Because it is the very best way to get callers quickly after you start
CQing on a given frequency. If you choose not to take the opportunity
presented, as a matter of some sort of principle, that's your
privilege. I suspect that is a minority view.
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 2/15/2011 8:59 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Why would you?
> Feb 15, 2011 07:51:36 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Indeed. But why wouldn't you?
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
> The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
> spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
> On 2/14/2011 1:37 PM, David Robbins wrote:
>> That is of course assuming you want the skimmers to spot you.
>> Feb 14, 2011 01:28:31 PM, email@example.com wrote:
>> Thanks to an off-reflector message from KU5B (which I have somehow
>> misplaced), I can confirm what I thought had happened. He did not use
>> the key words "TEST" or "CQ" in his CQ message, so CW Skimmer did not
>> recognize him to be calling CQ.
>> There are some other key words that would have worked the same way, but
>> Alex has asked me not to talk about CW Skimmer details. However, I
>> don't believe "NA" is on the list, and it should be.
>> As it is currently configured, the RBN Aggregator software, which each
>> RBN station runs to send information to the server, does not forward
>> non-CQ spots to the "mother ship". This is because to do so would badly
>> overload the server. That precludes our doing any post-processing, to
>> identify runners that Skimmer has missed.
>> In coming months, we may be able to change this, but for ARRL DX, I
>> suggest putting TEST in your CQ messages periodically to make sure
>> you're recognized.
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
>> The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
>> spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
>> On 2/13/2011 7:55 PM, Dave/Sally Cockrum wrote:
>>> With the news that the Russian DX Contest will want additional
>>> information from QRP and LP entrants so that a comparison between
>>> signals can be made using the Reverse Beacon Network, I decided to
>>> compare the results for the recent Sprint CW contest. I compared the
>>> top five LP stations in the 3830 results (in order: KU5B, K7BG, N9CK,
>>> N5DO, and N7CW) for February 6 using the Signal Comparison Tool . I
>>> selected the Reverse Beacon from K3LR because it had the most spots on
>>> that day -- 11,011. Nothing dramatic jumped out at me from looking at
>>> the graphs comparing the signals, except for one thing: The number of
>>> times each station was spotted by the Reverse Beacon. Those were
>>> surprising: KU5B was spotted 0 times, K7BG 58 times, N9CK 0 times, N5DO
>>> 72 times, and N7CW 63 times.
>>> The leading station and number 3 were never spotted at all!
>>> I thought maybe it was a propagation issue, so I picked a leading
>>> Reverse Beacon from the west coast, WA7LNW, with 6,038 total spots on
>>> that day. The same pattern occurred: KU5B 0 spots, K7BG 46 spots, N9CK
>>> 0 spots, N5DO 37 spots, and N7CW 12 spots.
>>> Is this some artifact of the Sprint contest? Is there something in the
>>> way KU5B and N9CK called CQ that led to them not being spotted? And is
>>> there a secret to being spotted more often? How will results like this
>>> effect the ability of the RBN to be an investigative tool?
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list