[Cwo] some initial reflections

Sun Aug 21 08:46:07 PDT 2011

Guys,

As much as it pains me to say this,   Jim's comments are all "on the mark".

Regarding soapbox comments, writelog allows that when creating a cabrillo file.   It goes at the end and will upload properly.  Perhaps we can ask for soapbox comments to go in an email to cwopen at cwops.com for next year.

I think next year will see more participants, especially if we present the trophies at Dayton at the contest forum or similar venue.  Maybe we can add a trophy for the highest score by a non cwops member (assuming all the other trophies are won by members?).

Let's not jump to conclusions about time slots yet.  Definitely the contest needs to move off this weekend.  If we move it to July maybe add 6 meters?  David could play then.:-).

This was a great first step.

Don, N1DG

At 11:26 AM 8/21/2011, Jim Talens wrote:
>Content-type: multipart/alternative;
>        boundary="----=_NextPart_000_062E_01CC5FF5.1D0B5550"
>Content-language: en-us
>
>Rob (and Alan, with Don and others who gave birth to CWO), don’t get swelled heads when I offer that you guys really have orchestrated a major new event that has met with remarkable success the first time out.  I do have a few minor observations, though.
> 
>I sent an earlier message on some log reporting anomalies that hopefully Don can deal with.   They are minor.  Here are my other comments:
> 
>1.        The overall participation, especially for sessions 1 and 2, was remarkable considering each session was 4 hours.   Like Sweepstakes, there were a lot of big guns CQing for the last half hour with few answers.   
>2.       Given we have 850 or so active members it strikes me as somewhat surprising there weren’t far more participants.  In the 3 sessions, the last of which I bagged after 90 minutes because I was sleepy and not getting enough QSO action to warrant staying up all night, I worked, respectively 158, 164 and 77 multipliers.   Take out non-members and assume most callsigns were repeats as among the sessions, we are talking at most 225 or so members participating (or, rather, that I worked).  By any measure that is a minority of the club and to me surprisingly low.   But it was a lot better than the CWT events.  I think FOC does better for its equivalent, the Marathon, but it has a long history of the Marathon and even that participating is decreasing annually, I believe.  They have virtually no success with activity days, and their QSO parties (BWQP) are no marginally successful.  
>3.       My guess is that 3 hours is sufficient for a session.  But if next year sees an increase in participation it will appropriate to return to  4 hours for 2013.
>4.       Prevailing radio conditions make a particularly big difference in international contacts given most EU guys are using modest stations.   Session 1 was my “sweet spot” but I would have thought session 2 to be the “main event.”  It was not, perhaps because there was not great skip to Europe, even on 40 or 20.  So I am not sure sessions 1 or 2 should be changed other than shifting each by one hour, i.e.,  shorter at the beginning or end.  I would think 2100-2400 would be better than 2000-2300 if it’s 3 hours.  For session 1, 1200-1500 seems just fine.  Session 3 I am not sure I fully understand given it is very early for Europeans and we have so few Asian members.   Is there wisdom in trying to create skip equality given low participation by minority membership in Asia?  We need to think about session 3 a bit, I think.
>5.       I did not see a soapbox block in the log reporting.  The big block was for log information but perhaps could have been used for soapbox comments.  I don’t know and it didn’t say anything about soapbox comments, unless I just missed it.   I think it’s advisable to have soapbox comments posted in a list on the website or in Solid Copy once the log totals are available.  People like to see what they said, in print!
>6.       RDA and Keyman were certainly intrusions (and we to them), and NAQP may have drawn some members away from CWO.  I also saw some CWops members active in an RTTY contest during the weekend.  Wasn’t the same scheduling information available when the August dates were selected?  WA7BNM’s site shows July 22 as a good choice, however!   I would think giving notice of it when results for 2011 CWO are announced makes good sense.
>7.       I think next time we need to encourage guys to listen on 80/160/10 on the half hour, where appropriate.
> 
>Thanks for reading all this!
> 
>Jim, N3JT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>From: cwo-bounces at kkn.net [mailto:cwo-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Rob
>Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 10:46 AM
>To: cwo at kkn.net
>Subject: [Cwo] some initial reflections
> 
>All told, I think CW OPEN was a success. Given all the factors beyond our control (RDA, JA "keyman," etc.), the first two sessions were well attended. Here are some things that need attention:
> 
>- the date is not good (NAQP SSB and RDA)
>- the last session (unless there are a lot of JAs and EUs is a problem)
> 
>First, I looked at the perpetual calendar on Bruce's website and the weekend of July 23 (or thereabouts) has virtual no conflicts of any kind. So, I would propose that next year we move it to that weekend, and publicize the change right away.
> 
>Second, maybe if RDA and keyman were not an issue, we would have gotten more EU and JA players (I hope so). So, changing the schedule would solve that problem, too.
> 
>Lastly, the 2000-2400Z session (session 2) should have been the "sweetspot" session in North America. If 20, 15 and 10 are all operative, even with only 200 players, a solid 10 meter opening would have minimized the dip when 15 went "soft" but it was still too early for 40 to go "long." That is something, however, that we cannot control.
> 
>I am open to suggestion about changing the starting times on any session; and open to suggestion about shortening the sessions from, say, 4 to 3 hours. However, if we had sufficient participation, the 4-hour sessions seem like they should produce results.
> 
>Anyway, introducing a new contest that has some significantly new structures, scoring, and the like is not easy and I think we all did a creditable job. I will write something up for Solid Copy for the next issue.
> 
>Rob K6RB
> 
>
> 
>_______________________________________________
>Cwo mailing list
>Cwo at kkn.net
>http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo

----------------------------------------------------- 
N1DG--Licensed since 1962 
EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), /VP8O, /KH4, A52DG, /KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7
Webmaster:  VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 
2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame 
Member:  CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC

AIM SKYPE:  aurumtel 

Please consider the environment before printing this email

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110821/0049cf42/attachment.html 