eHam Logo

 Home Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 My Profile

 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews

Contest Lists

Other Lists

 Mailing List FAQs

Site Information
 About This Site 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?

What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )

Are you ready the this year's winter contest season

What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?

What is your linear?

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.

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 on converting
CT ASCII type files to Cabrillo Format.. Check it out. Hope this help!

Posted by KC4HW on December 19, 2000

K7XC -

Check this out:

73 Mike

Posted by N2MG on December 19, 2000


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

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

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

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

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
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

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

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!