Thanks Randy for your prompt reply as usual.
Vy 73.
Martin, LU5DX
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>wrote:
> This data is easily available for the WPX contest for the last 25+ years.
> Go to the online score database (http://www.cqwpx.com/score_db.htm ).
> Select the categories and the data is output in a table that can be easily
> copy and pasted into Excel.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> > bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Martin , LU5DX
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:57 PM
> > To: Michael Adams
> > Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com; wrtc2014@lists.wrtc2014.org
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
> >
> > As far as the statistics are concerned. All we need is the raw data.
> > Not everything, but just: callsign, claimed score, final score, entry
> > class. (That's what's already avialable today based on what a Cabrillo
> > file can provide).
> >
> > Data elements like country, continent, CQ zone, etc., can be derived
> from
> > the callsign.
> >
> > It would be also nice to have though: Age, Total operating time, and
> > probably grid locator.
> >
> > I'm including claimed score as a way to get statistics on logging
> > accuracy.
> >
> > If UBN reports were made public too, we could also produce statistics for
> > the most common logging errors on each mode and stuff like that.
> > It's quite interesting. I did that for our entries over the past five
> > years on a per Operator basis, and we were able to determine which type
> of
> > error was being made by each of the ops of the team.
> >
> > We can really have a big universe to start our calculations for several
> > contests.
> >
> > Data is actually available. Claimed score, final score, callsign and
> entry
> > class. Problem is formatting it in the way we need may take a
> considerable
> > ammount of time. I'm sure contest orgranizers have it in a more "tabular
> > fashion" and probably normalized which helps speed up the process of
> > producing stats.
> >
> > Vy 73.
> >
> > Martin, LU5DX
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org> wrote:
> > > I realize that I have an odd sense of what counts as "interesting" and
> > > "fun", but....it might be kind of fun and interesting if a collection
> > > of stats were made easily available for public review and analysis.
> > >
> > > So far, the discussion seems to support the assumptions I made when I
> > > mulled them over one night. Besides, as a perpetual LP entrant with a
> > > very modest station, I'm just playing for the fun of it (and to fill
> > > out band-country charts). WRTC qualification is a spectator sport for
> > > guys like me.
> > >
> > > It's clearly too late to modify the selection criteria for WRTC2014,
> > > but perhaps would-be WRTC2018 committee members are already thinking
> > > ahead to potential changes and improvements.
> > >
> > > I would argue that "the best" qualification scoring system would be the
> > one
> > > that does the best job at predicting WRTC results. With a body of
> > > publicly available data, different qualification schemes could be
> > > developed and tested against one another. It becomes a simple
> > > predictive modeling exercise, really.
> > >
> > > I suspect that, at least among "reasonable" possible scoring systems,
> > > the list of qualifying entrants would be pretty similar.
> > >
> > > For whatever it's worth, I can't help but wonder what dynamic category
> > > weightings would do to qualification scoring (i.e., have the category
> > > weights for a particular qualifying event be based at least in part on
> > > the competitive index for that event).
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Michael D. Adams* (N1EN)
> > > Poquonock, Connecticut | mda@n1en.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Chris Plumblee
> > >> <chris.plumblee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Syl,
> > >> ...
> > >> >
> > >> > The reality of our hobby is that the best measure of who is the
> > >> > best operator is who can score best in the single op categories,
> > >> > and the category with the most serious entries and the most
> > >> > competition on a regional, national, and international basis is
> > >> > almost universally single op, high power. The scoring weight for
> > >> > single op low power was adjusted upward this year in an attempt to
> be
> > more equitable, as Dan pointed out.
> > >> >
> > >> > ....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello Chris.
> > >> Your opinion is solely based in your own perception of reality.
> > >> But if you do the math (see below) your statement seems not to
> > >> accurately represent it (reality).
> > >> I did not do the numbers for LP in this case, because I wanted to
> > >> show the case of an even less rated entry category (in terms of WRTC
> > >> selection criteria), that is, SOAB(A) HP, which has a weighting
> > >> factor of 0.8 Raw data was taken from the great site
> > >> http://www.pileup.ru More precise calculations can be done using the
> > >> organizer's score data base with final numbers.
> > >>
> > >> It would be really interesting if Valery (pileup.ru) or the contest
> > >> organizers can provide the raw DB data to manipulate it as needed to
> > >> start a solid statistical analysis about competitiveness and other
> > >> aspects as well.
> > >>
> > >> 2011 CQ WW DX SSB total number of entries SOAB HP: 999 Total sum of
> > >> Claimed scores for SOAB HP: 879,495,650 Average points per station in
> > >> SOAB HP (Total sum of claimed points / (total number of logs -
> > >> checklogs) = 879,495,650 / (999 - 41) =
> > >> 918,053.9144
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2011 CQ WW DX SSB total number of entries SOAB(A) HP: 805 Total sum
> > >> of Claimed scores for SOAB (A) HP: 751,417,601 points.
> > >> Average points per station in SOAB (A) HP (Total sum of claimed
> > >> points / (total number of logs - checklogs) = 751,417,601 / (805 -
> > >> 49) =
> > >> 993.938.6257
> > >>
> > >> According to N0AX's formula for determining Competitiveness of a
> > >> category, that is, Average of top ten scores / top score (in a given
> > >> class)
> > >>
> > >> We can easily determine that:
> > >> In the 2011 CQ WW DX
> > >>
> > >> SSB SOAB HP has a Competitiveness index of: 0,740468333 whereas SSB
> > >> SOAB (A) HP has a Competitiveness index of: 0,672518322 (In this case
> > >> the competitiveness index is actually deviated by the score of one
> > >> station P40A with a big geographic and DX status advantage over the
> > >> rest of the top ten entrants. Most of them from Europe, two from the
> > >> States one from A6 and ST2AR who may have a higher DXCC status
> > >> ranking but he's using very simple antennas (singe tribander and
> > >> wires).
> > >>
> > >> In the 2012 CQ WW DX CW the competitiveness index favors SOAB(A) for
> > >> the top ten entrants (ballpark figures, since I don't remember
> > >> exactly thoug I did thte math):
> > >>
> > >> SOAB(A) HP 0.82
> > >> SOAB HP: 0.80
> > >>
> > >> This is not absolute the right perspective since it's done on a world
> > >> wide basis. This is just to demonstrate that in part, your statement
> > >> is not valid.
> > >>
> > >> Who are the best operators can only be determined under a very,
> > >> almost totally, better said, TOTALLY controlled environment. Which is
> > >> not the case of contests other than WRTC.
> > >>
> > >> Nevertheless, the criteria to determine who wins a place as a team
> > >> leader is based upon human opinions and perceptions rather than based
> > >> on statistical facts.
> > >>
> > >> Based on the numbers SOAB LP can never rank higher than SOAB(A) HP if
> > >> competitiveness is a factor. Neither can MS rank higher than SOAB(A).
> > >> Some would say, MS aligns more to the WRTC style of operation.
> > >> Not true. MS teams outside of WRTC can be formed by a high number of
> > >> operators, distributing the working hours by a bunch and making the
> > >> need for stamina, endurance, concentration by each operator a whole
> > >> lot less than a SOAB(A). In fact, MS can use packet or web clusters,
> > >> but they still get a weighting factor of 1!!
> > >>
> > >> Anyways, nice discussion.
> > >> Hope to meet you in W1 even if we go as visitors :-)
> > >>
> > >> Vy 73.
> > >>
> > >> Marti, LU5DX
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> wrtc2014 mailing list
> > >> wrtc2014@lists.wrtc2014.org
> > >> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|