[CQ-Contest] Publishing station complements...

Mike Gilmer, N2MG n2mg at eham.net
Sun Jan 26 18:56:20 EST 2003

It has been said,

"It is not ridiculous to consider creating new categories or modifying the
we have."

Sure, but again I ask, why focus on "SO2R vs SO1R" and not "4-stack vs 3-el
tribander" or  "4sq vs. low dipole"?

The dB-SCORE is much bigger for the stacks than for the SO2R.  I sense a
desire to create an "Expert class vs an Intermediate class" rather than
differentiate based on hardware.  If that's what you want, then spell it

As to publishing the station complements for everyone, I'm all for it.
Then, those so inclined, can spend countless hours perusing the database,
sorting and comparing, trying to rationalize their respective places in the
standings, rather than taking efforts to improve their stations.  You can
compare now, in fact, though some of the data is old, at

It has also been suggested to add equipment complement fields to Cabrillo.
I doubt the Cabrillo gods relish the thought of adding more non-scoring
(IOW, unnecessary) fields to the specification - fIelds that must be
standardized in format, etc.  And creating a truly searchable database
requires strict data entry rules which would make getting your Cabrillo log
accepted even more daunting.

Since CQ seems to be dragging their feet indefinitely regarding publishing
even the *scores* online, it might be a few more sunspot cycles before you
can see equipment lists there...

73 Mike N2MG

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list