Launching a new contest is a difficult thing. It's like throwing a party. You
have to hope enough people show up to make it so fun they want to do it again.
One reason the WW is so popular is that it is easy, has lots of activity, and
has some great dates on the calendar. It provides a good mix of top level
competition with fun for everyone. It was also one of the first.
A random exchange contest would be interesting to the hard core competitor
class, but maybe not so fun for a guy who is just tuning the bands and wanting
to see if he can work a new country. It requires special software and
participants who really want to see who can copy the best.
There was a 2 hour contest called the Internet Sprint about 20+ years ago where
the exchange for each QSO was the name you received from the previous QSO. Not
random, but entertaining as you could hear various names get mangled or burn
out. The idea of using a random number generated by the logging software is an
innovative suggestion.
Success would require running some proof of concepts first. Both to test the
logging software but also to find the balance for scoring and activity. A 4
hour event run when there is best propagation into the areas of the world with
lots of participants would be a good test bed. That concentrates the activity.
It is also really hard to copy random information for hours at a time so 4
hours is probably about all most could take in the beginning. As Franki pointed
out, the RAEM contest has an unusual exchange that requires some thought
getting the location on the first QSO. I find the challenge interesting, but I
am sure many would not.
A short time also makes it easier to find a slot of the calendar. CWops has
demonstrated that weekday contests can find activity.
There have been groups working on real-time logging (which is another level of
modernization), but it takes time and is hard. Has not shown visible progress
(yet).
Maybe someone will step forward, make some rules, promote the event, and then
we can see if people will respond. Kind of like inviting people to a party...
Randy K5ZD
PS - To avoid needing software to be modified, maybe come up with a manual
process for doing the randomization. E.g., last exchange received, qso number
x2, etc. That way even someone without the special software could participate.
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com> On Behalf
Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 3:20 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Software Column in NCJ - Need Ideas
On 12/01/2022 15:55, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> Do you have specific software packages, or kinds of software, that
> you'd like to see written about in NCJ? How about subjects *about*
> software, and the influence of software on contesting? One topic I'm
> thinking about is call history files
Call history files have contributed to the dumbing-down of contesting over the
last 30 years or so. It seems to me that there is little or no point in having
on-air exchange elements that are known and pre-filled - CQ WW being the prime
example. And, no, I'm under no illusions - CQ WW will not change.
The issue with fixed exchange elements is just that - they are fixed for the
duration of the contest. They include, apart from the ubiquitous 59(9), zones,
states, counties, districts, locators, IOTA references, and so on. If you
don't copy them the first time you'll probably get or hear them later. Even if
you don't, there are plenty of online resources that have the information,
including licensing databases and QRZ.com. And, yes, I know these are all
against the rules.
There is one exchange element that forces operators to copy it, and get it
right, before logging the QSO - one that is impossible to deduce later without
collusion with other operators concerned. In 2017 the UK/EI Contest Club
(ukeicc.com) ran a "random number" contest, as proof of concept. The "new"
number to be sent in each QSO was displayed by the logging software, but the
number received could not be predicted, and had to be copied.
The exchange (the number sent) was a pseudo-random number - with 4 digits
(always 4 digits, no leading zeros) between 1000 and 9999. This number was a
repeatable combination of the previous call logged and the previous number
sent. Being repeatable lets the adjudication software identify responsibility
for errors or discrepancies between logs.
The received number has to be copied and logged in real-time. Unlike serials,
it is not possible to guess/generate it by listening to subsequent QSOs.
Without collusion (seeing other logs), an incorrect received number could not
be "corrected".
The concept worked, but was limited by the fact that it was not supported by
N1MM+. Any appropriate algorithm will work but, for it to be accepted, the
N1MM+ crew would have to lead the way. The other contest loggers would soon
follow. Note that knowledge of exactly how the "random number" calculation is
done will not help anyone who didn't copy it on air.
Here's what a "random-number" contest QSO might look like
ei5di: EI5DI TEST
k1ki: K1KI
ei5di: K1KI 3906
k1ki: 7044
ei5di: TU EI5DI
If you would more information, or to see it in operation, please contact me
directly (pokane@ei5di.com), not via this mailing list. I can demonstrate it
on TeamViewer or Zoom.
How about it - who will get the ball rolling?
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.contesting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcq-contest&data=04%7C01%7C%7C25906b710b2042449ad708d9d87af401%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637778844863926436%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=9cHj9SIMaUqclDEXux1T44c546XGRqB6AN7wmnXsRT4%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|