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.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: KI9A@aol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:01:56 EST
I understand this concern, but do we really want to turn it into sweepstakes? Is this a replay of the threads that went on when WPX began 1 pt Q's?? That's all we heard, & IMHO, allowing 1pt Q's for
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00750.html (9,036 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:14:42 -0800
I like to make it a point to say "thanks for the mult" when calling a U.S. station when moving to a new band. At least it lets them know why I called them. 73 Tom W7WHY No. It's a DX contest, not NAQ
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00754.html (9,152 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "w0mu" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:15:21 -0700
Agreed! I had a blast in the WPX from Montana last year and hope to do it again this year maybe as a multi 2. The one pointers make the contest much more fun. IMHO all contacts should be one point. T
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00755.html (10,192 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:23:09 -00
-- http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb So far, so good. You really ARE onto something, but it's a global contest. Give EVERY contestant multiplier credit for his own country and his own zone on 160-1
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00761.html (8,759 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Lee Hiers <lee.hiers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:28:00 -0500
I do the same thing Tom...and I still don't get logged! -- Lee Hiers, AA4GA "Have Dobro Will Travel" _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00765.html (9,658 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Frank Hunt" <zl2br@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:18:20 +1300
Tweak the CQ WW scoring rules ? What about a complete re-write that would level the playing field for everyone, because it should be noted that there are some people who do not live in either North A
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00770.html (13,626 bytes)

27. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Reese, N9XX" <n9xx@wi.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:13:35 -0600
for K at station for global contest. his own reason in the name Why not take this one step further, and ELIMINATE the one mult per band credit for same country? If applied to all participants in all
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00772.html (9,852 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Boris Knezovic T93Y <t93y@lol.ba>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:23:27 +0100
Since NA-NA QSO's are worth 2 QSO points I think that USA-USA QSO's should be counted the same way :-) If we are going to change CQ WW scoring system (which is not going to happen) I vote for ANARTS
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00800.html (8,472 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Mario" <s56a@bit.si>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:22:32 +0100
happen) I vote for ANARTS like system Zero point injustice was avoided in SCC RTTY contest established in 1999 by wide internet discussion with the following fair approach to big countries: 7. QSO P
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-11/msg00816.html (9,051 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Frank Hunt" <zl2br@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:22:18 +1300
Tweak the CQ WW scoring rules ? What about a complete re-write that would level the playing field for everyone, because it should be noted that there are some people who do not live in either North A
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00002.html (12,458 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:38:08 -0500
Rick, As long as CQWW gives multiplier credit for your own country, there are going to be zero point QSOs. Yes, I grimaced to myself as I "bothered" K3LR and K1TTT for QSOs on the high bands, and fel
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00004.html (10,584 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Ted Bryant" <w4nz@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:59:59 -0500
- yes, the root cause of the zero-point issue. Doesn't this also suggest a solution? "...I don't really think the impact of zero point QSOs on your points/QSO ratio is of any significance unless the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00019.html (11,274 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:33:11 EST
- agree, but "really" high is really relative. NQ4I's zero-point QSO's was around 9% while K5NA's was a whopping 19%! Both felt the impact. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00022.html (8,437 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: W0uo@cs.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:43:44 EST
Bill, Are you sure you are asking the right question? Since you said you did not operate 48 hours and were SB40, I would assume you operated something more than 32 hours. Your overall rate for the co
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00031.html (9,800 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kenharker@kenharker.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:29:57 -0800
Discussing K4XS's 40 meter single band effort in CQWW phone: I think very few stations in the USA will ever achieve a 300 hour in any DX contest. I've only ever seen it happen once myself (K1AR and N
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00036.html (8,292 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:45:31 EST
The three MM stations have some of the best CW ops around and had a hard time with 100/hr in WW on 40 this year. No word on LPL, but K3LR did in the first hour, KC1XX amazingly at 2000 Z on the SECON
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00038.html (7,599 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Mike Tessmer <Mike.Tessmer@hillmangroup.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:42:13 -0500
I think one can only call it wasted if one can verify that a 1, 2 or 3 pt QSO was lost at the time each 0 pointer was worked. Otherwise it hurt nothing and your frequency stayed busy. Or if the 0 po
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00048.html (8,218 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: Mike Tessmer <Mike.Tessmer@hillmangroup.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 01:18:18 -0500
After further review, it seems the zero point QSO "problem" is really only an issue for the large US Multi-Multis. Not much input from SOAB types. Obvious solution is to eliminate the M/M category in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00049.html (8,106 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 03:33:57 -0800
Well said, Mike. Go read some of the general ham radio forums sometime. Contesting doesn't always have such a stellar reputation among the general ham population. Anything we can do to improve relati
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00051.html (9,576 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:48:56 -0500
The zero point rule tends to concentrate SOAB operations in areas that do not have to deal with the zero point issue (EU, W1, W2, W3). In those places with large numbers of potential zero point Qs, y
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-12/msg00057.html (9,337 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu