Gerry’s ideas are great. Real-time scoring is a great idea to try.
Emphasis on the word try. But I think the contest calendar is full enough, so...
There’s nothing stopping anyone from setting up a real-time scoring
contest-within-a-contest: make it voluntary, and let those who want to test the
concept connect to the server and post their QSOs in real time. A few things
would need to happen:
You’d need a sponsor for the bandwidth and server space. You’d need someone to
write the code for the software (or modify existing code). You’d need to
publicize it. You’d need a sponsor for plaques. You’d need to demonstrate to
the sponsors value for their money. (Or find someone willing to be altruistic.)
It is doubtful the existing organizers would increase their budgets to
accommodate these costs.
Any great development in technology includes a beta phase, right?
From running this for perhaps two contests, you can get a sense how popular the
idea is. If you see a lot of serious operators and casuals joining in for the
thrill of real-time scoring or the bonus of instant verification of contacts
for DX or other operating awards, then you have something you can sell to the
organizers.
If you see enough activity to validate your sponsors’ expenditure, but still
see the vast majority doing things the old way, then you know you have a viable
contest-within-a-contest, but not a strong enough case to sway the organizers.
The problem with a lot of proposals on cq-contest is they are written through
the eyes of the contesting elite. Yet the vast majority of people on the air
for WW or any other contest often couldn’t give two hoots about our “issues.”
It’s important to remember contests exist for the majority of users, not the
minority. The No.1 goal of most mass-market contests (WW, SS, etc.) is
participation.
If you want to make real-time scoring mandatory, show how it not only will not
hurt participation, but will increase it. Otherwise, contest organizers won’t
be interested.
If it does become mandatory, you have to find some way to accommodate those who
don’t have Internet access from their operating location. If the real-time
scoring system is designed properly, it shouldn’t be hard to insert whole logs
arriving post-contest.
73, kelly, ve4xt
> On Nov 14, 2016, at 7:54 AM, Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org> wrote:
>
> What if?
>
> - Real-time scoring started with a bunch of small, regional contests to
> prove the concept.
> - Real-time scoring, after validating a contact, submitted it to LOTW,
> immediately? Would that not immediately increase the activity among DXers
> and Non-contesters?
>
> Amazing how everyone immediately gravitates toward this happening in CQWW!
> They sky is not falling, and I'm sure it would be proven out before
> happening in any major event.
>
> Yes, sure, lots of technical details to work out, but very doable in
> today's connected world... even with satellite or very-limited-bandwidth
> connections.
>
> 73,
>
> Gerry W1VE
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Trent Sampson <vk4ts@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> REAL TIME SCORING and QUICK Submissions are both in conflict too the
>> system as we know it.
>>
>>
>> How various people will react is difficult to establish. But to be sure
>> for every action there will be a reaction.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Pareto described the population effect as the 80 20 rule -
>>
>>
>> In contesting I think it is more like the 90/10 rule -
>>
>>
>> Eg of the 60,000 callsigns in the CQWW only 10% are sort of serious and of
>> that 10% again 90/10 have a hope of winning
>>
>>
>> 60,000 Calls in the various logs equals around 6000 logs entered and
>> around 600 who gain a certificate -of these only 10% are in the running for
>> trophies or 60 stations
>>
>>
>> So the suggestion is to cater for 1% of the active stations at the
>> detriment of the vast majority who make up the activities of a contest.
>>
>>
>> We need to look at what is a contest and work out from there -
>>
>>
>> Undeniably the CQWW is the most popular; why ? Simple rules , short
>> exchange and lots of DX activity.
>>
>>
>> But what attracts the 60,000 ? Answer that question and you will find the
>> way forward for the future of contests - Making the path more difficult is
>> not the answer.
>>
>>
>> You must think from a NON CONTESTER perceptive - Not as a hard core
>> contester - And the only way to find out is not to ask the top 100 but to
>> ask the bottom 54,000 that make up the logs every year almost without fail.
>>
>>
>> Have fun in the contest.
>>
>> Trent
>> VK4TS
>> PO Box 275
>> Mooloolaba 4557
>> 0408497550
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Ron
>> Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
>> Sent: 14 November 2016 08:32
>> To: 'Igor Sokolov'; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoring and Quick Submissions
>>
>> But how many of the casual ops would know in advance that they had to sign
>> up for real-time scoring to get this "additional strong motivation" ?
>>
>> And how many of the "major awards" sponsors would be willing to accept the
>> RTS server data?
>>
>> Sorry Igor. Not buying it.
>>
>> 73, ron w3wn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Igor Sokolov
>> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 11:48 AM
>> To: RT Clay; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoring and Quick Submissions
>>
>> There are many casual ops in contests who hunt for a new
>> zone/country/island. If instant confirmation by the server would be counted
>> as valid for major awards, this in fact could be additional strong
>> motivation for casual ops to join.
>>
>>
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>>
>> ----- ???????? ????????? -----
>> ??: "RT Clay" <rt_clay@bellsouth.net>
>> ????: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>> ??????????: 12 ?????? 2016 ?. 0:39
>> ????: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real Time Scoring and Quick Submissions
>>
>>
>>> Requiring real-time scoring would kill nearly all participation by casual
>>> ops in contests. That would be very bad for encouraging new contesters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tor
>>> N4OGW
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|