[CQ-Contest] Open Logs was: Re: On Distance Scoring

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

To me, this flurry of interest demonstrates the fundamental rightness of 
open logs in contests. Experiments like this, or like our 24-Hour 
Challenge idea, can be implemented by anyone with some computer skills 
(though distance scoring would maybe be more than "minimal").  Create a 
set of rules, massage the data, and publish the results.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 5/9/2013 11:10 PM, Barry wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>