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

[Tim Shoppa]

Ed N1UR asks:
> Isn't the basic problem that the computer is running the show?  On both
ends.  And the operator really is helpless to change that?
> It's a very basic statement about what is really happening with this mode.

I'm not sure we can completely blame the computer. There is still human
judgement as to whether the QSO was complete and should be logged or not.

But the basic human sensory perception of TU, "thanks" or knowing that the
other guy must've gotten the exchange because he went immediately back to
working others doesn't work nearly so well in FT8.

ALSO: the way folks respond to CQ's in FT8 with not just their call, but
also their exchange, and the way the CQ'er broadcasts his exchange along
with his CQ, these throw very basic patterns of contesting exchanges
completely out of whack. And lets folks log a Q without it being completed
because the other guy is broadcasting his exchange even before he copied
your exchange. Now this mistaken way of operating does show up on phone and
CW and RTTY too. But only by newbies. In FT4/FT8 it's just standard.

Others blame the WSJT user interface, and they have a bit of a point too.
Replace sophisticated highly evolved contesting software user interface,
with a point-and-drool WSJT GUI, and you shouldn't be surprised that NIL
rates go up just from that.

Tim N3QE


On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 6:16 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
wrote:

> Isn't the basic problem that the computer is running the show?  On both
> ends.  And the operator really is helpless to change that?
>
> It's a very basic statement about what is really happening with this mode.
>
> 73
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+edwards=
> sbelectronics.com at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim Shoppa
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:13 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
>
> K4SBZ writes:
> >  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.
>
> I originally had some thoughts like you. Folks unfamiliar with logging
> details or imagining a requirement for a 73 might have been the source of
> most of the NIL's.
>
> Then I asked Ed to send me my LCR and I looked it over. Most of the NIL's
> given by me or given to me, were with other well-known multi-mode
> contesters, not with newbies. So there goes my theory that it was newbies
> racking up the NIL's.
>
> It just IS HARDER to figure out whether a QSO was complete or not on
> FT4/FT8. All the clues that even a beginning contester learns quickly, as
> to whether the QSO is complete, or not complete, are simply lacking in
> FT4/FT8. We make our best guess based on what the computer decodes or does
> not decode, maybe try an extra cycle or two to see if we can tease out the
> confirmation we are looking for, decide whether to log it or not, and
> compared to other modes, that guess is several times more fallible.
>
> And it wasn't just newbies. Even for very experienced multi mode
> contesters, that guess is several times more fallible in FT4/FT8 than for
> other modes.
>
> Adding extra confirmation steps on top of the existing confirmation steps?
> That'd just make the NIL rate worse because those are more opportunities
> for things to get lost in the noise and QRM!
>
> There are several contests out there (NAQP comes to mind but I'm sure there
> are others) where NIL's do not result in any penalty, just the loss of
> credit for that Q. I think the WW Digi organizers were wise to chose this
> approach in scoring.
>
> Tim N3QE
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>