[CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited Antenna Height Category

[Pete Smith]

In response to Ken's skepticism,  I just took a quick look at some 
stats.  I used the ARRL numbers because they were readily available 
on-line.  These may not be 100 percent accurate, because in a couple 
of  the earlier cases I could not tell whether the totals cited in QST were 
just competitors or included check logs, but they give a general 
sense.  Later numbers represent the total in the score database, so check 
logs have been excluded.

ARRL CW SS:  2000 - 1236
              2001 - 1268
              2002 - 1319
              2003 - 1240

ARRL DX CW:  2000 - 2290
              2001 - 2418
              2002 - 2384
              2003 - 2350
              2004 - 2681

ARRL DX PH:  2000 - 2172
              2001 - 2303
              2002 - 2286
              2003 - 2263
              2004 - 2267

ARRL 10M     2000 - 2875
              2001 - 2522
              2002 - 3121
              2003 - 2324

I freely acknowledge that falling sunspot numbers tend to be a drag on 
participation, particularly in contests like the ARRL 10-meter contest.  We 
also don't know whether the average number of operating hours per log is 
flat, up or down.  Finally, we do not have access to the data, so far as I 
know, on the total number of calls actually showing up in logs in these 
contests.

If it is true that only a small proportion of the total on-air participants 
send in logs, then we have no information on what's happening to the 
numbers of casual participants.  Here I enter the realm of the subjective, 
because it feels to me, in CW contests in particular, as if the total 
number of inhabitants of the bands during contests I've entered has 
declined.  I guess that's the exact opposite of Ken's perception.

Bottom line -- "declining" may have been a bit strong, but "flat" seems 
justified.  Should we settle for flat?

73, Pete N4ZR




At 02:30 PM 11/30/2004, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
>
> >                       Doesn't mean it isn't still a good idea, 
> particularly
> > in the face of flat or declining participation in contests, which is why I
> > have brought it up again.
>
>Can you back up that assertion that contest activity is "flat or declining"
>with data?  On HF, it is exactly the opposite of my personal observation.
>
>--
>Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
>kenharker at kenharker.com
>http://www.kenharker.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest