[CQ-Contest] Improving contesting (was Extreme)

[David Levine]

>From a new fellows perspective...

I like reading as much as I can, but what I found the most enjoyable are the
following:

1) Specifics of worked well for folks or specifics of what didn't work well.
Is that giving them away any trade secrets? Probably not as contest to
contest and year to year the same things that worked might not work or what
didn't work one time could work well another, but it gives me insight into
what decisions are being made and why. This covers bands they operated and
when, off times (if relevant), etc. This stuff is usually discussed but more
of this is better.

2) Feedback from little guns as well as the usual suspects. The contesting
community seems smaller to me then I imagined and even some small guns are
becoming common calls. Heck when I do a SSB contest I get many "Hey, there's
a familiar call David nice to speak with you! You are 59... " comments and
I've only been on the air for a year. Big gun multis are shooting for 500
contacts in an hour or two and I'm excited to end up with 500 contacts at
the end of the contest.

3) Technology advancements that might have helped or didn't work as planned.
I know a very touchy subject but no need to consider it tabboo. The more
folks know, the more informed decisions/opinions there will be.

4) What were goals from operators and which were met or not met.

5) Looking at the overall results, who did better and why? Were bands better
or worse? Multis better or worse? Did more people pick single bands or go
multi-band?

6) Maybe after contests that will have write-ups, openly solicit feedback.
Maybe it would be overwhelming or maybe it won't.

Yes, space is of course limited and everything takes time, but I think
broadening the audience appeal would be helpful. I know that hardcore
individuals and superstations will always be there and folks expect them to
do well. Moving beyond that discussion might engage others that aren't in
that same class.

Regardless, I enjoy reading as much as I can and no matter what the content,
I learn from what is written and can only become better the more I know.

73,
K2DSL - David



On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Julius Fazekas <phriendly1 at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> A little humor always helps.
>
> Better coverage of the categories where the bulk of the participation
> occurs. Maybe better coverage of the club competition as a lot of folks get
> on just to help their group.
>
> Unusual operations and DXpeditions always appeal to a broader audience.
>
> Definitely keep it friendly for non contesters. Maybe a highlight of folks
> making real efforts to not QRM nets or make real QSOs, might take the edge
> off for some. Although judging by the last 30 years of comments that is not
> very likely...
>
> Some of the CQ write ups are a bit more interesting than some of the ARRL
> write ups, this may be due to size of the articles and lead time for the
> authors.
>
> 73,
> Julius
>
> Julius Fazekas
> N2WN
>
> Tennessee Contest Group
> http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html
>
> Tennessee QSO Party: Sunday, 6 Sept 2009
> http://www.tnqp.org/
>
> Elecraft K2/100 #4455
> Elecraft K3/100 #366
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd at charter.net>
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Improving contesting (was Extreme)
> > To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 6:38 AM
> > Felipe NP4Z wrote:
> >
> > > 4. Have decent write ups.
> >
> >
> > What makes a writeup good?  Or, what makes a writeup
> > bad?
> >
> > Who reads the writeups?  Should they be written for
> > the participants of the
> > contest?  Or for the general ham radio audience as a
> > way of bringing them
> > into the game?
> >
> >
> > Randy, K5ZD
>