[CQ-Contest] [NCCC] Annual Suggestion
prickler.schneider at t-online.de
Tue Feb 20 01:30:48 EST 2007
K1AR at aol.com wrote:
>This has as much to do with solar conditions as anything.
Sorry, but this has as much to do with everyday life as anything. Even
in a 24-h-format as in RDXC only 6 percent of the logsending
participants operated fulltime (23 hours or more). Average operation
time was less than 10 hours.
So, as a reasonable compromise let´s at least publish the operation
times in the score lists - allowing a comparison of the outcome for the
big majority of hams not able and willing to neglect familiy and other
commitments completely (which is no sign of lesser commitment or skill).
At the moment the ranking below the few happy fulltimers is more a
function of invested operation time than a function of skill and
equipment. Should the "real contesting" only be something for the happy
few with the rest resorted to "handing out a few qso in the little
available time" to add a tiny bit to club scores and to the rate of the
At 3830 an undoubtedly competetive top-contester wrote that "it was hard
to stay motivated" with part time operating. We talk about saving
milliseconds with "ee" instead of "tu", ommitting "k" at the end of
RTTY-transmissions - but neglect the effects of hours on the results.
Kind of a car manufacturer insisting on only selling its top model
without regard to the budget of the consumers (financial budget there,
time budget with us).
Is there anything known from organizers that speaks against the
publication of the individual operation times?
Thanks for reading and best 73, Chris
More information about the CQ-Contest