I think there is merit to looking at this general type of scoring but would add one thing. Zero points for contacts within your own country regardless of zone. Would not want the DX Contest to be clu
Hi Stan, Suggesting these rules include also the DX side of the QSO that indeed for W1 is difficult to work W6 as G station so i expect to add more fun and competition to the black hole Guys without
Bravo Fabio! That sounds like easiest fix to presently antiquated scoring per QSO. Also, this should eliminate ZERO points for own country. Any changes to scoring in the contest should try to keep th
Fabio, no adjacent zone into the same country could be an exception that can be added to level the playfield into the Bigger countries that are spread out over 3/4 CQ zones Not for the buys in the mi
Exactly. My home is a bit less than 3 miles from the Zone 3 boundary (NM/AZ State Line). One more reason to operate from Zone 3!!!!! Mis dos centavos, de Milt, N5IA --Original Message-- From: Stan St
Hi Fellows, There will always someone that didnt agree, because everyone look at only to his own personal case, what is needed is that we, everyone, have a view over our nose, and understand that sho
Hello Fabio, Yes, that is correct. My point is: Most of the CQ Zones are too large to implement anything new associated with the Zones. For example, I am a bit more than 2,000 miles (3,250 kM) from t
Hi Milt. We are in the process of re-scoring all the logs for CQ WW DX SSB/CW (past five years). In fact distance based scoring is by far the most leveling scoring system we can think of. You may say
For those who may not have looked at the geographical disparities in CQWW, you may want to check out the maps at the links below: World: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48950365/cqww-cw-world-201
Rick, wow, those maps are amazing! Thanks for doing them, for the work and effort. There I am on the NA map, a little red dot about 60 miles north of the southern tip of Green Bay, Wisconsin (the bay
I've been following this thread with interest but I strongly feel there seems to be a basic misconception about amateur radio contesting in general and that has to do with the issue of "fairness". Th
I don't think this is a surprise but the USA map is a fairly decent representation of the population of the USA. It makes sense that where there are more people you would have more hams or have hams
Location is more of a factor in winning than skill. You are correct there will never be a fair playing field but have contest organizers tried to limit the location factor. Not really. To me the over
To make it BETTER, John!!!! Everything you say is correct. BUT, it is far from perfect. Anything that will make it BETTER should be a candidate for change. Mis dos centavos, de Milt, N5IA == --Origin
So Martin how are you going to score all of my morning long path qso's with central and South America, you could throw in JA too. Short path distances can hardly be used when the contacts are clearly
I agree that absolute fairness and an absolutely level playing field shouldn't be the goal. I do think the scoring system can be adjusted to *improve* fairness and to level the playing field *a littl
Easy: scores are all based on short-path only. Of course there are vagaries of propagation. This is just a scoring system, not a measurement system. The goal is to get the EU and US masses to point t
Hello Brian. Thanks much for your note. LP QSOs will be assigned SP distance. It's impossible otherwise. We will probably end up publishing a parallel set of unofficial results based on distance calc
[...] Thoughts similar to those were in the back of my mind for one of my suggestions earlier in this thread. To expand on it... Imagine aggregating CQWW logs from the past several years. With that b
Guys, these are all great ideas for a NEW CONTEST or one that is struggling to find growth. CQ WW is the biggest and fastest growing contest already. Not sure if anyone ever said to you - but you don