[UK-CONTEST] UBN errors

[mm0bqi]

Just a thought.
For those that have UBNs showing the sending station sent a different
serial from the one you logged.  Why don't you get in touch directly with
the sending station and ask why they sent you the wrong serial number?
Please share the results when you do.
This is obviously a very important issue for some people and this seems
like a very simple method of finding out the nautre of the problem.
73
Jim

On 3 March 2012 20:06, Stewart GM4AFF <stewart at gm4aff.net> wrote:

> Dave,
> I'd go halves! - I totally agree. The errors must be human - folk sending
> the QSO number manually, not the serial, sounds like the most obvious
> problem. I've used WinTest since it was released and have never heard it
> get
> it wrong - it never skips a beat. We must be able to track down those who
> are doing it?!
> Anyway, where are these UBNs? - I've not been told where mine is!
>
> 73
> Stewart
> GM4AFF
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Lawley
> Sent: 02 March 2012 17:15
> To: UK Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN errors
>
>  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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4846 - Release Date: 03/02/12
>
>  _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>