[CQ-Contest] Classic - Doing what was intended?

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

Dave, you beat me to the keyboard!

It will take some time for the CQ team to compare previous log 
submissions against this one. And the effect of the new category could 
take more than a "once in a row" comparison.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/28/2013 6:19 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> If you don't know how many people might have opted to move up from 15 
> hours to 24 hours, don't know how many people might have decided to 
> submit a log who other wise would not, and don't know how many people 
> might have decided to participate because they didn't have to put in 
> 40+ hours to be credible ... how on earth can you say at this point 
> that the Classic category isn't achieving expectations?? Especially 
> since it's the first year for it.
>
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
>
> On 11/28/2013 12:16 PM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
>> After seeing literally more than a dozen well known contesters in 
>> each mode
>> "opt down" for the 24 hours of Classic and others commenting they may 
>> try it
>> next year, I have to ask - is it doing what was intended?  Seems to be a
>> nice choice for those who feel inclined at the moment but taking 40+ 
>> hour
>> contesters down to 24 hours is not "helping contesting" necessarily, 
>> folks.
>> Maybe there are lots of people "opting up" to 24 hours who used to do 
>> 10 or
>> 15 hours, I don't know.  But it does not seem to be "achieving 
>> expectations"
>> collectively, from where I sit. Maybe the positive results are just not
>> obvious.
>>
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>> Ed   N1UR
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>