[CQ-Contest] Re: SO2R

[Sylvan Katz]

> Rather than create an SO1R category, we should create SOW, which
> stands for single-op-wannabeawinner. In this category, you are
> guaranteed a certificate saying first place. It may be for your
> state, city or street, as necessary, to qualify as a first place.

No one said the issue is certificates! The issue is information! Leaving
SO2R in with SO1R clutters the results and makes performance less comparable
for equivalent set-ups!

>If the latter, why not make more information available in the
>results without changing the rules (as has been proposed in this
>thread)? That way scores were really comparable to each other.

Carsten has nailed it on the head.

Most people want information so they can compare their effort with others
who have a similar set-up.

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE!

We need more information. Cabrillo formatted logs provide us with the
flexibility to add the necessary fields we need to supply more detailed
information about our set-up. Using public domain tools like MySQL and PHP
it is trivial to build a database that will allow contestants to make
web-based queries against the database containing the summary results plus
the additional set-up information. This way they can select the station that
they consider to have a similar set-up and compare themselves against these
stations. The difficult part is convincing  contest sponsors to adopt
policies and techniques that will provide contestants with the information
they want and need to improve their performance. AND more importantly enjoy
contesting more.

... Sylvan

Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
Saskatoon, SK
http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx