[CQ-Contest] Get out your rubber

[Rex Maner]

: "Mark Beckwith"
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Get out your rubber


>
> I work for an English guy who doesn't have email or even a computer.  When
he
> messes up his notes on something he says "I'd better get out my rubber."




Maybe  you English guys can help me understand - does he mean his pencil
eraser?

I'm not English, but yes that is what he means.  ERACER


> In the old days (uh-oh, here he goes again) after the CQWW every year, we
would
> scurry around all the positions at K6RR and add up all the numbers from
the logs
> and attempt to make an estimate of how we did, because N6DX (K6BCE) was
over at
> Rainbow Ridge doing the same thing, and we were about to play the "after
the
> contest bluffing game."
>
> Once factor which was always an important variable: Average QSO Point
Value
> (AQPV).  I know I don't have to tell (some of) you all this, but in those
days
> we would speak in terms of some number between 2 and 3 which we would use
to
> multiply against the multipliers - say "I think we are at about 2.7, maybe
2.8"
> or whatever.
>
> One thing which directly affected this coefficient was just exactly how
many
> zero-point Ws there were actually written in the log taking up space -
padding
> the bottom line as it were.  Therefore, to hedge our results, we would
ALWAYS
> remove AS MANY OF THOSE AS POSSIBLE as standard procedure, because they
only
> diluted the process.
>
> SO - speaking for myself, I confess I am still in the knee-jerk habit,
years
> later, of "removing the useless zero-point QSOs from my log" - and I have
to
> constantly remind myself we don't have to do that any more.  If I want to
know
> my score estimate it is right there on the computer screen, and it is not
> diluted by zero-point QSOs.
>
> Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

Sounds very familiar to me, QUACK when operating at W7RM   B4 computers.  I
can rember giving many W's a contact and not even picking up the pencil
except to turn it around to the ERACER end.  We didn't want that junk taking
up space in the log.  No thought was evergiven to are we a mult ( Zone ) for
him,  We could always get the Zone from a VE.    I also have to remind
myself that it is no longer necessary to not remove the  ZERO point Q's.
I hope that I'm doing better.  I think I had 15 dupes in the log for 10M Cw
effort this year.  When things were slow I did tell a few QSO B4 but most I
just put them in and no mention at all.
MERRY XMAS to all
Quack


 Nobody has said a word about it, yet
> at one time it was totally standard procedure.
>
> My guess is that when the logging programs were written, since computer
scoring
> by the sponsor was still a decade down the road, it was still important to
allow
> this option.  At the time.  It is now a throwback to the past, comeback to
> roost.
>
> I am glad I just figured out why I STILL have the URGE to delete
zero-point
> QSOs.  It will be the first step towards breaking the habit.  It is
obviously
> very counter-productive today.
>
> Mark, N5OT
>
>
> --
> 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