There have been a number of messages on this topic. I'm against setting
up new categories based either on "competitor" vs. "participant" status, or
based on hours worked. Setting up a 24-hour category in a 48-hour contest
will only encourage those with super stations to try to win this new class,
much as now frequently the "low power" winners are often the normal high
power winners, with multiple towers, stacked arrays, etc.
I think a better way to gauge relative effort expended is simply to list
total hours of operation, as is done in SS listings, without making it a
separate category. That way, one can separate out the gung-ho competitors
from the more casual, or those who had some other commitment intervene to
prevent full operation. And you can compare your results with others who
didn't operate full-bore. This would be far better, and easier to do, than
making whole new categories.
73, Andy, AE6Y.
>From Tony Brock-Fisher <fisher@hp-and.an.hp.com> Mon Jan 24 14:53:12 1994
From: Tony Brock-Fisher <fisher@hp-and.an.hp.com> (Tony Brock-Fisher)
Subject: Competitor/Participant
Message-ID: <9401241453.AA02597@hp-and.an.hp.com>
I just thought I'd add my $.02. If the powers that be decide to split
contest entries into competitor/participant categories, I will ALWAYS enter
as a competitor! I admit that even with my superior geographical advantage
of living in the Fertile Crescent of Contest Propagation (23 miles north
of Boston), I will probably never 'win' a contest. To me, winning is coming
within sight of the top ten - in one-land. I prefer Single Op assisted,
and I have put up the biggest tower my one-acre plot of land can fit -
a whopping 70 feet. My next antenna project will start at the Realtor's
office.
The point is I have pretty well reached my financial limit in contesting.
Nevertheless, I take the competition seriously. I work all year trying
to improve my station. I pay attention to what the other guys are doing.
So I think that if I'm going to stay awake (or try to) for 48 hours,
I call myself a competitor, not just a participant.
If they break the entries into two classes, I'll enter competitor. And
I'm sure there will be 'participants' who will beat me, and there will
be 'competitors' that I will beat. I think that contesting is like the
Olympics, or other international competition - It's not so much the
winning to me, as just having been there and competed with the best.
It's a thrill to me to have a DX contest club come back to my call with
my first name - that's as important to me as a big score. Fortunately
they can't change that by changing the entry classes.
-Tony, K1KP
>From David Robbins (KY1H) 413-494-6955(w) 413-655-2714(h)
><robbins@guid2.dnet.ge.com> Mon Jan 24 14:55:13 1994
From: David Robbins (KY1H) 413-494-6955(w) 413-655-2714(h)
<robbins@guid2.dnet.ge.com> (David Robbins 413-494-6955 413-655-2714 (KY1H w h))
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <9401241455.AA22557@thomas.ge.com>
I have been watching the thread a about contest reporting and equalization
for a while now and just collecting ideas. How about if we look at this
logically:
first: equalization and reporting changes are not the same and should
probably be discussed in different contexts. there is no way that we can
change propagation to let the mid-west or pacific areas work as many
europeans as we can on the east coast. if we wanted to equalize scores based
on geography it would be a very complicated arrangement and to be truly fair
would have to change from contest to contest as propagation is different
every time. Someone with enough computer power and enough logs on disk could
possibly come up with equalization factors and determine a corrected score for
each station that would either rate the operator skill, or the combination of
operator skill and station construction... but i sure wouldn't want to do it.
the only real way to do this is the head to head competition like the world
games competition where you can eliminate propagation differences by
restricting the geographical areas and minimize station differences so its
mostly an operator skill competition.
Second. assuming there is no reasonable way at this time to correct for the
inequities of propagation we can look at how results are reported so we can
compare our results with those who have similar propagation. obviously this
must be a tradeoff between publication space and changes in propagation
patterns. The smaller the granularity of the reporting blocks the better the
comparison (at least until you get down to just one participant per block where
everyone wins), but the more page space needed for publication. so lets look
at some of the possibilities of breaking up the results:
1. arrl/crrl sections. Pros: small areas, propagation probably the same
across them, already defined, already used in some contests. Cons: seventy
some top 10 or even top 5 boxes???? probably not enough participants
in each class in some sections for a good breakdown.
2. states/provinces. Pros: most not too big to have different propagation in
different parts, already well defined, already used in some contests.
cons: still lots of boxes, some still have few stations in some catagories.
3. call districts. Pros: already well defined. probably enough participants
to get good comparisons. reasonable number of reporting boxes. cons: some
big enough to have different propagation from one side to the other.
4. arrl divisions (does crrl have them??): pros: well defined, already used
for some reporting, reasonable number of boxes. cons: some big enough to
have differeing propagation.
5. time zones: pros: small number of reporting boxes. cons: definately
widely varying propagation from north to south. some split states up.
6. cq zones: same as time zones.
i would go with arrl divisions for their contests, there are already division
awards, the boundries are already well known, and they aren't tooooo big for
the most part. it should be easy enough for the arrl to just break out the top
5 for each division in a separate table.
for the cq contests probably the call districts are best, they can
be broken down from already available information on the log sheets and
although some of them are a bit big they are better than cq zones or time
zones for restricting propagation differences.
of course making the data files with all the results and participant info
available for analysis would be very interesting also, cq probably doesn't
have that because of the volunteer checking system, but the arrl has it all
on computer and could probably make it available without too much work.
Third: the participant/contestant and 24hr/48hr sub-thread. publishing
hours operated sounds nice, it is already done in some contests. it is more
work for the volunteer log checkers for cq, but probably not much for the
computerized checking at arrl except it would have to be added to rules and
entry forms for the rest of the contests that don't have it now.
The Participant/contestant breakdown seems counter productive though. i think
an excellent idea is the one the arrl has been using in ss the last couple
years, provide participant pins and mugs for specific achievments. this
provides a way for beginers or those with limited time/resources to set
specific goals and come away with a tangible symbol of their acheivement.
how about a pin for 250 contacts in dx tests, and a mug for 100 countries?
maybe special pins for doing WAC in dx tests, or WAS in domestic tests?
a more detailed award program might be interesting, say special mugs for
division winners, or pins for section winners, or some other low cost
trophys. i would gladly sponser something like that, but it may put too
much load on the contest sponsors to handle the distribution. something like
extra awards would seem to be more likely to add participants than creating
a watered down entry catagory.
73, dave
robbins@guid2.dnet.ge.com
(for those who's mail utility can't do replies)
|