[CQ-Contest] CQ Update

[Rudy Bakalov]

There is nothing strange about my point- entrants, not the organizers, are responsible for ensuring that the log is good. Anything else is applying a double standard to the contest rules. What is the argument for rewarding participants who didn't even bother sending a clean log?

Rudy N2WQ


________________________________
 From: Don Field <don.field at gmail.com>
To: CQ-Contest MailList <cq-contest at contesting.com> 
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ Update
 
Rudy

Very strange post.

"Illegal" - that's a strong term and quite incorrect. Who's law are we
invoking here? Personally, I wish more entrants would do a sanity check
before sending their log.

And many casual contesters still don't get their formatting, etc. right. Do
we penalise them and discourage them from ever entering again? I still get
jpegs, Word docs, all sorts. Even top contesters do silly things like
uploading the wrong log - different contest completely. You write as
someone who isn't on the receiving end and has no idea what happens!

Anyway, a timely reminder to all that the IOTA contest is this coming
weekend - I look forward to a record number of entries!

Don G3XTT
IOTA Contest Manager

On 22 July 2012 15:23, Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I really don't believe I am reading this in a public forum- it is illegal
> for participants to massage their logs after the contest, but it is OK, and
> in fact it is a common practice, for the contest organizers to tweak the
> logs? Why? I see a double standard here. I am sorry, but a failure to
> produce a proper log should not be treated any differently than a failure
> to play by all other rules, copy whatever exchange is being sent, know your
> own call sign and send it in a legible way, etc. It is precisely because of
> technology, where everybody is using a logger, that there should be no
> excuses for producing a proper log.
>
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> P.S. Log analysis for behavior indicative of cheating does make sense.
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Ed Muns <w0yk at msn.com>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ Update
>
> The scoring technology is excellent.  3500 CQ WPX RTTY logs were completely
> checked in about 15 minutes on an garden-variety PC.  85% of all QSOs
> cross-checked, calls busted that are off by two characters, all the scores
> listings and tables for the magazine article properly formatted, etc.
> However, hundreds of volunteer hours are put into manually correcting logs
> for Cabrillo errors, wrong band, wrong date/time, wrong sent callsign, etc.
> Running further tests and analysis to detect and validate cheating takes
> many more volunteer hours.  Its this manual labor that takes a couple
> months
> of calendar time by unpaid volunteers to get the logs straightened out so
> the log check software can run with credible results.
>
> There's not much manual labor in submitting a contest log to the robot
> after
> the contest.  Five days is more than enough time.  Moreover, if individuals
> would look over their log during those five days and correct the formatting
> errors, the subsequent log checking time could decrease with less time
> spent
> by others cleaning up the logs.
>
> Ed W0YK
>
>
> Rudy, N2WQ, wrote:
> > Does this also mean that the results will be available and
> > published much quicker? Not much use of technology if it's
> > not applied to scoring as well.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest