Well, Dale, I prefer something a little more familiar to me -- especially if
I am in a hurry also.
I learned my CQ style for contests many years ago. It is always a variation
of CQ Contest, this is VE1AL, CONTEST! On CW, I send CQ TEST de VE1AL TEST.
I don't vary that much, except to extend it depending on the band
conditions.
My observation was that this "new style" (God knows where it came from --
maybe Citizen's Band) is not at all traditional and it is not a variation on
the traditional style we OTs know.
Basically, it leaves me wondering what's coming next -- I like to hear the
guy's call at the end of the transmission, before he says TEST or K.
It is bad enough that I have to decipher cut numbers (I ask for a repeat
now, just for the bedevilment) to slow down the idiot who uses cut numbers
other than 9 and 0.
And although I can copy well-sent CW at speeds up to 45 wpm (or faster if
he's really good), these guys who rattle off 40+ wpm badly get a query from
me too.
Just my little rant after a frustrating weekend playing around in AA.
73
Al, VE1AL
_______________
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dale Martin
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:45 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest CQ format?
> Somewhat distressing and frustrating, I have found in recent contests
> that many Europeans call their CQs in this format on
> CW: DD9DD DD9DD TEST AA (using this station as an example and All
> Asia at the test). As I tune by the frequency, I am waiting for more,
> like the call at the end of the CQ.
> Unless I have it backward :>).
>
Many NA stations do it, too, Al.
While I still "CQ" in contests, I do mix it up with "kg5u kg5u test" 'CQs'.
I can't yet say one is more effective in netting QSO's than the other--being
QRP makes it tough to make any sort of assessments like that. But, I do
like the simplicity of 'kg5u kg5u test'.
99% of the people on the air in that part of the band (I'm thinking CW and a
major contest) are in the contest. A good percentage of them are S&P'ing.
Including CQ once or twice in the transmission only eats up more time, time
better spent giving more pertinent and important information; like my call.
Sending "test" at the end of my transmission tells listeners that I'm
soliciting contest QSO's and not calling a station which had been CQ'ing.
To me, 'test' IS the 'cq'.
On the flip side, as a frequent S&P'er, I find 'call call test' (or even
'call test') to be just the QSO solicitation format I need: I don't want to
have to sit through 1,2,3, ad nauseum, CQ's before hearing the callsign and
determining whether or not he is a dupe. I know right away. If he's
calling a station, then the absence of 'test' tells me to ESC (clear the
callsign field) and move on.
I like it. :-)
73,
Dale, kg5u
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|