Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WRTC\s+Spot\/Log\s+Correlation\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: Fabian Kurz <lists@telegraphy.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 00:19:15 +0200
Hello, thanks to the policy of the WRTC 2006 to make all logs public and thus offering a data pool of about 85000 QSOs, it is possible to generate a lot of interesting statistics. By using the data f
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00040.html (7,749 bytes)

2. [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: "Kostas SV1DPI" <sv1dpi@otenet.gr>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:14:32 +0300
FB Kurt I think that most of the stations use clusters today. Cluster's use would be permitted and not been a different category, in my opinion. These rules allow cheating, because the most people ar
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00045.html (8,137 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@r66.ru>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:02:32 +0600
Fabian, Thanks for the great job. Each country should know it's cheaters. You just set up one more example of how much good can be gained by publishing contest logs in the internet. It would not only
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00050.html (9,086 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: Keith Kerr <k.kerr@abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:11:04 +0100
NO THANK YOU Not again! I know this is repeating the same old story but I cannot let this pass. Yes, people are abusing the cluster Yes, people are DQed when caught Yes, I agree that the publicity sh
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00051.html (8,390 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:28:57 +0100
Firstly, my congratulations to Fabian DJ1YFK for a fine (and timely) piece of work. There will probably be a deafening silence on this thread because Fabian has made many people uneasy. Now they know
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00055.html (10,047 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: K4BEV@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 19:35:16 EDT
This is no reason to scrap the SO category. As someone pointed out recently, SO Assisted is an oxymoron. 2. Recognise that if not SO, the category must be some flavour of multi-op - and drop the ambi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00056.html (8,614 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:22:31 -0500
K4BEV hilariously postulated: ...and then asked.... The rules for non-amateur means of communication refer to soliciting contacts, in other words, IMing, telephoning, e-mailing or carrier-pigeoning y
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00059.html (9,650 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:47:05 +0300
Fabian's work demonstrates that it is fairly easy to find packet cheaters among the top contestants in big contests like CQWW. Actually you can do a lot more than just checking the 5, 10 etc minute w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00061.html (11,955 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: Barry <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:39:05 +0000
It is very rare to see a disqualification in CQWW results. Do they simply reclassify stations to the "correct" category or simply not publish their scores in the results? A listing with explanation w
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00064.html (13,752 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: steve.root@culligan4water.com
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:55:00 +0000
I think we should be very careful about using a mathmatical formala to determine human behavior, especially during an activity as complex as a DX contest. I can envision circumstances where it could
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00073.html (9,010 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:27:13 -0400
The solution to all this is clearly handicapping. The formula is simple. All operating categories can be eliminated. All geographies can be eliminated. The differences are completely accounted for in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00122.html (8,774 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Spot/Log Correlation (score: 1)
Author: "W4ZW" <w4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:21:49 -0400
Yep. Just like golf. Great idea. I like it since I only compete with myself anyway. Jon Hamlet, W4ZW Casey Key Island, Florida "A little piece of paradise in the Gulf of Mexico" _____________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2006-09/msg00133.html (9,564 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu