[CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking

Tue Mar 10 14:24:41 PDT 2009

I hope my friend Tonno was just making a joke about logging rubbish in the
WPX contest.  It may have been that way in the past, but I can assure you
the level of WPX log checking is quite high now.  We cross checked over 95%
of every QSO of every log received for both callsigns and exchanges!

The RDXC does do a great job of log checking.  It was one of the contests
that I looked to when considering what to do for WPX log checking. 

I apologize for making the comment that stations who are not serious should
not submit logs.  Every contest sponsor wants to obtain as many logs as
possible in order to improve the overall log checking.  It is important for
participants to understand that log checking in contests like RDXC and WPX
have high standards and depend on everyone playing the game at their best.
With the computers doing the work, every log is scored and checked exactly
the same way, so it is completely fair.  No one likes to lose any QSOs due
to mistakes or circumstances, but statistically these are down at the noise
level in determining the order of finish.

73,

Randy, K5ZD

PS - Efforts in both modes of WPX 2008 from Tonno's station had some of the
lowest error rates of anyone in the contest!  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tonno Vahk
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:03 PM
> To: 'Robert L. Shohet'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> I don't agree that ignoring weak stations and CQing instead 
> is a fruitful strategy for an ordinary station in any 
> contest. You have the luxury to do that from DX location with 
> constant pileup maybe but not from US or EU. It's pretty 
> simple - you either are able to get the call or not and in 
> any contest you should make sure you get the call right if 
> you want to have positive Expected Value out of it. Of course 
> you can get away with logging rubbish in WPX and not being 
> penalized and I don't like that about WPX at all.
> 
> Even if the caller is weak you can almost always take 30 
> seconds or even a minute trying to get it right and you can 
> always ask for confirmation to be sure you have it. If not 
> then not, too bad. If you are even 80% sure in the call then 
> you can log it as you have positive EV despite 3 possible 
> penalties. I never ditch any caller in any contest even if he 
> is almost unreadable. It just does not make sense to waste 
> QSOs in our location. Lazy ops lose.
> 
> I think RDXC has the best log checking and best designed 
> penalty system for sure. Being strict it does only good to 
> the general quality of contests and the hobby and by all 
> means, if the QSO is not mutually correct then why credit it.
> 
> As mentioned before, the fact the you can get away (and you 
> have motivation to do it) in CQWW without correcting your 
> call even when you hear that the DX got one character wrong 
> is not nice.
> 
> I have been heavily penalized in RDXC by having Russian 
> stations copy Victor as W as it is their nature to do so. 
> Well, I can't complain and have to figure out how to get my 
> call through to them and it is really my problem as well not 
> only theirs.
> 
> See you in RDXC and please give me a call, even if you are a 
> small pistol!:)
> 
> 73
> Tonno
> ES5TV
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> Robert L. Shohet
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:52 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Log Checking
> 
> WM5R said:
> 
> On aggregate, you are no more likely to lose points because 
> of other ops' 
> copying
> errors than your competition is likely to lose point because 
> of those same ops'
> copying errors.  Unless you are somehow more likely to 
> attract the flakes on
> 
> the air
> than the stations you are competing against, it doesn't put 
> you at a disadvantage.
> 
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> -----------------------------
> 
> Negative!  K7GK makes an excellent point.  In addition, these 
> rules and penalties also mean that those who would otherwise 
> dig deep into the crud and qrn to work the weak low power 
> stations now have a true disincentive for doing so.
> 
> If I can work S5 and up stations with 99.9% accuracy, but 
> only maybe 88% accuracy with S4 and lower stations, I have no 
> reason to even consider working weaker
> 
> guys
> since the error rate will almost cancel out most of the ones 
> I get right - this is especially true since I am **also** 
> penalized by stations that miscopy my call and exchange!
> 
> It is much easier to save the "wear and tear" and to just 
> call cq again and hope for someone louder to call me.  Some 
> Multis already use this "strategy" when they are running EU 
> and an SA station calls them off of the side/back of the antenna.
> 
> I have read
> several past posts from PY's and LU's on this reflector and 
> 3830 in the past
> 
> complaining
> about this.
> 
> So you ARE at a disadvantage if you try to work everyone 
> compared to a lazy op who doesn't care.  I don't see how this 
> helps anyone.  It means those that work harder at making q's 
> can potentially wind up with a lower score than those who just
> 
> ignore
> weak guys and push "F1".  The weaker stations are the biggest 
> loser of all since even less people will make the effort to 
> work them.  In addition, I also lose if I am weak and try to 
> call a station in RDXC who is more interesting in avoiding 
> penalties than gaining qso points!
> 
> Bob KQ2M
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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