Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna Height Category

[Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>]

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