Yes, we don't have a number for "unique callsigns per year" (which ARRL might
have however). Maybe a good measure for this is the highest number of qsos
reported by any entrant, either single op or multi op. Some qsos are of course
removed in log checking in addition to not all unique calls being worked by any
one station. But it is probably still similar to the number of stations that
were active in the contest. Some time ago I went through the CW SS results
available online and compiled these:
year highest # qsos
1995 1546
1996 1440
1997 1486
1998 1524
1999 1410
2000 1517
2001 1457
2002 1468
2003 1457
2004 1497
2005 1421
2006 1511
2007 1481
2008 1529
2009 1597
2010 1466
2011 1472
2012 1424
2013 1460
2014 1403
2015 1475
2016 1397
2017 1360
Comments:
1. the last two years are the lowest since at least 1995.
2. the peak was in 2009.
3. if you graph these (sorry I don't have a way to attach this), the trend you
see is either see an overall decline with fluctuations, or possibly roughly
flat behavior until 2010-2011 followed by a steeper decline.
Tor
N4OGW
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/22/18, <steve.root@culligan4water.com> wrote:
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CW SS: Some thoughts
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:28 PM
Howdy,
For many years people on this Reflector
have noted the relative lack of "younger" Checks seen in SS
exchanges. We are 18 years into the 21st century, and yet
the majoity of contacts made are with folks who were
licensed 30 to 60 years ago. There is a demonstrable lack of
"new blood" in CW SS.
This has been disguised in two ways.
First, I submit that the new technologies used in contesting
(SO2R, Internet/Cluster, computer dupe checking, logging
software with band maps, etc.) have made us all much more
effficient at working the majority of people who actually
show up on the bands. Without these tools it was much harder
to find everyone. Now there are no openings missed, no
stones unturned. If you get on and "make a few contacts"
people will very efficiently find you and work you.
Secondly, it used to be a difficult chore to submit a log.
Running through hundreds of entries cleaning up poor
penmanship and dupe checking the whole log after the contest
and mailing it all in was a big job. Now it couldn't be
easier. A couple of minutes of button pushing and your log
is on it's way.
Because of these two factors, raw
scores and logs submitted would have us believe that all is
well. I am convinced however that scores have remained high
because we all have become better at scoring, and "logs
received" is high because it's much easier to submit a log
than it used to be.
A more useful metric might be "Number
of unique calls reported". I'm suggesting that this number
has been going down ever since the code requirement was
dropped. Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to
prove my hypothesis unless there is an archive of old
contest logs and someone who is willing to type them all
into a database of some kind (and I'm not volunteering!).
This leaves me with two conclusions.
First, any change to SS CW contest rules will have no
significant effect on the fundamental problem.......CW
contest operators are a dying breed. Secondly, if the
problem is a lack of enthusiasm for CW SS due to Sunday
Doldrums or lower rates, then perhaps a change on the rules
could be made to increase the enjoyment for those of us who
are left.
73 Steve K0SR
_______________________________________________
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
|