CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?

To: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
From: I4UFH <i4ufh@libero.it>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:30:01 +0100
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Stan,

Suggesting these rules include also the DX side of the QSO that indeed for W1 
is difficult to work W6 as G station so i expect to add more fun and 
competition to the black hole Guys without compromise the score .

Adding 0 points to your zone and adjacent zone and only 1 point to other no 
adjacent zone into the same country could be an exception that can be added to 
level the playfield into the Bigger countries that are spreadout over 3/4 
CQzones

73 de Fabio I4UFH



Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 02/dic/2013, alle ore 15:13, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com> ha 
scritto:

> I think there is merit to looking at this general type of scoring but would 
> add one thing.  Zero points for contacts within your own country regardless 
> of zone.   Would not want the DX Contest to be cluttered with hundreds of USA 
> stations running other USA stations.  West Coast to East Coast in proposed 
> system would be 2/3 as many points as working JA from New England.  We have 
> enough contests where W/K can work each other.
> 
> Stan, K5GO
> 
> Sent from Stan's IPhone
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:38 AM, Fabio I4UFH <i4ufh@libero.it> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Guys,
>> 
>> Even it will be impossible to equalize the world, with the right equation, i 
>> have one more 
>> simple idea, that i didn’t show up, this year, apologies if if has still be 
>> discussed in the past :
>> 
>> 
>> Without scrambling software developers or online scores, or Software 
>> committee,
>> to endorse the DX QSO, i can suggest a different points related to your 
>> CQZone, no more Country or Continents. 
>> 
>> Same CQ Zone    =    1    Points
>> Adjacent Zone        =    2    Points
>> Other Zone        =    3    Points
>> 
>> For adjacent Zone i mean the CQZone that has borders with your Zone.
>> 
>> Benefit ? Well everyone still will try the DX QSO. PJ will still have 3 
>> points with NA,
>> but also TI, XE Zone 3 and 4 at 2 points, and zone 5 a 3 points, LU almost 3 
>> points,
>> CN, EA8 2 points zone 14, 15 and 5, 3 point others, 9M will add more bloods 
>> with almost
>> JA’s a 3 points .. etc. etc.
>> 
>> it’s is a brief analyze, obviously there will be some place in the world 
>> that still had advantages,
>> but are advantages related with his far away location, that is the core of 
>> the discussion.
>> 
>> To calculate is very easy, every Zone has it’s adjacent  Zone , so no need 
>> to send different reports,
>> no need to distance approximate calculation, no need to add K’s factor to 
>> correct polar path, simply
>> a different point of view related with what still have … the CQZones..
>> 
>> If i will have time into the December Holiday i will try to rescore old logs 
>> with these new rules !
>> 
>> Just one more cents   
>> 
>> 73 de Fabio I4UFH
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Il giorno 29/nov/2013, alle ore 21:36, Rick Kiessig <kiessig@gmail.com> ha 
>> scritto:
>> 
>>> I think it's a mistake to look at distance-based scoring strictly as a
>>> measure of effort to complete a QSO. Even though it's a much better measure
>>> than DXCC or Zone, that's not the real intent, IMO.
>>> 
>>> Instead, I think the goal is to get population-dense areas to point their
>>> antennas away from each other, and out toward the rest of the world, by
>>> encouraging multiple contacts with distant places. CQWW's scoring system of
>>> zero points for QSOs in your own country is a good first step, but when
>>> there are many countries (or another continent) right next door, it's not as
>>> effective as it should be.
>>> 
>>> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Aldewey@aol.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 5:31 AM
>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
>>> 
>>> Distance based scoring is something that was looked at in detail for ARRL DX
>>> contest a couple years ago.  While it had it's advocates, there were a
>>> couple main concerns that caused us to set it aside for now.  The first was
>>> that, depending on propagation, the distance of a Contest QSO, does not
>>> always  equate to the effort needed to make that Q.  In many cases, on 10
>>> and 15  meters for example, it is easier for someone Florida (for example)
>>> to make a  contact with EU than it is the Caribbean.  The CAC actually
>>> worked with someone who re scored a couple past DX Contests using the
>>> Distance Based Scoring  and the results did not change all that much.
>>> Scores in the middle part of  the U.S. rose and scores on the east coasts
>>> went down and the order of the top  ten changed a little but not that much.
>>> Logging software would have to  change of course and we were concerned that
>>> there were many contesters that  would not be comfortable with Grid Squares
>>> (which would give the most accurate  results).  Finally, the majority of the
>>> contesters we talked to were not in  favor or such a change.
>>> 
>>> So, at least for now, the change was not recommended.
>>> 
>>> 73,
>>> 
>>> AL, K0AD
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>