[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:42:41 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Albert, I agree with you... to a point.

Here's the problem with not working dupes.

In a given contest, I don't have you in my log on 20 meters, but you think
that you do (let's say for the sake of argument that you actually worked my
friend Bill W3WH, but due to QRM or QRN logged my call).

Scene 1:
-- I call you.  You tell me "dupe worked b4" on Phone or "WKD B4" on CW.

-- Now, I KNOW you haven't worked me on that band.  So I keep calling, and
calling, trying to tell you it's a mistake.  I don't give up for 5 or 10
minutes.  As much as you ignore me or tell me to go away (politely or
otherwise), how many other signals am I interferring with or covering up?

Scene 2:
--  I call you.  You respond with your report, I with mine, I move on, you
get back to calling CQ TEST.  20-30 seconds or so, tops.

Yes, you've logged another dupe... and it took a few moments, but many less
than in the first case where I keep trying and trying.

So, are you better off minimizing dupes, or tolerating a small percentage in
terms of efficient use of time QRV?

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:29:28 -0000
From: "Albert Crespo" <f5vhj@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Dupes
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>

I had 131 dupes in CQWW PH while operating as 6W1RY, all by stations calling
me. That is a dupe rate of 2 1/2 percent. That seems a constant over the
years, even with free contest software available like CT.

Dupes are not harmless. Under the layer of the dupe station, is somebody
else that maybe calling that gives up and moves on while you work the dupe.

So, for the over 80+% of the stations in the entire contest that fall within
the casual classification that are just on to give out QSO's, using good
operating practices and making sure they are not working a dupe is

I seldom am concerned about a station sending there call to make sure I have
them correctly. This is usually done by a weak station. I would rather be
sure of a call rather then having a busted call in the log.

In big pile ups, it is not so easy for the calling station to really know
whom the station is coming back to. To just keep the rate up can produce  a
lot of NIL's showing up.

Hopefully someday people who operate in contest will get the idea that
having a call like WQ0WWK maybe cute, but easy to bust.

73, Albert

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of john@kk9a.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 04:54
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: kr2q@optonline.net
Subject: [CQ-Contest] to dupe or not to dupe

I agree that you should work the dupes.  It is fast, harmless and it can do
some good if the previous QSO was a bust.  I accidentally duped one well
known highly skilled operator this weekend and he simply gave me another
report and we moved on.  I remember being aggravated in the 2006 WPX CW when
a VE5 club station refused to work me because he thought we were a dupe.  I
never did get that prefix multiplier.   As far as sending the stations
callsign, please do not send my call or your call again, unless of course I
have it incorrect, when you work me.  It is a real rate killer.

John P40A

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] to dupe or not to dupe
From: kr2q
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:32:45 +0000 (GMT)

Dear DO, et al:

1.  Unlike SS where you MUST send both calls, a typical qso in CQWW is:
   a.  a bunch of guys send their call
   b.  one station is called in reply and gets a signal report
   c.  the "chosen" station sends back ONLY an exchange
   d. the CQer starts up againThis means zero confirmation of who the caller
really working.
Guys on adjacent (or overlapping) QRGs think you are working them, hence
laterwhen you actually call them.

SOLUTION:  Always send "the other guy's callsign" with the exchange

2.  Did you notice how often those replying to a CQ or QRZ call "a mile" off
What happened to this latest crop of contesters?  No idea how to even get
to thesending QRG?

It was pitiful..and no, these were not guys try to "stand out" by tuning off
I think they just had the RIT or XIT on and didn't know it or are just
inexperienced at
how to zero.

I know I called one guy on the correct frequency and was heard another guy,
probably 800hz
up, think I was calling him.  I got an exchange and everything.  Sadly, I
didn't copy this call
and he then left, so somebody has me in their log and I sure don't have them
my log.

With all the emphasis on "be sure to tune around your xmit QRG for guys
off freq, it seems that phantom qso's are on the increase.

3.  Only a fool would not give out another qso to someone who is calling
but whom they
show as a dupe.  It takes longer to send "CALLSIGN QSO B4" than it does to
5nn10 (not picking on HC8N, it's just that 10 is the longest zone number to
send if you don't
cut it).

If some guy tries to dupe you 3 or more times, I can see getting frustrated
telling him to
buzz off; otherwise, just work him.

None of is new...all very well known and accepted and discussed ad naseum

So...if you're a newbie contester....just work the dupes.

de Doug KR2Q

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [CQ-Contest] Dupes, Ron Notarius W3WN <=