[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The state QSO Party thread

From: Nate Bargmann
Subject: Re: The state QSO Party thread
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2021 12:21:51 -0500

* On 2021 05 Sep 09:14 -0500, Thomas Beierlein wrote:
> Hi Nate,
> Am Fri, 3 Sep 2021 21:08:50 -0500
> schrieb Nate Bargmann <>:
> >....
> > For some of these events it may be necessary to simply use Tlf as a
> > logger as anything resembling accurate scoring may not be possible
> > given the notion that stations are usually worked once or once per
> > band/mode. State QSO parties often have mobile operators that move
> > from county to county and the rules allow outstate participants to
> > work those mobiles again for point and multiplier credit when they
> > move to a new county. Some rules also permit working such a station
> > once but logging it twice when it is on a county line or at the
> > junction of multiple counties.  So far as I'm aware, Tlf would treat
> > additional such contacts on a given band/mode as a dupe.
> > 
> Please have a look at IGNOREDUPES in the man page for that.

I do use that in all of my events settings which then allows logging the
station again but with zero point credit.  Normally, this is desired
behavior.  In the particular case I describe such is not the correct
behavior, however, it really only affects scoring not what will
ultimately be written to the Cabrillo file.

Case in point, last night I had one operator give me two counties for
the exchange.  The Colorado QP rules state that a second QSO be logged
for the additional county, etc.  Here Tlf incorrectly scored it as zero
points but WYSIWYG did count it as a mult.

I have a lot of work to do to clean up a log with just 22 QSOs in it!

I am also formulating some thoughts on WYSIWYG and that aspect of Tlf
and will probably open a feature request in the issue tracker in the not
too distant future.

73, Nate

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]