[CQ-Contest] DX Contest
vk4ts at outlook.com
Wed Nov 2 18:04:20 EDT 2016
You are talking about massive fundamental change to the most popular event on the calendar.
There is a reason it is the most popular - People like it. (despite the grumbles)
Adding the complexity to the exchange may or may not work - Your proposal is almost the same as the recently revived Makrothen RTTY Contest. Another example of where DX based scoring failed to excite the punter despite the best intentions of those involved.
My suggestion would be this needs its own weekend and promotion and nothing to do with the CQWW as we all know and enjoy.
>From VK, we know we can win, Single band Worldwide in the CQWW and very rarely a Multi Op - how do we motivate ourselves ? We reference against our own scores - If the standard was to win WorldWide from VK we would have quit contesting years ago.
Distance based ? We would love it - because our paths to anywhere are huge. JA - 7000km USA West Coast 11,000 EU 15,000 - Apply that to our logs with 5000+ QSOs and I can assure you VK and ZL would become the go to place for Contests if scoring was distance based.
See you in the Makrothen in 2017 :-)
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Hammond
Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2016 6:49 AM
To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] DX Contest
I'm changing the topic from "It's not the sunspots folks" to "DX Contest", since the discussion changed from propagation to what constitutes a "DX" contest.
If it's a DX contest that you desire, why not change the scoring system to be based on the Maidenhead 2 x 1 degree grid square system that's used in the VHF/UHF world? Logging software would have to be "enhanced" to perform a real-time calculation of the great circle (short path?) distance between stations. This way, DX is actually equal to distance, not some political border / boundary. Q's would be Q's, no matter where, but multipliers would be grid squares, with a weighting based on distance that encourages or rewards "real DX". This levels the playing field, doesn't it? Now San Diego can work Boston, for more "DX value" than say London working Paris. It's DX you're trying to encourage, right, not necessarily Q's?
This would remove the "advantage" that many are arguing Europeans have over other parts of the world, or that the East Coast has over the West Coast. In this contest, I could work people in my own city, my own state, my own call area, but my DX score wouldn't be very good.
Score = Q's x grid square / distance value, where grid square /distance value =
0-1000 miles, 1 pt
1001-5000 miles, 2 pt
5001-10000 miles, 3 pt
>10,001 miles, 4 pt
Yep, log checking would be more complex, too, but of course it would be automated. Anyone claiming a grid square is a greater distance that it actually is would have a busted Q.
This scoring system still rewards hams in high population-density areas, so the weighting would have to be non-linear. Essentially the contest would be less of a DXCC entity contest and more of true world-wide (work anybody) contest with a reward for longer-distance Q's.
Interested to hear the pros / cons of a DX contest structured this way. Pardon me if there is already a contest (I'm not aware of) that is already scored this way. I think the Stew Perry Top Band Challenge rewards DX Q's by distance, but that's a one-band contest.
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest