[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents

To: Milt -- N5IA <n5ia@zia-connection.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
From: kr2q@optimum.net
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:29:56 +0000 (GMT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Milt, N5IA agreed with Stan's (K5GO) comment below.

----- Original Message -----
> Something is not quite right when a part time effort in a DX contest can make 
> top ten 
and knock out a full time effort by as good an> operator from a better 
station.> > 

I had a private exchange with Stan and here is an excerpt.  For me, the last 
sentence says
it all.

A main problem with "points for distance" approach is there is currently 
nothing in place to allow for
that.  Exchanging grid squares seems logical & everybody would quickly learn 
their own grid square, but
even that is probably not precise enough.  If we went to 6 digit grids, then I 
think we'd have something...
Not only would we have a point system more relevant in terms of being a DX 
contest, but the exchanges
would be meaningful.  But is there a downside to that?  Maybe.  Some say that 
the reason the
CQWW is so popular (with WPX right behind) is because there "isn't" an exchange 
and everybody
can get on and not be challenged because of an unknown exchange.

A possible easier solution would be to require your 6 digit maidenhead grid as 
part of the HEADER
for each log entry.  Then folks would still have an "easy" exchange and could 
leisurely look up their
grid post-contest.  The downside, of course, is that nobody would know their 
actual score until the logs
were officially adjudicated. 

So nothing is easy.

de Doug KR2Q
CQ-Contest mailing list

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