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

[rjairam at gmail.com]

Well there’s no convincing you. You just don’t like the mode and that’s
fine.

But there are many of us who enjoy it and will keep using it as a dx and as
a contest mode.

Ria
N2RJ

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36 PM Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at sbelectronics.com>
wrote:

> Actually, I completely disagree.
>
>
>
> When I am running stations on CW or SSB, I am listening to the station I
> hear and typing in what I hear.  Yes, I see on the screen the SCP
> suggestions as well as any autofill suggestions.  I can overwrite them at
> will, and often do – K5ZD is in zone 5 not Zone 4 – as an example – someone
> changed their power exchange since yesterday as another – the list goes on
> and on.
>
>
>
> Based on my decision only, no one elses, I hit enter and its logged.  The
> person on the other end does the same.  If the logged items match it’s a
> Q.  Both computers could have suggested and autofilled something different
> and it doesn’t matter, because humans actually intervened and made it right.
>
>
>
> And funny enough, the NILs are way better with the above vs the sequencing
> of computers trying to match all the bits before they both say – it’s a
> good Q.
>
>
>
> Lets face facts.  Ft-X is designed for weak signal DX – just ask the
> inventor – he’ll tell you.  And its good at it too.  But what makes it good
> is its willingness to repeat over and over the mundane looking for just the
> right S/N mix to confirm the Q.  Great for low signal DXing, not so great
> for contesting.
>
>
>
> Sure sounds like a square peg trying to go through a round hole to me.
> But more power to those that find it enjoyable.
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
>
>
> *From:* rjairam at gmail.com [mailto:rjairam at gmail.com]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2020 10:20 PM
> *To:* Edward Sawyer
> *Cc:* Tim Shoppa; cq-contest at contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] World Wide Digi DX Contest Results.
>
>
>
>
>
> In every contest the computer is running the show, because we do
> computerized logging, super check partial etc.
>
>
>
> In this case we have over dependence on auto sequence, which makes things
> more complicated rather than easier.
>
>
>
> Ria
>
> N2RJ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:31 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>