[CQ-Contest] [FCG] CQ WW Rules and SCP

Sun Jun 23 10:59:15 EDT 2013

This appears to support what I have always considered an acceptable form of log washing -- namely that if you KNOW you worked the guy correctly and that an error in the log is typographical in nature, it's ok to make the switch. 

I don't see how the application of notation made at the time of the Q and applied to the log prior to submission is any different in the computerized logging era from how it was when we used the margins of printed, hard-copy log sheets to do the same.

And, it seems, in this instance both the practice of organizers and the SDR file would back you up.

Now, here's a twist: if you errantly work K1ABC as K1ABZ, and you sent K1ABZ, do either of you deserve the Q? Is it not also K1ABC's responsibility to realize your error? 

73, Kelly
ve4xt

Sent from my iPad

On 2013-06-23, at 8:56 AM, "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd at charter.net> wrote:

> We (contesting) are in the midst of a transition.
> 
> When electronic logs enabled computer checking, it was eye opening to see
> all of the errors in logs.  UBN reports showed everything in graphic detail.
> Listings of operator accuracy appeared. It became a badge of honor to have a
> low error rate.
> 
> It should be no surprise that once something is measured - AND has an impact
> on the final score - that operators would use various methods to improve
> their accuracy.  Most of this "log washing" was done after the contest.
> 
> Several years ago the CQWW Contest Committee saw the effects of this trend
> and how logs were being grossly manipulated. They began to add rules to help
> detect and fight these practices.
> 
> One example is to shorten the log deadline to 5 days.  Another is to require
> stations to log what they said over the air.  This way (and this only
> applies in very rare cases), the log checker could use the SDR to confirm
> that the log was not being changed after the fact.
> 
> This transition via rule changes has been fairly abrupt. It is running into
> "accepted practices" that allowed and encouraged log cleaning. Everyone is
> adjusting to the new paradigm.
> 
> The spirit of the effort is very simple -- keep the contest within the
> contest period and over the air.  I.e., log what you think you worked.  When
> the contest is over, send in your log.  
> 
> If everyone did this, we would return to a test of radio operating skills
> rather than a test of log cleaning.
> 
> 
> Randy, K5ZD
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Richard F DiDonna NN3W
>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:49 PM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [FCG] CQ WW Rules and SCP
>> 
>> I'm having a slight issue with one thing you've written Bob.  You wrote
>> that it is "not OK to go back and correct this after the fact."  This
>> seems at odds with what I have heard stations say for years: namely that
>> if you make a change during the contest in in the minutes immediately
>> after the contest, its OK.  Indeed, in WRTC, you're allowed 30 minutes to
>> make corrections and to enter in any notes that you made during the
>> contest.
>> 
>> Two examples come to mind:
>> in CQWW, you work HG108DX on one band but you entered the call into your
>> log as HG109DX.  You work him three hours later on a different band yet
>> your worked call history shows you have never worked HG108DX, but you
>> KNOW you worked him.  A quick scan of partials indicates you purportedly
>> worked HG109DX, but you know now this to be wrong.  My understanding is
>> that you've always been able to make this correction during  the contest.
>> 
>> In ARRL DX (from the W/VE side), you work GW4BLE and you enter 59 100 as
>> his power.  Three hours later, you work GW4BLE and you clearly hear him
>> say 59 400 which conflicts with what you think he said earlier.  A verbal
>> confirmation that 59 400 is correct and has been correct leads you to
>> change what you entered in the first QSO.  Again, my understanding is
>> that you've always been able to make this correction during the contest.
>> 
>> 73 Rich NN3W
>> 
>> On 6/17/2013 1:32 PM, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
>>> I am curious how these scenarios are being read into rules that say
>>> nothing about correcting typos or using SCP?
>>> 
>>> "Check Partial" or "Super Check Partial" doesn't ever "log" anything.
>>> The operator chooses a suggested callsign and then *HE* logs that, but
>>> it is not CP or SCP doing the logging.
>>> 
>>> The rule is strictly on using *outside* means of analyzing and
>>> correcting your log. If *you* figure out that *you* made a typo,
>>> that's not what this rule is talking about - is it?
>>> 
>>> Even so, the rest of the pertinent section says:
>>> 
>>>      VIII.9 All logging must be performed in real time.
>>> 
>>>      VIII.10. Call signs logged must be the same as those exchanged
>>>               over the air by the entrants during the QSO.
>>> 
>>> Q: How does that affect the above?
>>> 
>>> A: Let's say that you log and work K1ABZ during the contest. Later,
>>> you somehow realize you should misheard his callsign and it should
>>> have been K1ABC.  In this scenario, you said "K1ABZ" (Alpha Bravo
>>> Zulu) on the air and logged K1ABZ. It is not OK to go back and correct
>> this after the fact.
>>> You made an error - clearly. Fixing it after the fact does not undo
>>> the error - does it?
>>> 
>>> One thing that is quite different is that with the advent of SDR, the
>>> committee can hear virtually every qso that takes place.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> W5OV
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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