[UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?

Mon Jul 18 11:34:27 PDT 2011

Unfortunately there will always be anomalies. Take the scenario that happens
quite often in CC data legs. Someone calls you and sends a report with the
number 14. I log 14, which was what was sent. The other station then
realises he is sending 14 (his zone) to everyone, corrects his macro a few
QSOs in and sends the remainder of the QSOs the correct serial number. His
log will then have the serial number he didn't send me, not the number he
did send me. So he sent 14, I logged 14, I lose the QSO.

Some logging programmes do have different numbers - QSO numbers, sequence
numbers and so on. Very easy for someone inexperienced with the software to
accidentally send the wrong number. Again he sent number x, I log number x,
the cabrillo says y, I lose the QSO.

I take the view that at some stage everyone will fall foul of this so over a
typical contest season it will even out.

Geoff G4FKA

On 18 July 2011 17:47, Andy Summers <g4kno.mail at gmail.com> wrote:

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