[CQ-Contest] why should ARRL publish QST on paper?

[W. Wright, W5XD]

The League existed before it published a magazine, and publishing a magazine
is, in my opinion, not among the reasons it exists. QST gets published to
further the purposes of the ARRL--contesting is among those--and if there is
a better way to accomplish those than killing trees, then I hope that the
Amateur Radio community continues in the tradition of innovation and finds a
better way.

My opinion on the hot topic of the moment, however, is that if the ARRL
thinks that publishing QST is in its best interest, then reducing the
representation of its contesting constituency is not a very good plan.

Wayne, W5XD


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


>From Silver Ward" <hwardsil1 at mindspring.com  Sun Jan 13 19:55:52 2002
From: Silver Ward" <hwardsil1 at mindspring.com (Silver Ward)
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:55:52 -0000
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contesting, Ham Radio and the Internet
References: <3.0.5.32.20020113051217.009a5100 at pop.abs.adelphia.net>
Message-ID: <00d701c19c6c$4ffbfd40$64e7bfa8 at ward>


> Some people worry a lot that the Internet is providing an attractive
> alternative to ham radio, particularly for the young.
>
> There is one dimension that clearly distinguishes the two, to the
advantage
> of ham radio, and that is competition.  DXers and contesters have no
> Internet counterparts.  QST and the amateur community in general should be
> playing up this difference, not seeking to exile it to special-interest
> niches on the web, where only DXers and contesters will be aware of it.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR

"DXers and contesters have no Internet counterparts"

Untrue, I must reply.  On-line gaming is intense and widespread.  I have two
17-year-old male progeny, in the prime of their awakening competitive
urges - they would rather log on and do battle than eat (or sleep or bathe
or do homework...).  Furthermore, the results do NOT take most of a year to
come out.  The cost of entry is a cheap computer and a 56k modem, plus
whatever subscription fee the sites require - usually less than $20/mo.  No
building, no wiring, no climbing, no CCRs.  Mighty stiff competition.

That said, radiosport contesting has a number of unique and attractive
features - it uses the natural environment, it varies semi-randomly, it's
seasonal, and changes every minute.  It's the world's largest on-line game.
For example, in describing a big DX contest to new hams and to non-hams, I
tell them that "I can hear the world turning" during the contest - it really
lights 'em up.  Radiosporting also has one of the most unusual aspects of
ANY sport - success depends on the mutual cooperation of the participants by
establishing contact.

Now, on to my usual ramble...  First, go back and re-read K1RO's message
about what is being proposed
(lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/200201/msg00145.html).  We're not facing
elimination of contest coverage from QST - rather, a change in its nature.
One desparately overdue.

Are any of contesting's attractive features publicized by printing in
single-digit point sized type a list of calls and scores largely unchanged
from those widely available on the web within a week of the contest?  I
think not.  Contest scores do not attract non-contesters.  Pictures,
explanations, real stories about real people - those will attract the
interest of our non-contesting associates.  Clean Sweep mugs, Pins, etc. -
tangible "stuff" - those attract interest, too.

Now, the casual first- or second-time entrant - like you and me back in the
mists of time - what do we need to get and hold this ham?  By the time the
scores are printed, a sizeable fraction of these folks have forgotten that
they even made any QSOs.  People need feedback within a reasonable time
frame.  These days, with the web making information essentially real-time,
six months is not reasonable.  Take a look at Contest Corral - the contest
that does not have a web page and email log submission is an extreme rarity.
The same people that light up for the contest description glaze over and
detach when I then explain that it takes most of a year to find out who won.

Effective with the April Contest Corral, I am adding the URLs of the
www.hornucopia.com/3830score/ web page and of the 3830 reflector and
archives.  The casual entrants will be back if they can make a few QSOs and
then get the positive feedback of seeing their call and score in public, as
well as see that there are so many other people having FUN and being
enthusiastic.  (Folks, you should all take your hats off to eham, WA7BNM,
and N7WA - they are probably having the biggest effect on contesting since
CT and we're barely even aware of it - it's so smoothly done.)  What if log
acceptance robots added to their reply the following text - "Click on
www.hornucopia.com/3830score/ to enter your results" and also recorded the
email address of the log submitter so that they would automagically receive
a copy of the results and a PDF file of the contest report?  Pow!  Interest!
Participation!

Then there are us regular contesters - what do we really like reading?
There are only so many column-inches available in the best of scenarios and
by the time N1ND gets done reporting the winners of the various categories,
what, really, can be presented?  Guys and gals - with rare exception, we
already knew MONTHS ago who won.  Give me a break.  There are many, many
interesting and novel stories about the contest and the contesters that will
never see the light of day because the QST column-inches are going to the
scores, no matter how creative or thoughtful Dan may be.

If you think QST suffers from lightweight articles, what do you call space
spent saying "X beat Y and Z came in third" when the results have been old
news since two weeks after the contest?  What if those inches could be spent
describing the ebb and flow of the horse-race between two Top Ten rivals, or
how SMC displaced two other top contest clubs (well done, Black Holers...)
to take home the Sweepstakes gavel?  Not only does that hold my grizzled
veteran attention, but it also inspires the newcomer.  As long as we insist
on reprinting a heap of numbers and calls that are as lively as gravel, we
will continue to PREVENT the publicizing of the true human-interest aspects
of the sport.

What's so interesting about scores?  Besides the adrenaline rush of seeing
YOUR CALL in the same column and N5TJ and K1AR (in the same type size,
even!), the interest is not in the scores themselves.  It is in the
relationships.  Since there are essentially zero costs in distributing
web-based material, the only expense is in the time available to perform the
analysis of those relationships and write it up.  In fact, YOU, Mr.
Spreadsheet Maven, could perform your own analysis and contribute it to the
web site.  Why do N1ND and K3EST have to do everything?  Oh yeah.  The
scores are printed in a magazine and you can't get to them without manually
typing them in.  What a waste of time!  Believe me, I know - I've done it.
Imagine that you could download the scores as a spreadsheet file with all
the data not in the printed version - like club, location, hours of
operation, error rate, and so forth.  The analytical among us would have a
Field Day.  Oh wait, that's not a contest...

We have it exactly backwards.  We should be asking why the ARRL isn't using
our dues to use all the power of the web to turn the current situation
inside out.  Why clutter up QST with data, when the analysis has so much
more value?  Why not more in-depth reporting and how-to's for the contester?
Why not more descriptive, color-photo, articles of interest to the general
ham while gently directing them to the web pages where the dynamic stuff
lives?

I have been reading QST for coming up on 40 years.  Back in the "good old
days", yes, QST was a technical reference.  It could afford to be because
the scope of ham radio was so much smaller.  Think about the options
presented to the new ham today; satellites, networking, VHF/UHF/microwave
operation, APRS, all sorts of digital modes, and so forth.  QST can not
cover any one area in depth - at best it can serve as a broad survey
magazine with the occasional in-depth article.  For the hard-core
experimenter, get QEX.  For the contester, NCJ is there.  There are other
specialty organizations and magazines (AMSAT, QRP Quarterly, etc.)
Insisting that our particular domain be covered to the depth of its raw data
is unrealistic.  We should be using the bully pulpit of QST at a much higher
level.

73, Ward N0AX


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