Dave,
Your expose brought back some personal memories that were very similar. As
a kid I, too, would pour over contest line scores and imagine what kind of
station and op skills were required to be in that top ten list. Or, plot
how I was going to beat the kid across town who thoroughly trounced me in a
SS with only dipoles. I'd analyze the hell of them. Hell, I still do!
Kids of today (kids of all ages, but "kids") will have no problem doing the
same thing with the internet results. In fact, the various
searching/sorting will likely improve it a bit. As we, the contesting
community, become accustomed to this resource, I'm sure the copy will
improve as will pictures and station descriptions.
Bud, K2KIR, made an excellent point when he expresses concern about losing
the line scores as web sites change, systems crash, etc. A hundred
thousand printed copies probably stand a better chance of being kept safe
over time than web site content does.
I don't know if ARRL HQ still does this, but years ago they would keep at
least one copy of every QST (and other League pub) ever published. It was
neat to visit HQ and be able to pull one of these and gingerly look through
it. Something equivalent to that really needs to be implemented for the
computer line scores and writeups. In many ways these contest results,
pictures and station descriptions are our history. They show what we looked
like (gads!), bring back memories of that equipment we thought was state of
the art (we really made Qs with THAT?), and sets a statistical base for
comparision with future efforts (nr of participants, top scores, scores vs
sunspot cycle, ...).
What's the best way of preserving web site content for the future? I'm a
user of the web, not a web site architect. Is it possible to capture a
"snapshot" of the ARRL site or subset thereof that can be activated later
and still work? (Note this implies probably storing the computer image on
which it resides, and maybe at some points the computer itself, so that
supporting software is part of the archive.) I don't think the equivalent
of a batch of QSTs in a climate-controlled room is easily accomplished.
But it should be done.
73,
Gary W2CS
Apex, NC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-admin@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-admin@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David A. Pruett
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 7:08 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: QST Line Scores
>
>
> Back in the early seventies when I was a new ham (licensed 2-3 years) and
> starting to get very enthused about contesting, the QST contest writeups
> were a HUGE factor in increasing my knowledge. I was fortunate that the
> library at community college I attended for the first few years
> after high
> school had a rather complete collection of QSTs for the prior
> fifteen years
> or so. They were stored in a back room and the librarian would
> unlock the
> room and let me sit back there for hours digesting contest results.
>
> What was it that attracted my interest - line scores? Heck no!
> First, it
> was pictures of contest stations; no, not stations with a DX40 and an
> NC300, but pictures of competitive stations like W3GRF, K1LPL/3, XE1IIJ,
> W7RM, etc. It was always interesting to see what these guys were
> running,
> which gave me something to aspire to. Second were the tables
> showing QSOs
> and mults (varied depending on the contest); again, showing me what was
> possible. And finally, contest writeups which explained the
> contest - who
> beat who, and why; significant scores, antecdotes, etc.; much more than
> simple recitations of first, second and third places in each category.
>
> Its been a number of years since I've read a contest writeup in a
> magazine
> which I truly enjoyed. The CQWW writeups, IMHO, are better than the ARRL
> ones because K3EST is deeply involved in the contest and understands what
> went on. I commend the ARRL recent writeups (particularly the on-line
> versions) by guest authors which have been a great improvement and will
> continue to get better as these writers gain experience (that is,
> assuming
> they don't burn out and quit). Still there is room for
> improvement - IMHO
> there needs to be more pictures and more comparison breakdowns. For
> example, the January VHF SS writeup lacked the traditional boxes with top
> QSOs and grids per band. I'm not sure whether scoring info by band was
> available in the results - even if so, sorting through hundreds of scores
> is a lot of work for the reader when the author might be able to run a
> database query and format it into a table with little work.
>
> I believe that an attractive, interesting article about the results of a
> contest has a place in QST. I'm not so much against including
> line scores
> as I am a proponent of better use of space. I'd prefer to *read
> about the
> contest* and opposed to going glassy-eyed over columns of data.
>
> At the same time, we contesters need to get off our butts. We need to
> submit more photos, stories, etc. about our contest efforts as
> material for
> the writeup authors to use. And those of us who are capable of writing
> need to step up and volunteer to do the writeups. N1ND's time is put to
> much better use making the contest results happen.
>
> FWIW.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave/K8CC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|