Using the locators as an exchange might be too much for some but, OTOH, would
make exchange meaningful. The locator in the header as information for the
contest robot is a good idea, in my opinionTo encourage the use of ALL of the
low bands, more points per QSO should be assigned. 160 m with the higher value,
80 m less and so on, and not just double points for 160-80-40 and less for the
rest, because this kind of division makes that contesters use 40 m, some 80 m
when 40 m gives them no more and then dismiss 160.
> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:29:56 +0000
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
> 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