[CQ-Contest] Ending a Contest QSO on Phone

[Jimmy Floyd]

When I run across someone signing "QRZ'd", I keep on spinning the dial. May
lose a mult but everytime I try to log "QRZ'd" nothing happens. Then I go
over to the QRZ.com and look up "QRZ'd" and get the response "QRZ'd is not
in the database". I would rather hear the call than waste my time and YOUR
time by working a DUPE.
Imagine that!
Jimmy Floyd
NQ4U // NNN0RKO
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~nq4u/home.html
nq4u at bellsouth.net


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


>From Mike" <W4EF at dellroy.com  Fri Aug  3 08:11:43 2001
From: Mike" <W4EF at dellroy.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:11:43 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs
References: <a7.11950ea8.289978f3 at aol.com>
Message-ID: <001501c11beb$926bfe20$6401a8c0 at neptune>


The 3 qso penalty really just changes the weighting in the tradeoff 
between logging your best guess and then moving on to the next guy 
versus taking the time to dig out the QSO information. With no penalty 
its an even tradeoff between losing a point for the current QSO and 
losing the next QSO (e.g. if I spend too much time trying to eak out the 
QSO I may lose another station who gets tired of waiting, so why not 
work the weak guy quickly and bet on the come that I got his call 
correct). With the penalty, I risk losing 3 additional QSOs if I am too 
cavalier about getting the information correct. 

In terms of Yuri's test analogy, think of it in terms of a timed multiple 
choice test. With no penalty for wrong answers I have no reason not 
to guess at the questions for which I don't know the answer. With 4 
answers to choose from, random guessing guarantees an average 
improvement in score of 25% over not answering questions for which 
you don't know the answer (or questions that you don't have time to 
read). But if I lose points for wrong answers, then random guessing 
becomes more risky because on average it will bring down your score. 

Of course with a multiple choice test, usually one of the 4 answers is 
correct. During a contest, you may get dinged for providing the right 
answer because someone asked the wrong question (e.g. the other station 
sent hs call incorrectly). Unless someone is busting their call intentionally 
in a targeted manner, I suspect that this TX station call busting will tend to 
average out. This may not happen in the space of one particular contest, 
but over many contests it probably will.

Is the cure (penalty points for other stations errors) better or worse than 
the disease (sloppy copy/guessing)? I don't know. 

Mike, W4EF..................................

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <K3BU at aol.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dinged Good QSOs


> 
> In a message dated 8/1/01 9:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kr6x at kr6x.com 
> writes:
> 
> > 
> >  When I hear the argument that applying the same set of criteria to all
> >  the logs entered in a contest simultaneously results in equal score
> >  reduction, I can only argue that applying a more sensible set of
> >  criteria to all the logs will result in equal score comparisons as
> >  well, and without placing the log checking process into doubt.  That's
> >  right, I believe that the efficacy of the log checking process is
> >  placed in doubt when the highest standard isn't applied against the
> >  log checking software rather than being applied against the entrants.
> >  
> 
> The problems with picking good QSOs as bad is aggravated by the 3 QSO 
> penalty. I could swallow the occasional bad judgment if only bad QSOs were 
> removed and no penalties.
> This 3 QSO penalty is the most illogical "punishment" known to mankind. Try 
> to apply the same philosophy in real life to other tests or scoring systems: 
> Like if you answered 5 questions on a written test wrong, and we will take 
> another 15 out "just to  punish you" or to "teach you" to answer wrong. 
> But the "bosses" decided we need punishment, so here we go. Just look at 
> giant step in score reductions (and records affected) since the "penalty" has 
> been used with computerized log checking.
> 
> And why do we still have 0 points for own country QSOs in CQ WW? What does 
> that achieve besides badly skewing results and punishing countries with large 
> ham population?
> Just trying to be sane and get some sense into our beloved contesting.
> There is always Tesla Cup Contest introducing fresh 21st Century rules in <A 
> HREF="http://members.aol.com/k3bu/TeslaCup.htm">Tesla Cup Rules</A>
> 
> Yuri, K3BU 
> 
> 
> --
> 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