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

[Steve London]

There seems to be some confusion about changing to distance-based scoring.

There is no need to change the ARRL DX contest exchange to implement 
distance-based scoring. The CTY.DAT files already have latitude/longitude for 
every country. It would be a simple matter to add latitude/longitude for the 
center of every state/province to that file. Sure, it won't be perfect for large 
states, provinces and countries, but it's a lot simpler than exchanging 
6-character grid squares !

There is also the presumption that for ARRL DX, distance-based scoring would be 
applied equally for W/VE and DX competitors. Why not have distance-based scoring 
only for W/VE participants, while leaving the scoring system unchanged for DX 
participants ?

73,
Steve, N2IC

On 06/27/2011 05:54 AM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> 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
>> EC5KXA
>> AE5XQ
>>
>>
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>