Pete,
I can't see any reason *not* to do this. Great idea. Anyone who wants to
compete is always looking for "others like me" to compare scores, so the
CWC provides an easy way to create such a venue for any "category" where
there's enough interest, without any need for any Contest Committee to do
anything at all. The 24-hour group is a fine place to try it out. With
computers today, it's straightforward to have as many CWCs as we like -
yes, the time has come.
I'd make the 24h rules as simple as possible - just a 24-hour period,
defined by your log as submitted. No constraints on pattern of operation.
If you work more than 24 hours, simply delete the Qs outside your chosen
24h period before sending your log. Anyone who doesn't like the idea just
doesn't need to submit a log.
An interesting experiment would be to encourage people to only submit their
log as an entrant to a contest in which they are actually trying to
compete. E.G., if you're just casually participating, for whatever reason,
submit your log as a Checklog, to indicate that you're not trying to win
anything. That would likely produce some actual data on popularity and a
count of the real competitors.
Just curious...what were the reasons that the Contest Committee offered as
they shot down the 2003 proposal?
73,
/Jack de K3FIV
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
> Ten years ago, VE5ZX, N2MG and I made a modest proposal - and were
> summarily shot down by the CQWW Contest Committee. What follows was
> written then, so there are a few anachronisms - for example, CQWW logs are
> now public. But I think the basic idea remains sound, so I'm putting it
> out for comment from the community. Is this an idea whose time has finally
> come?
>
> Announcing the 24-Hour DX Contest Challenge
>
> Have you ever felt caught in-between -- wanting to compete seriously in a
> contest with a 48-hour time period but unable or unwilling to go that hard,
> that long?Do family obligations collide with your desire to be competitive
> in a major DX contest?Do you feel, where you live, that the schedule of the
> major DX contests forces you to be late to work on Monday morning, or to
> start the contest well after midnight on Friday?
>
> Well, now there's an alternative.The first-ever 24-Hour DX Contest
> Challenge will be held to coincide with the 2003 CQ Word Wide DX Phone and
> CW Contests. The basic idea of the 24-Hour challenge is simple -- to
> provide a competitive category for operators who are not able or willing to
> operate the full 48-hour period.You choose the 24 hours out of a 48-hour
> contest that you want to operate, and compete with operators in your own
> country or around the world who make similar choices.Match your knowledge
> of propagation and operating patterns with others by choosing the optimum
> 24 hours, and may the best operator win!
>
> In February [2003], a survey appeared on www.contesting.com, asking
> whether institution of a 24-hour category in DX contests would result in
> operators increasing or decreasing their operating time, or would result in
> no change.Almost 500 votes were cast -- 42 percent said they would operate
> more, while only 12 percent said they would operate less; 46 percent said
> they would not be affected.
>
> These survey results demonstrate that instituting a 24-Hour Challenge
> would not hurt activity in the established contest, and would probably
> help.Accordingly, the first test of the 24-Hour Challenge will take place
> in conjunction with the CQWW DX Contests this fall.Plaques for the top
> single-op unassisted station in each mode will be awarded, at a minimum,
> and we are looking for sponsors for additional plaques.Certificates for top
> scorers by country will also be awarded.We are shamelessly copying the Stew
> Perry Top Band Distance Challenge, in offering to award a plaque for any
> category that someone is willing to sponsor.Contact N4ZR if you would like
> to sponsor a plaque for a particular locality or category.
>
> To qualify for the 24-hour Challenge, your log must contain no more than
> 24 hours total operating time, comprising no more than 6 operating periods,
> with each off-time being no less than 30 minutes.Entry is simple -- once
> your Cabrillo-format log has been accepted by the CQWW Contest Committee,
> just send us the same log file.We will process the log to make sure it
> meets the time criteria, and publish a list of qualifying logs received on
> a dedicated web site that will be established for that purpose.Actual log
> content will be maintained in confidence.When CQ publishes the scores, we
> will post plaque winners and all standings on the web site, based on CQ's
> final scores.We will also publish our own write-up of the results of the
> 24-Hour Challenge, hopefully capturing all the excitement of this
> first-ever event.
>
> Further details, including the establishment of a web page dedicated to
> the 24-Hour challenge and any specific rule provisions that are developed
> between now and the 2003 [sic] CQWW contests will be the subjects of later
> announcements.Stay tuned!"
>
>
> What think, folks?
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> http://reversebeacon.net,
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> For spots, please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>
> On 4/1/2013 9:02 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
>
>> By publishing the number of hours worked with the score, using whatever
>> time-on calculation the log-checkers feel is appropriate for that contest,
>> it would be straightforward for an interested third-party to calculate
>> score/hr statistics.
>>
>> Public, validated logs could also be parsed for all sorts of time-related
>> stats:
>> - best first 24 hour score
>> - best second 24 hour score
>> - best N hour score
>> - fastest to N points
>> and so on. It would be the equivalent of baseball's sabermetrics - what
>> is the analog of "slugging percentage"?
>>
>> If the data was there and someone cared about the calculation, it would
>> probably be performed. We might find an interesting way to compete that
>> doesn't require a new formal category. Or we might decide that what we
>> already have is good enough and that more categories don't really change
>> things. Nevertheless, the impact on the contest sponsors, who have very
>> limited resources, would be minimal.
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|