[CQ-Contest] CQ WW. I "get it".

Don Field don.field at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 15:53:14 EDT 2005

I've been enjoying following this thread. I think I get it now. If you don't
like a particular contest because the scoring system or the method of
adjudication (or the time taken with certificates, or the kind of prizes, or
complete the blank with whatever upsets you ..), then invent your own
contest. Create a set of rules to suit yourself. But, hey, don't actually
take on the job of running it - try and persuade CQ or ARRL to do that for
you and, if they won't, that gives you yet one more reason to whinge about
them. Nice one!

>From what I hear, incidentally, from CQWW adudicators, those who complain
most vociferously about the 3:1 penalty in CQWW are those who prefer rate to
accuracy and therefore end up losing the highest percentage of points. With
the IOTA contest, which I adjudicate, we are now able to cross-check about
60% of QSOs, i.e. those where we have logs for both sides of the QSO. This
means that, potentially, about 40% of logging errors escape undetected. My
guess is that CQWW and other major contests won't be wildly different in
this respect. So a 2:1 penalty would be roughly neutral. Therefore 3:1 is
really the minimum to discourage slopping logging and encourage accuracy
(which is an essential part of effective communications - tell a military
commander than an error in the copied co-ordinates for his missile strike is
unimportant ..). I do believe it is important that the adjudication process
is transparent, because this can be as significant as the rules themselves
in planning a score-maximising strategy. I particularly commend the
organisers of the Russian DX Contest in this regard.

Don G3XTT (NK1G)

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list