[CQ-Contest] CQ 2005 Contest Survey

it9blb@infcom.it it9blb at infcom.it
Fri Aug 26 08:43:27 EDT 2005

jukka.klemola at nokia.com wrote:

> Yes, the logging mis-accuracy should be changed in value.
> I would like to increase the penalty instead of removing it.
> 5 QSO penalty would be better for a BAD QSO and 6 QSO penalty for
> not-in-log as the logging accuracy is a major item to measure.
......... snip
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI/OH0V/OH4A 

I agree: I've seen a lot of operators (me too!) hardly upgrading their 
operating skill after seen the negative "weight" of their logged bad Qs.
Too many people, mostly new contesters, still consider the mis-accuracy 
"Formula 1" style more important than a little bit slower but cleaner way to 
run piles. Just give a look to some declared 3830's scores and than to the 
final numbers .... someone looses a lot of places just for mis-accuracy: 
it's extemely right to me. 

Just my personal opinion, 



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list