Mal and others,
IMHO the real reason it is NOT done quickly has nothing to do with the
availability of resources; or the resources applied at the right time. IMHO
the real reason is so that the results are published just in time for
building interest in the upcoming yearly version of the contest.
This is perhaps the least expensive method of total advertising and hyping
for the next running of the contest (6-8 weeks from the time the magazine
arrives).
If all the results of the October and November contests were published in
February and March (it takes that much lead time for the publishing) then
there would be a six month lapse of time until the next contest.
To properly promote, advertise and hype the next version of the contest in
the monthly issue just prior to the contest, they would have to utilize 6-8
pages of "no pay advertising" to obtain the same exposure that they do with
the current method.
Mis dos centavos,
Milt, N5IA
----- Original Message -----
From: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>
To: "Michael Coslo" <mjc5@psu.edu>; "CQ Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking in CQWW
>I am curious why the computer 'guru's' can't solve the log checking delays.
> When computers first came out, in basic language, computer guru's like
> K1EA
> designed logging software and moved the contesting community into the 20th
> century. Now we have whole teams like N1MM moving us into and beyond the
> 21st century.
> Why isn't there another group developing log checking software. If
> computers did all the work we could have contest results in 2 months after
> the deadline. I'm an 'ole-fart' and time has passed me by or I would
> volunteer. I would think it would be an easy task for a computer to check
> time and exchange between station ABC and XYZ. All logs, by this time, are
> submitted electronically, or should be. I would like to see the major
> sponsors, QST, CQ, and NCJ, get together and encourage computer guru's to
> develop software for them. After all they all use the same electronic
> submission format so there would not need to be different formats for each
> different sponsor. The only thing 'non-standard' is the scoring format but
> it is still simple arithmetic(childs play for a computer).
> Again just my -2cents worth
> 73
>
> MAL
> N7MAL
> BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
> http://www.n7mal.com
> Everyone in the world is
> entitled to be burdened
> by my opinion
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Coslo
> To: CQ Contest
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 13:35
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log checking in CQWW
>
>
>
>
>
> ""I still say to people who want to expose corruption and whatever other
> evils there are in Amateur radio contesting to use their energies to
> help contesting. If sponsors had more people helping them, the results
> would be done more quickly, more accurately, and cheaters would be
> found and eliminated more easily.""
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1660 - Release Date: 9/8/2008
6:39 PM
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|