[CQ-Contest] Survey results

Mon Mar 20 12:12:41 EDT 2017

+1

73, Maarten PD2R

Op ma 20 mrt. 2017 om 11:34 schreef W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com>

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>