[CQ-Contest] Log-checking errors vs logging errors

[Bill Tippett]

KL7Y wrote:

>4.  The statement that all are treated fairly by the 1 plus 3 is
>definitely not true.  Over the years, I have answered tens of thousands
>of contest QSLs and the JA error rate is always considerably higher than
>the other QSO mines of USA and EU.  I suspect this is due to the
>inclination of lower tier JAs to not correct their call immediately, but
>to call again later.  The burden may be on the other station to make
>sure you get his call correct, but not all JAs do this in the way we
>would like.  In short, if you work a lot of JAs, your error rate will be
>higher than someone who works mostly USA/EU.  There is a geographical
>bias, and the 1 plus 3 penalty makes it worse.
>
>6.  K6LA said that after reviewing tapes, he thought the log checking
>program did about 95% accuracy. That is certainly good enough to detect
>cheaters, which is the main purpose of log checking.  But that level of
>accuracy is not nearly good enough for the 1 plus 3 penalty.  Most of
>the better operators copy at considerably better than 95%.  The
>inaccuracy of the log checking program is magnified by 4 times.  Since
>we can never have 100 percent accuracy, the penalty should be reduced to
>1 QSO to minimize effects of log checking inaccuracy.

        Well said Dan!  I believe CQ's argument goes like this:

"Yes, there may be a few mistakes in our -B and -N calls list, but many
of the QSO's in your uniques list are probably also bad and we ARE
allowing those...besides the software treats everyone the same."

        Case in point:  In the 99 CQWW SSB, I submitted 2589 QSO's judged 
with 9 Uniques, 16 -B and 7 -N QSO's.  Of the 9 U's, 4 appeared in
online databases (QRZ and Buckmaster online callbooks), leaving IMHO
5 true "Uniques".  I was penalized a total of 268 QSO points.  The argument
about giving me a break with my Uniques list does not apply since those
represented only 25 QSO points (9 uniques) worst case and possibly only
14 points (5 uniques).  

        The argument "The software treats everyone the same IS true, but
human error does enter the process in judging a call U or -B so the
process is not truly untouched by human hands and therefore it may NOT
treat everyone the same.  I believe there are some serious opportunites
to improve the U and -B judgement process based on UBN's I've seen
and have submitted some ideas to N6AA and K3EST privately.  I personally
don't have a problem with -N calls because they are not as subject to
errors in the log-checking process even though this may not be equal across
geographical areas due to the cultural differences you pointed out.  Life
is unfair and we don't all get to operate from Zone 33 either!

        A further argument is "Well it really wouldn't make any difference
in the overall results."  Having recently lost an ARRL contest and record by
less than one QSO, this argument falls on my very deaf ears at the moment.
ONE human judgement error there would make the difference in winning or not.
I will give CQ credit where credit is very due and that is their process
for first posting UBN's and allowing input before final results are
calculated.  

        I believe the CQ process is head and shoulders above all others
and I really don't have a problem with the 3X penalty if the penalty is
for an error I made...I just don't feel the same way about log-checking
errors!  Who suffers a penalty for those?  Not the CQ Committee...I DO!
We should always be open to process improvement.  IMHO this discussion is
not meant to attack anyone but to give feedback to make the log-checking
process even better at accurately reflecting true results...isn't that
what we all want?

                                                73,  Bill  W4ZV



                                                


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