Hello Kelly,
1) yes, one may think about more ways to filter all possible spots or
any evidances for possible spots of WRTC stations out (think about R322F
instead of R32F, using notes etc) ... I bet it is not possible to filter
them off 100%.
2) spots drive the competition too ... You probably read some of the
comments of the teams with forthgoing 5 mins of big piles (after the
spot), than 5 mins slowed down etc ...
a) it's a question of tactic of the team too I think!
b) without ANY spots it will not be the same event!
3) You will not prevent ALL possible spots to identify a team and where
it is (e.g. R39XXXXXX DLs!)
4) I think the teams with more spots where more active / more heard mostly?
From my log (at a great distance to UA3A with one hop) I'm sure I
worked ALL active enough stations on 80-15m ... those I left out were
LESS active at the right time or not hearable ... of course, if they
were going or 5-pointers of that time it just wasn't my luck giving just
3 points.
5) yes, I know about those two may be overspotted stations .. of which
only one made it to top 5 .. and surely there are too less S5 stations
in the contest to put them forward that much ...
finally:
I think we have arranged a GREAT level of level playing field already,
especially with the field day style. If the teams will know it will be
the same in the next WRTC (probably in 2004) far in advance (so very
soon) they will be even better prepared for that by than!
73 & gl,
Axel Schernikau, DL6KVA
dl6kva@darc.de
Kelly Taylor schrieb:
> Paul's right: giving everybody fair playing conditions isn't the same as
> rendering everyone equal.
>
> Is it not possible, just thinking out loud here, to request the DX Cluster
> operators to kindly employ WRTC filters for the course of IARU?
>
> WRTC organizers could supply the clustermeisters a list of all callsigns (we
> still wouldn't be disclosing who has which callsign in advance, since it's
> all the callsigns in one group) in advance and request that all spots for
> any of those calls be blocked. I'm sure it can't be overly complicated, but
> if a clustermeister wants to set me straight on that, please do.
>
> Indeed, I think a 'do not spot' registry would be a wonderful thing for some
> operators who AREN'T WRTC ops. I know first-hand and have heard from others
> to corroborate, that sometimes, being spotted is NOT a good thing. Spotting
> can easily drive a frequency to saturation, at which point that frequency
> becomes unusable. In addition to the good operators, DXCluster drives a lot
> of lids to a frequency, who then proceed to call without regard for whether
> the spottee is transmitting or whether the spottee can even be heard.
>
> If I was going on a contest-pedition, I would probably pay US$100 for the
> privilege of being unspottable. Particularly if I was at a station loud
> enough to generate its own pileups without the assistance of DXCluster. Such
> as the amazing station at 6y1v.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
>
>
> On 7/15/10 5:54 AM, "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Radio K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> WRTC showcases operator skills and experience.
>>>
>> Yes, that is what it is supposed to do.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> I offer again Kurt Vonnegut's classic about "leveling of
>>> skills" ----> http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
>>>
>> I've read it - twice. It's a good story but it is not relevant.
>> WRTC does not aim to level operator skills, it aims to level the
>> playing field so that skills may be more accurately assessed.
>>
>> The main thing preventing this is spotting. If spotting cannot
>> be regulated, or its effects controlled or nullified, then we
>> will not have accurate assessments in future WRTCs.
>>
>> In WRTC-10 the percentage difference between first and second
>> place was 0.32% - representing two multiplier QSOs or 11 non-
>> multiplier QSOs. The first-placed station was spotted 100 times,
>> second-placed 86 times
>>
>> http://www.5bits.net/lu5dx/2010-wrtc-spots-analysis/
>>
>> Does anyone believe that, had these spotting figures been
>> reversed, ES5TV and ES2RR would not be in first place?
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|