He did a presentation of it at an SMC get-together back in August. I don't
think it's been published yet. I'll ask him.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Jim Worsham wrote:
> A very impressive read. Has W9GKA continued his work on this and was this
> ever published? It is a very extensive and scholarly analysis so I was
> wondering if he did this for publication somewhere.
>
> 73
> Jim, W4KXY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of James Duffey
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: VHF Contesting Reflector
> Cc: James Duffey
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] History of Activity and Additional Categories inVHF
> Contesting
>
> Everyone who is contributing to this discussion on roving should read
> W9GKA's excellent monograph on the impacts of various changes on VHF
> contesting over the years:
>
> < http://www.w9smc.com/SMC%20VHF/OtherImpactsarticle.pdf >
>
> There is a lot there relevant to this discussion, including a thorough
> statistical analysis of various impacts on contest participation.
>
> Important things to take away from that monograph that are relevant to
> our discussion on roving include:
>
> 1. Changes to contest rules, scoring, and contest categories have
> little impact on contest activity.
>
> 2. Creating new categories doesn't generate any more contest activity.
> Participants just move from one category to another. This has proven
> to be true for the limited multi op category, which just transferred
> participants from the multi op category to the limited multi op
> category. It appears that this has happened with the additional rover
> categories as well. There were 96 entries in the 3 different roving
> categories for the 2008 June contest, while there were 98 in the
> single rover category in the 2007 contest.
>
> 3. Extrinsic events have a bigger impact on contest participation than
> do changes in contest structure itself.
>
> 4. The rover category was born in controversy, in part to deal with
> issues that are similar what is being discussed here; some contestants
> in the QRP Portable category thought that others in that category were
> abusing the rules by operating from several different grids in a
> contest and often the same station appeared several times in the top
> 10 and occasionally won the portable category in multiple sections.
> The implementation of a rover category was also to reduce the impact
> of captive roving, controversial then as now.
>
> 5. One thing that correlates well to activity is club entries. This
> may be one place for the VUAC to look for increasing activity in VHF
> contesting.
>
> 6. In the beginning of VHF contests, and for the first years, there
> were no categories. Multi ops competed with single ops and mobiles
> were thrown in there as well. After a few years, multi op stations had
> the individual ops listed, but they competed with the single ops. All
> participants were listed together.
>
> W9GKA is on the list, I hope that he will correct me if I have
> misrepresented and misinterpreted the contents of his paper. Every
> time I reread that paper I learn something new.
>
> I have several more thoughts on the roving topic, which I will put in
> separate e-mails. - Duffey
>
>
> --
> KK6MC
> James Duffey
> Cedar Crest NM
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|