Printing of Results - (was Re: Possible Internet Sprint)

John L. Luigi Giasi jlgiasi at umassmed.UMMED.EDU
Mon Aug 9 11:48:45 EDT 1993

In the message from Larry Tyree, N6TR........
->Some of you are still waiting to see "final" results of the first one.  I am
->not sure there will ever be results beyond those earlier published.  I have
->a philosophical question for you...  Should printing official results really
->matter as the point is to have fun? 

I understand that sponsoring a contest is a LOT of work and am not suggesting
any change for the Internet sprints (or even most of the 'small' contests).

Most contesters seem to be log/results addicts (I know I am!). There is a lot
of information that can be extracted from a complete log or results analysis.
>From my standpoint, the results are part of the contest itself! ...and not
just for those who are competitive..  the results are part of the fun... to
see how the whole thing played out...

As a matter of course I love complete cross-analyzed breakdowns on contests
by rate, mults, flux, propagation paths etc etc. It is not so much the
fact that the results are 'official'but that results exist! Most everyone 
understands that results printed are 'confirmed as well as we could' statistics.

I enjoy going over contest results (even when I didn't paticipate).. as it
allows me the chance to relive the contest. When I get the chance to peer at
a complete log, I can get a true feel for the event.. when did polar path
work?, how good was the 40m LP JA?, ..the first UB on 20/15/10 to start
morning runs...the last of the run?... how slow was midday? ..was the station
grabbing SA at midday? Why?

Much more so than the writeup/soapbox, numbers speak for themselves! matter how fair the contest writeup is, someone always feels slighted,
even though no offence is intended (well, I assume that begrudgingly)..
..most of the soapbox/QRM is fairly blase, but I like the chance to thank
anyone or mentions someones good-sportmanship.

One of my ham-radio-contesting impossible dreams would be to have access to
most of a years CQWW logs in a large database.  One could time-step through 
the database compiling running totals, make rate comparisons, determine 
time-in-pileup stats... oh yeah, and I would put want the complete 
packetcluster log in the DB too, for time-to-spot, who-finds-em-before-spot,
who-does/doesn't-put-out-spots, effect of any node-node link failures on
mult-rate, score etc.  ...oooh the possibilities...!!

73 de Luigi
John L. Luigi Giasi, AA1AA                         jlgiasi at
System Programmer
Scientific Computing, IRD
University of Massachusetts Medical Center                             ..._._

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list