[CQ-Contest] A Plea to Cabrillo Contet Robot Writers

[Vladimir Sidorov]

Gents,

Before taking decisions on Cabrillo it would be nice to find out:

- what contesters would gain with an implemention of a new standard
- would it be worth extra expenses for updating the commercial contest 
software
- would the new standard allow a non-computer geek accessing the log to 
eventually edit it manually. So far one can easily edit the Cabrillo file, 
like correcting weird call-signs or just adding a couple of log lines in a 
matter of seconds using a simple text file editor
- would such an access require extra software. Please don't forget, for 
example, the M$ Excel mentionned here costs quite some money and it is not 
supplied just in the Windows pack...
- how much would it affect the Internet traffic. Some prople still use 
dial-up or so, and uploading 10 k or 1 MB file matters...

And finally, or perhaps first of all, tell us non-geeks what you want to 
fix? Is the "problem" of non-existing RST in a log worth such a headache?

73,

Vladimir VE3IAE

---









> Unfortunately, the problem here is not a technical one, but a "political" 
> or
> "change" one. For a new format to be successful, it MUST be adopted by 
> both
> ARRL and CQ.  CQ is tough because it has 6 different contestlog checkers 
> who
> operate somewhat independently.
>
> The only thing that will drive change is a recognized problem.  Right now,
> most people happily submit their logs and know almost nothing about the
> limitations of Cabrillo.  Nor do they really need to (except when the 
> robot
> barks).  The log checkers seem to be happy too (thanks to the robot 
> helping
> enforce proper formatting).
>
> So... The tech guys should create the framework for something better
> (preferably on some other list). But, they should not expect people to 
> just
> accept it.  A long period of sales will be needed to convince the powers 
> at
> ARRL and CQ that there will be a benefit to changing.
>
> K5ZD
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of B.
>> Scott Andersen
>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:27 AM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A Plea to Cabrillo Contet Robot Writers
>>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I am the author of Cab-converter, a tool that takes an ADIF
>> file and creates Cabrillo files for submission to contest sponsors.
>> You may find details about this tool from its Yahoo! support
>> group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cab-converter/
>>
>> I have hesitated chiming earlier in this thread but perhaps
>> now would be a good time to do so. As someone who has spent
>> many hours working with the Cabrillo format, I have formed an
>> opinion about it... and it is not a positive one.
>>
>> The "specification" is more like a weak collection of ideas
>> than anything definitive. I have plenty of specific
>> complaints and observations, but I think I've made my point.
>>
>> Several ideas floated throughout this thread puzzled me.
>> Why would making a file that "rookie programmers" could parse
>> be an important design goal? At most, inexperienced
>> programmers may _produce_ such files, but it is unlikely any
>> of them would ever write software to _consume_ them.
>>
>> Secondly, why is having a poor specification with significant
>> ambiguities helpful to inexperienced programmers (or _any_
>> programmers, for that matter!)?
>>
>> Is it important that the contest submission file format (in this case
>> Cabrillo) be easily constructed by hand? That was one of the
>> original requirements, as I understood it. I contend that
>> this is not a reasonable requirement. There is no reason for
>> contesters to manually create a Cabrillo file when there are
>> ample (FREE) logging programs or add-on tools that will
>> produce such a file for them. Even if this was an original
>> design goal, it need not continue to be one.
>>
>> I would very much like to see a serious discussion about
>> moving away from Cabrillo and towards a new file format
>> standard that is well-specified, consistent, unambiguous,
>> platform independent, and easily extensible to accommodate
>> the changes and expansions we know must be coming over the
>> next few years or decades.
>> While this is probably not the list for such a design effort,
>> this IS the list and correct group of people to call for its
>> creation. We are the contesting community and set the tone,
>> and in many ways, set the goals and standards for how
>> contests are conducted.
>>
>> For those bored or flustered by the length of this thread (or
>> my post), I understand your point-of-view. But, this topic is
>> not unlike any other extremely specific topic (say on filters, or
>> SO2R) where you may not be directly using the technology or
>> even desire to learn more about it, but its existence is
>> important to contesting in general.  I hope you will bear
>> with us while we hash this out a bit more.
>>
>> Thanks for the bandwidth
>>
>> -- Scott (NE1RD and author of Cab-converter, among other things...)
>>
>> PS I learned a new word today: "Turboencabulator".
>> Any day I learn a new word is a good day!
>>
>>
>> B. Scott Andersen  | "Magic is real, unless declared integer."
>> bsandersen at mac.com | -- The collected sayings of Wiz Zumwalt
>> Acton, MA (NE1RD)  | http://www.bsandersen.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>