[CQ-Contest] Allowing self-spotting

Sun Feb 26 08:14:36 EST 2017

What a huge potential in the proposals for selfspotting:
Allowing them in unlimited number will force competitors to use this 
tool to the max thus evolving sophisticated software schemes to optimize 
CQing on the net. Adapting the frequency of selfspots and choosing the 
best distribution among channels Cluster, twitter, Facebook, Chatrooms 
to adapt the signal strength on the web for optimal pileup density. Of 
course needed are fitting hashtags and good SocialMedia strategy to 
attract specific regions at specific times. Huge challenge for software 
devlopers and ops. MultiOp teams might even need additional Ops with 
SocialMedia expertise.

With limited number of allowed selfspots organizers will have to move 
their back to develop additional checking tools and expand the rule 
books to answer questions like how to deal with third party spots. Will 
they reduce the number of allowed spots or better allow to save unused 
spots - which then should lead to an online stock exchange to trade 
unused selfspots. And once the lawyers in us are attractied to this 
rules set: We need different values for each spot as spots at the 
beginning of a run should be much pricier than "accelerating" spots 
during a run. We therefore need a formula to determine the exact value 
of a spot depending on rate, category, used web channel (i.e. twitter 
cheaper than Facebook for having smaller audience) average rates of this 
op and other stations in this zone in present and former contests, 
actual K-index, antennas, age of operator.

No doubt that it will come one way or another as "convenience" always 
has won.

Small tongue in cheek comment: Talk about spotting somewhat reminds to 
teenagers for whom free Wifi access seems to be kind of a basic human 
right.

73 Chris DL8MBS

P.S.: Injected self spots of irony hopefully not yet reason for DQ ;-)

Am 26.02.2017 um 10:50 schrieb Jukka Klemola:
> Sirs,
> I have difficulties following this discussion.
>
> There are people selling the idea to allow self-spotting.
>
>
> Which way are we going:
> -allowing CQ calling on internet
> -keeping the un-assisted category
>
> .. or are we developing extreme double.standard or what is going on?
>
>
> A glimpse into the Pandora's box we are now cranking open:
> Is a station using CQoIP but claims not using spotting data, is such
> entrant un-assisted?
>
>
> 73,
> Jukka OH6LI
>
>
>
> 2017-02-26 3:04 GMT+02:00 Joe <nss at mwt.net>:
>
>> I also like this self spotting.
>>
>> BUT.....  and there always is a BUT isn't there? I like the three QSO's
>> rule, BUT.  there needs to also be a max per hour?
>>
>> Then gain here we are, back to the same problem, UG!
>>
>> I can just see someone spotting themself after every q.
>>
>> Joe WB9SBD
>> Sig
>> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
>> Idle Tyme
>> Idle-Tyme.com
>> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>> On 2/24/2017 4:30 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:
>>
>>> Yes.  This is what I wrote about a year and a half ago:
>>>
>>> 2015-10-28 4:06 GMT+01:00 Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com>:
>>> There should be a rule allowing the software to automatically submit a
>>> self spot after you have logged perhaps three QSOs on the same frequency -
>>> same rule for everyone. After all, when you call CQ on CW you are, in
>>> effect, self spotting. There is a huge advantage in being spotted and, on
>>> SSB, there is a huge difference in the number of spots for different
>>> stations giving advantage to those who are spotted frequently and quickly
>>> after a frequency change. 73... Stan, K5GO
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On CW, we already have the equivalent of self spotting, thanks to CW
>>>> Skimmer and the RBN. It's virtually impossible to NOT be spotted. CW
>>>> Skimmer/RBN is the great equalizer - you no longer have to depend on a
>>>> network of friends to spot you.
>>>>
>>>> We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a SSB Skimmer. Right
>>>> now, we have a system where "those with the right friends" have an
>>>> advantage. Why not simply allow self spotting on SSB ?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Steve, N2IC
>>>>
>>>> On 02/22/2017 12:22 PM, Bob Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Having myself met with unfair and unjustified treatment at the hands of
>>>>> RDXC adjudicators I can empathise with those claiming unfair treatment
>>>>> in
>>>>> adjudication.  However in this case having looked at the information
>>>>> supplied and done a little further digging, I am unsure my empathy is
>>>>> justified.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3V8SS it seems acknowledges cheer-leading by his fellow Tunisians KG5OUE
>>>>> and F4HJD but claims not to have encouraged it.  I am inclined to
>>>>> believe
>>>>> him, given some of my own friends have spotted me during contests and I
>>>>> have NEVER, that is NOT EVER, asked anyone to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, HB9EOU appears to be rather more than a random contact with
>>>>> Switzerland.  Last year HB9EOU operated in the IOTA contest from 3V8SM
>>>>> on
>>>>> Djerba Island AF-083 along with F4HJD.  Ash (3V8SS) + F4HJD + 3V8CB had
>>>>> activated 3V8SM from Djerba Island a couple of months earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> The recording of the contact with HB9EOU seems odd, though the events
>>>>> not
>>>>> entirely inexplicable but small circles in which the same calls crop up
>>>>> repetitively raise questions.  Perhaps it's all an extraordinary
>>>>> coincidence but there is enough doubt for me to wonder whether my
>>>>> empathy
>>>>> might have been misplaced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob, 5B4AGN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:48:33 -0600
>>>>> From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra at sasktel.net>
>>>>> To: "'Ashraf Chaabane'" <ash.kf5eyy at gmail.com>, "'cq-contest'"
>>>>>           <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and
>>>>>           WRTC
>>>>> Message-ID: <E976655BE7DB448B8806659C02036C2C at DOUG8PC>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>>>>>
>>>>> After reading your post and based on your response to the committee, I
>>>>> would
>>>>> conclude that Bob, W5OV; Doug, KR2Q; Scott, W4PA are nitpickers with an
>>>>> agenda.
>>>>> If anything valid is further introduced to support the committee's
>>>>> decision,
>>>>> then I would revise my opinion. As it stands, I believe you were
>>>>> unfairly
>>>>> DQd.
>>>>> Doug
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
>>>>> Of
>>>>> Ashraf Chaabane
>>>>> Sent: February-22-17 7:34 AM
>>>>> To: cq-contest
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] R: Re: R: 3V8SS disqualified from WW SSB and
>>>>> WRTC
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, Ria and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I put online the CC accusations (their native emails) and my responses:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.kf5eyy.info/3V8SS_WWSSB16_DQ.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that allows everyone to read from both sides. Now it's up to
>>>>> you to
>>>>> comment!
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ash ~ 3V8SS/KF5EYY
>>>>> http://www.kf5eyy.info/
>>>>> Phone/SMS: (+216) 22670026
>>>>> Skype: kf5eyy
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>