Consultation on UKAC Scoring Schemes 2017 - · PDF fileConsultation on UKAC Scoring Schemes Issue 1 ... bonus score for the first contact with each large ... The workshop then considered

Consultation on UKAC Scoring Schemes Issue 1 | 30th June 2017 Page 1 of 25

Consultation on UKAC Scoring Schemes 2017

Summary

This is the Consultation Document about future scoring systems for the RSGB VHF-UHF UK

Activity Contests (UKACs). Online voting on this consultation will open on 28th July and continue

until 20th August.

During 2017, a scoring system known as B2 has been in use on 50MHz-1.3GHz, which awards a

bonus score for the first contact with each large locator square, and the value of that bonus varies

from one square to another. This system is being run for a trial year in 2017, and has already

generated substantial feedback and debate.

As a result of this feedback, a VHF-UHF UKAC Working Group was established by the President

of RSGB, Nick Henwood, G3RWF, to try and bring a long running debate on scoring systems to a

conclusion.

Having looked extensively across a wide range of possible scoring systems, using the open

contest logs to analyse their potential impact, we decided to simplify the choice to just two options

that capture all the real points at issue:

• A variant of B2 which we will call B3 with reduced overall bonus scores and some additional high bonus squares.

• The system in use in the Nordic Activity Contests, and widely accepted across Northern Europe, where the first contact with every new square attracts a bonus of 500 points.

These two particular schemes have been selected because:

• The B3 option has the feature of geographic variability within the UK&CD and the Nordic option doesn’t, so this offers a clear choice

• Both provide a strong incentive to look for new squares, making the event require more strategy and skill, and providing an incentive for stations to beam in all directions and to spend additional time and effort trying to work rare bonuses

• Having analysed the behaviour of other reasonable bonus or multiplier based scoring systems, they all behave in similar ways to one of these two

• There is not enough variation in the behaviours of the alternatives to justify making the decision more complex and risk ending with a poor compromise which works badly for everyone.

This is a complex problem. There are no simple solutions, and all conceivable solutions have

conflicting consequences for entrants in various contest classes and from various parts of the UK

and Crown Dependencies (UK&CD, comprising G, GM, GW, GI and also GD, GJ and GU). So

before you vote, please read this document carefully and discuss it as widely as you wish.


Introduction

This is the Consultation Document about future scoring systems for the RSGB VHF-UHF UK

Activity Contests (UKACs). Online voting on this consultation will open on 28 July and continue

until 20 August.

This is a complex problem. There are no simple solutions, and all conceivable solutions have

conflicting consequences for entrants in various contest classes and from various parts of the UK

and Crown Dependencies (UK&CD, comprising G, GM, GW, GI and also GD, GJ and GU). So

before you vote, please read this document carefully and discuss it as widely as you wish.

Background

The scoring system for the UKACs has been a controversial subject for some years. During 2017,

a scoring system known as B2 has been in use on 50MHz-1.3GHz, which awards a bonus score

for the first contact with each large locator square, and the value of that bonus varies from one

square to another.

In these UKACs, all bonuses or multipliers are applied on top of the basic points/kilometre score.

Simple “points per kilometre” (PPK) is itself a valid scoring system which is used in co-ordinated

IARU Region 1 contests. However, RSGB-only contests for many years have added some other

“collectable” feature such as Locator squares or Postcodes which make the event require more

strategy and skill.

B2 is a scoring system which attempts to compensate for the wide geographic variations in contest

activity in different parts of the UK&CD. Very broadly speaking, the “centres of activity” producing

by far the largest numbers of entrants and QSOs are the heavily populated areas of central,

southern and northern England.

The B2 scoring system makes it more attractive for stations in the centres of activity to spend time

making contacts into the more remote areas. It does this by awarding larger points bonuses for the

first contact with Locator squares which are more distant from those centres of activity. Note that

the bonus value is always that of the distant square contacted – not one’s own square.

The B2 scoring system is being run for a trial year in 2017, and has already generated substantial

feedback and debate.

As a result of this feedback, a VHF-UHF UKAC Working Group was established by the President

of RSGB, Nick Henwood, G3RWF, to try and bring a long running debate on scoring systems to a

conclusion. This group consisted of some members of the VHFCC combined with a number of

non-committee members whose views were representative of the wide range of opinions being

voiced.


The team comprised:

Nick Henwood, G3RWF (Chair, President RSGB)

Ian Pawson, G0FCT (Chair Contest Support Committee)

Ian White, GM3SEK

Stewart Bryant, G3YSX (RSGB Board Representative for Contesting)

Andy Cook, G4PIQ (Chair VHF Contest Committee)

Keith Le Boutillier, GU6EFB

Richard Baker, GD8EXI (VHFCC Member)

Martin Hall, GM8IEM (VHFCC Member)

David Dix, G8LZE

Mike Tubby, G8TIC

Carl Ratcliffe, M0ICR

Contest Aims

One of the early activities of the team was to identify the aims of the UKAC contests, and these

were agreed as:

“The UKACs exist to encourage activity both across the whole UK & CD and from the UK

& CD to other countries to promote, enhance and protect the use, understanding and

enjoyment of VHF/UHF/SHF communications. The UKAC aims are to:

• Maximise entry and activity levels of both individual and club members. This is the primary, but not the only, measure of success

• Promote increased use of the VHF, UHF and SHF spectrum both within and outside of the UKAC period, thereby helping to protect our case for access to this valuable radio spectrum

• Encourage participation by those with a range of abilities, in all licence classes and at all power levels

• Provide a platform to develop technical knowledge and operating skills and a spring board for activity at other times, other contests and for more general band use

• Provide an enjoyable experience for all participants.”

Summary of Working Group Activity and Conclusions

The team have made no simple “yes/no” finding about B2, but we did recognise a number of

anomalies and unintended consequences (“corner cases”) where B2 appears to provide unrealistic

scores for some entrants. In particular:

• There was a general dislike of instances where the bonus element of the total claimed score is vastly greater than the “earned” points/km, particularly for stations with small numbers of QSOs

• There is a ‘wrong-side-of-the-hill’ effect where stations who are screened to the North find it substantially harder to earn bonuses than stations with a good take-off to the North.


For a B2-type scoring system to continue into 2018 we agreed that there should be some

modifications and improvements.

Equally, the fact that B2 does not treat all stations the same across the entire UK&CD has been a principle which has caused particularly strong disagreement from some contestants. Therefore we feel that we should also offer an alternative scoring system which behaves the same way for all QSOs. Another point in all our minds was that the consultation and voting need to produce a clear result

for 2018 and hopefully beyond. In the workshop we made full use of the opportunity to cross-

examine every proposal from opposite points of view. Face to face in real time, we made far more

progress than has ever been possible by email or social media.

The workshop then considered what the ideal scoring system should look like. The conclusions

were:

• There should be a reward for working additional squares – this is a key element which drives strategy and interest

• The scoring system should work well in the short duration events

• The primary focus is on contacts within the UK&CD - to create UK&CD activity to give satisfactory 'service' for ALL of UK&CD

• There should be a club based element to the scoring

• The scoring system should make the contest enjoyable - creating opportunity for everyone to have fun.

Having looked extensively across a wide range of possible scoring systems, using the open

contest logs to analyse their potential impact, we decided to simplify the choice to just two options

that capture all the real points at issue:

• A variant of B2 which we will call B3 and is described in detail later in this document,

• The system in use in the Nordic Activity Contests, and widely accepted across Northern Europe, where the first contact with every new square attracts a bonus of 500 points.

These two particular schemes have been selected because:

• The B3 option has the feature of geographic variability within the UK&CD and the Nordic option doesn’t, so this offers a clear choice

• Both provide a strong incentive to look for new squares, making the event require more strategy and skill, and providing an incentive for stations to beam in all directions and to spend additional time and effort trying to work rare bonuses

• Having analysed the behaviour of other reasonable bonus or multiplier based scoring systems, they all behave in similar ways to one of these two

• There is not enough variation in the behaviours of the alternatives to justify making the decision more complex and risk ending with a poor compromise which works badly for everyone.


Consultation Process

This document marks the start of a Consultation Process which will have 3 phases:

1. “Conversation” period

This will start on 1st July with the publication of this Consultation Document, along with the more

detailed supporting documentation. This document contains a fair and unbiased description of

each option so that the two can be easily compared.

There will be no voting during this Conversation period. We want the contest community to

take the whole four weeks to think about the issues first.

We recognise that it is important that there is a clear communication route with VHFCC and the

working group during this period. As a result:-

• We will post notification of the start of the consultation process, the start of the voting process and the reminder for the end of the voting process to the uk-vhf-contesting Yahoo Groups reflector, the UK VHF/UHF Contesting Facebook group, and the VHFCC mailing list of entrants.

• During the consultation phase, we will post significant announcements and clarifications via the uk-vhf-contesting Yahoo Groups reflector and the UK VHF/UHF Contesting Facebook groups.

• We will not respond to posts and questions that we consider aggressive or abusive

• E-mail Queries can be directed at [email protected].

• Responses to any of these communication mechanisms may take a little while to appear since it’s important that we ensure that we have clear agreement across the VHFCC and Working Group on any positions.

2. “Selection” period

The preferred scoring system will be selected by a majority vote. The Voting facility will open on

28th July and continue to 20th August (closing at 2359 hrs BST). There will be a final reminder

sent on 18th August. Those eligible to vote are current RSGB members who have taken part in an

RSGB VHF/UHF/SHF contest in the past five years (verified by the Contest Committee database).

3. Outcome

After scrutiny, the VHFCC and the UKAC Working Group will present the outcome of the vote and

the way forward for 2018 on 25th August. This timetable will allow for discussion of 2018

arrangements at the RSGB Convention in October, any software changes, etc.

mailto:[email protected]


Details of Proposed Schemes

What follows is a short description of each of the scoring systems along with their “features”. We

have used the neutral term “features” and tried to be unbiased in our representation of each of the

schemes, because some people may view a particular feature as an advantage, and others as a

disadvantage.

These systems are proposed for use on the bands between 50 MHz and 1.3 GHz. The SHF

UKACs are planned to continue as now being scored at 1 pt/km because of the short distances

often covered and the disproportionate effect of any multiplier or bonus system on scoring those

bands.

1. Nordic

This is a bonus system where you get 500 points added to your 1 point per km score when you first

work any new large square (IO91, JO01 etc.). This system has been in use for many years in the

Nordic Activity Contests.

Nordic Features

• The well-tried and accepted scoring system used in the Nordic Activity Contests.

• Has a bonus incentive for the first station worked in each square

• Gives the same bonus for all new squares

• Adds a tactical component beyond that of points per kilometre alone, and provides an incentive for stations to look for further new squares

• Does not specifically encourage activity between UK&CD stations

• Does not directly compensate stations in remote areas for the lack of both stations and squares in range (under normal conditions)

• Analysis by the same potential score methodology as B3 generates final results tables similar to those found with the M7 system

• Results in typical logs where points per km and bonuses contribute similar amounts to the overall score

• Can lead to excessive bonus components (>90%) in the scores of stations having just a few local QSOs with their neighbouring squares. Particularly an issue in the AL section in the Midlands.

• As an additive system, Nordic (along with B3) does not lead to the exponential scale of scoring seen with multiplier systems. This should encourage newcomers as they get a respectable score from their first few QSOs.

2. B3

B3 was designed to correct the issues identified with B2 but still contain a regional correction factor.

This was done by halving the bonus component and at the same time adding a few extra red squares

to the bonus map shown in Figure 1 (below). This reduced the issues described earlier in the report

about excessive bonuses, the “wrong side of the hill effect” and the sensitivity to changing patterns

of activity. However these changes, of necessity, slightly reduce the regional correction factor.


B3 Features

• A revised version of the current B2 scoring system.

• Has a bonus incentive for the first station worked in each square

• Bonuses are geographically based, aiming to encourage activity in the remote parts of the UK&CD and also to reward stations in the more densely populated regions for spending the extra time and effort needed to work them

• Adds a significant tactical component as stations seek out the larger bonuses

• Is consistent with aims of the UKAC contest in specifically encouraging QSO between the UK&CD stations with its bonus system

• Analysis by the same potential score methodology as Nordic generates final results tables similar to those found with the B2 system, but with smaller anomalies.

• Results in typical logs where points per km and bonuses contribute similar amounts to the overall score

• Can lead to an excessive bonus components (>90%) in the scores of stations having just a few local QSOs with their neighbouring squares. Particularly an issue in the AL section in Central Scotland.

• As an additive system, B3 (along with Nordic) does not lead to the exponential scale of scoring seen with multiplier systems. This should encourage newcomers, particularly in remote areas, as they can get a respectable score from their first few QSOs.

Figure 1 - B3 Bonus Map


How do the scoring systems behave?

The Nordic and B3 scoring systems have been analysed using the open UKAC logs (up to and

including May 2017) and the concept of “potential score” as described in Appendix A.

Using the 144MHz AR section as an example, Figure 2 compares the potential scores of the

leading stations in each UK&CD square under the two scoring systems, Nordic and B3. (These are

the scores that stations with equivalent capabilities and take-offs might expect to receive.)

Remember that these are potential scores, based on availability of stations at equivalent

distances from each square but paying no regard to terrain, and it does not matter if there were no

stations active from that square in that specific contest. It is simply what a station with a good 360

degree take-off from that square might expect to score. Note that in some of the squares with high

potential scores (e.g. IO71, IO72 on 2m), sites with a great 360 degree take-off are few.

The aspects that we wish to draw to your attention are:

• Ratios of potential scores between your own square and others

• Variations in potential scores across the UK&CD

• In each case, the differences between Nordic or B3.

Figure 3 gives similar information for a different example, the 1296MHz AL section.

Much more detailed data on the impact of the different scoring systems on potential scores in the

AO, AR and AL sections is included in the Appendices.


Figure 2 - 144 MHz AR Section Potential Scores for Nordic and B3


Figure 3 - 1296 MHz AL Section Potential Scores for Nordic and B3


Both Nordic and B3 were also analysed for potential unintended consequences.

It was recognised that both systems still had the potential of leading to excessive bonuses where

stations had only a few QSOs, the bonus component raising above 90% in some cases. Figure 4

below shows the average percentage of the score which is made up of bonuses broken down by

band and section for the different scoring systems. It also compares B3 and Nordic with the existing

B2 scheme.

B3 always produces smaller bonus components than B2 (simply because all the bonuses have been

scaled back). In most UKAC sections the potential bonus components for Nordic and B3 are now

predicted to be quite similar, and generally around 50%. Not shown in this summary are the potential

variations across the UK&CD but this data is available in the Appendices.

Figure 4 - Percentage of points derived from bonuses by Band, Section and Scoring System

Some consideration was given to reducing the remaining anomalies by further reducing the bonus

components of both systems. However, this would have made the bonuses hardly worth collecting

for the leading AO and AR stations, being worth little more than their average points per QSO.

The UKAC Working Group thinks that the bonus components within either Nordic or B3 would now

create an appropriate balance across the UKACs as a whole.

Conclusions

We have presented two choices to take forward into the UKAC events in 2018. They are both

intended to resolve some issues identified with the B2 system introduced this year, and some

aspects of each option will appeal to different groups of people.


This main section of this document has intentionally been kept reasonably short. The core issues

to be decided are on pages 5 and 6 but we strongly urge you to read all of these 11 pages at the

very least.

There is much more detail and data available in the Appendices for those interested in studying the

subject in more detail.

As stated in the Introduction, this is a complex problem. There are no simple solutions, and all

conceivable solutions have conflicting consequences for entrants in various contest classes and

from various parts of the UK&CD. So, before you vote, please read this document carefully and

discuss it as widely as you wish. Voting will open on 28th July.

The UKAC Working Group will be happy to answer questions of a factual nature, but as a Group we

will not advocate either system.

However, we hope that all contesters will look at what is best for the future of these contests as a

whole and not only what is best for themselves. Bear in mind that every QSO that you make is

dependent on someone else being motivated to take part in the contest as well.


Appendix A – B2 THEORY AND PRACTICE

B2 is a scoring system which attempts to compensate for is the variations in density of activity in

different parts of the UK&CD. It does this by awarding larger bonuses for the first contact each

station makes with UK/CD squares which are distant from the centre of activity compared to

squares which are close to the centre of activity. This aids the scores of stations in those remote

areas in two ways:

• It makes the smaller number of QSOs that they will make (because they are far from the

centre of activity) worth more

• It makes the remote stations more attractive QSO partners for everyone else because of

the potential higher score, and so makes it more worthwhile for QSO partners to spend

longer to complete a QSO with them, and perhaps use some of the slower or less reliable

propagation modes like meteor scatter or aircraft scatter to make the contact.

The 2016 scoring review used the open logs data to see if M7 showed a regional bias. In the case

of squares where there were lots of stations this could be done by comparing average normalized

scores. This analysis suggested there were few problems across most of England. However as you

move to remote areas there appeared to be a sudden fall off in average normalized scores.

But this 2016 analysis was flawed in that there were few stations in these more remote areas and it

could not be determined if the reduced scores were caused by the equipment/local terrain or by a

problem with M7.

Therefore a better method of measuring the potential performance of a typical station by band and

section anywhere in the country was needed. To this end the potential score system was developed

where a station is assumed to be able to work all stations active out to a given radius (the positions

of all active stations being determined from the open log data). The radius was again based on the

open log data, being typical of a station on that band in the specific section1.

A ‘virtual station’ was then created at the centre of each inhabited square in the UK&CD and their

scores calculated under each proposed scoring system.

These scores, where possible, were compared with real scores to validate the model. This was

successful, for example the model correctly predicted the variation in points per QSO seen across

the country.

In the AO and AR sections under M7 there was a band of higher potential scores in a ring around

the centre of England with a sudden drop at the extremities of the UK&CD. In the AL section

maximum potential scores occurred at the centre of England with the rapid drop occurring more

quickly as you moved outwards. See Figure 5 below.

1 The radius was determined by taking the average Best DX for that band and section in that specific contest.


Figure 5 - Percentage of score of maximum scoring square using March 2017 data


M7 was then compared with a number of other possible scoring systems.

Bonus points systems were examined in the expectation they would not multiply the disparities as

much as the M7 multiplier had done. It also became apparent that by adjusting the bonuses so they

increased as you moved away from the main centres of activity, it would be possible to increase the

scores in remote regions without dramatically affecting stations in the central areas.

These insights lead to the B2 bonus points scoring system shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 - B2 Bonus Scheme

How did B2 work out in practice?

As the results came in we started to analysis the results and by the end of March it became clear

that B2 was having the expected effect, at least as far as the remote regions were concerned as

shown below in Figure 7 and Figure 8.


Figure 7 - B2 vs M7 by Latitude

Figure 8 - B2 vs M7 by Longitude


As well as looking at the larger picture we also looked at the specific effects on individual stations by

re-scoring the actual logs under other systems as shown below in Figure 9. Also see the

supplemental material in Appendix B for rescored logs up to the end of May and diagrams showing

which individual station gained and lost from changes in the scoring system.

However, it became apparent there were some unintended consequences of B2. Firstly there were

cases where stations had few QSOs (typically less than 6) they were getting an excessive bonus

component. This was not a total surprise – indeed it was thought it might be useful for encouraging

newcomers – but it was clear in some cases this had got completely out of hand, particularly in the

AL section in Central Scotland.

There was also an effect where, although the average scores in a square were little changed as

predicted by the model, individual stations did move considerable numbers of positions particularly

in Northern England. This effect was brought about because stations with a good take-off to the

South had done well under M7 but now under B2 a good take off to the North was also important.

This can be described as “the wrong side of the hill” effect.

When B2 was designed it was recognised that stations in the South of England would not normally

collect bonus points from working red squares, and to compensate for that, squares in Continental

Europe were made into 1000 point bonuses (the green squares, which also extend anywhere beyond

the maps shown here). This set a critical balance where approximately the same numbers of points

should be collected from working across the Scottish border as across the Channel and Southern

North Sea. In practice this worked out well with the points collected being within 10% of each other.

However this could be an issue if we saw changes in activity levels in any area. This problem became

potentially critical when it was announced the French were to hold contests on the same nights.


Figure 9 – Sample Position changes from M7 to B2 or PPK


Appendix B – POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON INDIVIDUAL SCORES

At http://rsgbcc.org/hf/information/UKAC_Jan_May_2017.xlsx you will find a spreadsheet which contains the results of all the UKAC events from Jan – May 2017, rescored with a variety of scoring systems. From this you can see how YOU specifically would have been affected by each of the proposed scoring systems.

Appendix C – ADDITIONAL DATA

At http://rsgbcc.org/hf/information/UKAC_Slides_2017.pptx you will find a set of PowerPoint slides

which include a wide variety of additional data showing the impact of the scoring systems. This

data includes:

Slides 2-4 The fundamentals behind any points per kilometre (PPK) and squares based

scoring system for each of the three sections using potential scores data derived

from the open logs.

Slides 5-7 What happens if these fundamentals are combined using B2, B3 and Nordic

scoring systems for March 2017, grouped by section.

Slides 8-10 Actual rescored log data averaged by square, Jan to April 2017, again grouped by

section.

Slide 11 Examples of how similar the results obtained with M7 and Nordic are.

Slides 12-26 The effects on individual stations of the two alternative bonus systems relative to

PPK using May 2017 results broken down by both band and section.

Slide 27 The variation in average Best DX between the bands and sections.

Slide 28 Description of the methodology used.

The data has been left in PowerPoint format for speed and because, in slides 11 – 26, it enables

you to hover2 over data points and see details of the callsigns and locators associated with

individual data points.

2 This ‘mouse hover’ feature may not be available in PowerPoint-equivalent software.

http://rsgbcc.org/hf/information/UKAC_Jan_May_2017.xlsx

http://rsgbcc.org/hf/information/UKAC_Slides_2017.pptx


Appendix D – MAPS OF DISTRIBUTION OF UKAC ACTIVITY BY BAND

The diagrams which follow are maps showing the distribution of active stations (entrants AND

stations worked3) during the April 2017 UKAC events on each of the 5 bands from 50 MHz to 1.3

GHz. What is notable in all cases are the geographical variations in numbers of stations active

across the UK&CD; and the relatively small numbers of stations active outside of the UK&CD (and

in some cases, only worked by a very small number of stations).

3 There is one distant outlying station missing from each of the 4m and the 70cm maps to allow for clearer display of the remaining data


Figure 10 - Stations Active during 50 MHz UKAC in Apr 2017









Documents

Consultation on UKAC Scoring Schemes 2017 - · PDF fileConsultation on UKAC Scoring Schemes Issue 1 ... bonus score for the first contact with each large ... The workshop then considered