[CQ-Contest] Dupes

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

/"logging software removes the dupes" //
/
Good logging software (and operators) do not remove the dupes. Log 
checking software "deals with" the dupes. It does''t remove the dupes 
either.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/18/2014 2:38 PM, Steve Lott wrote:
> most ops work the dupes because if I callled you, you must not be in my log
>
> I tried to work a few stations this 10 meter contest and they said qso b4
> so I qsy'd and they are NOT in my log
>
> logging software removes the dupes
> if your using paper logs or have some other reason for not working me a
> second time
> then you are not in my log !!!
>
> you might want to reconsider and just work who calls you again, unless it
> is a string of them and someone has obviously posted your call wrong on the
> dx spotting network
>
> or we are hearing your call wrong - change the phonetics
>
> cheers!
> steve
> KG5VK
>
>
> http://www.KG5VK.com
> My Ham Radio Friends
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Tom Haavisto <kamham69 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is the problem with sending QSO B4.
>>
>> Lets assume I have your call wrong in my log - that would be the only
>> reason to call you a second time.  I then get a QSO B4, but I have NO idea
>> when I worked you, and since I busted your call/will loose the QSO and
>> points.  No penalty on you.
>>
>> If you have my call in your log in error. the roles are reversed.
>> You loose the QSO and take the penalty.  To add insult to injury, I will
>> probably miss out on a needed mult.  I can send "NIL", and we can go back
>> and forth a few times, and this costs us both time during the contest.  I
>> may/may not try depending on how bad I need the mult.
>>
>> In the RDX contest, we both get penalized for one side busting the QSO.
>>
>> If you start getting a string of dupes, ID excessively to get the point
>> across that it is a busted spot.
>>
>> Yes - there have been a few times where a needed mult sends QSO B4, and
>> will simply not work me a second time.  When they busted my call on the
>> second QSO, they (finally) worked me.  Not sure I see the logic in that,
>> and I did not go out of my way to have them correct my call and have them
>> again say "QSO B4"....
>>
>>
>> Would it not be quicker to simply work the guy a second time?  Only take a
>> few seconds, and everyone goes away happy.
>>
>> Just curious...
>>
>> Tom - VE3CX
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Doug Turnbull <turnbull at net1.ie> wrote:
>>> Subject Dupes
>>>
>>>       I am afraid that later on in a contest after being spotted that
>>> sometimes I get a slew of people who have worked me previously from the
>>> Western USA calling again.   I do not want dupes in my log and send QSO
>> B4
>>> only if there is a protest will I work them and then I often find they
>> are
>>> a
>>> dupe.   The error rate in my logs is normally pretty low.    I shall
>>> continue to reject dupes.   My suspicion is that some people want to see
>> if
>>> they can work me again.
>>>
>>>       Thankfully many are now of the belief that cut numbers cause more
>>> trouble than good.    I would say the same for operators who want to show
>>> off their CW speed at 35 or 40 wpm - this slows everything down and leads
>>> to
>>> repeats and errors.
>>>
>>>       My two cents.   Happy Christmas and excuse the old goat.
>>>
>>>                   73 Doug EI2CN
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>