[UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?

[Andy Summers]

Well, what I was trying to say is that it's a bit all or nothing at the
moment. Which is a shame in those ambiguous situations. Of course, I
understand it might be logistically impossible. In which case fair enough.

73 Andy, G4KNO.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:29 PM, G4LMW <g4lmw at btconnect.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>