[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspotting, and its

To: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>, <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspotting, and its impact
From: Kelly Taylor <theroadtrip@mts.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:39:23 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Paul's right: giving everybody fair playing conditions isn't the same as
rendering everyone equal.

Is it not possible, just thinking out loud here, to request the DX Cluster
operators to kindly employ WRTC filters for the course of IARU?

WRTC organizers could supply the clustermeisters a list of all callsigns (we
still wouldn't be disclosing who has which callsign in advance, since it's
all the callsigns in one group) in advance and request that all spots for
any of those calls be blocked. I'm sure it can't be overly complicated, but
if a clustermeister wants to set me straight on that, please do.

Indeed, I think a 'do not spot' registry would be a wonderful thing for some
operators who AREN'T WRTC ops. I know first-hand and have heard from others
to corroborate, that sometimes, being spotted is NOT a good thing. Spotting
can easily drive a frequency to saturation, at which point that frequency
becomes unusable. In addition to the good operators, DXCluster drives a lot
of lids to a frequency, who then proceed to call without regard for whether
the spottee is transmitting or whether the spottee can even be heard.

If I was going on a contest-pedition, I would probably pay US$100 for the
privilege of being unspottable. Particularly if I was at a station loud
enough to generate its own pileups without the assistance of DXCluster. Such
as the amazing station at 6y1v.

73, kelly

On 7/15/10 5:54 AM, "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
> <snip>
>> WRTC showcases operator skills and experience.
> Yes, that is what it is supposed to do.
> <snip>
>> I offer again Kurt Vonnegut's classic about "leveling of
>> skills" ----> http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
> I've read it - twice.  It's a good story but it is not relevant.
> WRTC does not aim to level operator skills, it aims to level the
> playing field so that skills may be more accurately assessed.
> The main thing preventing this is spotting.  If spotting cannot
> be regulated, or its effects controlled or nullified, then we
> will not have accurate assessments in future WRTCs.
> In WRTC-10 the percentage difference between first and second
> place was 0.32% - representing two multiplier QSOs or 11 non-
> multiplier QSOs. The first-placed station was spotted 100 times,
> second-placed 86 times
> http://www.5bits.net/lu5dx/2010-wrtc-spots-analysis/
> Does anyone believe that, had these spotting figures been
> reversed, ES5TV and ES2RR would not be in first place?
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>