[CQ-Contest] ...the bottom line is VERY obvious

[Gilmer, Mike]

I don't believe this compounds (makes worse) the error.  In the example
under discussion, the so-called "correct" log was penalized, the so-called
"incorrect" log was perhaps not.  Penalizing both would *improve* the
situation (the bad guy gets dinged).

Still, I think we agree, sort of - my statement stands:

 Some log checking tries to weed out the "unstable" logs - perhaps
> your example can be used to make the next revision(s) even better.

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know how you can presume that
the bad log sent the same numbers twice.  I didn't read that anywhere.  What
if he just re-numbered the entire log after the fact or something equally
appalling?

73
Mike
N2MG

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ed Sleight [SMTP:k4sb at mindspring.com]
> Sent:	Friday, September 15, 2000 10:51 AM
> To:	'CQ-Contest'
> Subject:	Re: [CQ-Contest] ...the bottom line is VERY obvious
> 
> 
> "Gilmer, Mike" wrote:
> 
> > In the meantime, your example is a case to remove points from the
> > currently-presumed-*good* log as well as from the *bad* log.
> 
> It appears to me that such merely compounds the error. If the person who
> sent the same numbers twice submits a log, it should be obvious where
> the fault lies. Especially if other logs submitted with contacts with
> the same station show similar discrepancies.
> 
> The error here is in the inadequacy of the log checking software. 
> 
> 73
> Ed
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


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