[UK-CONTEST] N1MM in UK - re-sent

[G3SJJ]

Re-submitted. I saw a few typos!! Chris G3SJJ

G3SJJ wrote:

>Not sure about your logic here Dave. Cabrillo does not support points 
>allocation although there is space in the header, the rules for RSGB HF 
>Contests don't require a summary sheet and claimed score listings are no 
>longer published. There is no call for claimed scores to be submitted 
>in the General Rules unless you are submitting paper log, whatever they 
>are!!
>
>Can't think that I have calculated scores for such as 160m Contests or 
>Field Days for several years now. There is certainly a case for a sanity 
>check on your own log to weed out any funnies and I have used Excel to 
>do that over a number of years. There is a program called SH5 which 
>pulls out some good check and stats now.
>
>I was amused by a request, I think on this Reflector, for Wronglog to 
>support AFS scoring. Yer what? Presumably the guy had difficulty with 
>adding a zero into his Q total!! I guess AFS points could come down to 1 
>point per Q now. The only reason it was put at 10, as I recall, was to 
>allow points deduction for errors in the exchange, ie 3 points per 
>error. That has since been abolished. So for AFS and Cumulatives you 
>only need a program that will accept an incoming serial number and 
>produce a Cabrillo file. Can't think that I have had an NA, WL or MM 
>file rejected.
>
>The requirement for multi-operators in such as IOTA, CW and SSB Field 
>Day, LP FD and the old 21/28 contests are different in that networking 
>and Cluster are vital. I always found NA to be very easy to set-up and 
>WL was abominable. I think this is where N1MM really comes in to its own 
>apart as well as all the other good things about it.
>
>73 Chris G3SJJ
>
>
>G3RXP wrote:
>
>  
>
>>____________________________________________________________________
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "G3SJJ" <g3sjj at btinternet.com>
>>
>>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] N1MM in UK
>>
>>
>>. With the Cabrillo  standard now, there is no requirement to submit a 
>>claimed score and the
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>logging program doesn't need this facility. Therefore, scoring during
>>>and after most RSGB HF Contests is unnecessary.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>Chris
>>
>>I agree with you on the lack of scoring info per contact in the Cabrillo 
>>file , however I would never send a log off without having a claimed score. 
>>It not only gives the station a good idea on how he is doing during but also 
>>for scrutiny after the test.
>>I would not accept any logs as an adjudicator without a claimed score.
>>
>>So having a program that's scores correctly is a big benefit, saying that I 
>>do use N1MM most of the time now, and checking the log after the contest is 
>>essential.
>>
>>PS -  Thanks for your input re- N1MM and the 160 scoring in the  RSGB Test.
>>
>>Dave G3RXP 
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>UK-Contest mailing list
>>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>  
>