wrote:

They should mention this in the article, but a lot
of information has been moved to the ARRL website.
Start he

http://www.arrl.org/contests/results/

For example, the line scores for last November's CW
Sweepstakes are on this page:

http://www.arrl.org/contests/results...tml?con_id=112

I guess I'd much rather have it in print in my magazine collection, rather than some obscure web page. I see a lot of old standby things like DXCC Award listings have also evaporated. Maybe a bit 'vain', but it always felt good to see my call letters in a national magazine.

73, RDW

On Apr 25, 4:05�pm, wrote:
wrote:
They should mention this in the article, but a lot
of information has been moved to the ARRL website.
Start he

http://www.arrl.org/contests/results/

For example, the line scores for last November's CW
Sweepstakes are on this page:

http://www.arrl.org/contests/results....html?con_id2

I guess I'd much rather have it in print in my magazine collection, rathe
r than some obscure web page. I see a lot of old standby things like DXC
C Award listings have also evaporated. Maybe a bit 'vain', but it always
felt good to see my call letters in a national magazine.

It is my understanding that the move to put most of the info on the
website rather than QST has been driven by three factors:

1) Results analysis is easier on the website
2) There are more contests today
3) Complaints from noncontesters about how much QST space was being
used

73 de Jim, N2EY

"RDW" has hit on one of my hot buttons here.

wrote:


It is my understanding that the move to put most of the info on the
website rather than QST has been driven by three factors:

1) Results analysis is easier on the website


I don't care if ARRL puts these things on their website. But I DO
care when they remove them from our club newsletter (yes, Virginia,
ARRL is, in the final analysis, a radio club and QST is the club
newsletter. --- Hold that thought....

2) There are more contests today

More than when? I don't recall that ARRL sponsored a new contest in
decades.

3) Complaints from noncontesters about how much QST space was being
used.

[rant]

Here's my cut on that. Editorial policy of a club newsletter
shouldn't be based on complaints, it should be based on FULL coverage
of ALL of the clubs activities. Perhaps the editors of QST agree with
that, perhaps not, but the point is moot because this decision was
driven by the BoD, not the editor.

Will these same complaints "about how much web server space is being
used" cause similar cuts there?

Three of the groups which comprise the core membership of the ARRL
radio club are Contesters, DXers, and the Field Organization. They're
not the only three, maybe not even the top three, but they are
certainly in the top 5 or 6 'interest groups' in the club.

Yet, in recent decisions the BoD has stripped contest line scores,
most DXCC listings, and Section News from our newsletter. I'm sure
that saves some page-count in QST, but it seems false economy to snub
"who brought you to the dance" just because someone(s) complained they
took up space on your dance card.

[/rant]

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .com,
wrote:

It is my understanding that the move to put most of the info on the
website rather than QST has been driven by three factors:

1) Results analysis is easier on the website
2) There are more contests today
3) Complaints from noncontesters about how much QST space was being
used

And, of course, it costs much, much less to add 10 web pages to
cover more contests (or to go into depth on one contest) than it
does to add 10 magazine pages.


Patty

On Apr 26, 5:56 pm,
) wrote:


And, of course, it costs much, much less to add 10 web pages to
cover more contests (or to go into depth on one contest) than it
does to add 10 magazine pages.


If we carry that argument to its logical (but unsupportable)
conclusion, then we should take everything out of QST except the
advertising.

Besides, I'm not lobbying to add 10 magazine pages, but only to retain
the pages we had.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .com,
wrote:
On Apr 26, 5:56 pm,
) wrote:

And, of course, it costs much, much less to add 10 web pages to
cover more contests (or to go into depth on one contest) than it
does to add 10 magazine pages.

If we carry that argument to its logical (but unsupportable)
conclusion, then we should take everything out of QST except the
advertising.

Shhhhhh! Don't let them hear you....


Besides, I'm not lobbying to add 10 magazine pages, but only to retain
the pages we had.

Many magazines have cut back on their page counts in recent years
to save on printing and mailing costs.


Patty

On Apr 26, 9:37 pm,
) wrote:


Many magazines have cut back on their page counts in recent years
to save on printing and mailing costs.


The BoD has to quit thinking of QST as a magazine and start treating
it like the club newsletter. That may mean raising club dues to
support a newsletter which serves all the various segments of the club
population.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Apr 26, 1:55�pm, wrote:
"RDW" has hit on one of my hot buttons here.

Mine too.

wrote:

It is my understanding that the move to put most of the info on the
website rather than QST has been driven by three factors:

1) Results analysis is easier on the website

I don't care if ARRL puts these things on their website. But I DO
care when they remove them from our club newsletter (yes, Virginia,
ARRL is, in the final analysis, a radio club and QST is the club
newsletter. --- Hold that thought....

I agree!

2) There are more contests today

More than when? I don't recall that ARRL sponsored a new contest in
decades.

When I became a ham back in 1967, ARRL sponsored the following
contests that were reported in QST:

Field Day
SS (CW)
SS (Phone)
DX (CW)
DX (Phone)
VHF SS (4 per year)
Novice Roundup

10 per year


Today, ARRL sponsors:

Field Day
SS (CW)
SS (Phone)
DX (CW)
DX (Phone)
VHF SS (4 per year)
School Club Roundup (2 per year)
UHF Contest
RTTY Roundup
10 Meter Contest
160 Meter Contest
10 GHz & Up Contest
IARU Contest

17 per year

3) Complaints from noncontesters about how much QST space was being
used.

[rant]

Here's my cut on that. Editorial policy of a club newsletter
shouldn't be based on complaints, it should be based on FULL coverage
of ALL of the clubs activities. Perhaps the editors of QST agree with
that, perhaps not, but the point is moot because this decision was
driven by the BoD, not the editor.

All that a complaint amounts to is a form of member input.
Should the BoD ignore member input?

Will these same complaints "about how much web server space is being
used" cause similar cuts there?

Please don't give the anti-contest folks ideas.

There's still a considerable amount of space devoted to each contest,
and some contests (like FD) get full line scores.

What bothers me about contest coverage in QST is two things:
Lopsidedness and impermanence.

For example, in SS, there's detailed reporting of top scores, who won
what plaque, etc. But the little guy - the rest of the pack, so to
speak - is not recorded. Yet it is the little guys who make the big
scores possible! Seeing one's score - high or low - in QST is one way
to increase participation.

As for permanence, I can look up scores all the way back to the very
first SS and FD simply by pulling the appropriate QST off the shelf.
Those without a library like mine can use the CDs. But for recent
scores, I am dependent on the impermanent website.

It seems to me that it's worth the space to publish all the scores,
even if they are printed very small.

Three of the groups which comprise the core membership of the ARRL
radio club are Contesters, DXers, and the Field Organization. They're
not the only three, maybe not even the top three, but they are
certainly in the top 5 or 6 'interest groups' in the club.

(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE = ON)

Yes, but how many of them send in a contest log? Say, for SS - 2000
logs out of 125,000 members?

(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE = OFF)

Yet, in recent decisions the BoD has stripped contest line scores,
most DXCC listings, and Section News from our newsletter. I'm sure
that saves some page-count in QST, but it seems false economy to snub
"who brought you to the dance" just because someone(s) complained they
took up space on your dance card.

[/rant]

Perhaps the BoD needs to hear some complaints from a different
quarter....

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Apr 27, 1:09 am, wrote: On Apr 26, 1:55?pm,
wrote: "RDW" has hit on one of my hot
buttons here. Mine too. wrote: Perhaps the
BoD needs to hear some complaints from a different quarter.... 73
de Jim, N2EY

I didn't mean to start a fight here, but I have a thought about all of
this.

Don't couch your communications to the ARRL as a complaint; couch it in
terms of work direction. They are, after all, our hired hands.

73, RDW

On Apr 27, 1:09 am, wrote:


All that a complaint amounts to is a form of member input.
Should the BoD ignore member input?


They seem to be ignoring mine.


There's still a considerable amount of space devoted to each contest,
and some contests (like FD) get full line scores.


They don't call FD a 'contest', they call it 'a readiness exercise'
which escapes the BoD ban on QST-reported line scores.

73, de Hans, K0HB