I realize that I have an odd sense of what counts as "interesting" and
"fun", but....it might be kind of fun and interesting if a collection of
stats were made easily available for public review and analysis.
So far, the discussion seems to support the assumptions I made when I
mulled them over one night. Besides, as a perpetual LP entrant with a very
modest station, I'm just playing for the fun of it (and to fill out
band-country charts). WRTC qualification is a spectator sport for guys
like me.
It's clearly too late to modify the selection criteria for WRTC2014, but
perhaps would-be WRTC2018 committee members are already thinking ahead to
potential changes and improvements.
I would argue that "the best" qualification scoring system would be the one
that does the best job at predicting WRTC results. With a body of
publicly available data, different qualification schemes could be developed
and tested against one another. It becomes a simple predictive modeling
exercise, really.
I suspect that, at least among "reasonable" possible scoring systems, the
list of qualifying entrants would be pretty similar.
For whatever it's worth, I can't help but wonder what dynamic category
weightings would do to qualification scoring (i.e., have the category
weights for a particular qualifying event be based at least in part on the
competitive index for that event).
--
*Michael D. Adams* (N1EN)
Poquonock, Connecticut | mda@n1en.org
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Martin , LU5DX <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Chris Plumblee
> <chris.plumblee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Syl,
> ...
> >
> > The reality of our hobby is that the best measure of who is the best
> > operator is who can score best in the single op categories, and the
> > category with the most serious entries and the most competition on a
> > regional, national, and international basis is almost universally single
> > op, high power. The scoring weight for single op low power was adjusted
> > upward this year in an attempt to be more equitable, as Dan pointed out.
> >
> > ....
>
>
> Hello Chris.
> Your opinion is solely based in your own perception of reality.
> But if you do the math (see below) your statement seems not to
> accurately represent it (reality).
> I did not do the numbers for LP in this case, because I wanted to show
> the case of an even less rated entry category (in terms of WRTC
> selection criteria), that is, SOAB(A) HP, which has a weighting factor
> of 0.8
> Raw data was taken from the great site http://www.pileup.ru
> More precise calculations can be done using the organizer's score data
> base with final numbers.
>
> It would be really interesting if Valery (pileup.ru) or the contest
> organizers can provide the raw DB data to manipulate it as needed to
> start a solid statistical analysis about competitiveness and other
> aspects as well.
>
> 2011 CQ WW DX SSB total number of entries SOAB HP: 999
> Total sum of Claimed scores for SOAB HP: 879,495,650
> Average points per station in SOAB HP (Total sum of claimed points /
> (total number of logs - checklogs) = 879,495,650 / (999 - 41) =
> 918,053.9144
>
>
> 2011 CQ WW DX SSB total number of entries SOAB(A) HP: 805
> Total sum of Claimed scores for SOAB (A) HP: 751,417,601 points.
> Average points per station in SOAB (A) HP (Total sum of claimed points
> / (total number of logs - checklogs) = 751,417,601 / (805 - 49) =
> 993.938.6257
>
> According to N0AX's formula for determining Competitiveness of a
> category, that is,
> Average of top ten scores / top score (in a given class)
>
> We can easily determine that:
> In the 2011 CQ WW DX
>
> SSB SOAB HP has a Competitiveness index of: 0,740468333
> whereas
> SSB SOAB (A) HP has a Competitiveness index of: 0,672518322 (In this
> case the competitiveness index is actually deviated by the score of
> one station P40A with a big geographic and DX status advantage over
> the rest of the top ten entrants. Most of them from Europe, two from
> the States one from A6 and ST2AR who may have a higher DXCC status
> ranking but he's using very simple antennas (singe tribander and
> wires).
>
> In the 2012 CQ WW DX CW the competitiveness index favors SOAB(A) for
> the top ten entrants (ballpark figures, since I don't remember exactly
> thoug I did thte math):
>
> SOAB(A) HP 0.82
> SOAB HP: 0.80
>
> This is not absolute the right perspective since it's done on a world
> wide basis. This is just to demonstrate that in part, your statement
> is not valid.
>
> Who are the best operators can only be determined under a very, almost
> totally, better said, TOTALLY controlled environment. Which is not the
> case of contests other than WRTC.
>
> Nevertheless, the criteria to determine who wins a place as a team
> leader is based upon human opinions and perceptions rather than based
> on statistical facts.
>
> Based on the numbers SOAB LP can never rank higher than SOAB(A) HP if
> competitiveness is a factor. Neither can MS rank higher than SOAB(A).
> Some would say, MS aligns more to the WRTC style of operation.
> Not true. MS teams outside of WRTC can be formed by a high number of
> operators, distributing the working hours by a bunch and making the
> need for stamina, endurance, concentration by each operator a whole
> lot less than a SOAB(A). In fact, MS can use packet or web clusters,
> but they still get a weighting factor of 1!!
>
> Anyways, nice discussion.
> Hope to meet you in W1 even if we go as visitors :-)
>
> Vy 73.
>
> Marti, LU5DX
> _______________________________________________
> wrtc2014 mailing list
> wrtc2014@lists.wrtc2014.org
> http://lists.wrtc2014.org/mailman/listinfo/wrtc2014
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|