about 10 minutes? Wonder if some stations would
start taking their off times at the end. This also will increase the
post-contest excuses. I had problems with the rotator plus the phone wasn´t

Ernesto Grueneberg - LU5CW
< mailto:lu5cw at geocities.com>
LU5CW homepage < http://pagina.de/lu5cw>
LT1F homepage: <http://badpower.com.ar>

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