[CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results/Overspottinganditsimpact

Wed Jul 14 16:21:51 PDT 2010

You are right, the network now is an over connected mesh of redundant links.
And it is unlikely you would get any more than a handful of sysops to
voluntarily shut it off for a weekend.  And even if you did there are still
web sites like dxsummit, the reverse beacon network, #cqdx irc channel,
twitter dx, and probably a few others that would still be working.

One thing to think of, it can be part of the operating strategy to be in the
right place calling cq enough to get spotted frequently.  Has anyone
analyzed the difference in operating strategies between stations that got
spotted a lot and those that didn't?  part of that could come from the new
spot analyzer on the reverse beacon network, but it would be even better to
have public logs with frequencies to track the operators movements.  There
is the possibility that the stations that didn't get spotted as much were
not calling cq as often, or were on bad frequencies due to qrm, or were
doing something else that didn't attract spotters.

Another thing with iaru is that since there is no soa category anyone using
spots is either not in the contest or doing m/s.  If they are not in the
contest then you can't regulate them one way or another anyway, if they are
doing m/s then they can use packet however they like.  But not having the
soa category probably reduces the spotting a bit.

If indeed it is deemed necessary to even out the spotting bumps because it
is not due to the operating methods and is found to be abused by 'friends'
or cheerleaders then there are a couple logical solutions.

1. use a sprint like qsy rule so that any spot for a cqing wrtc station is
only good for one qso... don't let them ping pong, require 3 or more
frequencies a fair distance apart, or that they answer a cq from someone
else in between calling cq, or some similar combination to keep them from
holding a frequency and attracting packet pileups.

2. assign a specific range of frequencies at equal intervals on each band,
published in advance and require each station to stay on their assigned
frequency for some time period then qsy to another specific frequency, at
any time each station would probably have to have a specific frequency on
each band/mode that rotated every half hour or some other frequent time
interval.  This way the frequencies would all be known in advance, but which
station would be there wouldn't be.  This would remove frequency selection
but not band selection from the operator skill set, which could be a
detractor or another way to level the playing field by not letting the teams
choose the specific frequency they were on at any time.  This would make dx
spots less useful since anyone looking for a wrtc station would know what
frequencies to check.

3. have automatic spots generated with the first cq each station calls every
10 minutes, requiring them to use f1 to call cq of course so they get their
regular spots.  10 minutes is a reasonable spot frequency since many cluster
nodes have dupe filters that block spots of the same station more frequently
than 5 to 15 minutes or so.  this would likely result in many dupe filters
dropping out cheerleader spots.  The only problem with this might be the
call used to generate the spots would have to be coordinated so that nodes
that filter spots by originating node or call would pass them properly.  A
special unused country prefix may have to be set up to handle that for the
weekend which would take a bit of pre-planning and work for all node sysops.

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Smith [mailto:n4zr at contesting.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 16:35
> To: John Geiger
> Cc: CQ CONTEST
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations /
> Results/Overspottinganditsimpact
> 
> I'm not sure there *are* any significant choke points in the telnet
> cluster network - my impression was/is that it is multi-path,
> uncontrolled, and essentially unstoppable.  Not true?
> 
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> 
> The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
> www.conteststations.com
> The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
> reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
> spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
> 
> 
> On 7/14/2010 9:59 AM, John Geiger wrote:
> > Would it be possible for the individuals who control the main spotting
> clusters to devise a filter of sorts for the next WRTC, where any spot for
> a WRTC team call doesn't make it onto the cluster.  I don't know much
> about the software workings of a cluster, but it seems like something
> could be done like that.  Maybe set it up so close "busts" also wouldn't
> show up.
> >
> > It might also be interesting in the next WRTC to still do it field day
> style, but give each time something like a FT450 and a dipole to use.  See
> what the ops could do with a little pistol setup.  That would really bring
> out the operating skill in them.
> 
> >
> > 73s John AA5JG
> >
> > --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Paul O'Kane<pokane at ei5di.com>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> From: Paul O'Kane<pokane at ei5di.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results
> /Overspottinganditsimpact
> >> To: "CQ CONTEST"<cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >> Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 7:16 PM
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Radio K0HB"<kzerohb at gmail.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>> There was no impact, Rob.  LU5DX has decided to
> >>>
> >> create
> >>
> >>> a controversy where none exists,
> >>>
> >> No impact - where the number of spots for each team
> >> varied from 1 to 121?  Of course there was an impact.
> >> Look at the results.  A single additional spot for
> >> ES5TV/ES2RR could have made them winners.  One fewer
> >> spot for RW1AC/RA1AIP could have dropped them to
> >> second place.
> >>
> >> Spotting is the most significant unregulated factor in
> >> preventing WRTC being a true measure of the operating
> >> skills of each team.
> >>
> >> Can it be regulated?  If not, we will have the same
> >> controversy next time.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Paul EI5DI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest