[CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents

Richard DiDonna NN3W richnn3w at verizon.net
Mon Jun 27 04:54:43 PDT 2011

I think grid squares is a bad idea for a multi-band DX contest.  Many hams 
do not even know what their grid square is and would not have the least idea 
as to how to find it.  Grid square contests like the SP and VHF contests use 
them because everyone in the test is there to to work the test - not the 
same case with ARRL DX where casual ops are all over the band.

Can you imagine having to walk a casual UA3 or DO2 station through the 
process of having them figure out what their grid is?  They will work one 
station and then turn the radio off.

Hell, for stateside operators, remember what one has to do to walk one 
through a SS exchange - and then remember that is with information that the 
operator knows (except for possibly their section).....

73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Sourdis - HK1A" <hk1kxa at hotmail.com>
Cc: "CQ contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents

> Using the locators as an exchange might  be too much for some but, OTOH, 
> would make exchange meaningful. The locator in the header as information 
> for the contest robot is a good idea, in my opinionTo encourage the use of 
> ALL of the low bands, more points per QSO should be assigned. 160 m with 
> the higher value, 80 m less and so on, and not just double points for 
> 160-80-40 and less for the rest, because this kind of division makes that 
> contesters use 40 m, some 80 m  when 40 m gives them no more and then 
> dismiss 160.
> David
> HK1A
>> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:29:56 +0000
>> From: kr2q at optimum.net
>> To: n5ia at zia-connection.com
>> CC: k5go at cox.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
>> Milt, N5IA agreed with Stan's (K5GO) comment below.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > Something is not quite right when a part time effort in a DX contest 
>> > can make top ten
>> and knock out a full time effort by as good an> operator from a better 
>> station.> >
>> I had a private exchange with Stan and here is an excerpt.  For me, the 
>> last sentence says
>> it all.
>> A main problem with "points for distance" approach is there is currently 
>> nothing in place to allow for
>> that.  Exchanging grid squares seems logical & everybody would quickly 
>> learn their own grid square, but
>> even that is probably not precise enough.  If we went to 6 digit grids, 
>> then I think we'd have something...
>> Not only would we have a point system more relevant in terms of being a 
>> DX contest, but the exchanges
>> would be meaningful.  But is there a downside to that?  Maybe.  Some say 
>> that the reason the
>> CQWW is so popular (with WPX right behind) is because there "isn't" an 
>> exchange and everybody
>> can get on and not be challenged because of an unknown exchange.
>> A possible easier solution would be to require your 6 digit maidenhead 
>> grid as part of the HEADER
>> for each log entry.  Then folks would still have an "easy" exchange and 
>> could leisurely look up their
>> grid post-contest.  The downside, of course, is that nobody would know 
>> their actual score until the logs
>> were officially adjudicated.
>> So nothing is easy.
>> de Doug KR2Q
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list