I believe there is a place for time limited categories in contesting. It
would increase participation and activity among some people if they had an
outlet for their competitive spirit even though they could not devote the
full weekend to a contest.
However, there is a very real danger of unintended consequences. Whatever
time limit is set, there will be some people who operate more to maximize
their time under the limit. There will be other people who operate less
because they would prefer to compete within the time limit. It is uncertain
whether this would result in a net gain or net loss of total QSOs, but it
seems counterproductive to have any rule encourages less activity. (Yes,
there are contests with off time requirements that do just that, but they
apply to everyone.)
If we had a time limited category, it would tend to drive activity to the
already high activity periods. It would tend to discourage activity in the
slow times. Not helpful.
No good answer. Just pointing out the challenge of creating a competition
around a limit.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jack Haverty
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 6:22 AM
> To: kr2q@optimum.net
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] encourgaing more entrants in CQWW (was CHECK
> LOGS)
>
> Interesting data. I wonder what it would look like for the whole data set
> including people who don't submit logs. I suspect it would be even more
> skewed toward smaller hours.
>
> Actually, I think there's a way to "experiment" with time-based
> competition without changing anything in the rules, creating new entry
> categories, etc. It could be done by the organizers of virtually any
> contest.
> Essentially it creates multiple simultaneous competitions within a single
> contest simply by inventing additional ways to compute scores.
>
> Suggestion to contest organizers:
>
> When results are published, in every place where there is a "Top N", or
> "1st/2nd/3rd" or any other such table of high-score ranking results,
> publish not only the full-period endurance/marathon leaders, but also the
> short "sprint" leaders. E.G., if "10-hour" and "24-hour" contesters seem
> like good "buckets" from historical log data, rank the entrants by the
> scores they achieved at the end of the first 10 and 24 hours, and include
> the Top N in the results. So, in a nominal 48-hour contest there might be
> three "Top Ten" lists - perhaps one for 48 hours, one for 24, and one for
> 8.
>
> Somewhat harder would be to analyze each log and extract the "Best 10
> Hour"
> (or whatever period) score - i.e., the highest score attained as if the
> contest had occurred only in any 10 Hour period in the entrant's log.
> That could take considerable analysis, but computers are good at that kind
> of stuff.
>
> Actually, this kind of results analysis could even be done on contests
> that have already happened, by taking the old logs and running them
> through the time-based algorithm.
>
> Who were the Top Ten 10-Hour and 24-Hour entrants in the 2011 contests????
> 2010? 2009.....?
>
> Of course, if such results were published, maybe more people would be
> enticed to compete next time. No doubt it would mean a change in strategy
> too if you strive to win the 10-Hour competition. Maybe people who have
> given up on competing in the endurance test would be enticed to try a
> "full effort" for a shorter time, and get into the fray.
>
> 73,
> /Jack de K3FIV
> Point Arena, CA
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM, <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:
>
> > It is great to see interest in creating more entrants in the CQWW
> > contests...
> > THANKS for the input!
> >
> > Just as an FYI, here is some data for 2011 SSB (so far). These are
> > e-logs, which means that paper logs are not yet included in the
> > analysis below. I did this in Excel, so I hope the columns come out
> > reasonably close to being legible reformatting to this "typewriter"
> > format (OK, DOS or character-based format).
> >
> > duration Pct of all logs Count
> > ? 0.9%
> 63
> > < 1 hr 6.1% 430
> > 1 - 9.9 hours 47.5% 3357
> > 10 - 23.9 hours 32.1% 2270
> > 24 - 35.9 hours 7.5% 533
> > 36 - 39.9 hours 2.0% 138
> > 40 - 43.9 hours 1.5% 108
> > 44+ hours 2.3% 164
> >
> > So out of these 7000+ logs, so far, 1663 will qualify for an award.
> > Not "be eligible," but actually get an award. Pretty good odds and
> > clearly far beyond the "boundaries" of "operate at least 24 hours!"
> > In fact 1163 of the 1663 will go to entrants with less than 24 hours
> > (yes, that includes all categories of entry).
> >
> > Hope you find this informative, if not interesting.
> >
> > de Doug KR2Q
> > PS There is nothing "special" about these categories, I just made them
> up.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|