1. Log checking does not include the signal report for any major contest I'm aware of. It isn't even checked for DXCC. 2. There is no such thing as a "real" signal report when nobody knows what kind
Well, actually it IS a bad analogy because it isn't an analogy at all. Saying that signal reports aren't checked for DXCC and saying that DXCC doesn't require a signal report is exactly the same thin
Very interesting, Dave. I honestly did not know that the 10m contest paid attention to RST, but since it is a dual mode contest I guess that makes a lot of sense. I stand corrected. 73, Dave AB7E The
Great info, Doug. That's only the results from the people who submitted logs, right? I'd bet that the curve is skewed even more toward fewer hours for the people who did not submit a log, and I wonde
Seriously now ... how many HF ham radio operators, much less contesters, do you think are in their teens any more? Any pictures taken at Dayton in the last decade are downright scary. 73, Dave AB7E N
Cause that sounds like so much fun? I like contesting because I find it enjoyable, but I don't find trying to stay awake for the majority of 48 hours fun at all. It's painful at best and leaves me fe
Why would all the 24 hour guys work the first 24 hours of the contest? That doesn't make any sense at all. Much more likely is that they would try to pick hours that optimized propagation for contact
I'm not saying that a full 48 hour effort isn't fun and challenging for some, but catering ONLY to the less than 1% who fall into that category seems misdirected to me. What I don't understand is why
Why are there "too many" categories now? It's not like participants are segregated on the playing field ... we all send the same reports and work the same frequencies in an almost totally transparent
Ahh ... you mean that more people will do what they actually prefer to do instead of what they might feel compelled to do. I didn't realize that was a bad thing for a hobby. I think it's pretty funny
That's pretty much apples and pears. Operating 24 hours out of 48 is an entirely different task than operating 24 out of 24. 73, Dave AB7E On 4/1/2013 11:23 AM, Steve London wrote: How about looking
There's a pretty big difference between changing scoring (which I've never been in favor of) and aligning categories to what participants actually do (which I am in favor of). Besides, if you haven't
I've always thought that a single large public file representing the merged data from all submitted logs would offer all kinds of interesting statistics ... some fairly simple scripts could probe the
I have been arguing here for a 24 hour category, but I am also strongly opposed to "best 24 out of 48" instead of simply 24 hours max. "Best 24 out of 48" defeats the entire intent ... it takes away
I strongly disagree. The whole idea of a 24 hour category is to offer an option for participants to match their physical ability and sleep cycles to propagation and band activity. Forcing anyone to o
Actually, that was a total typo error, and for that I apologize. It should have read "it makes far more sense to limit operation (for the 24 hour category) to a maximum of 24 hours but let participan
That's pretty funny. Did you somehow misread KR2Q's statistics that show 90% of all log submissions are ALREADY for less than 24 hours operation? That sounds to me like pretty conclusive "on the air
I've sometimes posted here before on the topic of cheating and the various reasons/mentalities behind it. There are several of them and most have different roots, but one thing that is common to all
I think Barry is probably correct that packet loss and latency (which are not directly related to speed) are the bigger issues. It can be enlightening to ping one of the websites set up for that purp
I think it was K1TTT (I could be wrong) who once described his lengthy and frustrating efforts tracking down an interference problem that turned out to be caused by some bad connections. Might have b