[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?

Mon Dec 2 10:01:22 EST 2013

Fabio,

>>Adding 0 points to your zone and adjacent zone and only 1 point to other
no adjacent zone into the same country could be an exception that can be
added to level the playfield into the Bigger countries that are spread out
over 3/4 CQ zones

Not for the buys in the middle of three zones!  I don't think this would
work at all.  How would you like to be anywhere in Zone 4, USA in your
scenario and listen to the West Coast fill the band with CQs and additional
QRM to work the East Coast while you are trying to work real DX for some
points?  An extreme example would be if you lived in Zone 4 but within a
few miles of the boundary of either Zone 3 or 5.  I would never work
another contest from Zone 4 if I got no points where everyone outside of
Zone 4 got points for working the big population areas.  Not sure I would
want to work one even if there were points for USA-USA contacts for
everyone.  We can get our fill of working each other in SS, NAQP and a QSO
party almost every weekend.  Regardless of the scoring system, I believe
the CQ WW DX Contest should always remain one where you are working guys
outside your country.

Stan, K5GO

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:30 AM, I4UFH <i4ufh at libero.it> wrote:

> Hi Stan,
>
> Suggesting these rules include also the DX side of the QSO that indeed for
> W1 is difficult to work W6 as G station so i expect to add more fun and
> competition to the black hole Guys without compromise the score .
>
> Adding 0 points to your zone and adjacent zone and only 1 point to other
> no adjacent zone into the same country could be an exception that can be
> added to level the playfield into the Bigger countries that are spreadout
> over 3/4 CQzones
>
> 73 de Fabio I4UFH
>
>
>
> Inviato da iPhone
>
> Il giorno 02/dic/2013, alle ore 15:13, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > I think there is merit to looking at this general type of scoring but
> would add one thing.  Zero points for contacts within your own country
> regardless of zone.   Would not want the DX Contest to be cluttered with
> hundreds of USA stations running other USA stations.  West Coast to East
> Coast in proposed system would be 2/3 as many points as working JA from New
> England.  We have enough contests where W/K can work each other.
> >
> > Stan, K5GO
> >
> > Sent from Stan's IPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:38 AM, Fabio I4UFH <i4ufh at libero.it> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Guys,
> >>
> >> Even it will be impossible to equalize the world, with the right
> equation, i have one more
> >> simple idea, that i didn’t show up, this year, apologies if if has
> still be discussed in the past :
> >>
> >>
> >> Without scrambling software developers or online scores, or Software
> committee,
> >> to endorse the DX QSO, i can suggest a different points related to your
> CQZone, no more Country or Continents.
> >>
> >> Same CQ Zone    =    1    Points
> >> Adjacent Zone        =    2    Points
> >> Other Zone        =    3    Points
> >>
> >> For adjacent Zone i mean the CQZone that has borders with your Zone.
> >>
> >> Benefit ? Well everyone still will try the DX QSO. PJ will still have 3
> points with NA,
> >> but also TI, XE Zone 3 and 4 at 2 points, and zone 5 a 3 points, LU
> almost 3 points,
> >> CN, EA8 2 points zone 14, 15 and 5, 3 point others, 9M will add more
> bloods with almost
> >> JA’s a 3 points .. etc. etc.
> >>
> >> it’s is a brief analyze, obviously there will be some place in the
> world that still had advantages,
> >> but are advantages related with his far away location, that is the core
> of the discussion.
> >>
> >> To calculate is very easy, every Zone has it’s adjacent  Zone , so no
> need to send different reports,
> >> no need to distance approximate calculation, no need to add K’s factor
> to correct polar path, simply
> >> a different point of view related with what still have … the CQZones..
> >>
> >> If i will have time into the December Holiday i will try to rescore old
> logs with these new rules !
> >>
> >> Just one more cents
> >>
> >> 73 de Fabio I4UFH
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Il giorno 29/nov/2013, alle ore 21:36, Rick Kiessig <kiessig at gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> I think it's a mistake to look at distance-based scoring strictly as a
> >>> measure of effort to complete a QSO. Even though it's a much better
> measure
> >>> than DXCC or Zone, that's not the real intent, IMO.
> >>>
> >>> Instead, I think the goal is to get population-dense areas to point
> their
> >>> antennas away from each other, and out toward the rest of the world, by
> >>> encouraging multiple contacts with distant places. CQWW's scoring
> system of
> >>> zero points for QSOs in your own country is a good first step, but when
> >>> there are many countries (or another continent) right next door, it's
> not as
> >>> effective as it should be.
> >>>
> >>> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> Aldewey at aol.com
> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:31 AM
> >>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
> >>>
> >>> Distance based scoring is something that was looked at in detail for
> ARRL DX
> >>> contest a couple years ago.  While it had it's advocates, there were a
> >>> couple main concerns that caused us to set it aside for now.  The
> first was
> >>> that, depending on propagation, the distance of a Contest QSO, does not
> >>> always  equate to the effort needed to make that Q.  In many cases, on
> 10
> >>> and 15  meters for example, it is easier for someone Florida (for
> example)
> >>> to make a  contact with EU than it is the Caribbean.  The CAC actually
> >>> worked with someone who re scored a couple past DX Contests using the
> >>> Distance Based Scoring  and the results did not change all that much.
> >>> Scores in the middle part of  the U.S. rose and scores on the east
> coasts
> >>> went down and the order of the top  ten changed a little but not that
> much.
> >>> Logging software would have to  change of course and we were concerned
> that
> >>> there were many contesters that  would not be comfortable with Grid
> Squares
> >>> (which would give the most accurate  results).  Finally, the majority
> of the
> >>> contesters we talked to were not in  favor or such a change.
> >>>
> >>> So, at least for now, the change was not recommended.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>>
> >>> AL, K0AD
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>