[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Is working the QSO B4 good on long term for us ?

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is working the QSO B4 good on long term for us ?
From: VE2TZT <ve2tzt@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 20:27:56 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Each year during the 160m ARRL I can see a noticeable increase of the QSO B4 based on an average 1400 Q's worked during the contest.

Last year I got about 70 and this WE if I had not decided to stop working them at 40 I would have passed the 100 bar out of 1500 QSO's.

Then I am wondering if on the long term the politic consisting of working them systematically is a good thing. Of course there are plenty of different reasons why people are making mistakes and calling a second time (or a third...) by if it does not get the feedback of its error, on the long term this population is encouraged in its wrong practice. Then, not only will not progress but even will regress as it seems to me year after year.

By the way an example of a very bad side effect of that politic : I made the mistake to accept to work an European station QSO B4. A few minutes later I got a pile-up with an avalanche of QSO B4. I immediately understood that the European station had spotted me with a wrong callsign. Being at a time when free run frequencies were rare I could not change, then I refused all the QSO B4 and repeated two times my callsign expecting that a cleaver guy will send a correction spot. After the contest I see that it is exactly what happened.

It is after that bad experience that I have decided to systematically refuse the QSO's B4.

After all, if my callsign is busted in the other guy log, I do not lose the points but he lose the points and if he answers ''NO'' when I send QSO B4 then I will work him without discussion.

Interested by your opinion on that point.

Gilles VA2EW

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
CQ-Contest mailing list

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