[CQ-Contest] Wording of Survey Question

[Zivney, Terry L.]

I was annoyed at the choices of wording of the survey question currently
posted on the

www.contesting.com <http://www.contesting.com/>  homepage:

 

"The 2006 CQ WPX SSB contest is over and the results for 2005 have not
been made public.

When a sponsor does not make the line scores of a contest publicly
available before the

next running of the event I feel:"

 

As with many survey questions, a poor choice of wording is likely to
elicit unreliable

answers.  In fact, the results of the BOTH the 2005 SSB and CW contests
were printed

in CQ magazine prior to the running of the 2006 contests.  This magazine
was available

at a nominal cost to everyone interested in reading the results. I
believe the survey

question was aimed at FREE access to the results prior to the running of
the contest.

This is a totally different subject, and may well elicit different
responses.

 

One of the reasons magazines sponsor contests is to increase readership
of the magazines.

An entire year of CQ magazine contest scores (CQ WW, CQ WPX, and CQ 160)
in the various

SSB, CW, and even some RTTY flavors, can be obtained by an annual
subscription for

$31.95 (US addresses), $44.95 for VE/XE, and $56.95 elsewhere with
discounts for

multi-year commitments.  Even if you throw away half the issues
(non-contest ones),

you have spent less than you would attending a few local hamfests.  By
way of comparison,

a one-year subscription to the RSGB Radcom costs 44 pounds, which is
about $77 US as I

write this.  I find it much easier to justify my subscription to CQ than
to Radcom,

since Radcom's technical articles will "keep" until the cheaper year-end
CD ROM while

CQ's contest results are certainly more valuable when they are timely.
So, rather than

wait for them to appear at a substantial discount or for free, I gladly
pay $5 for

each issue that has contest results.  By subscribing, it arrives at my
door; however,

individual issues are available at ham radio stores and "selected"
high-class bookstores.

 

Hams are notoriously cheap.  But don't be like the chap who took such
big steps to

save the wear on his $10 shoes that he split his $20 pants.

 

Terry Zivney, N4TZ/9