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

Tue Jun 28 14:43:35 PDT 2011

Very cool Rick.

Using your "ruler", what is the potential value of a W1 to JA contact?   How about vs. W7 to JA?

Also, if you were to assign an addtional weight factor to the low bands, what would a W1 to JA contact be worth say on 160?

73,
Guy, N7ZG

> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:55:35 -0400
> From: nq4i at contesting.com
> To: n2ic at arrl.net
> CC: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
> 
> Hi Steve...Now thats an excellent idea...we all have computers that we
> use in keeping and scoring the log...based on the distances involved
> in the qso in question, the computer would assign a score based on the
> distance..for example....W1 to DL would remain at 3.0 points but W4 to
> DL would get 4.8 ( I am chosing an arbitary number) and DL to W5 would
> garner 5.2 points.....the score in the computer would be the claimed
> score...PJ2 to W4 3.0 points and LU5 to W1 5.1 points....how easy is
> that? That sure would change the climate of the contest...no longer
> would the Caribbean be the ultimate ARRL DX destination, now PY, LU,
> HC, YV would get some recognition too...no longer W1, but W4,
> W5,W8....would that not the the coolest?
> 
> NQ4I
> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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