"By the way, the number of entries is not a meaningful number. If it
were, the argument is to NOT change a contest like CQ WW."
This comment and the link offered by Hans, is missing the point. Or maybe
there's two different concepts in this thread. My recommendation is to NOT
change any contest. So for the discussion, let's assume they are all working
fine the way they are.
My understanding was this was a discussion to find ways to increase
participation (and recognition) in contests and contesting overall.
Let's start with this: "Hey, I've got 8 hours available on CQWW weekend.
What can I accomplish?"
Well, I could volunteer at a Multi-Op station but I live in Index, WA and I
can't justify a trip to K1TTT's place. I could turn on the radio and "play"
in the contest to see what new band/modes I can fill in (imagine the number
of contacts that will be made with this strategy). Geez, if there were only
a 6-hour category I could give a serious effort in the limited time I have
that weekend. Oh s**t, I see it's still the full 48 hours or nothing. I
think I'll call Bob and see if he wants to play a round of golf instead.
Adding time-based categories takes absolutely nothing away from the
traditional categories. It also has the potential to motivate the hunt &
pecking band/mode fillers or golfers to join in and have fun.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
To: "'Chris (DL8MBS)'" <prickler.schneider@t-online.de>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition
Chris, Its plenty of interest. That wasn't my point.
The point is for all of the people on this reflector who are interested
in these categories to join in and COMPETITIVELY contest in the 12 and
24 hour contest slots that ARE available and to let the rest of us know
they are. This is the best way to actually show the world what we are
talking about.
By the way, the number of entries is not a meaningful number. If it
were, the argument is to NOT change a contest like CQ WW. The
meaningful number is how many of the entrants went the full amount of
hours. Or in a 48 hour case maybe 40+ hours.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris (DL8MBS) [mailto:prickler.schneider@t-online.de]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:30 PM
To: sawyered@earthlink.net
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition
Edward wrote:
>I for one, could be persuaded to support these 12 or 24 hour categories
>if the walk backed up the talk in the current contests that offer it.
>But I just don't see it. Show us all, that there is interest...or drop
>it for once and for all please.
>
How much is enough interest? In IOTA 2008 the 12h-categories had 783
single-op-logs sent (World-Stations) and the 24h-categories had 496. The
24-h-DL-DX-RTTY-Contests 2003-2008 had 37 to 48 percent of all logs in
even shorter (and so in your view even more unattractive)
six-hour-categories. Every sponsor can decide what may be enough
interest to justify a seperate category - as every car-manufacturer can
decide how big the demand for cheaper cars must be before he leaves his
high standards and sells something other than only the top-model. As
there is different purchasing power in money there is different
"purchasing power" in op-hours. But that says - IMHO - nothing about
competetiveness or skill (i.e. 1026 QSOs of a IOTA-12h-participant
doesn´t sound like bad operating). Never have I heard that only drivers
of expensive cars are better drivers than those of medium-sized cars.
But YMMV.
73, Chris
(www.dl8mbs.de)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|