Mark,
I think you made a very rational, reasoned argument for moving scores,
rules, etc. to the Internet in return for a better edtorial content
regarding contests and more analysis. If that indeed were to happen, it
would be a fair swap because contesters would end up with more content just
spread out in different places. You also argue that the better write-ups
would attract more non-contesters to the sport which would help all of us.
Unfortunately, I think you have good intentions but I doubt it will ever
happen without some more thought and committment.
First, let's look at what is going on. I looked at the Nov., Dec., and Jan
QSTs and the Sept and Dec. CQs. The three issues of QST had an
editorial:advertising ratio of 55%-60%. The two CQs had an editorial:ad
ratio of 65%. Both cases would indicate that, given the current level of
advertising, it would not make economic sense to maintain or increase the
amount of editorial content. When you throw in that ARRL needs money from
QST to support a lot of other activities, clearly something has to go.
And, it does make sense to move some of this stuff to the Internet or NCJ.
But, if that is the case, why haven't you tried this on an experimental
basis? That would allow everyone to see what could be done and how easy it
might be.
Incidentally, the November and Dec issues carried nine pages just listing
rules, both specific and generic. That would seem to be ideal to place
somewhere else
The Contest Group at QST apparently consists of two people, according to an
article on the ARRL web page. How are those people going to improve the
editorial content, assuming that they can actually change the writing to
another level (e.g., non-contesting jargon) and still make it interesting?
When did the time they have increase to allow them to do more work? Or, is
ARRL going to hire another person to do some of the work?
I remember that this discussion has happened a number of times before. In
fact, the discontent with the contesting written product, I believe, was
one of the main reasons for the creation of NCJ and, to a lesser extent, of
Contest Journal. I remember promises made before of extensive analysis,
more discussion, etc without them actually happening.
Perhaps, if QST/ARRL were to make a committment to improve the forum and
show that it could be counted upon to meet that committment, the concept
would go over better and might meet with more approval from the contesting
community. Who knows, you might eveng et some volunteers to help create
that improved product.
The ball would seem to be in your court.
73,
Dennis K2SX
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
>
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|