CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna HeightCat

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>, "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna HeightCategory
From: "Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:52:47 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or 10 stations
logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log.

Pete, thanks for your comment and suggestion. Your point about LOTW is well taken, I believe.

I think the stat you mention might change if the low antenna types had a category where they thought their score might be competitive.

73, Rusty, na5tr


----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna Height Category



At 10:20 AM 11/30/2004, Russell Hill wrote:
I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping the casual operator in the contest. I have read many comments about the necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are involved in the majority of Qs-- we need them!


Rusty goes on to suggest that a limited height category would help keep participation going (or growing), but I wonder if that's really true. I have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or 10 stations logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log. Doesn't that imply that most people get on to fatten their DXCC totals, for the inherent thrill of working DX, or even just to have something to do on a cold fall weekend?

If we really want to stimulate increased log submission in CQWW, I'd suggest that a good way to do it would be to implement direct linkages between the CQWW database and LotW, such that when a QSO was confirmed by receipt of both logs by CQWW, it would be considered confirmed for DXCC purposes.

This needn't be done in real time, or involve any elaborate inter-database communication. I'm confident that ways could be found to do it that would not affect CQWW's hard-held position that logs submitted to them will not be disclosed to anyone. A harder problem may be achieving the requisite level of trust between the two organizations, even though things seem much better now than in the past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ contests in QST.

If the cultural divide is still too wide, maybe an easier challenge would be for the ARRL to do this for its own contests. I bet that participation, as measured by log submissions, would benefit substantially.

73, Pete


_______________________________________________
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>