[CQ-Contest] CQWW - Excessive Bandwidth

[Rick Kiessig]

I like the idea of letting the other party know their signal is wide.
However, adding a suffix to the call seems likely to cause headaches when it
comes to things like uploading to LoTW and so on -- as well as potentially
conflicting with existing suffixes.

What about including the word "WIDE" in the exchange? It doesn't happen
often enough (to me, at least) that would affect my rate.

For SWLs or those working assisted, adding the word "WIDE" as a comment on
spots they send out would also be helpful. Contest sponsors could easily
collect spots for the duration of the contest, and search for that keyword.

In fact, both of these could be done outside of contests, as well.

73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G


-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Paul O'Kane
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:06 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW - Excessive Bandwidth


The CQWW sponsors are leading the way in defining and, hopefully, clamping
down on unsportsmanlike conduct.

They say " "Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include.....
5. Signals with excessive bandwidth (e.g., splatter, clicks)"

Anyone who uses SDR-based panadaptors, including the Elecraft P3, can
recognise and measure wide signals instantly - by just looking at them.

It seems to me that if we had an agreed method of reporting excessive
bandwidth, contest sponsors could confirm it for themselves by checking
their SDR recordings - using times and frequencies from our Cabrillo logs.

The question arises, how would each of us indicate wide signals from other
stations we work - not to mention the ones we might prefer not to work.

The ones we work are easy.  My suggestion is to add /Q to the callsign
logged.  I'm using Q, because it cannot be confused with another country's
callsign - no calls begin with Q.  There may be implications for
dupe-checking with some software, but nothing that can't be supported with a
few extra lines of code.

There are other options, but I would not consider varying the usual 59(9)
reports because it would take longer.

73,
Paul EI5DI
















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