[UK-CONTEST] BERU UBN?

[cris at gm4fam.plus.com]

I think it is incredibly harsh to lose all Q points for one single error
in a number rx.

Are we really trying to encourage people to enter cw contests?

For example, an M3 decides to dip into a low Q rate contest such as BERU
and with 100 watts to a trapped vertical / 5RV or whatever eventually
snags a VK on 20 for a new country; in his excitement he logs the number
wrongly by one digit.

A couple of months later his UBN reveals that in effect he didn't make the
contact!

Surely there must be a less harsh way of penalising these misread numbers?
(say 1 point for each error ie 20% of the 5 QSO points claimed).

Just a personal opinion FWIW.

73 Cris
GM4FAM




> 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
>