I guess I agree with Ron:
Even if we can maybe hasten the time to the final results, What's the Big
Rush? Its worked so well for so many years, why do we now think it's
broken?
Just because many things in our lives CAN and DO go faster, does everything
have to?
For many years, the speed limit was 55 MPH. Then they cranked it back up to
65, and in some places even 70. Now, if you're not doing at least 80 on the
91 Freeway, hey buddy, get out of the way. Does that make our lives
necessarily "better"?
I recall when I was thrilled with my first computer, humming along at a nice
16 MHz. Now I'm wondering if my new 1.3 GHz notebook is fast enough? Give
me a break, please..........
Everything today is about speed, speed, speed. Even when driving in Italy
or Germany, do I take a relaxed tour @ 100 km/hour so I might actually SEE
some of the beautiful countryside? Nah, I've got to try and COMPETE with
the locals, and crank it up to 200 km/hr (at least). Is my quality of life
better by doing so? I think not. It's just dumb, dumb, dumb.
Now we're led to believe, we can't live without INSTANTANEOUS GRATIFICATION
on our contest victory?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But it's very thoughtful of The Kid (as
Trey is known around this household) to worry that we old guys may not be
around long enough for the final results.
The meaningfulness of the answer, for me, far exceeds the quest for
expediency, in this case.
Vy 73
Jim Neiger
N6TJ
>
> 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
|