[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor
From: Andrew AC6WI <ac6wi@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:21:30 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Most of the arguments so far seem to be based on a perceived inequality 
between the W1 and W4 call areas.  Changing the scoring system for 
everyone in order to try to equalise these two areas would do a great 
disservice to the rest of the world and here's why....

Distance based scoring like mentioned below would be a very unfair 
scoring system to those who live in far northern latitudes and who have 
to contend with polar paths instead of N-S equatorial paths to reach the 
larger population centres eg, VE7 or KL7 to EU.

The western Europe area around London, England is about the same great 
circle distance from Miami, Florida as it is from Anchorage, Alaska 
(check it on google earth if you don't believe me, there's only a 50 
mile or just over 1% difference!).  With just a tribander and 100W, a 
Miami station should be able to run G/PA/ON/F/DL stations for most of 
the day with a pretty good rate whereas the KL7, with the same tribander 
and 100W as the Miami station, might only hear a few of the same EU 
stations and would struggle to make a small fraction of the contacts due 
to the polar path.  And don't try to tell me the difference is the extra 
50 miles of distance!  So, how could distance based scoring possibly 
level the playing field in this scenario?

Making the scoring more equal for one group, could end up creating a 
bigger inequality for others if it's not thought through properly.

Maybe, in addition to distance based scoring, yet another correction 
factor that takes distance from the equator into account will need to be 
introduced to level the playing field for those in northern latitudes. 
And then someone else will want another correction factor if they have a 
polar path to a large population centre.  And then someone will want 
something else so we'll end up with a scoring system that nobody 
understands unless they have a doctorate in mathematics so they can 
calculate their score....  Make the scoring too complicated and you will 
drive away the casual operator who submits a log which in turn will make 
the log checking less thorough, and nobody wants that!

Before jumping in and changing the scoring system to keep a few people 
happy, it needs to be considered how any changes will affect the entire 
contest community and how it will change the unique character of the 

Vy 73,

Andrew AC6WI

On 29/06/11 19:29, Rick Dougherty NQ4I wrote:
> Here goes my take on how to fix ARRL.....
> assign points on the following formula
> 1000 miles = 1.0 points
> 2000 miles = 2.0
> 3000 miles =3.0 at so forth...so if W1 workd a DL1 and the distance is
> 2800 miles that equals 2.8 points
> W4 to DL1 is 3700 miles = 3.7 points
> W1 to JA = 10,000 miles = 10 points
> w4 to JA = 12,000 miles = 12 points
> W1 to FP8 = 370 miles = .37 points
> W4 to FP8= 1100 miles = 1.1 points
> It is a fairly easy alogrithym to implement....use the distances
> provided in the dat file in each computer based on the lat long of the
> stations.
> It will need to be tested to see how it affects score...but it is
> straight line distance based scoring system. I propose to make it fair
> it should go both ways..i.e. the DL1 station would get the same amount
> of points also...this would sure level things out.
> My whinning and complaining for the day.
> NQ4I
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

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