Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Do you plan to enter the CQ WW DX Contest?
Recent Surveys

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?
2021-10-27

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28

What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17

Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05

What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28

View All Survey Questions
Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!

Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below.
How would you describe the level of intentional harassment and interference from non-contesters?
Posted: Feb 05, 2001 (226 votes, 9 comments) by k4xs

Survey Results

It's better than in the past. Contesting is now widely accepted. 8% (19)

It's about the same. There will always be some people that just like to cause trouble. 62% (140)

It's worse than ever. Misunderstood contesters are subjected to more abuse than ever. 10% (22)

Forget about the intentional harassment from non-contesters. It's the contesters that do the majority of intentional interference to other contesters. 20% (45)

Survey Comments

N2MR agrees with K5KA

All net users seem to be XTAL controlled...
40m ssb split operations really make hornets nest pinatas out of these operators! Although, the old codger that heckled me on the high end of 20m was right about my audio! too bad it was in the last 4hrs of the contest. If he would have identified himself, I'd drop him a thank you note.
Posted by Anonymous on March 6, 2001

INTERFERENCE

Well, primarily as a CW contester, I find very little interference on the cw sub bands on 80-10M. BUT...during the cw contests on 160, suposedly the gentlemans band, SSB INTENTIONAL interference seems to be the norm. From participating in these contests for the past 7 years or so, I notice that the people that congregate on 1850 and higher on SSB in the early evening don't give a rat's ass that several CW operators have been using the frequency spectrum that their SSB signal takes up for several hours already. When they come on, they simply engage their auto notch dsp and carry on as usual! Gentleman's band? Ha! It hasen't been that for quite some time now. I realize that to QSY higher in the band is imposible for some of these ops. An efficient radiator for 160 has a 2:1 SWR bandwidth of in the order of 60-70 khz. or so,and they may also like to operate cw once in a while, so they're stuck with what they have antenna wise. But, this is still no excuse for the interference they cause intentionally just to be able to get together with the gangs on 1850+ SSB. Yep, you guessed it. Here's how it goes... "Who me? The guys were already here when I joined the group! I'm not intentionally interfering with anybody, I'm simply joining a QSO in progress!" BULLSHIT, and you know it! It doesn't take someone with a genius IQ to realize that a contest with a thousand or more participants will occupy more than 50khz. of a the single band they are allowed to use; and that quite a few of them will already have been using "your" frequency long before your usual nightly ragchew. OOPS, now I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure that the offenders have no interest in reading this at all. 73, Bob, N2NFG
Posted by N2NFG on February 9, 2001

Interference

I think the interference is from a blend of participants and non-participants.
When contesters get tired, as most dedicated ones do, they sometimes lose their patience.
Not me, of course, OTHER contesters. :-) So they get testy and do things they aren't proud
of afterwards. Not me, of course, OTHER contesters.

And, of course, there are those few that think contesters are the handiwork of the devil.
But, I agree, that most of that happens on SSB.

Posted by NZ3O on February 8, 2001

CW is the answer

CW is the answer.
It's the gentleman-contester's mode.

Just don't land on a "RTTY" frequency. :)
Posted by N2MG on February 6, 2001

Older hams.

I wonder if a lot of older hams who frequent nets and rag-chew have problems hearing when their broad as a barn door receiver goes belly-up by to 50 over 9 signal 3 KHz away and they have spent so many years supressing their emotions that they go off the deep end.
Posted by Anonymous on February 6, 2001

This only happens on SSB. Nets want to meet on their "homesteaded" frequency come hell or highwater.
Posted by K5KA on February 6, 2001

Interference

I find that intentional interference during a costest is minimal, but some contesters often forget to listen on a QRG before that slam the CQ button.
Why is it that non-contesters completely forget that one of the primary reasons for 30m, 17m, and 12m were established to be non-contest bands? With those three excellent bands available, I have very little sympathy for the complainers! Why use those bands during contest periods? It's a CHOICE!!
Posted by w4bqf on February 6, 2001

Amusing..

K1OU said that.
Posted by Anonymous on February 5, 2001

Amusing..

One minute the pig farmer wants less government. Then, during a contest, they bellow that Riley is going to get a letter about the malicious interference.
Posted by Anonymous on February 5, 2001

To post a comment, you must be logged in.
If you are not a member, become one now!