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.

How do you feel about log checking in major contests?
  Posted: Aug 06, 2001   (439 votes, 8 comments) by K7UQT

Survey Results
I'm strongly for it. Current state of checking accuracy is fine. 55% (242)
I'm for it. I wish they would check bad calls more carefully. 28% (124)
I'm indifferent. 9% (41)
I'm against it. What's the big deal? 2% (7)
I'm strongly against it. It hurts more than it helps. 2% (9)
What is log checking? 4% (16)

Survey Comments
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!