Al -
I'd like to respond to one of your comments, below.
Al Crespo wrote:
> I only have the following QST's handy-the percentages are
> contest/content (75 pages)
> July 2001 (12%)1609 logs submitted for SS Phone
> August 2001 (13%)
> September 2001 (15%)
> October 2001 (15%) 2418 logs submitted for ARRL CW
> November 2001 (19%) 4803 logs submitted for ARRL DX Phone
> December 2001 (5%)-not including Field Day, which is not, has never
> been, a contest!
> January 2002 (9%)
> February 2002 (4%)
>
> The average is 11.5% of contest related pages.
>
> By the way, contests are reported under the by-line of "Operating". How
> is Operating by members no longer important enough to put into print.
> Isn't Section News reporting about what we do? That's not important.
>
> Maybe we need to take a hard look at what QST should be about. Should
> color pictures of stuff 80% of the hams never bother to read take
> precedent over operating news?
Al, where did you get that 80% figure? And, additionally,
if you want to run a popularity contest on the numbers,
you're doomed to failure. ARRL does *extensive* surveying
of QST readership. Here's one piece of information from
the survey done in late 2000, about a year ago. When asked
what regular features are read "almost always/often," the Contest
Corral came in 33rd place out of 41. When asked what
kind of material the respondents wanted to see more, less,
or about the same of, out of 29 topics "contest rules and results"
came in dead last, with the score indicating "less."
It's tempting, as a contester, to conclude that material that
interests you should be interesting to all, and vice versa, but
such is not the case. Amateur radio today has evolved into
a large number of special interests, some very vocal, others
not. As you continue your discussions of how to keep the
contest flag flying high in QST, keep in mind that those other
have to be accomodated somehow within the pages of QST.
And QSTs about the size that you're getting now (176 pages,
soon to be reduced to 160 pages some months) are all that
we have to work with, at least until the slump in advertising
turns around or other significant sources of funding are found
that can be used to make a better QST.
73. Jim, W6CF
> How do you define a contester? Is it someone who gets on and works other
> stations in a contest? To give a more restrictive definition surly
> becomes too subjective (works 5 contests a year and makes 5,000 QSO,
> etc).
> Trying to define a contester is like tying to define a swimmer.
> If you can swim (instead of just sinking), then you are a swimmer. If
> you win a Gold Medal in a competition, you are still a swimmer.
> In the 2001 ARRL DX phone Contest K9PG at ZF2NT made 3597 USA
> contacts just on 10 meters. All of those USA contacts were with
> people operating as "contesters."
> Lastly, DX now gets 2 pages out 75 each month, 3%.
> What is proposed by "staff" is about the same for contesting,
> and moving section news totally out of print.
> Some balance.
> This is from the ARRL WEB page-
> "Simply put, QST is the best source of news and practical
> information from the world of Amateur Radio. All hams, regardless of
> license class or experience, will find it indispensable."
> Somehow the news concept is getting diluted.
> 73, Al
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|