Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQWW\s+and\s+0\s+pointers\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up3@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:14:15 +0000
I just reviewed my UBN from CQWW CW and noted that I had 2 NILs from stateside stations. This has happened before and I know it happens to many of us regularly. We wind up losing a country and/or zon
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00107.html (7,530 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Neiger" <n6tj@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 17:58:15 -0700
Good idea, Barry. Kind of like a FREE square on a bingo card? Can you imagine being the ONLY station active in the contest from your country and/or zone? The extraordinary steps many of us have had t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00109.html (9,641 bytes)

3. [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 14:32:27 +0100 (BST)
That seems to be quite a good idea. Works fine for the US, works fine for ZD8 and most other places. Don't think it is very fair for Canada - I would automatically get 2 rare zones (1 and 2) that I p
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00114.html (7,072 bytes)

4. [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: dave@KA1N.CN
Date: 8 Jul 2007 14:15:05 -0000
Wouldn?t the "free square" approach be giving ops a mult (or four) for bands that they have never operated on, and never needed to even try to make Qs with others, thereby risking 0-pointers? 73, Dav
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00115.html (6,497 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith <w9wi@w9wi.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:12:13 -0500
I would suggest it should be possible to do a simple statistical analysis & determine whether a particular entrant isn't logging zero pointers. Say, on average, for every 1,000 QSOs claimed by an ent
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00116.html (7,933 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Georgens, Tom" <Tom.Georgens@netapp.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:03:30 -0700
Jim - Not sure I buy this. It seems a bit silly to grant credit for countries and zones that were not actually worked. Being the only station on from a country/zone should be advantageous enough. It
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00117.html (10,750 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:12:55 -0000
Yeah, that might work but you should only get credit for the zone you're in and the country automatically. As one drawback I can see, single band stations are not guaranteed to be able to work all zo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00121.html (10,282 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:22:46 -0400
Hi Barry and cq reflector....I have been a strong advocate of 1 point for one's own country...I will out of nearly 5000 qso's have nearly 1000 zero pointers....some contestor's tell me its not a wast
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00126.html (10,241 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:23:34 -0400
VO1HE: I disagree. The easy solution is to work serious competitors who long ago learned to log every QSO. If you work Joe Blow who is looking for new band countries, chances are that he may not log
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00128.html (8,176 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:38:55 -0400
Zero point QSO's seem to be the root cause of the situation Barry describes. Has anyone actually approached the CQWW Contest Committee about fixing zero point QSO's ?? If so, can you share the respon
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00133.html (10,381 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:59:51 -0400
Hi Bill...I have the greatest respect for your accomplishments in contesting over the years, BUT saying it ain't gonna happen is far from right....there are inadequacies in the contest as we particip
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00134.html (10,039 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:03:56 +0000
Here's your SCP list: Zone 5: KC1XX, W3LPL (p.s. don't bother NQ4I) Zone 4: K9NS, K3LR Zone 3: N6RO, NK7U How hard was that? If you don't hear these guys CQ-ing on all 6 bands, you need some antenna
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00136.html (8,974 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:53:58 -0000
So now, along with Super Check Partial, I need a database that tells me who logs everyone and who doesn't? Can I get one that tells me who's on LoTW and who's not and who QSLs and who doesn't too? F
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00138.html (9,715 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:15:55 +0000
looking for zones 3, 4 and 5. 73, Bill _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00139.html (8,446 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Tim Duffy K3LR <k3lr@k3lr.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:32:27 -0400
Hello Bill! Sometimes we feel like we are in zone 4! K3LR is in Pennsylvania and 1 mile east of zone 4, but very much in ZONE 5. We log all QSOs, including 0 point ones. QSL 100% too See you in Octob
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00140.html (9,587 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:29:17 EDT
Zone 4: K9NS, K3LR Bzzzt. LR is in Zone 5. You lose the zone but keep the country as you probably worked other Ws for needed zones. :-) But you can see zone 4 from up on his towers. You probably don'
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00141.html (8,506 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: mike dol dormann <w7dra@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:00:08 -0700
i get my share of 0 pointers (five or six during the CQWW), but i think they just want to work someone using a VT-4 (211) final.............. mike w7dra ______________________________________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00142.html (8,085 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "ku8e" <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:00:15 -0400
If you give US stations a point for working each other it would somewhat level the playing field vs EU stations. My guess is in EU that CQWW is a combination of a DX contest and Sweepstakes. I bet if
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00146.html (8,674 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:53:35 -0400
Regarding ZERO point QSO's: I always thought it a little odd that in a major, world-wide contest where scores seem to matter very much, a perfectly legitimate QSO between two stations could result in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00147.html (11,620 bytes)

20. [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers (score: 1)
Author: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:56:43 -0400
There are a couple of problems with this simple analysis. 1.) The numbers given are not put in any context relative to the competition. In the 2006 CQWW DX SSB contest, NQ4I had about 800 zero point
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2007-07/msg00150.html (10,201 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu