[CQ-Contest] Please publish Error rates

[Mark Beckwith]

Well, so, Bruce, Tree, all of you guys who volunteer to do log checking, is 
there any chance we could have all competitors' error rates in the public 
results?

Mark, N5OT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Horn" <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
To: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot at n5ot.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS Off Time Calculations


> At 08:02 AM 12/16/2006, Mark Beckwith wrote:
>>It's important to note that different contests are processed by different
>>volunteers.  It's VERY important in this case, because Tree is being
>>generous with the 29 minute break thing.  There was a NAQP recently where
>>the guy with the highest claimed score got significantly knocked down
>>because the non-Tree volunteer who judges the NAQP was not as generous 
>>about
>>granting amnesty on a 29 minute break as Tree is in his example, and just
>>clipped 29 minutes worth of QSOs out of the log.
>
> Hmm, the "non-Tree volunteer" (I didn't realize that was a category) is 
> me. I log check all of the NAQP logs. As far as the judgment that I "was 
> not as generous about granting amnesty on a 29 minute break," the method 
> of calculating off-time in NAQP logs is equally generous to what Tree 
> described. Entrants have received credit for a 30 minute break if the 
> difference in times between two successive QSOs = 30, e.g. 1831-1801=30 -- 
> even though I agree with the QSO-minute concept that calculates 29 minutes 
> for this example. This means that NAQP entrants have been credited with 30 
> minute breaks when the breaks may have been only 29 minutes. For Mark's 
> example, this means that the break that wasn't counted as a 30-minute 
> break, must have been a 28 minute period without QSOs using the QSO-minute 
> method of calculating off time.
>
>>In my opinion it would have been more kosher for the log checker to clip a
>>QSO or two off where the operator resumed at the end of the brake that was 
>>a
>>minute too short by accident.
>
> That would be one possible approach. The problem is this leads to the 
> subjectivity of when is a break not really a break, but almost a break so 
> that the log checker simulates the correct break by removing a few Qs at 
> the end of the almost break. Is it 28 minutes? 27? 26? ... Earlier threads 
> on CQ-Contest have asked for consistency in the process - I believe it is 
> more consistent to apply the same requirement (as specified in the contest 
> rules) to all of the logs, rather than subjectively decide that a break 
> was "close enough."
>
>
>>it doesn't serve the sport for this
>>kind of inconsistency to be going on.  The checkers should get their heads
>>together and agree on how they're going to do things more than they do.
>
> I agree.
>
> 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
>
>
>