[UK-CONTEST] CQ WW webinar 21st October

Tue Oct 23 07:43:41 EDT 2012

I very much endorse what Laurence said, it is a cultural thing. I
discovered this when I went to the first WRTC in Seattle in 1990. CT was
just starting to be used, but whether paper logging (which we did for
WRTC) or using a computer, the view held very strongly in the US is that
correcting calls after the event is cheating. And I completely support
that view. I think if you know during the contest you have made a mistake
you must either correct it in the log there and then, or make a note on
paper or with Alt-N and correct it immediately afterwards, but based on
your knowledge during the contest, not using information gained outside of
the contest period to potentially enhance your score.

Dave G4BUO

> 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
>