[CQ-Contest] Deadlines, log checking, and paper logs

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

I understand the thought, but does it have a multiplier against it in
the significant range.

Do you know of ANY international business that uses real post to move
INFORMATION around. An international business that can't move it's
information electronically is very quickly a bankrupt business. If I
wanted to get a floppy to a friend in EU, I would email it.

GOODS move by post, not INFORMATION, not any more.

Think about it. Here's a guy that has a pc and a logging program
likely. Costs him a quid or worse to physically mail a floppy to the
US, or he can take the floppy to a friend's house, and email the file,
for free.

Stories are everywhere about how having the internet has allowed
out-back businesses to sell to the world. Where are these people you
are worried about precluding? Let them exercise some initiative and
creativity.

A big gun can't get his log right. And it's the log checker's
responsibility to fix it? And the fact it's a big gun makes his gorked
log more worthy than a little guy's?

If a robot bounces said gorked log, the big gun knows right away.
Cabrillo is new, but everybody is learning it. And the robot is
democratic. It bounces all gorked logs.

The first time that a big gun doesn't get the log in on time, and all
his operators lose their spot in the standings, will be the LAST time
the big gun doesn't get his log in on time. Boss man will never hear
the end of it. (It may be W3LPL in the listings, but the score belongs
to the TROOPS.)

People can handle it.

LETS MOVE ON.

73,

Guy, K2AV

----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Pruett" <k8cc at comcast.net>
To: "David L. Thompson" <thompson at mindspring.com>;
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Deadlines, log checking, and paper logs


> Speaking as another logchecker, I agree totally with the comments
made by
> K4JRB.  If we are going to have fifteen day log deadlines and thirty
days
> for results, then we're going to have to live with the following
realities:
>
> 1. Not enough time to guarantee arrival for overseas logs coming by
postal
> mail, whether on paper or floppy disk.  I think that we here in
America
> take e-mail for granted and I for one am not willing to preclude
entries
> from stations who for whatever reason cannot electronically submit.
>
> 2. The entrant will have to be responsible for submitting a log in
the
> correct format.  This is not a minor problem - in the 2001 ARRL 10M
> Contest, 200 of the 2100+ electronic logs had errors as submitted
which
> would have precluded them being included in the results, and many of
these
> were big guns.  Most of these are cockpit errors, which tell me that
the
> fast majority of entrants never look at their log files before
mailing them
> in.  In the case of the 10M contest, fixing these problem logs
(manual
> editing, requesting new logs) took over 30 man-hours.  With the
compressed
> timetables being proposed, anything more than minor corrections will
go
> into the bit bucket.
>
> As Trey pointed out, the web site results could be updated for late
logs
> and corrections.  However, if we allow for this what point is there
to
> publishing results after 30 days when the standings might change
after 40
> days?  Furthermore, when is the cutoff to issue awards?
>
> My point here is that there is more to this that simply decided to
compress
> the timeframe.  If you want fast, recognize that there will be more
> responsibility on you, the entrant if you want to be sure to make
the results.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave/K8CC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>