From dfaklis at yahoo.com Thu Nov 6 15:07:12 2014 From: dfaklis at yahoo.com (D Faklis) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:07:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Cwo] 2014 CW Open Update Message-ID: <1583462994.198723.1415315232777.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10081.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Just a quick update...Alan completed the scoring in early OCT and I'm generating the report now.? Hopefully it will be complete by end of NOV, including an article for Solid Copy and files for the website. Participation was down significantly.? In large measure, EU did not attend like they did last year.? In addition, proximity to the NA Sprint had an effect as well, although it's difficult to measure.? That form of conflict occurs infrequently. More soon....In the meantime, any questions, please fire away. 73, Dean, NW2K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dfaklis at yahoo.com Wed Nov 19 14:37:18 2014 From: dfaklis at yahoo.com (D Faklis) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules Message-ID: <1106997749.1802211.1416436638872.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> All, A couple of questions: 1.? The current rules state the following: "Minimum of 100 QSOs (after log checking) is required to win an award." Should we require more Q's (say 200 or 300) to win a high combined score trophy?? Not a?concern in Region 2, but it plays a role in Regions 1 and 3 until we get more participation from those regions. 2.? Should we consider a multi-op category for 2015 and beyond?? Multi Multi does not seem appropriate, but Multi Single or M/2 might be fun.? What are?your thoughts?? Pitfalls?? Advantages? The 2014?CWO report is nearing completion, thanks to Alan's AD6E great work.? It will be posted?on our website and will appear in DEC Solid Copy Sneak Peek:? 95K Q's in 2013, 55K Q's in 2014;? 847 logs in 2013, 495 in 2014....only a handful from outside US this year in big contrast to last year. 2015 CWO is September 5 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k6rb at baymoon.com Wed Nov 19 14:59:39 2014 From: k6rb at baymoon.com (Rob K6RB) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:59:39 -0800 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: <1106997749.1802211.1416436638872.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1106997749.1802211.1416436638872.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4DBEA08F71B24C41A733F1FFAF511BDF@robPC> All, I guess I don?t want to make a knee jerk reaction. It would be interesting to see which non-US stations that participated in 2013 did not participate in 2014. We could even email a sample of them to get input on why they did not play in 2014. The Q number tracks the log numbers, so no surprise. I don?t think the issue with sprint was an issue because it would not have affected non-US participants, and that?s where we saw the major downturn. I had always hoped that JA participation would grow to where it had an impact, as it does in ARRL DX. But I?m not sure why it remains lackluster. I was buoyed by the increase in EU in 2013 but apparently it was transitory. I think we need to dig into what?s up and find out why we lost ground. What did we do different in 2013 than in 2014? Have all other contests shown some attrition, too? As for multi-op category, I?m neutral. I kind of like the SO only nature of CW Open. It may be that having assisted and non-assisted lumped together has become dissuasive to some non-assisted participants. I know, as a non-assisted, that I could be increasing my score significantly by using spotting or RBN. Perhaps assistend and non-assisted need to be separately awarded? We may have an opportunity with teams to increase participation, but I think it would require awards, not just bragging rights. There?s no question that team competition is what drives Sweepstakes, for example. Anyway, let?s not simply react. Let?s do some digging and make some informed decisions. Rob K6RB From: D Faklis via Cwo Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:37 PM To: cwo at kkn.net Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules All, A couple of questions: 1. The current rules state the following: "Minimum of 100 QSOs (after log checking) is required to win an award." Should we require more Q's (say 200 or 300) to win a high combined score trophy? Not a concern in Region 2, but it plays a role in Regions 1 and 3 until we get more participation from those regions. 2. Should we consider a multi-op category for 2015 and beyond? Multi Multi does not seem appropriate, but Multi Single or M/2 might be fun. What are your thoughts? Pitfalls? Advantages? The 2014 CWO report is nearing completion, thanks to Alan's AD6E great work. It will be posted on our website and will appear in DEC Solid Copy Sneak Peek: 95K Q's in 2013, 55K Q's in 2014; 847 logs in 2013, 495 in 2014....only a handful from outside US this year in big contrast to last year. 2015 CWO is September 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Cwo mailing list Cwo at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ad6e at arrl.net Wed Nov 19 15:33:38 2014 From: ad6e at arrl.net (Alan Maenchen) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:33:38 -1000 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: <4DBEA08F71B24C41A733F1FFAF511BDF@robPC> References: <1106997749.1802211.1416436638872.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4DBEA08F71B24C41A733F1FFAF511BDF@robPC> Message-ID: I agree with most of the above. I thought we covered publicity pretty well, but something didn't go right. I wonder how much the conflict with Sprint caused some of that drop. (Sprint guys also noticed a drop). But that's not common. I think that particular weekend onflict only happens occasionally. The time changes MIGHT have caused reduced participation by EU and AS stations. I sort of thought the change was only an advantage to NA stations and disadvantage to EU. I'm not hot on the M/S idea although I wouldn't rule it out. It complicates things from the management point of view, and for a 4 hour event I doubt it would be very popular. Assisted vs non-assisted: Again, this is only a 4 hour event and as such I don't think assisted brings much if any advantage. We do have some data on that although not complete. To simplify the event, I would simply stick with the original rule which is to allow it, but track it in the results. Unfortunately not all logs say if they are or are not using assisted. We might modify the log submission process to ask specifically if they were or were not assisted. Same with SO1R vs SO2R. For awards, I don't think increasing the 100 Q requirement helps. In fact, it may hurt if some of the top guys think it's not achievable and therefore don't enter at all. 73, Alan AD6E / KH6TU On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Rob K6RB wrote: > All, > > I guess I don?t want to make a knee jerk reaction. It would be interesting > to see which non-US stations that participated in 2013 did not participate > in 2014. We could even email a sample of them to get input on why they did > not play in 2014. > > The Q number tracks the log numbers, so no surprise. I don?t think the > issue with sprint was an issue because it would not have affected non-US > participants, and that?s where we saw the major downturn. > > I had always hoped that JA participation would grow to where it had an > impact, as it does in ARRL DX. But I?m not sure why it remains lackluster. > I was buoyed by the increase in EU in 2013 but apparently it was transitory. > > I think we need to dig into what?s up and find out why we lost ground. > What did we do different in 2013 than in 2014? Have all other contests > shown some attrition, too? > > As for multi-op category, I?m neutral. I kind of like the SO only nature > of CW Open. It may be that having assisted and non-assisted lumped together > has become dissuasive to some non-assisted participants. I know, as a > non-assisted, that I could be increasing my score significantly by using > spotting or RBN. Perhaps assistend and non-assisted need to be separately > awarded? > > We may have an opportunity with teams to increase participation, but I > think it would require awards, not just bragging rights. There?s no > question that team competition is what drives Sweepstakes, for example. > > Anyway, let?s not simply react. Let?s do some digging and make some > informed decisions. > > Rob K6RB > > *From:* D Faklis via Cwo > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:37 PM > *To:* cwo at kkn.net > *Subject:* [Cwo] CW Open Rules > > All, > > A couple of questions: > > 1. The current rules state the following: > > "Minimum of 100 QSOs (after log checking) is required to win an award." > > Should we require more Q's (say 200 or 300) to win a high combined score > trophy? Not a concern in Region 2, but it plays a role in Regions 1 and 3 > until we get more participation from those regions. > > 2. Should we consider a multi-op category for 2015 and beyond? Multi > Multi does not seem appropriate, but Multi Single or M/2 might be fun. > What are your thoughts? Pitfalls? Advantages? > > The 2014 CWO report is nearing completion, thanks to Alan's AD6E great > work. It will be posted on our website and will appear in DEC Solid Copy > > Sneak Peek: 95K Q's in 2013, 55K Q's in 2014; 847 logs in 2013, 495 in > 2014....only a handful from outside US this year in big contrast to last > year. > > 2015 CWO is September 5 > > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Cwo mailing list > Cwo at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo > > > _______________________________________________ > Cwo mailing list > Cwo at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From w1rm at comcast.net Wed Nov 19 18:26:42 2014 From: w1rm at comcast.net (Peter Chamalian W1RM) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:26:42 -0500 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: References: <1106997749.1802211.1416436638872.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4DBEA08F71B24C41A733F1FFAF511BDF@robPC> Message-ID: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> I?m in agreement with Rob. I don?t think one-off tinkering will help us and am more in favor of consistency so the contest becomes uniform. It might be worth a little analysis to find EU and JA?s who have participated in the past but not this time. A quick email to them might get some interesting info if they take time to reply. I agree with Alan re the minimum number of Q?s for an award. I?m also a bit ambivalent about the multi stuff. Now here again it might be of interest to pick out the top multi-single and multi-2 stations and shoot them an email to see if they would be interested. For what it?s worth? Pete, W1RM From: Cwo [mailto:cwo-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Alan Maenchen Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:34 PM To: Rob K6RB Cc: cwo at kkn.net Subject: Re: [Cwo] CW Open Rules I agree with most of the above. I thought we covered publicity pretty well, but something didn't go right. I wonder how much the conflict with Sprint caused some of that drop. (Sprint guys also noticed a drop). But that's not common. I think that particular weekend onflict only happens occasionally. The time changes MIGHT have caused reduced participation by EU and AS stations. I sort of thought the change was only an advantage to NA stations and disadvantage to EU. I'm not hot on the M/S idea although I wouldn't rule it out. It complicates things from the management point of view, and for a 4 hour event I doubt it would be very popular. Assisted vs non-assisted: Again, this is only a 4 hour event and as such I don't think assisted brings much if any advantage. We do have some data on that although not complete. To simplify the event, I would simply stick with the original rule which is to allow it, but track it in the results. Unfortunately not all logs say if they are or are not using assisted. We might modify the log submission process to ask specifically if they were or were not assisted. Same with SO1R vs SO2R. For awards, I don't think increasing the 100 Q requirement helps. In fact, it may hurt if some of the top guys think it's not achievable and therefore don't enter at all. 73, Alan AD6E / KH6TU On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Rob K6RB wrote: All, I guess I don?t want to make a knee jerk reaction. It would be interesting to see which non-US stations that participated in 2013 did not participate in 2014. We could even email a sample of them to get input on why they did not play in 2014. The Q number tracks the log numbers, so no surprise. I don?t think the issue with sprint was an issue because it would not have affected non-US participants, and that?s where we saw the major downturn. I had always hoped that JA participation would grow to where it had an impact, as it does in ARRL DX. But I?m not sure why it remains lackluster. I was buoyed by the increase in EU in 2013 but apparently it was transitory. I think we need to dig into what?s up and find out why we lost ground. What did we do different in 2013 than in 2014? Have all other contests shown some attrition, too? As for multi-op category, I?m neutral. I kind of like the SO only nature of CW Open. It may be that having assisted and non-assisted lumped together has become dissuasive to some non-assisted participants. I know, as a non-assisted, that I could be increasing my score significantly by using spotting or RBN. Perhaps assistend and non-assisted need to be separately awarded? We may have an opportunity with teams to increase participation, but I think it would require awards, not just bragging rights. There?s no question that team competition is what drives Sweepstakes, for example. Anyway, let?s not simply react. Let?s do some digging and make some informed decisions. Rob K6RB From: D Faklis via Cwo Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:37 PM To: cwo at kkn.net Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules All, A couple of questions: 1. The current rules state the following: "Minimum of 100 QSOs (after log checking) is required to win an award." Should we require more Q's (say 200 or 300) to win a high combined score trophy? Not a concern in Region 2, but it plays a role in Regions 1 and 3 until we get more participation from those regions. 2. Should we consider a multi-op category for 2015 and beyond? Multi Multi does not seem appropriate, but Multi Single or M/2 might be fun. What are your thoughts? Pitfalls? Advantages? The 2014 CWO report is nearing completion, thanks to Alan's AD6E great work. It will be posted on our website and will appear in DEC Solid Copy Sneak Peek: 95K Q's in 2013, 55K Q's in 2014; 847 logs in 2013, 495 in 2014....only a handful from outside US this year in big contrast to last year. 2015 CWO is September 5 _____ _______________________________________________ Cwo mailing list Cwo at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo _______________________________________________ Cwo mailing list Cwo at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dfaklis at yahoo.com Thu Nov 20 04:56:42 2014 From: dfaklis at yahoo.com (D Faklis) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> References: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> Message-ID: <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> To clarify:? Minimum 100 Q's is working fine for a session award.? The question below relates only to the combined session?awards.? As it stands, one can win a combined score award trophy with a combined total of 100 Q's (say, S1=30, S2=30, S3=40 Q's). Year??????? Logs2011?????? 3862012???????3972013?????? 8472014?????? 495 In terms of differences in marketing between 2013 and 2014, 2014 had significantly more marketing effort (e.g. NCJ article, club presentation, comprehensive award structure improvement, KR3E PR, engaged all CWops Ambassadors, series of articles in Solid Copy throughout the year).? These were in addition to the same marketing tools used in 2013. On feedback, I asked Nodir to translate and post our invitation on the main Russian reflector as he did in 2013.? I also contacted all Ambassadors.? I never received confirming feedback from Nodir and I never heard back from the Ambassadors, except ZS1C. On teams, we had 16 (2014) and 18 last year (2013). On time changes, the session times for 2014 were the same as 2013. On participants, here is a listing of logs for S1-S3 for 2013: S1:? http://www.cwops.org/cwo2013/2013CWO-Scores-1Rev%202.pdfS2:? http://www.cwops.org/cwo2013/2013CWO-Scores-2Rev%202.pdfS3:? http://www.cwops.org/cwo2013/2013CWO-Scores-3Rev%202.pdf ? From: Peter Chamalian W1RM To: 'Alan Maenchen' ; 'Rob K6RB' Cc: cwo at kkn.net Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [Cwo] CW Open Rules #yiv0161101083 #yiv0161101083 -- _filtered #yiv0161101083 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0161101083 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0161101083 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0161101083 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv0161101083 #yiv0161101083 p.yiv0161101083MsoNormal, #yiv0161101083 li.yiv0161101083MsoNormal, #yiv0161101083 div.yiv0161101083MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0161101083 a:link, #yiv0161101083 span.yiv0161101083MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0161101083 a:visited, #yiv0161101083 span.yiv0161101083MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0161101083 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv0161101083 span.yiv0161101083EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv0161101083 .yiv0161101083MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0161101083 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0161101083 div.yiv0161101083WordSection1 {}#yiv0161101083 I?m in agreement with Rob.? I don?t think one-off tinkering will help us and am more in? favor of consistency so the contest becomes uniform.? It might be worth a little analysis to find EU and JA?s who have participated in the past but not this time.? A quick email to them might get some interesting info if they take time to reply. ?I agree with Alan re the minimum number of Q?s for an award.? ?I?m also a bit ambivalent about the multi stuff.? Now here again it might be of interest to pick out the top multi-single and multi-2 stations and shoot them an email to see if they would be interested. ?For what it?s worth? ? ?Pete, W1RM ? From: Cwo [mailto:cwo-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Alan Maenchen Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:34 PM To: Rob K6RB Cc: cwo at kkn.net Subject: Re: [Cwo] CW Open Rules ?I agree with most of the above. I thought we covered publicity pretty well, but something didn't go right. I wonder how much the conflict with Sprint caused some of that drop. (Sprint guys also noticed a drop). But that's not common. I think that particular weekend onflict only happens occasionally. ?The time changes MIGHT have caused reduced participation by EU and AS stations. I sort of thought the change was only an advantage to NA stations and disadvantage to EU. ?I'm not hot on the M/S idea although I wouldn't rule it out. It complicates things from the management point of view, and for a 4 hour event I doubt it would be very popular.? ?Assisted vs non-assisted: ?Again, this is only a 4 hour event and as such I don't think assisted brings much if any advantage. We do have some data on that although not complete. To simplify the event, I would simply stick with the original rule which is to allow it, but track it in the results. Unfortunately not all logs say if they are or are not using assisted. We might modify the log submission process to ask specifically if they were or were not assisted. Same with SO1R vs SO2R. ?For awards, I don't think increasing the 100 Q requirement helps. In fact, it may hurt if some of the top guys think it's not achievable and therefore don't enter at all. ?73, Alan ?AD6E / KH6TU ? ?On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Rob K6RB wrote:All,?I guess I don?t want to make a knee jerk reaction. It would be interesting to see which non-US stations that participated in 2013 did not participate in 2014. We could even email a sample of them to get input on why they did not play in 2014.?The Q number tracks the log numbers, so no surprise. I don?t think the issue with sprint was an issue because it would not have affected non-US participants, and that?s where we saw the major downturn.?I had always hoped that JA participation would grow to where it had an impact, as it does in ARRL DX. But I?m not sure why it remains lackluster. I was buoyed by the increase in EU in 2013 but apparently it was transitory.?I think we need to dig into what?s up and find out why we lost ground. What did we do different in 2013 than in 2014? Have all other contests shown some attrition, too??As for multi-op category, I?m neutral. I kind of like the SO only nature of CW Open. It may be that having assisted and non-assisted lumped together has become dissuasive to some non-assisted participants. I know, as a non-assisted, that I could be increasing my score significantly by using spotting or RBN. Perhaps assistend and non-assisted need to be separately awarded??We may have an opportunity with teams to increase participation, but I think it would require awards, not just bragging rights. There?s no question that team competition is what drives Sweepstakes, for example.?Anyway, let?s not simply react. Let?s do some digging and make some informed decisions.?Rob K6RB?From: D Faklis via Cwo Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:37 PMTo: cwo at kkn.net Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules?All,?A couple of questions:?1.? The current rules state the following:?"Minimum of 100 QSOs (after log checking) is required to win an award."?Should we require more Q's (say 200 or 300) to win a high combined score trophy?? Not a concern in Region 2, but it plays a role in Regions 1 and 3 until we get more participation from those regions.?2.? Should we consider a multi-op category for 2015 and beyond?? Multi Multi does not seem appropriate, but Multi Single or M/2 might be fun.? What are your thoughts?? Pitfalls?? Advantages??The 2014 CWO report is nearing completion, thanks to Alan's AD6E great work.? It will be posted on our website and will appear in DEC Solid Copy?Sneak Peek:? 95K Q's in 2013, 55K Q's in 2014;? 847 logs in 2013, 495 in 2014....only a handful from outside US this year in big contrast to last year.?2015 CWO is September 5 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From w6sx at arrl.net Thu Nov 20 08:57:09 2014 From: w6sx at arrl.net (Hank Garretson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:57:09 -0800 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > > Year Logs > 2011 386 > 2012 397 > 2013 847 > 2014 495 > Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is not what did we do wrong in 2014--nothing in my opinion. Perhaps a better question is what did we do right in 2013? CW Exuberantly, Hank, W6SX -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From w6sx at arrl.net Wed Nov 26 20:51:05 2014 From: w6sx at arrl.net (Hank Garretson) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:51:05 -0800 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Year Logs > 2011 386 > 2012 397 > 2013 847 > 2014 495 > It's funny what I think about when trying to divert my mind from the mind physical therapist is causing me. Do we have breakdown on number of different stations participating each year? On number of different stations sending in logs each year? Happy Thanksgiving everyone. 73, Hank, W6SX -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ad6e at arrl.net Wed Nov 26 22:27:02 2014 From: ad6e at arrl.net (Alan Maenchen) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 06:27:02 +0000 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Good question Hank... 2014 had 629 valid calls (participants) from 4X4NJ to ZS6DX 2013 had 923 valid calls from 4K4SN to ZS6REC 2012 had 1178 valid calls from 2M0KLL to ZS6RJ 2011 had 931 valid calls from 4K7WP to ZW9B I'm not sure what you can deduce from this other than 2014 had low participation. There seems quite a disparity between total participation and logs received. 73, Alan AD6E On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Hank Garretson wrote: > > > Year Logs >> 2011 386 >> 2012 397 >> 2013 847 >> 2014 495 >> > > It's funny what I think about when trying to divert my mind from the mind > physical therapist is causing me. > > Do we have breakdown on number of different stations participating each > year? On number of different stations sending in logs each year? > > Happy Thanksgiving everyone. > > 73, > > Hank, W6SX > > _______________________________________________ > Cwo mailing list > Cwo at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ad6e at arrl.net Wed Nov 26 22:30:50 2014 From: ad6e at arrl.net (Alan Maenchen) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 06:30:50 +0000 Subject: [Cwo] CW Open Rules In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d00469$6c3defe0$44b9cfa0$@net> <815538993.1974912.1416488202689.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10035.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I suppose we could combine all four lists and see what that total is like, then use it to identify who should get a "personal" email and get them QRV next year. That's a fair amount of work and I'm not sure I know how to do it. The big guys like Amazon and Google do this sort of thing all the time. 73, Alan AD6E On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Alan Maenchen wrote: > Good question Hank... > > 2014 had 629 valid calls (participants) from 4X4NJ to ZS6DX > 2013 had 923 valid calls from 4K4SN to ZS6REC > 2012 had 1178 valid calls from 2M0KLL to ZS6RJ > 2011 had 931 valid calls from 4K7WP to ZW9B > > I'm not sure what you can deduce from this other than 2014 had low > participation. > There seems quite a disparity between total participation and logs > received. > > 73, Alan AD6E > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Hank Garretson wrote: > >> >> >> Year Logs >>> 2011 386 >>> 2012 397 >>> 2013 847 >>> 2014 495 >>> >> >> It's funny what I think about when trying to divert my mind from the mind >> physical therapist is causing me. >> >> Do we have breakdown on number of different stations participating each >> year? On number of different stations sending in logs each year? >> >> Happy Thanksgiving everyone. >> >> 73, >> >> Hank, W6SX >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cwo mailing list >> Cwo at kkn.net >> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: