The issue with confirmation or non-confirmation during the contest could
be addressed by turning off reporting back to the submitters. Just
store the QSO and acknowledge that the server has it but no additional
information about it is provided. The QSOs are validated anyway so that
when the contest is over, the scores are final within a decent interval
that allows for buffering and such. You could also still have real-time
score reporting since you wouldn't really know if any particular QSO was
good or not, even though you might guess based on a count of QSOs and
Multipliers. (If you're trying to get that information by watching a
scoreboard, you're losing the contest anyway!)
If you don't have Internet connectivity (intentionally or not) then you
could still play and those QSOs would just be treated like Uniques are
today - possibly bad but counted anyway. Then when the post-contest log
does show up, go through and validate all of its QSOs, just like LOTW
does. It patiently waits forever for logs to come in. For the contest
version, there would be a cutoff date/time for logs and the scores
become final at that point.
Some new contests could require connectivity for all participants.
Legacy contests could use the hybrid model and legacy contesters (that
would be us) could participate in whichever way makes them happy. You
could even turn off QSO validation reports if they were available so
that you could have the very same experience you have right now.
All of this process has really been demonstrated already by LOTW - we
just have to add variable exchange data to the confirmation process and
accelerate the validation checking.
73, Ward N0AX
On 11/11/2016 11:59 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
Hi Kevan,
An overlay such as I am suggesting is the logical first step. No sense
diving head first into something that could be infested with
man-eating sharks.
No, many contesters actually don’t have real-time access to the
Internet at the station location. Just because I’m writing this from
the comfort of my home in the city doesn’t mean this is where I will
contest.
Many contesters like things the way they are: I would argue these
contesters are the core of our participation. Driving them away would
be a bad thing. You can’t force people to participate if they don’t
like the contest. Witness the boycott of the RDXC.
I also do question whether confirming QSOs via the Internet violates
the idea that we should do things over the air, and should accept the
consequences of messing up. Even if all we get back is a notice “QSO
1234, with W0DLE, invalid” it means we get the chance to go back and
do it right. How is that different than phoning W0DLE and saying “Hey,
I got 134 A 82 CO, is that correct?”
73, kelly, ve4xt
On Nov 11, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Kevan Nason <knason00@gmail.com
<mailto:knason00@gmail.com>> wrote:
N4XL
"Starting at "some can't therefore we shouldn't" has stopped a lot of
projects over the years"
VE4XT
"I argued “most won’t, but we should find a way for those who want to.” "
That's the difference in a nutshell and basis for the discussion.
Some don't want to make it mandatory. Others think it is potentially
very beneficial. I'm continuing Ward's point that doing so might very
well make many ethic discussions and DQ's for cheating moot.
Obviously not all, but it looks like it could very well be a step in
a positive direction to improving contesting operating skills in
particular and in general the services provided by hams to their
communities. Why not explore that thought some more?
Let's put some particulars out. Counter with others like Heard
Island. Get the discussion going.
It seems clear you and I and several thousand other contesters have
the internet and would be able to do real time scoring and/or quickly
submit scores. I've nothing to back it up, but there is tremendous
internet use during and right after a contest so it appears many have
already have the means. Not everyone uses a logger that could do it.
They probably could though. N1MM is free. Or the capability could
likely be added to those that don't. What other reasons people
couldn't (not wouldn't) do real time scoring?
What if real time scoring wasn't real time? Would updates every
hour, two, six, twelve suffice?
I'll give you a problem I recently solved. I live in the country and
only wireless internet is available. Until recently I had a 5 gig
limit to my internet. It's now up to 50, but doing real time scoring
and operating assisted ate that 5 gig up pretty quickly and I
sometimes paid over use charges. I wouldn't want to have had
mandatory real time scoring then. If that was the rule though it
would not have stopped me from contesting. Maybe not everyone who had
a shot at winning could afford those over usage charges. And as you
pointed out, not every location has internet by either wired or
wireless. That is a problem to try and solve.
You gave another example. The DXpedition where no internet is
available. Not sure about solution there, but Hughes net has
satellite service and Google supposedly launching balloons or
something soon. That could be included in the planning cost of the
DXpedition for those expecting to contest while there. To state the
obvious, not all DXpeditions are interested in a winning contest
score though so how big a problem is that? Assuming Heard Island
wants a shot at a winning contest score, maybe the internet just
doesn't reach to Heard Island. Maybe it does. I don't know one way or
the other. Do you? Seems there is likely one or more possible
solutions out there though. A lot DXpeditions manage to find a way to
get logs out on the internet while they are doing their thing. There
is likely some way. What about HF data transfer? The proposed data
rate changes by the ARRL to the FCC may offer additional HF log data
transfer opportunities (i.e.: periodic log transfers to a U.S. or
other HF station for upload). Not sure what the current rules are for
other countries. Maybe that can already be done?
My point is I don't know everything. Absolutely no disrespect
intended, but I don't think you do either. It seems technically
possible and there is probably an administrative way to handle the
exceptions. Other than the obvious of personal choice, what reasons
does the group have to saying it simply can't be done?
Kevan
N4XL
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|