[UK-CONTEST] UBN errors

[Chris G3SJJ]

I agree with Ian that some analysis needs to be done. The out-by-one error is now being shown up significantly in UBNs. I don't think most OBO errors 
are at the receiving end but I do think there is some attribute (feature!) of the sender's logging program which is causing this. The fact that 
Wintest figures a lot is noticeable and should provide some focus as to where to initially start looking.

In the "good ol' days" of manual checking paper or computerised logs it was easy to detect if the sender was causing a problem and in such cases could 
be penalised rather than the receiver, but now with Susie helping us to automate things maybe that element is missing!

I do feel agrieved at losing points because of flaky s/w at the other end!

Chris G3SJJ



On 02/03/2012 14:57, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>> You only need to type one letter in N1MM callsign field for it to display
>>> the correct outgoing serial number. Without that single letter the
>>> programme
>>> does not know that you are not trying to complete your previous QSO.  73
>>> Clive GM3POI
>>>
>> Exactly the same is true of Win-Test.
>>
>> I am sure that most of the time, when serials differ by one it is down
>> to user error but it is not clear whether the error is with the sender
>> or the receiver. For that reason, serials out by one should not be
>> penalised. That is how I used to do it when I checked the 80m CC
>> contests. If the automated checking now used by the Committee is
>> penalising serials out by just one, I think that is going too far.
>>
>> Dave G4BUO
> Please, no...  Imagine what would happen if word got around that all
> "out by one" receiving errors would be excused! Those kinds of broken
> exchange errors should be penalised, along with busted callsigns and the
> missing /P.
>
> But only if we can be sure that we're all being penalised FAIRLY [1]
>
> It really is time this was sorted:
>
> 1. Analysis of existing log archives to identify the *sending* stations
> involved in UBNs - not just "off by one", but errors of all kinds. If
> any individuals stand out, then it was probably their fault and they
> need to be told.
>
> Nothing further can be done about past contests, but those stations
> should be flagged to warn the adjudicators of future contests.
>
> 2. The same analysis routinely applied when adjudicating current
> contests. Receiving stations should not be penalised for any UBNs
> involving those stations. (The question of penalties for the sending
> stations should be left to the judgement of the CC, until we're a lot
> more certain about what's actually happening.)
>
> 3. Is there a correlation between those persistent offenders and the
> software they are using (as declared in the Cabrillo file)?
>
>
>
> [1] Please, let's hear no more excuses that "Everything is OK because
> the unfairness is spread around".  That line has long passed its
> smell-by date.
>
>