Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQWW\s+madness\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQWW\s+madness\s*$/: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:12:07 -0400; "Make States and Provinces multipliers, and award 1 point for domestic QSOs. Who knows, it might be fun." K0SR It might be fun for sure. But it will change the best, growing, popular contest. How abo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00172.html (7,979 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Ken Claerbout <k4zw@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:19:21 -0500 (CDT); "It might be fun for you all in New England but it sure isn't for everyone else." Merits of the current scoring system aside, the data simply does not back up this often heard assertion. http://www.c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00174.html (7,557 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:25:56 -0400; Ken, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the activity is lacking in CQWW because it isn't. I believe this whole discussion revolves around the scoring system not being fair. I would like to see; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00177.html (7,975 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:16:45 -0600; Gosh, Jeff, I wish I could get screwed like they do :). 2014 CQWW CW: V47T (N2NT op) #1 world 8P5A (W2SC op) #4 world And, in case you are wondering about #2 and #3: A71BX (K5GN op) #2 world Qatar is; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00182.html (8,007 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 18:34:03 -0400; This is statement is flat out wrong and misleading, creating the impression that the answer is in the data. This is just wrong and people should stop making such irresponsible statements. First, the; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00185.html (9,030 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:00 -0700; Again, there is an example model of the changes being discussed: the CQWW RTTY. Go look at the results. 73 jeff wk6i -- Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00189.html (8,967 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Neal Campbell <nealk3nc@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:29:06 -0400; Its one thing to disagree but to throw emotive words like irresponsible is a bit much isn't it? Neal Campbell Abroham Neal LLC _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00190.html (10,251 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:36:00 -0400; Maybe all you so called experts should go to zone 8 and see how easy it is to win from there. Note the year that Andy won in 2014 there was no serious SOAB efforts from either zone 9 or 33. Plus in h; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00191.html (7,703 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:03:01 -0400; If Columbus had listened to all the skeptics we wouldn't even have CQWW, would we. Allowing US stations to work other US stations, in addition to increasing the pool of multipliers, creates additiona; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00192.html (10,817 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:36:14 -0400; Ken, I repeat, your statement is flat out misrepresenting the data that's in the logs. You can't analyze data that's not there. You can argue as much as you want, but if logs contain close to zero pe; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00193.html (9,056 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:37:40 -0400; I'm curious if CQ has ever explored using distance based scoring like what's used in the Stew Perry contests? Figure points based on distance and keep the zones/counties as multipliers. Also make US; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00194.html (7,547 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Tim Shoppa <tshoppa@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:54:18 -0400; I do a lot of RTTY contesting. Moving the biggest CW and SSB DX contests towards the RTTY model of in-country-QSO's-count-for-points is not a good idea. Most RTTY contests have always allowed in-coun; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00195.html (8,392 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:36:00 -0500; Totally aside from "winning", I think "fun and enjoyment" should be the goal of any rule changes. By allowing those with modest stations and/or geographic disadvantages to make more contacts, we can; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00199.html (8,874 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:52:29 -0400; Using other logs is indeed a good idea. However, what is it specifically that the analysis should deliver to convince the skeptics? You don't need any logs to predict that when you change incentives; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00202.html (10,908 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: "Ed Muns" <ed@w0yk.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 07:42:34 -0700; CQ WW RTTY was designed from the beginning with US/VE states/areas as multipliers to encourage the world to work NA as much as EU. The "world", of course, is predominantly EU and NA in terms of parti; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00203.html (9,540 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:12:42 -0400; If you look at the SSB scores, you see some more diversity. 8P5A won 2015 and 2014; CN2R won 2013-2011; CR2X won in 2010; HC8A won 2009 and 2008; 8P5A won 2007; and P40W won 2006. So we have 3 wins f; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00204.html (9,540 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:16:58 +0000; Jeff has a great idea.. and to follow a couple other suggestions, here is an offering.. I would love to run a handful of past years logs.. into a "Stew Perry" style program, to see who/where comes ou; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00205.html (9,753 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: robert <wa1fcn@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:55:42 -0500; GM Tim I also do a lot of the CQ WW RTTY event. I sure hope they never change the in country qso point value. I believe it's one reason the contest is so popular, especially now that the solar cycle; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00206.html (9,826 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 12:11:37 -0500; Would distance-based scoring really help? The K1s would still get the vast majority of long-distance Qs, while those who might otherwise benefit probably won't work enough longer Qs to make up? 73, k; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00208.html (8,829 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:50:25 -0700; I do NOT believe that NA to NA QSOs is the key to making CQWW more competitive. What IS needed is a significant change to the scoring model. As long is the model is tied to multipliers, then a lot mo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2016-07/msg00209.html (15,398 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]