[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey results - part 1

John W xnewyorka at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 18 11:44:47 EST 2015 

I agree with most of Kelly's post, but I have a slight correction / elaboration / justification on two of the items:
 
> 1. Unnecessarily repeating phonetics. In most cases, you should be able to say “nq6n 599 mb”. Only if it’s really challenging or a fill has been requested does it make sense to say “november quebec….” He knows who he is!

If the running station is fairly sure, but not 100% positive, that they got the calling station's callsign correct, and the running station is certain that the calling station can copy him clearly (i.e. the frequency is clear and there is a good S/N ratio on the calling station's end), the running station may decide it's worth it to take a _little_ extra time with the qso to get confirmation of the calling station's call by just repeating the caller's callsign phonetically.  Of course, he is making the implicit assumption that the caller will be listening carefully and will proactively correct him if he has made an error. Good operators will usually make the correction, but sometimes even a great operator doesn't notice that the running station got his call wrong. (For example, see K5TR's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOfAixTWDI )   If the running station has a really low confidence that he got the call correct, he should say something like "November quebec six november 59 Manitoba and please confirm I have your call correct".
 

> 4. Sending his/her call twice in the exchange when I’ve already sent it back to them correctly. “Oh, crap. Did I miss a letter? Should I ask for a fill?”

When the running station is on a frequency that is not very clear, and the calling station replies to the CQ with their call, and the running station replies by giving the calling station's call and report, if the calling station hears "November [CQ CONTEST HOTEL GERMANY SIX NOVEMBER] November", they don't know whether the running station actually got their call correct.  In the interest of expedience, they could assume the running station got it right. If the running station did get it wrong, they are going to lose the contact in log checking.  If the calling station wants to be kind and polite, he will include his call again (ONCE, not twice) to give the running station a chance to compare what he hears the second time against what he already has in his log, just in case he DID get it wrong.  Yes, this means the runner needs to wait a little longer for the exchange to finish. That added cost is essentially the cost of a little "insurance policy" that the calling station made him purchase in order to make sure that the runner got the call correct.   
 
In summary, both of the above scenarios can be summarized as follows:
 
When there is not complete certainty that both the sent and received messages were copied correctly, a simple repeat (with no extra fluff) can be used as a risk mitigation strategy to improve overall accuracy by catching at least some of the cases where a call was miscopied.
 
As someone who usually runs low power or QRP, I use both of these strategies regularly.  Since my logs are usually extremely clean (error rates of 0.4% or less), I think I can assume these techniques are working for me.
 
73,
 
John
W2ID
 
> From: ve4xt at mymts.net
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:56:04 -0600
> To: matt at nq6n.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey results - part 1
> CC: cq-contest at contesting.com; mschulz at creative-chaos.com
> 
> Some of the most-common time-wasters among new contesters I hear are:
> 
> 1. Unnecessarily repeating phonetics. In most cases, you should be able to say “nq6n 599 mb”. Only if it’s really challenging or a fill has been requested does it make sense to say “november quebec….” He knows who he is!
> 
> 2. A few times, I heard a running station answer with “ve4xt, go ahead” and then waited for my exchange. Argggh!
> 
> 3. Sending my call twice before starting the exchange (either as a run station or in S&P). I know my own call!
> 
> 4. Sending his/her call twice in the exchange when I’ve already sent it back to them correctly. “Oh, crap. Did I miss a letter? Should I ask for a fill?”
> 
> 5. “You are…”, especially when it’s an exchange that doesn’t include information about me. I know I am, or some such Descartian saying…
> 
> 6. Using bizarre phonetics. OK, I don’t mind a station doing this during a low-rate CQ period. Helps generate interest. But once you have a station on the line, it’s all business. So park the "Kilo 7 Sheldon Says Bazinga" and either give me it without phonetics, particularly if it’s clear, or with standard phonetics. An exception is made if you want to pay homage to a certain Hawaiian with Bloomin’ Zipper Flippers. Worse is the guy who insists on using his goofball phonetics even after I’ve asked for a fill. Dude, your silly phonetics are probably WHY I’m not getting it! “NO! Not DELTA. It's GIFELTE!"
> 
> 7. Using a longer first name than the field space on contest loggers. OK, who was the prima donna who just needed to call himself Nostradamus in NAQP a number of years ago?
> 
> 8. Despite the historical precedent so clearly elucidated by Hans, please copy should go away…
> 
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
> 
> 
> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Matt Murphy <matt at nq6n.com> wrote:
> > 
> > "Please copy" is a non-optimal way to exchange information over a radio
> > channel b/c it takes time to say and doesn't significantly improve the
> > chances that the station at the other end will successfully copy what
> > follows.
> > 
> > There are lots of things that new hams do because they have not had enough
> > experience to realize that doing them doesn't help the situation.  Another
> > example is saying things extremely slowly (like someone might talk to a
> > young child) rather than at repeated a few times at normal speed. Another
> > is speaking very loudly (with compression it's not necessary at all and can
> > make things worse).
> > 
> > Fortunately the day to day experience of operating helps provide evidence
> > that none of these techniques are helpful.  It's rare that I have a rate
> > high enough that a caller saying "please copy" slows it down significantly.
> > 
> > I am not sure of this but I think "please copy" is also used as a form of
> > etiquette in some net operations.
> > 
> > I'd recommend taking a moment to slow down and give out a tip or two during
> > a run.  The contest community is full of wisdom and mentorship, and it can
> > even be squeezed in between Q's.
> > 
> > 73,
> > Matt NQ6N
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Michael Schulz <mschulz at creative-chaos.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> I guess the "Please copy ..." comes from maybe their first exposure to
> >> "contesting" during Field Day
> >> which is not a contest (yes it is, and we're going to win it anyway). And
> >> yes, leading by example is the
> >> way to go, but at the same time it needs to be pointed out not necessarily
> >> as wrong, but as not best
> >> practice for numerous reasons.
> >> 
> >> 73 Mike K5TRI
> >> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf
> >>> Of Tom Haavisto
> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:44 AM
> >>> To: Marty s <0246811 at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey results - part 1
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Marty
> >>> 
> >>> Glad to see there are some young contesters here.
> >>> 
> >>> Please don't focus on things others are doing wrong like "Please copy..."
> >>> We all learn from our mistakes, and we get better through practice and
> >>> participation.
> >>> 
> >>> Having fun is what it is all about, and that would be the message I
> >> suggest
> >>> you pass along to your friends.  Contesting IS fun, and things better
> >> better
> >>> the more they participate.  As they emulate what they see and hear others
> >>> doing, the "please copy" will gradually disappear without them even being
> >>> aware of it.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Tom - VE3CX
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Marty s <0246811 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> I agree, I spend a lot of my time getting more young hams involved. I
> >>>> am 13, and am fairly active in the contests. There are plenty of young
> >>>> kids getting into the hobby, but not anywhere as many into contesting.
> >>>> I know close to 45 kids in the hobby, and maybe 5 are into contesting
> >>>> somewhat, and only 3 of us, care enough to keep the butt in the chair,
> >>>> or have a hint of skill (Don't make me tell you about the kids who
> >>>> start all exchanges with "Please copy":) I think if we target the kids
> >>>> in the hobby who are really seriously interested, and give the
> >>>> resources, there will be more contesting young people. I know I wound
> >>>> not know much about contesting without all of my Elmers in the YCCC,
> >>>> or being invited to a multi-multi during CQ WW this year. Just my 2
> >> cents.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Marty
> >>>> 
> >>>> This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If
> >>>> 
> >>>> you are not the intended recipient, or if you have received this email
> >>>> 
> >>>> in error, then please notify the sender immediately and destroy this
> >> email.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Michael Schulz <
> >>>> mschulz at creative-chaos.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Interesting results which show that if you want to be successful, be
> >>>> closer
> >>>>> to or in Europe :).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regarding the age distribution, I see this concern all the time that
> >>>> there
> >>>>> are declining numbers based on age
> >>>>> and that amateur radio will be dead when the last old hams died.
> >>>>> This
> >>>> seems
> >>>>> to be always then be tied to
> >>>>> youth not coming into the hobby at a higher rate. How about a
> >>>>> different lens in which one would look at influx of new hams
> >>>>> regardless of age? Do we need 90% (making an extreme example) of
> >>> new
> >>>>> hams to be <18 years old?
> >>>>> Especially in contesting, the 40+ age group (I find myself in that
> >>>> bracket)
> >>>>> would seem more likely to engage in
> >>>>> contesting as new-comers given that by that time in life, things
> >>>>> have settled more overall, and disposable income is (ideally)
> >>>>> greater as compared to the 16 - 20 or 20 - 30 age brackets.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 73 Mike K5TRI
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of David Gilbert
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 9:49 PM
> >>>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Survey results - part 1
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I don't find the age distribution to be surprising at all.  Age
> >>>>>> data
> >>>> from
> >>>>> the All
> >>>>>> Asian contest exchange looks similar.  Look at the pictures from
> >>>>>> Dayton
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>> any club meeting and compare them to pictures taken 30 years ago
> >> ...
> >>>>> pretty
> >>>>>> much all you see are people that are 30 years older.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Somebody I was speaking to once claimed that the average age of
> >>>>>> ham
> >>>> radio
> >>>>>> ops in the U.S. increased at least one year every 1.5 years. Seems
> >>>> about
> >>>>> right
> >>>>>> to me.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 73,
> >>>>>> Dave  AB7E
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On 12/16/2015 5:41 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> >>>>>>> There is a new blog post with the first results from the CQ WW
> >>>> Contest
> >>>>>>> survey that was open during September 2015.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> http://cqww.com/blog/2015-cq-ww-survey-results-part-1/
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> This first post cover demographic information about the
> >> responses.
> >>>>>>> The most striking finding is how old we are!
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Comments and discussion are welcome.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Randy, K5ZD
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list