To restate the obvious, by the laws of physics, the playing field is not level. It is far too complex to ever be rendered level by any artificial means (i.e. scoring adjustments.) Any attempt to do s
A level playing field in radio sport would be "a whole new level". GAAHHH! I'm so tired of that term. 73, de Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pe
I think trying distance-based scoring in the ARRL DX Contest might be really fun, presuming that it would be used to assign points to each contact according to Great Circle distance and retaining the
This is an interesting discussion. Even if it does come up all the time -- it is very central to what motivates many of us as contesters. I used to be a lot more rabid about this in my youth. In the
Hi John and thanks so much for a well thought out description of the problem. Iwant to answer some of the points with my clarification if I may please. Amen to that statement. It is a very complex pr
With the wonders of computerized scoring, the WorldWideWeb, and electronic publishing, there is no reason contest scores could not be computed via one or more additional algorithms. Keep the existing
Distance-based scoring is no fairer than the present system. It does not take into account difference in N-S locations. For example, OH and SM may be the same distance as Italy from a given spot in W
One thing nobody has mentioned as a possible cause for the drop in activity in ARRL DX is removal of the full write-up and scores from QST. I guess we need room for more articles on how to QSL and wh
My initial reaction to this debate was, "lets do what we can to level the field". However after reading some of the excellent points on here, I am beginning to agree that a level field is a dream and
Two observations: 1) Western PA and W5 (mentioned in KU8E's discussion about wins outside of the east coast), while geographically correct, does not take into account those of us in the extremities o
It used to be a DX contest, now it's a rate contest. All of them are rate contests. Of course it's fun to run a pileup. But it's also fun to tune around and find somebody really far away and spend so
I like the distance Idea myself also. Or maybe again the idea of grid squares as mults just the maidenhead parts that is, in my case "EN" In addition as each maiden head is a multtiplier, also they d
For many of us, the format of a contest is far more important than the levelness of the playing field. Granted that numerically, most contesters are on the east coast (of course, the definition of ea
"So what's next, an aurora zone multiplier? Barry W2UP" Now I'd be in fabvor of that one :) 73 de Steve K0SR North of the Black Hole.... _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mai
In addition as each maiden head is a multtiplier, also they determine I'd have to look at a grid square map, but wouldn't that make EU QSOs to W1 and W6 worth the same? That's not what they seem to b
That is not the point: of course distance-based scoring would not be perfectly fair, but it is very hard to argue that it is "no fairer" than doing nothing. I'd like to see the scoring system for the
Why not add a category "SINGLE OPERATOR (NO PACKET, NO SKIMMER, etc), S&P ONLY" for those of us that disdain RUN RUN RUN contests. We trust folks to declare their power, so we should be able to trust
Methinks we should average all the scores, and calculate a handicap for each participant, and add it to that participants score, so that everyone has the same reported score. Only the organizer/scori
Hello Wayne, Finding rare stations? That's so deliciously pre-Internet! If you mean we should abolish Internet spotting, you've got my vote. I abhor packet pileups equally from a contesting perspecti
Years ago most DX Contests from anywhere in the USA or Canada was really a DX Contest. You hunted down the DX, broke a pile up or two, and if you were lucky you actually ran a few Q's. The only stati