[CQ-Contest] busted Q's whine whine whine
K9YO- Cedrick Johnson
k9yo at ix.netcom.com
Sun May 9 13:52:36 EDT 1999
Sender: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C
I had claimed 377 qso's for the 1998 Cal QSO Party, but I made a few
mistakes with copying the exchanges of 7 stations. So I got bumped down to
370 x 52mults... Still 3rd place, but it is nice to know that I EARNED 3rd
place without "post contest" log stuff..
I think that the log checking rules are fine, and they are not too hard.. I
think in some ways, they could be stricter.
The point is simple: If you can't get all of the exchange, DON'T CLAIM IT!
And, if you bungle the exchange (like I did), then MOVE ON, DON'T MAKE THE
SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!
Pretty simple to do..
At 04:36 PM 5/8/99 -0400, DougKR2Q at aol.com wrote:
>Sender: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
>X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C
>I see it is once again time to complain about having your contest efforts
>actually looked at, corrected, and (oh my god) even penalized.
>All of this is old news, but here it is again anyway:
>1. In any contest, you are either serious or not. Note that "serious" does
>not only mean, "top ten."
>2. If you are not serious, then you shouldn't care about corrections to
>log, so don't complain because you don't care anyway, right?
>3. If you are serious, you should want your score to reflect your true
>effort. If you don't want your score to reflect your true and actual
>I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY NOT!
>4. Equally if you are serious, you should want the scores of those listed
>around you (especially ABOVE you) to be accurate representations of THEIR
>actual effort. You wouldn't want to "lose" to someone who had a bigger
>falsely achieved, would you? If their score should be checked and
>then so should yours.
>5. Newbies who do not know the difference between the keyboard letter "O"
>the numeral zero are the same as a newbie who can't tell the difference
>between the morse characters S and H when sent at a speed greater than
>can copy. If they copy it wrong (because of lack of skill or knowledge),
>they should not be given credit. If you chose to use a keyboard, it is
>responsibility to know the difference between OH and ZERO. Next time
>you will know the difference, right? So this should be a one-time
> If you are shocked at a 3:1 penalty (or whatever) and think it is too
>for such "an easy" mistake, then you have lots of motivation to get it
> If you repeat the error, it's your fault, not the contest sponsor. Like
>man said, if you dial the letter O instead of the numeral zero, you lose
>6. Reverting back to hand written logs is an ignorant (YES, IGNORANT)
>suggestion. Hand-written logs were (and are) indeed scrutinized. If the
>checker (because of poor handwriting) could not discern a letter, the QSO
>did/does NOT count at all.
>7. Other typographical errors ARE ERRORS and COUNT AS ERRORS. When you
>choose to use a keyboard, you are accepting the fact that you can make
> For THE MAJORITY of the QSOs logged, it is a big advantage. But every now
>and then, you make a typographical error. This is the same as making a
>copying error. If you feel that this is unfair, simply don't key in your
. and don't take advantage of instant scoring, don't take advantage of
>dupe checking, don't take advantage of multiplier checking, etc. Your
>choice. There is a downside to most things in life
virtually nothing is
>purely gain without some risk of loss.
>8. The use of databases (during or after) a contest by an entrant really
>makes me laugh. This includes "check partial," "super check partial," and
>certainly the use of official government-type databases (and call books).
>This is supposed to be a test of YOUR ability
not the database's ability.
>IMHO, the use of a database to "help" with call signs is a cop-out. If you
>can't copy the call yourself without help, ore feel that you need the
>database as "verification" (gimme a break), then the QSO didn't take place.
>If you are prompted with the "exchange" information as well (CK, STATE,
>POWER, etc.), then part of the skill that the contest is testing is being
>falsified. Either you copied the call and exchange correctly or you
>You shouldn't need outside help. Since no contest (that I am aware of) has
>yet to prohibit databases (before, during, or after), this is a matter of
>personal honor and ethics. I look forward to the day when this is banned
>(but I'm not holding my breath).
>9. I've noticed at least one posting saying that the relative positions of
>finish did not change due to "corrections" while there is at least one
>posting saying the opposite (N4BP). As a log checker for (ugh) decades
>the CQWWDX, I have seen huge flips in position, even from fourth place to
>FIRST place, all due to "corrections." I'm sure the CLAIMED first place
>guy/gal didn't like the corrections, while the new OFFICIAL first place
>winner must have loved it. And even if positions do not change, it's nice
>know that the logs are being checked FAIRLY and EQUITABLY and that the
>actually mean something.
>10. There have also been comments that looking at ACCURACY (of copying AND
>logging - which includes the ability to TYPE if you chose to type) somehow
>detracts from the "true" effort of running and finding mults. Look
>guys/gals, the sponsors are saying it clearly
ACCURACY is important. If
>sponsors are TELLING YOU that besides QSOs, and MULTS you need ACCURACY,
>it is up to you to INCLUDE that in your strategy. If you choose to ignore
>accuracy, then expect the consequences as clearly outlined by the sponsors.
>11. Should accuracy be ADJUSTED by post-contest editing? I don't think so.
>In CQWW DX, post contest modification/changing/alteration of calls is not
period. Each contest is of a fixed duration and THAT is the time
>period when your skills are tested. Checking and then CHANGING calls
>the contest means that the entrant is taking on the role of the contest
>sponsor, that is, JUDGING (adjudication) of the effort. There is no other
>competition (that I am aware of) where the entrants are permitted to MODIFY
>their effort after the event is over. And the event is over when the
>period (during which the effort is actually made) ends.
>12. By the way, getting back to check partial and derivatives thereof, if
>just blows me away when I check a log and find that an entrant busted the
>call of the same mult in the same way on several bands. CLEARLY he busted
>the first time, and then each time it was "worked" later, he simply COPIED
>what had been entered before. Yes sir
those self-made databases on line
>a big help
.leaves ZERO doubt who is lazy and not bothering to copy
.some "savings" of effort, huh? Good Bye many qso's (x3) and needed
>mults. Well, at least the log checker enjoys it as break and a reason to
>smile after long hours of a thankless job (smile at the stupidity, not the
>enjoyment of a found error).
>13. To you new or casual contesters who read this stuff, you should keep in
>mind the source of the comments. How many of the negative remarks about
>checking or scoring or "unfair" competition come from those who regularly
>submit their logs or score in the upper ranges of entrants? Of the
>of entrants and reflector subscribers, what PERCENTAGE of them complain?
>What percentage of them actually stop contesting? About 15 years ago, I
>posted a question (packet) inquiring about brand "A" filters for my Kenwood
>rig (instead of the stock filters already in place). I received about 25
>replies with 21 of them being glowing or favorable. That sounded
>until I "filtered" the replies. Just WHO replied? Were they contesters
>scored well or just "Joe Hams?" When I restricted the replies to big time
>contesters, there were only FOUR. And ALL FOUR said their experience
>that it wasn't worth it. Needless to say, I didn't go for the filters.
>my drift? When K1AR or N5KO or N5TJ or W9RE or "Mr. Yuma" start
>then I'm sure all heads will turn and pay attention. Until then, take it
>from where it comes and apply appropriate weighting.
>CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
>Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
Cedrick Johnson, K9YO ex. N9YXA, Z2/N9YXA
Northern Illinois Technologies Consulting
10-10: 67368, SMC, ARRL, FRRL, EARS, LYRA, WAHSCC
Visit the K9YO Contest Station online at:
"Secure your standing place and you can move the world."
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest