[CQ-Contest] zero pointers - flaw in the analysis?
kr2q at optonline.net
Tue Nov 29 11:44:41 EST 2005
Rick, et al:
I don't believe that you should figure out how many hours were wasted by using the methodology you described; specifically, by finding your average rate per hour and dividing total zero pointers by that rate.
This number can be misleading in either direction.
If the zero pointers called you during a high rate period, then the "time wasted" is much less.
Equally, if the rate was very slow when the zero pointers called, then you likely didn't "lose" any time at all...you just were able to "keep the frequency" or able to "prevent the op from getting bored and/or not paying close attention."
You have the logs....check it out, if you are so inclined. It may give you some peace of mind.
As for dupes, you are assuming that they have you in their log. Some percentage (who knows what) may not have had you in the log or had your call wrong. Or maybe they worked someone near your frequency but not you...so this your change to avoid a NIL....and may be not as much of a negative as you think. It is a fact of life.
I can't help but feel that calls ending in "dits" are troublesome. I think N6AA did an analysis of this at some point (how many different iterations of calls with E, I, S, H were worked who were actually the same guy. Might be why a callsign such as UP has less of the garbage you mention.
This is all very interesting (and very esoteric) stuff.
Well, best of luck in the next (not that you need luck).
de Doug KR2Q
More information about the CQ-Contest