[Cwo] log check question: hard-ass or not?

Hank Garretson w6sx at arrl.net
Fri Sep 23 12:52:36 PDT 2011

I ran across this issue:  K6GT was logged by 18 guys as "GEORGE" instead of
> "GEO" (copied by 220 guys, and that's what the K6GT logs say).
> The log check pops this out as a "Bad Name" and dings the log score.
> What are your feelings about this?

I think we should establish a rigorous log-checking standard.

Unless there is a time order of GEORGE, it should not count. By time order I
mean, it would be worth checking if perhaps K6GT sent GEORGE to his first
eighteen contacts and then changed to GEO. His log might not reflect what he
actually sent. But if eighteen guys in a row got GEORGE, then he probably
sent them GEORGE. (I suspect the GEORGEs came from Call History File. Copy
what is sent.)

The easiest machine check is to do a simple match of "sent" name and
> "received" name in the two logs... which is what I'm doing. If they match,
> it's good. If not, it doesn't count. I could do some aliases like "AL"
> instead of "ALAN" and others, but that's considerably more work.

I vote for no aliases.

BTW,  I've already built in a small bias in checking serial numbers.
> Numbers can be +/-1 from what was reported to be sent.  I've found that to
> be wise in CQP where I've been able to prove that the actual sent NR can be
> one off from the logged NR under some circumstances.

This is good. I don't want my logger QLFs to cost someone a contact. Just
for clarification, +/- 1 for units digit only.

636 for 635 is OK

636 for 646 is not OK

Ski Exuberantly,

Hank, W6SX

Mammoth Lakes, California

Elevation 8083 feet in John Muir's Range of Light
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110923/e6d10511/attachment.html 

More information about the Cwo mailing list