To: | cq-contest@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpact |
From: | Steve Hanlon <asciibaron@verizon.net> |
Date: | Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:44:34 -0500 (CDT) |
List-post: | <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
work SS on a Sunday and have someone spot you - you will magically have a rate. that should be proof enough that spotting has a correlation to number of stations logged. but i really don't see the point of all this - if the WRTC wants things to be fair, than they should simply spot each station every 15 minutes. there, problem solved. -Steve, WM3O On Jul 14, 2010, Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com> wrote: The scientist in me wants to see numerical proof that one spot, or even ten spots, variation made any difference to the scores. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpact, Julius Fazekas |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [CQ-Contest] WRTC stations, Joe |
Previous by Thread: | [CQ-Contest] Fw: [wrtc2010] WRTC Program Booklet, Jim Neiger |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results/Overspottinganditsimpact, Martin Monsalvo, LU5DX |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |