CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Log dupes in SS (or any 'Test)

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Log dupes in SS (or any 'Test)
From: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:26:41 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Unless a station is very difficult to copy, I work them again.  I do not
have a "B4" macro and even in a contest with a long exchange like last
weekend's SS it is still better to just to work them again.  This ensures
that you both have a good QSO.  Many things can happen when spending hours
on the radio, a person can miscopy a callsign, not be 100% sure that he
copied the exchange previously or a contact can be accidentally wiped out
due to lack of saving it before the next QSO.

John KK9A - W4AAA



To:     Art Boyars <artboyars@gmail.com>
Subject:        Re: [CQ-Contest] Log dupes in SS (or any 'Test)
From:   Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:55:40 -0500


Thanks for bringing this up.

There were several folks sending "QSO B4", and I am not sure what the
purpose of it was.
Clearly, EVERYONE is using computerized logging these days, and if one
person decided it is not a dupe, best bet is to work him again.  Yes - I
worked several dupes, and was happy to do so.

I infer the "QSO B4" types expect me to go search through my log, figure
out what time I worked him, how I busted his call, and go back and fix it...

Bottom line is - quicker to just work him again!

Not quite sure how to handle a busted call on the cluster - that seems to
be a separate issue, but it does help find the folks claiming unassisted,
then working the "busted spot", and NOT using the cluster :-)

Tom - VE3CX

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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