Thank you so much for your note Doug.
People saying there was no impact, may keep saying that as long as they want.
Using all kind of arguments, telling I DID NOT participate, whatever they want
to say. The impact IS THERE.
Instead of going fishing, I decided to listen and collect data provided by the
packet cluster network and so some simple analysis using a DTS and some simple
BI tools. That's all.
Anyway I was not trying to accuse anyone. I simply tried to show what’s was
going on with packet usage (nowadays telnet and web clusters actually).
When I say Nasty Cheerleading by Willy UA9BA and Igor UA9CDD and also by S53MM
in this case favoring the S5 Team). I simply meant that NASTY Cheerleading, and
the IMPACT is THERE.
I doesn’t matter if the over-spotted stations won the contest or not. All teams
deserve the exactly the same opportunities to participate in the contest. Just
like the Russian friends provided them with the most leveled playing field ever
in the history of WRTC and probably in the history of ham radio, the teams
deserve equal opportunities when it comes to assistance from the outside world.
If the team in question ended up around the 30th place. What about those that
came in behind that position? Don’t they deserve equal opportunities?
The real impact will be determined when WRTC logs are finally made public. No
one can happily say “there is no impact”. I can say saw even without the logs
because I WAS listening for twenty hours and monitoring the dx spots at the
time. And again, every time a spot was produced for a given station a mini pile
up would generate.
It even generates a difference even if you don’t make more Qs than the others
the long run, because it increases your rate during a given period of time and
it gives you more time to do whatever you need to do, search for mults in the
same band.. you name it, whilst other are struggling for Qs to keep the rate up.
Many ideas have circulated for possible solutions. The idea of WRTC stations
spotting themselves, does not solve the problem, since ops behind the mike will
be known anyways and over-spotting is not the only way of cheerleading…. The
idea of having a common set of pre-recorded audio files, F1..Fn messages for
SSB and exactly same messages for CW sounds about right. Stations with such
of set up on SSB can handle big rates over 250 Qs/hour so I don’t think why it
cannot be implemented. Pre-recorded messages even to codify individual letters
with the proper audio editing and treatment sound really nice and not so
as they did in the past.
Remember one of the purposes of WRTC is that Ops remain anonymous throughout
contest and that, for sure, has never been achieved so far.
For all those who say the audio files will prevent from evaluating the
operator’s skills. Just like it is on CW where almost everybody uses computer
logging to send CW messages, it all comes down to your listening skills. That
what determines accuracy, rate and so on.
About IARU rules not allowing single ops to be using packet…. That’s simply
archaic. A single op assisted should be there. When logs are made public you’ll
realize the amount of single ops promptly responding to packet spots (that was
the case when I was listening, maybe they change their minds and send logs as
multi single now that this is being vented).
If we are talking about the impact of packet in a very controlled environment
like WRTC, imagine the impact on the rest of regular contests. Where people
keeps taking advantage of packet and still claiming single op. It simply cannot
be detected and we keep refusing to incorporate that as a tool for single ops.
Many have said that SO assisted keep achieving lower scores than regular single
ops and I agree to that!, But regular single ops taking advantage of packet
a big advantage over those who don’t cheat. When it comes to close competition
at regional levels packet IS an advantage. The one using packet will end up
having a bigger score. I don’t know if that applies for the top ten stations,
but it really applies for the rest.
So if the top ten doesn’t feel like using packet good for them, good for anyone
not feeling like so. But at least in the rules everyone will have the same
opportunities. At least regarding one of the factors in contesting that is
impossible to control, but yet generating category distinctions.
Example: I’ve been entering SO Assited categories since my hosts had internet
around 2003 and I’ll continue to do so. But for example, in contest like WPX
packet really does help much, it is very noticeable how it prevents you from
keep running and distracts you working mults that in the long run are really
likely to be calling you! To me it represents a challenge to see how close (or
far) I can come respect to the guys not using it in zone 13. But that doesn’t
imply it still is not an advantage for one of them over the other if one is
using packet and the other is not.
Someone suggested packet clusters should be turned off during major contests.
Not a bad idea if that could be achieved. That would made things equal for
everyone. But I wonder what would be the impact on those getting on the air
occasionally to make some Qs and work a few new ones. Those use packet too and
represent a big part of the contest entrants (who submit logs and those who
don’t too). So the impact on the successfulness of a contest could be negative
to some extent.
kr2q at optimum.net kr2q at optimum.net
Tue Jul 13 17:03:48 PDT 2010
* Previous message: [CQ-Contest] 2010 IARU Pre-checking your log...
* Next message: [CQ-Contest] Reasonable expections... was Cheerleaders
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Being spotted (whether by many others or by a few or even one cheerleader) does
indeed have a sizable impact on rate based on my many decades as a log checker
in CQWW. It is totally obvious that the RATE goes up when a spot is made IF
rate is such that it can be increased. With the current WRTC situation, simply
because the station receiving the lion's share of spots did not "win, place, or
show" in no way proves that those additional spots were not a help. For all
know, this station may have come been destined to come in dead last, but
placed wherever they did. Those with scores greater than the "spot-ee" do not
care, but saying "no impact" is completely (a) a total guess and (b) probably
NOT what those with a lesser score are thinking. If anyone else out there has
compared the rates of hundreds of logs immediately before and then subsequent
a "spot" on Cluster (as I have) and can refute the last sentence in the first
paragraph above, I'm all ears. I also fully support Ward's position: Send in
the log now and "analyze" it later. Finding errors is the role of the
adjudicators, not the competitors (at least not until they've submitted their
original log). de Doug KR2Q
CQ-Contest mailing list