[UK-CONTEST] UBN errors

[Rob Harrison]

Hi,

I did this with one I had, as previously posted on here. (557 "sent", 57 
received, on SSB)

The sending station confirmed he'd made a typo' and we both contacted the 
adjudicator. Whilst it didn't affect my position in the table for that 
contest, the adjudicator maintained " on the balance of probability" he was 
right, and wouldn't acknowledge an misjudgement was made . Hardly confidence 
boosting.

Bob G8HGN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mm0bqi" <mm0bqi at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN errors


> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest