I want QST to publish contest scores etched on clay tablets! Not on
some sort of newfangled thing called "paper" that can be easily
destroyed by water or fire! However, I'm not willing to pay any extra
for shipping!
(Sorry, Couldn't help it).
As for seeing the "spatial distribution", I bet some enterprising web
developer could come up with a way to analyze contest score data and
provide an interactive visualization that would let you see your score
in relation to your competitors a zillion different ways.
Just as radio technology has changed, so has the publishing business.
It is simply not cost effective for QST to print pages of scores when
they can be put on the net.
-Neil, N0SFH
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:34 PM, David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com> wrote:
> You mean ike this?
>
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20Line%20Scores/2015/2015-ARRL-DX-CW-PLS-23Jul2015-Version2_0.pdf
>
>
> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I opposed removing printed scores and went through three sample QSTs and
>> found wasted column inches here and there to discard that just about
>> equaled the page space for scores.
>> Sent that to the Editor, oh well.
>>
>> I like the printed version because I can understand and appreciate my score
>> within the SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION of the other scores. It was satisfying to
>> quickly see my place in the visually laid out other calls. The space of
>> the page allowed me to comprehend my place in the greater picture.
>>
>> This result is so much more informative and satisfying than a small set of
>> numbers on a screen.
>>
>> An example comes from my making the transition from real film to
>> video--teaching the editing of each. With film, there is a tangible length
>> of a shot that you can see and feel. The length of exposed film shot in a
>> roll has dimensions that the mind can quickly comprehend, conceptualize,
>> and fit in with the other rolls there on your table.
>>
>> With video, the idea of a shot (now called a clip) is displayed as between
>> 2:23:45 and 2:24:11, i.e., as time in a digital display. Conceptually, it
>> was much harder for the students to think of how long the shot was in video
>> rather than just looking at the film rolls.
>>
>> Same difference is the spatial display of What Time Is It... a circular
>> clock face displays with visible spaces between the numbers; a digital
>> clock shows only this one minute.
>>
>> A receiver with a slide rule dial (remember those) gave you a concept of
>> the space of the band. A digital freq readout number does not. We like
>> seeing our bands whole as a spread of conceptual space and thus we all like
>> "bandscopes" (panadapters). We still speak of going up the band like it is
>> a real place to move around in.
>>
>> I think in terms of space, not numeric displays of it. I like printed
>> scores. 73, Charly K4VUD
>>
>> P.S. Which do you quickly understand:
>> It is a room about 22feet by 25feet or
>> It is about the size of a double garage.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Neil Johnson
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|