[CQ-Contest] CW SS: Some thoughts

[RT Clay]

Yes, we don't have a number for "unique callsigns per year" (which ARRL might have however). Maybe a good measure for this is the highest number of qsos reported by any entrant, either single op or multi op. Some qsos are of course removed in log checking in addition to not all unique calls being worked by any one station. But it is probably still similar to the number of stations that were active in the contest. Some time ago I went through the CW SS results available online and compiled these:

year  highest # qsos
1995	1546
1996	1440
1997	1486
1998	1524
1999	1410
2000	1517
2001	1457
2002	1468
2003	1457
2004	1497
2005	1421
2006	1511
2007	1481
2008	1529
2009	1597
2010	1466
2011	1472
2012	1424
2013	1460
2014	1403
2015	1475
2016	1397
2017	1360

Comments:

1. the last two years are the lowest since at least 1995.
2. the peak was in 2009.
3. if you graph these (sorry I don't have a way to attach this), the trend you see is either see an overall decline with fluctuations, or possibly roughly flat behavior until 2010-2011 followed by a steeper decline.

Tor
N4OGW


--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/22/18,  <steve.root at culligan4water.com> wrote:

 Subject: [CQ-Contest] CW SS: Some thoughts
 To: cq-contest at contesting.com
 Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:28 PM
 
  Howdy,
 
 For many years people on this Reflector
 have noted the relative lack of "younger" Checks seen in SS
 exchanges. We are 18 years into the 21st century, and yet
 the majoity of contacts made are with folks who were
 licensed 30 to 60 years ago. There is a demonstrable lack of
 "new blood" in CW SS.
 
 This has been disguised in two ways.
 First, I submit that the new technologies used in contesting
 (SO2R, Internet/Cluster, computer dupe checking, logging
 software with band maps, etc.) have made us all much more
 effficient at working the majority of people who actually
 show up on the bands. Without these tools it was much harder
 to find everyone. Now there are no openings missed, no
 stones unturned. If you get on and "make a few contacts"
 people will very efficiently find you and work you.
 Secondly, it used to be a difficult chore to submit a log.
 Running through hundreds of entries cleaning up poor
 penmanship and dupe checking the whole log after the contest
 and mailing it all in was a big job. Now it couldn't be
 easier. A couple of minutes of button pushing and your log
 is on it's way.
 
 Because of these two factors, raw
 scores and logs submitted would have us believe that all is
 well. I am convinced however that scores have remained high
 because we all have become better at scoring, and "logs
 received" is high because it's much easier to submit a log
 than it used to be.
 
 A more useful metric might be "Number
 of unique calls reported". I'm suggesting that this number
 has been going down ever since the code requirement was
 dropped. Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to
 prove my hypothesis unless there is an archive of old
 contest logs and someone who is willing to type them all
 into a database of some kind (and I'm not volunteering!). 
 
 This leaves me with two conclusions.
 First, any change to SS CW contest rules will have no
 significant effect on the fundamental problem.......CW
 contest operators are a dying breed. Secondly, if the
 problem is a lack of enthusiasm for CW SS due to Sunday
 Doldrums or lower rates, then perhaps a change on the rules
 could be made to increase the enjoyment for those of us who
 are left.
 
 73 Steve K0SR 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 CQ-Contest mailing list
 CQ-Contest at contesting.com
 http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest