CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] making lemonade (was: ARRL report on line scores decision)

Subject: [CQ-Contest] making lemonade (was: ARRL report on line scores decision)
From: W2CS@bellsouth.net (Gary Ferdinand W2CS)
Date: Sat Jul 27 01:49:41 2002
Ron, we agree on one point.  We disagree with each other -HI.  Although I
like the "for now" part :-)  To your points:

1.  Outcry:  People hate change. We live with it and move on. This is no
different.
2.  Yup, I'm that impatient. The technology exists. We should set a good
goal.
3.  Uniques:  Yup. There will always be question marks. Do the best we can.
4.  Rest of world:   I don't think it's the problem you and a few others
have voiced.  I know of several stations that are rare that are club
stations.  Internet access is not a problem.  We're not always talking about
individual stations in some primitive, isolated area. Those are more likely
DXpeditions and my cruise ship analogy applies.
5.  Encouraging others:  I think "immediate" results-reporting provides
substantial encouragement.  It's the immediate feedback or reward that
others have more lucidly described than I to which I refer.  I agree with
those sentiments.

Good discussion, this.  Whether it's 4 weeks, 6 or 8, in the end it's a
great improvement.  I think we should do what we can to aim for 4 weeks with
a 15 day turn-in requirement, as Trey proposed.  If we end up having to
delay it a bit with a contest or two for good reason, I doubt you'd hear
many complaints!  (Hmm, well not from me anyway.)

Bedtime. 73 all.

Gary W2CS


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-admin@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-admin@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Ron Notarius WN3VAW
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:44 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] making lemonade (was: ARRL report on line
> scores decision)
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>