[CQ-Contest] arrl correction factor
Martin , LU5DX
lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
Wed Jul 6 18:05:37 PDT 2011
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?".
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
> > on 160 and 80 running at 200+Qs/hr and I guess not even in our dreams we
> > achieve that :-)
> > Anyway, this thread has been really educational to me and I bet to
> > 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
> > 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
> > balanced scoring system. No doubt it will be a really step forward
> > 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
> > 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