[CQ-Contest] Repeating an idea from the 7QP soapbox...

[Zack Widup]

The one thing I see is that a single QSO can be counted simultaneously for 
several QSO parties if they are taking place at the same time. This could 
be fun. Instead of working a given station in your QSO Party and then 
having to work him again in his, you just nail both at once.

I guess this sort of approaches a "mini-SS" or a "mini-NAQP." That could 
have its drawbacks. It might sort of detract from the individual state 
QSO Party spotlight. But OTOH it might bring out more participation,

I'm just curious who is going to have to come up with unique abbreviations 
for all the counties in the USA, if that is necessary. Maybe it won't be. 
It probably will be or it could get confusing, as Mike noted. If I'm 
trying to work all the Illinois counties I need to know what I'm looking 
for.

What happens if I only send in my log for one of the QSO Parties?

73, Zack W9SZ


On Wed, 7 May 2008, Mike DeChristopher wrote:

>>> A standard exchange of State + County by both in-state and out-of-state
>>> participants would allow multiple QSO Parties to run during overlapping
>>> time periods efficiently. Logs could be parsed and scored easily from
>>> the 3,077 "entities" in the US. In addition, this sets the stage for
>>> transporting the county information into your daily logging program.
>
> So, for the guys (& gals) in the QP state, are they trying to work 
> every other county in the country?  That's a whole lot of 
> multipliers...and on every band?  Or is it still just scored by the 
> state?  If that is the case, we're already there.  The "too many mults, 
> not enough time" problem.  You'll have to standardize the period first. 
> 3,077 multipliers, and what if the QP has an off-period?  In-state 
> stations get that many fewer hours to pull in all of those mult's.
>
> Don't know yet if it is a good idea or not, but that would be my concern.
>
> _____________________________
> Mike DeChristopher, K1KAA