I haven't had good luck addressing multiple callers.
I can come back with the following,
N1E? QRX WC4E nr1FL bk
WC4E sk nw N1E? nr 2FL bk
and, a lot of times the stn I told to QRX just ain't there...as a matter of
fact just about always.
I have attributed this to a lack of understanding of Q signals, a lot of hams
don't know what QRX means, I'm afraid. I dunno if that is one area that is
still being tested on amateur exams or whether, like geography in the public
school syustem, it has fallen by the wayside.
I would like to say I try to acknowledge both guys to get them to hang
around...I will try and dispose of the fast guy post haste, usually cranking
things up a few WPM (Tree?) knowing he probably will be an easy fast QSO and
then hoping the other guy stayed around...unfortunately it has a low success
rate.
Sometimes it is attributable to the slower caller not having as fast a code
speed and being snowed as to what was sent...hje is actuallly still there and
will call again when I go back to CQing.
If there was a Q signal for two stations calling at once it might be
effective....but then again I tried QBF for QSO before for several years
(think that was W6OAT's suggestion - but not sure) after it was suggested and
nobody seemed to accept it, and with Q signals being Greek to newer hams it
seems this one might be even worse as far as timing for the newer crowd.
Other ideas might be after the pile settles:
R 2 QSOs QRX NW W3LPL NR 3 FL BK
TU NW KF3P NR 4 fl BK
...just a thought, QSL?
k4oj
>From tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) Sun Nov 10 16:32:55 1996
From: tree@lady.axian.com (Larry Tyree) (Larry Tyree)
Subject: Response to DF4SA
Message-ID: <199611101632.IAA08392@lady.axian.com>
Cornelius Paul wrote a nice message about the sport of contesting
and potential impact of technology. This is the kind of discussion
I would have hoped for, rather than just being labeled silly because
my ideal is too radical.
However, I would like to respond, because I don't see it the same way.
> In my opinion, the general problem is that the idea of the contesting sport
> was born before the widespread use of computers. So all the rules, the
> general layout, and all the aspects that made this new GAME a real THRILL
> were invented by guys who did not know about computers. And that is why they
> designed contesting exactly the way it is. Remember, contesting is like a
> game. When inventing it, the guys thought, oh, if we do it that way, it could
> be fun. And nobody was to answer, well but if somebody automates it, it won't
> be fun anymore, simply because no one thought about automation. Now our
> playground is changing, but contesting as the GENERAL IDEA (invented decades
> ago) IS NOT..And that is why it really is getting ridiculous, the more we
> introduce automation into it.
Okay. I agree with most of this. However, here are some "statistics"
on how I see my idea working.
I have received a number of messages from people that all say bascially
the same thing: "Great idea Tree - I have not participated before in
the ARRL Sweepstakes because of the code speeds - but with this feature,
I would be anxious to give it a try."
I doubt many people will bother registering, except maybe 50 or 100
people who might not have particapated, and then another couple of
hundred (or more) that would have anyway.
The thing I am focused on are the people who think this is a great
idea and become active in the contest.
Again, I don't see this being used for much of anything beyond the
ARRL Sweepstakes. The reasons are the long exchange, the long
Sunday afternoon with slow rates, the saturation of the bands with
big loud stations calling CQ over and over, and the lack of new
stations to work. If we can generate some enthusiam and get some
new people to try the contest, I think it is a good thing.
As far as the impact of automation to the sport, I consider having
your code speed change to that shown in a database to be similar to
the .DTA databases that are being used already (like my name database
that tells me your name) and certainly much less of an impact than
packet.
I consider it a natural extension to computer logging.
> BUT everybody would also AGREE, that a ham radio contest held on the internet
> using the same rules and general setup that we have been using for years
> would be absolutely ridiculous and senseless.
Yes it would... last I checked, the ARRL SS wasn't held on the internet.
The only use of the internet is to provide a place for people to enter
the code speed they want to use.
> You already see what I am driving at:
> in my opininon contesting just wasn't invented for the excessive use of
> computers in it.
> Just look at it this way:
> the reason why I liked contesting so much up to now, is, that it is really
> loaded with SEVERAL DIFFERENT kicks you can enjoy if you participate. That
> way, it truly was a sport where winning was not the only pleasure. (A subject
> which appears in nearly every article dealing with the results of a contest)
> Some of the pleasures already fading away are:
>
> - finding a new mult - nowadays partly eliminated by packet spotting
I hate packet spotting and agree that it ruins the sport - BUT a lot of
people enjoy it and they are welcome to play the game with it (just in
a different category - something I wish the DARC would figure out).
> - an old friend calls in and remembers your name - nowadays you have to
> believe, well, he got all the names in a database - no guarantee
> he really knows you
Guilty as charged - but I believe the impact has been positive. I find
myself remembering more and more names as I see them flash on the
screen and the letters and cards I have gotten from people indicate
they appreciate it.
> - the described CW scenario: should I turn down the speed or go on and
> maybe risk loosing time by repeating? Once you might develop a
> feeling for the situation and everytime your experience pays off
> you feel happy - soon to be deleted by another database
Or this - "Should I get on and work some guys in the contest? They
are sending so fast. Let me call one, WOW! he QRSed to my speed the
first time! I don't have to feel bad about asking him to repeat his
exchange and take up his time. This is fun! Let me see who else
I can work".
> - identifying all those calls in a pile-up - partly eliminated by big
> MASTER.DAT
> files. When will we experience AUTOCORRECT functions like in a word
> processing program with several suggestions for the proper call out of
> MASTER.DAT to decide from?
Actually, the database doesn't help too much (maybe a little). There is
DSP technology that can ruin this aspect of the sport much more. I know
one guy is holding back introducing any technology like this and I support
that.
> - exchanging meaningful information - ok, 59905 reports are no computer's
> fault but
> they do not help making things more interesting
The SS does have a meaningful exchange. And if you just use the data
from last year, you will have a lot of QSOs taken out of your log
because enough people move around and it changes.
> Tree says, this feature might attract some newcomers to contesting, as they
> know, they will be treatened with the appropriate code speed now - all they
> have to do is to set their record straight in some database... I say, sad
> story if it has to work that way.
> On the other hand, a lot of you guys ask, why are there so few newcomers,
> especially no young guys? Contesting is aging out, and so on...
> Well, I am 24 years old (you didnt think so?) and I can tell you: some of my
> friends sure would have been interested, but when I told them what this is
> all about, many of them answered things like: this game seems to be a bit
> senseless, if not ridiculous...
Might have a lot to do with how it was presented to them.
> This was not written to flame anybody. Just think about it. I hope we can
> keep contesting alive and interesting as it really is a nice game in general.
Again, thanks for that.
> Sorry for my long explanations, but I am still working on my English to get
> it shorter...
Wow, I forgot that English wasn't your first language.
73 Tree N6TR
tree@contesting.com
|