[UK-CONTEST] UBN errors

[Dave Lawley]

Chris

Buy yourself a copy of Win-Test. If you can demonstrate any flakiness 
concerning serial numbers when using it as a single op I will remit the 
cost of your purchase to you.

Cheers, Dave G4BUO

On 02/03/2012 17:06, Chris G3SJJ wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>