[Cwo] Public Logs and LCRs
Marshall "Matt" Thomas, WX5S
mmthoma at attglobal.net
Wed Nov 27 22:37:55 PST 2013
Al,
I expect that the average CWO log is of high caliber.
These folks want to (and have) achieved a good
"level of competence" in Morse code. And that they
are interested enough to have computer controlled
rig software. Therefore, I suspect that these band/time
errors are very rare. As you know, in CQP, that is not the
case.
73, Matt WX5S
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Alan Maenchen <ad6e at arrl.net> wrote:
> 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
More information about the Cwo
mailing list