Problem with a 6 digit grid square mult is everyone would be a mult.
every contact. whats the good of that?
Id go at the absolute MOST 4 digit. in my case EN43, but out here even
that is a mult for every qso almost.
I still like my thought of Grids are mults AND they determine QSO point
Like remember a qso with someone in your own square 1 point, one with
not your square but touching your square 2 points, everything else 3
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
On 6/26/2011 6:29 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> 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
CQ-Contest mailing list