--- Original Message ---
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
To: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j@earthlink.net>, <cq-
contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation
>At 12:41 PM 11/30/2004, Warren C. Stankiewicz wrote:
>>I've got to disagree with Hans on this one. The only
measurable metric on
>>activity is how many logs are submitted. Anything
else ("...gee, there were
>>a lot of signals on the bands...") is heresay,
unmeasurable, and not
>>quantifiable.
>>
>>We need solutions which can prove quantifiable
results, and a plan which
>>will produce those results. Otherwise, there's no
real point to sponsoship
>>at all, considering the data the ARRL has showing us
to be a tiny minority
>>of the ham population at large.
>>
>>Arguments such as we spend more on our stations,
have greater equity and
>>interest in the hobby, are advancing the state of
the art, etc, have no
>>pursuasive value without concrete, verifiable
statistics to back them up.
>
>
>Contest sponsors have the means at hand to track raw
activity. The
>log-checking software can produce lists of call-signs
appearing in anyone's
>log, and even allowing for a fair number of busts, a
consistent metric
>could be developed (assuming that the percentage of
busts didn't change
>appreciably over time). This could even be cleaned
up by cross-checking
>with databases to get rid of the bad calls, sorted by
country (to produce
>information on national or continental trends of
activity), etc. There's a
>lot of very interesting and relevant information out
there for the massaging.
>
To follow up on this, perhaps target those contest
contact databases that have stations with Q counts in
the range of 10 - 150 QSOs.
Rich NN3W
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|