[CQ-Contest] Error detection and correction proposal

[Edward W. Sleight]

AD6E at aol.com wrote:
>snipped 
> 
> Our hobby is based on providing a public service to the community in 
> the form of backup communications which we all take seriously.

With all due respect, that is BS. How many of us have mobile rigs? I
do, but not for the reason above. That may be the justification
officially given, but the pure and simple truth is it's a hobby.
Whatever aspect of it turns you on is fine, but for 99%, they could
care less about backup
communications.  


> CW and even SSB are
> indeed very out of date modes, but they are fun and CW at least can be
> justified because it takes very simple equipment.

Very true, which merely underscores the remarks about a hobby. 
I don't work for the NSA, and I really don't care for a mode of
communication I really have never heard of. SS is the USA vs the USA.
That's where the fun is. Plenty of activity, plenty of fun. Repeat FUN

> If the transmitted exchange includes this checksum, then when we copy > the other guys exchange our computer calculates a local checksum value > and warns us if theres an error in what we copied. This is done in
> real time so we can  easily go back to the other guy and ask for fills > until the checksum matches  what was received.
> 
> Thus error free contesting. Those who want to save time and ignore the
> checksum can certainly do so... at their peril.

Where did we get the idea that contesting has to be error free? The
concept is one to work toward, but it isn't that important. 

> Application of this idea is obvious in SS, but Rusty and Dave thought the
> Sprints might be a better place to start this because of the higher
> probability of both guys in a given QSO using computers.

And while I would like to think that all of us use computers, it
simply isn't so. And of those who do, I would guess less than 5% even
know what a hexidecimal number is, not to mention a checksum. And
that's fine. I could care less what the CPU is doing. Hex and
checksums are internal to the computer and the way it does its job.
But that's it. The computer is simply a handy tool to make things a
little easier.
> 
> 73, Al  AD6E
> AD6E at aol.com

I sincerely don't mean this as critical, but this idea of perfection
is getting out of hand. And any computer checking program can be
countered by another computer doing its thing.

As for the Sprints, I would rather not hear about accuracy being
there.
My name is Ed, short for Edward. But there simply are not that many
Edwards, Edgars, ect. in the FCC database. When I work 10 stations in
a row whose name is Ed, it is possible all are OK. But the odds of
such are higher than any lottery. So when you send Ed because it's
short, and your real name is Bill, or Charles, you're cheating. And
that should be a very quick disqualification. Cheating and accuracy
are 2 different animals.   

But if you really want to use such a thing as a checksum, make it a
rule
that you have to send it's binary equivilent on your next QSO.

Why can't we just know the rules, study hard, and have fun. I'm too
old to be taking pop quizes generated by a computer for the
satisfaction of
a few whose main purpose is to gleefully point out my errors. It's
supposed to be fun!

73
Ed


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