[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: "RW4WZ" <rw4wz@udm.net>
Reply-to: rw4wz@udm.net
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:27:03 +0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

> > 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?

I believe Paul ;) 
If it be happened, R32F will be made more QSO then R33A
and made more difference on the final score.
Look at this:

R32F    100    RW1AC/RA1AIP     R32F    3440    10617   144     242     386
4 098 162
R33A      86    ES5TV/ES2RR     R33A    3453    10501   152     237     389
4 084 889

If the people on the WRTC compete for most high numbers of QSO, then all
those talks about
number of spots will make some kind of sense. The formula of this
competition are more complicated
and it's fine.  R32F won the WRTC by got more point for QSO even lose the 3
And there is nothing about the spots.





CQ-Contest mailing list

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