[CQ-Contest] Survey results

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I read that no contest meant that the practice should no be allowed in 
any contest.

I wonder how many thought the same?

W0MU


On 3/19/2017 10:04 AM, Bill Conwell wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest