Sorry Gary, but you and I will disagree with this one for now.
Considering the outcry last year when (under the dubious excuse of safety of
the mail) CQ Magazine forced all of us to enter only by electronic means, to
now propose to "force" contest entrants to rush in their logs and then
"force" the contest committee to rush compilation in another 2 weeks strikes
me as being too hasty.
Are we all so impatient that reducing the turn-around time between contest &
results from 6-8 months for the ARRL, and 8-10 months for CQ (just to pick
on two) to under 2 months isn't enough, but we're going to try to force-feed
it to 6 or even 4 weeks?
Remember, we're not dealing with a "closed" environment like the WRTC
competitions, where you have a relative small number of stations (50 or
less) competing for 24 hours. Compiling those results in a few hours is a
piece of cake. We're talking about 48 hour contests that literally involve
thousands, if not tens of thousands, of amateurs -- many of whom never have
or will send in logs, which always leave question marks about "uniques" and
"busted calls" and other potential problems to sort out.
Further, you must remember that in much of the world outside of North
America and Europe, Internet access is not as accessible nor as cheap as it
is here. I would not be at all surprised to learn that there are many
active contesters who have a computer in the shack, yet prefer to mail their
results in via a disk for whatever reasons.
I think we should be more concerned with using the proposed changes in a
positive way to encourage more potential contesters. I think if we rise the
bar too high, we make the goal too difficult, it will do the exact opposite
by discouraging potential contesters and some of the active and less active
ones out there.
I also would question the ability to compile scores, even with automation,
in a day or two. Pending data to prove that one way or another, that
strikes me as being more than a bit optimistic. Can someone on one of the
major contest committees comment on whether or not automation makes one or
two days practical?
I am not saying that Trey's proposed 15 day deadline is a bad idea. But I
don't think we're quite ready for it yet. One thing at a time.
73, ron wn3vaw
"What's wrong with being an angry prophet denouncing the hypocrisies of our
time?" -- Howard Beale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Ferdinand W2CS" <W2CS@bellsouth.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] making lemonade (was: ARRL report on line scores
decision)
> In short, if we give the committee a month past deadline to assemble and
> post to the web the results (or is a month not enough now, guys?
> Tell me if
> I'm wrong), and we can have the final results two months after the contest
> instead of six to eight months, isn't that good enough?
>
>
No, it's not good enough.
I say let's try the proposal for a season. It will force the remaining
entrants to use or find electronic means. It will force us all to be a tad
more prompt with the submissions. With the level of automation we now have,
15 days for submission and 15 days for tallying what should be something
that can be done in 1 or 2 days sounds about right to me. It leaves most of
that last 2 weeks open for unanticipated problems.
You don't reach a goal by setting it low and hope to improve on it later.
When's later, a few more years? Rather, set an extremely difficult goal and
then surprise yourself when you achieve it.
I think this is doable with only level-1 whining about it.
Gary W2CS
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|