The CQ WPX and CQ WW Contest results in the online database both show the
number of hours of operation for all entries. Under the suggested rules
below, you could just take the results and slice them according to various
ranges of hours of operation. No additional work for the contest
administrators.
This could be a useful source of data for doing some "what if" analysis
around various amounts of operating time. Put together some "top tens" and
see what you get.
Finding the first 24 hours of operation would take some tweaking of the
computer software, but this is essentially what the WPX Contest does to
calculate the 36 hours of permitted operating time. Any QSOs after 36 hours
are not counted for score.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Jack Haverty.
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:42 PM
> To: reflector cq-contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Flashback - Is It Time?
>
> Comments from several people indicate that I wasn't very clear in my
> wording earlier.
>
> I was suggesting a simple 24-out-of-48 definition of contest period,
> where you could work longer but only the first 24 hours would count.
> I.E., like ARRL SS and others.
>
> Actually, I was trying, but poorly, to convey just a part of a somewhat
> larger idea -- namely that "hours" be counted based on operator-hours
> rather than just passage of time. The period (e.g.,24 hours) could be
> any
> combination of operating sessions, i.e., operator-hours, (conforming to
> rules about minimum off-time) up until the maximum of 24.
>
> For SO, station-hours and operating-hours are identical. The "larger"
> part of that idea was to extend the notion beyond just SO operation, by
> allowing
> the notion of Teams. A Team could consist of any number of operators,
> working any number of hours spread across the total contest period.
> Their individual scores would be added to get a Team score. The addition
> would be to extend the SO 24-hour competition by defining a similar
> "Team"
> category of hour-limited teams. E.G., there could be a 24-hour Team
> competition, similar to a 24-hour SO competition. However, a Team could
> be composed in a variety of ways - e.g., 2 ops working 12 hours, 1
> working 12 and 2 working 6, etc., as long as the total of Operating Hours
> for the Team
> didn't exceed the max. Teams might all work from the same station
> (i.e.,
> like a Multi), or work from their own individual stations. Whatever
> works
> for them.
>
> This would provide a way for SOs who, for whatever reason, can't commit a
> full 24 hour period to still compete, by joining a Team. But it would
> not require creating lots of categories, e.g., 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour,
> 18-hour, etc. Teams of course compete against each other.
>
> Anyway, whatever Pete et al might put together I think it will be
> interesting and novel.....
>
> 73,
> /Jack de K3FIV
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Jack Haverty. <k3fiv@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> > Pete,
> >
> > I can't see any reason *not* to do this. Great idea. Anyone who
> wants
> > to compete is always looking for "others like me" to compare scores,
> > so the CWC provides an easy way to create such a venue for any
> > "category" where there's enough interest, without any need for any
> > Contest Committee to do anything at all. The 24-hour group is a fine
> > place to try it out. With computers today, it's straightforward to
> > have as many CWCs as we like - yes, the time has come.
> >
> > I'd make the 24h rules as simple as possible - just a 24-hour period,
> > defined by your log as submitted. No constraints on pattern of
> operation.
> > If you work more than 24 hours, simply delete the Qs outside your
> > chosen 24h period before sending your log. Anyone who doesn't like
> > the idea just doesn't need to submit a log.
> >
> > An interesting experiment would be to encourage people to only submit
> > their log as an entrant to a contest in which they are actually trying
> > to compete. E.G., if you're just casually participating, for whatever
> > reason, submit your log as a Checklog, to indicate that you're not
> > trying to win anything. That would likely produce some actual data on
> > popularity and a count of the real competitors.
> >
> > Just curious...what were the reasons that the Contest Committee
> > offered as they shot down the 2003 proposal?
> >
> > 73,
> > /Jack de K3FIV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR
> <n4zr@contesting.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Ten years ago, VE5ZX, N2MG and I made a modest proposal - and were
> >> summarily shot down by the CQWW Contest Committee. What follows was
> >> written then, so there are a few anachronisms - for example, CQWW
> >> logs are now public. But I think the basic idea remains sound, so
> >> I'm putting it out for comment from the community. Is this an idea
> >> whose time has finally come?
> >>
> >> Announcing the 24-Hour DX Contest Challenge
> >>
> >> Have you ever felt caught in-between -- wanting to compete seriously
> >> in a contest with a 48-hour time period but unable or unwilling to go
> >> that hard, that long?Do family obligations collide with your desire
> >> to be competitive in a major DX contest?Do you feel, where you live,
> >> that the schedule of the major DX contests forces you to be late to
> >> work on Monday morning, or to start the contest well after midnight on
> Friday?
> >>
> >> Well, now there's an alternative.The first-ever 24-Hour DX Contest
> >> Challenge will be held to coincide with the 2003 CQ Word Wide DX
> >> Phone and CW Contests. The basic idea of the 24-Hour challenge is
> >> simple -- to provide a competitive category for operators who are not
> >> able or willing to operate the full 48-hour period.You choose the 24
> >> hours out of a 48-hour contest that you want to operate, and compete
> >> with operators in your own country or around the world who make
> >> similar choices.Match your knowledge of propagation and operating
> >> patterns with others by choosing the optimum
> >> 24 hours, and may the best operator win!
> >>
> >> In February [2003], a survey appeared on www.contesting.com, asking
> >> whether institution of a 24-hour category in DX contests would result
> >> in operators increasing or decreasing their operating time, or would
> >> result in no change.Almost 500 votes were cast -- 42 percent said
> >> they would operate more, while only 12 percent said they would
> >> operate less; 46 percent said they would not be affected.
> >>
> >> These survey results demonstrate that instituting a 24-Hour Challenge
> >> would not hurt activity in the established contest, and would
> >> probably help.Accordingly, the first test of the 24-Hour Challenge
> >> will take place in conjunction with the CQWW DX Contests this
> >> fall.Plaques for the top single-op unassisted station in each mode
> >> will be awarded, at a minimum, and we are looking for sponsors for
> >> additional plaques.Certificates for top scorers by country will also
> >> be awarded.We are shamelessly copying the Stew Perry Top Band
> >> Distance Challenge, in offering to award a plaque for any category
> >> that someone is willing to sponsor.Contact N4ZR if you would like to
> sponsor a plaque for a particular locality or category.
> >>
> >> To qualify for the 24-hour Challenge, your log must contain no more
> >> than
> >> 24 hours total operating time, comprising no more than 6 operating
> >> periods, with each off-time being no less than 30 minutes.Entry is
> >> simple -- once your Cabrillo-format log has been accepted by the CQWW
> >> Contest Committee, just send us the same log file.We will process the
> >> log to make sure it meets the time criteria, and publish a list of
> >> qualifying logs received on a dedicated web site that will be
> >> established for that purpose.Actual log content will be maintained in
> >> confidence.When CQ publishes the scores, we will post plaque winners
> >> and all standings on the web site, based on CQ's final scores.We will
> >> also publish our own write-up of the results of the 24-Hour
> >> Challenge, hopefully capturing all the excitement of this first-ever
> event.
> >>
> >> Further details, including the establishment of a web page dedicated
> >> to the 24-Hour challenge and any specific rule provisions that are
> >> developed between now and the 2003 [sic] CQWW contests will be the
> >> subjects of later announcements.Stay tuned!"
> >>
> >>
> >> What think, folks?
> >>
> >> 73, Pete N4ZR
> >> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net,
> >> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> >> For spots, please go to your favorite ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster
> >> node.
> >>
> >> On 4/1/2013 9:02 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
> >>
> >>> By publishing the number of hours worked with the score, using
> >>> whatever time-on calculation the log-checkers feel is appropriate
> >>> for that contest, it would be straightforward for an interested
> >>> third-party to calculate score/hr statistics.
> >>>
> >>> Public, validated logs could also be parsed for all sorts of
> >>> time-related stats:
> >>> - best first 24 hour score
> >>> - best second 24 hour score
> >>> - best N hour score
> >>> - fastest to N points
> >>> and so on. It would be the equivalent of baseball's sabermetrics -
> >>> what is the analog of "slugging percentage"?
> >>>
> >>> If the data was there and someone cared about the calculation, it
> >>> would probably be performed. We might find an interesting way to
> >>> compete that doesn't require a new formal category. Or we might
> >>> decide that what we already have is good enough and that more
> >>> categories don't really change things. Nevertheless, the impact on
> >>> the contest sponsors, who have very limited resources, would be
> minimal.
> >>>
> >>> 73, Ward N0AX
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________**_________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lis
> >>> ts.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ______________________________**_________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://list
> >> s.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
|