Howdy guys..
Impossible to know what could have being under the scenario Paul suggested.
But well, the spots analysis I made is indeed very selective. It's restricted
to
spots made of WRTC stations.
And some of the tables show only the top 20 spotters activity.
Anyway the raw data is there is further analysis wants to be performed.
Now, if you dig deeper into the data you will find several other type of
spotters. Like a last hour cheerleader: UA2FZ spotting only one station four
times.
You can do your own analysis taking a look at the tab Top 5 Who Spotted Who by
hour. http://www.5bits.net/lu5dx/2010-wrtc-spots-analysis/
No one wants to take the credit away from nobody. I believe everyone in the top
ten are out of this world top notch ops. All the ops in a WRTC are actually
great ops.
What the story could have been is just a matter of uncertainty. And precisely,
uncertainty is something that does not favor a competition like WRTC.
I believe we all agree this is an exercise for the future, if we cannot learn
from our experiences, then it all would be really boring and at some point non
sense.
Shutting down the packet clusters is contradictory to promoting the
participation. Having WRTC stations auto-spot themselves does not solve the
problem either.
Imagine a given hour, in a given geographical area, where all the teams are
spotted at regular intervals, friends of some distant team (in this case Ws)
will not be able to contact their friends because of the lack of propagation
favoring that path whilst teams of the region WRTC is taking place will have
tons of home boys calling…..
The main problem behind over-spotting, cheerleading via any means, is in fact
that teams do not remain anonymous throughout the contest.
To me there are three possible solutions to this:
1) Make WRTC a CW only contest with the same set of pre-programmed
messages
for everyone (though I’m mostly a CW lid) I wouldn’t like a CW only WRTC.
2) Make WRTC a sprint type competition (I really like this one). It would
make operation so much more fun, even with two stations being able to transmit,
like in 2010 WRTC.
3) Provide Teams a set of pre-recorded voice messages, for exchanges, CQs,
TUs, QRZs, Repeats, and for individual letters, plus the same set of standard
messages for CW.
Whichever of the three above mentioned approaches should eliminate the
possibility of a team being identified by friends, in the end, that’s what
this
thread is all about.
Please don’t mix things like the organization of WRTC 2010 by our Russian
Friends in this topic. This has been the most amazing WRTC ever, and not
because
the previous ones were not, but this simply was far beyond the rest in terms
of
providing the most leveled playing field ever in the history of ham radio
contesting. I don’t think anyone of us have enough ways to express our
gratitude
to them. And precisely, any factor disrupting or diminishing the efforts made
and care taken by the organizers to make things equal to every team or even
making people question themselves what would have been if that did not happen
all must be reviewed for the future.
Harry today even confirmed that logs will be made public once the deadline for
IARU logs is reached.
I mean everything is just perfect from the organization perspective.
Let’s brainstorm together about making WRTC even better for the future.
In my case been to two WRTCs though I was invited to four. I could not attend
1996 and 2000. But always felt a great deal of passion towards this event. THE
EVENT of ham radio contesting.
Three things must be taken into account when it comes to selecting the next
WRTC
location and if an even greater experience is a goal:
* The ability by organizers to provide stations exactly the same set up
like in
Russia.
* The ability by organizers to provide a delimited area of the same
topographic
characteristics.(aka Flat terrain far enough from big cities)
* The ability to eliminate ops identification behind a WRTC callsign.
I’m now generating reports on the signal strength of each WRTC station across
the Reverse Beacon Network. You will not be surprised to see that the amazing
job made by the organizing committee, field volunteers and everyone at 2010
WRTC, because their objective of giving the Teams equal antena set up and equal
topographic locations is reflected in those numbers too.
Vy best 73
Martin, LU5DX
www.5bits.net/lu5dx
www.facbook.com/hamradionews
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S56A s56a at bit.si
Thu Jul 15 10:51:31 PDT 2010
* Previous message: [CQ-Contest] WRTC 2010
* Next message: [CQ-Contest] SNS Tonight
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
*
EI5DI wrote: Does anyone believe that, had these spotting figures been
reversed, ES5TV and ES2RR would not be in first place? LU5DX statistics are
very selective. K1TTT gives broader view. Cheerleading this time had two
facets: HQ and WRTC. S53MM three SSB spots identifying R39D are inexcuseable
but he also made ton of others. S54A and S54O were amongst the most active
overall spoters. RU1A winning team has a long history of top WRTC scores and
I
would not attach such a weight to 14% more DXC spots. Estonians had WRTC
dream
callsign R33A partly explaining SSB top score! Kudos to USA WWYC largest CW
run. LP MMM S56A Disclaimer: I am not at speaking terms with S50A and S53MM.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|