[CQ-Contest] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

[k5zd at charter.net]

Excellent summary.  Thanks for all of you to make the effort to look into
the higher than expected NILs in the Digi contests.

I would have preferred to see the analysis go one step further and actually
suggest a protocol for handling end of QSOs.  The FT protocol is fixed, and
the analysis assumes it is up to the operators, but just a bit more
explanation of what people should do/expect would be very helpful for the
community.  Especially those ops that are new to FT contesting.

I am quite sure things will improve as we all gain experience.  I have
learned a lot about how the better manage the QSO process just by doing more
FT operating and really paying attention to the QSO flow and how to handle
the edge cases that happen when you think you finished a QSO, started
another, and then realize partner #1 is still looking for an ack.  All part
of the game I guess!

73

Randy K5ZD


-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=charter.net at contesting.com> On
Behalf Of Ed Muns
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 11:51 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] FT4 and FT8 Contesting

Log checking for several recent contests that used the FT4 and FT8 modes has
shown undesirably large numbers of claimed QSOs that receive not-in-log
("NIL") status from the other station.  The WSJT development team has worked
together with contest sponsors and log checkers to analyze the probable
causes of these NILs.  Our findings and some operating advice for future
contests are posted here:
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/FT4_FT8_Contesting.pdf
and will also appear in the May-June 2020 issue of NCJ, the National Contest
Journal.

  	73 from the authors of the study:

	Steve Franke, K9AN
	Don Hill, AA5AU
	Ed Muns, W0YK
	Iztok Saje S52D
	Joe Taylor, K1JT

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