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.
What kind of post-contest log massaging do you do the most?
  Posted: Dec 18, 2000
  (421 votes, 24 comments)
by N2MG
|
Survey Results
|
I rubber clock.
|
3% (14)
|
I compare logs with friends to fix callsigns, exchanges.
|
3% (12)
|
I make only changes based on my notes.
|
64% (270)
|
Other.
|
6% (24)
|
I wouldn't dream of modifying my logs after the final bell.
|
24% (101)
|
|
|
Survey Comments
|
whats the fuss?
|
I still do paper logs, i work alone, usually SOAB so im responsible for any and all mistakes...and i make a few. I only review the log for dupes. but i never "fix" anything...ever.
If this wasnt for fun, i wouldnt do it so its certainly not worth arguing over for ANY reason. the only one that loses is me if i cheat.
Posted by
N7YA
on June 10, 2001
|
post contest
|
Modifying the log file after the 48 hour
period is extending the contest period, and
is obviously NOT OK. How can you guys rationalize this? It's cheating.
No matter how trivial and obvious the error might be. Sent by the other guy wrong, copied
by you wrong...doesn't matter. Fix it while the contest is on, or don't fix it at all.
Correcting the .cty file to properly score
that log file after the test is a different matter. That's just bookkeeping.
N2EA
Posted by
Anonymous
on December 21, 2000
|
Post contest
|
Not reviewing one's log before submission, is to signing a
contract without reading it.
Posted by
wa6bob
on December 21, 2000
|
Post contest
|
Not reviewing one's log before submission, is to signing a
contract without reading it.
Posted by
wa6bob
on December 21, 2000
|
RE: CT9 and Cabrillo
|
There is help for the CT user at http://www.wt4i.com on converting
CT ASCII type files to Cabrillo Format.. Check it out. Hope this help!
Posted by
KC4HW
on December 19, 2000
|
Cabrillo
|
K7XC -
Check this out:
http://www.qsl.net/ka5wss/logconv/
73 Mike
Posted by
N2MG
on December 19, 2000
|
Excuses
|
Anon:
CT's release that handled Cabrillo output for the ARRL 160m contest came out ~2 weeks after the contest was over.
Posted by
N2MG
on December 19, 2000
|
Multipliers
|
K3YD: For several years, you have not needed to worry about tagging multipliers in many contests (CQWW, ARRLDX). The sponsors' log checking software uses one consistent "country" file for all logs. So if they find out that UA0XXX was on Antartica, he'll count as such in all logs. Besides, the much-maligned-and-ballyhooed Cabrillo format has no place to identify a QSO's multiplier (other than any mult info, like zone, that might already be in the exchange), so the issue is now totally moot for any "Cabrillo" contests.
Posted by
N2MG
on December 19, 2000
|
Nope, not me!
|
I've never been one to go over my logs after the contest. When it is 00Z on Sunday, the contest is over. I lose some really obviously bad QSOs each year, but if I have to spend another minute "doing" the contest after the final bell, then it isn't fun for me any more. So I may lose at the expense of having fun.
Posted by
W4AN
on December 17, 2000
|
Cabrillo
|
I have no need for CT9 but along comes
Cabrillo and I now have to hand process all
my logs after they have already gone thru CT!
Before this became the new "Standard" shouldn't
there have been some conversion programs
offered for us older CT users? Almost dont
want to submit a entry because of this crap!
First sweep in many years and then I find out
about Cabrillo... Not a happy camper...
Tim - K7XC
Posted by
k7xc
on December 16, 2000
|
Post Contest-OTHER
|
It always seems that one or two calls aren't correctly recognized by the .CTY file (i.e. K5K) or aren't recognized at all. Since these usually represent multipliers, I think I'd be foolish (& cheating myself) to not leave the errors in place.
Then there are the obvious typos (i.e. 4U1VICCC)which a simple scan of the log will pick up.
Both remind me of the old test taking reminder, "Check your work."
Posted by
k3yd
on December 14, 2000
|
Excuses
|
I really gotta love the computer excuse... So, we are not naive at all and assume the following because real:
1)everyone with competitive aiming DO use a computer logger, is fluent in its use to benefit its advantages, checks in advance that his computer logging programs have no bugs WRT their respective outputs and generally never uses the latest release.
2) who has no interest in the competition has no need to make post contest adjustments.
Posted by
Anonymous
on December 14, 2000
|
My Notes
|
This year's SS was the first time I did anything vaguely resembling a serious effort for a contest. I used an old (read "obsolete") copy of some software. It didn't allow all of the operator categories (such as "M") and didn't do Cabrillo.
I ended up entering all multi-ops as low-power to get them into the software, and then using a paper list to jot down their callsigns.
Post contest, I loaded the whole shebang into Access, changed the multi-op entries to actually reflect their multi-op status, and wrote a crude Access to Cabrillo converter in Visual Basic.
Lessons Learned:
* Contesting is a kick
* Logging software is a good thing
* Current versions of that software would
be a better thing
* Cabrillo doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
Hope to catch you for ARRL DX!!
Dan, KK7UZ
Posted by
KK7UZ
on December 14, 2000
|
So, you trust computers, eh?
|
I really gotta love the "encryption" and "48 hour deadline" proponents. They anonymously and naively assume at least one of the following: everyone uses a computer logger, is fluent in its use, or that all computer logging programs have no bugs WRT their respective outputs (Cabrillo these days).
Let me know when that's a reality.
73 Mike N2MG
Posted by
N2MG
on December 14, 2000
|
Log checking
|
If the contest sponsors cared about log "massaging," they would
require e-mail submissions or paper logs postmarked within a
reasonable time period (such as 48 hours). That's enough time to catch
up on sleep, create Cabrillo files, summary sheets, etc. and submit
the logs. There's really no reason to have a submission deadline many weeks
after the contest ends.
Posted by
Anonymous
on December 12, 2000
|
Confortable ethics
|
Any modification performed after the end of the contest actually extend the contest period. Any correction, even if based on personal notes, but performed when the contest is over, is another form of rubber clock and therefore lead to have false results.
A good logging software should encript the records at 24:00 or when contest is over. The decription keys should be published after deadlines....
Posted by
Anonymous
on December 12, 2000
|
typos
|
I fix obvious typos and logging program errors.
Like, I'm sure I didn't work ##G5G, but remember working G5G
And that station on Kure, sorry, it was Hawaii and my logging program
didn't know
73
Ted, KR1G
Posted by
Anonymous
on December 12, 2000
|
|
I retired at the beginning of this year. How much longer do I have to
wait before I have enough time to make it completely through a
weekend contest without breaks?
Posted by
K6DGW
on December 12, 2000
|
Other
|
Because I'm new to this contesting....I submitted my first couple of logs without even looking at them. I'm beginning to look carefully at my log to see if I have any typos, if my logging program has made any obvious mistakes like kc6 being Palau or KH7 being Kure and correct those things that become "known" items to the contest community that most novice contesters wouldn't even know where to even find out. Services like these reflectors are amazingly helpful tools.. but not everyone knows they're available
Posted by
Anonymous
on December 12, 2000
|
Other
|
I look carefully for typo's such as entering the letter O instead of the number 0 (close
on the keyboard). Normally CT will not let you make mistakes like this if there is no
numeral in the prefix but it did happen with LU/OH0WW last year since I entered the
letter O instead of 0 after the /OH which CT accepted (i.e. LU/OHOWW).
I also try to use common sense and judgement based on calls that don't seem OK.
In this year's CQWW CW, I logged the call DL36RA which I knew was odd at the time
so I resent it and asked if that was correct. The station confirmed it so I logged it as
DL36RA at the time. However, I will submit it as DL3BRA because I am certain it is
wrong (Germans never make exceptions!) and I don't intend to be penalized 4 QSO's
because of another station's mistake! If I'm wrong, I'll accept the penalty because it
is MY mistake and not the other station's. Even if other stations report the same call
it would likely be judged a bad call by virtue of not being a valid call in the German
callsign database.
I like the idea of checking logs carefully but the 4X penalty for correctly copying what
was sent incorrectly justifies very careful examination of your log.
Posted by
W4ZV
on December 11, 2000
|
|
To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!
|
|