Friends,
A few more thoughts:
KL7SB - My personal opinion is that in a perfect world, we would all ID every
QSO. But please, you are not the guy we are griping at. You are a very good
op, and every third QSO only in the heat of the battle is not so bad. It's the
really serious abusers that frustrate me. Please do what you think best, as we
will some honest disagreements as to whether every three is OK or not, but you
are not the problem here!
The other fellow (sorry, forgot the call) about just having fun and not being
vindictive. You are right and it is a good message to throw in the mix. This
isn't an attack. That being said, we can still strive for best practices, and
this can include up to DQ for the really bad actors.
The point about the CQ 1 minute guideline is well taken. It's a good start and
should be enforced as a minimum. But it's not enough - to put this in
perspective, if widely followed it would mean a top S&P rate could be < 50/hr.
Who here thinks that is something to strive for?
Re naming names; sure, why not? CE2MVF, shame on you. I heard over 30 QSOs in
a row and no ID. I could name about 20 other stations. but please guys, take
this thread as a public statement of our frustration and change your behavior.
We aren't looking for a war, just good operating procedure. Good means good
for everyone, *not just your rate*.
On the positive side, congrats to AA3B as an example. He operates with
terrific scores from V26 and I hear him ID just about every QSO. There are
lots of other such great ops.
The ARRL DX writeups will be coming soon. I am authoring one of them (SSB).
Other than the normal stats, what topics do you folks think should be noted?
The printed magazine article is required to be quite short, but I think the
extended web article could benefit from some valid discussion if it is done in
good positive spirit.
So far I am hearing:
- Clicks and wide signals
- IDing
Anything else? And for goodness sake, please send me some stories and pictures!
73,
Drew K3PA
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Drew Vonada-Smith <drew@whisperingwoods.org
> wrote:
> All,
>
>
> Key clicks and GJ0KE were indeed annoying this contest. But what drove me
> nuts, and I am surprised not to be reading it from others yet, was the "No
> ID while running" situation. ***It has gotten much worse***. The practice
> seems to be most evident in SA and the Caribbean.
>
>
> I heard *many* stations not IDing for a dozen QSOs. I heard one not ID
> for over 15 minutes - I felt compelled to stay there and measure it. This
> destroys the rate of people doing unassisted S&P. Many good contesters in
> the Caribbean make great rates and ID every or nearly every QSO. So this
> practice is a way to improve your rate by a tiny fraction at the cost of a
> HUGE impact on others. This is not within the spirit or rules of any
> contest. It is poor sportsmanship at best.
>
>
> To make it worse, a few stations (and I will name names from my notes if
> asked) refused a fill even when working a station asking "Call?" And I
> heard one pointedly answered "NO" when a dozen in the pileup repeatedly
> asked for "CALL?" This isn't just bad practice, it is spitting in the face
> of others who operate skillfully.
>
>
> I've actually had contesters tell me proudly how efficient they were
> because after each QSO in a big run, they skip the TU and their call and
> just send a dit. We need to change this mindset.
>
>
> Perhaps no rule changes are needed. But I call upon all of you to join in
> publicly noting that this isn't acceptable. And I call upon sponsors to
> get tough on abusers. If no reasonable attitude is forthcoming, the
> solution is to require a callsign every QSO. That may be seen by some as
> "extreme", but IMHO, this is best practice in any case.
>
>
> 73, Drew K3PA
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Charly, HS0ZCW
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:43:50 +0700
From: Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com>
To: Mike Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>
Cc: Contest List <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Another grip..... Slow down!
Message-ID:
<CAJocjyi3zCJy_DneL9NB_UsBGZ9TXds1VAHY6LjFMVLh__ToeA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hey, there is a HS5 "over here."
I try to set my sending speed a few WPM over the hi speed guys. Chuckles
hearing them try to get HS.
Charly
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Mike Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
> I am constantly amazed how some stations, especially in EU and the
> Caribbean seem to think that CW contests are High Speed Telegraphy tests!
> They don't realize it, but it HAS to be detrimental to their score, unless
> there are enough stations that can decode 35-40 WPM that it doesn't matter
> to them. What they don't realize is that the fast stations, especially ones
> with a lot of dits, are often going to be copied wrong in the logs, but
> also will be spotted with the wrong callsign as well! I can't tell you how
> many times I saw 6Y1D spotted as BY1D, but it was spotted much more often
> wrong more than right, so that has to be an issue for then
>
> Picking out an EI, or S5 station out of the polar flutter is hard enough.
> Slow down a few WPM, and watch rates and accuracy actually improve!
>
> 73;
>
> Mike, W7VO
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Charly, HS0ZCW
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:50:40 -0500
From: David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>
To: CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Cc: Bj?rn SM0MDG <bjorn@sm0mdg.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Key Clicks in ARRL DX CW
Message-ID:
<CACYCL2HBpw2fspaA7rXbM+g1o5rJ7NFN2C79XU+ENHEmVXLPEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
W1AEX already beat you to it, at least for SSB. In the spirit of getting
into the proper frame of mind for ARRL Phone, you can view his "Hall of
Infamy" at:
http://www.w1aex.com/hoi/hall_of_infamy.html (warning: not "contest"
oriented, but same principle).
For readers who are unintended offenders rather than intentional habitual
offenders, which includes most (I hope), you will find a review of
suggested "clean-up" resources in my December 2015 and January 2016 CQ
Magazine Contesting column. For phone ops, I also recommend checking out
K9YC's excellent article in the March-April NCJ. There's a few intentional
wide-signal contesters, but I continue to believe that most such signals
are unintentional and a little knowledge would help clean them or help in
rig selection next time around.
The cleanest rig out of the box in clicks with rise time set correctly and
not adjustable, and least transmitted IMD, is the Elecraft K3/K3S. But
many others are acceptable if correctly used, and hopefully some of the SDR
radios will spend the time and at least equal the K3S without additional
add-ons. One advantage of SDRs is that they can be improved with new
software. (I am not a K3 user myself, but I admire their industry-leading
clean transmit signals when properly run.)
73, Dave K3ZJ
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bj?rn SM0MDG <bjorn@sm0mdg.com> wrote:
> With SDR and panadapters becoming more and more used in contests, why not
> a ?wall of shame? where screen shots of CW clicks and SSB splatter can be
> posted?
>
>
> 73 de Bj?rn,
> SM0MDG
> SE0X
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net
> <mailto:k5zd@charter.net>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > We added the signal quality rule to CQWW, but we receive only 1 or 2
> direct
> > and specific complaints after the contest. We need more of those to
> gauge
> > impact and to know where to look.
> >
> > This is problem that is going to take a long time to fix, but it has to
> > start with peer pressure. I.e., naming names publicly and often. Stop
> > saying things like "S5 station" and actually say their call.
> >
> > Randy, K5ZD
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:06:10 +0200
From: Jukka Klemola <jpklemola@gmail.com>
To: George K5KG <georgek5kg@aol.com>
Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] [YCCC] Key Clicks in ARRL DX CW
Message-ID:
<CAJa3Y13qxx7E+gnYEieTaYquvKMHCVjdVM=_8AFTFusJcurV_w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
George, others ..
Please consider the panadapter may show strong signals as wide.
Most web sdr receivers show strong signals wide.
Please verify the wide signals that they actually are wide.
In case of strong signals, the actual width may be produced even by your
noise blanker.
Correct tuning set for the receiver are as important as correct settings
for transmitter.
73,
Jukka OH6LI
2016-02-22 21:46 GMT+02:00 George K5KG via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest@contesting.com>:
> Ok, I will name names. TO7A in FM gets the KEY CLIX AWARD FOR 2016! He
> was not only massively loud [a good thing], but his clicks were absolutely
> terrible. At one point, I told him "om bad clix", but he did not respond,
> and continued his run. TO7A was not the only station with bad key clicks;
> TI5W was another one that I made a note of. Unfortunately, those were the
> only two stations I noted with bad clicks. In the future, I will make a
> list of the ones I run across. They are easy to spot, not only with the
> ears, but with the P3 panadapter.
>
> 73, George, K5KG
>
> On 2/22/2016 8:24 AM, Barry N1EU wrote:
>
>> Great point Randy! The untenable fact now is that those using clean
>> transmitters (esp K3) are clearly at a disadvantage when running because
>> they're just sitting ducks, i.e. inviting someone to get real close to
>> them and click all over their run frequency.
>>
>> Barry N1EU
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <k5zd@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The challenge is that the problem is asymmetric. It is all good for the
>>> clicker in that he gets a clear frequency. And there is little that a
>>> station not clicking can do in response.
>>>
>>> We added the signal quality rule to CQWW, but we receive only 1 or 2
>>> direct
>>> and specific complaints after the contest. We need more of those to
>>> gauge
>>> impact and to know where to look.
>>>
>>> This is problem that is going to take a long time to fix, but it has to
>>> start with peer pressure. I.e., naming names publicly and often. Stop
>>> saying things like "S5 station" and actually say their call.
>>>
>>> Randy, K5ZD
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: YCCC [mailto:yccc-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Barry N1EU
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:57 PM
>>>> To: YCCC
>>>> Subject: [YCCC] Key Clicks in ARRL DX CW
>>>>
>>>> (FYI - I just posted this to CQ-Contest)
>>>>
>>>> Instead of the situation improving over the past 15 years with more
>>>> awareness, key clicks on the bands during contests have gotten much
>>>> worse.
>>>> I've copied excerpts from score postings from W1UE and N1EU below.
>>>>
>>>> Two groups of contest operators are going to be much more aware of the
>>>> problem than others: those who run a lot (and experience the clarity and
>>>> usability of their run frequency deteriorate over time) and those
>>>> equipped with panadapters. I also suspect that east coast operators are
>>>> going to be impacted more due to stronger European signal levels.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the situation doesn't bother most contesting folks as much as
>>>> me. I really think it has gotten bad enough to warrant extreme measures
>>>> - we've got the tools to monitor/playback spectrum. Wide signals simply
>>>> should NOT be tolerated and operators should be disqualified.
>>>>
>>>> The other measure I'd really like to see is an S&P only category because
>>>> I, for one, would like to throw in the towel entirely on running during
>>>> cw contests.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Barry N1EU
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Dennis Egan <egan.dennis88@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sunday afternoon on 40M was a true click-fest. I had a good 40M
>>>>> frequency, with a rate of about 80. Gerry W1VE then nestles in 400
>>>>> cycles up, and I started getting key clicks, destroying the frequency
>>>>> for Rx. I slid up to chastise him for the clicks, but when I got on
>>>>> his frequency I could still hear the clicks- his station wasn't
>>>>> generating them! I went up another 4 KHz, and the offender was an S5
>>>>> station occupying about 20KHz of spectrum with his key clicks! His
>>>>> station was only S6- if he could have channeled the power expended on
>>>>> his clicks into his signal, he probably would have been S9.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lastly, I have to say that I ended the weekend with a bad taste in my
>>>>> mouth from the rampant key clicks on the band and the recurring
>>>>> experience of having my clear run frequency eventually being
>>>>> over-ridden by key clicking neighbors getting too close, over and over
>>>>> and over again. I'm not sure if having the P3 panadapter is a good
>>>>> thing or a bad thing, because it clearly shows the band filled with
>>>>> wide key clicking signals. It's really sad that the ham radio
>>>>> community has never come to grips with this solvable issue. It has
>>>>>
>>>> seriously spoiled cw contesting for me.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> YCCC Reflector mailto:yccc@contesting.com Yankee Clipper Contest Club
>>>> http://www.yccc.org Reflector Info:
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/yccc
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
> --
> George Wagner, K5KG
> Sarasota, FL
> 941-400-1960
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 158, Issue 26
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|