Frankly, from your first sentence this last message
from you shows a misunderstanding of my post.
"cause and effect"
One can show that there is a statistical relationship between
higher scores and SO2R.
I'll not deny that. It's going to be a fact. You'll see that the
average SO2R score is considerably higher than the
average single rig entry.
But to equate the score difference between single rig entries
and SO2R entries to the advantage to be gained by going to
SO2R shows the intent to use statistics to deceive.
In a double-blind test I'm confident that it could be
demonstrated that the average top 20 entrants in any
contest could benefit from adding SO2R capability or
alternatively would suffer a score reduction if his SO2R
capability was eliminated.
But the score difference would be only a few percent, and
for many operators that are less motivated and/or less
capable than the average top 20 entrants there could even
be a significant score reduction resulting from the fatigue
that sets in within several hours of the beginning of the
serious SO2R operation. For this significantly large group
of operators, the effort required to get the most out of a
station with SO2R capabilities will tire them until they
become somewhat befuddled, and will begin to operate
inefficiently. They'll often lose run frequencies they'd
otherwise have controlled or become impatient and
angry whenever they run across duplicate contacts.
The second receiver will distract them until they miscopy
exchanges that they should have received. SO2R will
cause all but the very best operators to drain their
mental capacities until they struggle to do the
things that would have been easy for them. They
just can't keep up the pace.
With the average modern new transceiver price being
around $3500-$5000, the modern competitive amplifier
new price $2500-$4000, and the remaining hardware
required to go to full SO2R around $500-$1000, the
price of adding SO2R capability to an existing station
can range between $7500 and $10,000. Admittedly,
it can be done for less. But most competitors see the
investment as being better spent on improving antennas.
If budgetary constraints are included, then a double-
blind test would probably show that the decision to go
to SO2R results in significant score reductions.
----- Original Message -----
From: <W0uo@cs.com>
To: <kr6x@kr6x.com>; <CQ-CONTEST@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Consider This
> KR6X,
>
> With all due respect, lets look at what I said:
>
> The quickest way to expose {an advantage, or lack thereof}, is to
include it
> in contest reporting. It should be obvious whether such an advantage
exists
> within just a few months.
> >
> > If we want to go further in trying to establish a cause and effect
between
> SO2R and scores we could design an experiment. After one year run
on two
> major contest with current rules, change the rules for the
subsequent year
> to require stations to stay on one band for just three minutes. (If
SO2R is
> the cause of an advantage}, one would expect the advantage to either
be
> substantially decreased or disappear in the second year.
> >
> > Sound like a fair test?
>
> Now, lets state two hypothesis. H0: SO2R is not a significant
advantage
> in contesting. H1: SO2R is a significant advantage in contesting.
Testing
> these hypotheses requires an experimental design. The simplest
design, but
> not the only one and maybe not the best, is to run two contests, one
with
> current rules, one with a 3 minute band change limit for both SO1R
and SO2R.
> I could, but will not here, state a decision rule. It should be
easy for
> anyone with a background in statistics. Suffice it to say, if
factors other
> than SO2R are more significant, it will be born out in the
measurements.
> There is no other way to end this argument. Them that have want
to keep
> it that way, them that do not want to (or cannot) invest the extra
$3,000 or
> so that it takes to SO2R right want it changed.
> It may be that, like SO Assisted, SO2R is not a significant
advantage.
> Its time we found out.
>
> 73 de Jim
> W0UO/5
|