Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna HeightCategory

["Russell Hill" <rustyhill@earthlink.net>]

I have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or 10 stations
logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log.

Pete, thanks for your comment and suggestion.  Your point about LOTW is well 
taken, I believe.

I think the stat you mention might change if the low antenna types had a 
category where they thought their score might be competitive.

73, Rusty, na5tr


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: LimitedAntenna 
Height Category


> At 10:20 AM 11/30/2004, Russell Hill wrote:
> > I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping the 
> > casual operator in the contest.  I have read many comments about the 
> > necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are involved 
> > in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
>
>
> Rusty goes on to suggest that a limited height category would help keep 
> participation going (or growing), but I wonder if that's really true.  I 
> have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or 10 stations 
> logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log.  Doesn't that imply that 
> most people get on to fatten their DXCC totals, for the inherent thrill of 
> working DX, or even just to have something to do on a cold fall weekend?
>
> If we really want to stimulate increased log submission in CQWW, I'd 
> suggest that a good way to do it would be to implement direct linkages 
> between the CQWW database and LotW, such that when a QSO was confirmed by 
> receipt of both logs by CQWW, it would be considered confirmed for DXCC 
> purposes.
>
> This needn't be done in real time, or involve any elaborate inter-database 
> communication.  I'm confident that ways could be found to do it that would 
> not affect CQWW's hard-held position that logs submitted to them will not 
> be disclosed to anyone.  A harder problem may be achieving the requisite 
> level of trust between the two organizations, even though things seem much 
> better now than in the past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ contests 
> in QST.
>
> If the cultural divide is still too wide, maybe an easier challenge would 
> be for the ARRL to do this for its own contests.  I bet that 
> participation, as measured by log submissions, would benefit 
> substantially.
>
> 73, Pete
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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