Got my new QST the other day, and see that they have
removed contest rules and placed them on the internet
instead. Guess I also saw this in the November issue,
but it really stood out in the most recent one. In
the contest rules place, they have put "contest
announcements". These contest announcements basically
describe the gist of the contest, and in my opinion,
they look like they are written for an 8 year old.
They have little cutsy "Why you should enter this
contest" and "Quirks" sections. I hope that things
haven't degraded so far that we have to use this type
of language to explain things to hams. Just put the
rules back in and get away from the touchy feely
stuff.
They figure we are smart enough to go to the web to
read contest announcements, but not smart enough to
figure out why I should enter a contest. Have you
ever noticed that every time QST takes something out
(contest scores, rules, section news) it usually gets
replaced with something that looks like it was written
for complete idiots. Witness the "Doctor is in"
column. I hope these are not real questions sent in
by readers. If most of them are, the FCC definitely
need to think about toughening the licensing
requirements.
73 John NE0P
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
>From Peter Grillo, Sr." <ah3c@frii.com Fri Nov 15 01:17:16 2002
From: Peter Grillo, Sr." <ah3c@frii.com (Peter Grillo, Sr.)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SS CW thoughts
References: <004e01c269cc$8c563520$38c214ac@guilford.edu>
<5.1.1.6.0.20021105065609.020d0138@pop.earthlink.net>
<3DC97690.1160BE80@worldnet.att.net>
<014201c285e1$6d6274e0$b69ffea9@oemcomputer>
<038201c289b7$9609a470$0100a8c0@TL01>
<4.2.0.58.20021114123213.009f4a50@mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <001c01c28c44$bd5dc8a0$0100a8c0@oemcomputer>
What's wrong with the CW operator sending CW now & then to manually correct
repeats? That way, the number sequence is never impacted. After all, we
are not robots.....or, are we?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Pruett" <k8cc@comcast.net>
To: "Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x@kr6x.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS CW thoughts
> At 06:16 PM 11/13/02 -0800, Leigh S. Jones wrote:
> >I'm going to have to disagree with Mark here. Both CT and NA are
> >notorious for sending the wrong QSO number by 1.
>
> I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. I will not speak
for
> CT or TR, but with NA there is a clear, definite logic as to the serial
> number sent:
>
> THE SERIAL NUMBER SENT IS ALWAYS THE NUMBER OF THE QSO THE CURSOR IS ON
>
> The problem comes when you've logged the QSO, and the station at the other
> end wants a repeat. The correct way to do this is to MOVE BACK TO THAT
QSO
> AND PRESS THE KEY TO SEND THE EXCHANGE. However, some users don't do that
> - they just press the key (on the blank QSO line, since they just logged
> the QSO they are repeating) and hence send one higher than the number they
> should.
>
> The answer to this, some will say, is that if the line is blank the
> previous number should be sent. This will correct the described
condition,
> but creates another.
>
> Suppose you QRZ, and somebody dumps the call back fast and you can't get
it
> entered; you send the call on the paddle then press the key to send the
> exchange. To use another example from WPX or most any contest other than
> SS with serial numbers: you dump your call in a pileup, but you don't know
> the other station's call yet; he sends the exchange, you hit the key to
> reply with your exchange; on his QRZ you get his call and log the QSO.
>
> Many years ago NA used to "send the previous number on a blank line", but
> we found it to be a problem. The "always send the number the cursor is
on"
> is certain, and experience has proven it to be less troublesome. Other,
> "fuzzy logic" algorithms which guess at which the operator intends creates
> uncertainty and, I would argue, more errors.
>
> My reason for using the bandwidth for this explanation is to make the
point
> that NA (or CT or TR) are not *notorious* for sending wrong numbers. As
> long as a certain set of keystrokes produces the correct result, the fault
> is operator error. One can argue that a particular set of keystrokes
might
> not be "user friendly", but that is a different discussion.
>
> Dave/K8CC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|