| To: | cq-contest@contesting.com | 
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpact | 
| From: | Steve Hanlon <asciibaron@verizon.net> | 
| Date: | Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:44:34 -0500 (CDT) | 
| List-post: | <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> | 
work SS on a Sunday and have someone spot you - you will magically have a rate. that should be proof enough that spotting has a correlation to number of stations logged. but i really don't see the point of all this - if the WRTC wants things to be fair, than they should simply spot each station every 15 minutes. there, problem solved. -Steve, WM3O On Jul 14, 2010, Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com> wrote: The scientist in me wants to see numerical proof that one spot, or even ten spots, variation made any difference to the scores. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest  | 
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> | 
|---|---|---|
  | ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results /Overspottinganditsimpact, Julius Fazekas | 
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [CQ-Contest] WRTC stations, Joe | 
| Previous by Thread: | [CQ-Contest] Fw: [wrtc2010] WRTC Program Booklet, Jim Neiger | 
| Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results/Overspottinganditsimpact, Martin Monsalvo, LU5DX | 
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |