To: | <cq-contest@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | [CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest] 2009 CQWW CW participation figures and logs accuracy |
From: | "Robert L. Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net> |
Date: | Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:33:43 -0400 |
List-post: | <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
Hi Stan, Very interesting information and thank you for providing it! I think that a few of the numbers are incorrect though - the Qso's in Log calls in the columns More than 10+ through 90+ stations The qso's in Log for 90+ should be greater than 100+ 80 + should be greater than 90+ and so on. As the total number of q's goes down, the number of stations making that minimum of q's (appearing in the logs of others) has to go up, with the More than 10 category should have the highest number than any other column 73 Bob KQ2M kq2m@earthlink.net www.rlsfinancialgroup.com _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] [CTDXCC] Secrets of QSLing?, Bill Parry |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] 2009 CQWW CW participation figures and logs accuracy, Randy Thompson K5ZD |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] [CTDXCC] Secrets of QSLing?, Bill Parry |
Next by Thread: | [CQ-Contest] A Look at the 2010 WRTC Competition Webinar, k4zw |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |