>An interesting approach would be to look at the number of individual
>stations that the "big boys" worked or data from the dup lists to see how
>many got on for a few contacts and didn't really contest.
Isn´t that the most important question: "Why don´t they really
contest?" If they did the overall number of QSOs during a specific
contest would raise - and that is IMHO the best measure for activity
(not the scores of the few winning stations or the number of submitted
Available operation times from RDXC show that nearly two thirds of the
logsending participants (already a subgroup of all active stations in
the contest) operated less than 12 of the 24 hours. It is quite
understandable given that contesting for the majority of us is a hobby
in an everydaylife. How much of a "really competing" participant is a
runner who can only afford running half the distance? But runners can go
one of the full distances (having a choice between 10k, half-marathon or
marathon) and then sprint (="really contest") at the finish even between
rank 82 and 83 without an award as appetizer. We have "handing out a few
qsos" in the available time - which may be nice of course if intended.
To induce "really contesting" to that majority/us at or below the
halftime level (without an avalanche of awards) could generate more
overall qsos = contest activity. But that topic of course isn´t as
glamorous as new gadgets.
Thanks for reading and 73, Chris
CQ-Contest mailing list