CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy Top Ten Box

To: VE5ZX <ve5zx@hotmail.com>, "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy Top Ten Box
From: Steve Dyer <w1srd@yahoo.com>
Reply-to: Steve Dyer <w1srd@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
So (1 + 1)/2 = 100%
Makes zero sense since this is really a statistical problem and a simple 
average is meaningless - unless of course you just want to make one perfect QSO!
73,
Steve
W1SRD




________________________________
 From: VE5ZX <ve5zx@hotmail.com>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Accuracy Top Ten Box
 

>An interesting idea.  What is the accepted definition for
> calculating "accuracy"?

(% correct calls + % correct exchanges)/2 ?

Syl -VE5ZX
_______________________________________________
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

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