[UK-CONTEST] 80m CC Data leg scoring errors

Sat Jul 23 02:19:56 PDT 2011

With hindsight, I could have made it clearer (I knew what it meant, but that 
doesn't mean others do!)

So, I'm glad you asked for the clarification.

I should also point out that since these are Club Championship contests, 
there is a minimum amount of liaison with the entrants. With 21 contests, 
and about 200 logs each time, in order to achieve the quick turn-around of 
results, we rely on entrants to read and heed any warnings to ensure their 
logs are correct on submission (and most do).

Rob, G4LMW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>; <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 80m CC Data leg scoring errors

> Hi Rob,
>
> In that case the entrant will learn a hard lesson, and not be too popular 
> with his fellow club members!
>
> Without the info' you've now provided, the original post looked a bit 
> harsh. I stand corrected.
>
> 73 Bob G8HGN
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 80m CC Data leg scoring errors
>
>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> I am not the adjudicator. My role here is to correct the output results 
>> as
>> shown on the website.
>>
>> The original results did show all the QSOs as zero, but the wrong points
>> filtered through to the Club's score. All I have done is correct the 
>> score.
>>
>> The entrant (on submission) did receive the warning "all QSOs invalid 
>> mode".
>> This would have been on screen. It was backed-up with an email warning to
>> the same effect.
>>
>> Regards
>> Rob, G4LMW
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
>> To: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>; "UK Contest Reflector"
>> <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] 80m CC Data leg scoring errors
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> That seems a bit harsh. If all QSO's were on the wrong mode, it's
>>> obviously an input error setting up the logging program, the QSO's would
>>> have been made with the correct mode, or else they wouldn't appear in 
>>> all
>>> the other logs. Doesn't it follow that if all the QSO's are then 
>>> invalid,
>>> the other end should lose the points for working the wrong mode?
>>>
>>> Doesn't the contest uploader point this out to you, it does at VHF. It
>>> gives you warnings about times (BST or GMT), serials (all missing), 
>>> modes,
>>> etc and lets you correct and re-submit.
>>>
>>> Rules is rules, but come on, at least let the entrant know before you
>>> penalise them after all the effort of doing the contest.
>>>
>>> Bob G8HGN
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "G4LMW" <g4lmw at btconnect.com>
>>> To: "UK Contest Reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:28 AM
>>> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] 80m CC Data leg scoring errors
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear CC Contesters
>>>>
>>>> It has come to light that there were some errors in the calculated 
>>>> scores
>>>> in the Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr Data legs of the CCs. Thankfully, Bristol are so
>>>> far ahead that it does not affect the eventual winners. However, it is
>>>> significant in the race for 2nd place.
>>>>
>>>> With one more set of scores to be published (July Data),  it does mean
>>>> that Norfolk and De Montfort swap places in the current standings.
>>>>
>>>> The large loss of points for Scunthorpe is for one log that had an
>>>> invalid mode for every QSO and so should have scored 0 points, not over
>>>> 600.
>>>>
>>>> The web pages and spreadsheets have been updated. It took a while as
>>>> amending over 500 individual scores and the resultant team scores was 
>>>> not
>>>> that simple! I should stress that this was not an error in adjudication
>>>> of the logs, rather the way that those logs translated to a score.
>>>> Because of the "quirky" nature of Data contest scoring it only affected
>>>> these modes. SSB and CW were unaffected.
>>>>
>>>> I am sure you would all agree that it is better to get the scores 
>>>> correct
>>>> now. The detail of the calculations can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rsgbcc.org/hf/files/CCDataError.xls
>>>>
>>>> They are quite complex, so if anyone wants me to walk through them, it 
>>>> is
>>>> best to call me on 07970 885614.
>>>>
>>>> Our apologies to all concerned, but the error has now been fixed moving
>>>> forwards
>>>>
>>>> The net result of the corrections are:
>>>>
>>>> Aberdeen ARS no change
>>>> Addiscombe ARC -1
>>>> Bangor & DARS +1
>>>> BARTG -6
>>>> Bittern DX Group -11
>>>> Blackwood & DARS -3
>>>> Bolton Wireless Club -1
>>>> Bracknell ARC -7
>>>> Brimham CG +1
>>>> Bristol CG +53
>>>> Camb-Hams no change
>>>> CDXC no change
>>>> Chelmsford ARS no change
>>>> Cheltenham ARA +12
>>>> Christchurch ARS -3
>>>> Clifton ARS +1
>>>> Colchester RA -19
>>>> Crawley ARC no change
>>>> Cray Valley RS +1
>>>> De Montfort University ARS -21
>>>> Denby Dale ARS no change
>>>> Dragon ARC no change
>>>> Echelford ARS no change
>>>> Essex CW ARC -11
>>>> Flight Refuelling ARS no change
>>>> Furness ARS +3
>>>> Glengormley Electronics ARS no change
>>>> Gloucester AR&ES -1
>>>> GMDX -26
>>>> Gordano ARG no change
>>>> Granta Contest Group no change
>>>> Grimsby ARS -37
>>>> Hadley Wood CG no change
>>>> Halifax & DARC no change
>>>> Harwell ARS +11
>>>> Harwich ARIG no change
>>>> Hog's Back ARC no change
>>>> Horndean & District ARC no change
>>>> Hornsea ARC -10
>>>> Horsham ARC +23
>>>> Humber Fortress DX ARC +8
>>>> Huntingdon ARS +10
>>>> Isle of Man ARS no change
>>>> KDARS no change
>>>> Kilmarnock & Loudoun ARC +8
>>>> Kingdom ARS +1
>>>> Leicester RS no change
>>>> Lichfield ARS -6
>>>> Lorn ARS no change
>>>> Lowestoft District & Pye ARC no change
>>>> Malvern Hills RAC -5
>>>> Martlesham DX & CG no change
>>>> Melton Mowbray ARS -10
>>>> Mid Beds CA no change
>>>> Mid Cheshire ARS -1
>>>> Newbury & DARS -21
>>>> Newquay & DARS -1
>>>> Norfolk ARC +27
>>>> North East Surrey CG no change
>>>> North of Scotland CG no change
>>>> Northampton Communication Club no change
>>>> Ossett ARO -21
>>>> Preston ARS +4
>>>> RAF Waddington ARC +7
>>>> Reading & DARC -28
>>>> Reigate ATS +4
>>>> Sands CG no change
>>>> Scarborough ARS +5
>>>> Scunthorpe Steel ARC -668
>>>> Sheffield ARC -13
>>>> Shefford & DARS no change
>>>> South Cheshire ARS -7
>>>> Stockport RS no change
>>>> Stratford-upon-avon & DRS -7
>>>> Strictly Contest Club -16
>>>> Sutton & Cheam RS no change
>>>> Tall Trees CG -23
>>>> Taunton & DARC -1
>>>> Three As CG +19
>>>> Torbay ARS +11
>>>> Travelling Wave CG +62
>>>> Verulam ARC no change
>>>> Warrington ARC +46
>>>> Welland Valley ARS +1
>>>> West Kent ARS no change
>>>> Weston Super Mare RS no change
>>>> Worthing & District ARC no change
>>>> Wythall RC +4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Rob Thomson, G4LMW
>>>> RSGBCC Webmaster
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> 