[ILQSO] LOGS

[n9jfcountyhunter at gmail.com]

My thought is that QSOs not complying with the rules (like, incomplete information) will receive no QSO credit.  That seems logical.

At about 2 weeks post-contest, I e-mailed every call that had more than about 15 contacts in submitted logs and encouraged them to submit a log.  It wasn't really clear until now who the big ones were who had not sent a log.

Thanks for your input!
73, Jim N9JF

-----Original Message-----
From: ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net <ilqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Richard Dickens
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 8:49 PM
To: Illinois QSO Party <ilqso at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [ILQSO] LOGS

Hello Jim.  

Post-contest log editing should result in a check log at best.  State this in the rules so it’s clear that this will result in a check log or disqualification.

If the mode can’t support the exchange, then rule out its use.

Perhaps just before the log due date, publish a list of higher scoring stations that haven’t yet submitted a log.  If they aren’t on the email list, maybe someone that knows them will alert them to submit.  Other than that, if they don’t care to submit then no cool certificate for them!

73- Rick, KY0Q


> On Nov 30, 2023, at 12:14 PM, n9jfcountyhunter at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Log checking is going well.  I hope to have results available before 
> the end of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> Pet Peeve/Rant:  Those who, after the contest, use an on-line source 
> to supply QTH RCVD.  It's obvious, unethical and like trying to teach 
> a pig to sing, "accomplishes nothing and irritates the pig" (me).
> 
> 
> 
> Other observations:  We had a couple of logs that included FT8 
> contacts.  I see no reasonable way to include these in an ILQP log 
> though they are not "prohibited".  One log included the signal report 
> received instead of the QTH.  This caused considerable angst with the 
> log-checking software until I simply deleted them.  Another log included a QTH that was obviously looked
> up post-contest (see Rant above).    Any suggestions going forward?  Simply
> say, "no FT8"? Or just keep the rules as they are ("each contact must 
> include a call worked, signal report received and QTH received")?
> 
> 
> 
> Some creative begging and pleading brought in quite a few more logs at 
> the last minute.  There were still a LOT of potentially high-scoring 
> (read: "You might have won a cool certificate by AB9DU") logs that were not submitted.
> Any idea how to get a bigger percentage of logs submitted?  Or just 
> don't worry about it?  It's not like we "needed" more logs, but it 
> does help the checking procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, the logs submitted this year were timely and in 
> the correct format. I had to return very few for corrections or replacement.
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts and suggestions welcomed.
> 
> 73, Jim N9JF
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> ILQSO mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ILQSO at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
ILQSO mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ilqso
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:ILQSO at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html