CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] 579

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] 579
From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:09:21 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I thought I saw somewhere that in order to consider a QSO valid, you
had to exchange callsigns and one other piece of information. The
other piece of info can be anything. We typically exchange signal
reports as DXers but on VHF it's usually grid squares. Exchanging
signal reports on VHF is more rare.

Some contests don't have a signal report as part of the exchange, e.g. NAQP.

73, Zack W9SZ


On 3/24/13, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com> wrote:
>
> Well, actually it IS a bad analogy because it isn't an analogy at all.
> Saying that signal reports aren't checked for DXCC and saying that DXCC
> doesn't require a signal report is exactly the same thing.  Please
> explain the difference if you disagree.
>
> Dave   AB7E
>
> p.s.  Please tell us which major contests you know of that verify signal
> reports as part of the log checking process and assign a penalty for an
> error.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/24/2013 3:35 PM, Tom Frenaye wrote:
>> At 02:47 PM 3/24/2013, David Gilbert/AB7E wrote:
>>
>>> 1.  Log checking does not include the signal report for any major contest
>>> I'm aware of.  It isn't even checked for DXCC.
>>
>> And DXCC does not require a signal report.  Bad analogy.
>>
>>     -- Tom/K1KI
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>