[CQ-Contest] On Distance Scoring

[Barry]

If a QSO has 0 point value, it should not have to be worked for mult credit.
Barry W2UP

On 5/9/2013 20:52, Jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
> 1. There is certainly a lot of inequity in the current 1-2-3  point,
> continent based scoring system.
>   
> 2. Integer QSO point values made sense in the days of paper logs. Today
> there is no reason to require QSO points to be integer values.
>   
> 3. QSO points for DX QSOs should be awarded in the form of   QSO  Points =
> 1 + ( D / K )
>   
> Where D is the distance between stations, and K = a constant to yield the
> desired QSO point difference between close and distant stations.
>   
> 4. Zero points for QSOs within the same country in DX contests is  still
> OK. For WPX, not.
>   
> 5.  D may be the distance between zones; between countries (or
> states/regions in large countries); between each station if precise  locations are
> known. In practice, it's a tradeoff between precision and  practicality.
>   
> 6. K may be different for different bands. For example, a smaller number on
>   the low bands to yield higher point values for long distance  QSOs.
>   
> 7.  For distances in miles, I'd suggest K = 3000 on the high bands. So  a
> QSO to the antipodes would be a hair over five points.  A QSO from EA9 to
> ZB2 would be worth 1.01  points (or whatever the exact distance  yields) if
> country data is used.
>   
> 8. On 80 or 160, K = 1000 to 2000 sounds good.
>   
> 9. Such a scoring system would not need to replace the current 1-2-3
> system. Just use it to provide a second set of scores. For now, I assume such
> scores would be reported only on the web, not in print magazines.
>   
> 10.  Sponsored plaques or other awards for distance based winners  welcome.
>   
>   
>   
> 73   -    Jim   K8MR
>   
>   
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>