Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+zero\s+pointers\s+etc\s*$/: 42 ]

Total 42 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:46:09 -0500
Hi all...I have been analyzing my log to see if there are areas that I can improve my point per qso ratio...its amazing when you sit down after the contest and do a little analysis...first off...my s
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00718.html (8,878 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:44:33 -0500
Rick, Dupes are a fact of life. I don't think there's any way to avoid them. However, your dupe rate was almost twice mine. With 3300 QSOs, my dupe rate was 2%. Your's was 3.5%. Why the difference? 1
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00720.html (11,323 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:47:32 -0500
Rick Dougherty asked: "is it time to step up to the plate and allow 1 point per qso for contacts within one's country??" While there is considerably less activity in CQWW RTTY, the rules http://www.c
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00721.html (7,544 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Steve.Root@culligan.com" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:54:10 +0000
I had about the same percentage of zero pointers in a part time single op effort here. In past years I've gotten QSL requests from some of these guys and I would expect the same to happen this year.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00722.html (10,171 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "N7BF" <alan-ham@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:57:04 -0800
Rick, I'd agree that 1 point per qso in your own country would be nice, but don't know how it'd fare in a "DX" contest. After all, your own country isn't DX. Something I'd like to ask anyone, however
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00724.html (11,563 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Sherman Banks <w4atl@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:46:12 -0500
...of our gross qso number we were called by 462 zero pointers...and its kinda amazing that some of these zero pointers were also dupes! But remember that we need the zone/country mult and smaller st
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00730.html (8,470 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: k8gt@twmi.rr.com
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:50:44 -0500
Don't forget that while we can get our zone mults from VE, we all need one W/K country mult per band, and that may account for some of your zero pointers. In CQWW phone, I called one station for the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00731.html (9,628 bytes)

8. [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: lz4uu@mail.bg
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:01:55 +0200
In my opinion the zero point QSO-s in WW,and each other contest should appear for that reason:there are enough local contests in about all countries.Why it is named CQ WW DX contest?To be worked more
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00732.html (8,817 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: PaulKB8N@aol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:32:19 EST
I think there should be something done for stateside stations. When I operated CQWW from Germany in 1991 and 1992, I was amazed at what a completely different contest it was. You could work an almost
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00734.html (9,064 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 29 Nov 2005 09:40:47 -0600
At least six zero-pointers weren't wasted at all - they were your USA multipliers. ("at least", because if you didn't work the appropriate Canadians some of the zero-pointers may have also been your
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00736.html (9,017 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:42:22 -00
contacts within one's country?? No. It's a DX contest, not NAQP (or EUQP). 73, de Hans, K0HB -- http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00737.html (8,612 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Dougherty" <nq4i@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:55:43 -0500
Hi Hans...that comment is from the Dark Ages...NAQP is a domestic only contest...this would combine the best of both worlds...it would give credit for taking the time to work those bozos in the first
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00738.html (9,225 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Dave Hoaglin" <Dave_Hoaglin@abtassoc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:18:28 -0500
In order to get the country multiplier for the U.S., I have to make a zero-point QSO on each band. I may need to make a zero-point QSO to get the zone multipliers for Zones 3, 4, and 5. I try to work
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00739.html (8,748 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <NN3W@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:26:09 -0500
I understand this concern, but do we really want to turn it into sweepstakes? I think that there is a little hoggishness that takes place during IARU which does allow for one pointers for Qs within y
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00741.html (11,000 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <NN3W@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:34:17 -0500
You are way, way off base here Rick. There are countless stations that operate this contest for 100,000 or 300,000 points to give to their club score and would like that W mult and would also like th
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00742.html (10,929 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Richard DiDonna NN3W" <NN3W@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:37:48 -0500
By the way, NAQP is NOT a domestic only contest. By its very name, it is the NORTH AMERICAN QSO party in which the objective is "To work as many North American stations as possible during the contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00743.html (10,355 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: <jukka.klemola@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:38:58 +0200
Hmm. Honestly, I think you guys are joking. In case you are not, I will propose the following: If we start to increase the scores by introducing points for the homeland QSOs, I insist there will be a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00744.html (11,080 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Nathan Moreschi" <n4ydu@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:55:28 -0000
I agree Rick. It is a DX contest, but what exactly is DX? If I make a QSO with a station in California from NC on 160M , I do not get any points. However, if a station in Germany works a station in P
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00746.html (11,462 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Gerard Lynch" <gerrylynch@freenetname.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:55:56 -0000
Er... not quite. They were readily workable at *1* point each. That's a big difference. Only North America benefits from the 2-point intra-continental rule. [Warning: Long rant follows] I can underst
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00747.html (13,464 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Sherman Banks <w4atl@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:19:39 -0500
It is obvious that a lot of people want to keep it a DX contest and not allow credit for in country QSOs. Makes sense since it is called a DX contest. But we still have the stupid country and zone mu
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00749.html (9,568 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]
This search system is powered by Namazu