Not really missing the point, tyvm.
When people don't ID, the (busted) cluster spot is what goes in the log
because there is no chance of the caller hearing the actual callsign when
the cqing station keeps it a secret.
And no, many people don't question it. You think everyone is a seasoned
DXer and contester? Think again. You were there once I'm sure too, I'm
sure, thinking far away places could be "loud" in what a seasoned DXer and
contester knows are improbable conditions. It's called being a newbie or
just being ignorant of propagation. Often you learn by experience.
We often take our own knowledge of propagation and for granted.
Newbies or not really serious operators will take the cluster spots as
gospel.
ID frequently. I promise it won't kill your rate, and may actually help it.
Ria
N2RJ
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> wrote:
> I think you are missing the point, Ria.
>
> The question Mike asked was: Are you just too lazy to question a loud,
> clear BY on 40m, beaming south, when it's high noon in Beijing?
>
> IMO it has nothing to do with how many times the op sends his call.
>
>
> Yuri VE3DZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Ria Jairam
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:41 PM
> To: Mike Tessmer; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Are you a Clueless Cluster Clicker?
>
> One reason that cluster clickers could just enter erroneous callsigns are
> the ops who just keep calling QRZ instead of giving their call. They're
> encouraging people to use often busted cluster data by not identifying
> frequently. I try to ID after every QSO but even if I don't, I don't go 10
> minutes without IDing. I don't even go 2 minutes without IDing. Maybe we
> should be encouraging fewer of this behavior by not working them when they
> don't ID?
>
> Ria
> N2RJ
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:33 PM Mike Tessmer <mtessmer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I've read a number contest reports from the recent ARRL DX contests
> > where DX ops share their annoyance with the large number of dupes -
> > all the result of erroneous cluster spots. I've experienced the same
> > in previous DX operations.
> >
> >
> >
> > This past weekend I listened to an exasperated S54ZZ on 80m tell
> > caller after caller "We've worked before, we've worked before" all
> > because he was erroneously spotted as S51ZZ. He'd give his
> > call....and the guys just kept calling. And when he'd tell them they
> > had already worked they'd just say
> > "59 <state>". VE3DZ/6Y2T (BY2T) and the P40R (PV0R) ops both noted
> > over
> > 500
> > dupes in the CW contest - all because of erroneous cluster spots. The
> > erroneous spots are bad enough, but what is worse (pathetic, really)
> > is the large number of the regular, high scoring multi-op stations and
> > assisted/unlimited stations that feed these piles - guys who have been
> > around for a long time, and presumably might have a clue. Plenty of
> > other "calls" made the highlight reel this past weekend: JX5J (ZX5J),
> > TT3Z (TO3Z), FK0N (5K0N), FJ2T (PJ2T)
> >
> >
> >
> > The question is why? Why do you just blindly pounce on any spot
> > without considering whether or not it's likely that is really the call
> > on frequency?
> > Are you just too lazy to process that it's unlikely that there would
> > be a station QRV in JX, in the middle of winter, with a commanding
> > signal on 15m beaming southeast? Are you just too lazy to question a
> > loud, clear BY on 40m, beaming south, when it's high noon in Beijing?
> > Are you just too lazy to question the likelihood of a really loud TT3
> > station, again beaming south/southeast...you know, because there's
> > such a plethora of activity from TT that they now issue special
> > prefixes for the ARRL DX contest?
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you a Clueless Cluster Clicker?
> >
> >
> >
> > The floor is yours. Justify your actions!
> >
> >
> >
> > (Please spare us the lectures on how/why occasional dupes may occur.
> > That is NOT AT ALL what is happening here.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 73, Mike K9NW
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|