On Mar 23, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> WØQE did a thorough job of creating the 3,077 state/county codes.
> It's a
> shame the "Not invented here" syndrome has precluded his work to be
> leveraged as a QSO Party standard.
Make no mistake about it. If the PAQSO were to start today, I would
use the MARAC county standard acronyms.
> Does anyone remember the "Pre-ADIF" days
> when logging authors rolled their own and there was no
> interoperability?
> That's pretty much where the QSO Parties stand today, 15 years
> behind the
> times.
Now that made me smile. I regularly get my chops busted for
introducing changes and adding modern modes too! 8^)
Might I respectfully suggest that you are looking at it from a fairly
narrow view?
I have to look at it from many viewpoints. I can see that having
standardized counties will allow people to operate in several parties
at once. So with rewrite of software to include that list, and more
rewrite to differentiate parties, some folks who want to operate
multiple parties can get in the action under their own terms.
Now, what does that do for the rest of my people? It means they have
to get familiar with a new list of counties. Some will get angry and
drop out for a while or permanently. They are passionate. I LIKE that.
But I have to respect that also. I would have to explain my actions,
and come up with a way to convince them that in order to accommodate
some folks who want to operate in multiple parties, a whole lot of
things have to change. I'd have to go into the witness protection
program. Just kidding, but I wouldn't be the subject of happy talk,
for sure. But I do make changes at my own peril.
The casual op who wants to work a lot of parties at once probably
isn't going to be seriously competing for any particular categories in
our party. Maybe a county award if they are operating from a rare one.
So I look at the situation, and weighing the pros and cons, I can see
that in order to please a fairly narrow, small, and casual group of
Ops, I have to inconvenience every regular op, rewrite much of my own
database and log checking software, and make an extra effort for the
software writers as they rewrite their software to accommodate
multiple concurrent contests.
I don't know about the logging programs, but that makes a week, likely
more of work for me on my end with absolutely no improvement, it
breaks my older databases, so I'll have to carry two, both old and
new, and I'll catch a lot of grief I'll have to take from all the
people I inconvenienced.
Couple with the statements we get such as "not invented here" and
accusations of being "15 years behind the time". Can you blame us for
not being so excited about the idea?
And yet, there is an answer to the problem of working multiple state
parties, as outlined below.
>
> With many QSO Parties overlapping on weekends, I think it's a big
> disincentive for operators. You need to go into your logging
> software and
> "custom roll" a new abbreviation list.
Most software writers put in support for specific QSO Parties.
> Most people won't take the time or
> don't have the skill. Using the MARAC standard would allow you to
> operate
> numerous QP's, submit your complete log to each one, and be done
> with it.
Which software will split up the logs into specific contests?
Once again respectfully, if it is too much trouble to download a
county list, or a person doesn't have the skills to produce one, are
they going to be operating in multiple state QSO Parties?
Taking a look at the programming situation, you don't need the MARAC
list to do that anyhow. You could rewrite the software to accommodate
the different QSO parties, using their own list of counties.
Presumably there would be a switch to move between parties, which
would take you to the respective parties window, at which time you're
there.
Now a solution:
Many QSO parties have software written for them, and it's usually
free. And I've found that particular software tends to produce the
best logs.
My personal experience with operating multiple QSO parties is that I
eventually tend to concentrate on the one that is busiest. Trying to
run a frequency is a little complicated, so S and P tends to work best.
If I were to do this again, I would use the individual parties
software, and tab between them, adding entries as needed. Most have a
list of respective counties for display, so there shouldn't be a mixup.
Now some might say that "I use XXXX software, I don't want to use
anything else". At this point I have to refer them back to my
statement about changing things at my own peril.
But by this time, I'm not interested in doing multi parties anyhow.
Just like in real life, I'll go to one and hang out there.
In the end, I always have to revert to the old saying "you can't keep
everyone happy". State Parties tend to be a bit less cutthroat. Don't
mistake that for a lack of competitiveness though. Many times a
person on a run allows another to break in and work a rare one they
just worked. There's more than UR 599 GL - I've heard and had short
conversations. It's fun. It's a different atmosphere.
But it isn't for everyone.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|