You nailed it, Ken.
I see the same things happen when I work major contests. Even when I don't have
internet access (I've been in some remote areas), I can tell when the "Cluster
Crowd" has discovered me. Sometimes the pileup lasts for hours and I suspect
that I was spotted numerous times. On the contrary, when I later check the spot
database, I may have been spotted only once during my run. I agree with your
analysis that the pileup activity attracts passersby. This happened quite often
during the All Asia CW contest.
Mal tends to make comments with no proof. Only a few proved to be mistaken.
This is just another example.
73,
Korey
YI9VCQ/KA5VCQ
Baghdad, Iraq
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Saturday, October 15, 2005 0:01 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Domestic Contest Spots/Cheating
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:42:46AM -0500, Bob Naumann - W5OV wrote:
> > N7MAL said:
> > > Here is the maximum you are going to get from me. STOP asking
> for
> > more because it's not going to happen under any circumstances. <
> >
> > Mal,
> >
> > With all due respect, if you make a claim that there is rampant
> > cheating, and cannot back it up, I think it is reasonable for
> one to
> > conclude that you are not being honest.
> >
> > Your presumption that any single op that works you within
> minutes of a
> > packet spot therefore must be cheating is simply not valid.
>
> Mal never said that he could or would conclude that any particular
> stationwas cheating. He merely said that the number of stations
> submitting logs
> as unassisted who worked him during periods immediately after he
> was spotted
> seemed higher than reasonable.
>
> Let's consider what's reasonable... Let's say that after being
> spotted,
> your rate doubles for 10 minutes. For agument's sake, let's say
> pre-spot
> rate was 48/hr and post-spot rate was around 90/hr. So, in those
> ten minutes,
> you work roughly 15 stations instead of 8, for 7 additional
> stations. Now,
> of those 7 additional stations, at least a few probably also found
> you
> by S&P, not by packet spot. Why? If you're only working stations
> at
> 48 per hour, you're calling CQ a lot and depending on your CQing
> style,
> where you're beaming, etc., some station might be passing you by.
> But at
> 90/hr, there's less dead air, and stations from more places are
> likely
> working you, making it that much easier for someone to figure out
> that
> there's a station on frequency. So, let's say 2 of those 7 were
> S&Pers,for arguments' sake, and that the remaining 5 were
> attracted to you through
> the packet spot. If those five submit logs, they should be
> submitting
> them as either multis or assisted stations. So 5 out of the 15
> you work
> in that time period is 33%. Since not everyone submits logs, what
> you
> need to do is look at those of the 15 who did submit logs and see
> if 33%
> of them submitted as multis/assisted or not. (And that's a little
> conservative, as probably some of the stations that find you
> through
> tuning are multis/assisted anyway. The real percentage might be more
> like 40% or more - but leave it at 33% for argument's sake.)
>
> If, over time, and being spotted enough times to make this kind of
> analysis
> meaningful, you notice that fewer than 33% of those station who
> work you
> within 10 minutes of a spot and submit logs in the contest are
> submitting
> as multis/assisted, then you might conclude that there's a
> problem. In
> particular, if instead of 33%, the percentage was close to the
> same as the
> percentage in general for the entire contest, that would also be
> telling
> evidence of widespread cheating. You'd still never be able to
> identify a
> particular cheater, but you could infer evidence of a problem.
>
> I'd love to see Mal work through his logs in this manner and
> provide
> some quantitative data, rather than just qualitative observations.
> I think
> it would also be more interesting if it was done with logs from a
> stationthat gets spotted more often than Mal, but not so often
> that they are
> being spotted constantly.
>
> --
> Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> kenharker@kenharker.com
> http://www.kenharker.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|