[CQ-Contest] Subject: Re: Log checking errors

[Doug Grant]

> Tree wrote,
>
> "My final point is to reassure everyone that not ALL of the errors in the
> process will be fixed."

I'm pretty sure that what Tree meant was "...reassure everyone that we
will fix all the errors we find, but that does not mean ALL the errors
in the process will be fixed." One cannot find errors that have not
yet surfaced.

NF1J/W6 wrote:

> What ever happened to the concepts of:
>
> "If you can't do it right, don't do it at all?"

I think that gets superseded by "It has to be done, so get the best
people to do it and make it better over time." I'm not sure that
anyone in the contest community would agree that since the
log-checking process has a few bugs, that we should not check the logs
at all. And "doing it right" depends on what "right" is, within the
boundary conditions of the data that is available to prove "right".


> My history in checking logs goes back as nearly as far as Tree's does; and I
> rememember how, when the topic of computer log checking was first raised,
> the fears of innaccuracies and people wrongly losing points was a great and
> evil spectre that threatened the entire hobby.
>
> And great and incredibly painful steps, at least in Newington, were taken to
> assure that this never happened--that errors were checked and rechecked to
> assure their accuracy. For it was felt that errors would invalidate the
> entire concept.

If you believe that the log checking process using paper logs and
humans checking them was more accurate than computer cross-checking of
electronically-submitted logs, your memory signal has faded into the
noise, OM. That is simply not possible. I've done human-based checking
of paper logs, and in the early days of computer log-checking, tried
really hard to find errors, and discovered that the computer found
things the humans did not, and made very very few errors.

Please don't try to tell me that Newington has always checked logs
perfectly in the pre-computer-checking era...I recall one year when a
Top Ten DX contest log was listed in the box without a band breakdown.
An asterisk indicated "No band breakdown supplied". Yeah, right. I'm
sure that log was carefully scrutinized and cross-checked on a
100%-accurate QSO-by-QSO basis. And I am aware of one very high-level
contest who publicly declared that the lack of log-checking in
Newington of that era had driven him to take less care copying
callsigns, since there was no incentive for getting the calls/exchange
right.

> Now, if I am to understand the above statements, not only do errors occur,
> and are errors going to continue to occur, but we should just "deal with
> it." And perhaps simply hold our peace.

No, I think you are misinterpreting and over-reacting. A better
understanding might be "Errors occur, they will always occur, BUT they
will be fewer in number over time as the process evolves." Point out
process errors as you find them...I am quite certain that the
log-checkers appreciate the feedback so they can improve the process.

> Well, I'm sorry, but not me. If the CQ Committee is using a program paradigm
> which is inherently flawed, and inherently will always have flaws, then this
> concept of "checking every single log" vs "checking the 'comptetitors' for
> fairness and accuracy', and verifying the veracity of their results" has
> gotten far too out of balance, and the organizers have far lost sight of
> their purpose, and raison d'etre.

> If you don't have the resources to check every single log correctly, and
> correct for errors, then don't do it. To penalize some incorrectly is to
> cast aspersions on the intergrity of the entire process in ways too foul and
> ungentlemanly to describe in a forum such as this.

Sorry, Warren - I don't agree. The people who are doing the
log-checking are trying very hard to do the right thing. Their
experience in the process has demonstrated that what you suggest is
beyond reasonable expectations. In a perfect world, every single QSO
in every single log would be cross-checked and validated; every
country would make available the list of currently-issued callsigns,
including special calls; every submitted electronic log would be in
the correct format, with the callsign used in the right place, the
right time zone/date; every paper log would be typed without error by
a volunteer because everyone's handwriting would be perfectly legible;
etc., etc.

But this is not a perfect world, and trying to get everything done
perfectly reaches diminishing returns.

Somehow, I doubt that anyone losing a few QSOs in a contest log due to
an error in the log-checking process is going to lose much sleep over
it. If someone loses an award due to such an error, that's different;
this is why the goal is to accurately determine the order of finish.

> I implore the CQ Contest Committee, and those to whom it answers, to rethink
> this clearly ill-conceived and poory executed process to something more
> closely representing a clear rationality towards all operators.

I believe the CQWWCC volunteers have been caught this year in a
transition to new personnel, new software, and some new processes. A
handful of unfortunately very visible errors have grabbed an
inordinate amount of attention. I suspect process steps will be
implemented to fix these in the future (probably before the CW
results).

> With malice towards none, but still, great outrage and umbrage.

Hmmm. I doubt outrage is really called for here. And as for "umbrage":

1. offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a social snub;
to give umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone's rudeness.
2. the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt,
hostility, or the like.

Nope....no evidence of a social snub. I don't think the log-checkers
are being rude. And if you harbor vague feelings of suspicion, or
hostility towards them, you are taking this all a bit too seriously,
my friend.

73,

Doug K1DG (this is my personal opinion, and does not represent the
opinion of any contest committee of which I may be a member)