Community
Home
eHam.net Home
Articles & Stories
Speakout
Strays
Survey
My Profile
Resources
This Week's Contests
Classified Ads
Contest Links
Product Reviews
Site Information
About This Site
Contesting.com Team
|
Contesting Online Survey
Survey Question
|
Current Survey Question
Do you plan to enter the CQ WW
DX Contest?
Recent Surveys
Recently the RDXC committee
reclassified P3F to
high
power from low power without
publicly
providing strong evidence
that any
infraction had occurred.
They
concluded was that the
contestant was
running HP on 80/40m but
not full-time, just 10
minutes here
and there without any
convincing
evidence. It appears they
used the RBN as their source
of information. Should the
RXDC
contest have
to publicly provide
convincing
evidence before
reclassifying a
station from LP to HP?
2021-10-27
Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar
titled "
Convergence and Change" in
the 2015
CQWW CW printed results in
CQ
magazine. He wrote that the
"convergence of personal
computers,
Internet access,
DX clusters, and CW Skimmer
have
changed the nature of
CW contesting". He goes to
say that it
is "more difficult to police
the line
between the
single operator working
alone and
those who are using the
assistance of DX spotting."
In light of this convergence
and
change is it time to
recombine SO and
SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28
What's your primary Software
for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF
! )
2015-07-17
Are you ready the this year's
winter
contest season
2015-07-05
What ways have you found to
be effective
to attract newcomers to our
hobby?
2015-04-28
View All Survey Questions
Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!
|
Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below.
Present log checking procedures in CQ contests remove 3 additional QSOs as a penalty for each error found by log checkers. What would you prefer to see:
  Posted: Sep 24, 2000
  (769 votes, 36 comments)
by K3BU
|
Survey Results
|
Just remove bad QSOs, no penalties.
|
44% (335)
|
Apply one additional removed QSO penalty.
|
20% (156)
|
Leave it as it is, 3 QSO penalty.
|
32% (249)
|
Don't care.
|
4% (29)
|
|
|
Survey Comments
|
SET A BASE ERROR RATE THEN PENALIZE
|
I have reviewed my error rate and penalties and others as well. If the idea is to increase accuracy in contersting then try this idea which makes more sense:
Establish a base error rate set on the following criterion:
#qsos
power level category
dx/domestic qth
If you examione the ubn analysis and %score reduction and % error rate you can come up with a BASE RATE: FOR EXAMPLE, 5%.
This means that operators with a certain range of qsos, pwr level etc all average abt 5% error rates--which are most likely due to prop condx, other op faults, etc etc. If your log error rate % is lower than the average, only the "BAD QSOS" ARE REMOVED. If your error rate is higher, then the qso, and added qsos are removed depending on your error rate % EXAMPLE: If my error rate was 8% then the qso and 1 added qso is removed, if the rate was 10% then i qso plus 2 qsos are removed. This penalizes sloppiness, etc etc directly while recognizing a base error rate which most ops experience as a result of just operating oper se.
w2ox/v47kp
Posted by
Anonymous
on November 22, 2000
|
SET A BASE ERROR RATE THEN PENALIZE
|
I have reviewed my error rate and penalties and others as well. If the idea is to increase accuracy in contersting then try this idea which makes more sense:
Establish a base error rate set on the following criterion:
#qsos
power level category
dx/domestic qth
If you examione the ubn analysis and %score reduction and % error rate you can come up with a BASE RATE: FOR EXAMPLE, 5%.
This means that operators with a certain range of qsos, pwr level etc all average abt 5% error rates--which are most likely due to prop condx, other op faults, etc etc. If your log error rate % is lower than the average, only the "BAD QSOS" ARE REMOVED. If your error rate is higher, then the qso, and added qsos are removed depending on your error rate % EXAMPLE: If my error rate was 8% then the qso and 1 added qso is removed, if the rate was 10% then i qso plus 2 qsos are removed. This penalizes sloppiness, etc etc directly while recognizing a base error rate which most ops experience as a result of just operating oper se.
w2ox/v47kp
Posted by
Anonymous
on November 22, 2000
|
Three's harsh, one's perhaps not enough...
|
I believe the penalty is necessary, but three is too much when you're getting burned for something that isn't your fault & one isn't enough if it was truly your mistake.
Posted by
vr2bg
on October 20, 2000
|
Just dump the Q
|
with everything just about on computer logs, why not just dump the QSO and move on-
Posted by
n0ah
on October 19, 2000
|
Penalties must stay
|
Let's say you are trying to pull a weak station thru the QRM, and have a call in the log, but you're unsure. Perhaps you've tried several times, but cannot be certain. Without a penalty, there's no reason to NOT log him (it's the smart thing to do). Afterall - leave him out of the log and you lose a Q for sure. Leave him in the log and get caught: lose the Q; leave him in the log and don't get caught: gain a Q. Therefore, guessing is good.
I cannot see why this is so hard to understand.
Posted by
N2MG
on October 17, 2000
|
Keep Some Penalty
|
I have been into contesting long enough to KNOW there are some out there who would put lots of wrong calls in their logs and hope just a few would stay if there were no penalty. What a simple way to increase the score. Keep some penalty. If there were none it would really open a big can of worms.
Posted by
N6RZ
on October 15, 2000
|
Penalty Survey
|
Althought with different amounts, 34+21=55%, the majority is in favour of penalties for busted QSOs.
Posted by
i4jmy
on October 15, 2000
|
Accuracy
|
Log checking is done to insure accuracy of the submitted log. But subtracting penalties gives a less accurate result. If we want accurate results the penalties should go.
The penalty would come in the form of the time you spend making a contact that does not yield any points, if the bad Q's are removed only. No penalties will result in much more accurate results and a better picture of what the entrant actually did.
de K0OU
Posted by
Anonymous
on October 12, 2000
|
QSO rates
|
In order to achive a higher QSO count/rate, some operators are becoming careless, jus 59 and QRZ for the next one without checking if the call copied was a good one, and a QSO is only valid if both sides understood their call and report, Leave as it is. 73/DX YV5LIX/4M3X.
Posted by
YV5LIX
on October 8, 2000
|
contest penalty
|
The penalty should be 100% correct or disqualification.
Posted by
Anonymous
on October 8, 2000
|
Precedent for penalties
|
Well, there must have been a lot of guessing or sloppy operating at least in the recent past, as I know a lot of guys who've had their UBN rates drop a lot since they started feeling the pain.
Also, there are (or at least were) standardized academic tests in the US that penalized you for incorrect answers above and beyond getting the incorrect one "wrong". SO there is precedent (if that matters to you)
Posted by
Anonymous
on October 6, 2000
|
keep the rules
|
as contest co ord for some vk tests the most frustrating point I come across is rule changes. All your all time records would need deleting: a ridiculous scenario
Trent VK4TI
Posted by
Anonymous
on October 6, 2000
|
Penalty for Busted QSOs
|
Keep it the way it is. I work hard to submit a clean log, even if I have to ask 3 or 4 times for a repeat on the call. Take away the penalty, and guys will be encouraged to "guess".
Posted by
Anonymous
on October 4, 2000
|
Guessing is always penalized
|
Why do people think that unless you take out additional, penalty QSOs that guessing is encouraged? This is not true.
If there is someone calling me in the noise, and I guess, I may lose the point. If I work hard and dig him/her out, I get the point. I have a very good incentive to work hard.
Posted by
n9rv
on October 2, 2000
|
Why "penalties"?
|
Why should anybody get any penalties with computerized logging?
Three QSO penalty is from the days of manual duping, when we were required to dupe the logs, and if you "forgot" to take the dupe out, you would be penalized. It was under your control, no dupes count, if you mess up or try to be clever, you get penalized. But now this "penalty" has creeped into the UBN system, and we get penalized for errors, other's mistakes and inadequacy in the master data base.
Log checkers insist on "making it hard" on us to be accurate by having "penalties." I typically find about one-third of "problems" to be not my problems, but I get three times as many points taken out for those "problems." Have you checked your UBN report lately?
I vote that this practice be eliminated and if not let us have access to master database so we can run our logs through it before submitting our logs and avoid problematic "penalties" by having stuff flagged as it would be by UBNers.
Again to underline the "problem" - it is not the question of "getting credit" for errors, it is the question of unjust penalties (fines) for errors, mistakes and discrepancies made by the both sides of QSO or log checkers.
How would one feel if at the test of any kind, for each wrong answer, you would be penalized by taking out three other, good answers in order to "teach you" accuracy?
Doesn't make much sense there, but in ham radio it does?
Present system is not very friendly to newcomers and is inviting "revenge" by someone feeding the competitor bad UBN QSOs causing massive deductions.
Argument that contesters are guessing calls and would get "reward" is just plain silly. Yes, records fall, but there is about 3 year period that records have to be beaten by bigger margin to allow for penalties. Just check the claimed and final scores few years back and now. Penalties should be for cheating. Mistakes and errors should be just taken out.
Posted by
K3BU
on September 30, 2000
|
Records NOT being broken?
|
Hi Ken,
Check out the SSB records at:
http://www.cqww.com/
On the worldwide page, 28 of 30 categories have a record set after 1990, and 2/3 are 1995 or later. USA results are similar. Seems to me that the records are falling left and right - log checking be damned!
73
Mike N2MG
Posted by
N2MG
on September 29, 2000
|
A reward for working hard?
|
A differnet way to think about the penalty is a time analysis of how much time you need to invest to get a callsign correct. Imagine that it takes 20 seconds to get the call right - and during the time, I could have worked three more people. If I just guess at the call and get it wrong - but then work those three people, I have ended up three QSOs ahead of the guy who took the time to get the callsign right.
In this case, the penalty is really a reward to the guy who took the extra effort to get the call right.
73
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 29, 2000
|
My 2001 DX Log
|
Here is my log for the 2001 ARRL DX Contest. Some of them will be NIL - but there will be enough there to win. I understand they aren't checking the power levels.
160 0000 AL1AAA 599 KW
160 0000 AL1AAB 599 KW
160 0000 AL1AAC 599 KW
...
...
10 2359 ZZ9ZZY 599 KW
10 2359 ZZ9ZZZ 599 KW
Please remove any QSOs you can prove to be bad and leave the rest.
73
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 29, 2000
|
Busted QSO Costs
|
Under the current 3 QSO penalty, some stations really work to get it right. Others don't seem to care and pay the price. We really need to remind operators of the penalty to encourage them to "get it right" even when they're tired and cranky. That's what it's all about, after all.
Posted by
NZ3O
on September 29, 2000
|
How about a percentage
|
in these days of computerized everything, set a percentage of bad qso's to penalize fraudulent ops. Otherwise, just remove the bad Q's.
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 29, 2000
|
QSO Penalty = 55 MPH
|
The QSO penalty is akin to the old 55 MPH speed on US highways. At first, it was imposed to reduce fuel consumption... but that evolved into "55 Saves Lives". The 3 point rule is akin to that... the original reason for imposing it is nearly lost with current log checking. I think a 1 QSO penalty is a good incentive not to guess. Yeah the old records will be broken, but the advent of log checking has actually prevented MANY records for being broken for too long.
Posted by
K2KW
on September 29, 2000
|
Smaller Penalty Is Better
|
Originally, the 3-point penalty was supposed to cover both the busted QSO, and any others that weren't caught by the judges.
In these days of modern, computerised log checking, the chance of a busted QSO sneaking through the checking is much lower. Because of this, it is probably a good idea to lower the penalty to 2 or one additional QSO.
Having NO penalty is a bad idea, because it will encourage guessing, which is not a good operating practice.
Since contesting is suppose to foster improved communications skills, having a penalty is still important, because it rewards good skills.
Posted by
AA4LR
on September 28, 2000
|
Penalties for incorrect callsigns
|
The three QSO penalty is absurd. Removal of the "bad" QSO is more than enough. Remember this is only a hobby!
Posted by
G3SQX
on September 28, 2000
|
Penalties for incorrect callsigns
|
The three QSO penalty is absurd. Removal of the "bad" QSO is more than enough. Remember this is only a hobby!
Posted by
G3SQX
on September 28, 2000
|
Penalties in all contest
|
Penalties are the best sistem.
Winners have the best relation N-I-L.
What�s problem?
I think penalties give real score and real records and detect fraudulent inclusion or wrong copies.
Daniel Neves CX9AU
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 27, 2000
|
Penalties
|
I would prefer that penalties be used when there is a higher rate of errors. If the rate of error moves above a predetermined level, the penalties kick in. Below that level, loss of the QSO points are appropriate. This should discourage the guessing game that some believe is rampant! My feeling, skunts smell themselves first!
Posted by
K8JP
on September 27, 2000
|
Penalties
|
There needs to be a negative incentive for guessing. Perhaps a less severe penalty for wrong calls or N-I-L, but one that also applies to exchanges (in those contests that have real exchanges).
Posted by
n6tr
on September 27, 2000
|
NO Penalties
|
NO penalties means no benefit for guessing, unless you guess right.
Do you trust your super-check-partial enough to guess instead of getting it straight from the other guy?
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 27, 2000
|
Guessing won't win
|
The original penalties were put in place to deter inclusion of fraudulent callsigns. Because there was so much effort required on the part of the log checkers to find these bad qso's, they decided to scare people out of doing it with a stiff penalty. Now, the process of log checking is so different and automated - everyone gets checked, and most problems are detected without any extra effort. So, I don't see the need for logging penalties. The result will be that contenders with high rates of bad qso's will not lose by as many points, but they'll still lose to those who maintain higher accuracy.
Now, how about I start a new controversy? Penalties should be based on following the rules - not what's in your log. Would you support the concept of a world-wide referree team in the major contests - quietly lurking in the background, listening and documenting rules infractions? Where a substantial number of documented violations could get you a penalty or disqualification? Potential areas to monitor or spot-check include Station Class-of-Entry [power, assisted, number of ops], On-the-Air Practices [intentional interference, foul language, proper station identification]. I know . . . who would we trust as the referrees? How would we set the standards?
Posted by
k1ir
on September 26, 2000
|
Leave it as it is, 3 QSO penalty.
|
I think thats ok, but my diference is some times I lose QSO�s because de corresponsal copy wrong my call example cx5au (not cx9au) and in this case is logic (day/ time/ band) the QSO is OK for me not for him/her.
Dan
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 25, 2000
|
NO penalties?
|
NO penalties means no cost for guessing. Let's make this a guessing contest!
Posted by
N2MG
on September 25, 2000
|
QSO Penalties
|
If you do a PERFECT job of copying an exchange that I sent incorrectly, why should you lose credit ? I don't see any practical way to know if you got the exchange correct, other than recording what you heard. The log checking process has to take this into account.
Posted by
K0SR
on September 25, 2000
|
5 QSO Idea
|
I like the 5 QSO idea, but I would rather use a time-limit instead (maybe 15mins). What do others think?
Posted by
vk4tdb
on September 25, 2000
|
All Contests
|
How about limiting the use of 1 freq to say 5 QSOs. Require the log to show the full frequency and stations must QSY by at least 5 Khz after 5 QSOs on 1 freq - it may stop the power monsters hogging a frequency for 48 hours and give the low power boys a chance to find a spot.
Posted by
Anonymous
on September 24, 2000
|
|
To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!
|
|