In reply to G8ADD:
In fact the only conclusion that can be drawn from these
periodic discussions is that so few people express an opinion that it
appears that the vast majority of participants are not interested in
change.
That does seem to be the one conclusion that is invariably arrived at by the MT.
It makes one wonder whether it is ever worth the effort to suggest any alteration to the rules.
73,
Walt (G3NYY)
Walt,
Definitely worth it if you can assemble any sort of significant number of regular participants to support your proposal. Although rather than âalterâ the rules, it would be my preference to introduce a third honour roll, that scored according to whatever the new criteria were.
Publish your proposal on here in full detail, so that it can be examined by the masses. There is no better test than peer review. After that, and any subsequent modification deemed necessary as a result, see what the numbers are like that are backing your proposal. That will give you and everyone else a clear indication of the level of support your suggestion has.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
As a long term casual activator of my local Sota summits and a very keen chaser I am happy with the way points are allocated but I would like to offer the following suggestions to enhance the scheme.
Regarding multiple activations of the same summit in a particular year why not have a diminishing scale of points, for example, full points for first activation, half points for second activation then one point for subsequent activations during the year.
Newcomers to Sota must be daunted by the fantastic, hard-earned high scores of the leaders in the Activator and Chaser tables so why not introduce an annual table to run alongside each. This could be reset to zero on Dec 31st and the following year would be open to anyone who wanted top place (in this non-competitive pastime!)
Discuss!
Best wishes for Christmas to all Sotarists.
Ron,
GW4EVX
I think we should keep the scoring system as it is. I am happy with the scoring system at the moment and I donât think there is any need to change it.
Jimmy M3EYP
In reply to GW4EVX:
Ron, there is already an annual table, go to the roll of honour in the database, select association or all associations, then select this year, you can even do it by mode.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Iâm relatively new to SOTA, only starting my activations as of Feb 2010. Only criticism I have is that you should get rewarded with 5 winter bonus points if you go up an 8 or 10 pointer! This is due to the colder and more inclement weather you get on higher peaks!
However that is only a little niggle and is not really worth worrying about and overall I see no issue with the current scoring system! It seems to work pretty well! If it ainât broke donât fix it!
Matt 2E0XTL
In reply to All:
The question i propose to you all is do we NEED points at all?
Instead use the sota database to record a personal detail of all chasers/activators/summits worked. And keep it for the individual user to see, to set their own personal goals and challenges. That way it takes the competition out of it. I donât see the need to know that call-sign X has 5000 points or call-sign Y 800 summit activations. Its all very well and good for that person but it doesnât help me achieve my goal?
73
Adrian
In reply to 2E0XTL:
An 8 or 10 point summit in winter can be a hands-in-pockets stroll or an almighty epic, Matt, a bonus encourages people to go out in winter, but too big a bonus may well encourage risk taking, three points seems a reasonable compromise. Many a time I have travelled up to Glencoe in winter for the snow and ice climbing only to find nothing but a few driblets of snow on the highest summits and the bar staff (also there because they are climbers!) saying the dreaded words âyou should have been here last week!â
Adrian, many people enjoy a little competition, indulge them, you donât need to pay any attention to your own score!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to M3EYP:
I think we should keep the scoring system as it is. I am happy with
the scoring system at the moment and I donât think there is any need
to change it.
Me too Jimmy.
73
Richard
G3CWI
In reply to G8ADD:
Adrian, many people enjoy a little competition, indulge them, you
donât need to pay any attention to your own score!
We are all in it for different reasonâs so its hard to please everyone. Dont get me wrong i do look at my score, but i cant judge it against anyone elseâs because we all have different abilities, free time, enthusiasm, location to available summits. All i can do is use the current points system to judge myself, my progression etc etc. Its only useless information but it could be better to know how someone is doing against there own goal i.e
GM***: Goal 100 Activator Points, 58 Achieved
M****: Goal 10000 Chaser Points, 200 Achieved
PA***:Activate All HB9 Summits Above 2000M, 10% Achieved
2M0ETR: Goal Activate the 18 Summits withing 25Km of QTH, 12 Achieved
And congratulate those who achieved their goal, and encourage those nearly there. Iâd much rather see a table look something like that than the current oneâs. Possibly trickier for the database manager (Hi Andy) to implement and maintain. But this way its a bit more friendly and only really relevant to the person doing it.
73 Adrian
(Mutiple edits on this one)
Hi all,
G8ADD:
In fact the only conclusion that can be drawn from these
periodic discussions is that so few people express an opinion
that it appears that the vast majority of participants are not interested
in change.
G3NYY:
That does seem to be the one conclusion that is invariably arrived at
by the MT.
It makes one wonder whether it is ever worth the effort to suggest any
alteration to the rules.
We can see that only 5 countries outside Great Britain seems to be involved in this discussion. Are those who have not given their opinion (ZS, SV,OE,HB,W,OK,ON,SP,OH, LA, HB0, SM, S5, PA, OD, S2, 9H, OZ, LX, YO, E7, HL) against any change ? (as it was during our previous discussion).
Alain F6ENO
In reply to M3EYP:
I think we should keep the scoring system as it is. I am happy with
the scoring system at the moment and I donât think there is any need
to change it.Jimmy M3EYP
Neither do I Jimmy.
73, Frank
Matt, a bonus encourages people to go out in winter,
but too big a bonus may well encourage risk taking, three points seems
a reasonable compromise.
Good point Brian!
Did not think of that!! Best to leave the points system as it is then! Seems to work well and it allows people to reach their own personal goals!
73 Matt 2E0XTL
In reply to G3NYY:
In reply to G3NYY:
In reply to G8ADD:
In fact the only conclusion that can be drawn from these
periodic discussions is that so few people express an opinion
that it
appears that the vast majority of participants are not interested
in
change.That does seem to be the one conclusion that is invariably arrived at
by the MT.
It makes one wonder whether it is ever worth the effort to suggest any
alteration to the rules.73,
Walt (G3NYY)
It is in reality an inevitable conclusion, Walt. Just look at the figures. Since the start of the program 1547 activators have taken part, in 2010 alone there has been contributions from 815 activators, yet only a handful of people urge change. Do you really think that these figures warrant change? Yet the MT is not complacent, we examine every issue that is raised, some issues get acted on, some issues will be acted on when the software can be changed, but we cannot contemplate change for its own sake. Even the sternest critic must admit that the program has been a great success, probably far beyond the imaginings of the far-sighted people who pioneered it. The MT has to be certain that any changes are not only necessary but will have no adverse effect on SOTA. That may look like conservatism to the critics, but in reality it is pure and simple pragmatism.
Let us look more closely at one issue: some contributors have urged that points be scored on the basis of height ASL world-wide. This is superficially attractive, it is simple, and rewards higher climbs with more pointsâŚor does it? In the UK many if not most summits are ascended from near sea level, but is that universally true? What is the height ASL of the valleys in the Alps or the Rockies for instance? In these high mountain areas a purely ASL scoring system would mean that there would be no one point summits, and insignificant bumps would attract quite respectable scores far in excess of the actual effort in climbing them. The extreme case would be in the Himalaya, where on the basis of, say, ASL/100 even a 150 metre monadnock in one of the valleys would attract 100+ points! Faced with this sort of situation can you wonder that the MT shy away from changing to an ASL based points system?
The MT are always prepared to listen to suggestions, but TBH we rarely hear anything that we have not already examined exhaustively!
73
Brian G8ADD
PS 8 inches of snow here, Pauline and I even decided not to attend our climbing clubs annual dinner tonight after our sons bus journey home from work took nearly three hours when it is usually half an hour!
In reply to F6ENO:
We can see that only 5 countries outside Great Britain seems to be
involved in this discussion. Are those who have not given their
opinion (ZS, SV,OE,HB,W,OK,ON,SP,OH, LA, HB0, SM, S5, PA, OD, S2, 9H,
OZ, LX, YO, E7, HL) against any change ? (as it was during our
previous discussion).
Salutations Alainâ
Iâve only barely dabbled in this discussion once (Hiking in the mountains: tips for beginner hikers - Mountain Day) but am probably currently observing from the sidelines for lack of excitement with the idea of re-attacking the local databaseâŚ(notre amieâla paresse! ironic to speak of laziness in the context of SOTA!)
However, in addition to that option I mentioned in the other post, I would certainly second the idea of (per annum) first activation full points, thereafter one point a pop (Iâm not so hot on the halving scheme).
Additionally, if there is another âground upâ option being discussed, the âsimplestâ option to implement that I would support would be P-POINTS (to attach a cute catchy name on it), that is: prominence based point allotments as opposed to HASL points. It would be a refinement to our currently good systemâanything else would be an unimaginably excessive workload (dealing with access points, ease of terrain, etc): Iâve still got 24% of the summits over here with no names attributed to themâŚapprox. 600 peaks. Iâm lucky if I can personally go there to verify simply its name, so, spending a day or two to check all possible routes upâŚouaf.
Thatâs my take on it, though, honestly at this point my principal goal is to A) get the Koreans out there on the summits and B) get all of them who are already actively transmitting from the summits to simply continue but within the context of SOTA (as Iâm sure there are many points lying around that so many activators still donât realize they have and some who could almost claim an awardâŚ!) because there are quite a few doing it to collect KDNs (Korea District Numbersâbasically like collecting GridSquares) a fair portion of the time QRO from their cars as high as they can drive.
So, yeahâmy two cents. As far as other HL-ians that Iâm aware of, they donât seem to bothered about âcollecting them allâ and would fit well within G8ADD & G3NYYâs assertions.
73 de Jason.
HL4/W2VLA
PS. Had our âfirstâ light snowfall of the season âen basâ at sea-level, nothing sticking yet. Chains are in the trunk for the next activation, though!
In reply to F6ENO:
Alain!
You hit the nail on the head!
And what is more, only minority of the 5 countriesâ activators and chasers have expressed their opinion. Maybe, they donât even read this discussion because they simply donât have the necessary command of English⌠Or they may think: it isnât worth the candle, as nothing will change! Or what is better: they donât care about scores but enjoy making QSOs!
Thus G8ADDâs statement (âit appears that the vast majority of participants are not interested in changeâ) seems to be questionable. Writing âmajority of those who have EXPRESSED their opinionâ were a better established statement, I think.
73: JĂłska, HA5CW
In reply to HA5CW:
Solutions is simple,
carry out an online survey,
list possible changes then all registered members to the site can cast a vote if they want to see some change or not.
Darius OK7OK
In reply to âHeight Points Criteriaâ:
Have to agree with Vlado, Z35M: âItâs obvious that the perfect scoring system doesnât exist.â
I do not believe that a more complicated scoring system will make SOTA more attractive. There are certainly flaws in the current system, all raised before (why different points for the same height in different countries?, why only score once per year for activiators?,⌠).
I personally consider scoring only fair when compared to oneself. I can compare my previous yearâs score with this yearâs and I see that I was more active in 2010. Thatâs all I can get out of a scoring system.
I like the idea of a âlardâ bonus raised by Andy, MM0FMF. I think I would be eligible for oneâŚ
73 Heinz, OE5EEP
In reply to HA5CW:
OK, Joska, I will reword it for you. It appears that the vast majority of participants are not interested enough in change to join the debate. Certainly only a very small percentage of the participants have expressed any opinion at all, and it seems that there is little agreement between those that have expressed an opinion.
73
Brian G8ADD