[CQ-Contest] computers ruined contesting

[Mike Gilmer, N2MG]

1) My post (with the "legitimate" questions below) was part of a response
intended
to be directed (in opposition) to the assertion that one must "log
what one hears no matter what" which is what the thread had sort of morphed
into.  I consider that a rather narrow view of what the operator's role is
in contesting.

Just because the original "facts" were misunderstood and misstated does not
change this.

2) More to the original thread and Leigh's post...I disagree that the log
checking somehow desperately needs to brought out of a kind of dark, secret
backroom and laid out for all of us to operate on.  Had it been left to the
"contest community" to decide what to do at the outset, the very nature of
humans would have had us still discussing whether we even *wanted*
computerized log checking at all, much less the details of their
implementations.  IMO, good things are created by single individuals, or
very small groups, not often by committees.  Computerized log checking is a
"good thing".  I absolutely DO think the responsibility for log checking
lies with the contest sponsors - they'll take all the heat, it's their game.

Now, it would be *nice* to see the log checking details presented
comprehensively rather than leaked out piece meal in defense of "attacks".
However, that would take a lot of work - to write some kind of
specification - and once released, a lot more questions would be generated
making for even more work.  I don't envy anyone having to do this.  Also,
the checking capabilities will naturally stabilize, if they haven't already,
such that the various contests are adjudicated consistently enough for most
people.  But I don't think they should all be forced to be identical - let
the various checkers come up with their own techniques... and let them try
them in their own contests... one or a few contests at a time.  If
successful, the techniques will likely be folded into other contests.

Mike N2MG


KR6X wrote:
> Mark, I think you're missing the point.
>
> What this discussion is about is the contest community seeking open
> and democratic discussions and decision-making on the subject of log
> checking.  Certainly, some may misunderstand the process, as you point
> out.  That's a natural result of the central problem present in
> computerized log checking these days.
>
> Computerized log checking (or the lack of it) is an issue across all
> contests at present; it affects the entire contesting community.  Log
> checking should be handled as nearly as possible in an equal fashion
> regardless of which contest is in question.  Issues surrounding this
> subject should be above the influence of sponsorship, and in the hands
> of the contesting community.  Decisions on this subject should not be
> made by the programmers of the log checking programs.  The programmers
> should be working to specifications that originate with open and
> democratic discussions and decision-making and the full concurrence of
> the contesting community.
>
> As evidenced by the nature of the discussion, our present log checking
> system is based on exactly the opposite set of principles.
>

> N5OT wrote:
>
> > At first glance these seem like legitimate questions for heated
> > contester debate:
> >

> > N2MG wrote:
> > >What about K vs. 1000 vs. KW?
> >
> > >I know if I hear WA1ABC/DU1 and five minutes later
> > >I hear DU1/WA1ABC that it's the same guy.
> >
> > I like to vent just as much as anyone, but in the case of this
> thread, I
> > think once it has come out that the actual log errors turned out to
> be
> > completely different from those initially supposed, that would be an
> > appropriate time to stop and wonder if it was worth continuing to
> discuss
> > what turned out after all to be "pretend" problems.
> >
> > I believe we can safely say:
> >
> > 1. nobody gets dinged for changing where they put the portable
> > designator, whether sending or logging.  When Dan said "each
> > log checker has their own feelings about this," I bet the part he
> > left out which he should have said was "and all the log checkers
> > have talked about it and decided to feel the same about this."
> >
> > 2. nobody is getting dinged for changing from KW to 1000
> > either, whether sending or logging.
> >
> > 3. in reality the checkers are somewhat lenient at times, and
> > some people are saying they shouldn't be so lenient.
> >
> > 4. tightening this aspect of log checking would result in a
> > Pandora's Box of undesirable side-effects, for example:
> >
> > When he said "five-nine-thousand" did he pronounce the
> > final "d"?  Is "thousand" spelled with a capital T or a lower
> > case T?  Was he actually saying "1000"?  What if you just
> > write "kw", do you get in trouble?
> >
> > On CW when he sent 599 K did he forget to send the power
> > and was he turning it back over to you?
> >
> > My point is, the checkers have thought about the side
> > effects and drawn a line where the job is getting done well in
> > every day application.
> >
> > I have yet to see a post which shows this is not the case.