[UK-CONTEST] Electronic Logs

[Dave Lawley]

Hello All

I have changed the subject because the discussion about log
formats is NOT an issue that has suddenly arisen because of
our adoption of Cabrillo. In previous years if you wanted to 
submit your log for the 1.8MHz contests, for example, you had
to figure out how to get your favourite software to store the
region code as part of the exchange. You were then supposed
to convert the entry file into one of the formats that was listed
in the general rules.

All that has changed is that the preferred format is now Cabrillo.

As always, Paul EI5DI has done a great job in supporting the
RSGB contest program and SD now has Cabrillo support for our
contests. Paul was involved in the creation of the RSGB templates, 
and so was Trey N5KO, the originator of Cabrillo. For many 
contesters, SD fits the bill entirely. The majority of entries we
receive in most RSGB contests come from SD. Again, this is not
a Cabrillo issue, it has always been the case that a minority 
(including me) prefer to use other logging software and, as in
times BC (Before Cabrillo) we have to ensure that all the exchange 
information can be recorded by the software we choose to use.

Tim M0BEW has rightly pointed out that most RSGB contests can 
be logged using CT, TR or WL, but when Chris GM3WOJ says
".....both CT and WL do not support issuing serial numbers 
properly - in fact most contest software still seems to have a 
problem with serial numbers..." - is this something you think
the HFCC should also be discussing with the vendors?
Actually as users of the software if we think it has problems
in these areas it is up to us to raise it with the vendor. For one 
thing, it is the user that has paid for his or her copy of the 
software, not the RSGB. 

In any case, of all the contests listed by Tim, it's only really an 
issue in IOTA because this is the only one that allows simultaneous 
operation on two bands. I was never in favour of this rule change 
in IOTA, though actually my opposition had nothing to do with 
the shortcomings of logging software!

>Will the new RSGB Cabrillo log-checking software be
>able to check serial numbers ?

Yes of course, new log checking software will check serials and 
so does the existing software. But once again it's not a Cabrillo issue. 
Cabrillo is simply an input format.

The checking process splits down broadly into three stages. Stage
One is to receive all logs and get them into a common format for
checking. This common format may or may not be Cabrillo, it doesn't
matter because it is internal to the checking process. Part of Stage
One is to convert logs from other formats, and this is an area where
LogMangler by Ray G4FON is already making a major contribution.
Another part of Stage One is to key in paper logs. We generally use
SD for this, as it supports our contests properly and, of course, 
outputs a Cabrillo file.

Stage Two is to run the checking 'engine'. This cross checks all 
QSOs, exchange as well as callsigns, but it also builds a list of good
callsigns and then looks for busted calls. This produces an output
of all the exceptions. So all the matched QSOs and good callsigns
(let's guess that's at least 95 percent) disappear from view. Of the QSOs 
that remain, some will be real errors and some not. The adjudicator 
has to examine the output and decide what are really errors, and 
what are not. For example, G4BUO may have come on for a few 
minutes in the 21/28 but not submitted a log. My call appears in, say,
12 log entries but G4BUE appears in one log. The software will
flag it as a potential busted call. But it's possible G4BUE came on 
and made one QSO, then went away. The adjudicator has to make
a decision. Serial numbers may help, but if he is in doubt he will 
leave it as a good QSO.

Stage Three takes all the QSO data combined with the list of
real errors, and produces a score. One of the great advantages of 
Cabrillo is that the header information is contained in the same entry 
file as the QSO data, and this will make it easier to automate the 
process of splitting final scores into the different contest sections
or categories. As with any process, the adjudicator must at all times
apply a sanity check to what the software produces, because we
all know how stupid computers can be!

Chris SJJ asked about the club exchange in the Club Calls contest.
I have never checked this contest for the HFCC but I know Chris 
has. The whole point about computerised checking is that is removes
the 95 percent of the cross-checking burden in which the QSOs check
out perfectly, allowing the adjudicator to concentrate on the 5 percent
of exceptions. Thus, in the worst case, it might identify
'Newbury and District Amateur Radio Club' and 'Newbury & DARC'
as a potential error, which the adjudicator would identify as a good QSO.
If you imagine the software could use fuzzy logic to identify the above
as a good QSO automatically, you'd have to be careful that it didn't
also identify 'Newport & DARC' as a good match.

This is probably more information than most of you really wanted,
but I hope it helps to show that these are not issues that have
suddenly come about because of the adoption of Cabrillo, and
I hope that it also shows that considerable effort is being put in
on behalf of HFCC to improve the process.

Dave G4BUO