[WriteLog] Uniques in CQWW and CQ/RJ WPX RTTY Contests

[Eddie Schneider]

The Treatment of Unique Callsigns in the CQWW RTTY and CQ/RJ WPX RTTY Contests

By Glenn Vinson, W6OTC
Contest Director


At the RTTY Forum in Dayton, 2001 and again recently on the various RTTY
reflectors contesters have been discussing the treatment of unique callsigns in
the log-checking process for the CQWW RTTY and CQ/RJ RTTY contests.  In general,
such uniques are given zero QSO points and no credit as a multiplier.  Since
there are valid reasons to support or oppose this policy, I will outline the
rationale for the policy.

Until CQWW RTTY 2000, all log-checking for these contests was done manually,
meaning that the sort of careful review that the CW and SSB contests have long
received was not possible with RTTY.  With the introduction of computer
log-checking, a true UBN ("unique, bad, not-in-log") report could be created for
each log and its contents considered in log-checking.  The log-checking software
is written by WT4I with Eddie, W6/G0AZT, as a principal beta tester for the
software.  Unlike the software used for log-checking the CW and SSB contests,
this software is available to anyone who wishes to purchase it, making the log
review process fairly transparent.  Eddie is also the principal log-checker for
these contests, and is preparing a more comprehensive description of the
log-checking process for publication in The New RTTY Journal.

Where a unique is also a bad call, all seem to agree that it ought to be
excluded from a score.  Examples include calls that are not legal or that do not
in fact exist.  For some contesters, this is as far as the inquiry ought to go,
meaning that unless a unique is also classified as "bad", it should have no
impact on the score.  Some, including the ARRL, are prepared to go even farther
and to allow a "bad" call to be counted so long as it is inaccurate by only one
character (as determined by comparison to a callsign database) in the logged
callsign.  I fail to see the logic in this policy.  Is it sufficient to say
that, "This contact should count because I almost copied the call correctly"?

One problem with thus ignoring uniques is the potential for imaginary contacts
to be logged.  Eddie and I have already seen such a log where the contestant
appears to have used a list of callsigns from a particular area and to have
entered them into his log in alphabetical order.  None of  these callsigns
appeared in any other logs.  This case is but an extreme example of the problem
that uniques are unverifiable.

Another problem with accepting uniques is that a large number of mistakes are
ignored.  The callsign database used for RTTY log-checking is not any published
list of calls but instead is created automatically from all of the logs actually
submitted in a particular contest that year.  One may log a callsign that is not
"bad" in the sense that it exists.  However, if that call does not appear in any
other log, should it be counted?  For example, HC8A does exist and in fact has
won CQWW SO in SSB.  However, he has never made a RTTY contact in his life.  If
HC8A appears in a RTTY contest log, the very high likelihood is that it is a
busted call and should have been logged as HC8N.  At least 7 variants of HC8N
appeared as uniques in 2001 CQ/RJ WPX, any of which were legally permissible
callsigns and some of which were issued-but only HC8N was in the contest.
Should all of these claimed contacts be credited because the claimants almost
got it right?

By the way, often these "almost got it right" entries can be traced to erroneous
postings on DX packet cluster systems.

The vast majority of uniques are of this type, namely busted callsigns, only
some of which are also "bad".  As I noted at Dayton, and as appears in the CQ/RJ
WPX RTTY report in July CQ Magazine, of the 8,137 calls logged in 2001 WPX, only
2,686 appeared in three or more logs.  Most of the 5,451 "uniques" were in fact
busted, bad or both rather than unique but theoretically good callsigns.

One interesting question was raised at Dayton by a DX station who is often
sought by JA stations.  Since he is difficult to work outside of contests, he
suggested that during the JA openings in the contest he would be called by JA
stations wanting to work only him for a DXCC counter.  If they were likely to be
uniques (as guessed in WPX by their low serial number), logic would suggest that
he change bands and not work them, but instead continue working other stations
elsewhere that would count.  This is an interesting and difficult argument that
seems plausible.  However, in the UBN reports for 2000 CQWW and 2001WPX we found
no significant number of JA uniques in the logs of this DX station.

Another proposition raised on the reflector is that RTTY log-checking ought to
follow the policies of CW/SSB.  While the great experience of log-checkers in
these contests is indeed valuable (and I do in fact consult with people
knowledgeable in this matter), RTTY contesting is young enough that it need not
be bound by practices rooted in decades of manual log-checking, and, in recent
years, by non-public proprietary computer log-checking.

The hard cases, which are in fact relatively rare, are the uniques where, if
asked, no one would really question that the contact was made.  For example,
N4GN's first contact in 2000 CQWW RTTY from EA8BH (where he set a new world
record as SO) was an FO with whom he had been ragchewing before the contest
began but who did not want to participate in the contest.  No one suggests that
Tim did not in fact make that contact, but it was a unique and unverifiable.
Many other reputable contesters have said that they did in fact make one-off
contacts with their friends, or mateys, as G0AZT calls them, and are indignant
that such contacts have been disallowed.  However, we must either allow uniques
(so long as they are not "bad") from everyone or have some uniform standard for
rejection.  We cannot apply a different standard to different operators.  The
easiest cure for this problem is to ask the mateys to make a few more contacts.

In these instances one must re-visit the basic purpose of log-checking.  Surely,
it is to apply in a consistent and uniform manner a fair set of filters or rules
which, after the contest, help insure that the event is scored as fairly as
possible.  In this respect, computer checking is far superior to any manual
checking.    We no longer even care if you submit a score since the log-checking
software will re-score your log in any event.  The question is what one
considers to be fair.   Should the careful or more skillful operator not have an
advantage over the sloppy or less skilled operator?  In the single operator
categories particularly, the winners have relatively few uniques.  This result
does not occur by chance.  It happens because the winners generally are
excellent operators.   Indeed, this is the primary purpose of providing UBN's-to
improve the skills of contesters.

Finally, even if one believes that "uniques" ought to be excluded from scoring,
one must determine what is a "unique" callsign.  Some suggest that an occurrence
of two is sufficient not to be unique; others have argued that in a major
contest an occurrence of ten is reasonable.  In the 2001 CQ/RJ WPX Contest we
applied an occurrence test of three.  This test hardly amounts to a message to
casual operators that, "if you're not serious, get off the bands" as one posting
suggested.  Making three contacts probably amounts to an effort of less than
five minutes.    Everyone is welcome and encouraged to work in every contest.
Indeed, the competitive stations depend on contacts with casual operators for
many contacts in every contest.  But contestants also want fairness and equality
of treatment.  So far as we can tell from our limited experiences with computer
log-checking in the RTTY contests, none of the top five finishers in any
category would be changed with or without eliminating uniques, although absolute
scores might be a little higher.

This brings me to a final point.  Log-checking policies in CW and SSB have
varied over the decades with the result that a score made in one year (when stan
dards were relatively lenient) may not really be comparable to one made in
another year (when standards were relatively severe).  Some CW and SSB records
from the 1980's continue to exist only because the manual log-checking then was,
of necessity, laxer than the computer log-checking of today.  We have not seen
this problem in the younger sport of RTTY contesting because the introduction of
computer log-checking has corresponded with having an unprecedented number of
participants and high sunspot numbers.  New records continue to be set in all
categories (except the low bands, which is in line with what one would expect at
the peak of the solar cycle), even with more accurate log-checking.
Accordingly, the reported RTTY results of today need not be incomparable to
future reported results.

Most contestants, regardless of their opinion of any particular rule, have said
that clarity and certainty are more important than the content of that rule.  In
that spirit, I have described above the log-checking policy for RTTY CQWW and
CQ/RJ WPX with respect to unique callsigns.  G0AZT will expand on this
description for other aspects of RTTY log-checking in these contests with the
aim of keeping the RTTY community informed in advance of the rules and
procedures that will be in place for these contests.

Posted on behalf of Glenn, W6OTC.




--
WWW:                      http://www.writelog.com/
Submissions:              writelog@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  writelog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-writelog@contesting.com