Author: "David J. Sourdis - HK1A" <hk1kxa@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:12:00 -0500
I think it would be interesting to try a double scoring system; the current system and the distance-based system as category overlay to see what happens. A simple algorithm using the grid locators wi
Or to keep tradition retain the ARRL DX as is and create ANOTHER contest - mixed modes SSB and CW close to the September equinox for 24 hours only using grid squares and distance.. 24 hours covers th
Some of the below is OK, But this part, "Allow duplicate contacts in each 6 hour section eg over 24 hours you can work the same station 4 times" This would be a nightmare for everything. Including Du
At the risk of raising an exceptionally controversial concept; if there is virtual unanimity in the acknowledged perpetual Northeast Coast dominance in DX contests from the U.S., why have a single U.
Hi Joe & all, that's why you would define *fixed* time slots for "wanted duping" (please re-read David's suggestion), i.e. 6 hours. Meaning if the contest starts at 12 UTC you can work me once betwee
So, Fernando is upset he cant compete with the Aruba-Bonaire-Curaçao crowd. Hmmm. Welcome to the club! He doesnt like that the rules leave in place a natural propagational advantage, plus the added p
Kelly has nailed this one. It is appropriate that we take reasonable care to equalize competition within a simple system. For example. 1) Let's separate high and low power 2) Lets separate assisted o
Hi Guys .... Dont forget, if you remove the "bonus" for operating P4, PJ2, PJ3, 9Y4, CT3, EA8, CU, CN, 8P, HI, KP, e.tc. e.t.c. you would miss out on some nice mults! Why people spend $$$$$$ and effo
N6TR came up with a FAR better scoring system for the Stew Perry contests K9YC (On distance based scoring) But it is not a proven equalizer K3PA How does distance-based scoring do anything other than
I've long thought that being able to identify other "stations like mine" to compare contest scores would be wonderful. For a while the World Contest Station Database was maintained by Pete Smith, N4
I believe in the statement that you don't solve a problem that isn't a problem. CQWW and CQWPX are the fastest growing contests in our sport folks. Those who think that somehow the lack of a level pl
1) Let's separate high and low power 2) Lets separate assisted operation 3) Lets separate when more than one person operates, or more than one transmitter. 4) Let's divide up results by geographical
As much as folks try, there will never be a level playing field. The folks who do WRTC try their very best to make each station location as the same as the others and yet, that doesn't do it. The onl
Interesting thoughts Al! I think the CQ WW "overlays" were designed to do just what you say at a coarse level. Taking it to the next level, informally via a database seems very interesting. I'd lo
You guys spend much more time arguing about contesting that actually contesting. Just have some fun and stop bitchin' about it. Rob HK3CW _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest ma
Hogwash. Look at numbers by ZONE. Contesters in non-competitive zones vote with their feet. And CQWW is the dumbest contest in terms of operating skill -- for the vast majority of QSOs, if you get th
Jim is right on on this. Try doing this from the PNW. It is hard to get excited about a contest that gives us about 4 or 5 mults that we can work consistently on 80 and 160. We have VE, XE, KL7, KH6,
Oh and by the way, SS in the US is very unfair to North East US stations. It should have inverse mileage based scoring actually to level the playing field. But there is negative growth in that conte
On Tue,11/10/2015 12:59 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote: Searching for a stat to make your point, Jim? CQWW has literally doubled in logs submitted in the past 10 years. Its the fastest growing contest by any me
Steve is right, I stand corrected. The SS contests do not have negative growth. The actual facts are that in the last sunspot cycle the Phone portion was running 1600 - 1700 logs submitted and in thi