[PaQSO] More about scoring and software

[Mark Kempisty]

As to modifying the software I have yet to see a case where the software 
author will give you the code and let you tweak it.  Even a very experienced 
programmer like me will likely break it if we don't spend the time to 
understand most of the code.  The tweaks are either modifying a look-up 
table or just how you configure the software.

73,
Mark N3GNW
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Davis" <bob at reconstructinghistory.com>
To: <paqso at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: [PaQSO] More about scoring and software


> The Organizer (KB3EIA) quoth:
>
> We do accept Cabrillo. We have accepted Cabrillo for years and
> years. Where does this rumor that we don't accept Cabrillo come from?
>>>>
>
> You know, I really couldn't say, and for that I apologize profusely.  I've
> been part of a rumor mill, and that sucks.  Sorry!
>
> It occurs to me that something I have not - and CAN not - express with
> sufficient emphasis is the fantastic job you and your lot in NARC do to
> provide us a contest about which to gripe. ;-)  Honestly, I'm glad you're
> doing it, because I haven't the ability, determination or thick skin to
> survive the effort.
>
>>>>
> Thee you hit the nail on the head, Bob. The PAQSO Party is wierd.
> We are not like the other contests, and if you want to know the
> truth, we like that just fine.
>
> But make no mistake about it, that we are wierd and different in no
> way makes those other parties and contests better than us.
>>>>
>
> No such implication was intended, I assure you.  One of the highlights of 
> my
> year is PAQP; I only missed it this year because it was my wife's 40th
> birthday on the Saturday, so our romantic getaway precluded participation.
> Next year I'll be out there with whacking great bells on, yacking away. 
> ;-)
>
>>>>
> With all due respect, Bob, the problem just isn't so easy.  I see a
> LOT of different software packages. They have a LOT of different
> outputs - and most of them are called "cabrillo". Different softwares
> score and keep track of different aspects differently. They do
> sections differently, They do Canadian sections all over the map.
>
> Which software do I modify the PAQSO party to accept?
>>>>
>
> Let me restate my position.  It's not necessary to pick just one software
> application.  It appears to be necessary to bring PAQP's definitions of 
> what
> constitutes a section into line with, say, ARRL SS definitions, which more
> software appears to have standardized in some manner.  There was talk on
> this reflector prior to PAQP 2007 regarding the manner in which PAQP 
> treats
> RAC sections.
>
> I now consider output immaterial, since you've kindly pointed out my
> misconception about your acceptance of Cabrillo. ;-)
>
> The most crucial manner in which the PAQP can accomodate modern software 
> is
> in the QSO point structure.  As I and others have mentioned, N1MM, to name
> but one, is an application which will not accomodate fractional QSO 
> points.
> Another writer on this list has given us a method where the current point
> weighting may be retained, while removing the fractional points.  For me,
> this is a crucial issue, not merely because I like to use N1MM, but 
> because
> the simpler it is for the average amateur to participate in PAQP, the more
> participation we'll enjoy.  It follows that *everyone* then has more fun,
> dunnit?
>
> Goody mentioned the relative ease with which one can modify the existing
> software.  For that I'm grateful.  At the same time, I have to admit that 
> I
> won't go that route.  I am a radioamateur, not a code-junkie. ;-)  I have
> neither the knowledge nor inclination to go mucking about modifying a
> program.  I have enough problems just getting on the air with a decent
> signal and finding time to operate.
>
> That's why I'm so strongly advocating making the PAQP as "turn-key" as
> possible.  I have little enough time to prepare for an on-air event and
> actually get on the air.  Therefore, I want to be able to sit down at my
> station desk, flip a couple of switches, boot up my logger, and just make
> contacts.  The harder it is for me to participate in an event, the more
> prep-time I have to devote, the less inclined I am to do so. In this, I 
> know
> I'm not alone.
>
> At the same time, I understand PAQP ain't necessarily broke.  It works 
> just
> as it is.  I'm merely advocating making it easier for the casual operator 
> to
> participate, which can only be good for everyone involved in PAQP, from 
> the
> most casual to the hardest-core.  Yes, that'll mean some extra work for 
> the
> organizers.  But I think that extra work will pay off a nice dividend in
> both short and long terms.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Bob NQ3X
>
> http://nq3x.livejournal.com
>
> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, an
> inconceivably large number of electrons was terribly inconvenienced.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso