[CQ-Contest] Distance-Based Scoring

Charles Harpole hs0zcw at gmail.com
Wed May 27 07:03:26 EDT 2015

Dear Ward, In my own conviction that I am correct on every topic,
nevertheless never would I ever say ​"My advice stands."

1.  I have ONLY suggested that a distance score ACCOMPANY the traditional
scores.  Never would I deign to vary existing holy scores with decades of
history for making nonsense comparisons.

2.  Leave it to me to decide when or if I am crazy.  When you work so hard
to be right, the same danger applies.

73, Charly

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM, W0MU <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:

> The reason these things don't go away is that they are not being solved or
> really addressed.
> I believe that cheating has gotten much worse recently and much of that
> has to do with the less than severe penalties being dished out.  People are
> serious about winning and recording the contest but when it comes to bans
> we seem to lack the fortitude to do it. Instead, we give them a warning,
> and let them right back in.
> Cheaters need to be squashed like bugs.  People rarely change and these
> types of people will find new ways to cheat and laugh about it until caught.
> On 5/26/2015 6:45 PM, Gerry Treas K8GT wrote:
>> Thanks Ward for your calmly reasoned explanation that you also sent to
>> the reflector some time ago..
>> What was it, about 2 years ago when this same discussion was raging?
>> Seems that no one was listening then and are not remembering all that 2
>> years later.
>> I understand why some are hoping for a better way to "level the playing
>> field", but we contesters know about propagation, both regular average
>> differences and the shorter term variations. There are different types of
>> propagation from locations at higher latitiudes than those from lower
>> latitudes to a location the same distance away.  Distance scoring doesn't
>> help there.
>> I wish that there was a way, but there isn't a simple one.
>> Your suggestions are one way to approach the problem.
>> 73, Gerry, K8GT
>> On 26-May-15 13:56, Ward Silver wrote:
>>> In any contest on bands for which there is a skip zone, distance-based
>>> scoring will not work.  Imagine how hard it is to work a station on 10
>>> meters 200 miles away by backscatter compared to, say, 2500 miles away by
>>> F2 skip. Distance-based scoring works on 160 and 80, sometimes it would
>>> work on 40, mostly it won't work on 20-10 or 6 meters.  It might be
>>> worthwhile on 2 meters and higher-frequency bands.
>>> Nor is there a handicapping system that equalizes the vagaries of
>>> propagation between wildly different locations that is not in itself wildly
>>> complicated.  Believe me, I've tried over the years to imagine a system
>>> that would actually work.  They would have to be redesigned every single
>>> year and then be adjusted based on propagation during the actual contest.
>>> Perhaps there's a doctoral thesis or two in there but not a contest scoring
>>> system.
>>> My opinion is that regional-based reporting and operator comparison
>>> works a lot better and is actually close to comparing apples to apples.
>>> The WRTC qualification systems move in that general direction although for
>>> really big regions (Africa, Oceania, etc) there isn't enough granularity to
>>> achieve the desired purpose. Think about a sort of RRTC - Regional
>>> Radiosport Team Championships.
>>> If we put the amount of energy spent chasing impossible weighting and
>>> scoring systems into recognizing the really great efforts and
>>> accomplishments among regional peers, it would benefit everyone. Sponsor a
>>> regional plaque or a regional competition or contribute a regional writeup
>>> to the sponsors or create a regional rating system - all quite doable,
>>> costs little, promotes the contest, recognizes good efforts - what's not to
>>> like?  Of course, that would require *us* to do something instead of the
>>> sponsors :-)
>>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Charly, HS0ZCW

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list