Thanks for the data. It is interesting to note that some of the highest
QSO totals came at the minimum of the previous 2 solar cycles. Maybe we
will be experiencing an increase in logs during the next 2 years as we have
pretty much hit the bottom of Cycle 24/25 or are close to it. Maybe when
the conditions get bad people are less likely to play in DX contests and so
they play in domestic contests instead. I know that during the higher
sunspot years I go at it harder in the CQWW contests so I am kind of worn
out when Sweepstakes comes the next weekend.
Any other ideas for the pattern of data?
One thing I will mention also is that the 5 day window we now have to
submit logs is probably not doing casual contesters any good. It is easy
to finish a contest, get busy with other things, and all of sudden it is
Friday and you no longer want my log. Especially when they just changed
the format from emailing it to uploading it. I can see many casual
contesters saying "The heck with it, my log is late so I am not going to
send it in at all". Many of them might not really know how or where to
submit a log. I would like a 10 day or 2 week window at least, does a 5
day window really get results published any quicker than 10 days?
73 John AF5CC
73 John AF5CC
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 PM, RT Clay <rt_clay@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|