[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Rules Changes

[Don Field]

I suspect the answer is actually quite mundane. When the 3:1 penalty was
first introduced, log checking was still on paper and only a small
proportion of errors were actually detected (in any case, with paper logs,
many participants didn't even send in logs as it was such a chore, so those
QSOs couldn't be checked). So 3:1 was a way of making up for the limited
checking that could be done.

Nowadays, with computer log checking, typically 70% or more of QSOs get
checked, so fewer than half of any errors go undetected. On that basis a
2:1 penalty seems entirely appropriate?

Don G3XTT

On 24 May 2013 04:15, Barry <w2up at comcast.net> wrote:

> I was there.  Randy said a number of guys were winding up with negative
> scores.  That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by
> newbies.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>
>