[CQ-Contest] GUPI versus IUPG

[Tree N6TR]

Wow.

Well, I am not sure how we got from removing QSOs with the wrong band
to removing QSOs that aren't proven to be correct.

It is amazing sometimes how we can focus on something that happens
almost never, and come to the conclusion that this whole log checking
process is out of control.

It is also reminding me that giving out ANY information about the 
process is really not a very good idea, as it causes more harm than
good, and I have to go into damage control.  Maybe I will get lucky
and the ARRL will "fire" me for my comments and I can go do something
more fun.

I would like to challenge people here to think about the big picture.
Stop focusing in on something that statistically is in the noise 
compared to other things.  This band not matching up is much less
than a 0.1 percent problem (probably a lot less than that - but I
haven't spent the time to fully measure it).  We can differ on 
wheter or not the log checking program should be able to deal 
with it - but the simple truth is that it doesn't.  It probably
never will.  If it results in a QSO being removed from your log, 
then please send me an e-mail, and I will take whatever time it
takes to find another QSO in your log that should have been 
removed, but wasn't, because the software couldn't be sure enough
that the QSO was bad - based upon the data it had to work with -
to remove it.

Maybe I will even find 3 of them (making up for the penalty, which
is only one QSO BTW).

I think the important things to keep in mind are this:

1. The process might not be perfect, but the process is consistently
applied to all logs - without human judgement.  I will argue that 
the errors introduced by the process are much less than any process
involving human judgment.

2. The philosophy of the process is IUPG.  If we don't have a log 
for the station in your log - it can't be judged to be not in his
log.  It takes a certain amount of evidence to determine if the 
callsign is busted of not (this varies depending on the contest
and the "quality" of information exchanged).  The criteria for
busting a callsign is much higher than matching up callsigns when
doing a not-in-log check.

3. The process works!  People who have clean logs, and lower 
accuracy rates get dinged less than those who don't.  Compare
this to the situation 15 years ago, when only a few logs
were checked, using very subjective methods and you had little
to no feedback to how well you were doing in the accuracy department.

In our ability to nitpick some of these insignificant details, we
run the risk of demoralizing people who are spending tons of hours
trying to make these processes work the best we can.  Nobody is 
making a living out of doing this.  We also have families and even
like to get on the air some of the time.  

The big question is - are we better off?  

There is one person I know of, who most of you don't even know
his callsign, who has spent an average more than most of us work 
at our day jobs trying to deal with all of the various formats 
that logs come in for a very major worldwide contest.  That person 
is really wondering why the heck he is doing this.  I am afraid
I don't have a good answer for him.

It is just so much more fun to find something wrong and complain 
about it.  How do you unsubscribe from this list again?

Tree


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