[CQ-Contest] NCJ Article RE: Sweepstakes Change Suggestions

[Joe]

As someone that SS was his first contest ever done. Way back in 1975.

I can not believe all the crabbing about this. Wow, they complain about 
it being slow on Sunday. I do not ever remember hearing anyone complain 
about it being slow 20/30 years ago. Whats changed?

All the fancy computer logging, and spotting systems. They Make it sooo 
much easier to work everyone. Maybe that's it? Because it is soo easy 
now, maybe everyone is found quickly and worked leaving only the non 
contesters left to work on Sunday?

How about average number of QSO's made? today vs 20/30 years ago? Maybe 
the Sunday dolldrums is simply we have worked everyone quickly in the 
first half of the contest!  All that is left is the non contesters.

A quick look at the results from 1995 till now, the overall number of 
Q's made is pretty steady not varying a whole lot. And thill withinn a 
few hundred of the total Q's.

I wish there was a way to see year by year what QSO Rates were for the 
whole contest. Maybe it was pretty even rates 20/30 years ago, through 
the whole contest, so Sunday did not seem so bad. But Niow ones ability 
to get them all in the first 12 to 16 hours leaves nothing to wirk on 
Sunday?  a Thought?

To help being in New people to the CW weekend,,,,,

How about a overlay class? We have say "SOLP" How about "SOLPS" :-)

Single Op Low Power SLOW. Where just like a QRP rule where you can not 
run at any time more than 5 watts. But in this overlay, you can not at 
any time run your code speed say at 10 WPM or or more. Good for the 
beginners!

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 3/19/2018 10:02 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> I don't receive the NCJ so I have not read the article.  What I gather 
> is that most people feel that the SSB part of the contest is ok but 
> the CW part is not.  If most people feel that SSB fine the way it is, 
> are people suggesting we make sweeping changes to fix the CW portion 
> and then possibly breaking both?
>
> The exchange is long.  It makes the contest different.  This is good.  
> As stated by many we have plenty of rate contests where copying is not 
> part of the contest.
>
> I have heard of lots of ideas but none of them really address the 
> issue which is getting more people involved on the CW side.  Their are 
> plenty of people trying CW or are proficient enough at slower 
> speeds.    Most of the ideas allow more contacts from the same 
> participants on other bands or by using other callsigns.    The reason 
> the radio/callsign rules were put in place as I understand it, that 
> when the club competitions were fierce, I don't thing they are as much 
> any more, people would use other calls and only work their club 
> members.  I get that.  Good for them, but not good for the overall 
> health of the contest.  I am sure people still do it, tough to catch.  
> SO2R changed much of contesting, tough to put it back in the black box.
>
> Is the CW solution a simple as slowing down and encouraging new or 
> less competent cw ops to want to call you or is the goal to run at 
> 45wpm and work nobody and listen to endless CQ's?  Will slowing down 
> even help?   Maybe the ARRL needs to print some articles on 
> encouraging people to try SS CW and explaining it better?
>
> The last couple hours of SS can be pretty fun.  Many people get on 
> just for that period.
>
> Who are we fixing the contest for?  The top 50  or 100 that are the 
> real competitors or are we making it fun and better for all?
>
> What we could be doing is breaking down the classes and putting the 
> SO2 elite ops in one category and then trying to figure out how to put 
> the rest in appropriate categories so we can do a better job at 
> acknowledging them and creating competition with similar stations and 
> skills.
>
> NAQP is great for 12 hours.  How would it be for 24 hours.  I would 
> suggest that it would get pretty slow on CW.  You can always milk SSB 
> contacts on open bands.   Maybe the NAQP folks should give a 24 hour 
> contest a try and see how it goes.  NAQP has been around a long time 
> now if it was be so great, why has it never been tried?
>
> Changing for the sake of change is not a good idea.   Is the contest 
> really broke?  I don't think so.  Could it be improved? Maybe. Could 
> we make it worse? easily!  Making large changes would change what the 
> contest is.  I don't think that is a good idea.
>
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest