You pick based on the goals of the contest. So, if you go by the current
objectives as stated, distance based scoring is best aligned compared to all
other proposals. You don't need any analysis in order to predict that
contesters will do their best to work far away stations, but won't ignore the
easy local QSO.
I'd venture to guess that in the past rules were influenced by the ability to
score contacts and contests by hand. In other words, distance based scoring
was very time consuming and for all practical purposes impossible, while with
today's technology this limitation has been removed. VHF/UHF/EME contests,
Stew Perry, and Makrothen have demonstrated the feasibility of distance based
scoring.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Jul 23, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
> In your #1 you have two scenarios that are nothing at all alike. Which one
> does the contest change to? How do you decide? Without some kind of data to
> back up the proposal (showing how you will end up with the result you desire
> – which also must be defined) you end up with “Tom” saying his idea would be
> the best, “Dick” saying his idea is the best and “Harry” saying his idea is
> the best. So who’s idea do you pick?
>
> 73, Mike K9NW
>
>
> From: Rudy Bakalov [mailto:r_bakalov@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:52 AM
> To: Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com>; Ktfrog007--- via CQ-Contest
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Madness
>
> Using other logs is indeed a good idea. However, what is it specifically
> that the analysis should deliver to convince the skeptics? You don't need any
> logs to predict that when you change incentives human behavior will change
> accordingly.
>
> Just to sum it up:
>
> 1) The proponents of a change favor two options. Option #1 is switching to
> distance based model. This option will encourage long distance QSOs (in the
> spirit of a DX contest) while also giving credits for local contacts. Option
> #2 is allowing US to US contacts plus increasing the pool of mults. Both
> options are pretty clearly formulated have outcomes with a fairly high degree
> of predictability based on the change in incentives.
>
> 2) The opponents of any changes use by and large two arguments. Argument #1
> is that a data analysis is needed to convince them that a change is needed.
> The goals of such analysis have never been outlined. Argument #2 is that the
> rules are fine as is and no change is needed.
>
> Again, as a Canadian station the current rules serve me very well. I am happy
> to get points for working an endless supply of US stations. However, the
> idea that a Toronto - Buffalo QSO is worth more than Miami - Seattle is just
> crazy and makes no sense.
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
> autocorrect.
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I repeat, your statement is flat out misrepresenting the data that's in the
> > logs. You can't analyze data that's not there. You can argue as much as you
> > want, but if logs contain close to zero percent US stations working other US
> > stations, the analysis you demand is impossible and useless.
>
> OK. There are six years worth of WPX logs available, where there are likely
> to be plenty of US to US QSOs. It’s not perfect but at least it’s some data.
> There are four years worth of CQWW RTTY logs, where there are plenty of US
> to US QSOs. Everyone thinks their idea is the magic one, but no one does
> anything to justify why. Figure out how to manipulate the data to derive the
> information you need. Crunch some numbers. Post the results. Don’t expect
> someone else to do the work for you.
>
> 73, Mike K9NW
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|