|
|
What rolls down stairs
Alone or in pairs...
Rolls over your neighbor's dog?
What's great for a snack
And fits on your back?
It's Log! Log! Log!
It's Lo-og, it's Lo-og
It's big, it's heavy
It's wood!
It's Lo-og, Lo-og
It's better than bad
It's good!!!
FRENCH GIRL: Tout le monde aime le Log!
SVEN: Yah. It's really fun.
NEW YORKER: I got your log-right here.
Everyone needs a...
Everyone wants a...
You're gonna love it
Log!
MR. HORSE: Yes sir, I like it!
Posted by
Anonymous
on August 20, 2001
|
|
|
What rolls down stairs
Alone or in pairs...
Rolls over your neighbor's dog?
What's great for a snack
And fits on your back?
It's Log! Log! Log!
It's Lo-og, it's Lo-og
It's big, it's heavy
It's wood!
It's Lo-og, Lo-og
It's better than bad
It's good!!!
FRENCH GIRL: Tout le monde aime le Log!
SVEN: Yah. It's really fun.
NEW YORKER: I got your log-right here.
Everyone needs a...
Everyone wants a...
You're gonna love it
Log!
MR. HORSE: Yes sir, I like it!
Posted by
Anonymous
on August 20, 2001
|
|
|
|
loggzzzz
Posted by
Anonymous
on August 20, 2001
|
|
For it
|
|
Now that we have the means to check logs electronically, we can correct some abusive practices of the past. Methods, however, should be continually reviewed. Any log checking that changes placement or denies a record should be fully and personally explained to the participants involved.
Posted by
Anonymous
on August 14, 2001
|
|
Consistency but...
|
K2UA: "log checkers and contest committees must not give special treatment or review to individual logs"
In general I agree with you Rus, but I believe there are 2 exceptions to the rule:
1. Two EXTREMELY close logs where a few QSO's or a multiplier would make the difference between which station wins. These are rare but possible (I know because I've experienced two in the past year!)
2. Where a submitted score is EXTREMELY close (in either direction) to an alltime record. Especially if the record was from the pre-UBN era, the UBN output should be carefully reviewed for errors.
I feel the UBN process is wonderful for determining standings in general, but it is NOT perfect and human judgement should be applied to all relevant logs in extremely close situations. The goal being to make sure that the station actually won the contest (or record)...and didn't just win the computer's UBN process.
73, Bill W4ZV
Posted by
W4ZV
on August 10, 2001
|
|
I am strongly for it, but
|
|
I am strongly for the computerized log checking, but when the program makes guesses on what is a bad or good call, I have a problem with it. When a friend hears you and works you, but nobody else, in some contests, it can be marked as a busted call. Such is "guessing" on the part of the log checking. I do not agree with the rule, "The same criteria is applied to everyone." The log checking has to be as sure it is a bad call as they expect you to log it correctly. The ARRL has come a long way in their log checking in the last few years.
Posted by
K8JP
on August 10, 2001
|
|
Consistency
|
|
At least for the major contests, I feel that the log-checking process has matured significantly and is a very good process for adjudicating contests. The most important thing about it to me is that it MUST BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY to every entry in the contest to provide results that every entrant can trust to represent the true outcome of the contest. What that means, among other things, is that log checkers and contest committees must not give special treatment or review to individual logs, because by definition that eliminates the consistency of the checking. Even if the process isn't perfect, it's far worse if it's inconsistently applied than an imperfect process that *is* consistently applied.
Posted by
k2ua
on August 10, 2001
|
|
Strongly for it
|
|
Computerized log checking is one of the best things to happen to contesting in a long time. Checking had been going on for years, tediously done by hand and/or only to the top scorers. Now it's applied equally - a perfect case of "blind justice" (that's a good thing!)
Posted by
N2MG
on August 7, 2001
|
|
To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!
|
55% (242)