[CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Scoring

[Ward Silver]

The ZLs suffer even more than you.  I once made a giant spreadsheet 
about twenty years ago which calculated average distance between all of 
the DXCC entities and the ZLs were about one hop worse than anybody else 
- by far the toughest populated spot to work DX from on Earth.  So I 
guess they should always win DX contests.  Or 9V or VK.  (Turns out 9A 
is the closest on average.)  Being a worldwide contest, CQ has to report 
worldwide results based on their system. When writing up the ARRL DX 
Phone results, I tried to notice when a geographically-disadvantaged 
station placed higher than expected but there is a limit to how much one 
author can do.  Tables of "Great Scores From Unusual Places" would be fun!

Logs are public now.  Come up with a by-distance scoring system and 
rescore the logs, then show how it results in a more equitable order of 
finish for single-band and all-band entries on a worldwide basis.  
Simple matter of programming, the four most dangerous words in the 
English language.

What else should be included to fairly represent QSO 
degree-of-difficulty? Geomagnetic latitude of the station, certainly, as 
well as atmospheric noise level, maximum geomagnetic latitude of the QSO 
path, solar flux (inverse relationship for low and high bands), 
geomagnetic stability and absorption, etc. In some years, Zones 13 and 
12 can't be beaten on 10 and 15 meters, and in other years they are back 
in the pack. Maybe a different system for each band that takes into 
account the propagation? The sweet spot moves around independently on 
all bands on a daily and even hourly basis - this is a hard, hard problem.

The fairest thing I could suggest would be to rate each QSO based on the 
VOACAP model which computes SNR between any two points for any set of 
time, date, sunspot number, geomagnetic indices, and station 
characteristics.  Even that ignores short-term absorption variations 
from flares, local man-made noise levels, and terrain dependencies.

I understand the aggravation, Charly, having labored in the Pacific NW 
through years of not being able to hear Europe above 20 MHz, much less 
run them, and realizing that others like KL7 have it even worse.  We're 
never going to have a reasonably simple global system of scoring that 
covers four octaves of spectrum throughout the sunspot cycle.  This is 
why WRTC is such a valuable competition.

My advice stands - consider the big contests "activity weekends" and 
compete against regional peers with appropriate reporting and 
recognition.  There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from 
re-analyzing the logs and publishing results according to any method 
they feel is more fair - all of the data is freely available.  Why not 
sponsor a Zone 26 competition?  If you want to base it on distance, be 
my guest.  Anything that makes sense in that region would stimulate 
participation and make more fun for everybody.

Get on the air, make QSOs, and enjoy the surge in activity that comes 
with a big contest.  Compete for BKK bragging rights and know that those 
of us elsewhere around the world appreciate you getting on.  Propagation 
with all its quirks and weirdnesses is what makes this game fun.  Don't 
make yourself crazy.

73, Ward N0AX

On 5/26/2015 6:56 PM, Charles Harpole wrote:
> Dear Ward,
>
> BKK to Tokyo 2858               to MO 6391
> BKK to Berlin 5537                to MO 4657
> BKK to Hartford, Ct. 8570      to MO 1077
> BKK to Chicago 8563              to MO 300
> BKK to LAX 8278                   to MO 1800
> BKK to Santiago 17,648         to MO 5110
> BKK to Peru 19,530               to MO 3443
> BKK to Sidney 7521​               to MO 9057
>
> and the little jump to Taiwan 1575 or to MO 7677.
>
> BKK total 80,080          MO total 39,512
>
> .... and a person would wonder about my idea to score by miles 
> covered.... 73, Charly HS0ZCW
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jeff Stai <wk6i.jeff at gmail.com 
> <mailto:wk6i.jeff at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com
>     <mailto:hwardsil at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     > My opinion is that regional-based reporting and operator
>     comparison works
>     > a lot better and is actually close to comparing apples to apples.
>
>
>     Perhaps QST could be persuaded to list regional top five scores
>     for ALL
>     ARRL contests, and the ARRL to actively promote the sponsoring of
>     plaques
>     for same?
>
>     73 jeff wk6i
>
>     --
>     Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff at gmail.com <mailto:wk6i.jeff at gmail.com>
>     Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
>     Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak
>     _______________________________________________
>     CQ-Contest mailing list
>     CQ-Contest at contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
>     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Charly, HS0ZCW