[CQ-Contest] Your Call?

[Igor Sokolov]

Hi Marko,
Nice to hear from you.
I fully support both of your statements (how often to ID and  use of split 
operation when needed). You are not in the minority. Simply there are less 
people who were on the other side of pileup, and some of those who were, 
often do not express their opinion here. Both methods along with several 
others are used to control pileup and maximize number of stations worked. 
That is not only to the benefit of DX station but also to the benefit of 
those who tries to work that DX station.
Last year in CQWW CW as 8Q7DV I proved to my partner R9DX that turning 
output power down somewhat, actually helps to increase rate. It does not 
always work but sometimes it does. It is just a matter of using all those 
methods of pileup control wisely.

73, Igor UA9CDC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marko L Myllymaki" <marko.l.myllymaki at gmail.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 3:58 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Your Call?


> Hi Steve,
>
> Yes I have heard that feedback and it is noted as I have mentioned.
> I'm not fan of 1 min rule.  I think it is "overregulation".  Everyone
> has that big knob on their radio and nobody needs to wait non-IDer.
> But of course everyone gets excited of that unique zone they hear.
> But 1 min rule is what we have now and need to try to live with it.
> I'm sure I have slipped with it few times too for reasons mentioned
> before.  I have operated at least one of the CQ WW contests in each of
> the last 8 years somewhere where I have been double mult to most
> participants.  In those places I know for fact that each time I send
> my call there will be number of new callers coming to pile-up which
> may already be difficult for me to handle with my own limited skills
> (also on Sunday).  I'm just trying to optimize how many customers I
> can serve, and as I did the travel I think I have some skin on the
> game to decide how to do it.  As long as there is no rule requirement
> to send call on each contact I will ignore noise for that wish.  I
> personally hope such  rule is never implemented in CQ WW, but I'm
> aware that I may be in minority based on the discussion I read on this
> forum after every major contest.
>
>
> Anyway maybe I think this is nowdays lesser problem for me on DX end
> and might as well try send that call on each or more contacts as I
> think in last couple years size of pile-up problem on that  DX end has
> been by far masked by those constant callers and zero-beat callers.
> Also, if listening from TX frequency it is probably better to send
> that call each time anyway as if not it gets covered by callers as
> soon as TU has been sent and nobody will hear the callsign when sent.
> So if it is sent each time it would remove that issue since pile-up
> knows that DX starts listening after callsign.  But given all issues
> in more rare double mult QTH far away from target area for me at least
> some small amount of split operating seems to be best way to get as
> many customers served as possible at least with my own skill level.
> That has been my conclusion.
>
>
> Probably this is all I have to say at this time for this topic.
>
> 73 de Marko N5ZO
>
>
>
> On 02/24/2016 02:09 PM, Marko L Myllymaki wrote:
>
> I think both are good ways to handle it.  Also from DX station side who
> does not ID.  If he does not ID he does not want/need you to enter into 
> his
> pile-up, he is busy already working down what he has.
>
> Especially on Sunday, I don't think it will add to your pileup if you ID 
> more
> frequently. Most of the people in the pileup already know who you are,
> thanks to the use of spots. The unassisted guys that don't know who you 
> are
> have probably already worked you, and will happily move on when you sign
> your call.
>
> In the interest of full honesty, I do not think you ID enough, Marko. I 
> have
> frequently had to wait uncomfortably long periods for you to ID. Maybe 
> that
> changed in 2015, with the new CQWW rules about IDing.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing
> listCQ-Contest at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest