[PaQSO] Lies, darn lies, and statistics

[emiske at comcast.net]

I enjoy that kind of statistical analysis. I hope to do some similar analysis, but between work and SS CW this weekend it will probably not be for a week or so.

I can't say I'm shocked by any of that. 1:1.5 or so for QRO:QRP especially. 

But I still say "so what?".

Did the "average" QRP lose out to the "average" QRO on an EPA or WPA award? With or without the multiplier, it makes no difference. 

A serious question: 
Is it important to the QRP station to "visually" see his score in the results as "close" to the QRO score, even though there is no award competition between the two?

Example: 
Say the QRO plaque winner in WPA has a score of 223,456, the meduim power plaque winner has a score of 211,956 and the QRP plaque winner in WPA has a score of 154,566, (including the x2 multiplier). Would the QRP station beel bad or in some way feel his effort was diminished if it was listed as 77,283 (i.e., no x2 mult)? Either way it makes no difference as to who won the plaque. Any comments from the QRP crowd?

I understand there might well be a difference in finishing order in the Rover, Portable, etc divisions without the QRP mult. N3LL proved that, for several years running, in the Portable division. (If you're listening Bob, this is not an attack on you. I don't blame you for running QRP, in fact I admire you and the effort you put forward to do that). But, while I have done no statistical analysis on this of late, I do remember many/most years results for the portable division were made up of 85%, 90%, even 95% medium power stations. I don't know about rover, but I'd guess the same. 20 to 30 entrants each year in portable do not warrant multiple plaques (I think), so my suggestion is to limit the categories 150 watts or less. Go QRP if you want, and if you manage a win, what an accomplishment. Go QRO if you want, but you're not eligible for an award. Go MM portable if you want, (no matter what power), and you're not eligible for an award. (I did that once with N3FR, and the fact we w
ere not eligible for an award had no influence on our decision, and to this day that operation evokes many of my best ham radio memories)

Another epistle. Sorry. Did not intend to run on this long when I started, but there it is.

Ed/WA3SES

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Goody K3NG <goody.k3ng at gmail.com> 

> For giggles I threw the top ten scores from 2006 of the QRP, medium 
> power single op, and QRO single op categories into Excel and calculated 
> averages: 
> 
> QRP: 94,682 (includes QRP Bonus Multiplier) 
> Medium Power: 143,933 
> QRO: 156,313 
> 
> Ratios: 
> 
> QRP:Medium:QRO = 1:1.52:1.65 
> 
> Medium:QRO = 1:1.086 
> 
> I chose the top ten scores as to select only top scoring operators and 
> presumably only those who operated seriously for the entire event, and 
> admittedly it was the most convenient way to do it. 
> 
> It would be nice to see other years calculated and I'll admit this isn't 
> 100% scientific, but there are some interesting observations to take 
> away. Mainly, there wasn't much of an advantage to running QRO over 
> medium power and the QRP Bonus Multiplier on average didn't give QRP a 
> leg up on Medium Power or QRO. 
> 
> While the averages don't show a QRP advantage, the top QRP score would 
> have placed second in the QRO category (statewide) and second in the 
> Medium Power category (statewide). I think there's a perception that 
> the QRP bonus provides an advantage based on single instances like this, 
> but the averages don't show an overall advantage. 
> 
> Again, this isn't 100% scientific. Ideas on other ways to slice and 
> dice the numbers are welcome. 
> 
> 73 
> Goody 
> K3NG 
> 
> -- 
> Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> PaQSO mailing list 
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso