[CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited AntennaHeight Category

[Russell Hill]

Jim, I salute you for putting the time into encouraging new contesters.  If 
50 people did that, we could perhaps get 2-300 more serious contesters, 
thanks to the efforts of a dedicated few such as yourself.

If the stroke of a pen, or several pens, made a low towers/wire antennas 
category specifically targetted at little pistols available to the new 
contesters you are introducing, would there be a downside or a cost to the 
contesting community?

In order to not create a proliferation of categories, perhaps it should be 
further defined as low power, single op only.  I am not trying to create a 
bunch of new categories so there can be lots of winners, I am simply trying 
to envision what it would take to get the little pistols to feel 
enthusiastic about a segment of contesting "just for them".

IMHO, Low power category or QRP does not create a meaningful category for 
the little guy when the low power or QRP is combined with a big tower.  We 
have all seen that with big towers, High Power is not necessary to have a 
great score, if there is a great op.

Thanks again, Jim

Rusty



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Smith" <jimsmith at shaw.ca>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited 
AntennaHeight Category


> I'm trying a different way to increase contest participation.  I invited a 
> bunch of newbie, no-ticket, folks taking the VECTOR club licence class to 
> come to my QTH and op for CQWW SSB and SS SSB.  They each got 2 hours of 
> formal training in contest operating with about 50 min of actually making 
> Qs.  (Check out my 3830 stories for details.)  Those who came back for SS 
> got another 2 hours of more advanced training.  Of the 16 people, I'd say 
> that about 12 of them were really turned on by the experience.  Tonight 
> they write the basic licence exam.  In VE you can't get on the HF bands 
> without 5 wpm so now they're asking if we're offering a code class after 
> Xmas.  We are.  They're also asking if the club will help them with 
> antennas.  How could I say no?
>
> It's too early to tell whether this will actually translate into more 
> contesters although a previous and much less structured effort has 
> produced one.  If you got VA7IRL for a sweep in SS you can thank me.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is this.  If you want to see more contesters, 
> you might try growing some.  The local club's licence class is a good 
> place to find the seeds.
> I was dubious at first about sharing the big contests with others and 
> started off using state QSO parties for training.  The trouble was that it 
> was sometimes a long time between Qs so I, somewhat grudgingly, invited 
> the newbies to participate in the big ones.  I'm now glad that I did. 
> It's a lot of fun seeing their excitement when they make the first Q in 
> their life and it's someone in Eu or Australia.  Mind you, I don't know 
> how I'll feel when I have to start sharing the CW ones.
>
> So, (tongue planted firmly in cheek) how about a couple of new categories? 
> One for stations with trainees occupying up to 25% of the time and another 
> for the over 25% crowd?  When I start doing SO2R training will I be 
> wanting another 2 categories?  Guess I'd better learn how to do it myself 
> first.
>
> 73 de Jim Smith   VE7FO
>
> Pete Smith wrote:
>
>> At 10:20 AM 11/30/2004, Russell Hill wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to suggest this thread consider something else--keeping the 
>>> casual operator in the contest.  I have read many comments about the 
>>> necessity to have the casual operators in the contests-- they are 
>>> involved in the majority of Qs-- we need them!
>>
>>
>>
>> Rusty goes on to suggest that a limited height category would help keep 
>> participation going (or growing), but I wonder if that's really true.  I 
>> have seen stats suggesting that perhaps as few as one in 8 or 10 stations 
>> logged in CQWW even bothers to send in a log.  Doesn't that imply that 
>> most people get on to fatten their DXCC totals, for the inherent thrill 
>> of working DX, or even just to have something to do on a cold fall 
>> weekend?
>>
>> If we really want to stimulate increased log submission in CQWW, I'd 
>> suggest that a good way to do it would be to implement direct linkages 
>> between the CQWW database and LotW, such that when a QSO was confirmed by 
>> receipt of both logs by CQWW, it would be considered confirmed for DXCC 
>> purposes.
>>
>> This needn't be done in real time, or involve any elaborate 
>> inter-database communication.  I'm confident that ways could be found to 
>> do it that would not affect CQWW's hard-held position that logs submitted 
>> to them will not be disclosed to anyone.  A harder problem may be 
>> achieving the requisite level of trust between the two organizations, 
>> even though things seem much better now than in the past, when ARRL would 
>> not even mention CQ contests in QST.
>>
>> If the cultural divide is still too wide, maybe an easier challenge would 
>> be for the ARRL to do this for its own contests.  I bet that 
>> participation, as measured by log submissions, would benefit 
>> substantially.
>>
>> 73, Pete
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>