CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] multi-contesting

To: "cq contest" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] multi-contesting
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>
Reply-to: Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:39:19 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
WØQE did a thorough job of creating the 3,077 state/county codes. It's a 
shame the "Not invented here" syndrome has precluded his work to be 
leveraged as a QSO Party standard. Does anyone remember the "Pre-ADIF" days 
when logging authors rolled their own and there was no interoperability? 
That's pretty much where the QSO Parties stand today, 15 years behind the 
times.

With many QSO Parties overlapping on weekends, I think it's a big 
disincentive for operators. You need to go into your logging software and 
"custom roll" a new abbreviation list. Most people won't take the time or 
don't have the skill. Using the MARAC standard would allow you to operate 
numerous QP's, submit your complete log to each one, and be done with it. 
The contest logging software authors would not have to revise the 
abbreviation lists at the whim of a QP sponsor.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Coslo" <mjc5@psu.edu>
To: "cq contest" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] multi-contesting


>
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
>
>> W0QE proposed a standard set of abbreviations for the MARAC contest,
>> but they have never been adopted by state QSO parties, where the state
>> is implied, and therefore isn't necessary in the abbreviation (except
>> for multi-state QSO parties, like NEQP and 7QP).
>
> IIRC, one of the big reasons that it wasn't adopted was that it didn't
> do much for the state parties, made the entry a little more
> complicated - it is much easier to have a typo - and required them to
> change their software. And even then, some of the people who might
> multi contest, might not participate because there was something else
> about specific parties that the OP didn't like. It's a fair amount of
> work for little benefit.
>
> For a new contest, say the resurrected NYQP, standard and unique
> county acronyms might be more practical.
>
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>