[CQ-Contest] Error detection and correction proposal

[AD6E at aol.com]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the note (no offence taken).  I often throw things out with a bit 
of tounge-in-cheek if only to make a point.

However, I do take seriously the "backup communications" responsibility. The 
public hearing for my tower permit here in San Jose was the day after the 
Loma Prieta earthquake. I was swamped for a week with red cross H&W traffic. 
(I had an illegal HF antenna on a TV mast before the tower). The unfortunate 
part of it is the local govt doesn't take us seriously.

With regard to the check sum, I still think it would be fun to try. It could 
be ignored by those who don't want to deal with something new, but would be a 
fairly easy way to tell if *something* was mis-copied in time to ask for a 
repeat.  My point in talking about the old days of traffic handling was 
simply to point out that real "traffic" uses a form of check sum called the 
"check". Its been that way for over a century. 

I don't mean to discount good copying ability (I lost 5% in SS). However, the 
purpose of any QSO is to get the message across accurately and quickly. Using 
a check simply improves the accuracy. I expect the debate would be more along 
the lines of taking too much time given the pretty good accuracy of most 
contesters, even if we are only talking about one extra letter.

73, AL  AD6E
AD6E at aol.com




In a message dated 5/1/99 1:46:58 AM EST, k4sb at mindspring.com writes:

> 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 indeed very out of date modes, but they are fun and CW at least can be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