Unless you are blindly calling from a cluster spot or just hoping to figure
it out later you will have most likely heard the tail end of a QSO which
will give you an idea of the running station's confirmation practice whether
it is TU, EE, or something else. You don’t need to listen to many QSOs to
get that. Many times you have to listen to many QSOs just to get the run
station's call (unless again you want to trust a cluster spot).
If I ask for a fill but can't hear you I don't know if you are still there
are not or just covered up by other callers. CQ in that scenario to me in
general means there was no QSO and I need to try again. It can also mean
that the caller missed an ack. While operating as DX I have many cases where
I had a QSO and ack'ed and then had a second QSO with a minute or two with
the same station. My presumption is that the other station missed the ack
for the first QSO.
73, Larry W6NWS
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:53 AM
To: john@kk9a.com ; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Cc: KB3LIX@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NILs hurt
KK9A wrote:
I think it is a very poor practice to receive a report, send your report and
then removed the station from your log unless you have a good reason to
believe that the station did not log you. There should be something in the
rules prohibiting this practice. ... Listen to the operator's operating
style before calling.
-------------------------
When doing fast S&P I will definitely not waste time and wait a few qsos to
check his operating style. And I will not keep a begun qso in my log if I do
not get a proper cfm. What is not uncommon for running stations is to
somewhat terminate an uncomplete qso after one or two requests for a fill
with "CQ de XYZ" - leaving it open whether I´m in his log or not. I once
checked such contacts afterwards to learn that about half of such cases were
not logged by the running station. Leaving the decision about the validity
of the qso to the caller is IMHO very poor practice, too.
Either they have no paddle to send "sri ltr" or "sri nil" or have no
function key programmed with this message - I do not believe that they are
to shy to acknowledge that they could not copy my signal in the time they
want to spend for me. Starting to talk about "punishing" could equally mean
to punish running stations that do not make clear whether the caller is in
the log or not. IMHO both too difficult to prove to put another burden on
logcheckers. How many stations are really out that need the time saving of
omitting "tu" or "sri ltr"? (additinoal qrming requests or NILS possibly
eating up the "saved" time).
73, Chris (DL8MBS)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|