[Cwo] Public Logs and LCRs
Alan Maenchen
ad6e at arrl.net
Wed Nov 27 22:08:07 PST 2013
I'm not suggesting a permanent meld .. just for this discussion right now
since it is of interest to both.
If you and I have a QSO on 20 CW and your log shows 20 CW but mine shows 15
CW then I should get the ding, but not you.
It's pretty easy to tell which is wrong by looking at the Green reverse log
of the "other" guy. Usually the guy logging incorrect band (or mode) has a
bunch of them right in a row. If not, then give both a bye. That's what we
do now in CQP. This is more of a CQP issue than CWO. I found VERY FEW
wrong band entries in the last three CWOs... and of course, zero wrong
mode. ;-)
73, Alan AD6E
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S <
mmthoma at attglobal.net> wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> I don't know that we have to (or should) merge the
> CQP and CWO reflectors.
>
> The color thing came about because of the markers
> that Kevin, K6TD had available for his white-board.
>
> I started with the Black marker for X-Main. Then I
> went to the next marker. I think that the yellow one
> didn't look so good, so I went to Green for the next
> process. The more advanced process wound being
> "Red" due to marker selection. No big deal. Its just
> a name.
>
> Maybe we'll just name this new CQP thing "Red" instead
> of say "Purple" - a mixture of Green and Red?
> The primary colors are: Red, Green and Blue.
>
> Red was envisioned to work over the network.
> Green was envisioned to have a killer U/I for the
> human CQP log checkers.
>
> The next CQP version will work over the network
> and will have a killer U/I. I guess we can recycle the
> "Red" name? Why not? Or call it "Blue"?
>
> The CWO contest doesn't need most of the
> fancy CQP features. CQP allows the other
> guy to screw up without penalty to the claimant.
> This leeway includes bands and modes.
>
> For example the other guy logs the wrong band
> for this contact. There is currently no CQP penalty for
> that. In most contests, that results in a NIL.
>
> How does CWO want to handle that sort of situation?
>
> A "QSO" means that we had a 2-way contact and
> exchanged and logged the correct information from
> the other station. If I say the Q happened on 20m
> and you say that it happened on 15m, then maybe we
> should both get a NIL or what? That was not a correctly
> logged QSO. CQP is very generous about this.
> I am not so sure that CWO should be.
> Please advise.
>
>
> 73, Matt WX5S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Alan Maenchen <ad6e at arrl.net> wrote:
> > I'll defer to Dean for CWO, and to Chris for CQP for their decisions. I
> can
> > still give my opinions :-)
> >
> > It may be useful to merge this CWO reflector with Green reflector (CQP)
> for
> > this discussion. For all: We are discussing a new Green by Matt. This
> will
> > revamp Green with some enhancements that Matt has been thinking about and
> > also get some real source code back again (original source code was lost
> due
> > to a computer melt-down a few years ago). In addition, Green will (we
> hope)
> > also be able to check CWO logs. Not sure yet if that will be the same
> Green
> > or perhaps some other color. There's a lot of commonality between the
> two.
> >
> > Checking CWO is basically the same process as CQP. Both have a serial
> > number. CQP has a text field for QTH while CWO has a text filed for NAME.
> >
> > For CQP: I propose adding single "ding" for log errors that are "wrong
> > band" and for "wrong mode". These are determined presently by manual
> > method. Green identifies both logs as potential errors, and the human
> log
> > checker looks at both logs to determine which is wrong. It's usually
> easy to
> > do. Presently, there is no score reduction for this error.
> >
> > For CWO: Only a "single ding" process is needed. Any error or errors
> are a
> > D2 (loss of all QSO points for that QSO and loss of the mult).
> >
> > For both: A time shift is pretty rare, but it happens occasionally. I
> would
> > simply shift the log outside of Green and then check it. It's so rare
> that I
> > wouldn't bother with assessing a penalty. Maybe make it a check log?
> >
> > 73, Alan AD6E
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S
> > <mmthoma at attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20131128/0d57fbbc/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Cwo
mailing list