I've had an oar in the pond in all this for quite a period of time.
I was the inventor of the first online live scoreboard, getscores.org.
That was way back in
2006, 19 years ago. See
https://web.archive.org/web/20071111194139/http://www.getscores.org/ for
some nostalgia.
It seems it has caught on quite well, thanks to VA2WA and the guys at
contestonlinescore.com.
For the longest time, it was sheer blasphamy to share your score with
others. For some, it still is.
However, for the majority of us, it has enhanced our hobby tremendously --
at least for us that enjoy competitive contesting.
Bruce, WA7BNM's 3830scores.com site has become the defacto results
reporting system. Why? Because it is very old news
getting results months (or even in some cases, weeks) after the event.
Anyone who creates a bogus 3830 score is not a valid competitor --
and at the competition levels where the score really matters -- it might
change a few percent from claimed after adjudication.
So -- we talk about live scoring. There has been a team working on a
version of live scoring for some time -- they have had slight
progress, but none in any way I would term significant. Why is this?
It's not that they haven't put in significant effort, that is for sure.
I believe the focus is on the wrong problem: don't try and solve realtime
score adjudication -- enhance real-time reporting with
live updates and eye-candy UI that will bring in new audiences. Score
adjudication is perfect where it's been IMHO -- the people
who do it for the big contests have been doing it for years, do it well,
and don't want big changes. I get that. For smaller contests,
3830 is the norm.
We can overlay lots of stuff on existing contests. We can create contests
within contests. Who had the best opening band rate to
EU from NA? Who is doing better hour-by-hour in CQWW vs their score last
year. Right now, all the live stuff is simply presented
as tabular data. That is so 20th century. If you look at the many
graphical sites supporting POTA, you'll see a lot of eye candy that
is exciting. Right now, POTA is the hottest thing since sliced bread!
So -- what do we do? I backed away from helping the current live scoring
project, because I did not buy into it's vision.
Today, all the data generated by a CQWW, for example, is really TRIVIAL to
the data processing capabilites of the internet and
cloud platforms. However, the problem needs to envisioned with a solution
that fits a different purpose.
Ward, W0AX presented a vision of this a decade (or what it two) ago.
Nothing really became of it.
Perhaps we partner with some smart Internet contesters who have a flare for
real time graphics and come up with some
compelling content. This should not ruffle the feathers of the the most
strident radio luddite. The internet has been providing
data about radio (specifically ham radio) since it's inception.
Yep, everyone can shoot holes at this idea. That's what people do.
However, as many have said, we are losing more and more
contesters every day. At some point, there will be many fewer to work.
73,
Gerry W1VE VE1RM ZF2VE 7Q2T
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:41 AM David Gilbert <ab7echo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A friend of mine (Bob, K7ZB) just sent me a link to a recent video
> interview of Tom, W2SC (aka 8P5A) done by W1DED. In addition to
> descriptions of his station and approach to contesting, Tom speculates
> on where ham radio and contesting in particular might go in the future.
> He pointed out that whatever happens will most likely be determined by a
> younger generation that isn't bound by what ham radio is to those of us
> who have been at it for a while.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck-RMIyjSfI
>
> His view of the future is very interesting, and I agree that if ham
> radio survives to any significant extent it will have to change ... and
> it will likely be changed by a younger generation that comes up with a
> way to adapt ham radio to something that is more interesting to them.
>
> Personally, I've always thought that contesting should figure out how to
> become more like an online video game:
>
> 1. Integrated computer graphics that display participants on a playing
> field ... Earth or maybe even some simulated world. You could zoom in
> or zoom out, but the part of the world available to be seen on your
> screen could be determined by the real time propagation at that moment.
> To make a contact you'd have to zoom in far enough to see the station
> you're trying to contact, and the display would show their current
> frequency. Real time propagation could be derived from actual contacts
> being made if everyone's computer was connected to a common server ...
> just like is done with video games. And before anyone says that real
> time internet connectivity is an issue, keep in mind that it isn't at
> all problem for the demographic we'd be trying to reach.
>
> 2. Multiplayer .... where every participant shows up on the screen at
> their actual (or simulated) QTH.
>
> 3. ACTUAL COMPETITION! Instead of just trying to make the most
> contacts and finding out at the end how you did, make each contact some
> sort of competition that gets displayed on the screen ... and have some
> way of preventing others from making a contact. How that happens would
> depend upon the context of the particular game, just like there are
> different video games. But the idea would be to contest each contact in
> some manner that requires either an offensive action or a defensive one.
>
> 4. "Contacts" (whatever the game required for a point) would still
> purely come via RF ... station to station. The video display and
> central server would only provide the environment for making the
> contacts, albeit a hopefully more elaborate and richer environment than
> whatever we currently picture in our minds while making contacts now.
>
> Some people might say that this is actually no different than a video
> game and that video games have the advantage of a level playing field
> since most computers don't hinder your play. And that's precisely why I
> think a ham radio version might be more interesting. Propagation,
> antennas, choice of times and bands would all make the game more complex
> than the typical online video game. The play style would be enriched by
> the variables of ham radio and the technical side of the hobby would be
> retained.
>
> The biggest problem I see with something like this is getting the
> programming done. Successful video games can take years and lots of
> money to develop, although there are games like Valheim that didn't ...
> at least not by comparison. However, I strongly suspect that it won't
> be too long before AI could do something like this, or at least most of
> it. We wouldn't need the complexity of a top tier video game, and
> graphics engines are becoming increasingly accessible for simple
> environments. Station wise, I don't think it would be any different
> than it is now to use a logger for rig control and score tracking ...
> just different software.
>
> I realize that the actual game mechanics are missing here. That's
> because I'm not smart enough to come up with the specifics. But I am
> convinced that something like this could be done ... it's really just a
> simple visual interface with an RF connection for the points instead of
> data packets. The number of made contacts would be MUCH fewer than it
> is now for a typical contest, but each contact could potentially require
> more thought and focus. Think in terms of catching fish instead of
> hammering out CQ's.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|