This thread has some very interesting and appropriate comments relative to
the awarding of Plaques.
However, I am of the opinion that there are even larger discrepancies in the
area of scoring to determine who receives the plaques, in particular the
Zone awards. This relates to not only the geographical area encompassed by
CQ Zones in the larger, more amateur radio populated countries, but also the
disparity in the scoring that leads to the ultimate top scores in any Zone.
Some one has already brought this out, but I feel it merits "raising my
hand" and getting my "dos centavos" into the conversation.
To illustrate the disparity in these two areas I am going to paste a portion
of two scores posted to the 3830 reflector; both claimed results of the just
completed CQ 160 SSB contest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATION 1:
Class: Single Op HP
QTH: ON
Operating Time (hrs): 7
Summary:
Total: QSOs = 544 State/Prov = 53 Countries = 10 Total Score = 164,178
STATION 2:
Class: Multi-Op HP
QTH: NM
Operating Time (hrs): 30
Summary:
Total: QSOs = 786 State/Prov = 55 Countries = 16 Total Score = 129,291
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not matter that Station 1 is a single op entry that put in 7 hours
of time (perhaps a casual entry) or that Station 2 is a multi-op that put in
30 hours of time (a full blown multi at a well equiped station) . What does
matter is both of these stations are in the SAME CQ ZONE 4. and they are
~1,800 MILES separated one from the other.
3,000 miles from Station 1 puts you on the shores of the Emerald Isle.
3,000 miles from Station 2 puts you on the shores of the Big Island of
Hawaii.
And the scoring. Station 1 and Station 2 are in different countries on the
same continent.
Probably ~90 % of the contacts made by Station 1 were with Zone 3, 4, and 5
stations.
~90 % of the contacts made by Station 2 were with Zone 3, 4, and 5 stations.
Station 2 made FORTY FOUR PERCENT more contacts than Station 1.
Station 2 contacted TWO MORE states and provinces and SIX MORE DXCC
countries.
RESULT: STATION 1 has a TWENTY SEVEN PERCENT higher score.
And now the hypthetical WINNER of the ZONE 4 Plaque. (Trumpets please)
IF, Station 1 and Station 2 were in the same classification, and there was a
plaque to be awarded for the highest score in that classification in the
Zone, then it is quite obvious that STATION 1 IS THE
WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is NOT "FAIR".
I am suggesting that this "unfair" awarding of points should be changed in
some fashion. There will never be a totally "fair" method as long as we
participate from different locations.
However, I am suggesting that contacts between stations in adjacent
countries (common land boundaries no matter how small or large) on the same
continent being worth the same points to the stations in both countries,
will go a long way towards rectifying this disparity.
The prime example for the NA continent is that US stations would receive the
same points for contacts in country and with VE and XE.
VE stations would receive the same points for contacts in country and with
W/K/N and KL7.
XE stations would receive the same points for contacts in country and with
W/K/N, TG and V3.
An example for the European continent is that EA stations would receive the
same points for contacts in country and with CT, ZB and F.
CT stations would receive the same points for contacts in country and with
EA.
F stations would receive the same points for contacts in country and with
EA, I, HB, DL, LX and ON.
The points for contacts with non-adjacent countries on the same continent
could be left the same as it is now OR it could be modified.
This method of point allocation per contact does NOT change anything for any
of the island prefixes.
This method of point allocation per contact has minimal effect on
continental countries where there is a small amateur radio population.
This method of point allocation per contact has a significant effect upon
the existing disparity on the North American continent and to a lesser
extent on the European continent.
I have not covered all the aspects of this suggested change, BUT you can see
where I am headed. Others with even more insight than I have can contribute
to the thread.
CQ will probably NOT change the Zone boundaries. That is a given and would
quickly conjure up all kinds of comments about heresy. BUT, the points
allocation per contact (historical records aside) could be done quickly and
easily to rectify the gross disparity that now exists.
Randy is reading, AND has invited us to make suggestions. Now is the time
to let it all hang out. Let's make it better.
And don't tell me that this would be a nightmare for the logging progam
software writers. If it is the rule, they will handle it. That is what
programmers and computer programs are for.
73, and have a great week; de Milt, N5IA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|