[CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's 1977 again

[Mark Perrin]

And while making a wish list, how about a propagation study from LoTW data

LoTW has real QSL data, except for power and antenna, in the data 
base.  Would make for interesting report to analyze who is contacting whom 
in real world, and comparing it to prediction programs, etc.

73, Mark N7MQ

At 08:04 AM 5/27/2008 -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
>It's time for ARRL to take the next big step to increase the value of
>LOTW.  Done properly, it could increase ARRL's revenue from LOTW
>substantially, while encouraging a lot of new hams and DXers to become
>contesters.
>
>The idea is simple, and in fact ARRL used to do this, back in the days of
>manual log-checking -- I'm talking about giving DXCC and WAS credit for
>contest contacts.  The difference is that now, with CQWW making all logs
>available on the internet,  LOTW could function as a single source for ARRL
>award credit for *both* CQWW and ARRL contests.  As more CQ and other
>contests came on board, the idea could be expanded world-wide.
>
>It would be relatively simple to implement - QSOs from the participating
>contests (those verified by cross-check of submitted logs) would be fed
>into LOTW and made available for award credit.  Organizationally, a sharing
>arrangement could be worked out, so that contest organizers could recover
>the cost of preparing their data for submission to LOTW, plus a reasonable
>profit.  ARRL, meanwhile, would benefit from the increased revenue through
>use of LOTW for award credit.
>
>It's not really even necessary to stop here.  LOTW could service other
>award sponsors, too - so that you could get credit toward your WPX or DOK
>award for those contest QSOs, as well.
>
>Probably more important (at least to me), contesting would benefit from an
>infusion of new blood.  More DXers and new hams would be motivated to
>operate in contests if they knew that verified contest QSOs would
>automatically count toward the next award.  Many of us got our start in
>contesting for exactly this reason - why not do it all over again?
>
>73, Pete N4ZR
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest