[UK-CONTEST] Some thoughts on Cabrillo, the world, the universe & everything ..

[Donald Field]

A few observations on the recent discussion (this was drafted before I saw
G4BUO's posting - I see Dave has already covered several of the points. I
apologise for any overlap):

1. Chris G3SJJ says the HFCC has changed the rules and that it is necessary
for THEM to get Cabrillo implemented by software authors. Apart from the
fact that I never saw THEM gettting RSGB format adopted by software authors
when Chris was HFCC Chairman (other than SD, but that was largely through
Paul's initiative), the fact is THEY are doing exactly that (and Clive, no,
it's not a secret). Paul EI5DI has mentioned that he has been working
closely with HFCC to implement Cabrillo for RSGB contests. This makes sense
because Paul's SD software is by far the most widely used software for RSGB
contests. But steps are in hand to work with other software authors too. For
IOTA, for example, one of the main problems has been with CT and over a beer
or two in HC8 last November Ken K1EA agreed to implement Cabrillo. If you
are a user, feel free to nag him though! Other authors have also said they
will do so.

2. Having said this, the issue really isn't as big as some of you are making
out. Most contests require some or all of the following to be exchanged:
RS(T), Serial Number, Other (Post Code, IOTA, Canton, State, etc.). So, for
example, with AFS, BERU, and others, you can, as Tim M0BEW points out, use a
serial number format from Writelog, CT, etc. (for example, CQ WPX) and
you'll be 99% of the way there, only having to edit the header (the
equivalent of the old cover sheet). Yes, the HFCC is recommending an "ideal"
Cabrillo format for each contest, but even a "close to ideal" would be way
better than the mish-mash of logs which arrive currently. The one
significant decision which has been made (in close dialogue with Trey N5KO,
who devised Cabrillo in the first place) is to recommend dummy data (dashes)
where there is no data item to go in the field. For example, in 1.8MHz, if
you work a non-UK station, then ideally you should put dashes in the "Postal
Area" field. This makes life much easier for the adjudicator when parsing
the data into, say, a spreadsheet or database for checking purposes. G3SJJ
keeps mentioning the Club Calls Contest. As far as I am aware, this is the
ONLY RSGB event that doesn't fall reasonably neatly into the pattern (how
did you require Club Calls logs submitted electronically when you were
Chairman Chris?). To demonstrate the power of the Cabrillo approach, GM4SID
and I have just been working with a 1.8MHz entrant who was using Windows
Notepad to produce his log. After clearing up a couple of minor
misunderstandings, he is delighted that he can sensd an electronic entry (in
the past he has sent paper logs) without having to buy a proprietary logging
package. He would not have been able to do this with, say, an ADIF format.
Equally, GM4SID is happy that this is one less log he will have to type into
the database. Incidentally, there are some excellent tools out there for
generating Cabrillo logs. I bought the WT4I software at Dayton there other
year and it is great for taking ASCII log data (e.g. from Turbolog) and
manipulating it into a Cabrillo file. I believe there are quite a few
similar programs available as shareware - they get mentioned on the US
Contest Reflector from time to time (this is one of the benefits of adopting
a widely used standard - there are plenty of support materials available).

3. Chris G3SJJ has asked at least three times about exactly what is checked.
This is curious, as Chris knows the answer himself. Just compare the Claimed
and Published scores for the last IOTA Contest Chris adjudicated. Chris will
say this was because he had personal problems and work pressures at the
time, and will therefore have answered his own question. The HFCC would like
to see all data checked, but obviously it comes down to the individual
adjuidicators as to the time and resources they are able to apply. I know
that, for some of the smaller contests, everything is checked minutely (yes
Paul EI5DI, even RS(T)!). But ask the adjudicators. Ask G3TXF (on here)
about last year's AFS. Ask GW3NJW (on here) about ROPOCO. As far as IOTA is
concerned, let me give you some information and figures. Ray G4FON has
developed conversion software whioch generates a .CSV file which can easily
be imported to Excel, Access, Paradox, 123, etc, etc. Tim G4VXE  has
developed a series of Visual Basic routines which can run through those
databases and check band, mode, call, RST, serial, etc. Within reason, for
anything that is in the log, he can easily write an add-on which will check
it (yes, even alternative names for Clubs - it just needs a look-up table
that the checking software can refer to for valid options. That's how we do
IOTA - we build a table of valid calls by island reference). But there's an
important point here - the final decision on whether to zero a QSO is down
to the adjudicator. For IOTA, Tim's routine generated 14k error reports.
This sounds a lot and, frankly, this year I wasn't able to go through all of
them (so I picked the leading the logs in each section to focus on), but
that's a lot less than, in the past, having to go through all 400k QSOs in
the database! In other words, what the automation had done was to filter out
the majority of QSOs which were OK, and allow me to focus on the dubious
ones. Incidentally, I have tried to make the process as open as possible
and, as last year, am offering any entrant the chance to see his adjudicated
log (which goes even beyond the CQWW UBN reports). I daresay other
adjudicators would be amenable, time permitting, to doing something similar.

4. Chris GM3WOJ mentions problems with serial number tracking with some
logging programs. Firstly, do note, as 5B4AGN points out, this is NOT a
Cabrillo issue. Cabrillo
is only the way of outputting what the program has recorded. It's a software
issue. It's not something the HFCC can deal with. Sadly, there seem to be
very few logging programs out there that deal effectively with multi-op
contesting (other than for CQWW, which doesn't really have a contest
exchange, at least not one that needs to be tracked, and certainly not one
which is checked!). The rule change in IOTA about allowing simultaneous
operation by the mult. station (leading to the problem) is one brought in by
G3SJJ when he was IOTA Contest Manager. As G4BUO says, I am not aware of it
being a problem in other RSGB contests.

I am not an HFCC member and in the past have, like some of you, been
critical of the HFCC. Since taking on the IOTA Contest I have had some
insight into what the HFCC is doing, and I see a number of very positive
developments:

1. To start with log formats, in the past the HFCC accepted RSGB format,
ADIF, CT .RES, etc. This was confusing for all concerned. The move to
Cabrillo is a clear signal and in a year or two, as some have rightly said,
we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
2. The current HFCC inherited a contests program which was a mish-mash with
no clear mission (i.e. no answer to the question "what are RSGB contests
trying to achieve, which other contests don't address?"). While it may not
be to universal agreement, some courageous moves have been made to
rationalise that program.
3. The trophies program was a mess, run by the dead rather than the living.
I kid you not - most trophies are donated by clubs after a member has died
(in memoriam), and the HFCC has had little say in what they are used for.
HFCC is now attempting to identify gaps in the trophies program, and go
looking for sponsors. To my mind a very big step forward.
4. Certificates were tired and outdated. New designs have been produced and
will be appearing shortly I believe.
5. HFCC has been wrestling with RSGB management about results publication.
This is ongoing, but a lot has been done to make results available early via
the Web, etc. Incidentally, I believe the view is that, with so few
subscribers, this Reflector is not the appropriate place to spend a lot of
time answering questions, publicising the work of the Committee, etc.
Rather, HFCC uses the "official" channels of RadCom, HF Convention, and HFCC
Web pages.
6. A lot of technological progress has been made on log submission,
checking, etc. Expect this to be extended even further, for example with
submission via a Web page, making it possible to have almost instant and
automatic lists of claimed scores.

Of course, this all relies on human beings. I have the advantage of no
longer having to work for a living, but most of the volunteers still have
jobs and, often, young families.  Any of you who have done this sort of work
in the past will know it's a thankless task. Write them a letter of support,
or buy them a drink when you next see them!

73 Don G3XTT
IOTA Contest Manager