I'm apparently late to this party and I see there's several threads at
play here:
1) On LOTW... I have not signed up for it partially due to the fact that
there were so many hoops to jump through. That's probably something I
can't change, so....
2) On "contest time windows"... Before my hiatus OTA (off the air) to
deal with the wonderful thing called "life" (work, moving across the
country, fighting for my job since 2007, etc.etc.) .. I'd do the entire
contest. I actually got a thrill out of it! Of course I was a lot
younger, and as I begin to hit the 30 wall I cannot do a full 36/48
anymore. Will that diminish my desire to get into a contest and even
make a concerted effort to try to win? See below...
No. If I don't want to win, I know that at least I can get on the air
and perhaps work a few new ones, spend some time away from the
nag-source (hope she's not reading this), or even work a few old friends
(I used to work W4AN on 40M late nights then spend a good hour or two
listening to him work other stations and try to study his style).
If I want to put a serious effort, knowing my frontier constraints
(mainly fatigue, now), I'll craft a plan around it. How to best maximize
my waking hours spent in front of the radio. Perhaps do a Single Band
entry (1999), or come up with a comprehensive plan based on writeups
from stations in my area, even taking into account *my* station
limitations (if they're so horrible and I still want to make a serious
effort, i'll guest op or go help someone who wants to win, i.e. m-m or
m-2).
To illustrate my point, in the years in which I was a budding contester
(young, energetic, naive, jim cramer crazy, etc.) I likened that to
slapping a ton of crap on the wall hoping one would stick. The full 48,
balls to the wall contesting. I didn't have a strategy per-se, and many
times I found myself missing key time windows (and mults). I didn't
listen well, and surely that contributed to missing some valuable
points/openings. Now, I have to recognize my strengths and weaknesses
and create a *strategy* around it. You can still win or come damn close
to it if you have a game plan which includes being in the right place at
the right time. I contend that even the non-serious contester who has
the aforementioned nag-source and other life commitments can still do
reasonably well, and may even shock themselves if they spend a couple
hours before a contest researching old results, reading a bit of
writeups (see my final point below), and coming up with a game plan to
maximize their effectiveness on the air and choose the category best
that fits their station profile.
my last point:
I get a lot of use from the writeups, no matter how small. It's fun to
see what other people experienced during the contest. It also helps me
craft a strategy for use in other contests as well.
So, in closing:
First, I haven't signed up for LOTW mostly because I am lazy to jump
through all of the hoops. It's on my to-do list, along with a few other
things that in my mind rank higher on the priority list. Second,
participation by the 'casual contester' (or The Joes for you Pros vs.
Joes fanatics, myself included) can be increased by perhaps giving a
demonstration at a local club meeting on contesting game plans: taking
into account you and your station's limitations, doing a bit of
comparable analysis for the class you want to participate in, deciding
whether or not to be serious, and all that other stuff I mentioned
above. Finally, show them the FUN in it and share some memorable moments
(I have lots of memorable contest moments that are quite funny and would
get a crowd laughing).
73,
2p, ex. YO
Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I too was a beta-tester for LotW.
>
> Is the security for it rather on the high side? Yes. I've heard many
> people say that LotW is more secure than their on-line banking or credit
> card services... which says a great deal more about the lack of security in
> the financial sector than it does about the security level of LotW, but I
> digress.
>
> That being said...
>
> Based on some of the private emails I've gotten, clearly I did not make my
> point well.
>
> You originally suggested (among other things) that an aid to encouraging
> contest participation, and by extension log submissions, is giving those
> participants awards credits when the logs match up. And I agree in
> principle... it's just that we already have a system in place to do just
> that, and (for those who choose to participate) all it takes is one extra
> email.
>
> But nothing will be universally accepted in Amateur Radio, LotW being no
> exception. And for that matter... even though I don't advocate doing so,
> the same thing could be done with eQSL.
>
> So the mechanism to do so is there. Now, how do we get the casual
> contesters to make use of it?
>
> 73
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Smith [mailto:n4zr@contesting.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:16 AM
> To: Ron Notarius W3WN; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Encouraging contest participation
>
> Hi Ron - Every contest QSO I have made since 1994 is in LOTW. I was
> a beta user of LOTW wat the beginning, and I am not reflexively
> anti-LOTW at all. I have already apologized to one of the authors
> for my hyperbolic description of LOTW's security, but the fact
> remains that obtaining a certificate from LOTW is quite onerous for
> many people, and particularly for non-US hams.
>
> As for your second point (how did it wind up first?), The logs I have
> submitted to LOTW contain QSO data with many, many hams who are not
> themselves LOTW users (about 75 percent of my QSOs, in fact). I
> don't think that constitutes forcing them to participate in it - I
> don't recall anyone objecting to being in the database, per se, just
> to the security requirements. For that matter, it would be simple
> enough to make provision for people to ask that their logs not be
> included in the program, if they wished to do so.
>
> But we're getting away from the real point - how do we provide
> incentives for non-contesters to get into contests? You need to
> offer something they can't get in another way. Many of us got into
> contesting through DXing, but the cost of collecting the QSLs has
> gotten way out of hand. My thought was simply to take advantage of
> that fact, to give operating in contests further competitive appeal.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> At 10:36 PM 6/18/2009, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>
>> I've been giving this some thought.
>>
>> There has been a demand, on and off for quite some time from some, for the
>> ARRL to automatically give awards credit based on submitted contest logs
>> that match up.
>>
>> And it wouldn't be hard to do.
>>
>> But two things keep surfacing:
>>
>> Second, there are many amateurs for many reasons who have declined to
>> participate in Logbook of the World. Many of these are active or
>> semi-active contesters as well. Why are we trying to force them (or more
>> correctly, their contest logs) into a system that they have declined to
>> participate in?
>>
>> But more importantly, First: What's the big deal?
>>
>> OK, so you've emailed the contest sponsor your Cabrillo log. IF you have
>> chosen to participate in Logbook of the World... you do a quick encryption
>> (takes all of what, 20 seconds?) and then email your encrypted Cabrillo log
>> to the LotW server. Total time: A minute?
>>
>> Are we that jaded that we can't be bothered to submit two emails instead of
>> one? To save a minute or so? Heck, we probably spend more time (as a
>> group) griping about it, than it would actually take to do!
>>
>> Or does that make too much sense?
>>
>> 73
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:17 AM
>> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Encouraging contest participation
>>
>> Dave's right about the potential value of encouraging more casual
>> participants. Just as happened to me 54 years ago, participation for
>> purposes other than winning a certificate will result in some
>> percentage catching the bug and becoming competitors.
>>
>> One thing that would be a big boost to participation by
>> non-contesters would be to give award credit for contest QSOs that
>> have been verified (cross-checked) by the log checkers. Surely, it
>> would be a fairly trivial addition to the log-checking software to
>> have it generate a separate list of the verified QSOs in some pretty
>> universal format, which the awards folks could use to grant credit
>> toward DXCC, WAS, WPX, WAZ or whatever. Talk about quick, low-cost
>> gratification, obtainable nowhere else but through participation in
>> contests!
>>
>> I can hear the screams now about diluting the "integrity" of the
>> awards, but cheating scenarios involving collusion among participants
>> in a contest to fabricate QSOs are pretty far fetched, and should be
>> pretty easy to detect. I suppose people might also point to the loss
>> of revenue by ARRL, particularly for DXCC, but I truly wonder if the
>> awards program is a profit center for them, or more a question of
>> loss mitigation.
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|