• The final score shown in the Log Checking Reports (LCR) does not always match the score you see in the CQWW.com on-line scores database. We are now aware of this issue and will address it soon.  The scores in the on-line database at cqww.com are correct.  We are considering sending out all 2017 SSB LCR report again, but this time with correct information.  This was caused by the LCR reports being rerun at a different time (date) as compared to what was supposed to be the final run of scores, NIL, Bad calls, etc. run.  The two are “out of sync.”  We have a backup of the original (correct) file and will attempt to put things right soon.
• Some of the entries in the LCR reports show ********** Stations Receiving Not In Log From [your call sign] ********** are in error.   This can happen when both stations log the other as a DUPE on the same band.   Again, the scoring is correct, but the text description in the LCR (for only those specific cases) is wrong.
• All stations which were reclassified to Administrative Check Log are showing up as Check Logs in the scores database.  This is incorrect and we are working to correct it.  It is a table setup issue.  Administrative Check Logs are not disqualifications.

Our sincere apologies for the errors/issues.

Crowd-sourcing for identifying outliers in CQWW logs

The CQWW contest committee, specifically, the log checking sub-group, uses many tools to scrutinize all logs.  One of the tools is used to establish Benchmarks across various parameters.  Benchmarking only establishes expected “norms” by comparing logs to each other.  One potential issue with Benchmarking is that if everybody cheats, then everybody still “looks normal.”  Fortunately, the vast majority do not cheat.

CQWW has decided to pilot making one of our benchmarking tools public. The expectation is that more reviewers will result in wider and faster identification of potential issues (flags).

We suggest that all contesters compare their data with their competitors’ data and alert us if you think a log or logs deserve closer attention.

How to start

We are making available two Benchmark tools:

1. Benchmark one – Power benchmark
2. Benchmark two – Assistance benchmark

Please note that the benchmark tools should be used by incorporating some deeper levels of thinking, meaning that we want you to use the variable parameters intelligently. For example, one cannot compare a log entry that was active only 10 hours with another entry that was active 30 hours or 45+ hours.

Using the tool:

The tool is a graphical display (scatter-gram) showing single points for each entry, per the values you select (right-hand side).  If you move your cursor over any individual point on the display, the “owner” of that “dot” will pop up and you will see various data about that point, including the owner’s call sign.

The Benchmark Power link is here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/jos.nunes#!/vizhome/CQWWCW2017PowerBenchmark/Planilha1?publish=yes

The Power benchmark tool is set initially for USA, Single Operator, All Bands, Non Assisted category.  You can see that the Benchmark is clean with QRP, Low Power, and High Power categories in line with what should be expected.

The Benchmark Assistance link is here:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/jos.nunes#!/vizhome/CQWWCW2017ASSISTANCEBENCHMARK/Planilha1?publish=yes

This benchmark tool is set initially for Europe, Single Operator, All Bands.  You can see that the Benchmark is also clean with Assisted stations and Non-Assisted stations in line with what should be expected.

Please note: The data source for these tools is the raw log submissions.  This means that you will be using data prior to cross-checking and other log-checking software functions.  You will be looking at the data used to generate the ‘raw’ scores.  These are not final scores, not final Q’s, not final Zones, and not final Countries.

This specific tool < https://www.tableau.com/ > was implemented and is made public by José, CT1BOH, making it very accessible and user friendly.  Previously, we did this using Excel pivot tables and filters.  This way is a big improvement.

Please use the tool and if you “find something” that you think is worthy or further review, please let us know immediately.  The deadline for feedback that we can act on is February 24, 2018.  Sorry about the short notice.

Please send your findings, if any, directly to José, CT1BOH:   CT1BOH {at} gmail {dot} com

Enjoy!

On behalf of the CQWW Contest Committee

We received some comments that indicated that we make available the Raw Scores for the Overlays.  This was not previously available.

We are pleased to announce that this is now available for CQWW 2017, SSB and CW.

To see the Overlay Raw Scores, please go to cqww.com then select the Results tab.

On the drop down, select Raw Scores (either SSB or CW) and then scroll all the way down to the bottom.

NOTE: If you enter your call in the Raw Scores section, you will see your total Raw Score for your entire log.  That may or may not match your Raw Score for your Overlay entry, depending on how many total hours you actually operated.

If you operated 24 hours or less, then the scores will match.  If you operated more than 24 total hours, you will see two different Raw Scores: one score in the “upper” section for the full log score and another score in the Overlay section.

Thank you to Ken, K1EA for doing the raw scoring magic and thank you to Randy, K5ZD for making it happen on the CQWW.com site.

The following are updates made to the 2016 rules, effective for the 2017 CQWW SSB and CW weekends.  Full rules will be published soon.  In addition to the updates, the thought process behind each update is included.  We hope this will provide some insight into the reasons for the updates.

1. Multi-Single definition: The word “transmitter” is updated to “station/signal” and there is now reference made to the FAQ section. This was in response to a post on CQ-Contest made by a member of the contest community.

Reasoning: This further clarifies the definition of MS as was already provided in the FAQ section.

2. Club definitions. The new rules are shown below.
   • USA Clubs: Participation is limited to club members residing within a 250 mile radius circle from the center of club area.
   • DX Clubs: Participation is limited to club members residing within EITHER the DXCC country where the club is located OR within a 400 km radius circle from the center of club.
   • The word “reside” shall be defined as: To dwell permanently or continuously or to occupy a place as a person’s fixed, permanent, and principal home for legal purposes.

Reasoning:

This language is simplified from prior versions.  Basically, it says that a club member can operate anywhere in the world and still have the score count for the participant’s club.  The word “reside” is also defined.

3. GENERAL RULES FOR ALL ENTRANTS has two additions.

• For ITU Region 1 stations: transmitting on the 40m band, above 7200 KHz during the SSB (phone) contest weekend is not permitted.
• For ITU Region 1 stations: transmitting below 1810 KHz during the contest weekends is not permitted.

Reasoning:

Interpreting country and ITU rules has consistently been a topic of debate on several forums, including in the CQWW Contest Committee, such as what is a rule versus what is guideline and what about individual country rules.  The CQWW 2017 Rules now remove the option for debate by defining two important frequency limits as part of the rules.

4. Audio Recordings: The updated rule expands the scope from “top three” to “top five.” It also expands the timeframe for such requests from 90 days to 120 days. The Classic Overlay is now also specifically included in the “top five” definition.  Further clarity about the recording now specifies that it must be a continuous recording and that “recordings of individual QSOs” alone in not acceptable.  Finally, the category options to which a log can be reclassified, if no recording is provided, are elaborated and expanded, including the addition of a new category (Administrative Check Log).

Reasoning:

The top 3 was expanded to top 5 because, in some cases, a top 3 entrant could be “knocked out” after review.  Since we are still focused on the top 3, even after one was “knocked out,” in order to be fair, the rule was expanded to the top 5.

      Equally, with the possibility of a top 3 being “knocked out,” the timeframe for such requests (for a recording) was expanded to 120 days.

      Specifying that the Classic overlay is included in the recording requirement closes a perceived gap in the Rules as they were written.  This was done based on feedback from the contest community.

      At least one “top 3” entrant submitted a recording that was not a continuous recording but instead recorded each individual QSO.  This prevented the committee from hearing how the entrant was tuning the band, something which is essential to proper adjudication.

      In 2016, the committee was faced with a difficult decision about what to do with entrants who did not, or were not able to, submit the required recording.  Disqualification of an entrant for failure to make a recording, in many cases, did not seem appropriate, and some of those were made into a Check Log.  However, such action by the committee then groups the entrant in with those who actually submitted their log as a Check Log.  Therefore, a new category, designed specifically for future top 5 entrants who do not or are not able to submit a recording as required, was created.

      [Editorial comment: It is important to note a few things about the “recording” rule.  First, 2016 was not the first year for this rule.  Second, the committee does not and will not request a recording simply because an entrant is in the top 5.  The committee will request a recording when something suspicious or curious in the log is identified by the committee.  This can be a statistical flag or something identified after human review.  The committee does not request a recording in an attempt to “go fishing” for something “out of the blue” or “without reason.”  If you are not breaking the rules or trying to stretch the rules beyond the letter and/or spirit of the rules, you are probably not going to be asked for a recoding.]

5. Log Checking. The penalty for a call sign copying error (busted/bad call or NIL) is changed from 2:1 back to 3:1.  The penalty for altering the QSO time, for M2 and MS entries, is changed from “remove the QSO” to a penalty of 10x for QSO points and multipliers.

Reasoning:

Historically, the BAD and NIL penalties have, for decades, been 3:1.  The 3:1 penalty dates back into the paper log days, well before the release of the IBM XT home computer.  In 2013, the penalty was changed to 2:1.  The current committee leadership feels that the 3:1 penalty provided more incentive to “get the call right,” and so it is reinstated.

The MS and M2 categories have strict time requirements.  It is possible to alter the time that an individual QSO is logged so that the QSO (or QSOs) no longer results in a band change violation.  In the past, some entrants would have a “small number” of such events, also known as “rubber-clocking.”

Over the years, there has been debate within the committee on how such offenses should be addressed.  Some argued that rubber-clocking is intentional cheating and that even one such violation should result a DQ.  Others argued that it is not “fair” to DQ a log with thousands of QSOs for just one or two falsified contacts.  Both arguments have merit.

However, if the falsified QSOs are simply removed without a penalty, then the entrant has not incurred any harm by cheating; their score is simply returned back to where it should have been.  This means that the entrant has no potential downside impact.  If the committee fails to find the rubber-clocking, the cheaters win.  And if the committee does find the rubber-clocking, then, under the previous rules, the cheaters suffer no injury, because they simply lose the QSO.   So really, they still win.  Risk without possible consequences only encourages risk, in this case, cheating.

Now, with the 10x penalty for rubber clocking in place (for both points and mults), there is a strong incentive for the entrant to not falsify the logged times (rubber-clocking).  If they cheat and get caught twice, they will lose a lot of points and even worse, 20 multipliers (or 40 multipliers if both QSOs were “double mults”).  The idea is to make the penalty for altering logged times so intolerable (high penalty), that the entrants will not be tempted to try.

As has always been the case, excessive rubber-clocking (intentionally subjective) will result in disqualification of the entry along with DQ for all of the operators at that station.

Please note that any band-change-violation which does not involve altering the actual time of the QSO is not impacted by the 10x rule.

Rule changes discussed, but not approved

1. Combine SO with SOA
2. Make SOA an overlay category for SO
3. Allow Self-Spotting of some sort
   • Everyone can self-spot
   • Only assisted entrants can self-spot
   • Assisted entrants can self-spot; Not-Assisted entrants can request to be spotted using the HF contest band where they are operating, in real time.