I think there is merit to looking at this general type of scoring but would add
one thing. Zero points for contacts within your own country regardless of
zone. Would not want the DX Contest to be cluttered with hundreds of USA
stations running other USA stations. West Coast to East Coast in proposed
system would be 2/3 as many points as working JA from New England. We have
enough contests where W/K can work each other.
Stan, K5GO
Sent from Stan's IPhone
On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:38 AM, Fabio I4UFH <i4ufh@libero.it> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Even it will be impossible to equalize the world, with the right equation, i
> have one more
> simple idea, that i didn’t show up, this year, apologies if if has still be
> discussed in the past :
>
>
> Without scrambling software developers or online scores, or Software
> committee,
> to endorse the DX QSO, i can suggest a different points related to your
> CQZone, no more Country or Continents.
>
> Same CQ Zone = 1 Points
> Adjacent Zone = 2 Points
> Other Zone = 3 Points
>
> For adjacent Zone i mean the CQZone that has borders with your Zone.
>
> Benefit ? Well everyone still will try the DX QSO. PJ will still have 3
> points with NA,
> but also TI, XE Zone 3 and 4 at 2 points, and zone 5 a 3 points, LU almost 3
> points,
> CN, EA8 2 points zone 14, 15 and 5, 3 point others, 9M will add more bloods
> with almost
> JA’s a 3 points .. etc. etc.
>
> it’s is a brief analyze, obviously there will be some place in the world that
> still had advantages,
> but are advantages related with his far away location, that is the core of
> the discussion.
>
> To calculate is very easy, every Zone has it’s adjacent Zone , so no need to
> send different reports,
> no need to distance approximate calculation, no need to add K’s factor to
> correct polar path, simply
> a different point of view related with what still have … the CQZones..
>
> If i will have time into the December Holiday i will try to rescore old logs
> with these new rules !
>
> Just one more cents
>
> 73 de Fabio I4UFH
>
>
>
> Il giorno 29/nov/2013, alle ore 21:36, Rick Kiessig <kiessig@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
>> I think it's a mistake to look at distance-based scoring strictly as a
>> measure of effort to complete a QSO. Even though it's a much better measure
>> than DXCC or Zone, that's not the real intent, IMO.
>>
>> Instead, I think the goal is to get population-dense areas to point their
>> antennas away from each other, and out toward the rest of the world, by
>> encouraging multiple contacts with distant places. CQWW's scoring system of
>> zero points for QSOs in your own country is a good first step, but when
>> there are many countries (or another continent) right next door, it's not as
>> effective as it should be.
>>
>> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Aldewey@aol.com
>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:31 AM
>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
>>
>> Distance based scoring is something that was looked at in detail for ARRL DX
>> contest a couple years ago. While it had it's advocates, there were a
>> couple main concerns that caused us to set it aside for now. The first was
>> that, depending on propagation, the distance of a Contest QSO, does not
>> always equate to the effort needed to make that Q. In many cases, on 10
>> and 15 meters for example, it is easier for someone Florida (for example)
>> to make a contact with EU than it is the Caribbean. The CAC actually
>> worked with someone who re scored a couple past DX Contests using the
>> Distance Based Scoring and the results did not change all that much.
>> Scores in the middle part of the U.S. rose and scores on the east coasts
>> went down and the order of the top ten changed a little but not that much.
>> Logging software would have to change of course and we were concerned that
>> there were many contesters that would not be comfortable with Grid Squares
>> (which would give the most accurate results). Finally, the majority of the
>> contesters we talked to were not in favor or such a change.
>>
>> So, at least for now, the change was not recommended.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> AL, K0AD
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|