[CQ-Contest] [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor

[Randy Thompson K5ZD]

This data is easily available for the WPX contest for the last 25+ years.
Go to the online score database (http://www.cqwpx.com/score_db.htm ).
Select the categories and the data is output in a table that can be easily
copy and pasted into Excel.

Randy, K5ZD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Martin , LU5DX
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Michael Adams
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com; wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [wrtc2014] WRTC Category Weighting Factor
> 
> As far as the statistics are concerned. All we need is the raw data.
> Not everything, but just: callsign, claimed score, final score, entry
> class. (That's what's already avialable today based on what a Cabrillo
> file can provide).
> 
> Data elements like country, continent, CQ zone,  etc., can be derived from
> the callsign.
> 
> It would be also nice to have though: Age, Total operating time, and
> probably grid locator.
> 
> I'm including claimed score as a way to get statistics on logging
> accuracy.
> 
> If UBN reports were made public too, we could also produce statistics for
> the most common logging errors on each mode and stuff like that.
> It's quite interesting. I did that for our entries over the past five
> years on a per Operator basis, and we were able to determine which type of
> error was being made by each of the ops of the team.
> 
> We can really have a big universe to start our calculations for several
> contests.
> 
> Data is actually available. Claimed score, final score, callsign and entry
> class. Problem is formatting it in the way we need may take a considerable
> ammount of time. I'm  sure contest orgranizers have it in a more "tabular
> fashion" and probably normalized which helps speed up the process of
> producing stats.
> 
> Vy 73.
> 
> Martin, LU5DX
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Michael Adams <mda at n1en.org> wrote:
> > I realize that I have an odd sense of what counts as "interesting" and
> > "fun", but....it might be kind of fun and interesting if a collection
> > of stats were made easily available for public review and analysis.
> >
> > So far, the discussion seems to support the assumptions I made when I
> > mulled them over one night.  Besides, as a perpetual LP entrant with a
> > very modest station, I'm just playing for the fun of it (and to fill
> > out band-country charts).  WRTC qualification is a spectator sport for
> > guys like me.
> >
> > It's clearly too late to modify the selection criteria for WRTC2014,
> > but perhaps would-be WRTC2018 committee members are already thinking
> > ahead to potential changes and improvements.
> >
> > I would argue that "the best" qualification scoring system would be the
> one
> > that does the best job at predicting WRTC results.   With a body of
> > publicly available data, different qualification schemes could be
> > developed and tested against one another.  It becomes a simple
> > predictive modeling exercise, really.
> >
> > I suspect that, at least among "reasonable" possible scoring systems,
> > the list of qualifying entrants would be pretty similar.
> >
> > For whatever it's worth, I can't help but wonder what dynamic category
> > weightings would do to qualification scoring (i.e., have the category
> > weights for a particular qualifying event be based at least in part on
> > the competitive index for that event).
> >
> > --
> > *Michael D. Adams* (N1EN)
> > Poquonock, Connecticut | mda at n1en.org
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Chris Plumblee
> >> <chris.plumblee at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Syl,
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > The reality of our hobby is that the best measure of who is the
> >> > best operator is who can score best in the single op categories,
> >> > and the category with the most serious entries and the most
> >> > competition on a regional, national, and international basis is
> >> > almost universally single op, high power. The scoring weight for
> >> > single op low power was adjusted upward this year in an attempt to be
> more equitable, as Dan pointed out.
> >> >
> >> > ....
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Chris.
> >> Your opinion is solely based in your own perception of reality.
> >> But if you do the math (see below) your statement seems not to
> >> accurately represent it (reality).
> >> I did not do the numbers for LP in this case, because I wanted to
> >> show the case of an even less rated entry category (in terms of WRTC
> >> selection criteria), that is, SOAB(A) HP, which has a weighting
> >> factor of 0.8 Raw data was taken from the great site
> >> http://www.pileup.ru More precise calculations can be done using the
> >> organizer's score data base with final numbers.
> >>
> >> It would be really interesting if Valery (pileup.ru) or the contest
> >> organizers can provide the raw DB data to manipulate it as needed to
> >> start a solid statistical analysis about competitiveness and other
> >> aspects as well.
> >>
> >> 2011 CQ WW DX SSB total number of entries SOAB HP: 999 Total sum of
> >> Claimed scores for SOAB HP: 879,495,650 Average points per station in
> >> SOAB HP (Total sum of claimed points / (total number of logs -
> >> checklogs) = 879,495,650 /  (999 - 41) =
> >> 918,053.9144
> >>
> >>
> >> 2011 CQ WW DX SSB total number of entries SOAB(A) HP: 805 Total sum
> >> of  Claimed scores for SOAB (A) HP: 751,417,601 points.
> >> Average points per station in SOAB (A) HP (Total sum of claimed
> >> points / (total number of logs - checklogs) = 751,417,601  / (805 -
> >> 49) =
> >> 993.938.6257
> >>
> >> According to N0AX's formula for determining Competitiveness of a
> >> category, that is, Average of top ten scores / top score (in a given
> >> class)
> >>
> >> We can easily determine that:
> >> In the 2011 CQ WW DX
> >>
> >> SSB SOAB HP has a Competitiveness index of: 0,740468333 whereas SSB
> >> SOAB (A) HP has a Competitiveness index of: 0,672518322 (In this case
> >> the competitiveness index is actually deviated by the score of one
> >> station P40A with a big geographic and DX status advantage over the
> >> rest of the top ten entrants. Most of them from Europe, two from the
> >> States one from A6 and ST2AR who may have a higher DXCC status
> >> ranking but he's using very simple antennas (singe tribander and
> >> wires).
> >>
> >> In the 2012 CQ WW DX CW the competitiveness index favors SOAB(A) for
> >> the top ten entrants (ballpark figures, since I don't remember
> >> exactly thoug I did thte math):
> >>
> >> SOAB(A) HP 0.82
> >> SOAB HP: 0.80
> >>
> >> This is not absolute the right perspective since it's done on a world
> >> wide basis. This is just to demonstrate that in part, your statement
> >> is not valid.
> >>
> >> Who are the best operators can only be determined under a very,
> >> almost totally, better said, TOTALLY controlled environment. Which is
> >> not the case of contests other than WRTC.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, the criteria to determine who wins a place as a team
> >> leader is based upon human opinions and perceptions rather than based
> >> on statistical facts.
> >>
> >> Based on the numbers SOAB LP can never rank higher than SOAB(A) HP if
> >> competitiveness is a factor. Neither can MS rank higher than SOAB(A).
> >> Some would say, MS aligns more to the WRTC style of operation.
> >> Not true. MS teams outside of WRTC can be formed by a high number of
> >> operators, distributing the working hours by a bunch and making the
> >> need for stamina, endurance, concentration by each operator a whole
> >> lot less than a SOAB(A). In fact, MS can use packet or web clusters,
> >> but they still get a weighting factor of 1!!
> >>
> >> Anyways, nice discussion.
> >> Hope to meet you in W1 even if we go as visitors :-)
> >>
> >> Vy 73.
> >>
> >> Marti, LU5DX
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wrtc2014 mailing list
> >> wrtc2014 at lists.wrtc2014.org
> >> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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