Topband: 160 and other Contest Log verification

[mstangelo@comcast.net]

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: K3BU at aol.com 

> 
> >>>........Wouldn't it make the contest in question more meaningful if the 
> exchange RST/RS (which is 99% insignificant, superflous, and also false, i.e. 
> automated 599/59) were changed to a serial number or significant number which 
> would require synchronization to validate a QSO????? As we all know, the signal 
> report, in 99% of the contacts, is a farce, and the spirit of the meaning of 
> the report is abused by programming 599 into a keyer.<<< 
> 
A complete QSO should include the exchange of callsigns and some meaningful information such as a valid signal report.. Why don't they modify the rules such that meaningful signal reports have to be exchanged and they have to match in the logs or the contact is disqualified. This would also provide meaningful information on the propagation between different stations and let one compare the efficiency of his or her station with a nearby station.

I'm leary of using serial numbers because someone could deduce the received number by  from the previous or following QSO.
Sending meaningful exchanges will improve the operator's ability to communicate.
73,
Mike N2MS