On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:45 -0400, N2EY wrote:
Jon Bloom wrote in message
g...
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.

I disagree, Jon.

You refuse to accept that the survey wasn't intended to answer the
question you want answered.

Too much is left to the respondent's interpretation.

Too much for your purposes, yes.

A person can have a 'high level of interest' in Morse, yet rarely or
never operate, because of inactivity, equipment failure, etc. IOW a ham
who rarely or never operates at all must, by definition, rarely or never
operate Morse. A sizable percentage of those responding to the survey
were completely inactive on ANY mode, so they probably answered the
question "never".

And that's just one problem.

It's only a problem for you.

Does once a year count as "regularly"? Does one day a month CW and all
the rest 'phone constitute "rarely"?

That judgement is left up to the individual responding.

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.

As I understand it, the survey was trying to determine what position
ARRL should take WRT code testing at a WRC in the late 1990s (1997, I
think). So why do the questions beat about the bush so much? Why notjust
ask those surveyed what they think FCC should do, and how much they
operate CW?

Because it's not a plebiscite.

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.

2) The survey left itself wide open to all sorts of interpretations
because it was not well designed. The fact that the League payed a
professional does not mean they got a good survey.

The fact that the survey doesn't answer the questions you want answered
doesn't mean it's not a good survey, either.

But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this
case.

Sure they do. It means to have QSOs using the mode.

To you. To everybody? Who knows?

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.

How many hams do you know do that?

I've known a few over the years. I guess these days most repeaters have
voice ID, though.

I don't know any. I do know lots of
hams who have 2-way QSOs on the amateur HF bands using CW, though.

Maybe a better example: If you just listen around the band are you
"operating?" I bet you would get less than complete consensus on that one.
If you listen a lot but rarely transmit, are you operating "regularly" or
"rarely"?

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.

Then why was that question in the 1996 survey?

I believe it was intended to provide background to the answers to the
other questions in the survey. Much of the usefulness of surveys comes
from crosstabbing of the results. The purpose of this survey was to sample
opinions on Morse testing, not to nail down the percentages of operating
time by mode. For the purposes of the survey, a simple indication of
activity, as gauged by the member's own characterization, was sufficient.
More would have been overkill and thus would have unneccesarily
complicated the survey, leading to lower response rates -- to no good
purpose.

If you listen to the HF/MF amateur bands, Morse/CW is second in
popularity only to SSB.

So if we already know that, what's the point of surveying -- to learn
something that we already know?

I strongly suggest that a well-constructed survey/poll of the entire
ARRL membership be conducted, and the results published in QST. Web
polls and small samples are not necessarily indicative of the views of
the membership. The last time such a survey was conducted was 1975. I
know, I responded to it.

My wife's first job was a part-time job at HQ opening the survey
responses. (She was four years old at the time, of course!)

The questions were extensive and the results published in QST. Why can't
this be done today? Make it a tear-out sheet in QST and have everyone
enter their member number to avoid dupes.

I have no idea whether that will happen -- it wouldn't if it were up to
me. I'd consider it a monumental waste of resources.

Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a
large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be
able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the
entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to
improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and
increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who
could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire
membership?

All of those who disagree with the result, of course!

Too many amateurs, ARRL members or not, think that decisions are made in
"ivory tower isolation", and that their views are not considered
adequately when ARRL formulates a position.

Polls won't change that. Those who dislike the result will just claim the
poll questions were no good. (Oops!)

While such a survey will
not be free, it will be money well spent if the membership and amateur
radio community perceives that ARRL is truly responding to member
opinion and input.

There's a difference between taking people's views into account and taking
a direct vote. It's the difference between representative democracy and
direct democracy. (Say, were you a Perot voter by any chance?)

I don't quite understand why you think an all-inclusive vote should be
taken when you don't even think the voters are smart enough to decide
whether they operate CW "regularly" or "rarely"!

On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money to do the
polling, please let us all know what results you get. If nothing else,
it'll make good fodder for rrap.

In fact, it may be advisable to survey every radio amateur in the US.
Such a survey might change the way the ARRL is viewed by nonmembers on
both sides of the issue.

People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is
going to change that. Those who support Morse testing will be angry with
the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that
decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if
the ARRL supports continuation of testing. And those of us who think far
too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet
again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it.

Here are some suggested questions for the survey:
[snip]
That will all fit on one side of one sheet of paper. Return address on
the back. Fold it over, put a stamp on and send it in.

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Jon

Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:45 -0400, N2EY wrote:
Jon Bloom wrote in message
g...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0400, N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes:

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.

I disagree, Jon.

You refuse to accept that the survey wasn't intended to answer the
question you want answered.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Too much is left to the respondent's interpretation.

Too much for your purposes, yes.

Too much for anyone's purposes.

A person can have a 'high level of interest' in Morse, yet rarely or
never operate, because of inactivity, equipment failure, etc. IOW a ham
who rarely or never operates at all must, by definition, rarely or never
operate Morse. A sizable percentage of those responding to the survey
were completely inactive on ANY mode, so they probably answered the
question "never".

And that's just one problem.

It's only a problem for you.

Does once a year count as "regularly"? Does one day a month CW and all
the rest 'phone constitute "rarely"?

That judgement is left up to the individual responding.

Exactly!

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.

As I understand it, the survey was trying to determine what position
ARRL should take WRT code testing at a WRC in the late 1990s (1997, I
think). So why do the questions beat about the bush so much? Why notjust
ask those surveyed what they think FCC should do, and how much they
operate CW?

Because it's not a plebiscite.

Understood. But since ARRL is a representative organization, some
might think the majority opinion on an issue like this would be
important.

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.

2) The survey left itself wide open to all sorts of interpretations
because it was not well designed. The fact that the League payed a
professional does not mean they got a good survey.

The fact that the survey doesn't answer the questions you want answered
doesn't mean it's not a good survey, either.

I think the questions I want answered are relevant questions.

But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this
case.

Sure they do. It means to have QSOs using the mode.

To you. To everybody? Who knows?

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.

How many hams do you know do that?

I've known a few over the years.

Exceptions that prove the rule.

I guess these days most repeaters have
voice ID, though.

I know some that have both. Voice unless there is audio on the receive
channel, so you don't have to talk over the ID.

I don't know any. I do know lots of
hams who have 2-way QSOs on the amateur HF bands using CW, though.

Maybe a better example: If you just listen around the band are you
"operating?"

Yes. I revise my earlier definition.

I bet you would get less than complete consensus on that one.
If you listen a lot but rarely transmit, are you operating "regularly" or
"rarely"?

Depends on the respondent.

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.

Then why was that question in the 1996 survey?

I believe it was intended to provide background to the answers to the
other questions in the survey. Much of the usefulness of surveys comes
from crosstabbing of the results. The purpose of this survey was to sample
opinions on Morse testing, not to nail down the percentages of operating
time by mode. For the purposes of the survey, a simple indication of
activity, as gauged by the member's own characterization, was sufficient.
More would have been overkill and thus would have unneccesarily
complicated the survey, leading to lower response rates -- to no good
purpose.

I don't think having a few more choices would be a problem. On a
subject like this, most hams WANT to answer - hence the high response
rate.

One thing I found interesting in the results of the surveys sent to
nonmembers was how many were returned due to changed address.

If you listen to the HF/MF amateur bands, Morse/CW is second in
popularity only to SSB.

So if we already know that, what's the point of surveying -- to learn
something that we already know?

To put a more objective number on it.

I strongly suggest that a well-constructed survey/poll of the entire
ARRL membership be conducted, and the results published in QST. Web
polls and small samples are not necessarily indicative of the views of
the membership. The last time such a survey was conducted was 1975. I
know, I responded to it.

My wife's first job was a part-time job at HQ opening the survey
responses. (She was four years old at the time, of course!)

Tell her thank you for me.

The questions were extensive and the results published in QST. Why can't
this be done today? Make it a tear-out sheet in QST and have everyone
enter their member number to avoid dupes.

I have no idea whether that will happen -- it wouldn't if it were up to
me. I'd consider it a monumental waste of resources.

Interesting. 28 years ago, in paper-and-pencil days, Hq. thought it
was a good idea, and had the resources.

Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a
large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be
able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the
entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to
improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and
increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who
could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire
membership?

All of those who disagree with the result, of course!

I don't see how, if they were part of the survey.

Too many amateurs, ARRL members or not, think that decisions are made in
"ivory tower isolation", and that their views are not considered
adequately when ARRL formulates a position.

Polls won't change that.

How do you know? It's been 28 years since the last one that surveyed
all members.

Those who dislike the result will just claim the
poll questions were no good. (Oops!)

Maybe not.

While such a survey will
not be free, it will be money well spent if the membership and amateur
radio community perceives that ARRL is truly responding to member
opinion and input.

There's a difference between taking people's views into account and taking
a direct vote. It's the difference between representative democracy and
direct democracy.

Exactly. The point is that there's a difference between passively
asking for input and actively seeking it.

(Say, were you a Perot voter by any chance?)

Now you've gone from disagreeing with me to being insulting! ;-)

It's because of Perot we had 8 years of Bill Clinton (he divided the
Republican vote TWICE so that Clinton got in). Just like Ralph Nader
gave George Bush II his shot at the White House.

I don't quite understand why you think an all-inclusive vote should be
taken when you don't even think the voters are smart enough to decide
whether they operate CW "regularly" or "rarely"!

Not a question of smarts. A question of getting accurate information.
Some would say getting accurate information on this issue is a waste
because it's a lost cause.

On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money to do the
polling, please let us all know what results you get. If nothing else,
it'll make good fodder for rrap.

I thought things like polls were what my dues were for.

In fact, it may be advisable to survey every radio amateur in the US.
Such a survey might change the way the ARRL is viewed by nonmembers on
both sides of the issue.

People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is
going to change that.

Agreed. But what is the majority opinion? Dump Element 1 ASAP? Keep it
at all costs? Something else, like drop code but beef up the writtens?

Those who support Morse testing will be angry with
the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that
decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if
the ARRL supports continuation of testing.

I think I said that way back in the beginning. Ah, here it is:

"Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular
with a
large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be
able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the
entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to
improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC,
and
increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who
could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire
membership?"


And those of us who think far
too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet
again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it.

OK, fine, we'll just go with the results of the 1996 poll, shich
showed the majority favoring code testing retention....

Here are some suggested questions for the survey:
[snip]
That will all fit on one side of one sheet of paper. Return address on
the back. Fold it over, put a stamp on and send it in.

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

They cannot be read by computer? How was it done in '75?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

OK, fine. I'd put BPL far ahead of code testing in importance any day.

But what I'm trying to point out is that many hams out here in the
boonies feel ARRL ignores them and their opinions. Too many think that
decisions are made "up there in Newington". Perhaps a large scale poll
would help change that, perhaps not. However, I don't see how an
attitude of "it's not worth the resources to poll the membership" is
going to help change that "ivory tower" image.

There's also the possibility that FCC will simply dump Element 1 on
its own and save ARRL from having to take a position at all. In that
case, polling would be a waste because it would not make any
difference in the outcome.

So how about this:

Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 by MO&O, saying it's all been debated
before. All it would take is one sentence, something like "Based upon
decisions made with regard to WT98-143 and the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli
Petition for Reconsideration, credit for Element 1 is hereby given to
all applicants for any class of amateur radio license".

Should there be other changes to the license requirements and
privileges, particularly the entry-level license classes? Seems kind
of odd that in a nocodetest future, most of the HF privileges of an
entry-class ham would be CW.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jon Bloom wrote in message g...

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the
membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top
of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is
apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do
have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the
membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL
BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the
wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat
debacles get boring.

I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same
basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version:
"Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do
you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old
could handle the tabulation . . .

Jon

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the
membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top
of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is
apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do
have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the
membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL
BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the
wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat
debacles get boring.

I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same
basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version:
"Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do
you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old
could handle the tabulation . . .

Kelly, that was a very nice presentation of an idea.

The survey could be accomplished via the ARRL web site, membership
required to log-in, at a total cost of about $40 for an hour of the
web programmer's time. The ARRL members who don't have web capability
can make a trip to the public library and vote. They should probably
get out more anyway.

Brian

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...

And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter
the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is
your idea of money well spent?

Why not?

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the
membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top
of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is
apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do
have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the
membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL
BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the
wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat
debacles get boring.

I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same
basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version:
"Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do
you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old
could handle the tabulation . . .

Kelly, that was a very nice presentation of an idea.

Every once in awhile . .

The survey could be accomplished via the ARRL web site, membership
required to log-in, at a total cost of about $40 for an hour of the
web programmer's time.

Maybe not forty bucks but would not require another "fund drive" to
carry out.

The ARRL members who don't have web capability
can make a trip to the public library and vote.

Tricky issue. I think one would be hard-pressed to find many active
hams who are not online. Plus when ya get right down to it 2-3
thousand reponses would be a big enough sample to produce a
statistically rigorous result.

They should probably
get out more anyway.

Prolly.


Brian

w3rv

Good point Jon. As I said when I tabulated the WT Docket 98-143 comments,
the amateur radio community is more or less divide on the Morse code exam
issue. The issue can not be decide consensus or polls. Commission will
dispose of this issue in due course. There is no good reason for the ARRL
to waste any more funds on the Morse code matter. At WRC 2003 not one radio
administration spoke in favor of retaining the mandatory international Morse
code requirement.

The ARRL did a lot of good work in getting a an agreement of the realigment
of 40 meters. I though it would be impossible.
But look what can be accomplished when ARRL spents it resource to solve a
problem that makes sense even to SW broadcasters. Kind of like a bandplan
for hams and broadcasters.

Larry


"Jon Bloom" wrote in message
news
People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is
going to change that. Those who support Morse testing will be angry with
the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that
decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if
the ARRL supports continuation of testing. And those of us who think far
too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet
again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it.

In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that
would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that
are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do
with Morse testing.

Jon

"lk" wrote in message
...
Good point Jon. As I said when I tabulated the WT Docket 98-143 comments,
the amateur radio community is more or less divide on the Morse code exam
issue.

Of course that was 5 years ago. Convential wisdom has it that, if anything,
the shift over time would result in less support for code testing today than
then.

The issue can not be decide consensus or polls.

The FCC was pretty clear in their assessment as stated in
the R&O. No reason for code testing other than the
former treaty.

Commission will
dispose of this issue in due course. There is no good reason for the ARRL
to waste any more funds on the Morse code matter. At WRC 2003 not one
radio
administration spoke in favor of retaining the mandatory international
Morse
code requirement.

Agreed.

The ARRL did a lot of good work in getting a an agreement of the
realigment
of 40 meters.

Agree also.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"lk" wrote in message
...
Good point Jon. As I said when I tabulated the WT Docket 98-143
comments,
the amateur radio community is more or less divide on the Morse code
exam
issue.

Of course that was 5 years ago. Convential wisdom has it that, if
anything,
the shift over time would result in less support for code testing today
than
then.

IARU changed their position, and maybe ARRL will change their position.

At least they should stop wasting members funds trying to save a rule that
no
radio administration supported at WRC 2003.

Larry