[UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?

[G4LMW]

Ah, I see

Indeed, I have done the same (at HF). On many occasions, the distant station 
consistently (though not always) sends some of their info incorrectly. This 
is clear from the other logs. A good example is a portable station not 
always sending the "/P". If a good proportion of the logs have the call 
without the suffix, then I would score both versions as correct.

Likewise, if a station is clearly sending serials incorrectly (in other 
words, they consistently appear incorrect in many other logs) then the same 
applies and I would remove all penalties.

However, Andy's point seemed to suggest that a single error in his log might 
be attributable to the distant station. This may well be so, but we have to 
draw the line somewhere and without evidence of multiple errors in other 
logs, the QSO would be busted.

Rob, G4LMW



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>; "UK Contesting" 
<uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?


> Hi,
>
> No, I was saying that a human would intervene if something such as a 
> serial
> number was in error to assess who made the error. Rather than the
> presumption "you" got it wrong, rather than the other end sending one 
> serial
> and logging another in his log.
>
> I had an email exchange with one of the VHF adjudicators over this, citing
> the 2010 IARU 144 contest where a lot of stations lost points, all the 
> UBN's
> were available online, but the errors were clearly at the other end. The
> host adjudicating society did not intervene. I asked whether this would
> apply to our contests and was assured every effort would be made to find 
> the
> errant party.
>
> Bob G8HGN
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
> To: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>; "UK Contesting"
> <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>
>
>>
>> Do they?
>>
>> I just checked with a couple of them and they say not.
>>
>> Unless we are talking at cross-purposes? Do you mean that a QSO might be
>> worth (say) 4 points, but you only lose a portion of that score for an
>> error?
>>
>> Otherwise, at VHF, "10" logged as "11" is a "fail".
>>
>> Rob, G4LMW
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
>> To: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>; "UK Contesting"
>> <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The VHF adjudicators seem to find the time to intervene with this sort 
>>> of
>>> error.
>>>
>>> Bob G8HGN
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
>>> To: "UK Contesting" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> All the adjudicators have to go by is what is in the other log. If 11 
>>>> is
>>>> ok
>>>> if logged as 10, then 15 is OK if logged as 75, after all it is only 1
>>>> digit
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> Given that it is the same for everyone, I have no problem with the
>>>> concept
>>>> that any error causes the loss of the QSO. Any other method of scoring
>>>> requires either far more complex programming or human intervention.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Rob, G4LMW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Andy Summers" <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
>>>> To: "UK Contesting" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:16 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, I now have my UBN report for BERU. Many thanks to all the hard 
>>>>> work
>>>>> from
>>>>> the adjudicators and the software writers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never received a UBN report before, so it's been enlightening.
>>>>> I've
>>>>> never previously been able to see where my lost points have gone, so,
>>>>> at
>>>>> the
>>>>> risk of looking like an idiot for the second time in as many weeks, I
>>>>> now
>>>>> have some general comments about scoring.
>>>>>
>>>>> The general HF rules state that any error at all results in the loss 
>>>>> of
>>>>> all
>>>>> points. There's no ambiguity here, but I'm questioning whether that
>>>>> should
>>>>> continue to be the case now that software can do much of the donkey
>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two of my Q's were broken by the SerRx being out by just 1. How can 
>>>>> the
>>>>> adjudicator be certain the sender wasn't looking at the wrong bit on
>>>>> his
>>>>> logging screen? The difference between 10 & 11 (one of the examples) 
>>>>> is
>>>>> also
>>>>> quite distinct on CW. With my CW it probably was my fault, but it 
>>>>> feels
>>>>> a
>>>>> tad harsh to lose all the points in these instances. But I can also
>>>>> recall
>>>>> plenty of instances in SSB Field Day where the sender omitted to 
>>>>> append
>>>>> /P
>>>>> to their callsign. Again, it seems harsh to lose all credit for the Q.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also feels pointless having more than 1 point per Q if we continue
>>>>> with
>>>>> the status quo?
>>>>>
>>>>> Already looking forward to next year's BERU...
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 Andy, G4KNO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant for BERU. Maybe I'm being a bit previous.
>>>>>> Andy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Andy Summers
>>>>>> <g4kno.mail at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did anyone else not receive their UBN report? Maybe they're being
>>>>>>> sent
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> batches?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 73 Andy, G4KNO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>