[UK-CONTEST] CQ WW webinar 21st October

Tue Oct 23 07:14:21 EDT 2012

There's been a cultural change - just recently I dug out some old copies of
CQ Contest (now defunct, but edited at the time by K3EST) from about 12
years ago and there was an article by K1XM about how he had reduced his
lost points considerably by doing some "cleaning" of his log after the
contest. He went on to explain what he did. This was obviously endorsed at
the time by CQWW, given that 'EST was the editor.

>From my point of view as IOTA contest adjudicator, I simply ask that people
do some basic sanity checks before sending their logs in - we have had logs
for the wrong contest, formatting not Cabrillo-compliant, etc.
Increasingly, many of these are, of course, picked up automatically by the
contest robot, but some inevitable slip through the net (e.g. logging in
local time instead of UTC).

Don G3XTT

On 23 October 2012 11:09, Bob Henderson <bob at 5b4agn.net> wrote:

> Well Chris.  I guess this largely depends upon your definition of a typo.
> Your log should reflect the exchange you sent during the QSO.  If you know
> at the time you have logged something different to that sent, you can edit
> it on the fly or keep a written note to provide for correction of the typo
> before the log is sent in.  There is 5 days between the end of the event
> and the log submission deadline.  Surely you don't make so many such errors
> this isn't enough time?
>
> When you put your log into Excel and do your various checks, which reveal
> what you believe to be a typo, how can you be sure what you have found is
> indeed a typo and not a busted call?  If it is a typo then correcting it
> would make it consistent with what you sent.  If it's a busted call then
> editing it would render your log inconsistent with the exchange which took
> place.  If for example you have logged DL2SS on five bands and  DF2HS on
> the missing sixth, how would you determine after the event that DF2HS is a
> typo which should be corrected to DF2SS?  You might have sent DF2HS albeit
> you worked DF2SS.  This would be a busted call and editing it would render
> your log inconsistent with the exchange sent.
>
> The ban on post contest log editing is quite recent.  Lawrence, I very much
> doubt US contesters are more principled in their avoidance of post event
> editing.  Such considerations are anyway academic, as the rules for CQWW
> now specifically prohibit any post event log laundering process.
>
> When rules are silent on the matter of log laundering, nobody can be blamed
> for seizing the opportunity to engage in it.  When the rules are clear then
> they should be adhered to.  Simple stuff.  I am personally delighted by
> this initiative.  I always have better things to do than spend my time
> farting around with contest logs.  End of contest and in the mail does it
> for me.  If I lose a few points due to typos that's fine.  Other
> competitors share the same exposure.
>
> On a final note.  The suggestion keyboard skills are not contesting is not
> credible.  They became part of contesting as soon as you chose to use your
> computer for logging.  To me this is akin to going back to the 70's and
> disowning errors made using a bug key on the grounds that poor skill in
> operating a bug don't in anyway undermine your knowledge of the code.  If
> it's a skill you use when contesting, it's a contest skill.
>
> 73 Bob, 5B4AGN
>
>
> On 23 October 2012 09:35, Chris G3SJJ <g3sjj at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Bob, the actual contest, ie exchanging QSOs, might be over but it is
> > intelligent amd mncessary to chcek through the log to corerct ant tyopos,
> > as you can see by this incirrected email. Back in the days of paper logs
> we
> > positevly encouraged entrants to rewrite their logs top amke sure they
> > doidn't lose points uncesarily. Paper and pencil have ben replaced by a
> > keyborad and it is wrong to assume taht someone who was adept and writing
> > are equally adept at typing.
> >
> > I will continue to put my contest log ointo Excel when convenient and to
> > do various sorst and cahecks. I am sure you wouldn't expaect me to always
> > send emnails or write reporst etc like this one?
> >
> > 73 Chris G3sjj
> >
> >
> >
> > On 23/10/2012 08:42, Bob Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> I too have confidence in K5ZD.  He is thoughtful, has good attention to
> >> detail, is a great communicator and so far as I can tell, is of the
> >> highest
> >> integrity.  I cannot think of a better person to take up the reins of
> >> CQWW.
> >>
> >> I thought Randy's mention of the fact that logs may be resubmitted as
> many
> >> times as wished up to the log deadline was more to do with explaining
> the
> >> mechanics of the current mechanism.  This was apparently necessary as
> some
> >> folks intending a single band entry had been submitting a single band
> log
> >> and then following that with an all band log submitted for check log
> >> purposes.  He was pointing out that so far as the robot is concerned the
> >> last log posted against a call prevails.  So the erstwhile single band
> >> entrant, unknown to himself, became an all band entrant.
> >>
> >> That the robot incorporates a Cabrillo integrity checker is a good
> thing.
> >> This alerts combatants to any formatting problems requiring attention
> and
> >> resubmission.  The principle behind the changes is intended to get us
> >> closer to ensuring that contesting is over when the end bell rings.  I
> >> think these efforts are to be applauded.
> >>
> >> 73 Bob, 5B4AGN
> >>
> >> On 23 October 2012 07:17, Chris Tran GM3WOJ <gm3woj at christran.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Hello Ian GM3SEK et al
> >>>
> >>> You wrote :
> >>>
> >>>> Their own robot, which will warn about many kinds of logging errors
> and
> >>>>
> >>> then will allow entrants to re-submit as many times as they wish (up to
> >>> the
> >>> deadline). This seems >inconsistent with their tough line about
> >>> post-contest corrections... or at least, with some versions of it.
> >>>
> >>> If I understood correctly what K5ZD was saying, this new 'Logcheck'
> >>> facility ( http://www.cqww.com/logcheck ) is for correcting errors in
> >>> the
> >>> structure of your Cabrillo logfile before submitting - e.g. wrong
> >>> category
> >>> etc, not for correcting QSO errors like callsign or zone.  I may be
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> The Webinar is online at http://wwrof.org/webinars/****webinar/<
> http://wwrof.org/webinars/**webinar/>
> >>> <http://wwrof.org/**webinars/webinar/<
> http://wwrof.org/webinars/webinar/>>and
> >>> the section about Logcheck starts at 46.00 minutes approx. (The audio
> >>>
> >>> is not as good as the live event, but seemed to improve once the whole
> >>> file
> >>> had downloaded)
> >>>
> >>> K5ZD has only been in the job for 3 weeks so it will take him time to
> >>> sort
> >>> out and clarify everything, but I got a good impression of his
> intentions
> >>> when listening to him.
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> Chris
> >>> GM3WOJ / GM2V
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________****_________________
> >>> UK-Contest mailing list
> >>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/****mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest>
> >>> <ht**tp://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/uk-contest<
> 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<
> 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<
> 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
>