[UK-CONTEST] CQ WW webinar 21st October
Robert Chipperfield
robert at syxis.co.uk
Tue Oct 23 09:02:08 EDT 2012
Hi Chris,
As others have said, while you may not agree with the rules, if you wish
to enter the contest, you need to stick to them. By all means email the
organisers and campaign for them to be changed next year (though from a
no doubt non-representative sample on this mailing list, it would seem
your view is not the majority one), but this year, they are what they are.
Regarding the "need for this 5 day stuff", I'd even argue that period is
far too long still: if you're prepared to spend many thousands of pounds
putting together a station that is likely to win a section, allocating a
tiny fraction of that to having an Internet connection is a small price
to pay. If you don't do any editing after the contest, then doing so
within 10 minutes of the end is both possible and so quick as not to
impinge on the much-needed sleep.
Clearly for some locations (and I struggle to think of /anywhere/ in the
UK that would fall into this bracket: http://www.toowaybroadband.co.uk/
if you can't get 3G or a landline) having Internet on site is a
difficult proposition, but again, most of those locations would not be
cheap to get to, at which point the ~£200 for an Iridium satellite phone
again becomes a small part of the overall budget. Moreover, there is
explicit mention that in exceptional circumstances, an extension can be
granted. Not wanting to stay up for another 10 minutes isn't really
exceptional! You can always stop making QSOs are 2350Z if you really
want to be in bed by midnight ;-).
Of course, if you don't want to do this - that's fine. You can still
make the QSOs, and still enjoy doing so, but you shouldn't expect to be
entitled to a certificate for them.
73,
Rob, M0VFC
On 23/10/2012 12:33, Chris G3SJJ wrote:
> Exactly Bob, the log should reflect what happened in the QSO. I really
> don't see why there is need for this 5 day stuff. I can think of
> plenty examples when I have been pushed to do a sanity check on the
> log within a week. Again taking the example of SSB FD, I was certainly
> too exhausted to do anything except eat and sleep on the Sunday
> evening. I then had 2 days for final prep for a week's holiday, after
> we came back there was things to sort and I eventually settled down to
> look through the spreadsheet. I submitted the log on about day 14 of
> the 16 days allowed.
>
> Sorry but no-one is going to dictate to me how I should run my life.
> Amateur radio is a hobby.
>
> I have a similar attitude to my work in Freemasonry. All the Ritual
> has to be learnt and not read from a book. Some people insist that you
> should be 100% perfect, others have told me not to worry, you are not
> being be paid for it. You try your best, that is what matters.
>
> Chris G3SJJ
>
>
>
>
> On 23/10/2012 12:09, Bob Henderson 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list