CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness

To: "'Rudy Bakalov'" <r_bakalov@yahoo.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness
From: "Mike Tessmer" <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 16:58:11 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
In your #1 you have two scenarios that are nothing at all alike.  Which one 
does the contest change to?  How do you decide?  Without some kind of data to 
back up the proposal (showing how you will end up with the result you desire – 
which also must be defined) you end up with “Tom” saying his idea would be the 
best, “Dick” saying his idea is the best and “Harry” saying his idea is the 
best.  So who’s idea do you pick?  

 

73, Mike K9NW

 

 

From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com>; Ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest 
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness

 

Using other logs is indeed a good idea.  However, what is it specifically that 
the analysis should deliver to convince the skeptics? You don't need any logs 
to predict that when you change incentives human behavior will change 
accordingly.

 

Just to sum it up:

 

1) The proponents of a change favor two options. Option #1 is switching to 
distance based model.  This option will encourage long distance QSOs (in the 
spirit of a DX contest) while also giving credits for local contacts.  Option 
#2 is allowing US to US contacts plus increasing the pool of mults.  Both 
options are pretty clearly formulated have outcomes with a fairly high degree 
of predictability based on the change in incentives.

 

2) The opponents of any changes use by and large two arguments. Argument #1 is 
that a data analysis is needed to convince them that a change is needed. The 
goals of such analysis have never been outlined.  Argument #2 is that the rules 
are fine as is and no change is needed.

 

Again, as a Canadian station the current rules serve me very well. I am happy 
to get points for working an endless supply of US stations.  However, the idea 
that a Toronto - Buffalo QSO is worth more than Miami - Seattle is just crazy 
and makes no sense.

 

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate 
autocorrect.

 


On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com 
<mailto:mtessmer@cinci.rr.com> > wrote:

> I repeat, your statement is flat out misrepresenting the data that's in the 

> logs. You can't analyze data that's not there. You can argue as much as you 

> want, but if logs contain close to zero percent US stations working other US 

> stations, the analysis you demand is impossible and useless.

 

OK.  There are six years worth of WPX logs available, where there are likely to 
be plenty of US to US QSOs.  It’s not perfect but at least it’s some data.  
There are four years worth of CQWW RTTY logs, where there are plenty of US to 
US QSOs.  Everyone thinks their idea is the magic one, but no one does anything 
to justify why.  Figure out how to manipulate the data to derive the 
information you need.  Crunch some numbers.  Post the results.  Don’t expect 
someone else to do the work for you.

 

73, Mike K9NW

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>