[CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation

[Richard DiDonna NN3W]

--- Original Message ---
From: Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com>
To: "Warren C. Stankiewicz" <nf1j at earthlink.net>, <cq-
contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation 

>At 12:41 PM 11/30/2004, Warren C. Stankiewicz wrote:
>>I've got to disagree with Hans on this one. The only 
measurable metric on
>>activity is how many logs are submitted. Anything 
else ("...gee, there were
>>a lot of signals on the bands...") is heresay, 
unmeasurable, and not
>>quantifiable.
>>
>>We need solutions which can prove quantifiable 
results, and a plan which
>>will produce those results. Otherwise, there's no 
real point to sponsoship
>>at all, considering the data the ARRL has showing us 
to be a tiny minority
>>of the ham population at large.
>>
>>Arguments such as we spend more on our stations, 
have greater equity and
>>interest in the hobby, are advancing the state of 
the art, etc, have no
>>pursuasive value without concrete, verifiable 
statistics to back them up.
>
>
>Contest sponsors have the means at hand to track raw 
activity.  The 
>log-checking software can produce lists of call-signs 
appearing in anyone's 
>log, and even allowing for a fair number of busts, a 
consistent metric 
>could be developed (assuming that the percentage of 
busts didn't change 
>appreciably over time).  This could even be cleaned 
up by cross-checking 
>with databases to get rid of the bad calls, sorted by 
country (to produce 
>information on national or continental trends of 
activity), etc.  There's a 
>lot of very interesting and relevant information out 
there for the massaging.
>
To follow up on this, perhaps target those contest 
contact databases that have stations with Q counts in 
the range of 10 - 150 QSOs.

Rich NN3W