I also found this thread quite interesting, but I would add this: Can
we come up with a very complex scoring system that takes into account
propagation, time of the year, historical norms, phase of the moon,
solar cycle, etc.? I am quite certain it is *possible*. However, to
make for a meaningful comparison, we also need detailed information
about the stations as well. Specific radio, specific power output,
antennas in use, feed line type, feed line losses, possible antenna
interactions, etc. Lets assume we are able to gather all this data
(and more - these are just a few data points) - what then? We
determine that operator X is *better* that operator Y, under these
specific conditions, based on these data points. To my way of
thinking, this MIGHT be of interest to a few top competitors. But,
they would continue to state the data is flawed (missed data point,
skewed data, something else went wrong, or is not accounted for in the
scoring system). To me, and probably the other 90 plus percent of
contesters - I really don't care that much, nor do I want to provide
that level of detail about my station. Not that I have anything to
hide - I just don't think the end result will be all that useful to
MOST of us...
Seriously. I built a station, bought a radio and I get on to have
fun. Right now, today, I can still use a paper log - same as I did
when I started contesting, and at the end of the contest, I can
quickly compare my results (QSOs times mults) to anyone else, and have
a pretty good idea who won. Yes - there can be upsets when the final
results are posted. Busted calls, NILS, etc. that are taken into
account as part of the scoring process, but for the most part, when
the contest is over, I like to know how *I* did, compared to my peers.
I am happy with that, its fun, and it keeps me coming back for more.
Take that away, and well - I expect a lot of folks (me included) will
just say "No thanks - WAY too complicated to figure out", and not
With all due respect to the Stew Perry Contest (its great, and I love
it), when the contest is over, we need to wait for the published
results to find out who won. Its a different issue - just wanted to
acknowledge the unique scoring system it uses.
Right now, we have simple rules, and they are fine for their intended
purpose. Even with simple rules, it can be difficult translating into
multiple languages. Imagine what would happen if we had complex rules
and weird scoring systems? The problems just get worse. I am not
sure the end result will be any better.
I guess I like to look at the end result. Sure - what we have has
problems, but so what? A few top guys complain "It ain't fair!" Too
bad. For MOST of us, the system is "fair enough", and its fun. Take
that away, and well - it will be time to try something else...
To quote my favorite line from Hans - "Just a boy and his radio". And
I am happy with that :-)
Tom - VE3CX
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Martin , LU5DX <email@example.com> wrote:
> I agree Tony. The same thing happens to us when we hear Caribbean Stations
> on 160 and 80 running at 200+Qs/hr and I guess not even in our dreams we can
> achieve that :-)
> Anyway, this thread has been really educational to me and I bet to several
> of us. I'm still convinced that a weighed scoring system can be achieved
> taking in consideration factors such as paths, SFI, K and A indexes and the
> resulting SNR between two geographical locations. But as I wrote in my
> previous email: generating the needed data would take over 300 MILLIONS
> records minimum. And to be honest, it still will not be a perfect and fully
> balanced scoring system. No doubt it will be a really step forward respect
> to what we have today.
> Regardless of whether the ARRL adopts a new scoring system it would be a
> very interesting collaborative experiment if we as a community can
> brainstorm towards achieving what would be a fair scoring system based on
> the factors mentioned above and the resulting effort that it takes to work a
> station over a given path, under certain SFI and geomagnetic conditions on a
> given frequency.
> 73 to all!
> Martin, Lu5dx
CQ-Contest mailing list