CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL and Open Logs - Time for the next step?

To: Vladimir Sidorov <vs_otw@rogers.com>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL and Open Logs - Time for the next step?
From: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:21:04 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
As much as Vladimir's example below is repugnant, and those who told him such 
should be deeply 
ashamed, and as much as I may not wish to see the "open log" concept applied to 
all contests, I wonder 
if there's not a glass-half-full side to WW and open logs.

Many contests have rules and idiosyncrasies unique to themselves: is the 
opening of WW logs not 
perhaps just another way to distinguish WW? Sure, it lets those with lots of 
time on their hands to 
peruse your log and poach your past strategies, but perhaps what that means is 
that in the era of open 
logs, you just have to push yourself to be that much better each year and to 
develop new strategies 
each year?

In the end, isn't that what being a top-tier contester is all about anyway? I 
mean, it's not like WW has an 
exchange that requires any effort to copy...

I think many of the objections to other contests adopting the open log idea 
have merit, but that horse is 
out of the barn for WW, at least.

73, kelly
ve4xt



> 
> From: "Vladimir Sidorov" <vs_otw@rogers.com>
> Date: 2008/07/30 Wed PM 12:12:22 CDT
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL and Open Logs - Time for the next step?
> 
> Yet another look at open logs.
> 
> As a contest sponsor/adjudicator I have been asked several times to make 
> logs open for the following reason: Let us go through logs and determine 
> poorest operators so that we can AVOID WORKING THEM in the next contest 
> (!!!).
> 
> This is the least thing I wanted to see in the end of the day. Instead, more 
> new people should be invited into contesting and amateur radio in general, 
> and any activity of the newcommers should be by all means supported. That's 
> why I for one don't really like the open logs' idea.
> 
> 73,
> Vladimir VE3IAE
> 
> ---  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>