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

[Alan Maenchen]

Tks for the replies!

I tend to agree with Jim, but to a limited extent. The purpose of a contest
is to see who's better (ok, it's to have fun .. but we do keep score). By
simply doing any log checking at all, we're saying that accuracy is
important. However, in any communications, the purpose is to give the
recipient an understandable copy of what was sent.  That's the case in Red
Cross traffic for sure and it should be here too. Personally, I think anyone
would understand "GEO" to be the same as "GEORGE".  "PEDRO"???  I'd never
guess that one.

The problem I have right now is that it's EASY to be a hard-ass and simply
match log entries (sent to received). It either matches or it doesn't.  It's
considerably harder to code for variations. What variations should be
allowed?

Note that in ALL the CWO logs I've received, there are 1,294 Name errors
using the hard-ass definition !!
I did ask K6GT if he ever sent "George" instead of GEO, but have not yet
heard from him. That only accounts for 12 of those errors.

I think I'll try to set up a FEW variants like this example although it's
more work.  Sorry, but "Pedro" will get a ding.

73, Alan  AD6E
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110923/68a22916/attachment.html