[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
Precedence: bulk
X-List-Info: http://www.contesting.com/cq-contest-faq.html
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

Pretty simple to do..

-Cedrick, k9yo

At 04:36 PM 5/8/99 -0400, DougKR2Q at aol.com wrote:
>Sender: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
>Precedence: bulk
>X-List-Info: http://www.contesting.com/cq-contest-faq.html
>X-Sponsor: W4AN, KM3T, N5KO & AD1C
>Dear Contesters:
>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
>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 
>every time.
>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 
>log…. 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 
>permitted…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 
>calls….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
Aurora, Illinois
Systems Analyst/Programmer
Northern Illinois Technologies Consulting
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 mailing list