[CQ-Contest] Backwards thinking in log checking

[K1TTT]

First, as you should know, there is no way for a log submitter to mark a
'dupe' in a Cabrillo log... nor to mark points, nor to mark multipliers.  So
your question really goes to how the sponsor processes the log to match up
qso's and determine NIL.  As I understand it most sponsors use a method that
if any qso matches between the logs then there is a match and no penalty for
the dupes... there might be a very few exceptions for those contests where
exchanges have to match exactly in both logs for both stations to get
credit.

So the key is for all entrants to always log dupes.  That should be the one
and only key point... one which some stations still refuse to acknowledge.
During CQWW SSB we had a several minute argument with a Caribbean operation
who said we were a dupe and refused to give us a report or log us again even
though he was definitely not in our log.  He of course would have saved
himself a NIL+penalty+lost time arguing if he had just logged us again.


David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tree [mailto:tree at kkn.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 20:32
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Backwards thinking in log checking
> 
> 
> Recently - I had to review some of the log checking process that is being
> used for the ARRL Sweepstakes contest and came to an interesting
> conclusion.
> 
> For purposes of log checking - it is best to "dupe" the log starting at
> the
> end of the log and working your way towards the start of it.
> 
> So - if a log has two QSOs with K7RAT in it - the one that occurred later
> in
> the contest will be the "QSO" and the one that occurred first will be the
> "dupe".
> 
> (There is one exception to this - so make sure you read to the end of this
> message before getting too excited).
> 
> There are lots of reasons that you might have a dupe in your log.  Some
> examples are:
> 
> 1. The first QSO you made didn't make it into the other person's log for
> some reason and he wants to work you again.  Maybe his computer crashed
> and
> he lost his log and he had to start the contest over.
> 
> 2. Maybe the station got your callsign wrong the first time you worked and
> he doesn't think you are a dupe OR he has your callsign wrong now and
> wants
> to work you again.
> 
> 3. You had his callsign wrong, thought it was a new QSO, but figured out
> his correct callsign during the QSO, but logged it since a QSO had taken
> place.  Some stations will just work you again if you call and not tell
> you they think you are a dupe.
> 
> It is important to realize that having dupes in your log isn't a problem.
> If you make a QSO, you should put it in your log - even if it isn't a
> dupe.
> 
> The traditional way to "dupe a log" is to start at QSO number one and
> enter
> every call into a dupesheet.  If you later find you are trying to enter a
> callsign into the dupesheet that is already there - then this second QSO
> is a "DUPE" and should be marked as such and not counted in the contest.
> 
> I am proposing the new way to dupe a log is to actually start at the end
> of the log when making the dupe sheet.  This does some things which I
> believe
> make the log checking process "better":
> 
> 1. It is deterministic and easy to program and explain.
> 
> 2. If someone loses their log - the QSO that occurs later is the one that
> will match up if you are doing a cross check.
> 
> 3. If someone thought for whatever reason that the first QSO didn't
> happen,
> again, this second QSO is the one that will line up.
> 
> 4. If someone busted you call the first time they worked you, then this
> second QSO will line up.  I feel that it is more likely that they will
> have your information correct the second time they work you - although I
> can't prove that.
> 
> This means that if you decide to log a station the second time, you should
> not assume that this second QSO won't be checked and it isn't important
> to get the information correct.  This second QSO is most likely going to
> be the one that does get checked.
> 
> The one exception goes like this.  If you do work a dupe, sometimes, the
> person might go through the motions of making the QSO - but after they
> realize it is a dupe, they might wipe the QSO out of their log.  This
> means
> you could get a not-in-log for the second QSO.  If the log checking does
> find a not-in-log - the "right thing" to do would be to look to see if
> there is another QSO with the same station in your log (which will occur
> earlier in the contest) and if so - use that QSO for a second cross
> check.  In this case the QSO that took place will be marked as the dupe
> and the QSO that occurred first will be checked.
> 
> This might all seem pretty complicated, but there are some simple
> takeaways
> that you can follow:
> 
> 1. Don't worry about logging dupes.  This is normal.
> 
> 2. If you do log a dupe - take care and make sure you get the information
> correct.  Do not assume that your second QSO won't be checked because it
> isn't a dupe.
> 
> 3. If you complete a two way exchange with someone in the contest, it
> should
> appear in your log.  Please log it even if you know it is a dupe.
> 
> 73 Tree N6TR
> tree at kkn.net
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest