[SECC] To "Test", or not to "Test"

[Kevan Nason]

Thanks for comments about CQ'ing Bill.

Don't know if you remember or not, but we've met at Rick's, NQ4I. Used to
work with VE7ZO and used to be the 40 mult op. I respect your opinions and
have used some of your comments when talking to other clubs about
contesting. We might differ here though.

I actually dislike a non-standard format when listening to a station CQ. I
want to know what to expect and time my call at the end of theirs. I know
for a fact that is critical when interleaving q's and it also seems it
would be very important for doing efficient SO2R. Harder to do either if
some jerk like me is changing our CQ format every now and then.

You suggest if I just did CQ TEST (as I have been doing in other contests
for years) there would have been even more replies. Maybe there would have
been, maybe not. I changed back and forth a couple times in the contest. I
didn't keep any data, but rate seemed to go up slightly each time using the
combined CQ as compared to the single CQ format. Noticing that is why I
wrote the earlier email. Maybe that was just a blip on the statistical
curve since
a) I've only done it once now
b) People really wanted the "J" in WJ4X to be a "One" and they liked to
hear it twice in a row to check they heard the call correctly        --or--
c) maybe it is only applicable to the WPX with its numerous newbie
contesters
But I was seeing a slightly increased rate when using both CQ formats.

So...
Assumption: A Little Pistol station will get a slightly increased rate by
using a mixed CQ format.
Question: Should a Little Pistol station keep using a traditional CQ format
just because it helps others or should they choose a format which will give
them more points?

I know my answer.

But because I agree with your position too I had three CQ's with the
"normal" method before changing it up with only one in the other format.
Then immediately back to the normal format. again. I hoped that wouldn't
mess with experienced contesters' minds too much while at the same time let
me every now and then do what less strong CW ops appeared to like. Kind of
like choosing how often to identify in a pile up.

ID in a pile up? That thought makes me wonder if the same N1MM coding
format that lets you get alternating CQ's couldn't also be used to change
the TU N4XL end of q acknowledgement message to just TU and only add N4XL
every third or fourth time? Not critical to my station, but some of you do
well enough that you might want to check that out.

Kevan
N4XL

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Bill Coleman <aa4lr at arrl.net> wrote:

>
> > On May 31, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Kevan Nason <knason00 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Always try to learn and share at least one thing from each contest.
> >
> > Found out N1MM has the ability to automatically use an alternate CQ
> message every "x" cq's. Get bored with the same message over and over when
> doing auto CQ so tried it out this weekend.. Found a couple of benefits.
> Both are intangible, subjective, observations, but... Used the basic CQ
> TEST N4XL and also N4XL N4XL TEST. Set it up for three of the first
> followed by a single of the second.
>
> Kevan, you can certainly do however you like, but on the receiving end of
> CW, I hate this. (RTTY is an entirely different matter…)
>
> IMHO, the only thing that belongs after the last iteration of your
> callsign is silence. When I’m trying to dig a callsign out of the static,
> the last thing I need to do is mentally subtract a final “TEST” “CQ” or
> “QRZ” from the mix.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/secc/attachments/20160601/f905371f/attachment.html>