Ron has a good idea. The satisfaction one gets from a contest is,
at least in part, the recognition of "making the box." Without
changing the rules and without cheapening the measures of success,
contest organizers do have the presentation of results completely
under their control and can modify them to increase incentives and/or
satisfaction.
The idea of broadening geographic coverage of the box would be helpful
to dispel the idea that you have to be in W1 or you don't win. Another
useful idea might be to provide direct comparison in the published results
with records, rather than having that be the subject of some later
analysis. For myself, I always look up the current W6 record and take
that as a challenge (although twice I've met that challenge only to
be skunked by a better combination of operator/station/conditions!).
Fiddling with the rules themselves only leads to different people
being the dissatisfied parties, and won't increase competitiveness or
interest. Stable rules have evolved over the years, and the problem
of equalization is beyond any simple normalization or compensation.
And, if the pressure gets too much, well, land in W1 is there for the
settling! Let's work with contest organizers to enhance the satisfaction
of a fair, but expanded, presentation of the results and the records.
|