It seems the folk who think hard exchanges should be easy to explain are
assuming, possibly in error, that the casual operator is going to care
enough to listen...
As much as 'we' may like the idea of complicated exchanges to spice up
contests, we have to remember that what makes WW and WPX, and even ARRL DX
and 10 meter contests so much fun is the large number of non-competing
stations who get on for a short time, blast through contacts till they've
had their fill and then go mow the grass.
Although I have little empirical data to base this conclusion on, I think
it's sound: the more difficult you make a contest, the larger number of
non-competing stations you weed out. Just compare activity levels during a
CW sprint, possibly the most difficult contest ever invented (not a slight,
I like the contest, even if I don't do well in it at all), to the levels of,
say, WW or WPX, possibly the easiest contests ever invented. (Note in this
example, level of difficulty is based on the ability of a casual op to tune
in and intuitively figure out how to compete, not about how easy or not it
is to win. Note also that the comparison holds up even if you restrict the
comparison to domestic activity, since Sprints are domestic.)
It would be interesting to compare the number of valid callsigns recorded in
submitted logs in WW or WPX against the number of submitted logs. I suspect
the comparison would show that we need the non-competing stations more than
they need us.
This isn't to shoot down the idea altogether. If you want a contest with
meaningful exchanges, all you have to do is start one. Please, by all means,
go ahead. I'll give it a shot. The results would be a lot more, shall we
say, meaningful than endlessly debating the subject here, no?
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alfred J. Frugoli (KE1FO)" <frugoli@worldlinkisp.com>
To: "CQ Contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>; "Dave Lawley"
<g4buo@compuserve.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RE: Meaningful Contest Exchange
G4BUO Wrote:
> Hence Ropoco - ROtating POst COdes. It's a lot of fun and meets the aim
> of a meaningful exchange, but it's also very hard to explain what it's
> all about to a casual contester.
How is this hard to explain. "Send to the next guy what you recieved in the
previous exchange" seems to cover it pretty well. Furthermore, little harm
would be done if the casual contester just sent his own postal code over and
over again, as long as any log he sends in shows that his sent exchange
accurately on every qso.
_______________________________________________
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
|