[CQ-Contest] CQ Update

Sun Jul 22 17:48:38 PDT 2012

The reward is to have a larger database to adjudicate in order to 
cross-check more QSOs and reveal cheaters.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/22/2012 3:27 PM, Rudy Bakalov wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>