[UK-CONTEST] CQWW CW 2011 Results............

[Braco OE1EMS]

Hi Dennis and others,

Sanjin E71DX did more research on CW results (see kopie of his e-mail below)
sounds very interesting and somehow still not on CQ-Contest refl.

73s
Braco


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sanjin Tajic <sanjintajic at gmail.com>
Date: 26 August 2012 11:59
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW CW CQ Magazine article / results on the web
To: kr2q at optimum.net
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com, questions at cqww.com


Hello all,

I have extracted some numbers from the submitted logs list, the ubn
logs page and the contest results. The results show some
inconsistency:

1. Received logs (http://www.cqww.com/logs_received_cw.php):
Total: 6654
Checklogs: 255
-----------------------
= 6399 "competition" logs


2. UBN reports (http://www.cqww.com/cq-ww-cw-2011.htm)
Total: 6400

This page shows the log of DL3KUM which was sent as checklog. This is
probably the only checklog on this page and explains the inconsistent
numbers (6400 - 6399 = one log missing) of received and processed
logs. Also this page cuts all trailing /1 /2 /3 /QRP /M /P additions
but does not cut /QRPP (RZ4AA-QRPP). The CC might want to check the
code behind this page if it does display the correct data.


3. Results 
(http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_contests/cq_ww_dx_contest/cq_ww_dx_cw_contest/2011_cq_ww_dx_cw_contest/2011_cq_ww_dx_cw_contest.pdf)
Total: 6714
Checklogs: 274
-----------------------
= 6440 "competition" logs

There is a difference in the total number of logs between received
logs and published results, but this is probably due to paper logs
which I suppose are not included in the received logs site.

The third result line (page 101) shows the callsign K$$DQ/1. Probably
K0DQ, was not submitted as K0DQ/1 though.

Duplicate entry for S59N. First entry on page 106 under 80M, second
time under checklog. Conclusion: The robot is not checking rule III.
6. "A different call sign must be used for each CQ WW entry." or it is
an error in the generation of the results. How can this happen?
Recently there was a discussion on the Contesting mailing list started
by Mario, S56A whether to send checklogs separately or to include all
QSOs in a single file. As it is now, the robot should allow only one
log file per callsign and only the most recent one that was received?

DU1/JJ5GMJ is written as DU1/JJ5GMJA (page 111) - typo.

At least the following entries are shown as checklogs in the results
but have been submitted in other categories:
RT5Z was submitted as SINGLE-OP ONE ALL HIGH ASSISTED
HP1WW was submitted as SINGLE-OP ONE 10M LOW NON-ASSISTED
HG3UHU was submitted as SINGLE-OP ONE 15M LOW ASSISTED

Are these changes errors in processing/printing or "silent
reclassifications" by the CC?

Also, 4O3A and CR6K do not appear at all in the results although logs
have been submitted for both callsigns.

Rule XIII. "Violation of a contest rule makes the entrant subject to a
red, a yellow card, a warning letter or log rejection at the
discretion of the CQ WW CC (rule III.14 always applies)."
Rule III. 14. "All competitors are expected to have read and to comply
with the rules of the chosen category. The entrant agrees that any
violation of CQ WW contest rules makes the entrant subject to either a
red or yellow card (see rule XIII)."

Do those two rules not contradict a little i.e. one makes the other
obsolete? The way I understand it from the text: "rule III.14 always
applies" is that any violation of any rule makes the entrant subject
to either a red or yellow card.

Voluntarily or by suggestion of the CC withdrawing a submitted log can
definitely not fall under sportsmanlike behavior and should not go
unpunished.

Besides working on the accuracy of the results generation, the CC
should also work on the transparency of communication. I am sure that
those are not the only errors, I got those results after a quick look.

All contesters are equal but some contesters are more equal than others. :)

Have a nice rest of the weekend, 73.
Sanjin, E71DX


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dennis Andrews" <f5vhy at wanadoo.fr>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:34 PM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] CQWW CW 2011 Results............


Good to see the CQWW Committee keeping up the good work with a string of 
“withdrawn” entries after questioning about their operating.

Of greater interest – and not mentioned anywhere in the writeup, is the 
absence in the final results of entries from 4O3A and CR6K (CT1ILT) who, on 
their claimed scores would have been #1 and #2 in Europe respectively. Their 
claims are shown on 3830 and their submitted logs are on the CQWW log site. 
Hope we hear something more about this in due course. On 3830, CT1ILT says, 
in comments, “I really want to thank my dad (CT1CJJ) that keeps supporting 
all my crazy ideas to improve our station.”  I wonder what particular “crazy 
idea” did not meet with the committee’s approval?

73 de Dennis – F5VHY/TM6X.
_______________________________________________
UK-Contest mailing list
UK-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest