Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Age? Is ham radio slowly dieing?  (Read 5202 times)
WI8P
Member

Posts: 712




Ignore
« Reply #75 on: April 09, 2019, 01:59:20 AM »

"slowly dying"... Huh


source: ARRL

Uh, I take issue with your graph.  It's a subtle misrepresentation of data.  A more accurate depiction of the number of hams would show a nearly flat line -- with a very slightly increasing slope.  A graph that accurately reflects the relatively low increase in hams "percentage-wise".   Perhaps something like this:



It reminds me of over enthusiastic stock market graphing. The first year is in reality, only an increase of slightly less than 1.3%. Although if the 9,130 new hams got on the air at the same time that year, we would probably all be complaining about that.

A few things from this conversation come to mind:

Saying: Figures lie and Liars figure.

Story: Large company is interviewing a prospective accountant.  They throw a bunch of numbers at him and ask him what the bottom line would be. The prospective accountant leaps from his chair, runs to the door and looks both ways down the outside hallway.  Seeing it is clear, he comes back to his chair and calmly replies: "What would you like it to be?" He got the job.

Russian newspaper headline screams: Great Car Race! Russia comes in second place! America finishes next to last!
The point: There were only two cars in the race.
Logged
K1FBI
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #76 on: April 09, 2019, 02:33:47 AM »

^^
That's funny!
Logged
K1FBI
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #77 on: April 09, 2019, 02:41:40 AM »

Seems like a troll question.................
P.S#2. I got a feeling that the arrl and fcc will be opening coverage to all the bands for the General class liscence coming soon...

It's the latest ARRL proposal and they are calling it Disincentive Licensing! Shocked
Logged
N9FB
Member

Posts: 2360




Ignore
« Reply #78 on: April 09, 2019, 07:03:03 AM »


A few things from this conversation come to mind:

Saying: Figures lie and Liars figure.


1. the graph does skew the rate of growth of our hobby over the past 4 years in order to highlight growth
2. the numbers and dates in the graph are accurate (the number of ham radio licenses in the USA has grown at an average of 7000+ licensees per year from 2014 thru 2018)

so which is the bigger "lie" here:

the ARRL graph or "figuring" that ham radio is slowly dying?
Logged
K1FBI
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #79 on: April 09, 2019, 09:09:43 AM »

Hams are dying; Hams Radio is not!

« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 09:13:19 AM by K1FBI » Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2498




Ignore
« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2019, 09:39:44 AM »


1. the graph does skew the rate of growth

How? The rate of change is the same since it uses the same amounts for each year. Or does the data rate change just because the y axis changes? If so show the math that confirms the rate changed based on the 2 different graphs with the same data points.

Only the visual effect changes, not the actual data being displayed. And with both charts lacking much detail, the only really important facts the graphs show are the actual annual numbers...which are the same.

You can really make it look bad by reversing the y axis so the slope of the line goes down. Yet the actual numbers will still be the same and still indicate accurately the increase in hams per year. Now that's playing visual games.

2. the numbers and dates in the graph are accurate (the number of ham radio licenses in the USA has grown at an average of 7000+ licensees per year from 2014 thru 2018)

That's my point...both accurately show the same numbers.

so which is the bigger "lie" here:

the ARRL graph or "figuring" that ham radio is slowly dying?

With increasing amounts of licenses, how can the hobby be dying?
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
K1FBI
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #81 on: April 09, 2019, 09:50:08 AM »


1. the graph does skew the rate of growth

How? The rate of change is the same since it uses the same amounts for each year. Or does the data rate change just because the y axis changes? If so show the math that confirms the rate changed based on the 2 different graphs with the same data points.

Only the visual effect changes, not the actual data being displayed. And with both charts lacking much detail, the only really important facts the graphs show are the actual annual numbers...which are the same.

You can really make it look bad by reversing the y axis so the slope of the line goes down. Yet the actual numbers will still be the same and still indicate accurately the increase in hams per year. Now that's playing visual games.

2. the numbers and dates in the graph are accurate (the number of ham radio licenses in the USA has grown at an average of 7000+ licensees per year from 2014 thru 2018)

That's my point...both accurately show the same numbers.

so which is the bigger "lie" here:

the ARRL graph or "figuring" that ham radio is slowly dying?

With increasing amounts of licenses, how can the hobby be dying?

The Know Code aspect of the hobby is dying.
Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2498




Ignore
« Reply #82 on: April 09, 2019, 10:07:47 AM »

The Know Code aspect of the hobby is dying.

And that is a bad thing? I don't use CW since I switched to digital. And with some digital modes, it is more robust then CW since my aging ears don't have to actually hear it in the noise to make a solid copy contact. Actually 21st century stuff instead of 20th century stuff. And the main reason I would never support bringing back a code requirement.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
K3UIM
Member

Posts: 386




Ignore
« Reply #83 on: April 09, 2019, 11:44:38 AM »

FIB:
@#$%^&*~ !!!
(Sorry you had to hear that from me!) LOL
Now I have to say 3 Hail Mary's and say aloud the 10 Commandments. (And I'm a Baptist!!! Sheesh!!)
Charlie "Viva La CW!!" K3UIM
Logged

Where you are: I was!
Where I am: You will be!
So be nice to us old fogies!!
N9FB
Member

Posts: 2360




Ignore
« Reply #84 on: April 09, 2019, 06:35:22 PM »

Quote from: WI8P
A few things from this conversation come to mind:

Saying: Figures lie and Liars figure.

Quote from: N9KX
1. the graph does skew the rate of growth

Quote from: W9FIB
How? The rate of change is the same since it uses the same amounts for each year. Or does the data rate change just because the y axis changes? If so show the math that confirms the rate changed based on the 2 different graphs with the same data points.

Only the visual effect changes, not the actual data being displayed. And with both charts lacking much detail, the only really important facts the graphs show are the actual annual numbers...which are the same.

You can really make it look bad by reversing the y axis so the slope of the line goes down. Yet the actual numbers will still be the same and still indicate accurately the increase in hams per year. Now that's playing visual games.

the graph presents a visual trend line that is skewed to the extent it deviates in incline from a graph where the Y axis started at a normal starting point of zero.
as you say the actual numbers are correct so if one looks deeper than merely at the angle of the trend lines nothing is technically mispresented.
and the only reason i acknowledged the fact that the ARRL graph i posted skews the data was because WI8P pointed out how easily we can be misled by the way pictures get framed

Quote from: N9KX
2. the numbers and dates in the graph are accurate (the number of ham radio licenses in the USA has grown at an average of 7000+ licenses per year from 2014 thru 2018)

Quote from: W9FIB
That's my point...both accurately show the same numbers.

agreed -- again, the context for my response was the post made by WI8P where he pointed out how easily information can be presented in ways that promote misleading interpretations (for example see his hilarious example of the Great Car Race) Cheesy

so which is the bigger "lie" here:

the ARRL graph or "figuring" that ham radio is slowly dying?

Quote from: W9FIB
With increasing amounts of licenses, how can the hobby be dying?

the reason i posted the ARRL graph was to ask that exact same rhetorical question Wink
Logged
N9FB
Member

Posts: 2360




Ignore
« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2019, 06:56:04 PM »


Uh, I take issue with your graph.  It's a subtle misrepresentation of data.  A more accurate depiction of the number of hams would show a nearly flat line -- with a very slightly increasing slope.  A graph that accurately reflects the relatively low increase in hams "percentage-wise".   Perhaps something like this:



for some reason, today the graph you posted is showing up for me (whereas earlier there was no graph at all; so apparently the fault was not with the link).

again, the graph i used was from the ARRL and i used it precisely because i find it to be a good counter-balance to the question in this thread's title.
your graph above better portrays the angle of the growth trend line, but its Y axis starts at 100,000 instead of true zero and it also only portrays 2014 thru 2018.
it would show a bigger picture if the X axis represented several decades (instead of just 5 recent years)...
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 07:18:55 PM by N9KX » Logged
K1FBI
Member

Posts: 207




Ignore
« Reply #86 on: April 10, 2019, 12:40:00 AM »

How many of the total license holders are Silent Keys(deceased)? It's hard to get an accurate figure until those licenses expire. In the meantime more Hams expire.

Also how many are active, on the air Hams? I know of several Hams locally who just renew their license because they earned it. Yet, they haven't been on the air in the past 10-20 years.
Some don't even own a rig any more.

Sometimes....Figures don't Figure. Shocked
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 12:43:17 AM by K1FBI » Logged
KC8KTN
Member

Posts: 1883


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #87 on: April 10, 2019, 07:10:22 AM »

This topic is dying. Nuff said. 73s
Everyone please be safe and Enjoy the rest of the week.
Logged
K9MRD
Member

Posts: 384




Ignore
« Reply #88 on: April 10, 2019, 07:56:10 AM »

If I were analyzing this data I would also be looking at the number of hams vs US population from 1960 to date. Results SHOULD/MAY be instructive regarding trend.

Wayne
K9mrd since 1958
Logged
PU2OZT
Member

Posts: 110




Ignore
« Reply #89 on: April 10, 2019, 08:53:28 AM »

If I were analyzing this data I would also be looking at the number of hams vs US population from 1960 to date. Results SHOULD/MAY be instructive regarding trend.

Wayne
K9mrd since 1958

Worth considering % housings in the 60s that had antennas to feed one, or several receivers, radios, televisions vs today's numbers.
In a sense, FM switched (killed) the way we were coping with propagation, and satellites, the way we were communicating with friends and family in remote places or at sea.

No one cares what ether is though quite everyone uses 3G, 4G or 5G.
Which Radio Mindset is remaining, that, would be a pertinent gauge.
 
Oliver
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!