[CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.

[Stan Zawrotny]

Good thoughts, Tim. The thing is that it is not the computer that actually
decides whether or not to log the Q. If the other party sends 73, then the
computer will ask if you want to log it. In contests, that can be
automatic. But in the unsure situation, which is where all of the NILs crop
up, it is up to the operator. He can let the computer continually resend
his RR73 until it times out, he can manually click on another callsign to
call, or he can manually click on the "Log QSO" button. In any case, it is
the operator who makes the decision not to log the QSO. No QSOs are
automatically not logged. And the next action requires the operator to
manually select another callsign to call or send CQ. There is no chaining
of contacts.

The problem is that the operators have become so accustomed to the prompt
to log a QSO when 73 is sent that they think it is a requirement. It is
argued to death on FT8/FT4 forums on FB whether a QSO is complete without a
73. There are many who say that they will not enter a QSO into their logs
if there isn't a 73. It's their log and those are their rules. They cannot
be convinced otherwise.

Realistically, what can the software do differently? The software cannot
change the mindset of the operator. Should it be changed to log based on
the sending of "R"? If it were, the "73 gang" would protest.

How can we educate thee "73 Gang"? They aren't likely to be reading this
thread. How else can we reach them to educate them that other modes don't
require a 73, why must FT  be different?

Not an easy  problem. Good luck to the software developers of these modes
and the contest sponsors who must cope with NILs and other FT-related
issues.

73,
___________________
Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ

Real radio bounces off the sky.



On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:48 AM Tim Shoppa <tshoppa at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was a vigorous participator in the CQ WW Digi and have some thoughts
> about the high NIL rate.
>
> First of all - I was not at all surprised. I work with some DXpedition QSL
> managers and they have been complaining about the incredibly high NIL rate
> seen with DXpeditions in FT8 mode for a while now.
>
> In CW, SSB, or RTTY there is (at the 99% accuracy level) a "meeting of
> minds" over the air as to whether the QSO was complete or not on both
> sides. Part of it the fraction of a second it takes in these modes to send
> a "thanks" or "TU" before moving to the next caller. Another part is that a
> human actually makes the call on each end as to whether it was complete
> using the human's best judgement, and the cycle time it takes to be sure is
> infinitesimal (just seconds, not a 30-second cycle).
>
> In FT4/FT8 this meeting of minds is far more slippery and tenuous. This is
> completely inexplicable to those who have drunk the FT8 Kool-Aid because
> they trust the computer for all aspects of a QSO. As a result the FT4/FT8
> NIL rate (even with DXpeditions) is far far higher than the traditional
> modes. Adding a whole additional transmit/receive cycle for an extra level
> of confirmation may not actually improve things but make it worse because
> if reception is lost by one side but not the other in that extra cycle that
> itself will lead to more NIL's.
>
> Tim N3QE
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>