2023-03-01

Statistics from 2022 CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW logs

 

A huge number of analyses can be performed with the various public CQ WW logs (cq-ww-2005--2022-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2022.

As in prior years, there follow a few basic analyses that interest me. There is, of course, plenty of scope to use the log files for further analyses, some of which are suggested by the figures below.

Below are some simple analyses of basic statistics from the logs. The 2022 versions of the contests were, of course, run under unusual circumstances: much of the world was still in thrall to the COVID-19 pandemic circumstance; and then there was the unprecedented (at least in modern times) invasion of Ukraine. The CQ WW organisers vacillated on the latter topic. At the time of the contest, logs could be submitted by Russia and Belarus (hereinafter "UA" and "EW" respectively), and QSOs with stations in those countries counted for points. However, this change was announced rather late. And, of course, many people who were active in prior years protested this relaxation of the organiser's prior stance by refusing to take part in this year's contests (or, having taken part, declining to submit a log). So we can expect the data for 2022 to be unlike those for any other year.

 

Number of Logs


Until 2020, the raw number of submitted logs for SSB had been relatively flat for several years; the logs submitted for CW showed a fairly steady annual increase. In 2020, unsurprisingly, the number of logs in both modes increased to new record, probably because of the pandemic; CQ WW SSB 2021 set another record; on CW, the number of logs decreased slightly, but would still have been a record were it not for 2020. 2022 was another year of unusual circumstances: not only was the pandemic still in evidence in much of the world, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with the CQ WW committee's vacillation on how to proceed in light of that invasion -- and then the protest against the committee's position as of the contest dates -- was always going to lead to a reduction in the number of submitted logs. 


 

One not infrequently reads statements to the effect that the popularity of contests such as CQ WW has long been increasing. This plot suggests that this claim had not been true for a number of years prior to 2020 (and even when it was true, there are alternative explanations for the year-on-year increase, such as increasing ease of electronic log submission). The circumstances for 2020, 2021 and 2022 have been so unusual that it would seem to be an error to try to predict what will happen in the next two or three years or to discern any reliable pattern based on log submissions from those three years.

 

Popularity


By definition, popularity requires some measure of people (or, in our case, the simple proxy of callsigns) -- there is no reason to believe, a priori, that the number of received logs as shown above is related in any particular way to the popularity of a contest, despite non-infrequent conclusory statements to the contrary.

So we look at the number of calls in the logs as a function of time, rather than positing any kind of well-defined positively correlated relationship between log submission and popularity (actually, the posts I have seen don't even bother to posit such a relationship: they are silent on the matter, thereby simply seeming to presume that the reader will assume one). 

However, the situation isn't as simple as it might be, because of the presence of busted calls in logs. If a call appears in the logs just once (or some small number of times), it is more likely to be a bust rather an actual participant. Where to set a cut-off a priori in order to discriminate between busts and actual calls is unclear; but we can plot the results of choosing several such values. 

First, for SSB:


Regardless of how many logs a call has to appear in before we regard it as a legitimate callsign, the popularity of CQ WW SSB since the start of the pandemic has surely increased from the doldrums of the prior few years. Whether this contest is more popular than it was at a similar point in the last solar cycle is unclear, but it does seem to have held its own. Vitiating this effect in 2022 is, of course, the reduction in participation that is (presumably) due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.


[I note that a reasonable argument can be made that the number of uniques will be more or less proportional to the number of QSOs made (I have not tested that hypothesis; I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to determine whether it is true), but there is no obvious reason why the same would be true for, for example, callsigns that appear in, say, ten or more logs. The interested reader might also consider basing a similar analysis on eXtended Super Check Partial files as created by the drscp program.]

Moving to CW:


On CW, we see that in 2022 the reduction due (presumably) to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to the number of active calls being the lowest of all the years for which data are available.

 

Geographical Participation


How has the geographical distribution of entries changed over time?

Again looking at SSB first:


The big news is the precipitous drop in entrants from zone 16, with smaller but still considerable drops from zone 15 and zone 14 -- none of which, of course, is surprising. Zone 28 continues to show an increase in the number of logs submitted, to the point where it is now not dissimilar to the number from zone 25. Still, the number of logs from zones outside EU or the US continues to be very small. This can be seen more clearly if we plot the percentage of logs received from each zone as a function of time:

 

In 2022, entrants from zone 16 dropped from the historical value of around 10% to close to zero. The slack was taken up principally by the US zones and zones 11 and 25.

On CW, most zones evidence a sustained long-term increase:

Again we see the expected drop in entries from zone 16, but other than that trends continue more or less as before, with the relative increase spread more or less evenly across all zones, with the percentages of logs from each zone barely changing except for the pandemic years:


 

It is, I think, of some interest that the change in participation in zone 28 that is obvious on SSB is only gradually making itself felt on CW. Zone 24 is gradually becoming more common, although it is still far behind the powerhouse that is zone 25.


Activity


Total activity in a contest depends both on the number of people who participate and on how many QSOs each of those people makes. We can use the public logs to count the total number of distinct QSOs in the logs (that is, each QSO is counted only once, even if both participants have submitted a log).

For SSB:

 

Ignoring the anomalous nature of 2022, the total number of distinct QSOs is essentially the same as at the same point in the last solar cycle.

And for CW:


 

As on SSB, it is probably best not to read much into the data point for 2022, as the circumstances were so different, particularly in Europe, which is the source of a large proportion of the QSOs in this contest (well, in almost every international contest, really).

To repeat what I said last year: on this mode there continues to be, it seems, a long-lived underlying upward trend (on which the effect of the solar cycle is superimposed), perhaps augmented somewhat by the pandemic in 2020 (but not in 2021 for some reason). Despite the claims I see that CW is an obsolete technology in serious decline, the actual evidence, at least from this, the largest contest of the year, continues to be quite the opposite. (This is a good reminder that when someone makes a claim whose truth is not self-evident, one should examine the underlying data for oneself. I have found that all too often it transpires that no defensible evidence has been put forward for the conclusion being drawn.) The evidence certainly seems to indicate that CW activity is healthy, at least insofar as CQ WW is concerned.

It is worth noting that, during the 2021 running of the SSB contest, it is quite clear that cycle 25 had an impact, whereas a month later on CW conditions had returned to the doldrums.

 

Running and Calling


On SSB, the ongoing gradual shift towards stations strongly favouring either running or calling, rather than splitting their effort between the two types of operation, finally appears to have reached some kind of equilibrium. There was essentially no change between 2018 and 2019, and even a (very) slight reversal of the trend in 2020 and 2021. 2022, however, for the first time saw more than 30% of entrants making no run QSOs at all:


 

I have not investigated the cause of the decrease in the percentage of stations strongly favouring running, although the public logs could readily be used to distinguish possibilities that spring to mind, such as more SO2R operation, more multi-operator stations, and/or a reluctance of stations to forego the perceived advantages of spots from cluster networks.

On CW, the split between callers and runners continues to be much less bimodal than on SSB (as mentioned above, on SSB, fully 30% of entrants have no run QSOs; on CW, the equivalent number is below 10%). Indeed, the difference in call/run behaviour on the two modes (and the difference in the way that the behaviour has changed over time) is profound, and probably worthy of further investigation. CW continues to appear to exhibit what would seem to be a much healthier split between the two operating styles:


 


Assisted and Unassisted


We can see how the relative popularity of the assisted and unassisted categories has changed since they were introduced:


 

On CW, there continue to be more or less equal numbers of assisted and unassisted logs, while on SSB the unassisted logs handily exceeds the number of assisted logs. My guess, for what it's worth, is that CW assistance is more widespread partly because it (partially) absolves stations from actually being able to copy at high speed, and partly because the RBN is so effective that essentially all CQing stations are spotted.

I find it particularly interesting that the number of CWU logs has remained essentially unchanged ever since the unassisted category was created.

Looking at the number of QSOs appearing in the unassisted and assisted logs:


 

(The lines are for the median number of logs; the vertical bars run from 10% to 90%, 20% to 80%, 30% to 70%, 40% to 60%, with opacity increasing in that order.)


A long-term downward trend in the numbers of QSOs in the assisted logs ceased in 2016, and since then the median number of QSOs in the assisted logs has remained essentially unchanged. A more or less constant difference of roughly one hundred QSOs between the median CW and SSB logs (in favour of CW) continues.

Inter-Zone QSOs


We can show the number of inter-zone QSOs, both band-by-band and in total. In these plots, the number of QSOs is accumulated every ten minutes, so there are six points per hour.


The new cycle is starting. Unfortunately, the CW event suffers by a month later in the year than the SSB event. [I do not understand why the CQ WW committee do not alternate the weekends of the SSB and CW modes; but then, I don't understand a lot of what they do or don't do.]


 

2022 saw fairly ordinary 15m participation on SSB, probably because of signs of activity on 10m. CW saw more activity, presumably because 10m did not cooperate to the same extent as it did on SSB.


Much less activity on 20m, in both modes. Partly because of better conditions on 10m and 15m, but also because of the decreased activity in generaly, probably caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.


As always, CW dominates on 40m; and, within that mode, intra-EU QSOs further dominate. The effect of the Russian invasion (presumably that is the cause of the decreased activity) made itself after the first few hours and persisted through the rest of the weekend.


80m is always dominated by CW; but this year saw what appears to be a record low level of activity, presumably because of the invasion.


 

160m paints a similar story to 80m, although the raw QSO counts are much lower, and appear to have sunk to a record low.


 

The overall picture shows the influence of the new solar cycle; but it is clear that the normal ramp-up has not appeared in this cycle, probably due to the invasion.


2023-02-15

2023-01-30

Most-Logged Stations in CQ WW CW and SSB Contests: 2022, and the decade from 2013 to 2022

 

 

The public CQ WW CW and SSB logs allow us easily to tabulate the stations that appear in the largest number of entrants' logs. For 2022, the ten stations with the largest number of appearances in CQ WW SSB logs were:

Callsign Appearances % logs
CN3A 13,594 67
D4Z 13,316 65
EA8RM 11,390 60
PJ2T 10,858 55
LZ9W 10,355 54
YT5A 10,305 56
M6T 10,144 57
ZF1A 9,997 52
CR6K 9,501 53
EI7M 9,043 53


The first column in the table is the callsign. The second column is the total number of times that the call appears in logs. That is, for example, if a station worked LZ9W on six bands, that will increment the value in the second column of the LZ9W row by six. The third column is the percentage of logs that contain the callsign at least once.

Similarly, the ten stations with the largest number of appearances in CQ WW CW 2022 were:

Callsign Appearances % logs
CN3A 13,813 73
CR3W 12,863 70
CR3DX 12,536 70
TK0C 12,244 67
PJ2T 11,740 62
9A1A 11,493 70
M6T 11,287 67
YT5A 11,213 69
LZ9W 11,212 67
PJ4K 10,782 62


Note the substantial difference between the SSB and CW tables.

I find it interesting to see which stations have had the most long-term activity on the contests. For the ten years from 2013 to 2022 on SSB we find:

Callsign Appearances % logs
LZ9W 92,330 54
DF0HQ 82,118 52
CN3A 80,296 47
PJ2T 72,106 41
K3LR 67,045 45
P33W 65,063 43
YT5A 61,848 41
OT5A 61,569 41
M6T 61,158 42
HG7T 60,364 42


And for the same years on CW:

Callsign Appearances % logs
LZ9W 105,626 66
PJ2T 92,594 52
9A1A 87,996 54
P33W 80,653 52
YT5A 80,559 56
DF0HQ 78,569 53
CR3W 77,846 46
TK0C 73,181 44
LZ5R 71,922 53
ES9C 71,108 46

Similar tables from last year may be found here.

2023-01-28

Cleaned and Augmented Logs (including RBN data) for CQ WW CW and SSB Contests, 2005 to 2022

 

Cleaned and augmented versions of the logs for the CQ WW CW and SSB contests are now available for the period 2005 to 2022.

Links to the cleaned and augmented logs may be found in this directory (look for "clean" or "augmented" in the filenames).

The cleaned logs are the result of processing the QSO: lines from the entrants' submitted Cabrillo files to ensure that all fields contain valid values and all the data match the format required in the rules. Any line containing illegal data in a field (for example, a zone number greater than 40, or a date/time stamp that is outside the contest period) has simply been removed. Also, only the QSO: lines are retained, so that each line in the file can be processed easily. All zones are rendered with two digits, so as to further simplify processing by scripts or programs.

The augmented logs contain the same information as the cleaned logs, but with the addition of some useful (derived) information on each line. In addition to the actual logs, two additional sources of information are used when appropriate:

  1. AD1C has made accessible historical cty.dat and associated files. These allow us to use callsign-based multiplier lists as they would have existed at the time of each contest.

  2. From 2009 onwards, the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) has been available for the CW contests. This allows us to include the time since a station was last posted by the RBN (see below for details).

The information added to each line of the augmented logs comprises:
  1. A sequence of four characters that are the same for each entry in a particular log:
    •  a. letter "A" or "U" indicating "assisted" or "unassisted"
    •  b. letter "Q", "L", "H" or "U", indicating respectively QRP, low power, high power or unknown power level
    •  c. letter "S", "M", "C" or "U", indicating respectively a single-operator, multi-operator, checklog or unknown operator category [ the contest organisers have stated that checklogs are not made public, but in fact at least some of them from the early years have been, hence the need for the "C" category ]
    •  d. character "1", "2", "+" or "U", indicating respectively that the number of transmitters is one, two, unlimited or unknown
  2. A four-digit number representing the time if the contact in minutes measured from the start of the contest. (I realise that this can be calculated from the other information on the line, but it saves subsequent script-based processors of the file considerable time to have the number readily available in the file without having to calculate it for each QSO.)
  3. Band
  4. A set of fourteen flags, each -- apart from column k and column n -- encoded as T/F: 
    • a. QSO is confirmed by a log from the second party 
    • b. QSO is a reverse bust (i.e., the second party appears to have bust the call of the first party) 
    • c. QSO is an ordinary bust (i.e., the first party appears to have bust the call of the second party) 
    • d. the call of the second party is unique 
    • e. QSO appears to be a NIL 
    • f. QSO is with a station that did not send in a log, but who did make 20 or more QSOs in the contest 
    • g. QSO appears to be a country mult 
    • h. QSO appears to be a zone mult 
    • i. QSO is a zone bust (i.e., the received zone appears to be a bust)
    • j. QSO is a reverse zone bust (i.e. the second party appears to have bust the zone of the first party)
    • k. This entry has three possible values rather than just T/F:
      • T: QSO appears to be made during a run by the first party
      • F: QSO appears not to be made during a run by the first party
      • U: the run status is unknown because insufficient frequency information is available in the first party's log
    • l. QSO is a dupe
    • m. QSO is a dupe in the second party's log
    • n. RBN information (see below)
  5. If the QSO is a reverse bust, the call logged by the second party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
  6. If the QSO is an ordinary bust, the correct call that should have been logged by the first party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
  7. If the QSO is a reverse zone bust, the zone logged by the second party; otherwise, the placeholder "-"
  8.  If the QSO is an ordinary zone bust, the correct zone that should have been logged by the first party; otherwise, the placeholder "-" 

RBN Information


In the CW contests from 2009 onwards, the RBN was active, automatically spotting the frequency at which any station calling CQ was transmitting. To reflect possible use of RBN information, the augmented files now include a fourteenth flag. For the sake of uniformity, this column is present in all the augmented files, regardless of whether the RBN actually contributed useful information to a particular contest.

Each QSO has one of several characters in the fourteenth column of flags. These characters should be interpreted as follows:

'-'
  No useful RBN-derived information is available for this QSO.

'0'
  The worked station (i.e., the second call on the log line) appears to have begun to CQ on this frequency within (roughly) 60 seconds prior to the QSO.

'A' to 'Z'
  For the nth letter of the alphabet: the worked station appears to have been CQing on this frequency for (roughly) n minutes prior to the QSO.

'+'
  The worked station appears to have been CQing for more than 26 minutes on this frequency.

'<'
  Because the the RBN is distributed, and because each contest entrant station has its own clock, there is generally a skew between the reading of the clock of the station making the QSO and the timestamp from the RBN at which it believes a posting was made (indeed, it's unclear from the RBN's [lack of] documentation exactly how the timestamp on an individual RBN posting is to be interpreted). If the character '<' appears in the the RBN column, it indicates that the raw values of the clocks suggest that the QSO took place up to two minutes before the RBN reported the worked station commencing to CQ at this frequency. When this occurs, the most likely interpretation is that there is non-negligible skew between the two clocks, and the station was actually worked almost as soon as a CQ was posted by the RBN. This character also appears if the RBN erroneously posts the worked station as CQing at this frequency shortly after the QSO. But it might also mean that the entrant was simply lucky and found the CQing station just as it fired up on a new frequency.

Notes:
  • The encoding of some of the flags requires subjective decisions to be made as to whether the flag should be true or false; consequently, and because CQ has yet to understand the importance of making their scoring code public, the value of a flag for a specific QSO line in some circumstances might not match the value that CQ would assign. (Also, CQ has more data available in the form of check logs, which are generally not made public.)
  • I made no attempt to deduce or infer the run status of a QSO in the second party's log (if such exists), regardless of the status in the first party's log. This allows one cleanly to perform correct statistical analyses anent the number of QSOs made by running stations merely by excluding QSOs marked with a U in column k.
  • No attempt is made to detect the case in which both participants of a QSO bust the other station's call. This is a problematic situation because of the relatively high probability of a false positive unless both stations accurately log the frequency as opposed to merely the band. (Also, on bands on which split-frequency QSOs are common, the absence of both transmit and receive frequency is a problem; I confess that I have never understood why Cabrillo was not designed to report both transmit and receive frequencies -- or even to define clearly which frequency is to be reported. I digress.) Because of the likelihood of false positives, it seems better, given the presumed rarity of double-bust QSOs, that no attempt be made to mark them.
  • The entries for the zones in the case of zone or reverse zone busts are normalised to two-digit values.

2023-01-27

Unofficial Station Reports, CQ WW SSB and CW, 2005 to 2022

 

Using the public logs, it is rather easy to generate unofficial station-by-station reports for the entrants in the CQ WW contests.

The contest committee generates official reports and generally sends these reports individually to each entrant. But these are typically not made public (although there are some exceptions). The unofficial reports, while not necessarily identical to the official ones, may hold some interest.

The unofficial reports may differ from the official ones because the contest committee has access to checklogs, which are not made public. Also, there are various pathological occurrences in logs that require a decision to be made as to how to classify one or more QSOs; the rules by which such decisions are made are not public, so the decisions that I made when constructing the unofficial reports may well be different from those made by the contest committee. Nevertheless, pathological logs (or pathological QSOs within a log) are relatively rare, so these decisions should affect a relatively small percentage of logs and QSOs. (Typical examples [there are many more] of circumstances in which decisions must made be are: by how much may clocks be skewed and a QSO still be considered valid? what to do if the transmitted callsign changes for some number of QSOs in the contest? what do to if more than one entrant claims to have used the same transmitted callsign?)

The complete set of unofficial reports for the CW and SSB versions of the CQ WW contest for the years 2005 to 2022 may be found in appropriately named files in this directory.

 

CQ WW CW logs for 2022

CQ WW CW logs for 2022 have been added to this repository of public CQ WW logs.