Don,.. we agree ....it can be very frustrating ....
But think about it ...... do you really think most contesters would agree
to go backward .....
It is like saying we all should be using hand keys for CW .... a noble
suggestion ..
But it will never happen ...
Technology always wins .... tuned amps .... DVK ... computer generated CW
...Logging .. etc ...
73 Whitey K1VV
PS .... we all still love you anyway ... even after this suggestion ....
----- Original Message -----
From: <W6FFH@aol.com>
To: <writelog@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Packet spots
>
> In a message dated 11/1/2000 7:38:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> ki0lo@yahoo.com writes:
>
> << I've come to the conclusion that trying to make a good
> Search & Pounce effort is really counteracted by the
> packet spot window - it's just too tempting to rely on
> the spots for working all new stations instead of
> actually turning the knob and listening. We ran MOST
> last weekend using spots and my rates were poorer than
> SOLP efforts I've done previously, when I
> systematically tune the band from one end to the
> other. Packet has a place - particularly for helping
> find the new mults you need, but it can also really
> distract you if you're not careful.
>
> What really got me last weekend had nothing to do with
> Writelog - but rather what appeared to be blatantly
> bogus spots - I can't count the number of times I saw
> a spot for some new one that I needed, clicked on it
> and heard a 1 or 2 or 3 lander calling CQ *exactly* on
> frequency. Is that a coincidence? I somehow doubt
> it... But it is a somewhat clever way to get around
> the rule against self-spotting...
> >>
>
> Marty, I couldn't agree more. I don't use spotting in contests, it's great
> for day to day ops., I just got DXTelnet a short time ago and will use it
> that way.
>
> I'm going to go way out on a limb and advocate not allowing spot
> assistance in all contests, as some contests do. This is going to
> cause a lot of controversy. Please just don't call me names!
>
> It goes beyond costing you possibly a lot of time for one mult.
> I'll site just one example of how it can ruin the day
> for the DX station as well. I heard a Guam station CQ'ing when he
> first came on 10 mtrs. A few guys got him and I started to call him
> with my very modest signal, but it was mere seconds before the freq.
> exploded with callers. It was the worst bedlam I've heard in a long time.
> There is no way that many stations just happened to hear him at the
> same time. I'm sure it was a posted spot.
>
> The operating practices were so poor with tail-gaters hanging on
> trying to be the last call heard and some guy with a DVK just
> hitting the button over and over etc., you know the drill.
>
> The result was at least 15 to 20 seconds or more between contacts
> for the DX station. He finally resorted to calling the numbers and
> limiting to three calls for each area. If he was trying for a good score,
> I feel for him. This was only one case that sticks in my mind.
> There were several other cases like this that I heard. In fact I found
> myself wasting time listening because I just couldn't believe my ears!
>
> What's wrong with getting back to good old tuning and listening and
> good operating methods?
>
> I may be totally out in the cold on this, but what I saw in the CQ WW
> really turned me off. If you're lucky enough to have good antennas,
> location, possibly high power, and can run, great and more power to
> you. But if you're a low or QRP station with modest antennas and like
> to S&P, you should have a chance. Contests should be for all to enjoy.
>
> Sorry about using the WL reflector for this, probably not the right place
> since it has nothing to do with WL (which worked perfectly for me all
> weekend by the way). I'm thinking of sending this to the contest gurus
> at CQ and ARRL for their consideration, but wanted to see how many
> enemies it would make here. Maybe no one had the patience to read
> all this.
>
> Don W6FFH
> e-mail w6ffh@aol.com
>
> --
> WWW: http://www.writelog.com/
> Submissions: writelog@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: writelog-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-writelog@contesting.com
>
>
>
--
WWW: http://www.writelog.com/
Submissions: writelog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: writelog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-writelog@contesting.com
|