[CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness

[Rudy Bakalov]

You pick based on the goals of the contest. So, if you go by the current objectives as stated, distance based scoring is best aligned compared to all other proposals. You don't need any analysis in order to predict that contesters will do their best to work far away stations, but won't ignore the easy local QSO.

I'd venture to guess that in the past rules were influenced by the ability to score contacts and contests by hand.    In other words, distance based scoring was very time consuming and for all practical purposes impossible, while with today's technology this limitation has been removed.  VHF/UHF/EME contests, Stew Perry, and Makrothen have demonstrated the feasibility of distance based scoring.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 23, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Mike Tessmer <mtessmer at cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> In your #1 you have two scenarios that are nothing at all alike.  Which one does the contest change to?  How do you decide?  Without some kind of data to back up the proposal (showing how you will end up with the result you desire – which also must be defined) you end up with “Tom” saying his idea would be the best, “Dick” saying his idea is the best and “Harry” saying his idea is the best.  So who’s idea do you pick? 
>  
> 73, Mike K9NW
>  
>  
> From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:52 AM
> To: Mike Tessmer <mtessmer at cinci.rr.com>; Ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness
>  
> Using other logs is indeed a good idea.  However, what is it specifically that the analysis should deliver to convince the skeptics? You don't need any logs to predict that when you change incentives human behavior will change accordingly.
>  
> Just to sum it up:
>  
> 1) The proponents of a change favor two options. Option #1 is switching to distance based model.  This option will encourage long distance QSOs (in the spirit of a DX contest) while also giving credits for local contacts.  Option #2 is allowing US to US contacts plus increasing the pool of mults.  Both options are pretty clearly formulated have outcomes with a fairly high degree of predictability based on the change in incentives.
>  
> 2) The opponents of any changes use by and large two arguments. Argument #1 is that a data analysis is needed to convince them that a change is needed. The goals of such analysis have never been outlined.  Argument #2 is that the rules are fine as is and no change is needed.
>  
> Again, as a Canadian station the current rules serve me very well. I am happy to get points for working an endless supply of US stations.  However, the idea that a Toronto - Buffalo QSO is worth more than Miami - Seattle is just crazy and makes no sense.
>  
> Rudy N2WQ
> 
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.
>  
> 
> On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Mike Tessmer <mtessmer at cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > I repeat, your statement is flat out misrepresenting the data that's in the
> > logs. You can't analyze data that's not there. You can argue as much as you
> > want, but if logs contain close to zero percent US stations working other US
> > stations, the analysis you demand is impossible and useless.
>  
> OK.  There are six years worth of WPX logs available, where there are likely to be plenty of US to US QSOs.  It’s not perfect but at least it’s some data.  There are four years worth of CQWW RTTY logs, where there are plenty of US to US QSOs.  Everyone thinks their idea is the magic one, but no one does anything to justify why.  Figure out how to manipulate the data to derive the information you need.  Crunch some numbers.  Post the results.  Don’t expect someone else to do the work for you.
>  
> 73, Mike K9NW