[SCCC] Station identifying
w6ph at aol.com
w6ph at aol.com
Wed Feb 20 07:52:12 EST 2019
My turn to comment on this. I have operated from VP9 for the last 20 consecutive years and have experienced this issue from both the DX side and the domestic side. I totally agree that it is frustrating to hear a loud station work stations without identifying. Those who are using cluster assistance are at an advantage because they can match the frequency to a call. Those who do it the old fashioned way and hunt for multipliers are at an unfair disadvantage in my opinion. There are two viable options here. The contest rules could be modified to require signing the call on every contact. This would equalize the assisted and non-assisted stations and would equalize the modus operandi of all stations calling CQ. The other less desirable option would be do away with separate categories for assisted and non-assisted.
I completely understand Marko's comments of trying to keep the pileup manageable. I also understand N6MJ's signing his call on every contact. (He creates the timing to make alternating band contacts and he is a master at this technique whom no one else has duplicated transparently.) There is a middle ground that I have attempted to maintain. I try to not go more than four contacts (usually about a minute) without signing my call despite it being VP9/W6PH. However there are times when I detect a weak persistent caller that I want to log and I have to work down through the loud guys to get to him. (It's probably a W6!!!) I can usually tell that therr are only a couple loud callers that I need to log to get to that weak guy and hopefully no new callers appear. I don't buy into the argument to keep the pileup smaller. I am trying to get as many people into my log as I can and ending a contact with "TU" by itself allows me to get more contacts per time unit in the log. I don't really care how big the pile up is. The savvy operators call a little off frequency and they are easily detectable. I can also pick out a couple letters of a call and match them to a call in my cranial memory. (I have been contesting for 60+ years.)
Another technique that some CQers subscribe to is increasing the code speed to 40+ wpm to cut down on the number of callers. I don't disdain this but I don't do it. I do the contest at 28 wpm which seems reasonable.
As K6AW says, this is a politics and religion discussion. My opinion is that it is incumbent on the station calling CQ to maintain a good rate as well as keeping the frustration level of the callers at a minimum. During the 39 hours that I operated, there were less than five times that I heard "CALL?". I think that bodes well for how I operated.
73, Kurt W6PH (dba VP9/W6PH)
In a message dated 2/18/2019 2:37:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, sccc at contesting.com writes:
We kept to announcing our calls at ZF after every QSO this weekend and sometimes ran 2-3 calls consecutively with just TU’s if the pileup conditions warranted it.
I don’t think anyone would argue that not sending your call sign in the exchange wouldn’t save time and thus increase the time you have for making a QSO... that’s a mathematical conclusion. However the better question would be what is the right thing to do for the ham community (like Dick not being assisted) and what equates into better pileup management overall with the aim towards winning.
My team mates are much more successful than I am at pileups and contesting... some might even say one of my teammates is a top operator these days.
I am told that while setting the CQ WW QSO record the call was announced after nearly every QSO.
I believe each operator will draw different conclusions here... I definitely understand where Dick is coming from and have seen or been told first hand of highly successful DX contesting results while staying in line with frequent identification principles.
Tim / N6WIN
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, February 18, 2019, 17:24, Bill Haddon <haddon.bill at gmail.com> wrote:
Marko,
Your point is well-taken. but . . . .
1) The pile-up on V4/W3UL was fairly small and easily managed.
2) There were two other pileups going at the same timeon 20cw, both much
larger:
KP2M . . announcing his call very frequently and doing fine (1st-rate
op)
V51YJ .. monster pileup. . this op was much less experienced and
slower, maybe repeating his call too often! But also managing his pileup
just fine.
It seems that about 2/3 of stations are using spots based on 3830scores.com
postings. Given the poor accuracy of many spots, call sign announcment
might be valuable even for stations in assisted categories.
In my own Eu pileup Sunday morning it was especially annoying when
stations, some v. strong, just popped their call in w/o listening first.
Many of the callers usually 100 w or, occasionally, 5w, were weak and
difficult to copy.
73 Bill n6zfo
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:00 PM Marko Myllymaki <
marko.l.myllymaki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do have bit different take on this having been on other end and using my
> own time and dollars to travel and operating from rare places.
> I have also been accused of not iding in past often enough and I have tried
> to improve my operating and it is probably better now.
> However, giving your call is part of managing pileup and every time you ID
> you invite more people into pile-up who otherwise may not yet get in. I
> definitely do not support requirement to ID on every QSO (as some people
> insist we should do). It does not make sense. Also, it is you, who are in
> the pileup ultimately who is deciding to stick around or not. If station
> in
> other end does not give the call, he does not want more people, ie you to
> get into pile-up at that moment. He already has enough stations to handle
> or more than he can rapidly handle and more stations would further slow him
> down. You are free to move on. If you decide to stick around when not
> knowing who station is, then that is your decision. Yes, I know it is
> annoying when waiting that ID, and even this weekend I did not like couple
> stations who took long time to ID. But I completely myself decided what to
> do about it, stay or move on. I moved on one time.
> Just my opinion.
> 73 de Marko N5ZO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SCCC <sccc-bounces at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Bill Haddon
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 9:44 PM
> To: Bruce Horn <bhorn at hornucopia.com>
> Cc: SCCC Reflector <sccc at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [SCCC] W6TK - ARRL DX CW
>
> Bruce, WA7BNM, wrote;
> >While CQWW may have a rule regarding timely IDing, I'm not sure how
> >much
> it's enforced.
>
> I guess documented complaints would be req'd. . probably we're otherwise
> occupied after the contest.
> My work-around to allow un-assisted stations to retrieve the call after a
> minute might be helpful, but of course it might be tempt some to use other
> spots. On the other hand, honor system has to prevail, or our whole sport
> falls apart.
>
> Still a rule would be useful,. . so if I were to write to W3UL, I could
> cite the rule and say please don't do this. But there is no rule for ARRL
> contests.
>
> 73 Bill n6zfo
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:34 PM Bruce Horn <bhorn at hornucopia.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > While CQWW may have a rule regarding timely IDing, I'm not sure how
> > much it's enforced. Timely IDing in this weekend's DX CW contest
> > seemed better than either CQWW DX contest from last fall when I had to
> > wait minutes for at least a half-dozen stations to ID. This type of
> > rule seems to be more aspirational than enforceable.
> >
> > 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Haddon" <haddon.bill at gmail.com>
> > To: "Dick Stepanian" <dickw6tk at gmail.com>
> > Cc: "SCCC Reflector" <sccc at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 9:26:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SCCC] W6TK - ARRL DX CW
> >
> > W6TK wrote:
> > >Frustration on Sunday afternoon: why
> > don't guys sign their calls - and why do callers just keep calling?
> >
> > ARRL is in the contesting stone age. . .CQWW adopted the ID rule some
> > time ago. . from CQWW 2018 rules:
> >
> > *XII. JUDGING:*
> >
> > . . . . . unsportsmanlike conduct may lead to disciplinary action by
> > the Committee.
> >
> > *A. Unsportsmanlike Conduct:* Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct
> > include, but are not limited to:
> >
> > . . . . . .
> >
> > 6. Running stations not identifying in a timely manner (i.e., 1 minute).
> > ==========================
> >
> > Worst offender on Sunday:
> > V4/W3UL -- wasted 5 mins. He was my 2nd QSO in the contest at 0001 on
> 20m
> > on Fri. Also. . TF3SG Sunday afternoon, but at least it was a new QSO.
> >
> > But, W3UL did supply an important multiplier for us.
> >
> > Otherwise, not too much problem with failure to id. . at least in my
> case
> > (700 Q's and 500,000 pints) . . no actually points (did not drink
> 807's
> > during the contest -- half a million of them would be somewhat
> excessive).
> >
> > [A possible answer . . if a station doesn't ID in a minute, allow
> > Non-assisted ops to look at the spot for that station.]
> >
> > 73 Bill N6ZFO
> >
> > PS . . Dick, I heard KA3DRR on 20m Saturday afternoon. . Is he back?
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 4:11 PM Dick Stepanian <dickw6tk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > ARRL DX Contest, CW - 2019
> > >
> > > Call: W6TK
> > > Operator(s): W6TK
> > > Station: W6TK
> > >
> > > Class: SOAB HP
> > > QTH: SB
> > > Operating Time (hrs): 19
> > >
> > > Summary:
> > > Band QSOs Mults
> > > -------------------
> > > 160: 9 8
> > > 80: 56 35
> > > 40: 124 52
> > > 20: 362 94
> > > 15: 60 30
> > > 10: 0 0
> > > -------------------
> > > Total: 611 219 Total Score = 401,427
> > >
> > > Club: Southern California Contest Club
> > >
> > > Comments: I thought Friday evening was great condx. 40 Mtrs -
> > > stateside guys were down in signal strength while DX was coming
> > > through well. I
> > was
> > > originally
> > > planning on 20 Mtr Single Band - but 40, 80 and even 160 with my
> > > wimpy sloper was somewhat productive. Even worked several EU's on
> > > 80. I though Sat night was much noisier than Friday night,
> > > Frustration on Sunday afternoon: why don't guys sign their calls -
> > > and why do callers just keep calling?
> > Single
> > > op forces me
> > > to wait for the DX station to either sign his call or wait for all
> > > the callers to pause long enough to copy the call. Some guys have
> > > it down
> > good
> > > - ID every few Q's
> > > at most! Oh well - nothing new! Fun to have BIC. Until next time -
> 73.
> > > Dick
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SCCC mailing list
> > > SCCC at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SCCC mailing list
> > SCCC at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SCCC mailing list
> SCCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
>
>
_______________________________________________
SCCC mailing list
SCCC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
_______________________________________________
SCCC mailing list
SCCC at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
More information about the SCCC
mailing list