[CQ-Contest] Your Call?

[Stephen Bloom]

Ooops ..should clarify a bit ..I identify after each Q ..if there is no
pileup ...the point to not iding isn't to save time sending ..it is to work
the pileup down ..before reloading.

73
Steve KL7SB



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bloom [mailto:sbloom at acsalaska.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 8:47 PM
To: 'k9yc at arrl.net' <k9yc at arrl.net>; 'cq-contest at contesting.com'
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Your Call?

Hmm .I generally ID after every third Q in a heavy run  .. do folks in
general prefer it after each one?  (Serious question).

73
Steve KL7SB


-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Brown
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:32 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Your Call?

On Mon,2/22/2016 3:14 PM, Drew Vonada-Smith wrote:
> I've actually had contesters tell me proudly how efficient they were
because after each QSO in a big run, they skip the TU and their call and
just send a dit.  We need to change this mindset.

We do indeed. Randy, are you listening? I even started a brief discussion
about this on the N1MM reflector when a guy asked for a macro to only ID
after 3 QSOs. I said that this is not often enough, because it slows down
S&P operators a lot.

One way to get even is to delete the QSO from your log if you don't hear
their call in a reasonable time. And you would be entirely justified in
doing so -- if you don't know who you worked, it's not a QSO!

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest