CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation]

To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation]
From: Radiosporting Fan <radiosporting@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> That's why this idea is such a non-starter, Ev. 
> Categorizing is the first thing you have to do to
> extract any meaning at all from the contest results.
> 
> Call it filtering if you want, it's the same thing.
> 
> It baffles me why you think you can get away without
> them.

I'll try framing things another way...

What if categories (as they are established and
defined by the contest sponsor in today's world) were
*replaced* by requiring stations to reveal the
conditions under which *they* attained the score that
they did?

Stop there.  Categories exist in both scenarios.

In one, the sponsor predefines them and operators then
fit to what best suits them (often waiting until an
event is over before determining what category they
will enter!).

In the other, participants "go for broke" and then use
the revealed information about other stations to
compare and contrast.

Ev, W2EV



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>