| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
July 24th 03, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| 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
