[Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRsnow available

[Jim Worsham]

Thanks for the overview Sherman.  Some good info from an experienced HF and
VHF contester.  The LCR has been around for a while in HF contests but is
new to VHF contests so we are learning.  My main concern was the 2% DQ rule.
If you leave too many dupes in your log you run the risk of being DQed.  I
agree that you don't worry about this during the contest but post contest I
would think that you would want to remove the dupes from the log or am I
missing something?

73
Jim, W4KXY

-----Original Message-----
From: fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sherman Banks
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 7:45 AM
To: fourlanders at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party LCRsnow
available

Dupes are not bad thing with computer based logging.  The Log Checking
Software will score the log right by automatically removing duplicate
contacts.

Let's say W4NH makes a contact with W4ATL.  W4NH accidentally logs W4AQL.
W4NH will later try to work me since I am not in the W4NH log. 
If I refuse the QSO and argue about whether W4NH is a dupe a lot of time is
wasted.  Plus, I don't know if I made the mistake or if W4NH made the
mistake.  For all I know, W4NH could have thought my previous contact was
not good and as a result did not log the first contact.  The safest thing
for me to do is to work the station again.  In my case, the second contact
is a dupe and is not counted.  For W4NH, the second contact counted because
the first one was entered wrong.

Here is the result of a dupe from my Log Checking Report (LCR) from a SS
contest I did and the result from the dupe to my score
________________________________________________________________
AB5GG is a dupe or invalid - QSO # 1458.

There were 15 dupes found.  You might have marked these dupes.  For
electronic logs, all dupes (marked or unmarked) are treated the same with no
penalties.
_________________________________________________________________

So I did not receive any penalties for working duplicate stations.  Log the
dupes.

Here is a report on busted call signs that I had:

_________________________________________________________________
You had 22 calls in your log which were not found in the database of good
callsigns.  12 of them have been judged to be incorrect.  These will be
removed from your score - along with an additional penalty of one QSO per
per busted callsign.
_________________________________________________________________

Some people only make a few contacts, so they are not in any other logs
turned in to the ARRL.  These are said to be "uniques".  If the number of
uniques is unusually high, then all uniques may be removed from your log.
That is why it is important to turn your score in, even if you made only a
few contacts.

The big penalty is when I entered the call sign wrong.  I got an extra QSO
penalty for each call sign deemed to be incorrect.  This determination is
very accurate.  The LCR software will guess at what the correct call sign
might be and looks in that log for my call sign.  If all the other
information is correct (time, band, grid), then it determines that I screwed
up the call sign and penalizes me accordingly.

CQWW contest rules are really harsh. You get a 3 QSO penalty for incorrect
calls or information entered.

In a VHF contest, where the rates are lower than on HF, you may have time to
discuss whether or not you have worked a station before and correct the
information in the log from the previous contact. That way, you will not be
penalized.  But if the band is open on 6 and you are working stations as
fast as you can, just work the station again and move on.  Wasting time
about dupes will ultimately hurt your score since you could be working new
stations.  The band may close in the middle of your dupe discussion!

The big challenge is to get the grid right. That should be pretty easy if
you work the same station on multiple bands.  Any errors can be corrected
when the station is worked on the higher bands.

Now, here is the kicker.  Let's say you don't particularly like someone.
You could work them, then remove them from your log after the contest.
The other station would get 2 QSOs removed from their log because the
contact is not in your log.  I didn't say that the system was perfect.

Out of 719+ QSOs I think you had 34 QSOs with incorrect information. 
That is a 4.7% error rate.  This could be improved.  Big gun stations
typically have less than a 2% error rate.

I noticed that my errors mostly come from typing in the wrong information.
I hear it right, but it does not get into the computer right.  So one thing
that I did was to learn how to touch type. That way, I can look at the
screen while I am typing to make sure what I hear is actually getting into
the computer without the constant looking up and down from the monitor to
the keyboard.  Plus, you may notice a lot of information on the screen while
you are typing that will help you get the call sign right.  This is a skill
I am still working to improve.

The rules are in place to encourage accuracy.  Contesting is not only
working the most stations, but exchanging accurate information with the most
stations.  This method of scoring is something all stations live by and
provides the fairest method yet to determine a winner.

Jim Worsham wrote:
> I stand corrected.  That was in the general rules which I have not 
> looked at as closely as I have the 50 MHz and up rules.  As Brian 
> said, we are just going to have to start being a bit more careful with 
> the logging.  One othet thing, you are DQed if your dupes exceed 2%.  That
isn't that many dupes.
> In our case we had .5% (4) dupes.  If we had 16 we would be Dqed.
> 
> 73
> Jim, W4KXY
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Brian 
> McCarthy
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: fourlanders at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Fourlanders] FW: [VHFcontesting] June 06 VHF QSO Party 
> LCRsnow available
> 
> Seeing my callsign instead of W4NH does seem really odd. I will look 
> at the submitted file to see if it gives me any clue as to why this 
> might have happened. I will let everyone know what I find.
> 
> I am also relieved to see that there are no deductions from 222 MHz.
> As I expected, most of our deductions are from 50 MHz where conditions 
> and congestion conspire against us much of the time. Since I also 
> answer the QSL cards, I also see that virtually all of the cards that 
> we get that are not in our log are from 50 MHz. What it really means 
> is that the scoring of contests is no longer on the honor system. We 
> will be cross checked. As long as the same rules are applied to everyone,
I see no problem with it.
> 
> What this really means is that we will need to be extra vigilant and 
> careful about accuracy. Some of those marginal situations where we 
> think we worked someone may no longer be appropriate to leave in the 
> log. When in doubt, flag the contact for extra attention in the log.
> Don't just press enter and call CQ.
> 
> Some people have expressed concern or consternation at the ARRL for 
> assessing penalities. They have had the right to do so for quite some 
> time as it has been in the published rules. See:
> http://www.arrl.org/contests/ and follow the link "Disqualifications 
> and penalties" (http://www.arrl.org/contests/dq.html). In the text you 
> will find, "Score reduction may be made for taking credit for 
> unconfirmed QSOs or multipliers, duplicate contacts or other scoring
discrepancies."
> 
> I had always wondered when the ARRL was going to exercise the scoring 
> methods as used in the HF contests on the VHF contests. Now we know. I 
> just hope they will not wait the same amount of time to implement VUCC 
> support on LOTW (>5 years) after the initiation of DXCC (primarily for
> HF) support.
> 
> Later,
> Brian
> NX9O
> _______________________________________________
> Fourlanders mailing list
> Fourlanders at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/fourlanders
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fourlanders mailing list
> Fourlanders at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/fourlanders
> 

_______________________________________________
Fourlanders mailing list
Fourlanders at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/fourlanders