CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] CQWW survey RE: N6TJ comments

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW survey RE: N6TJ comments
From: kr2q@optimum.net
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 13:04:45 +0000 (GMT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
RE: N6TJ post: 
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2015-September/110742.html

[snip]
"QUESTION:  Will the Committee Leadership continue to conduct this survey 
until it gets the answer it wants??  If that's reality, that's fine.  Just 
share with us all that it's the Committee's goal.  Thank you."
[end snip]

I know Jim loves to "stir the pot."

But just in case any readers of this reflector don't know, this is the 2nd such 
survey, and
on the previous version, at least one question demonstrates that the "Committee 
Leadership"
does not appear to be bound to survey results.

EG:
Look at the prior survey and results:
http://www.cqww.com/files/2013_CQWWDX_Contest_Survey_27Apr2013.pdf

Check out Q7 on page 46:
[snip]
The CQ WW gives a penalty of 3x QSO points for a call sign error or a Not in 
Log. 
This penalty is...
[end snip]

32.7% of the respondents said it was "too high."  Just under 1/3!  Yet, for the 
next
CQWW, the penalty was reduced.

Knowing (or checking) historical records is a good thing!

I feel that surveying the contest community is a good thing.  It will be good 
to see
what "trends" (if any) can be discovered.  Of course, using just 2 data points
(2 surveys) does not assure much statistical validity to demonstrate a "trend."

:-)

Nevertheless, I feel it will be fun to see what the community says.

de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] CQWW survey RE: N6TJ comments, kr2q <=