eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

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?

Recent Surveys

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


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


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.
Whats 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 QSOs 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!