[CQ-Contest] Survey results

Sun Mar 19 12:04:29 EDT 2017

138 folks responded to the survey about in-band dual CQing posted to
SurveyMonkey on Thursday.  (98 responded in the first 20 hours)

77 of the respondents identified themselves.

86% reported NOT previously posting to the recent threads re interleaving
CQs.  So the survey succeeded in engaging parts of the silent majority.

Before detailing the results, I'd offer my viewpoint that it would be a
mistake for contest sponsors to feel obliged to conform their contests to
the preferences of the majority.  If this were done, we'd be left with
essentially one contest template, applied for 52 weekends each year.  That
would make radiosport pretty sterile.  I'm glad for the diversity of rules
that different contests offer - even though my favorite rules are not
uniformly employed.  (And, of course, if a contest's premise or particulars
are too-far removed from my preferences, I simply don't participate.)

At a high level, the survey suggests that significant numbers of respondents
have problems with at least certain instances of in-band dual CQing.  14%
feel that different rules may be appropriate for 10m.

In Question 1, a minority of respondents (34%) stated that NO contest should
prohibit ALL single ops (assisted or not, DX or not) from in-band dual
CQing.  I understand this to mean that 66% expressed the view that there are
instances in which such a prohibition against in-band dual CQing would at
least sometimes be appropriate.  (Regarding particular contests, 68% felt
that single op dual in-band CQing should be barred in ARRL SSB, with smaller
majorities taking this view for IARU, ARRL CW and RTTY Roundup: 54%, 63% and
60%.)

When Question 2 focused the query on prohibiting in-band dual CQing by US/VE
single ops - but excusing DX stations from the prohibition, the numbers
changed dramatically.  70% said that NO contest should prohibit US/VE
stations from dual in-band CQing while allowing same by DX operators.  I
take this to be a majority sentiment that different standards should NOT
apply to DX vs US/VE.

Questions 3 and 4 were parallel to Questions 1 and 2, but broadened the
query to include multi-ops as well as single ops.  The results were similar,
with 35% indicating NO contest should have such a blanket prohibition
(indicating a majority view that such a prohibition may sometimes be
appropriate).

Question 6 asked in what circumstance contest rules should prohibit all
entrants (US/VE/DX, single op and multi) from operating split.  56%
indicated "in no contest" - indicating such a prohibition should never be
appropriate.  42% indicated contest rules should include such a prohibition,
except for 40 and 80 SSB (where split is sometimes required for
intercontinental QSOs).

Several folks said the survey questions were confusing.  The free
SurveyMonkey surveys allow only ten questions, and I was trying to craft the
questions and answers to get the most permutations/combinations within those
constraints (single op, multi-op, DX/US/VE, ARRL SSB, ARRL DX, IARU, RTTY
Roundup, etc.).   In my pre-coffee survey writing, the questions made
perfect sense to me. In hindsight, however, I agree they were confusing.  In
particular, the double-negative presented by several questions ("prohibit"
and "no contest"), in conjunction with an exclusion (i.e., .but allow dual
CQing by DX stations), made for grammatical conundrums that should have been
avoided.  Lesson learned.

Only 5% of the respondents had submitted NO log for any of ARRL DX CW, or
SSB, or IARU, or RTTY Roundup, in the past 12 months.

45 folks posted comments in the free-form comment section.  These are
reproduced below.  Many people noted that Question 7 of the survey
(inquiring about the contests in which respondents had submitted logs in the
past 12 months) only allowed one - not several - of the multiple contest
choices to be selected - a flaw in the survey to which I was alerted
earlier, but which I couldn't change after the survey was underway.

Thanks to all who participated.  CU  in WPX!

73,

/Bill, K2PO

Portland, OR

PS - speaking for myself, I'm fine to let things ride for now.  This
experimentation hasn't yet seemed to have noticeably impaired enjoyment of
the contest by others.  And technical challenges associated with the method
would seem to limit its spread.  Further, new experiments like this can help
advance technology in collateral ways.  For example, perhaps if more people
become interested in in-band dual CQing, it would drive more radio
manufacturers to pay more attention to transmitter spectral purity.  

PPS -I hope this summary serves as an endcap to the present discussion,
rather than igniting more rounds of posts.  (I think the tired horse is
pretty beat up for the moment.)  QSYing.

+++++++++

+++++++++

Thank you!

Looking for a solution to a non-existing problem

No contesting in the last 2 years as I have changed location. However, I
have been very active over the last 40 years and will be so again in one
month after getting the tower up. Interweaved QSOs on ANY band is a pretty
crappy idea...Instead of one guy using one freq, he now holds two. This may
be great if you are a MM but it takes band space away from the average guy.

In band dual cq'ing is a selfish,don't care about anyone else practice and
should be prohibited in all contests.

Fewer contests than usual over last 12 months due to being away. Favor no
in-band dual-CQing for any station, 160-10m except for CW & SSB during
multi-mode contest, such as ARRL 10m Contest.

IMO, too much CQing. With mostly east coast stations taking large chunks of
bands, it is difficult for west coast stations to hear & work EU/AF.

Let's not Kill Innovation !

It's simple: all contests should forbid in-band dual-cqing for all entrants.

Dual inband cqs favours well equipped stations in good locations. Such
stations already have an advantage and multiple in band signals just makes
it more difficult for less capable stations to run. That eventually lowers
the score for many. Unless of course, you permit a contact with both of the
in band signals, which would then be difficult to adjudicate. The above
assumes 2 signals in the same mode. I've no problem with simultaneous or
interleaved calling in different modes.

Q# 2 and 4 : no station , us/ve or dx , should be allowed to dual cq

While dual CQing on 2 different bands is no crime, it is only skill.

It seems to me that the entire discussion is pre-mature. From my experience,
the bands are neither crushed by dualing CQers nor by the relatively rare DX
split ops. Rather than proactively fixing a problem that is theoretical, I'd
much rather see the community encourage innovation and new techniques. If
there is an actual problem in the future then we should take action. While
the discussion is interesting, it's theoretical and any rule change feels
premature at this point.

I did several operations from different DX locations. Use of split by rare
DX station is for the benefit of all the participants. Otherwise very few
will be able to work DX station. They will simply not be able to hear DX
signal because of the wall of callers.

Thank you. Bandwidth is at a premium during contests. One signal per band is
enough.

My being against the interleaved in-band CQ'ing is not about the new
technique (think it is brilliant), but solely because of the double
bandwidth occupation. Contesting already is difficult because of the freq
fights and not being able to find a clear spot.

If we allow interleaving dual CQing we will soon see more than dual - soon
there will be inband interleaving on 3-4 frequencies by alligators fighting
to keep their frequencies. Manning multiop stations with operators is no
issue any more as remote is allowed so 4 operators per band is not a problem
to round up. This will inevitable lead to absolute chaos on the bands!

Your questions were HORRIBLY worded. Running SPLIT is STILL needed
sometimes. Calling CQ on more than ONE Frequency per band is HOGGING a
shared resource. Read more comments at my Contest BLOG:
http://WQ6X.Blogspot.com

I am also against combining SO with SOA.

W3LPL has perfectly articulated my feelings on this matter.

Assuming WRTC (and Sprints) to be the ultimate (true) contests, does anyone
wonder why WRTC does not allow any spotting network use? Other contests are
pseudo contests because some people who need aid and crutches must rely on
others to find the DX for them. Turn off the damn internet if you want a
true contest that reflects skill instead of pushing buttons!!!!

TNX for doing the survey! 73, Fred

What W0MU said: "People seem to forget without all the non competitive
people, who you expect to religiously show up over and over again while you
continue to criticize and have little regard for, you would have very few
people to actually work. ... When you take the fun away from the regular
guy, he will go find something else to do. "

We're mostly a Multi-Op station....We do Run and chase Mults in-band with
interlock protection....I tend to not pay much attention to all the nonsense
on the Reflectors...We operate, have fun, it's all good.

Summary: no same band qsos by us or dx in any entry class. apply rule to 10
meters too.

What's next? Interleaved/triple? Quad? All bands and all modes? Robot
assist? Is there a different between human assist and computer/robot assist?
Should be one transmitter per band per mode? What's to stop delayed
interleaved? Switching back and forth in changing time intervals? Occupying
a frequency with few CQ's, a lot of testing VVV, when done with one
mode/band, then come back to "saved" frequency? Where is this leading????

I did send an email to W9JJ expressing my views AGAINST dual in-band CQing.
I felt that would carry more weight instead of just adding to the QRM on
CQ-Contest

Could give one whole band to the super stations.. 24 x7 one contest, never
ending always and forever.. but the rest of the bands would be for everyone
else, to contest on... OR.. we could just run off all the lil guns.. and
just let the super stations work the super stations.. great radio sport...
non participation. and we wonder why there are so few new folks??? REally?

I think it should be one signal per band, period.

There will never be a fair level playing field. Enjoy what you do and let
others do what they will. I prefer putting so2r into separate unlimited
category. Banzai.

Question 7 allows one answer only, guess that's not intended. FWIW, I
submitted logs for IARU and ARRL CW in the last 12 months.

Dual CQ should not be allowed, in any contest, by any participant.

Interesting concept to reach more people by excluding many due to the
specified contests...

We have enough rules. If it is legal according to the guv'mint leave it
alone. (BTW: your question about which contests entered does not allow
multiple selections.)

shouldnt be allowed by anyone, in any contest....btw, I tried to select more
than one entry to #7 and it woldnt let me, but I did them all but IARU

Interleaved CQs will increase congestion unnecessarily squeezing others out
of useful spectrum

It's hard enough to find a clear QRG as is. Nobody but the in-band
dual-CQing station benefits from this practice but it does keep others from
using the bandwith. Let's stop this nonsense before it becomes even more
wide spread.

Question 7 is screwed up, it only accepts 1 answer. I've done all of them.
Your hypothesis is overly generous. I would bet that the comments on the
reflector come from well less than 1% of the members, and most of them come
from the same 5-10 people. I personally think dual CQing on the same
band/mode or split operation is antisocial behavior and I refuse to work
anyone I know is doing it. It is definitely not "innovative". I do not think
the CQing on one frequency with one radio and S&Ping with another on the
same band is antisocial. With that you only "own" one frequency. Thanks for
doing this Bill. 73 Jim WI9WI

In band dual CQ = dumb. Dual CQ on another band as a single op = good

In question 7 I could not select more than one contest but I have submitted
a log also in IARU and ARRL CW. When I tried to select another then the
first selection was lost.

As an unassisted single op I simply don't work someone if I suspect he is
operating SO2R or is interleaving. If I don't get an immediate response, I
move on. Some arrogantly assert that they are so good that we can't tell the
difference. Wrong. We can.

K3LR, W3LPL, WE3C et al use two frequencies on 80m SSB. If you call CQ, on
their listening frequency there are upset that you are taking their
frequency, I disagree with this practice as well.

#7 only allows one answer, submitted logs for several. Have another cup of
coffee. 73 and thanks.

Qu.7 allows only 1 answer. 73

7 should be multiple answer

I run-QRG per band, S&P in-band for mults permissible.