I guess that I must be in the minority on this issue, seems like that is
happening more and more often lately.
When I am S&Ping across the band I am usually in a hurry, and the one thing
that I am looking for is "CQ Test". Apparently others do this differently. I
just seems like this is another idea of sending an "unexpected" item to some
one that is both in a hurry and/or tired. My goal is to make complete QSOs
in a hurry, and unexpected things cause mistakes. I feel the same way about
cut numbers.
Now I know if you have worked me at my station or other locations you heard
me send 5NN instead of 599. Frankly I think that 5NN is the expected
response these days. However, other cut numbers are not nearly as common and
require me to rethink what I copied and did I copy it correctly. If I am not
sure I ask for a repeat. This surely wastes more time than the original cut
number and may make the running station lose tempo.
I think that in all of these questions, the answer should depend on if the
modification will get the information copied correctly by the other station
in the shortest time. - Not does it take less time to send it. Since most
stations are just fooling around in the contest and not really trying to
win, my guess is the CQ, or cut number should be in the most expected, and
easy to copy format.
If everyone was as good an operator as some that post here regularly, I
would not have the same opinion, but when my call is posted in the packet
cluster with regularity as WH4X instead of W5VX, I know that many are not
too sophisticated in their CW operating skills. I think this applies to
sending speed too. Most of you know that you have to ride the CW speed
during the contest. Sending fast usually acts like a filter reducing the
pileup and discouraging callers. Slow down and the pileup picks back up. I
find that when running, JA is much more comfortable at 25 wpm, but EU is
more comfortable above 30WPM. Again this is a question weighing the
correctly logged QSOs as opposed to the ego trip of sending real fast. Every
request for repeat, screws up your tempo.
Sorry this is long and it's just my observations from 50 years of
contesting. I guess that I maybe out of touch with some of the new ideas.
Bill, W5VX
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
>bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dale Martin
>Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 11:45 AM
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contest CQ format?
>
>
>> Somewhat distressing and frustrating, I have found in recent
>> contests that many Europeans call their CQs in this format on
>> CW: DD9DD DD9DD TEST AA (using this station as an example
>> and All Asia at the test). As I tune by the frequency, I am
>> waiting for more, like the call at the end of the CQ.
>> Unless I have it backward :>).
>>
>
>Many NA stations do it, too, Al.
>
>While I still "CQ" in contests, I do mix it up with "kg5u kg5u test" 'CQs'.
>I can't yet say one is more effective in netting QSO's than the other--
>being
>QRP makes it tough to make any sort of assessments like that. But, I do
>like the simplicity of 'kg5u kg5u test'.
>
>99% of the people on the air in that part of the band (I'm thinking CW and
>a
>major contest) are in the contest. A good percentage of them are S&P'ing.
>
>Including CQ once or twice in the transmission only eats up more time, time
>better spent giving more pertinent and important information; like my call.
>
>
>Sending "test" at the end of my transmission tells listeners that I'm
>soliciting contest QSO's and not calling a station which had been CQ'ing.
>To me, 'test' IS the 'cq'.
>
>On the flip side, as a frequent S&P'er, I find 'call call test' (or even
>'call test') to be just the QSO solicitation format I need: I don't want
>to
>have to sit through 1,2,3, ad nauseum, CQ's before hearing the callsign and
>determining whether or not he is a dupe. I know right away. If he's
>calling a station, then the absence of 'test' tells me to ESC (clear the
>callsign field) and move on.
>
>I like it. :-)
>
>
>73,
>Dale, kg5u
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|