Interesting data. I wonder what it would look like for the whole data set
including people who don't submit logs. I suspect it would be even more
skewed toward smaller hours.
Actually, I think there's a way to "experiment" with time-based competition
without changing anything in the rules, creating new entry categories,
etc. It could be done by the organizers of virtually any contest.
Essentially it creates multiple simultaneous competitions within a single
contest simply by inventing additional ways to compute scores.
Suggestion to contest organizers:
When results are published, in every place where there is a "Top N", or
"1st/2nd/3rd" or any other such table of high-score ranking results,
publish not only the full-period endurance/marathon leaders, but also the
short "sprint" leaders. E.G., if "10-hour" and "24-hour" contesters seem
like good "buckets" from historical log data, rank the entrants by the
scores they achieved at the end of the first 10 and 24 hours, and include
the Top N in the results. So, in a nominal 48-hour contest there might be
three "Top Ten" lists - perhaps one for 48 hours, one for 24, and one for 8.
Somewhat harder would be to analyze each log and extract the "Best 10 Hour"
(or whatever period) score - i.e., the highest score attained as if the
contest had occurred only in any 10 Hour period in the entrant's log. That
could take considerable analysis, but computers are good at that kind of
stuff.
Actually, this kind of results analysis could even be done on contests that
have already happened, by taking the old logs and running them through the
time-based algorithm.
Who were the Top Ten 10-Hour and 24-Hour entrants in the 2011 contests????
2010? 2009.....?
Of course, if such results were published, maybe more people would be
enticed to compete next time. No doubt it would mean a change in strategy
too if you strive to win the 10-Hour competition. Maybe people who have
given up on competing in the endurance test would be enticed to try a "full
effort" for a shorter time, and get into the fray.
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
Point Arena, CA
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM, <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:
> It is great to see interest in creating more entrants in the CQWW
> contests...
> THANKS for the input!
>
> Just as an FYI, here is some data for 2011 SSB (so far). These are
> e-logs, which means that paper
> logs are not yet included in the analysis below. I did this in Excel, so
> I hope the columns come out
> reasonably close to being legible reformatting to this "typewriter" format
> (OK, DOS or character-based format).
>
> duration Pct of all logs Count
> ? 0.9% 63
> < 1 hr 6.1% 430
> 1 - 9.9 hours 47.5% 3357
> 10 - 23.9 hours 32.1% 2270
> 24 - 35.9 hours 7.5% 533
> 36 - 39.9 hours 2.0% 138
> 40 - 43.9 hours 1.5% 108
> 44+ hours 2.3% 164
>
> So out of these 7000+ logs, so far, 1663 will qualify for an award. Not
> "be eligible," but actually get
> an award. Pretty good odds and clearly far beyond the "boundaries" of
> "operate at least 24 hours!"
> In fact 1163 of the 1663 will go to entrants with less than 24 hours (yes,
> that includes all categories
> of entry).
>
> Hope you find this informative, if not interesting.
>
> de Doug KR2Q
> PS There is nothing "special" about these categories, I just made them up.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|