[CQ-Contest] 2009 CQWW CW participation figures and logs accuracy

[David Gilbert]

That was also very interesting, Randy.

Obviously all of those 2,224,164 QSOs were made between one or two of 
the 3,649 stations who submitted logs, but I wonder how many additional 
QSOs were made between stations where neither of them submitted a log.  
I guess there's no way of knowing that, but since only about a fourth of 
the valid contestants submitted logs the total QSO activity could be a 
lot higher than 2.2 million.

Also, I know that WPX is an increasingly popular contest and that the 
number of submitted logs has been growing each year, but I wonder which 
is growing faster ... the number of submitted logs or the number of 
valid callsigns participating in the contest.

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 8/1/2010 9:59 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> Very interesting analysis. I can offer some additional data based on WPX CW
> 2009.
>
> Logs received: 3,649
> Total QSOs: 2,224,164
> Total callsigns found:  35,451
> Callsigns worked only ONE time (i.e., uniques): 20,273
>
> 84.6% of these unique QSOs were busted during the checking process! After
> all checking, there were 14,659 "valid" calls active in the contest.
>
> Interesting that the ending numbers were almost the same as you found for WW
> CW.
>
> Conservatively assuming there are 2 million ham radio operators in the
> world, we have plenty of room for future growth in the number of contesters!
>
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Stan
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 12:14 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] 2009 CQWW CW participation figures and logs accuracy
>
> Hi
>
> I was trying to figure out how many stations took part in the last CQWW CW
> and found some interesting figures.
>
> CQWW 2009 CW contains a total of 3.870.544 QSOs extracted from 5514 logs.
> Total number of unique callsigns is 62.012. The question is how many
> mistakes do we make on average when copying callsigns.
>
> If every 1/100th QSO has a mistake in callsign, this means 38.705 "fake"
> unique calls in logs, or potentially 23.307 "true" unique calls
> (62.012-38.705).
>
> To get the accurate number of unique calls the programme had to count
> callsigns that are found in at least 10 logs. So here it is.
>
> Below are unique calls count based on number of entires found in logs:
>
> QSOS IN LOGS  ---  CALLS
> ============================
> More than 8000    1 (HC8GR)
> More than 7000    3 (LX7I, DR1A, CR3L)
> More than 6000    6 (etc...)
> More than 5000    16
> More than 4000    41
> More than 3000    71
> More than 2000    139
> More than 1000    554
> More than 900    149
> More than 800    173
> More than 700    212
> More than 600    286
> More than 500    334
> More than 400    489
> More than 300    632
> More than 200    1076
> More than 100    2061
> More than 90    374
> More than 80    371
> More than 70    414
> More than 60    507
> More than 50    571
> More than 40    791
> More than 30    1007
> More than 20    1456
> More than 10    2509
> Less than 10    47742
>
> Let's assume that that station that were not found in at least 10 logs are
> either fakes or as a minimum not real contesters. If we ignore them, we can
> say that in 2009 there were 14243 hams who took part in CQWW CW.
>
> If we follow the same assumption we can also say that some 47.742 stations
> either made less than 10 QSOs or most likely were incorrectly received
> callsigns.
>
> As an example have a look at how many different variants of 5B/G4IRN found
> their way into contesters logs (number of QSOs in brackets):
>
> 5B/G3IRN (7), 5B/G4ERN (1), 5B/G4IAN (1), 5B/G4IFN (2), 5B/G4IGN (1),
> 5B/G4IR (2), 5B/G4IRN (1316), 5B/G4IRT (2), 5B/G4SRN (1), 5B4/G4IRN (10).
>
> And finally, out of about 14.243 stations that took part in the contest,
> 5.514 sent their logs, which is less than 40% of participants.
>
> Above figures are taken from CQWW Analyser stats
> (http://www.ei6dx.com/cqww-contest-analysis/).
>
> 73 de Stan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>