[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpa

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpact
From: Steve Hanlon <asciibaron@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:44:34 -0500 (CDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
work SS on a Sunday and have someone spot you - you will magically have a rate. 
 that should be proof enough that spotting has a correlation to number of 
stations logged.

but i really don't see the point of all this - if the WRTC wants things to be 
fair, than they should simply spot each station every 15 minutes.  there, 
problem solved.  

-Steve, WM3O

On Jul 14, 2010, Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com> wrote: 

The scientist in me wants to see numerical proof that one spot, or even ten 
spots, variation made any difference to the scores.

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpact, Steve Hanlon <=