On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>wrote:
> However, there is a very real danger of unintended consequences.
> ...
> No good answer. Just pointing out the challenge of creating a competition
> around a limit.
It's very wise to be cautious.
What I'm suggesting as a starting experiment is not to change a contest at
all. Instead, contest organizers (more accurately those who publicize the
results) can be more creative in how they present results, making those
results more interesting than the typical "phone book" of callsigns and
numbers.
There's anecdotal examples of "creative presentation" already. E.G.,
there's no "shortest time to sweep" category or award in ARRL SS, but the
publicized results always report who got there first. It's something to
shoot for, and something to compare with your own time. I may know that I
have no hope of winning the contest, but maybe, just maybe, I can be
first-to-sweep next year. This is not a separate category - everyone who
submits a log is in the first-to-sweep competition regardless of their
entry category. It's a separate Competition, not a separate Category.
Assuming the logs are in computers, it should be straightforward to
calculate "Top N" rankings for other selection criteria than the maximum
allowed time.
Looking at the data on how long people have actually participated seems
like a good way to figure out what durations would be interesting.
However, this thread started with the theme of getting more logs
submitted. So the more interesting data might be how long people
participate but then don't submit logs. Without their logs, we can't tell
for sure, but analysis of the logs that were submitted might reveal some
interesting data about the people who don't submit logs. E.G., for all
callsigns that appear in any log, what time was the earliest and latest QSO
that they had with anyone who did submit a log. Perhaps someone with
access to the logs of old contests can glean some data about non-submitters.
A very safe way to experiment would be to publish some such interesting
results from past contests - which of course can't be influenced now at all
so there won't be unintended consequences. Who had the best N-hour
performance in last year's contest? We've already had these
Competitions. We just don't know the results.
My gut feeling is that rankings of the form "Best N-Hour Results" or even
"Best N-Qs Results" might be productive at getting more logs submitted and
more participation. There's already a lot of interest in such metrics -
just look at all the discussions about Rate.
If you had a bad first hour or so, no problem, your next N hours might be
your best. The longer you participate, the more chances you have of
achieving a better N-Hour score. Keep at it. Already worked that
multiplier? Better work it again, so it will be in this N-Hours too.
Pretty quiet late in the contest? Hey, maybe that's the best time for LP
and QRP to shine at their Best N-Hours performance, and provide more fodder
for the Big Guns too.
The numbers for the Top-N rankings would be calculated by computing the
N-Hour score for each log assuming that each Q in that log was the first of
the N-Hour period, and taking the max as that entrant's Best-N-Hour
score. That would take forever for humans, but computers can do it really
fast.
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|