[CQ-Contest] Re: Why not complain about CQ also?

[Kelly Taylor]

Here's the thing: the people who won't bother to look at the line scores on
the Web are the same people right now who don't bother to look at the line
scores in QST.

Line scores have limited appeal -- primarily to us and us alone. That's not
going to change.

But what can change is the amount that non-contesters read the results. They
won't read line scores but they will read interesting stories, with good
anecdotes, good prose and good photography. There is no room for that now
since the majority of pages are devoted to line scores.

As the author of the 2001 SS Phone writeup, my behind the scenes work with
such ARRL luminaries as K1RO, NT1N, N1BKE and N1ND suggests a strong
commitment to making line score-free results work for everybody. I support
the efforts to move line score coverage to the Web (where it can be MUCH
more valuable to the people who actually care about them) and increase
non-line score copy in QST, where it can be much more interesting to the
people who don't care about line scores.

Anything that will make it MORE LIKELY that a non-contester will read the
results writeup is a good thing, no? Line scores don't do that.

It only makes sense to deliver the material people want in the form most
suited to them: the interactive sort functions applied to the SS line scores
on the Web site are nothing short of astounding. Want to compare 80 meter
rates among club scores in B? No problem. Want to find out who had the
highest non-sweep score? Simple. They really, really, really did an
absolutely fantastic job developing the contesting space on the ARRL site.

It is an excellent resource that we should all be happy to embrace.

The most powerful people at the League now are active contesters. Don't
forget that.

73, Kelly
VE4XT

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everybody isn't out to get me."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Maira" <gm at netsync.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Why not complain about CQ also?


> > Message: 7
> > From: "Lee Hiers, AA4GA" <aa4ga at contesting.com>
> > To: Cq-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:26:10 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Why not complain about CQ also?
> >
>
> > I would say that it gives reason for concern for
> > ARRL's continued sponsorship of contests,
> > possibly even their support of contesting as an
> > allowable activity on the bands - I would not be
> > surprised if they proposed a rules change to the
> > FCC which would prohibit contesting - if you
> > boil it down to membership numbers, I'm sure the
> > majority of members (not active $-spending
> > members, just numbers of members) would support
> > total elimination of contesting.  It's only a
> > matter of time.
>
> Bingo! Someone is finally catching on. The ARRL won't so far as trying to
prohibit
> contests, but they are distancing themselves from them. The exception is
the non-contest
> field day exercise which is still good PR for the league.
>
> I just started out in contesting about 2 years ago. One thing that helped
spark my
> interest was seeing ARRL contest results in QST. Seeing the results there
also gave me
> added incentive to try for more points. It won't be quite the same without
results
> published in QST. NO ONE is going to take the trouble to look at scores on
the ARRL
> website except for participants. In QST it's right there in front of you
and easy to
> look at. The same is true for section news.
>
> I ended my ARRL membership as of 1/02 for reasons that had little to do
with contesting.
> I was amazed at the number of form letters they sent me trying to get me
to renew. They
> basically said I wasn't doing my part to help protect Amateur Radio by not
supporting
> them. The fact is, I need protection from the ARRL! I'm a CW operator, a
DXer and a
> contester. Those are my main activities in the hobby, and each of them
requires some
> degree of skill. Each has also suffered to some degree by the actions of
the ARRL -
> especially CW. They ARRL doesn't want to turn off any of the new instant
gratification
> folks by requiring or promoting anything that requires skill. Articles on
things like
> how to properly type a URL in order to access a website, or specials like
the "ugly
> shack contest" are what they think are appropriate now. They say we need
more licensed
> hams and ARRL members in order to fend of the evil threats out there.
Bunk! The threats
> are minimal and I would think almost non-existant on HF. We don't need
more than a few
> hundred thousand licensed hams in this country to keep the hobby going.
Dumbing down has
> only lowered the integrity of the hobby, and that's the thing the ARRL
should be most
> concerned about. They sold us out!
>
> Gerry KA2MGE
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest