[CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor

Martin , LU5DX lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
Wed Jul 6 18:05:37 PDT 2011

Howdy Tom.
An algorithm to level distance and path conditions certainly has nothing to
do with the effort each individual spends in building his/her own station or
the qualities/skills of the operators involved in a contest effort.

PRECISELY: those two items you mention are the ones that would become
relevant in achieving the best possible results based on human skills and
not only based on entering a competition from favored DX Spot where a few
wires will be enough to beat stations with big amounts of engineering and
thousand of man hours spent to build them.

The "just a boy and his radio" ops will be equally favored by a fairer
scoring system, even if the don't want to be favored. For many it is not a
matter of personal likes or dislikes, it is just a matter of facts.

I'm 38 and I been entering contests since I was 14. I haven never complained
and I am not complaining now either. I simply realize that the ARRL has
taken the lead in a topic which discussion will be beneficial for

I certainly do not adhere to the statement: "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it"... that is not how evolution works. It certainly would be nice to see
more of "if it ain't broke...can we perfect it?".

Vy 73

Martin Lu5dx

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Tom Haavisto <kamham69 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin
> I also found this thread quite interesting, but I would add this:  Can
> we come up with a very complex scoring system that takes into account
> propagation, time of the year, historical norms, phase of the moon,
> solar cycle, etc.?  I am quite certain it is *possible*.  However, to
> make for a meaningful comparison, we also need detailed information
> about the stations as well.  Specific radio, specific power output,
> antennas in use, feed line type, feed line losses, possible antenna
> interactions, etc.  Lets assume we are able to gather all this data
> (and more - these are just a few data points) - what then?  We
> determine that operator X is *better* that operator Y, under these
> specific conditions, based on these data points.  To my way of
> thinking, this MIGHT be of interest to a few top competitors.  But,
> they would continue to state the data is flawed (missed data point,
> skewed data, something else went wrong, or is not accounted for in the
> scoring system).  To me, and probably the other 90 plus percent of
> contesters - I really don't care that much, nor do I want to provide
> that level of detail about my station.  Not that I have anything to
> hide - I just don't think the end result will be all that useful to
> MOST of us...
> Seriously.  I built a station, bought a radio and I get on to have
> fun.  Right now, today, I can still use a paper log - same as I did
> when I started contesting, and at the end of the contest, I can
> quickly compare my results (QSOs times mults) to anyone else, and have
> a pretty good idea who won.  Yes - there can be upsets when the final
> results are posted.  Busted calls, NILS, etc. that are taken into
> account as part of the scoring process, but for the most part, when
> the contest is over, I like to know how *I* did, compared to my peers.
>  I am happy with that, its fun, and it keeps me coming back for more.
> Take that away, and well - I expect a lot of folks (me included) will
> just say "No thanks - WAY too complicated to figure out", and not
> bother participating.
> With all due respect to the Stew Perry Contest (its great, and I love
> it), when the contest is over, we need to wait for the published
> results to find out who won.  Its a different issue - just wanted to
> acknowledge the unique scoring system it uses.
> Right now, we have simple rules, and they are fine for their intended
> purpose.  Even with simple rules, it can be difficult translating into
> multiple languages.  Imagine what would happen if we had complex rules
> and weird scoring systems?  The problems just get worse.  I am not
> sure the end result will be any better.
> I guess I like to look at the end result.  Sure - what we have has
> problems, but so what?  A few top guys complain "It ain't fair!"  Too
> bad.  For MOST of us, the system is "fair enough", and its fun.  Take
> that away, and well - it will be time to try something else...
> To quote my favorite line from Hans - "Just a boy and his radio".  And
> I am happy with that :-)
> Tom - VE3CX
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar> wrote:
> > I agree Tony. The same thing happens to us when we hear Caribbean
> Stations
> > on 160 and 80 running at 200+Qs/hr and I guess not even in our dreams we
> can
> > achieve that :-)
> >
> > Anyway, this thread has been really educational to me and I bet to
> several
> > of us. I'm still convinced that a weighed scoring system can be achieved
> > taking in consideration factors such as paths, SFI, K and A indexes  and
> the
> > resulting SNR between two geographical locations. But as I wrote in my
> > previous email: generating the needed data would take over 300 MILLIONS
> > records minimum. And to be honest, it still will not be a perfect and
> fully
> > balanced scoring system. No doubt it will be a really step forward
> respect
> > to what we have today.
> >
> > Regardless of whether the ARRL adopts a new scoring system it would be a
> > very interesting collaborative experiment if we as a community can
> > brainstorm towards achieving what would be  a fair scoring system based
> on
> > the factors mentioned above and the resulting effort that it takes to
> work a
> > station over a given path, under certain SFI and geomagnetic conditions
> on a
> > given frequency.
> >
> >
> > 73 to all!
> >
> > Martin, Lu5dx

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list