I ditto Gary's observation. Just work 'em and cull them out later. The
frustrating thing for me is when you have to try and try to get the guy's
call -- then it's a dupe. That really does waste time. I don't worry
about a dupe when someone is not giving their call. It's aggravating and
sometimes I'll dump my call in and try to work them, and sometimes I'll
just move on.
73, Jay/K4OGG
At 09:11 AM 3/5/2001, Gary Breed wrote:
>Cort
>
>It takes a little more time to complete an exchange than it does to tell
>a guy he is a dupe, so in the ARRL CW, I started out by telling guys they
>were dupes. After the second one said "no, please work me" I started
>working dupes!
>
>It is possible that they copied my call wrong first time, I copied a
>similar call wrong, or they worked someone else on a nearby frequency
>and the timing made me think I worked him.
>
>When called by the same stations for the 3rd or 4th time, I did tell them
>"QSO B4."
>
>73, Gary
>K9AY
>
>
>
> > Hi guys, I would like to get some collective wisdom on the practice of
>just
> > logging dupes as they occur instead of sri wkd b4. I made 1513 qso's this
> > past weekend on 10 mtrs of which 64 were dupes. Most came from Run
> > situations where Writelog identified them as dupes and I logged them
>again.
> > A few came from me calling a dx station who didn't identify much in S+P
> > mode. If one figures 20 seconds per exchange, I used up 21 minutes of
> > valuable time on logging dupes. I s there any way to figure out if it was
> > worth it? Thanks
> > Cort
> > Courtney Judd K4WI
> > ex-K4JYO
> > check out www.k4wi.net
> >
>
>
>
>--
>SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
>Submissions: secc@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|