The Beginning
How to Count Countries Worked
A New DX Scoring System
By Clinton B. DeSoto
Assistant to the Secretary, A.R.R.L.
*Reprint of article from October 1935 QST *
(download this article in PDF format)
<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/DXCC/cbd_1935_article.pdf>*w1cbd.jpg
<http://www.arrl.org/images/view//AWARDS/w1cbd.jpg>*
This piece has been started half a dozen times in the past five years.
It has been the subject of more cerebration and contemplation and
tabulation and plain downright misery than one cares to recall. It is
presented now - in a form far from what we should like it to be - only
to silence the insistent demand that has come down through the years.
"How about a list of countries of the world?" "How do I count countries
worked?" "Are Tasmania and Australia separate countries?"-and a hundred
variations of this latter. With the world WACing at a terrific rate
these days, faster by far than ever before, the number of countries
worked is increasingly becoming the criterion of excellence among
outstanding DX stations.
How, then, do we count countries worked? The simplest way, of course, is
to check against a standard list of countries of the world. Well, back
in 1932 we began the preparation of such a list. We laid down fairly
definite rules as to what constituted a country, and proceeded to
tabulate the countries of the world. When we had reached several
hundred, with the end not yet in sight, we hollered, "Whoa!" and decided
that there must be some other better method. We knew that there were not
more than 150 countries in which amateurs had ever been worked; it might
he possible to list only them. But we had no assurance that amateurs
would not encamp in some of the many remaining countries and thus render
our list obsolete. An even more pertinent disadvantage was that it
seemed impossible to even list all the countries in which amateurs had
been worked to date; new countries were always popping out,
astonishingly, like jack-in-the-boxes. Able cooperation was enlisted -
Eric W. Trebilcock of Moonta, South Australia, Arthur W. Braaten, W2BSR,
O.M. Carter, W9ADN, and others sent us lists they had prepared. We got
lists of countries actually worked from such outstanding stations as
W8BKP and WlTW-W1CMX-W1BUX and others. But it seemed no list was ever
complete; even if brought up to date for a moment, it rapidly became
obsolescent. And amateurs were still clamoring for s list of countries
of the world!
The next attempt occurred in 1934, in an endeavor to rationalize and
unify action on WAC applications by member-societies of the I.A.R.U. A
tentative list of some 150 countries, limited strictly to continental
mainland boundaries, was prepared and submitted to the member-societies.
Even this list, restricted as it was, was not satisfactory; indeed, we
almost immediately decided that the only satisfactory solution of this
particular problem was a map of the world showing continental
boundaries, which was prepared, approved by the membership, and
published on page 41 of the November, 1934, issue of /QST/.
But this still left the problem of counting countries worked. Now, we
could publish a list of all the "countries" of the world, but to be
useful it would occupy seven or eight pages in /QST/, pages which are
vitally needed for other material, and even then its utility would never
reach a very high percentage. And the probable wear and tear on that
COPY of /QST /is enough to make one shudder!
The better plan, it seems to us, is simply to give the general rule we
follow in deciding whether a country is a "country," together with some
pertinent examples, in order that each amateur will have enough
information concerning standard practice to be able to prepare his own
list of countries worked and have it uniform with other lists.
The basic rule is simple and direct: /Each discrete geographical or
political entity is considered to be a country. /A few moments'
consideration will serve to show that this is the only workable rule.
It is obviously incorrect to count prefixes alone (except for such
purposes as the International DX tests where, paradoxically, confusion
means simplification) because many places having the same prefix are
quite widely separated geographically. In addition, confusion develops
when a country changes its amateur prefix, with the result that an
amateur might claim two countries worked whereas only one is proper.
It is obviously incorrect to accept either geographical or political
divisions alone, as immediately the most glaring inconsistencies appear.
The only general solution that comes anywhere near to solving the
problem seems to be to reduce the definition of "country" to the
smallest common denominator - a single unit in the world's geographical
and political proportions. This has the added advantage - from the ham
viewpoint - of creating a long list, offering the widest possible realm
of achievement; and who will fail to find that an attractive feature?
To illustrate how this rule works out, a few general problems which have
been raised in correspondence will be cited: Alaskaand the United States
are separate because of the geographical division, just as Mexico and
the United States are separate because of the political boundary.
Tasmaniaand Australia are separate because of the geographical division.
ZS, ZT, and ZU are counted as one country, because there is no
geographical and political distinction; ZE, on the other hand, is a
separate country. Scotlandand England are individual countries, as are
the Irelands. Sumatra, Java and Borneo are separate, as are Celebes and
New Guinea. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are each separate.
The Federated Malay States are one country, having a common government
and being geographically connected.
Some distinction between /islands /and /island groups /is necessitated.
Island groups, constituted by several islands commonly grouped under one
name and under the same political control such as the Hawaiian Islands,
the Tonga or Friendly Islands, the Sandwich group, etc., are regarded as
one country. Where these groups are under different governmental
control, they are subdivided into as many countries as there are
governments. Individual islands, such as BountyIsland, Trinidad,
Ascension Island, AmsterdamIsland, etc., are regarded as separate
countries. The principal place where this differentiation is likely to
cause trouble is among the PacificIslands, but even here the rule is
found to apply remarkably well.
The few examples given will be found to illustrate the working of the
method quite effectively. If any questionable points arise, A.R.R.L.
headquarters will be glad to offer a ruling.
PROPOSED DX SCORING PLAN
Now we come to a somewhat different, although an allied, subject,
broached by N. M. Patterson, W4EG. He is perturbed, and it seems many DX
men agree with him, over that fact that under the countries-worked plan
one VK QSO from America counts for as much as working all eight VK
districts. Similarly, the European ham with one lone W QSO gets as much
credit as another who has worked all nine call areas. "That there is a
whale of a difference you will readily see," he writes through Director
Caveness.
In view of this situation, W4EG proposes that there be created a "rule
for counting DX, to be known as the DX /Score/." This score will be
computed by taking the number of districts worked in each country, and
adding it all up into a grand total. For example, we'll suppose that
W8BKP, who had when last reported worked 123 countries, counts nine W
call areas, eight VK districts, six Spanish districts, etc. On the basis
of adding the figures for these countries alone, the score would be 143;
probably the grand total would be well over two hundred.
This seems to us to be an entirely rational suggestion, far more /so
/than many that have been perpetrated. For ten years or so it has been
impossible to work any /farther/, in terms of terrestrial miles; the
only room for expansion is to work as many /places /as possible. The
first recognition of this fact resulted in the inauguration of the WAC
certificate. Totaling the number of countries worked followed naturally.
This new proposal, expanding and improving the countries-worked idea,
seems to be a logical next step. Indeed, following along this line of
thought, one foresees the time when DX will be counted in cities worked,
or stations per square mile, or something even more fantastic!
But for the present the DX Score idea looks pretty hot. It has the major
beauty of simplicity. Just total up the districts worked, and there you
are! We expect it won't be long before a lot of QSL cards will bear the
legend, "Continents worked: /6; /countries worked: /66; /DX score: /92." /
What do you say, old man?
ARRL Link - http://www.arrl.org/desoto