On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 09:07:16AM -0800, N7DF wrote:
> I don't think anyone will argue that the 10 meter contest will reach its
> ultimate goal either this year or next as the sunspot cycles reach their
> lowest points since the contest was begun.
Ultimate goal? Do you mean "For Amateurs worldwide to exchange QSO
information with as many stations as possible on the 10-meter band."?
> Maybe now is the time to restart the contest as a true reflection of up to
> date technology. One way to do this is to change the scoring to more
> realistically make the goals of the contest meaningful.
What's not meaningful about the current scoring formula?
Here are some arguments in favor of the current exchange/formula:
* You cannot predict the state a US station is located in based on their
* You cannot predict the serial number that a DX station will send you.
* The exchange elements of a state/province or serial number are user
friendly for new contesters/new HF operators.
* Not everyone knows their grid locator. I can talk someone into giving me
all the elements of a Sweepstakes exchange, as painful as that can be,
but I cannot necessarily tell someone what their grid locator is.
* The Stew Perry contest has been growing in popularity, but despite being
a world wide contest, it still has only about half the participation of
the North American-centric ARRL 160 Meter Contest, which has an
exchange/scoring formula much more like the 10 Meter Contest.
> This could best be done by copying the scoring system of the Stew Perry Top
> Band Challenge and base scores on distance communicated rather than
> geographical location. This would adjust for the concentrated amateur radio
> populations in some areas and encourage operation from more remote areas.
So, is the motivation for change that there are stations in "remote" areas
that are at a disadvantage or have inadequate incentive to operate? In
my experience, activity and results are much more strongly correlated with
the fortunes of propagation than anything else.
> In the past the scoring would not have been possible due to the
> complications of determining distances but the software developed for the SP
> takes all the work out of the scoring.
> With the Grid Square as the exchange it becomes much more meaningful as
> well as giving the data for score calculations.
It would be interesting to have a big HF contest that uses grid locators.
I do not know if distance scoring makes as much sense for an HF contest
as it might for a VHF or 160 meter contest. We already have motivation to
work a lot of DX just for the various multipliers out there.
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
CQ-Contest mailing list