[CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors

[Peter Voelpel]

Another perspective would be to have the pileup station signing its call as
part of the exchange instead after its TU.
The massive pileups following a TU is already totally covering the callsign
given.

73
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sandy Taylor
Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2008 15:41
To: 'Kenneth E. Harker'
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors

Here's another perspective: not to totally disagree with Ken's advice, but
you have to pick your spots when deciding to wade into a pileup to only ask
the running station for his call.
At 6y1v on the weekend, it was everything we could do to pick out calls from
the massive pileups. We weren't listening for people asking us our callsign,
though we did sign it on almost every Q, and when I was running at least,
there were no times when more than three Qs passed before signing again.
Once, I did hear a station obliterating the guy I was trying to work (I was
now in QSO with someone) by sending CALL? CALL?
I will refrain from describing on a family reflector what I said under my
breath at this guy while I was asking the station I was trying to work for a
repeat.

Before wading in with CALL?, at least give the guy the chance to finish the
Q he's in: there's a good chance you'll hear the call then. If not, gauge
how deep the pileup is: if the chances that your CALL? will be heard are as
slim as the chances you'll break the pileup, don't bother. Make a note of
the frequency and come back later. You're just wasting S&P time otherwise.

73, Kelly
Ve4xt

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth E. Harker
Sent: December-02-08 4:20 PM
To: CQ Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Spotting Errors

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:51:14PM -0000, Andy Faber wrote:

>   There is probably no good answer.  But I do get annoyed when the 
> station

> duping you is a big gun who should be listening to you before making 
> blind

> calls.

I hear this complaint (mostly from CW ops) a lot.  Let me offer a different
perspective.  As a single op unassisted, if I dial across a station working
people without giving a call sign, it is often faster _for me_ to call in
and ask for the call.  Who know how long I might have to wait for the other
station to give their call?  And what if the one time out of five QSOs that
they do give their call, it's covered up by QRM or something?  Do I wait for
another five QSOs to pass?  It is usually optimal for the unassisted op to
just call in and if it's a dupe, oh well.  The time saved _by me_ is worth
it _to me_.

If the station is giving out their call with every QSO, this is not an
issue.
So, if you are _not_ giving out your call sign with every QSO, you need to
understand that some other operators will prioritize _their_ contest time
ahead of _your_ contest time and call in even if they turn out to be a dupe,

and accept a certain number of those events during the contest as normal,
reasonable operating behavior for top contesters.  

If a station is IDing with every QSO and big gun contesters are still
calling in frequently as dupes, then you know they are packeteer lids and
you can feel free to hold them in low regard.

--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest