[Cwo] Marketing CWO

[Charles Sanders]

One thing I do when gauging activity while processing the Texas QSO Party
logs is to create a Received Stations Report which lists all stations found
in the recieved logs, the number of QSOs reported with them, the number of
received logs reporting those QSOs and whether the station submitted a log.

Suprisingly, and quite disappointing, is the rather large number of
stations showing, for example, 50 or more QSOs that did not submit a log.
Quite a few of these will be award chasers who are only in the party to
capture a new county but some have just forgotten to submit. I've sometimes
given an email nudge to those involved in 50 or more.

In reporting activity back to the sponsoring club the number of  these
"pseudo-logs" is usually shown in an activity chart along with the number
of actual logs.

So I wonder if we have looked at this sort of thing for CWO? Are there
significant number of players who are not submitting a log?

Loving those Wednesday CWTs here:>)

73/Chuck/NO5W

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Hank Garretson <w6sx at arrl.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 4:01 PM, D Faklis via Cwo <cwo at kkn.net> wrote:
>
> 2014:  629 calls, 496 logs
>> 2013:  923 calls, 847 logs
>> 2012:  1178 calls, 397 logs
>> 2011:  931 calls, 386 logs
>>
>> Compare the "calls" spreadsheet from 2013 and 2014 and try to learn
>> something about who sat out 2014.
>>
>
> A good question to be looked at is What did we do right in 2012?
>
> CW Exuberantly,
>
> Hank, W6SX
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20150105/ebb7584f/attachment.html>