Kelly,
The station which makes the "most clean Q's" should win.
If I make 800 Q's with no errors and you make 805 Q's with 4 errors (same
mults), then you beat me 801 to 800. Unless we played in a socially
engineered contest like CQWW.
73, Hans, K0HB
On Friday, May 24, 2013, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Not to disgree with everything Yuri writes, but often, multiple-choice
> university exams WILL include penalties for wrong answers to disincentivize
> guessing. (IOW: better to leave it blank than guess wrongly.)
>
> Which is exactly what these rules are intended to encourage. Get it right
> or
> don't get it at all.
>
> Which for those in the middle of the pack is of little consequence, but as
> a
> metric to distinguish the very best, perfectly reasonable. I think a guy
> who
> makes the most clean Qs is a better operator than one who makes lots of Qs
> but gets lots of them wrong.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
>
>
> On 5/24/13 9:01 AM, "Yuri Blanarovich" <k3bu@optimum.net <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Glad to see incremental improvement in contest rules, thanks Randy!
> >
> > Just strikes me, ham radio "logic" vs. rest of the life logic.
> > Where in life do we have 3 times "penalty" for mistake, error,
> > innacuracy?
> > You answer question on test wrong, do you get "penalized" by taking 3
> > more
> > questions out (into negative score) to "teach" you?
> > You get speeding ticket, police gives you 3 times miles over the limit
> > to "teach" you? Etc.
> >
> > As Don writes, it is the relic from paper log days, that some "ham
> > lawyer" figured
> > would be good thing to teach those slopy, cheating hams lesson.
> > Records, actually there are some old records that are inflated due to
> > old (non)checking
> > and are hard to beat with "penalizing" system of new checking.
> > Had that happen to me.
> > Problem with QSO with error? Just don't count it. Simple, logical,
> > normal!
> >
> > Thanks for the small step for the hamkind!
> >
> > Now, why do we still penalize large radio countries with ZERO points per
> > QSO?
> > Another relic from the distant past. With today's technology, SDRs, no
> > need for that,
> > make it more fair and give everybody 2 or 3 points per QSO.
> >
> > As another example of ham radio "logic", back to MY skimmer (gadget)
> > being
> > classified as SOMEONE else (person) and treated as ASSISTANT.
> > Time to treat things as they are, not what they pretend to do. Where is
> > the borderline?
> >
> > I am not getting into "extending mike and headphones" with remotering
> > and making business out of it and QST/ARRL promoting it.
> >
> > Good luck in WPX!
> >
> > 73 Yuri, K3BU.us
> > www.MVmanor.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Don Field wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect the answer is actually quite mundane. When the 3:1 penalty
> >> was
> >> first introduced, log checking was still on paper and only a small
> >> proportion of errors were actually detected (in any case, with paper
> >> logs,
> >> many participants didn't even send in logs as it was such a chore, so
> >> those
> >> QSOs couldn't be checked). So 3:1 was a way of making up for the
> >> limited
> >> checking that could be done.
> >>
> >> Nowadays, with computer log checking, typically 70% or more of QSOs
> >> get
> >> checked, so fewer than half of any errors go undetected. On that basis
> >> a
> >> 2:1 penalty seems entirely appropriate?
> >>
> >> Don G3XTT
> >>
> >> On 24 May 2013 04:15, Barry <w2up@comcast.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I was there. Randy said a number of guys were winding up with
> >>> negative
> >>> scores. That certainly doesn't encourage long term participation by
> >>> newbies.
> >>>
> >>> Barry W2UP
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com <javascript:;>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
73, de Hans, K0HB
"Just a boy and his radio"
--
Sea stories at --------> http://K0HB.wordpress.com
Superstition trails ---> http://OldSlowHans.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|