[CQ-Contest] Packet use for single ops.

[Rick Bullon]

>>
>In a message dated 11/13/00 11:31:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>lw9euj at ciudad.com.ar writes:
>
><< 78 % to allow packet for single ops.
>  17 % to leave things the way they are.
>  5 % not defined.
>
>  Many of the guys who think that allowing packet for single ops is a bad
>  thing, are ocasional contesters. While almost 90% of those who think that
>  the use of packet by single ops would be OK, are well known hard-core
>  contesters. >>
>
>This is just not a valid statistical method.  You have not ensured a random
>sample, nor adequate coverage of population to be included.  While we in 
>the
>USA are still waiting to see who our next #1 will be, we see the problems
>with "exit polling."  You need to determine what type contester is likely 
>to
>respond to your question, whether or not you have used leading questions or
>"interviewer bias" and a myriad of other factors that absolutely will 
>affect
>your "survey."
>
>If you want to survey "hard core" contesters, you should do a survey of 
>those
>who meet your definition.  You need to contact them.  YOU need to define 
>the
>population...you cannot let the sample "define itself" by only counting
>"those who reply."  Non-response is a valid response.  Therefore, you may
>actually have only a 0.1% response...not a valid sample upon which to make
>inferences about the whole "hard core" contester population.  Also, by 
>using
>numbers like "17%" or "78%" implies that you have had at least 100
>responses....I doubt that.  You level of precision is too great for the
>number of responses.
>
>de Doug KR2Q


Hey Doug
  This would be simple enough all he has to do is find out how many 
subscribers there are to the list then include the amount of non responses 
he received.
Then the results would be
?% for packet
?% against packet
?% no response
73
Rick
KC5AJX
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


>From K0HB at USWEST.NET" <K0HB at USWEST.NET  Wed Nov 15 00:42:53 2000
From: K0HB at USWEST.NET" <K0HB at USWEST.NET (K0HB - Hans)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:42:53 -0000
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted or Not Assisted?
Message-ID: <01C04E9E.16C9D820.K0HB at USWEST.NET>


Bill Coleman wrote:

> On 11/13/00 16:22, jbattin at jbattin at email.msn.com wrote:
>
> >When you use a computer program that has in it thousands of calls
> >prepared by another party ..... Is that not assisted also...
>
> No. Having a table of callsigns isn't an active assistance. The table
> doesn't tell you what calls are actually on the air, nor does it replace 
> the actual copying of callsigns. Such a table isn't any different than 
an
> experienced contester with a keen memory of worked callsigns.


My UBN reports lately suggest that I'm not very good at it,
but I thought the idea of radiosport (contesting) was to copy the
exchange off the air, not from some database crib sheet?
"Super Check Partial" and other program assistance such as
fill-in-the-zone in CQWW is still outside assistance.  The
skilled contester with a "keen memory" *should* have an advantage
over a lesser skilled or lesser experienced sportsman!  Isn't
that why we call it a "contest"?

I notice that Randy Moss and Chris Carter have to catch the
pass "off the air", not show the referee some film footage
of a previous catch.

73, Hans, K0HB

Un chasseur sachant chasser chasse sans son chien.
  (A hunter who knows how to hunt hunts without his dog)














--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com