[RTTY] The RTTY efficiency myth and SUPERFILL

[Ed Muns]

My QSL message is typically:

TU W0YK CQ

If I have stacked call signs, it is:

W6WRT TU, NW
KK9A 599 03

In the first case, I've opted to trade-off a few cases of confusion for far
more cases of a shorter message.  And, the value of short messages is that
they convey a sense of timeliness to everyone on frequency.

In the second case, I choose to include the call sign of the station I am
working to be clear about who is being QSL'd and who is being sent an
exchange.  In my experience, omitting the first call sign quite often
results in confusion and subsequent wasted time sorting it out.  In time, as
more stations understand call sign stacking, the first call sign can
probably be dropped.

Maximizing contest score is a balance between speed and accuracy.  Risking a
bit of confusion may be worth the gain in speed across all messages.  And,
speed is not just the milliseconds saved by a shorter exchange.  Short
messages also communicate an overall sense of speed that can influence
others to be similarly brief.

In other words, both points below are valid.  Which one you choose depends
on your judgment of the speed/accuracy trade-off.

Ed W0YK


On 7/17/2014 4:25 AM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> I would eliminate sending the callsign of
> the station that you are working.  Sending P40X before TU W6SX serves no
> purpose in this example. P40X knows that he is working you and is just
> waiting for some indication that you copied his report before spinning the
> VFO.

On 7/17/2014 5:46 AM, dezrat at outlook.com wrote:
> I disagree. Sending the other guy's callsign can help in situations of 
>QRM or QRN where there are two stations that both think you are working 
>them. Often neither one of them can hear the other. It happens more than 
>you might think. Sending only TU W6SX will cause both of them to log you 
>but one of them will be NIL. Sending P40X TU W6SX CQ reduces the 
>possible confusion.