[CQ-Contest] Re: Cabrillo format, Dupes, NoQSO's

n6tr at teleport.com n6tr at teleport.com
Fri Sep 24 21:51:03 EDT 1999

> What do we do to mark a log line as "DUPE" or "NO-QSO", so we don't
> get penalized for not marking dupes as dupes, or claiming credit for a
> busted qso that we know we didn't complete (without removing the line
> and causing the other guy to get a penalty).=20

It has been my opinion for the past 6 years that dupe penalties have
no meaning for electronic logs.  All of the log checking software I
have done implements this concept. 

However, the problem of incomplete QSOs remains.  This hasn't been totally
addressed by the checking software or the Cabrillo format.  In general,
I would say if the QSO didn't take place - then don't log anything.  A
QSO is defined as a two way exchange of information.  If you didn't get
the information - then the QSO should not count for either station.  If
the person you worked logged you without hearing you confirm the 
exchange - then he deserves to lose the QSO.

> (In the latter case, if no-one steps up to solve that problem, I'm
> going to put NO0QSO in as the call sign, so they'll at least drop out
> as dupes, giving the other guy a chance at a point when the log is
> examined.)

Please don't do this.  NO0QSO will show up as a unique and possibly a
busted callsign.  If you remove a QSO that uses serial numbers, the
log checking software can deal with that (assuming you have the correct
sent QSO number in your log entry).  There isn't any reason to leave a
place holder.  

Tree N6TR
tree at contesting.com

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