[CQ-Contest] SS-LOG Super-Check

[Greg Becker]

>        Where I do have a problem with Super Check is accuracy from
>        the sending end, but that's for another thread.

Well, maybe not.

I'd be interested to see how many of the stations whose exchanges I "busted"
also had others do the same thing. For example, if I busted KA2AHW's check
as 78 instead of 88, I wonder how many other stations also busted his check.
This might show that there was indeed a sending accuracy issue. I got my
punch list from Tree and was appalled at a 5+% error rate. After last year's
debacle with my m/s SSCW log being checked and others not, etc., I was SUPER
careful this year with calls, exchanges, asking for a repeat if I was not
100% sure, etc. Still had a stack of busted exchanges! I understand losing a
dit to a fade or QRM & not picking it up, but I thought I'd been much more
accurate than the Super Check shows.

Along a similar line, I also had a handful of busted calls. In my opinion,
there is absolutely no excuse for this, but I'm not sure where the fault
lies. Every busted call occurred while I was running. I sent his call at the
beginning of my exchange, and then was supposed to hear it again during his
exchange. However, a LARGE number of participants do not send their call
again during the exchange when calling a running station - for example:

NA2N OK NR 113 A 77 EPA.

Since they've not corrected me on the call, I have two choices - I can
assume I've copied and sent their call correctly when answering them (which
I obviously think I have or I wouldn't have sent it that way), or I can ask
each and every one of them for a repeat of their call before acknowledging
and logging the Q. Either way apparantly costs me Qs. The first by busting
calls that are not corrected by the caller, the second by the additional
time taken and Qs lost by having to ask. I have to assume that the busted
calls come from this scenario. The less likely other option is that either
the calling station sent his call incorrectly twice or I copied it
incorrectly twice. Don't think so - not that many times.

I think part of the issue is not making it clear to the participants that
the call is a required part of the EXCHANGE, not just of the CONTACT.  How
do we do this?

Comments invited. If entertaining, flames may be shared with the group.  :)

__
Greg Becker  JD PhD       NA2N           na2n at ifam.com
Ideas For American Manufacturers
JW, Roundout #343 F&AM

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