In a message dated 10/28/2002 1:13:24 PM Greenwich Standard Time,
> No-one asked for a signal report. They didn't need it
> because contest reports are always 59, they have no meaning
> or significance or value, the logging software had already
> entered 59, and we all know that signal reports are not
> cross-checked in CQWW logs.
> Is it time to do away with RS(T) in CQWW, or is it already
Paul, interesting thought!
I have often wondered about we contestors generally PAY NO ATTENTION to RS/T,
but yet we go into excruciating detail on ALL OTHER ASPECTS of contesting.
One thing is obvious: "readability, strength and tone" just are not
important in our present set up of contests. The only place I have seen r
and s important is in county hunting; those guys have really developed their
r and s reporting to a finely honed skill!
I have pondered other ways of reporting r, s and t, but have not yet come up
with something better . We could use, however, a system of reporting the:
QUALITY OF AUDIO (clarity, compression, bandwidth, splatter, backround noise,
etc.) and the QUALITY OF KEYING (weighting, too many dits/dahs in characters,
leading dit/dah cutoff, manual fist, etc.). These are two quality
characteristics that go beyond the present RS/T system, and would be helpful.
Ops receiving poor audio or keying quality reports would/should be
encouraged to make improvements!
Maybe we need a contest protocol that would include audio and/or keying
quality information. The score would be affected by the reports they
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
George I. Wagner, K5KG
Productivity Resources LLC
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/plain (text body -- kept)