[CQ-Contest] Self spotting rationale

Robert Chudek - K0RC k0rc at citlink.net
Thu Jul 30 10:27:49 PDT 2009

Art, K3KU said:
"Packet, Skimmer, Call History Databases, Dueling CQ's...  C**p!!  Who needs musicians, Martha?  Just wind up the player piano!"

KØRC says:
"But there's a strong market for both manual and player pianos. Why would anyone buying a manual piano want to "judge" how the player piano should operate? Isn't that why there is both assisted and unassisted contest categories in the first place?"

Doug, KR2Q said:
"If I want to test the waters on 10 meters (whether I'm qrp or a big M/M), wouldn't it be far
more "efficient" for me to simply spot myself?  That is not the basis of contesting.  If you
can be "loud" and gather a crowd and some of them happen to spot you, fine.  But initiating
it yourself?  Totally different."

KØRC says:
"Absolutely it would be far more efficient to simply spot yourself. I thought creating separate categories WAS to define several different 'basis for contesting.' Why would you, as an unassisted participant, care whether an assisted operator could spot themselves or not? As you state, assisted and non-assisted are totally different."

Yuri, K3Bu said:
"Besides, wouldn't it be "fun" if everyone spotted themselves? Talking about overload. Maybe we do not need radios, just click on internet or have skimmer and clicker do it for us?"

KØRC says:
"I seriously doubt you could overload the internet. Terabytes of data are transported worldwide ever second. Granted, some of the spotting network nodes may need to be 'supercharged', but the software tools are already in place that eliminates duplicate spots, regions, call areas, etc.

"Isn't the basic idea of the spotting network to alert the assisted contesters 'who's on and where'? My basic question remains, why are we putting artificial limits on generating this information? Why do you care who creates the spot in the first place? These arcane rules are creating additional consternation about 'cheating.'

Mike, N3LI said:
"In addition, the DX clusters are there for DX'ers. That they get hijacked by contesters is one thing, but when we talk about posting  bogus info, or to bring them down, that's not a good thing.

KØRC says:
"WHY does this myth continue to be perpetuated? The original DXCluster software was created by contesters (Dick Newell - AK1A, et. al.) to help contesters during contests. It had nothing to do with casual, daily DXing. I know first hand because I ran one of the original 3 networked contest nodes in the Minneapolis, MN area. I still have the license, software disks, SysOp manual, TNC's and hardware from those purchases."

Nobody said:
"What about the new Xtreme category?"

KØRC says:
"I'm so glad you asked! Maybe this is the category to first allow self-spotting to 'see how it goes', along with all the other innovative technology advancements.

"But my basic question remains unanswered. WHY, if the spotting network can be used in (most) assisted categories, can't a station advertise they are on a particular band and mode - looking for contacts. The recipients of the spots STILL need a receiver to actually hear the signal and exchange a contest report in both directions on the airwaves. This has nothing to do with "Internet Contesting," which is a completely different topic.

"I am still not convinced there is a logical, rational reason why you cannot self spot in the assisted category during a contest. And as another group member pointed out, self-spotting brings the wrath from some network users even during non-contesting times."

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list