[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] CQWW and Signal Reports

Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and Signal Reports
From: Georgek5kg@aol.com (Georgek5kg@aol.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 09:31:23 2002
In a message dated 10/28/2002 1:13:24 PM Greenwich Standard Time, 
paul@ei5di.com writes:

> 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
> optional?

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.

73, Geo...

George I. Wagner, K5KG
Productivity Resources LLC
941-312-9460 fax
201-415-6044 cell

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
  text/plain (text body -- kept)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>