Efficiency

[cutty]

I would like to change the measure for the efficiency of the stations.

~~~

I quite like Cutty's:

Efficiency = Strokes Detected / Signals Sent 
Effectivity = Strokes Detected / Signals Sent - Strokes Detected

Being based purely on the numbers from a given station it removes the influence of the total region count which generally has the affect of pushing a station that sends few but high quality signals down the list.

Not sure how to combine those with a distance. "signals sent" doesn't have any distance information but does that matter? I don't think it does.
~~~

Actually, it does... in a 'thought experiment'... I just didn't include my thoughts and examples I played with, since the 'signals' cannot be 'predicated' , and for basic simplicity of the suggestion...

The thought experiment runs sort of like this:
Briefly, divide the stations according to 'intent'... say, for example, three groups.

Group ONE > operators who haven't bothered to define or optimize well.  Anything 'in'.,..  Anything 'Out'.

Group TWO >  Stations that have established a 'relatively' quiet operational invironment, normally function with a 'High" "Strokes to signals", and have optimized for 'distance'... would include many of the 'dual' region / fringe stations perhaps. Since they already operate with 'low' 'excess' signals. They can operate for example as the 'group greater than 1200 km'. Their signals would also include the signals of a nearby 'group three', of course.

Group THREE> Stations optimized for <1200 km... those that run many excess signals when using high gains and / or low thresholds, or with frequent 'sporadics' that could  be eliminated, or minimized with lower gains / and or higher thresholds.  They now optimize for reduced distance. Optimizing in this fashon also lessens the typical "excess signals' relative to 'detections within 1200 km'.

And you could have perhaps a smaller group, perhaps operating E field only, or C Horizontal only, operating at distances <600km or any other subdivision similar...

The decrease in 'out of distance' signals, with an optimizing within distance should allow the same similar formulas too be used... though a group 2 station might show a 'higher effieciency' or 'lower efficiency' than a station in group 3, or vice versa, the rules are the same, and the 'comparisons' similar, within the group.  not necessarily outside the group.

Both groups should be much more efficient and effective than MOST of the 'group ones'... and my 'gut feeling' is that watching numbers between groups TWO and THREE would actually show similar efficiency / effectivity numbers... IF the group TWOs had strokes <1200 km subtracted from both signals and strokes ,,,

Again, an operator shouldn't compare 'outside his Group" , ...
But... Especially on group TWOs... a station should establish, over time, that it BELONGS in group TWO !  To do so, they'd have to operate as a GROUP one until the "Higher Effeciency / Effectivity" numbers qualified them as a 'group TWO'... if a station degrades over some time frame, than they should be 'demoted' to group ONE, unless they opted to go for Group 3.

All stations would begin as group ONE, and then optimize for, and qualify for group TWO or THREE.  Actually, I think the server can do that automatically, since it already is capable of breaking strokes down by distance.d A 'quiet' group TWO station might not have as many 'signals' at high latitudes seasonally, but the 'noise signals' may remain essentially the same.... for a Group THREE, some adjustmen might need to be made seasonally, since 'theoretically' their 'local noise' soruces would remain at similar levels year round, while signal numbers rise and fall.
In those cases a comparison with 'degradation' over time of total 'signals' might be applied.