Hello All,
Here my five cents about this topic, based on CQWW CW claimed scores, you
can take any other contest and do the same analysis, have a quick look to
the claimed scores.
Let's take for instance the following category, it's clear that these four
stations at the top of the list have in common the geographic location
*SOAB HP*
P4ØF(R5GA)
HD2T(VE3DZ)
V47T(N2NT)
9Y4/VE3EY
What about low bands?, what are the chances for an station which is located
in an extreme of the world of winning?
SOSB(A)/80 HP OM2KI DR1D(PY2SEX) DM7C(DL7CX) S57DX YU7U RW9DX UX3IO
the geographical position of each station has an evident influence on the
result, I am sure that there is not a rule which will make everyone happy,
but i humbly think that if the spirit of the CQWW is to be a world wide
contest this is something that should be taken into account, maybe a good
exercise would be to take historical data and do a deeper analysis.
Best
Diego - LW5HR
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
> Hi Al.
> The analysis you mention was done for the ARRL and it's sort of domestic.
> I've done the analysis in the past for CQ WW and it was really leveling at
> a world wide basis.
> Logging soft doesn't need to change at all.
> All needed is for stations to state their grid locator in the cabrillo.
> Since, unless changes to the exchange are implemented (e.g. grid locator
> instead of RS(T) and CQ Zone in this case).
> The log checking software run by organizers can easily do the rest.
>
> 73.
>
> Martin LU5DX
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:30 PM, <Aldewey@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Distance based scoring is something that was looked at in detail for ARRL
> > DX contest a couple years ago. While it had it's advocates, there were a
> > couple main concerns that caused us to set it aside for now. The first
> was
> > that, depending on propagation, the distance of a Contest QSO, does not
> > always equate to the effort needed to make that Q. In many cases, on 10
> > and 15
> > meters for example, it is easier for someone Florida (for example) to
> make
> > a contact with EU than it is the Caribbean. The CAC actually worked
> with
> > someone who re scored a couple past DX Contests using the Distance Based
> > Scoring and the results did not change all that much. Scores in the
> > middle
> > part of the U.S. rose and scores on the east coasts went down and the
> > order
> > of the top ten changed a little but not that much. Logging software
> would
> > have to change of course and we were concerned that there were many
> > contesters that would not be comfortable with Grid Squares (which would
> > give the
> > most accurate results). Finally, the majority of the contesters we
> > talked to
> > were not in favor or such a change.
> >
> > So, at least for now, the change was not recommended.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > AL, K0AD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 11/29/2013 9:53:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> > xdavid@cis-broadband.com writes:
> >
> >
> > The topic of distance-based scoring comes up consistently and many
> > contesters seem to be in favor of it, but somehow it never gains any
> > traction beyond the Stew Perry. I wonder how many contesters are
> > actually AGAINST distance-based scoring for major contests, and what
> > their reasons would be.
> >
> > 73,
> > Dave AB7E
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Diego Andres Dimunzio
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|