[CQ-Contest] CHECKLOGS -- another view CQWW-wise

[Randy Thompson K5ZD]

Checklogs are extremely important and valuable. Every log received helps
make the log checking better by enabling more cross checking.

There are many people who want to help out with the log checking, but do not
have an interest in submitting a log for listing in the magazine.  Some of
this is misunderstanding of the process and some is simply personal choice.

There are people who object to the practice of making logs public.  By
agreeing to keep checklogs private, these people are willing to submit a log
to help the log checking.  Since a checklog is not a "real" entry, then
there is no issue for the sponsor in  keeping the log private.

If I may make a small editorial comment on this thread...  Stuff happens.
No matter how good you are and how hard you try, the guy on the other end
may have a bad day, hit Alt-W instead of enter, or just not log every QSO.
Nothing you can do about that.  In the end, this percentage of random errors
goes across all logs and effects everyone more or less equally.

If you want to take random error out of the equation, work enough people to
have a big lead over your competition!

Randy, K5ZD


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:16 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CHECKLOGS -- another view CQWW-wise
> 
> 
> Great points.  Can anyone explain to me why checklogs are even allowed
> anymore?  Since uniques are not penalized I don't see how they serve any
> useful purpose at all.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/22/2011 7:37 AM, (K7ZO) Scott Tuthill wrote:
> > Interesting thread on CHECKLOGS -- here is another view at least
> > relative to CQWW.
> >
> > Every year when the UBN report comes out I look it over in detail and
> > summarize its results and make recommendations to the NK7U team. Over
> > the years our focus on accuracy has really helped our score.  In fact
> > in 2010 we jumped up one position in the standings because of our
> > better logging accuracy and we had the lowest score reduction in the Top
> 5 US M/2.
> >
> > Anyway, this year we had a NIL deduction from a CHECKLOG -- or at
> > least I assumed it was a CHECKLOG because their full log was not
> > posted and CQWW does not post the logs of CHECKLOG stations. So, this
> > leads to following
> > thoughts:
> >
> > * Since a CHECKLOG station is not submitting a log for a score what
> > motivation do they have for keeping an accurate log and in this case
> > even logging all their QSO's?
> > * Since the CHECKLOG is not posted I can't see what might have been
> > going on. For instance our NIL occurred near the start of the contest
> > when we were running. And having a NIL when you are running should be
> > much more rare than when S&Ping -- assuming the other station is
> > logging accurately. Were there other QSO's in the checklog from that
> > same period? Maybe the station only started logging later in the
> > contest when they thought "Hey maybe we should create a log and send it
> in".
> >
> > So the points are:
> > * Giving a CHECKLOG the same level of authority with respect to its
> > impact in the UBN process does not seem correct from a logic
> > standpoint. CHECKLOG's motivation for high logging accuracy is
> > naturally lower since they know their score will not count.
> > * I would recommend that the CQWW team post CHECKLOGS -- I am not sure
> > of their rationale for not posting them.
> >
> > Scott/K7ZO
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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