[PaQSO] RE: [CQ-Contest] Repeating an idea from the 7QP soapbox...

[Goody K3NG]

I agree with you, Ron.  The participants in the contest should drive the 
rules and the exchange, not the software programmers.  While amateur 
radio is a hobby, imagine if your business had to change how it does 
business because the programmers or IT department wanted to do something 
an easier way.

I find the mention below of cost/benefit ratio interesting.  I get the 
feeling the original poster is saying this from the point of view of a 
commercial pay software author....what is the cost/benefit ratio for the 
generous hams who author free software like several of our PAQP 
authors?  :-) But I digress.

Being somewhat of a programmer, I see the problem with handling 
different contest exchanges as mainly a problem of how many of these 
contest programs are architected.  Modern software should be able to 
handle new and different contests using a definition language, 
scripting, or flexible configuration options.  You write the engine to 
handle the rule definitions, not the contests themselves, and allow the 
user community to create new contest definitions for your software.  All 
too often the handling of the rules and scoring of individual contests 
are handled within compiled code or non-user modifiable binary files.  
We can take this concept one step further and have the contest 
definition language standardized so that all programs can support it, 
similar to what ADIF is to logging data.  This would make more sense 
than homogenizing and arguably wrecking our unique contests.

We can launch satellites, build software defined radios, and invent new 
digital modes that work down into the noise floor, yet we still can't 
seem to write flexible software to handle unique contests....

73
Goody
K3NG

Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>
> Sorry.  I don't buy the argument.  And I don't believe we need to homogenize
> our contest exchanges just to make them "easy."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> .
>
>
> I saw an early post in the 7QP soapbox[0] from Bob K0RC, and kind of
> thought it should see the light of comments from here.  Quoting...
>
>   
>> I propose the State QSO Party organizers begin serious consideration to
>> standardize their contest exchange. There are 39 different QSO Party
>> modules in my contesting program. One program author has discontinued
>> support for these parties because of the cost/benefit ratio can't be
>> justified. Support in the remaining programs is not stellar.
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
> Does it make things "easier"?  Yes.  Maybe it lessens the skill needed
> to copy an exchange in CW, or log things properly.  C'est la vie.  But I
> contend that it'll make things a little more friendly for 'newbies' to
> enter.  And, when they day is done and we're all sitting down to dinner
> together at the next banquet, isn't Amateur Radio, in its highest form,
> about fellowship and camaraderie?
>
>
>   


-- 
Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/