[NLRS] "Claimed" vs. "Final, Published" Scores for 2006 Sept ARRL

[John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK]

To the NLRS Reflector, I wrote: (but I'm cross-posting to the Badger 
Contester Reflector, too)
>
> When I can find the time, I'll do a "bang" of the claimed scores
> that were released for the electronically received logs (I have 461
> of them) versus the Scores Database and see what kind of score
> changes can be identified. I'm also curious if anyone sees anything
> that looks like a systematic problem...like the few that were
> identified in the June LCRs.
>

I found the time...

There are 531 lines in the Scores Database but two appear to be
"dupes", K8EP is in there twice and there are separate lines for AI4GR 
and AI4GR/R which appear to be the same entry (as opposed to W0ZQ and 
W0ZQ/R...which I *think* I can safely say are unique and separate 
entries).

My last "capture" of the "Logs Received" report for September had 461
entries but 4 of those were checklogs (even though 2 of those 4 
checklogs had scores) and one NON-Checklog entry does NOT appear in 
the Scores Database. Also, there were 16 NON-Checklogs for which no 
Claimed score was listed.

THAT leaves 440 Claimed scores that could be compared to 529 
"Published" line score entries.

23 entrants actually appear with HIGHER "Published" scores than what 
was shown as "Claimed" in the Logs Received report. Of those, 2 were 
in the "Top 100" scores. I didn't see any obvious pattern in the 
23...though for one, the "claimed" was simply a multiplication of the 
QSOs and the Multipliers, not considering that QSOs on bands above 144 
are worth more than 1 QSO point.

144 entrants had NO CHANGE from their "Claimed" to "Published" scores. 
And "hats off" to those submitters! That's very close to one-third of 
the 440 but, looking at just the Top 100 scores, only 13 or one-eighth 
of them achieved that "no change" distinction.

That leaves 273 entries that had some sort of "discount" from the 
Claimed score that was listed in the Logs Received report with 77 of 
those being in the Top 100. The range of score reductions in the full 
population of 273 was from 0.15% to as high as 99.99%, which really 
MUST have been sort sort of error in that particular log, the claimed 
was 20367 and the published was 2, it seems VERY unlikely that anyone 
could have been penalized THAT greatly. Even if that one was 'tossed', 
there were still 14 other entries where the published score was more 
the 30% below the claimed that was listed (though THOSE were generally 
logs with smaller QSO counts so losing one QSO AND being penalized an 
additional QSO yields quite a significant score reduction). The 
average/mean reduction was just shy of 9%, or call it 8.6% if the 
99.99% data item is excluded. The 'median' reduction of the 272 (or 
273) lies at about 5.3%. Among the 77 that were in the Top 100, the 
range was 0.15% to just over 16% with an average/mean reduction of 
just over 4% and a median of about 3.3%.

I hope this has been of some interest to at least a few of you.

73, JK