[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage, other observations

To: jpescatore@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage, other observations
From: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:48:40 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 2/26/2009 5:05 AM, John K3TN wrote:

> Two other Rip Van Winkle observations: (1) The Packetcluster
 > monster has become to HF operation what spam is to Internet
 > email.  There is a nugget of usefulness that is way overloaded by the
 > downside - the equivalent of spam filtering is badly needed for
 > packetcluster operations.

Are there bad spots?  Sure there are.  I don't know the percentage, but 
I don't think it's nearly as dire as you portray.

Part of what distinguishes good operators from poor ones is the ability 
to log the callsign correctly, whether that call was copied over the air 
or grabbed from a packet spot.  Being able to tell a busted spot from a 
good one is a skill, the same as tuning across a raspy station sending 
5NN T75 reminds you that you've already worked this station, even 
without hearing the call.

73 - Jim AD1C

Jim Reisert AD1C/Ø, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.us
CQ-Contest mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>