Topband: 160 and other Contest Log verification

[Michael Tope]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <mstangelo at comcast.net>
To: <K3BU at aol.com>; <topband at contesting.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.

Even if you copy the previous or following QSO number, you are still
forced to copy essentially the same additional information (I don't think
the rules state anything about when a QSO must start and end other
than it must fall within the contest period). In any case, a serial number
is better than "599" which you can deduce without even turning on the
radio. Random numbers generated by software would really make it
interesting, however.

Mike W4EF.........................................