| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
July 23rd 03, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0400, N2EY wrote:
In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: In article , Mike Coslo wrote: This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code users. Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? It's only flawed for the purposes you're trying to put it to. Its original purpose was to gauge the level of interest based on use of Morse. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether the respondent's use of Morse fits your definition of "regularly" -- or mine -- it matters only whether it fits the respondent's definition. Most of the cavilling about survey questions comes from misunderstanding the question's purpose and misuse of the results to try to "prove" things that the survey wasn't addressing. If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Trying to hammer an existing survey into something that it wasn't designed to be is almost certain to lead to skewed conclusions. Note that the question doesn't specify HF operation, or ask if the ham is active at all, if he/she is equipped for HF operation, etc. etc. Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse code". Wrong again! 64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a fact, not spin. But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. That's a much better way to get a feel for the true level of interest. Signals on the air are a much better measure of what's popular in ham radio than any survey results or any amount of Usenet bloviating. Jon |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| If you value SW or HAM radio.... | Antenna | |||
| FUD ALERT !!!!! (was With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind?) | General | |||
| With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? | General | |||
| With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? | Policy | |||
Threaded Mode
