[Cwo] Public Logs and LCRs
Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S
mmthoma at attglobal.net
Wed Nov 27 16:59:38 PST 2013
Hi Al,
I am forwarding a copy of this to the CQP Green log check reflector.
Some of the points illustrated in the G4RRA log for CQP 2011
are indicative of some of the CQP specific complications (below).
1) If in CQP we want to start accessing some penalty points
for wrong Band/Mode errors, that is fine with me. We just need
to make all of this clear to the S/W team.
2) When I developed Green, I split the log-check function out from
the score calculation function. The job of log check is to determine
the validity (or not) of each and every QSO. "Dupe" has no real
meaning in this with one exception ("dupe" in the sending log on
a band/mode where the other guy deleted the QSO - this is
status XD in Green terminology). It turned out that many folks
delete the 2nd or 3rd... QSO from their log. I wish they wouldn't
do that, but they do. That is reality and we have to deal with it.
So an XD QSO is basically a NIL, but a Q for that band/mode
has already been scored in the sender's log.
The CQP score calculation is a separate thing from QSO log checking.
The score calculation figures out what all of this QSO checking means
in terms of score. It is not possible to keep a running tally of the CQP
score like a logging program does. Green has a global view of what
happened and scores accordingly (not sequential line by line processing).
This procedure will work well with CWO. No problem.
3) I've discussed this scoring issue with NS6T. His reporting software
should not attempt to replicate the Green RPT module. He should use
the data from the LS: line. No bug report has ever been made regarding
the score calculation. There very well could be an error, but it hasn't
been reported in the last 6+ years.
4) I would expect that CWO just needs a subset of Green functionality.
And that CWO is actually far less complex and also much smaller in
number of Q's (at least for now). Size of CWO will not be an issue.
5) I've sent an email to Randy K5ZD re: CQ software.
I am hoping that the will help us with some algorithms.
We shall see. I suspect that he will do that.
6) For the CWO folks, again, it would be very helpful if you
spelled out exactly what you want to happen in terms of score
calculations. This "other guy says wrong band" is very problematic.
What do you want to happen in that situation?
7) Time errors: There is all kinds of wacko stuff that can happen
and was a big surprise for CQP. I would have expected that a log
might be off by an hour due to daylight time vs normal time or other
GMT boo-boo. As it turns out, some logs might be off by say 27
minutes. Or 1:27 hours. How that happens, I'm not really sure.
A computer will gradually drift from the actual time because of
imperfections in the CPU clock frequency. There are various
network algorithms to deal with that and sync clocks - none of which
are applicable to contesting log check. Ideally, the contestant sets the
computer'(s) clock +- a few seconds before the contest starts.
Obviously some folks don't do that. What does CWO want to
do about that?
73,
Matt WX5S
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Alan Maenchen <ad6e at arrl.net> wrote:
> Some of the CQP penalties are more historical than desired. The early
> checking code was unable to identify band or mode errors and therefore no
> penalties. Personally, I think that should change since those errors are
> now checkable.
>
> Also, CQP penalty assignments for errors is based on a different philosophy
> than CW OPEN. In CQP, it's more of a friendly gathering where we want to
> point out errors, but not discourage newbies by overwhelming score
> reductions. That's what led to the 1/2 point reduction for ANY single log
> error and "toss the QSO" point reduction with 2 or more errors in the same
> QSO.
>
> For CWO, I've been using the rule that ANY error in the log results in the
> loss of that QSO. That also tosses the mult. So, it's a bit simpler.
>
> For LCR format, I prefer a more human explanation of the error .. but that's
> just me.
>
> 73, Alan AD6E
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S
> <mmthoma at attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> If you guys are interested, this is what a CQP LCR looks like....
>>
>> We report the reason(s) for any point reduction.
>> We also report if the other guy busts the call or if the Q was
>> logged on an incorrect band or mode (note that this can
>> actually increase the score as it did below). There are other things
>> that this does like a histogram of mults worked.
>>
>> If there is a dupe, we take the highest scoring Q and consider
>> the other as the dupe, no matter which was "first". Since each
>> QSO: line represents just 1/2 of the 2-way Q. It is possible
>> for 2 stations to get credit for a different Q. I make a mistake
>> on our first Q. You make a mistake on our second Q. I get full
>> credit for the 2nd one and you get full credit for the first one.
>>
>> There are other special things that can actually increase the score
>> in CQP! You get 1/2 credit if there is only one error in the Q.
>> Turns out that if that one error was on the mult name, it gets corrected
>> and the actual mult gets awarded! G4RRA gained the SBEN mult
>> as a result of log check! He got credit for 50 mults instead of the 49
>> that he claimed.
>>
>> Weirdly enough, if you bust the callsign, that is only 1/2 credit
>> deduction.
>> Our callsign matcher is, to my knowledge, the best there is.
>> It is more than N+1, it is N+1+ and can find callsign matches that a
>> logging
>> program cannot, like W5ACB matches W5ABC or WD5AB matches
>> W5DAB and other situations. Sometimes this critter even surprises me!
>>
>> Currently, the final results are extracted from the LCR's. That is the
>> LS: (line score) line which is in a CSV format. Basically the reporting
>> SW just greps the LS: lines from all LCR reports and that can be
>> used in a spreadsheet or whatever.
>>
>> We are re-writing the CQP process for 2014. Scoring CQP is
>> a complicated critter. CWO is a more "traditional" contest - hey
>> if there is an error, the Q doesn't count and that's it. Of course there
>> is only one mode, so this mode error stuff doesn't apply. However
>> there is the possibility of logging on the wrong band. I don't know
>> what you guys want to do about that. A requirements document,
>> that details your scoring rules and what you want to happen would
>> be helpful.
>>
>> Anyway, although my focus is on CQP with all its weirdness, I am
>> hopeful that some subset of our features are applicable to CWO.
>> CWO will have to be a separate program, but hopefully the CQP
>> code can be adapted for CWO.
>>
>> I have been spectacularly unsuccessful at getting access to the
>> CQ WW log check code. If somebody with better political skills
>> that I could take this on, that would be helpful. John, K6MM maybe?
>>
>> 73, Matt WX5S
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> G4RRA QTH:DX
>> CQP LOG CHECKING RESULTS
>>
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-01 1715 G4RRA 003 DX W6SX 119
>> MONT
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_qth=MONO
>> QSO: 21000 PH 2011-10-01 1728 G4RRA 011 DX W6UE 162
>> LANG
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0152
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-01 1831 G4RRA 046 DX W6ZE 026
>> ORAN
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=036
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-01 1833 G4RRA 047 DX KI6LZ 149
>> LANG
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_qth=VENT
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-01 2005 G4RRA 079 DX NK6A 390
>> LANG
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0290
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-01 2008 G4RRA 080 DX K6WC 140
>> SBER
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_qth=SBEN
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-01 2022 G4RRA 085 DX KF6T 379
>> PLAC
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0389
>> QSO: 14000 CW 2011-10-01 2110 G4RRA 089 DX K6RB 474
>> SCRU
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0375
>> QSO: 14000 CW 2011-10-01 2126 G4RRA 092 DX AA6PW 449
>> ORAN
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0559
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-02 1827 G4RRA 109 DX W6UE 1787
>> LANG
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=1797
>> QSO: 28000 CW 2011-10-02 1836 G4RRA 114 DX K6GT 921
>> SCLA
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0923
>> Comment: G4RRA busted as G3RRA
>> QSO: 28000 CW 2011-10-02 1840 G4RRA 116 DX NI6T 2043
>> TEHA
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0421
>> QSO: 28000 CW 2011-10-02 1855 G4RRA 122 DX AA6PW 1730
>> ORAN
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=1720
>> Comment: G4RRA busted as G4RAA
>> QSO: 28000 CW 2011-10-02 1908 G4RRA 127 DX W6YX 2570
>> SCLA
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0257
>> QSO: 28000 CW 2011-10-02 1911 G4RRA 129 DX W6OSP 741
>> NAPA
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0841
>> QSO: 28000 PH 2011-10-02 1937 G4RRA 135 DX N6O 1203
>> CCOS
>> Full Credit was given for this QSO
>> Comment: Should be 10m CW - no penalty
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-02 2013 G4RRA 145 DX K6AQL 350
>> MONT
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=35
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-02 2015 G4RRA 147 DX K6LA 2213
>> LANG
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=2312
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-02 2015 G4RRA 148 DX NO6F 1705
>> SMAT
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=1805
>> QSO: 21000 PH 2011-10-02 2103 G4RRA 155 DX KI6LZ 1398
>> LANG
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_qth=VENT
>> QSO: 21000 PH 2011-10-02 2112 G4RRA 157 DX N6PN 452
>> CCOS
>> Full Credit was given for this QSO
>> Comment: Should be 15m CW - no penalty
>> QSO: 21000 CW 2011-10-02 2117 G4RRA 159 DX AC6YY 195
>> SCLA
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_nr=0295
>> QSO: 14000 CW 2011-10-02 2159 G4RRA 178 DX K6WC 796
>> SBER
>> Points were reduced because of: Err_qth=SBEN
>>
>> Summary:
>> G4RRA QTH: DX
>>
>> Before Log Checking:
>> Total Raw QSO's: 178 CW: 102 PH: 76
>> Claimed Mults: 49
>> QSO Points Claimed: 458
>> Claimed Score: 22442
>> After Log Checking:
>> Duplicate QSO's: 0
>> Total Valid (non-dupe) QSO's: 178
>> CW QSO's: Full Credit: 83 Half-Credit: 19 No-credit (NIL or
>> Multiple Errors): 0
>> PH QSO's: Full Credit: 74 Half-Credit: 2 No-credit (NIL or Multiple
>> Errors): 0
>> Total QSO's verified in other logs or judged by humans: 169 or 95
>> percent
>> Checked Mults: 50
>> QSO Points granted: 427.5
>> FINAL SCORE: 21375
>>
>> Histogram shows the number of times each mult was worked for credit:
>>
>> 3 ALAM 2 ALPI 4 AMAD 0 BUTT 3 CALA 6 CCOS 1 COLU 0
>> DELN
>> 9 ELDO 2 FRES 0 GLEN 0 HUMB 3 IMPE 5 INYO 0 KERN 2
>> KING
>> 1 LAKE 10 LANG 3 LASS 1 MADE 3 MARN 1 MARP 1 MEND 0
>> MERC
>> 3 MODO 2 MONO 2 MONT 2 NAPA 4 NEVA 7 ORAN 6 PLAC 1
>> PLUM
>> 1 RIVE 4 SACR 4 SBAR 2 SBEN 4 SBER 12 SCLA 7 SCRU 14
>> SDIE
>> 1 SFRA 1 SHAS 2 SIER 1 SISK 3 SJOA 5 SLUI 3 SMAT 2
>> SOLA
>> 8 SONO 0 STAN 1 SUTT 3 TEHA 1 TRIN 3 TULA 1 TUOL 5
>> VENT
>> 0 YOLO 3 YUBA
>> G4RRA
>> LS,G4RRA , Version 2.2 - 2008 , 178 , 0 , 49 , 102 , 76 , 22442 ,169
>> , 0 , 19 , 0 , 2 , 50 , 21375 , DX , DX
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM, John Miller <webaron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dean:
>> >
>> > Posting the Logs is EZ. Just a list with links.
>> >
>> > LCRs requires more work: Step 1) generating the LCR itself as a custom
>> > report and then Step 2) privately emailing the recipient, since each is
>> > a
>> > private report.
>> >
>> > For Step 1, we don't have the resources to automatically generate the
>> > LCRs
>> > but perhaps if you ask nicely, the WPX guys can share their software
>> > tools
>> > with us. For Step 2, we just need manpower to send the emails out once
>> > the
>> > LCR reports are ready.
>> >
>> > 73,
>> > John, K6MM
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:47 AM, D Faklis wrote:
>> >
>> > Update: I received comments from four: K6RB, W6SX, WX5S, NW2K, all in
>> > support, if resources permit.
>> >
>> > John K6MM, can you tell us if we can do something like CQ WPX on our
>> > website
>> > (for 2014):
>> >
>> > Logs: http://www.cqwpx.com/publiclogs/
>> > LCRs: http://www.cqwpx.com/lcr/
>> >
>> > If so, do we have the resources to do it? If we are lacking, what is
>> > needed?
>> >
>> > All, any additional comments, please send. Thanks!
>> >
>> > 73, Dean, NW2K
>> >
>> >
>> > From: D Faklis <dfaklis at yahoo.com>
>> > To: "cwo at kkn.net" <cwo at kkn.net>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:57 PM
>> > Subject: Public Logs and LCRs
>> > In the spirit of education and continuous improvement, I would like to
>> > have
>> > a discussion on whether or not to make the CWO logs and LCRs public
>> > (available for download at the CWops website).
>> >
>> > As you know, CQ WW, CQ WPX, CQ WW RTTY, and perhaps other serious
>> > contests,
>> > make the logs (and in some cases LCRs) public.
>> >
>> > Please comment. Thank you.
>> >
>> > 73, Dean, NW2K
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Cwo mailing list
>> > Cwo at kkn.net
>> > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Cwo mailing list
>> > Cwo at kkn.net
>> > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cwo mailing list
>> Cwo at kkn.net
>> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>
More information about the Cwo
mailing list