Please, if you don't like the way CQ runs the contest - JUST DON'T
PARTICIPATE!!!!!!
I can think of no simpler solution to a nonsensical problem. All of you who
are bitching
know the way things are so let's just move on to another topic. If you want to
participate
and know the results as soon as possible pay the lousy few bucks for a
subscription -
there are no doubt other things that you may find of value in the magazine.
If you don't like waiting for the awards - DON'T PARTICIPATE - how important
can a
piece of paper be? Or, take N6TJ up on his offer to send you one of his extras.
This is the most childish argument/discussion I've seen on this reflector!
Tony Rogozinski
Amateur Radio W4OI - W4AMR - HK1AR
FOC #1572 ex N7BG &
K5LMJ, K4KES, WA6BOU, W6JPC
W7HZF, F7BK, VP5AR, VQ9AR,
OJ0/N7BG, CN2BG, 5V7BG, TY5AR
9G5AR, TU/N7BG, ZC4BG, HK3KAV
et al.........
> K4JRB wrote :
>
> I am amazed that hams can go out and buy one of the new $10K rigs, put up
> several towers, and then not spend money for something like CQ Magazine.
>
> As far as Dx stations, I heard a UA4 with a Yaesu FT 9000...many use FT
> 1000's et al. It true some cannot afford a magazine such as CQ but I find
> those are like the RW9 who sends in a log for the CQ 160 on paper who always
> comments no PC where he is.
>
> Its your choice to not subscribe to CQ but at least buy a copy of the
> Magazine that has the results in it.
> Remember CQ Communications is a for profit firm and 40 plus direct employees
> depend on it for a living. It just does not make good business sense to
> give away the scores on a web page at the same time the results are printed.
>
> Several have asked CQ for a members only web page
> where you can get results similar to QST. For now the WW and WPX results
> are up on a web page with
> a delay. I am looking for a web page to put the CQ 160 results but since
> the results are property of CQ Communications I have to ask permission.
>
> Perhaps CQ could print a results only listing like was done by Frank W1WY
> before 1970. This might be sent to clubs worldwide and they could
> distribute them in a limited way.
>
> The cots of running a contest has grown dramatically in the past 10 years.
> Postage for certificates and plaques have gone up 250% and lost mail has
> increased 120%. With contestants demanding Low Power and QRP awards the
> number of awards has doubled. As K1PX pointed out it takes time to print
> all the certificates. The volunteers have jobs and families to worry about
> and the time they do commit is volunteer time. They do not commit to full
> time.
> I don't see an army of new volunteers lining up either.
>
> CQ provides the format, rules, and space for the results. CQ either pays
> for the certificate mailings or reimburses the expenses. Plaques are done
> by sponsorship (even at ARRL) so the money must pay for the plaque and
> shipping. Who pays if its lost...the volunteer does. I am hold three
> plaques from 2001 and 2002 as I do not feel that sending them by mail will
> get there. If ones to CT3 and KH6 get lost what about one to UA9 or JA.
>
> All of the CQ sponsored contests are growing (comments to the otherwise).
> The CQ 160 CW is now larger than the ARRL CW SS (logs received). Activity
> for the CQ WW covers the entire phone portion of 28Mhz when the band is open
> (from 28.3 to well above 29 Mhz). In the 2004 CQ WW SSB Dx stations ranged
> from 3675 to well above 3800. Bob Cox and crew do one helva a job just
> getting the logs and scoring them in the time alotted.
>
> If CQ did not sponsor their contests who would?
> Please consider this...
>
> 73 Dave K4JRB
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> A few comments :
>
> 1) I think those that own $10K rigs and have a bunch of towers are in the
> small minority of those who
> enjoy operating contests and radio in general.
>
> 2) Why would it not make business sense not to "give away" results of CQ
> contests. Someone has
> already mentioned they recieved a post to this thread from a CQ official
> who said contesters are a
> small part of their subscriber base. If that is the case what would they
> have to lose ?
>
> 3) What makes CQ any different then the ARRL as far as publishing results.
> The ARRL is non-profit and can afford to have a small staff to administer
> contests and CQ is a "for profit" organization and can't ??? CQ is a
> publishing company and makes profits off of other things other than CQ
> magazine just like the ARRL, which is not just QST.
>
> 4) I think CQ could greatly reduce their contest administrative costs if they
> leveraged 21st century technology - i.e computer/internet technology.
>
> 5) I think we "all" appreciate the job that the volunteers do but they can
> only do so much. The CQ contests are some of the most popular worldwide and
> have the most log entries. That could make it an adminstrative nightmare if
> you are not using today's technology.
>
>
> 73, Jeff KU8E
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|