I just find it really interesting, in the face of the relentless march of
technology, that the station with the MOST spots did not win and that the
station with no spots at all placed sixth.
Be interesting to correlate this RBN data with DXCluster data to see how
many nonskimmer spots R32K received.
This does partially reinforce my thought that spots assist those who use
them to find the DX more than it assists the DX.
73 kelly
ve4xt
On 7/19/10 10:18 AM, "Robert Chudek  K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net> wrote:
> My first thought on this was that those stations with low spot numbers were
> Running more than they were CQing.
>
> As far as I know, the RBN spots any station it hears sending two CQs and a
> callsign. If they only sent one CQ and a callsign, I don't think this would
> satisfy the RBN spot filter. (Pete, correct me if this isn't true).
>
> 73 de Bob  KØRC in MN
>
>
>  Original Message 
> From: "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
> To: "CQ Contest" <cqcontest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQContest] Spots and Success in the WRTC  a little data for
> discussion
>
>
>> A question that I have is...what were R32K, R31X, R36O, R34D, R37P, R39A
>> and
>> R39R doing differently that caused them to be infrequently picked up by a
>> skimmer ?
>>
>> On the suggestion of my teammate, N6TV, our CQ was "TEST R39M R39M". All
>> characters were sent at the same speed  usually at 36 or 38 WPM. That
>> seems to
>> have resulted in the 6th highest skimmer capture rate.
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>>
>> Pete Smith wrote:
>>> The following table lists the contestants in WRTC by finish order and
>>> callsign, and then shows the number of spots recorded in the Reverse
>>> Beacon Network database. Reverse beacons don't cheerlead or select
>>> which stations to spot. You can draw your own conclusions. Perhaps
>>> there is a statistician among us who can derive further enlightenment by
>>> analyzing these numbers, together with others released by the organizers.
>>>
>>> Call Place Spots
>>> R32F 1 182
>>> R33A 2 109
>>> R33M 3 316
>>> R39D 4 172
>>> R34P 5 156
>>> R32K 6 0
>>> R32R 7 106
>>> R31X 8 21
>>> R37M 9 189
>>> R36C 10 166
>>> R33L 11 132
>>> R38F 12 232
>>> R33G 13 163
>>> R31U 14 62
>>> R34O 15 122
>>> R36Y 16 59
>>> R34W 17 197
>>> R39M 18 222
>>> R32C 19 115
>>> R37L 20 139
>>> R37Q 21 247
>>> R34C 22 184
>>> R36O 23 17
>>> R38O 24 116
>>> R31A 25 302
>>> R36F 26 41
>>> R38K 27 187
>>> R38X 28 79
>>> R31D 29 111
>>> R34D 30 14
>>> R32Z 31 252
>>> R32O 32 111
>>> R37A 33 184
>>> R32W 34 142
>>> R31N 35 140
>>> R36Z 36 100
>>> R38N 37 50
>>> R36K 38 91
>>> R38W 39 79
>>> R37P 40 10
>>> R39A 41 25
>>> R37U 42 191
>>> R34X 43 76
>>> R39R 44 12
>>> R34Z 45 133
>>> R33U 46 96
>>> R36W 47 152
>>> R33Q 48 85
>>>
>>>
>>> When I first saw this, I questioned how it was possible that a station
>>> could finish sixth and yet not be spotted even once, but the scientist
>>> on our team tells me it is not only possible, but statistically likely.
>>> In any case, that's what the database says.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQContest mailing list
>> CQContest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cqcontest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQContest mailing list
> CQContest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cqcontest
_______________________________________________
CQContest mailing list
CQContest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cqcontest
