John, K2MM, sent me a very diplomatic note about my use of the word
"nonsense" in reference to various schemes for reducing the time
period in order to create new categories in the DX contests for
increasing the participation. Nonsense was probably a poor choice
of words without the use of a ;-) or something. As I typed the word
it did cross my mind that this could be taken as too strong a word, but
I thought "what the heck, let's see if it gets a rise out of anyone".
To provide a better perspective on my actual thoughts let me list a
few of the (for me) relevant factors. I have digressed on a couple of
the items to things that are somewhat removed from the 24 hour issue, but
provide some insight into what motivates me personally. To craft this note
into a compelling argument (rather than simply an apology to anyone I
might have offended) would take more time than I have at the moment
(I have a rocket launch in 10 days and I am still laying out PC boards
for my experiment). So I am just listing a few thoughts as they come
to mind. Honing the arguments is left to the reader.
1) I respect everyone's ideas on increasing participation. There is
nothing more fun that an endless pileup. So let's all try to determine
ways of increasing the participation.
2) I am somewhat biased about whose increased activity I desire.
Since I am on the US side, I want to see an increase in the
participation of DX operators. Maybe more US ops will help bring out
the DX but it will also increase the QRM. So from my perspective I want
to concentrate on the increase of DX participants. Especially true
for ARRL DX test where no DX-DX qsos count.
3) I recall the two weekend affairs, but not the weeks long DX contests
previously. The second weekend was always thought of as a chance to
"get well" from a poor showing on the first weekend. "Wait until the second
weekend, propagation has to get better, it can't be any worse." But these
marathons did really wear you down and it was difficult to coordinate one's
life to allow for two weekends for one contest. So one weekend per
event is clearly better (to my perspective).
4) With a 48 hour affair we have the opportunity to "get well" on the
second day if propagation is bad on the first day. Many of the ionospheric
disturbances are relatively short lived and having a second chance will
keep my interest up. If propagation is bad at the beginning of a 24 hour
event, it is tempting to just blow off the test. But if it is a 48 hour
event, I am more likely to take the position that things are pretty bad,
but I will go ahead and enter because they will probably be better on the
second day. (This tends more to address the issue of reducing the test
from a 48 hour one to a 24 hour one, rather than the issue of adding
more classes in order to allow entries of varying duration.)
5) Radiosport is one of the few competitive sports that allows participation
in the same event by people with widely varying skills and equipment. I have
never seen races with a mix of power boats and sail boats, nor have I seen
auto races with dragsters and formula 1s. Marathons are one of the
few things that come to mind that have participation by people of widely
varying skills, but they don't shorten the course for the weaker
athelete. They allow their times (scores) to reflect their competitiveness.
6) A station might choose to operate in a 24 hour window, feeling that by
picking the time slot, he can be more competitive for that period. But now
he/she is not on the air in the other 24 hour period, actually reducing
the number of QSOs made by this station. I can see a significant number of
people that normally operate most of the contest now operating something less
than half of the contest. What is desired is to get people who don't normal-
ly operate at all to get involved (maybe just a little at first, but if the
bug bites, they may become very active with time). I think you can do this
better by some form of participation recognition, be it pins, mugs, 250 qso
certificates or whatever. My understanding is that this has helped SS
participation significantly. (I know that this technique works since
I made 260 qsos from V2 last year in the HF Radiosport using a Radio Shack
push button switch for a key because there was a participation certificate
for 250 qsos. I probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise.)
7) Many stations currently enter the test knowing full well that they can
never win a plaque with their aging 100w transceiver and low dipole, but
they enjoy operating and enjoy competing with their previous performances.
They know, even without full time participation, whether they operated well
or not. I can see making so many categories that everyone can win, thereby
cheapening the victory. (I went to the dragstrip once (in my misspent
youth) and won a 4ft high trophy--of course I was the only entry in
Q/stock-automatic with my straight-8 1949 Buick hearse (this was 1965)--but
the trophy represented much less to me than my losing a grudge race (by
1/2 a length) to a 1953 Cadillac ambulance. My trophy time was 23 seconds
and 59 mph-but I would have still won if it had taken 2 days for the quarter
mile, since there was no competition. In the grudge race I beat the Cadillac
off the line and only lost in the last 200ft or so, but I know I was giving
it my all to win.) (Hope I got all of my parentheses right!)
8) There are lots of private competitions between individuals and clubs,
separate from anything recognized in QST, that provide impetus and
satisfaction among the participants and these "side bets" could well be
extended to individuals here on Internet. "I gotta work Sunday so can't
run the whole test. Anbody here in New England with a tribander and
dipoles wanna run a 24 hour race?"
9) When I started planning my station (over ten years ago, but work kept
getting in the way) people asked my why I didn't move to the East Coast,
it would be so much easier to win from there. (I believe it was K1AR
who did the statistical analysis of scores by call areas showing that
0 land had something like an 18% disadvantage. If anyone (John?) recalls
where this was written I would appreciate the reference.) But I like living
in Colorado and I am willing to do the extra work necessary to be
competitive--thereby making the victories that much sweeter knowing the
obstacles that had to be overcome. Cheap victories are no victory at all.
10) Because I am a better station designer than operator and because I
want to see if my designs can overcome the best operators on the east coast
with their inherent geographical advantage, I have felt it important to
have the best operators available out here use the station, in order to
reduce the variations due to operator capability. This has resulted in
operations by W0UA, N2IC, K0GU, K0RF and myself, and scores that have been
competitive if not always winners. I haven't asked for an 18% handicap
because I am out west, nor would I ask for a reduced time period because
I wasn't up to or able to operate a full 48 hours.
11) In conclusion (for anyone that has bothered to read this far) I think we
should concentrate on enticing people who wouldn't otherwise enter to get
on the air and make a reasonable showing, rather than giving current ops
an opportunity to win something by putting forth less of an effort and
thereby actually reducing participation. (I hope this is more constructive
than my one word "nonsense" comment.)
My solution to increasing the activity for my benefit.
**********************************************************************
* NOTICE-INCREASED MULTIPLIER ACTIVITY DESIRED *
* CASH BONUS FOR ANY MULTS (AFTER THE FIRST 100) *
* THAT WORK W0UN AND NO OTHER STATIONS *
**********************************************************************
Gee, I sure hope all of you have a sense of humor. 73 John W0UN
(Does anyone have a line on where I can find a source of cheap
parentheses, to replace the ones I squandered in this note?)
|