There is no secret society of contest administrators that has the goal of
"protecting" an advantage for one part of the world or another. In the 2013
CQWW participant survey, there were two questions about changing the
scoring. One of them dealt with Asia. With nearly 5000 responses, only 27%
agreed with making the change. So nothing happened.
The real issue here is geography and demographics. Even if we gave 9 points
for each DX contact with zone 26, there wouldn't be the QSO volume to beat
some other area of the world.
Contests are more like parties than sports. Sure, there are a group of very
serious competitors who do extraordinary things to compete. But most of the
participants are in it for other reasons; the chance to work DX, add new
band countries, see if their antennas work, build skills, pass the time,
etc. The biggest growth in CQWW participation right now is from zones 22,
24, 26, and 28.
In all of the grousing, I have yet to hear a compelling proposal for how
CQWW scoring could be improved. Note: before you can improve something you
have to state what the objective of the contest should be. Then explain how
your scoring accomplishes that objective.
This is a fun annual discussion that pops up each year. Even so, I think we
all grow tired of the "conspiracy" argument. Don't blame some unspecified
actors, explain how your proposal would make it better.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Charles Harpole
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:26 AM
> To: W5GN
> Cc: Matt Murphy; cq-contest; k9yc@arrl.net
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking
>
> The contest scoring critiques have shown that the scoring is incoherent.
> The technique was ok when the contests were invented... for a few N. East
> Coast American stations.
> Giving the S. Caribbean incentive to get on the air with extras, did its
> job. Slanting the field against low population areas while rewarding
> working them worked. Rewarding low power transmitters kept more high
> power guys out of top contention, by giving lo pwr something to do.
>
> Do a sociological examination of who and why the rules were made as they
> are to see who benefited and who did not.
>
> Now days, more than Americans want to enter and do well... oh oh.
> 73, Charly
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:37 AM, W5GN <w5gn@mxg.com> wrote:
>
> > If we are going to change scoring, I think working a QRP station
> > should be worth 3 points TO THE RECEIVING STATION, not to the
> > TRANSMITTING STATION, and 2 points for RECEIVING a LOW POWER station.
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Barry, W5GN
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> > Of Matt Murphy
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:16 PM
> > To: k9yc@arrl.net
> > Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Ranking
> >
> > I propose something like the following approach to calculating QSO
> points:
> >
> > 1) One point for every grid square traversed by the signal (the
> > shortest path between the two stations).
> > 2) Add a point for each of the above grids that are at least 80%
> > covered by land.
> > 3) Square the result.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Jim Brown
> > <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue,11/10/2015 3:15 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
> > >
> > >> Distance-based scoring really won't work for bands on which there
> > >> is a skip zone.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Horse-pucky! Scoring rules determine who wants to work whom. For
> > > stations in Zones 3, 11, 12, 13, 29, 30 to have fun in a DX contest,
> > > there must be a real desire for other stations to work them. Those
> > > zones are remote from population centers, and for the most part,
> > > there's only 2-3 countries in a zone. VK is a continent larger than
> > > EU, yet only one country multiplier and two zone mults. EU is much
> > > smaller than South America, but EU has 5X the country multipliers.
> > >
> > > Distances DO matter on bands with skip zones. I cited examples in an
> > > earlier post. Stations and power being equal, I can work a LOT more
> > > mults on more bands in IARU, CQ, and ARRL DX contests from W1 than I
> > > can
> > from W6.
> > >
> > > We need FAR more than "ranking" by zone or geographical area. We
> > > need a system where an operator in all but the most remote parts of
> > > the world is at least in the same contest with those in the Atlantic
> > > basin, and where his final score is determined by comparison with
> > > his geographic peers. It IS possible to design scoring rules that
> > > achieve this. It's like the US Congress -- we simply need the WILL to
> do it.
> > >
> > > 73, Jim K9YC
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Charly, HS0ZCW
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|