eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com Team

Contesting Online Speak Out


Speak Out: WRTC 2002 Score Tracking

A member wants to know "The recent WRTC 2002 competition promised real-time score tracking. Did they deliver? Has a new standard been set for future contests?"

26 opinions on this subject. Enter your opinion at the bottom of this page.
[Speak Out Home Page]


Opinions...

<-- Page 2 -->

N2MG on 2002-07-22
Anonymous wrote:

"Make the contests fair first."

PLEASE...a suggestion or two...

Anonymous on 2002-07-22
I don't think it sucked. There were guys from all over the United States. The nominating bodies in the USA are distributed roughly equal to the contest activity distribution, and the American WRTC ops pretty much reflect that. That makes perfect sense to me. Do you disagree?
###########################################
"Activity distribution" now there is a loaded phrase if I ever saw one. Wouldn't the "activity distribution" be better if W0AIH stood a chance of fairly beeting KC1XX in CQWW?

Per your original post about "fairness," most people who think a "level playing field" is important applaud the WRTC. In fact, the WRTC was created for that purpose, since clearly the other contests will never offer a level playing field.
###############################
This is were the problem lies. We think the best ops are the ones that do well in broken contests.


You could say WRTC exists because there can't be a "tribander and wires" category in regular contests.
##################################
Why can't there be. WPX has it. The do nothings on the CQWW committee add it too.

So, get on the air with your dipole. If you do a good job, perhaps your contest club would send you to the WRTC where you could win and finally compete in the fair contest you seek.
###########################################
"If you do a good job"...what joke. You now it would never happen.


I think the real-time scoring feature was a neat idea, and I would enjoy tracking the ops in the CQWW the same way, but I hope the bugs get worked out.
#########################################
It is a waste of time. Make the contests fair first. Then maybe somebody would care to look at the scores real time because then they would me something.

N5OT on 2002-07-22
Anon: "The geographical distribution of US ops in the WRTC sucked."

I don't think it sucked. There were guys from all over the United States. The nominating bodies in the USA are distributed roughly equal to the contest activity distribution, and the American WRTC ops pretty much reflect that. That makes perfect sense to me. Do you disagree?

Per your original post about "fairness," most people who think a "level playing field" is important applaud the WRTC. In fact, the WRTC was created for that purpose, since clearly the other contests will never offer a level playing field.

You could say WRTC exists because there can't be a "tribander and wires" category in regular contests.

So, get on the air with your dipole. If you do a good job, perhaps your contest club would send you to the WRTC where you could win and finally compete in the fair contest you seek.

I think the real-time scoring feature was a neat idea, and I would enjoy tracking the ops in the CQWW the same way, but I hope the bugs get worked out. I think when you have a broken station putting out bogus numbers it should be scratched from the real-time listing and replaced with a zero and a note saying "sorry, this line is broken." I think that would be better than teasing us fans into thinking a particular team is walking off with the contest.

Anonymous on 2002-07-21
Anon: When you say "who cares if you make a million points more then I do if I've only got a dipole and you have stacked mono-banders," are you saying that if you could operate contests from a big station you think you would have been invited to the WRTC? Help me understand your point better.

No. From a real time scoring prespective who cares. The top ten in CQWW will always be those with the biggest stations or in a propagationally advantaged location. The geographical distribution of US ops in the WRTC sucked. Why waste or time on real time score posting when there are other problems to solve.


Also, I am not surprised N2MG was confused by your statement "Do you know what I was talking about? The contests used to choose the people who went to WRTC" because performance in contests is not a criterion for invitation to WRTC.

In a way it is. Who would care about k1ar if his only claim to fame was winning the podunk qso party 10 years running. Maybe the criteria should be if you want to be in WRTC then you operate such and such contests with WRTC style antennas and then the scores would be statistically determined based on geographic distance to large qso population areas and multiplier areas with propagation anomolies such as polar absorbtion factored in.

K4WW on 2002-07-20
I'm not sure that I understand the "realtime" scoring dispute? It's been around for as long as I've been contesting, in contest(s) that require a serial number as part of the exchange? One may not know exactly how the competetion is faring, as the multiplier count is not given, but serial number comparison will give a very good idea? I like the idea of knowing how my "direct" competetion is doing, as it greatly effects my operating strategy during the contest!

N5OT on 2002-07-20
Anon: When you say "who cares if you make a million points more then I do if I've only got a dipole and you have stacked mono-banders," are you saying that if you could operate contests from a big station you think you would have been invited to the WRTC? Help me understand your point better.

Also, I am not surprised N2MG was confused by your statement "Do you know what I was talking about? The contests used to choose the people who went to WRTC" because performance in contests is not a criterion for invitation to WRTC.

Anonymous on 2002-07-19
N2MG:
So what? Got a suggestion or only complaints?

###################################################
Why are real problems with contests called complaints? This is not a complaint it is a real observation of over 20 years of contest work. Until there is a real standards body amateur radio contests will be nothing more then who spent the most money to win events.

Anonymous on 2002-07-19
This is a very good inovation in contesting world. Hopefully one day something like that will be possible to every-contest-use, not only in WRTC. For me watching online scores was way more fun then watching football. :-)

Hrle-9A6XX

SM6KRI on 2002-07-19
This time I myself was not in the contest, but as a "spectator" in my schack and listening to the very skilful competitors in WRTC and sometimes checking the scoreboard -that´s interesting.

N2MG on 2002-07-19
Anon: Sure it's not fair. Not everyone can put up monobanders. So what? Got a suggestion or only complaints?

<-- Page 2 -->


Enter your opinion about WRTC 2002 Score Tracking:

Your Opinion:

From: Anonymous

To post as yourself, new members go to our sign up page. Members can log in here.


The opinions expressed within Contesting Online Speak Out are those of the contributor, and not necessarily that of Contesting Online. Contesting Online simply provides a forum for people to express their opinions on various amateur radio contesting subjects of interest.

Do you have an idea for a Speak Out topic? Email our Speak Out Manager with your ideas.