How good was that DXpedition?

Posted: February 17, 2017 in Uncategorized

One of the things that DXer’s do when they gather is they discuss various DXpeditions that they worked recently. During these discussions, many of us reflect back on the “thrill of the chase” or how fun and exciting it was to work the various DXpeditions that have recently taken place.

We like to share what aspects of the DXpedition we liked and enjoyed and what the various challenges were. We often discuss what was the best DXpedition and why.

We all have our unique and individual criteria for what was the best. For some of us, just the fact that it was rare and they needed it made it the best. For others, their criteria may include that they were worked on 160 meters or six meters. Some of us will look at the overall performance of the DXpedition including the statistics as provided by Clublog.  The Clublog statistics can give a good indication of how effective the DXpedition was.

Let’s look at three DXpeditions that took place at roughly the same time in early 2016 and let’s look at the Clublog statistics for each and see if a picture emerges as to the performance of each activation.

I was the Co-Leader of the VP8SGI DXpedition to South Georgia Island in January, 2016. At the time, it was ranked the #8 most wanted DXCC entity. We were active from 1-29-16 to 2-7-16. Our team of 13 men made 82,847 contacts. Of those, 21,596 were unique call signs.


The VP8SGI Team

The significance of uniques: Some feel that the higher number of unique call signs worked by a DXpedition are a good measure of performance. I don’t share that view. You could sit in a row boat off the coast of Japan and easily work a high number of unique call signs, but if you just work Japan and Asia have you really been effective?

A better metric  is the number of Daily QSOs  as seen below.


Date Total QSOs Uniques Uniques %
07-02-2016 985 225 22.8
06-02-2016 9632 1644 17.1
05-02-2016 8679 1568 18.1
04-02-2016 6510 1354 20.8
03-02-2016 8485 1749 20.6
02-02-2016 11216 2283 20.4
01-02-2016 10179 2563 25.2
31-01-2016 11329 3098 27.3
30-01-2016 12030 4591 38.2
29-01-2016 3802 2521 66.3
Totals 82847 21596 26.1


This gives a breakdown of the contacts for each day. As you can see, there are four days when this team made over 10,000 contacts. That is a very difficult feat and it takes a team of experienced and fast rate operators to make those kinds of numbers. We can also divide the total number of QSOs by the number of days QRV and come up with an average daily number of contacts. For VP8SGI, this number is 8,284. This is a reasonably good measure of how hard the team worked each day to satisfy the need for contacts.

Let’s look at the very successful FT4JA DXpedition to Juan de Nova from 3-30-16 to 4-10-16. This team made 105,643 contacts over 12 days. They made 25,055 unique contacts. This team had four days where they made over 10,000 contacts. Their average daily number of contacts was 8,803.


The FT4JA Juan de Nova Team

This figure represents a herculean effort by this team.


Daily QSOs FT4JA

Date Total QSOs Uniques Uniques %
10-04-2016 5170 853 16.5
09-04-2016 7227 1156 16.0
08-04-2016 8365 1513 18.1
07-04-2016 8278 1278 15.4
06-04-2016 9072 1519 16.7
05-04-2016 10104 2034 20.1
04-04-2016 8482 1730 20.4
03-04-2016 9687 2215 22.9
02-04-2016 11808 2890 24.5
01-04-2016 11032 2840 25.7
31-03-2016 10781 3710 34.4
30-03-2016 5637 3317 58.8
Totals 105643 25055 23.7


The VK0EK Heard Island DXpedition was active from 3-23-16 to 4-11-16 and made 75,189 contacts. Of those, 21,040 of those contacts were with unique DXers. This team did not have any days where they made 10,000 or more contacts. In fact, their highest day was 5,938 contacts. Their average daily number of contacts was 3,759 which is significantly below the other two DXpeditions discussed.


The VK0EK Heard Island Team

Daily QSOs for VK0EK

Date Total QSOs Uniques Uniques %
11-04-2016 13 7 53.8
10-04-2016 1497 242 16.2
09-04-2016 3218 764 23.7
08-04-2016 2955 615 20.8
07-04-2016 3896 602 15.5
06-04-2016 4499 1014 22.5
05-04-2016 4193 771 18.4
04-04-2016 2113 487 23.0
03-04-2016 2113 557 26.4
02-04-2016 5214 1197 23.0
01-04-2016 5573 1432 25.7
31-03-2016 4943 1282 25.9
30-03-2016 5132 1348 26.3
29-03-2016 5938 1634 27.5
28-03-2016 5701 1296 22.7
27-03-2016 5875 1893 32.2
26-03-2016 5353 1851 34.6
25-03-2016 4276 2088 48.8
24-03-2016 1629 1146 70.3
23-03-2016 1058 814 76.9
Totals 75189 21040 28.0


In addition to looking at the total number of contacts for each day, we can also divide the total number of contacts by the number of operators on the team to come up with an average number of contacts per team member. This can be used as a further measure of the team’s effort and performance.

For example: VP8SGI’s 82,847 contacts divided by 13 operators equals an average of 6,372 contacts per team member. Using that same formula for FT4JA, we find that their team member average (105,603 divided by 10) is 10,564 contacts per team member. This is a significant number and represents an incredible effort by each and every team member. In contrast, if we look at VK0EK we see (75,189 divided 14) reveals an average number of 5,370 contacts per team member or about half of the average number of contacts made by the FT4JA team members.

Each of these DXpeditions occurred at nearly the same time and similar solar conditions. FT4JA was very near to the equator and was a hot and harsh climate. VP8SGI -South Georgia was on a similar latitude to VK0EK-Heard Island. Probably the most significant difference between these three teams was that VP8SGI and FT4JA teams were comprised of experienced DXpeditioners who are adept at operating at fast rate for long hours. VK0EK had three Science/radio members of their team and only several of the team members were experienced DXpeditioners.

Some of the other factors to consider when trying to decide which DXpedition was the best;

How was their messaging to the DX Community?

Was their news and information clear and concise?

Did the team have pilots and make effective use of them?

Did the team upload logs at least once a day?

Did the team provide for online log checking?

Did they have a website that was updated with relevant information?

Did they use an online QSL request method?

Did the team have an efficient QSL manager?

Did the QSL manager answer questions in a timely manner

Did they operate in a logical style making good use of propagation?

Did they over/underserve any major population areas?

Did they keep their promises?

Did the team publish and follow their stated operating guidelines?

Did the team explain their budget challenges?

As you can see, there are many factors that we can use to judge and evaluate the performance of any given DXpedition. A look at the relevant statistics can help paint a picture of effort and performance. The bottom line is did you work them and was it fun?

What do you think?

  1. Robert H. Pusch, WD8NVN says:

    All three Dxpeditions were superb! Yes, crunching the numbers can keep score on certain performance variables…. But, in my view, at the end-of-the-day, when the ATNO is the log, phone, CW and RTTY; when the ATNO is in the log from 10 meters to 40 meters the Dxpedition is a huge and incredible success from my stand point !

    The ARRL’s DXCC Challenge program puts enormous pressure on thousands of operators to work as many band-modes as possible.. I will be honest, I do not look forward to huge, stress filled pile-ups of future Dxpedition ATNO’s

  2. Rick WA6NHC says:

    Hi Paul,

    I suspect a couple parameters were omitted that are important to most hams and directly affect the sense of any DXpedition.

    The stats are nice and knowing why and where they need money might be important to some (not everyone like to crunch data); that’s history and not everyone appreciates that. The two things that pop into many minds are more basic:

    1) Was *I* able to work them for ATNO and/or band/slots? If not, the underlying impression is less positive, regardless of the team effort. If yes, the impression is more positive. That’s human nature. It’s only after a failure that one takes a look at what can be done better; more power, better antenna, more seat time; but that person has to be reflective and analytical by nature, not all are. Some will just grumble about the team effort while attempting to use minimal antennas.

    2) What is the drama of the day? There are significant dangers inherent to some of the DXpeditions, some of the issues were nail biters. Because of decent communications, the ham world was generally kept up to date (tent blown over and damaged, man overboard survived and recovered, antennas crunched *again*, number of frozen hands; medical issues; sleep, weather, bugs, stench, a hot meal at last!) and could take a more personal interest in the people and the operation; it brings things down to the personal level. People are nosy, er, curious and having a good link ‘back home’ helps raise interest, possibly funding too. It also allows the negatives (not being able to be on XX meters until we fix the YY) to be taken in stride and demonstrates how much of a challenge is being taken (or not, some DXpeditions were tropical, had commercial grade power, meals delivered and laundry done for them). It’s human interest news like this that helps everyone, team and DXer alike.

    After these questions are met; then it’s data and a sense of how things were run. Some of the bars have been set so high (online QSO confirmation in moments from there!?!? ) it’s not reachable to many teams (lack of money and/or logistics).

    With so many data variables in play (not to mention band conditions vary widely at every latitude, cycle moment, time of year, solar storms), there is no level scoring ground; no way to fairly compare the team efforts; so ultimately it comes down to emotion; totally subjective.

    Which is fine, unless one is a robot. 😉

    Rick wa6nhc

  3. k8bkm says:

    Hello Paul,

    I agree with the others that, if I’m in the log I consider it a good DX-pedition. Given that primary reason people go on DX-peditions is to put a rare country on the air, either for an ATNO or a new mode or band, another way to measure success is to measure how far the entity moves down the Club Log most-wanted list a few months after the expedition has concluded. The main problem with this metric is that not everyone uploads their logs to Club Log, and those that do aren’t always very prompt to do so.

    Now, if I don’t get in the log I am not necessarily critical of the expedition. It’s not necessarily the expedition’s job to do all the heavy lifting and work every 100W and a wire station. If you’re a serious DX’er, you have to be equipped to work them on at least one band, and knowledgeable about when and where to call. I was unable to work the most recent VU7 and XX9 expeditions, but I don’t blame them. These were not world-class multi-week mega expeditions, they were just regular Joe’s doing a “holiday style” operation and my station just couldn’t reach them. There will be others.

    You listed some of the top DX’ers in the world in your comparison. I wonder if you would also include the last expeditions conducted by a few others that you didn’t mention, like K9CT, WB9Z, K4UEE and K0IR. In other words, look at the outcome of K5P and K1N. Maybe your comparison wasn’t meant to compare all of the top DX’ers but to showcase a select few.

    Also, I assume you’ve seen this web site that compares Mega DXpeditions,

    Interesting reading. Thank you.

    73, Tom

    • n6pse says:

      Hi Tom, thank you for your comments. I am not sure that I agree with you on how far a DXpedition moves down the most wanted list after an activation is a valid measure of performance. This is more a result of how many DXers upload their logs to Clublog that worked the DXpedition. As much as I like Clublog, I am not one of those DXers that uploads my personal logs to it. I just don’t see the point. A DXpedition can control many factors but they can’t control propagation and they cannot control how many DXers upload their logs to Clublog or LoTW for that matter.

      I am a big fan of K9CT, WB9Z, K4UEE, K0IR and their DXpeditions. Their DXpeditions are the “best of the best”. Their most recent big activations (FT5ZM, K5P, K1N etc) all took place during a much different time in the sunspot cycle.

      • Rick WA6NHC says:

        Paul says: ” As much as I like Clublog, I am not one of those DXers that uploads my personal logs to it. I just don’t see the point.”

        Slightly off topic Paul but if more hams uploaded to a common source, Clublog being the best at the moment, then the data that can be extracted becomes more accurate; such as most wanted entities, simply because it comes from a broader more complete base (global and localized data is then available).

        As a DXpedition member, you could use that data to help decide where the team should go. More accuracy would help to make a more effective location choice.

        This is certainly a case that more is better.

        Does it directly affect the average ham if there were more uploads? I’d say yes.

        Using the OQRS is faster than LOTW in many cases (waiting 6 months for an upload is common to extract the most funding); which also encourages the rest of us to upload often to speed the QSL process. We can discuss sites like Clublog and log uploads from teams in another thread, but the bottom line (to me) is that everyone should participate if they’re serious about getting the most accurate data. It allows a more refined targeting of station needs to meet goals such as improvements.

        Rick nhc

  4. 3z9dx says:

    What about that?
    QSO per day and operator or Unique callsigns worked per day and operator

    I see T31T (2016) with better rate qso/day then famus big expedtitons ,same as Unique/day/operator
    during very low propagation cycle compare to expedtions from late 90’and 2000+

    What you Think?

    • n6pse says:

      The T31T team worked hard and made many contacts each day. Is it still your plan to return for more activity since T31W cancelled?

    • Axel says:

      I’m with Rick, WA6NHC, in this topic. All these tries of comparization between DXpeditions which are not really compareable lack a level comparing ground.
      Sure 2k / day / OP isn’t a big hit itself if you go to a rare enough entity or a small enough team of top operators. To do that from locations like VP8/SSa you just need about 12 (or so) guys able to do 2k / day each who are either retired or able to take 7 weeks off work and a ready to put a bunch of money in to go and do it 🙂
      Oh yes, you always have to to the logistical and technical tasks (while running at the location in harsh environment e.g.) too.

      Axel, DL6KVA

      PS: and yes, I know what it is to operate from T3 as I was in the T33A team too.

      • Rick WA6NHC says:

        Thank you.

        After some reflection… part of the satisfaction element has to do with ease. Palmyra was a cakewalk (and I’m a medium power, dipole station), so I took 17/23 band slots, because I could and my rule is to take all you can (without dupes once you’re showing in the log) because one never knows when that chance will happen again (P5 being a worst case example). This isn’t to say it wasn’t fun, but (because it was easy) my end goal was more than ATNO but to try to fill the entire dance card in order for it to be a challenge. Plus it was a nice distraction when the other two teams weren’t heard here.

        Iran took me YEARS of effort. When I got through AT LAST, I made duplicate Q’s (no online log) because I’ve been stung before like most of us. ALL of them came through and yes, it was HIGHLY satisfactory.

        So part of my scoring system deals strictly with effort and return, from me. Data can be shaded any way the user wants and with so many variables available here, with no effort.

        Ham radio should be fun and shows the results of effort put into it. So rating a DXpedition is subjective; the daily drama, the Q’s racked up, unique calls are interesting things to add flavor, but it has to be FUN.

        Rick wa6nhc

  5. Mike W2LO says:

    It is always a pleasure to read your insightful and well-considered postings on a great variety of DX and DX-related topics, many of which have received little or no previous consideration. I and, I am sure, most of your readers almost always come away with new points to consider. Please keep up your valuable contributions to the DX community via this column. TU!

    • n6pse says:

      Hello Mike-W2LO, I am glad you enjoy my Blog. I don’t always get things right but I am interested in exploring all ideas and I value all opinions whether I agree with them or not.

  6. Lou Dietrich says:

    A slight different perspective! Maybe from another vantage point.

    As one who negotiates with the various entities to activate a few Most Wanted (K5P and K9W), my yardstick is a bit different as to what constitutes a “good DXpedition”. All the statistics mentioned seem, at least to me, as a measure of metrics of one’s personal goals and station capability. Yes, we can measure how many ATNO band modes were worked, or how many Qs per operator were accomplished but does that really measure the effectiveness of the overall operation? Maybe, maybe not.

    A few years ago, we were all satisfied with getting to the top of the Honor Roll with one contact in the log! We were satisfied with a hard QSL after the DXpedition returned. Today, we measure the effectiveness of a DXpedition on how many band/modes we fill and how quickly we know if we are in the log and how fast we get a confirmation.

    Our personal contribution to the perception of a DXpedition’s success involves us! In preparation for the DXpedition, we need to prepare our stations and optimize our operating conditions. Knowledge of propagation, opening times, operating techniques and willingness to put ourselves through tortuous pile-ups are our responsibility. While operating next to a fantastic DXpedition SSB operator, I heard a station lamenting that it took 3 days to get though the piles. To which my fellow DXpeditioner’s response was “Get a better station”!

    Measuring a DXpedition’s effectiveness has to be broader in scope than mere metrics. You are part of the equation.

    On another note.

    Trips to Wake and Palmyra cost the DX community over $200,000 each to accomplish. If we had brought tri-banders and only worked 3 bands would the Wake and Palmyra Teams fall in the category as not effective? If daily uploads of Clublog were not available, would the Team fall into a sub-par rating?

    Measuring operator Q’s and band fills is a rather superficial and specious accounting of DXpeditions’ effectiveness. How many of us worked single operator/ single band operations on our road to Honor Roll? Does that mean those DXpeditions were inefficient?

    Additionally, we seem to discount the effort required to obtain operating permissions in our quest to drive our Challenge numbers up. It appears to be a given that these rare ones can be activated in the first place. That is simply not true! It takes time, effort and initiative and in Paul’s rather lengthy but accurate analysis of metrics, is mostly discounted. This effort is monumental and essential to the DXpedition and has somewhat gotten lost in the discussion.

    Metrics are tangential to providing a new one to a deserving. Isn’t that what a good DXpedition does?

    My 2 cents!

    Lou N2TU

    K9W Team Leader
    K5P Co-Team Leader

    • n6pse says:

      Hello Lou-N2TU,

      Thank you for your input on this interesting topic.

      Yes, many times I have had a DXer lament to me that he just could not work us. I would ask him about his working conditions and his reply would indicate something along the lines of a wire antenna and 100 watts. But somehow it seemed that it was “our fault” that our 1000 watts and Yagi antenna just could not hear or work his station.

      I too believe that we DXers need to make our station work as best as possible, particularly for the ultra rare entities that might only be activated once every 15-20 years.

      Yes, the bar has been raised and expectations placed upon DXpeditions these days are very high. I remember with a chuckle my one and only contact with the Peter 1 DXpedition. Back then, one was enough. Today, I work most DXpeditions on as many bands as possible. I try not to make two contacts per band.

      DXers expect daily log uploads and the ability to check logs. Given today’s technology those expectations are probably reasonable. VK0EK had real time log display and I am afraid that is out of reach for most DXpedition teams and I hope it remains that way. I would rather focus on the important stuff rather than is the satellite uplink working 24X7?

      Sadly, if the K5P team has brought only a tri-bander to Palmyra they would leave many DXers probably feeling frustrated that they weren’t worked on the WARC or low bands. Passions for 160 and 6 meters run very high these days.

      I know fully how difficult it is to get permission these days for the rare one’s. Working with our own Government brings its own challenges and issues. I was glad that you found success in activating Wake Island as my own approach with the Base Commander was shot down previously. I will forever add “Commemorative” to my goal seeking vocabulary.

      I’m not a big believer on metrics. When I was an IT professional I despised them. I consider them only one indicator or tool in the toolbox to look at things. My bottom line is “were they fun to work”

      Thank you Lou for all that you do for the DX Community.

      Paul N6PSE

  7. Roger says:

    I really appreciate those of you who stage DXpeditions. Without you, DXing with the goal of eventually making the Honor Roll would be impossible.

    I take a very simplistic approach to DXing by concentrating on ATNOs. So for me, one ATNO is probably worth a dozen band-slots for a country I’ve already worked.

    I guess this is consistent with the fact that I just barely have entered DXChallenge territory with about 1010 band-countries. Climbing up to 2000 on the Challenge is “way out there” and entering the highest plateau of 3000 would, for me at least, be completely out of my reach.

    I don’t have the greatest antenna. And I only possess mediocre operating skills. In addition, I didn’t get into DXing until relatively late in life — in my mid 60s. .

    73 Roger K5RKS

  8. Lou Dietrich says:


    It is DXers like you that make the work worthwhile!

    When we give our “wrap-up” talks in the various forums around the country/ world, I always ask who needed us for a new one and who was successful. Hands go up and a big smile is pasted on my face. It is extremely rewarding for DXpeditioners to see those hands. It is infinitely more a measure of the DXpedition’s success than the bingo game of filling in band slots for the big guns.

    Interestingly, we usually present “metrics”. Qs per bands, per mode, per operators are presented to an audience who eyes glaze over! Seemingly, the audiences are more interested in the process used to get permission, the equipment used, what antennas and the environment of the DX entity than metrics.

    Measuring a DXpedition’s success based on metrics is fine but does not tell the whole story. LLoyd and Iris Colvin visited hundreds of DX entities. Their exploits brought thousands of smiles to the “deservings'” face yet, if measured by today’s metrics, would be considered failures.

    So before we go down the road to measuring a DXpedition’s “good/ bad”, let’s not mix our needs/ wants with the true measure of success…..a Q in a log for an ATNO.

    Roger, you are the reason for the endless piles of paperwork, submission requests, rejections, escalations, Congressional contacts and pure human effort required to get permissions.

    Focusing on metrics is fine and has its place but it tends to remove the mystique of DXing. Emphasis is place on the wrong syllable and therefore the meaning of the word DXing is blurred.

    Again…my 2 cents.


    Lou N2TU (K5P) (K5W) and who knows where else!

  9. Robert H. Pusch, WD8NVN says:

    After some though and consideration of all the comments, question came to mind: How many active, “true DXers” are there world-wide ?? According to the given information, no more than 24,000..? What defines a true DXer…? Why so few DXers with over 700,000 +- licenses in the U.S.alone

  10. Roger says:

    I believe that 24,000 is a pretty good estimate of the number of DXers. Here is a tabulation of the data from the official ARRL website as of August 28, 2016. I have not done a more recent tabulation.

    HONOR ROLL [Mixed] = 5351
    USA CALLSIGNS = 13,886

    The method I use is that I take the source HTML for mixed DXCC list on the ARRL website on a given date. I then process this list for (a) the total number of call-signs in the list, (b) the number on the Honor Roll, and (c) the number in the USA. The number in the USA means the call starts with AA-AL, N, K, or W. By this reckoning Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, etc. are “in the USA”.

    I also have information for CW, RTTY, and Phone DXCC. I do not have the corresponding info for DXCCs for various bands.

    Here is a historical tidbit relative to the number of DXCC mixed certificates issued as of a particular date in the past. . My DXCC Mixed certificate — dated March 10, 2005 — is numbered 40,075. This number does not compare directly with the 21,168 active DXCC accounts as of Aug 2016 since my DXCC mixed was issued in March 2005. But I think it is clear that only a relatively “small” percentage of DXCC ops who have ever been on the air are still active. This would be only a guess but it is likely that maybe only 20% to 30% of ops who have ever earned DXCC are still active DXers. The rest have likely become inactive on the air and/or are now silent keys.

    If any one has earned the DXCC Mixed certificate in 2016 it would be interesting to compare the number of the certificate [which is based upon the total number of Mixed DXCCs issued since just after WWII] with the 21,168 number [which are the number of active Mixed DXCC accounts as a point in time during 2016].

    I have tabulations of DXCC Mixed, DXCC Phone, DXCC CW, and DXCC Digital at various times dating back to 2008 up until the present.

    73 Roger K5RKS

    • Rick WA6NHC says:

      I too should say thank you to those willing to invest, put their lives on hold and at risk, so we can have a 6 second conversation (perhaps up to 20 seconds if RTTY). Folks uninfected with the DX bug simply shake their heads at us in amusement. But for those of us with the DX disease, your efforts are appreciated.

      The question of how many we are cannot be counted on the ARRL web site. Here’s why: While I’ve gotten well over the required amount of confirmations for DXCC, I don’t care about the paperwork to hang on the wall. If fact, because I take all the new band slots I can, I have enough that I can almost (not quite yet) choose the band or mode to use as the qualifier. So what.

      I don’t have the need (for lack of a better term) to publically parade myself; I compete against me; that’s it. I know I made every contact confirmed, with whatever station I could muster, with my own equipment and THAT is the source of pride, not if I make a list. My goal is to complete the entity list on as many bands as I can, in the time I have left, if I’m allowed. I’ve come to terms that someone will always have a higher count than me since I wasn’t around before some entities were deleted; it fine and I honor those holders because I KNOW it was tougher then (but also there were some better solar cycles too).

      I know I’m not alone in this, there are others who share this belief. On the other hand, I may change my mind and go for the Honor Roll someday, it’s only been 40 years since I got licensed and I expect (hope for) another 30 years. 😉 I’m just not all that competitive.

      In some parts of the world, the sheer expense for an ‘award’ that must be purchased might mean more than it does in affluent areas. Even mailing the application presents challenges, let alone trusting anyone with the hard earned cards (LOTW helps). It’s not the money for me, I just never cared about DXCC; so that metric is inaccurate. If things are that limiting there, I’d rather they continue to chip away at their list, perhaps improve their station and meet their personal goals, than have a piece of paper to compare measurements.

      Which brings us to the question; how many are we, really? I don’t know. And I don’t know how to find out with any precision. Although I would suspect that the percentage of DXers in each entity would be close to constant; it’s human nature.

      If one had access to ALL the logs from DXpeditions; they were collated into the ‘uniques’, then the hard core DXers could be found (they’d be in every log). But DX is more than teams providing contacts… it’s also everyday DXing and there is no way to gather accurate data for metrics.

      It’s probably safe to guess that Clublog has a VERY high percentage of DXers; LOTW not as high (it’s replaced a QSL card in many cases and it’s used for other paper awards). But perhaps a good realistic starting point would be all the LOTW logs AND the Clublog logs.

      But all this is off the topic. Ultimately, it comes down to personal reasons for each of us, which greatly influences opinions on what makes any venture “great”.

      Those who dare, go. Those who can be of assistance, monetarily or otherwise, do. The rest simply enjoy the friendly comradery (sometimes being competitive); the sharing of help with each other and the pride in what they and the team were able to accomplish; talking via radio, around this rock we live on.

      Each of us finds what we need in that. And that, like discussing what’s the best baseball or soccer team, brings us together and is fully subjective; an argument that will never be answered with total agreement.

      Rick wa6nhc

  11. Steve Lund says:

    Hi Paul,

    I am one for metrics. There is a load of observations that can be made from the ClubLog database.

    The DXpeditions that get the fewest gripes have met the following criteria:

    100k or more QSOs
    30k or more uniques

    This is not a guarantee of fairness. C4W met both criteria, but had close to 80% EU contacts and less than 10% NA and even fewer zone 3.

    ClubLog now has more details and you can sort data down to the zone, country and/or US state.

    Thus a better criteria would be what percentage of a target area has been worked. This might not be easy for a DXpedition with limited Internet access to do but a pilot could analyze the data and forward the results to the team.

    Steve, K6UM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s