Topband: Real World logging issues
Mike Fatchett W0MU
w0mu at w0mu.com
Thu Nov 30 20:23:23 EST 2023
After being DX many times, mistakes happen. About 1/2 took place prior
to online logs. For my operations this has been a very tiny issue. My
choice before online logs was that I would wait for a period of time to
see if the station in the log actually requested a QSL. I might have
even reached out to ask. Hey did you work me on at V47M. If so, when?
This is a hobby. We should strive for perfection but that is
impossible. My goal is to give credit to the station I actually worked.
I have had numerous people attempt to phish a contact with vague log
data. Those requests are quickly denied.
Weird stuff happens. I have worked someone and then W1MU has worked
them right after me or vise versa. That has happened on enough
occasions that it comes to mind quickly.
The older I get the easier it is to drop a dit on CW.
I have had a few duh moments just looking at the log and knowing that
what I typed was not what I heard. Stuff happens.
I never answer any emails about contacts during a contest or look at
offline data etc. I do very very log massaging other than checking on
notes that were taken during the contest and making the appropriate
corrections immediately after the contest if they could not be made during.
Are most people cheating, nope. Are there cheaters. You bet.
W0MU
On 11/30/2023 1:45 PM, W3HKK at roadrunner.com wrote:
> Am enjoying comments from DXers about real world/160m/marginal copy,
> and can only imagine the challenges faced. My kudos to you for making
> the valiant effort!
>
> One obvious but simple check an op can do, after finding HIS call is
> not in the DX's log, is to check whether that call is in the FCC
> database. A few years back, I had a qso declared NIL and when I
> checked the call sign that "took my place," I found it was not a
> listed call sign - so how could it be a valid qso? The QSL manager
> accepted my argument that it had to be me, and I picked up a new DX
> entity- Band. ( his log was off by one letter...an "S" instead of a
> "H," no less.)
>
> Bob, W3HKK
>
> PS While 160 has been more often poor than good here of late, the
> first night of the CQWWDX-CW test was excellent into EU, around their
> SR. It was such a pleasant surprise I stayed on the band for several
> hours and "mined" the band for new signals that would pop up every few
> minutes!
>
> PPS George, sorry I missed you at K8R. Didnt realize you were there
> til afterwards.
>
> PPSS 4W8X - great effort in the CQWW-CW test! Terrific sigs on 10m!
> Thanks for the qsos
> ( W3HKK-W8TNX-WW8OH-W8FD) and pulling me thru the massive pile ups!
>
> -----------------------------------------From:
> topband-request at contesting.com
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday November 30 2023 12:00:45PM
> Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 251, Issue 31
>
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband at contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> /> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-request at contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-owner at contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Timor Leste report #10 (Dietmar Kasper)
> 2. Re: Timor Leste report #10 (GEORGE WALLNER)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:39:54 +0100
> From: Dietmar Kasper
> To: topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Timor Leste report #10
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Dear Topbanders
> 90% of the equipment is in the container. We still have 2 1/2
> stations running (one without amp in phone only)
> the 160m antennas and beverages are still up and some simple wire
> verticals have been added to continue beeing
> QRV the next days and nights.
>
> It seems we are in rain season now. No afternoon without close
> thunderstorms and all the noise on the bands.
> Propagation is still poor however last night was a short window
> around 12:30 to work a few lucky W4?s.
>
> In the thunderstorm noise call sign logging is guessing. I am sure
> that I am not almost right with the call.
> I called a W4 for about 5 minutes and thought it was K4SV. At the end
> I was logging K4SV but I had the feeling
> that this station was not happy with that call and I may have it
> wrong ... as much as you can hear in the crashes..
> (QSO interpretation later)
>
> When it comes to the question if a QSO is a QSO or not there is no
> unique standard. Thanks to all for discussing
> the question about FT contacts that must be initiated by an operator.
> I feel that the discussion is still open
> and a solution accepted by the majority of topbanders is not there so
> far. It was clearly indicated that the
> station must be observed during the contacts so automated contacts do
> not count for DXCC. Still open is if the
> contacts must be initiated by the operator or just by software. Some
> said it is OK that the operator is still
> watching that everything goes well. In my opinion an operator (and
> ARRL clearly uses the word OPERATOR) is only
> an operator if HE OPERATES, means, a visitor cannot be an operator by
> just watching the traffic.
> So my personal conclusion is that every contact MUST BE INITIATED by
> an operator MANUALLY - like in old days
> before MSHV software. I have the feeling that this cn start a
> revolution in DXpeditions of today because
> I FEEL AND KNOW that most DXpeds are running FT contacts unintended
> and uninitiated however nobody has prove of
> it as long as the DXped guys state that they are work in strict order
> of DXCC rules - do they ? what do you think :-) ?
>
> Also in CW mode its interesting to define if a QSO is a QSO. A QSO is
> not just happen that one operator calls
> and the DXped picks him up and give him a report. Station must hear
> that the call was given correct and the report
> is for him and he has to answer without delay. Even then QSO is not
> sure as long as both partners have not confirmed
> the contact by TU. Very often on topband QSB has prevented a QSO to
> finish.
>
> However this is a hobby and rules give room for interpretation. One
> station told me that I worked him 3 times
> but logged his call wrong so he does not define this contacts as
> good He wrote: "at the 3rd time you came close
> to my call but it still was wrong so I continue trying next nights".
> This is a pretty high QSO standard!
>
> I am not so strict. I know that under this hard QRN situation call
> errors happen and I will have contacts wrong for sure.
> I still log it even I know it may be wrong but there is no penalty in
> DXpedition compared to a contest
> If a station gives me proof that it was HIS CONTACT by telling me the
> wrong call, his call, the date+time and the
> exact QRG he transmitted - we might correct his call sign, as long as
> the noted call in log is not requested by another
> station. However his call must be close to the logged call, mostly
> wrong just by one letter.
> I wonder if topband community agrees with me or not.
> These are some "contacts once in a liftime" so I do not want to make
> it harder as neccessary.
>
> Long writing, sorry for that. I hope it is still interesting for you
> readers. Topband is a very serious part of the
> hobby and who else as the topbanders should define the standards of a
> GOOD QSO.
> I do not want to create confrontation and bad discussions but I think
> its essential to think about QSO rules for us
>
> more to follow
> 73 Dietmar
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:04:05 -0500
> From: "GEORGE WALLNER"
> To: "Dietmar Kasper" , topband at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Timor Leste report #10
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
>
> Dietmar,
> FT8: I share your understanding of the DXCC rules. Somebody must be
> there
> and do something to initiate the contact. That is how I see it, but
> realistically, if you can not tell the difference, how do you police
> it?
> While I don't agree with automated FT8 operation, at least the those
> using
> it today are honest about it. Invalidating their QSO-s will mean that
> in the
> future they will not declare when they are automated. I prefer
> honesty over
> perfection.
>
> On CW I use the same standard as you have described. I take a note of
> where
> I am not sure and later use that when receiving correction requests.
> If it
> is not on my "doubtful" list, and it is just one letter off, and
> everything
> else matches, it is probably a legit request. But, I received a log
> correction request, which had everything right and only one letter
> off, I
> corrected the call, and next day the real "owner" complained that his
> QSO
> has disappeared.?
> Many 160 m contacts are marginal and we have to work hard at them.
> That is
> why it is more fun than FT8!
> TKS for your efforts and 73,
> George,
> AA7JV
> K8R and KH8/AA7JV
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 04:39:54 +0100 Dietmar Kasper wrote:
> >Dear Topbanders
> >90% of the equipment is in the container. We still have 2 1/2
> stations running (one without amp in phone only)
> >the 160m antennas and beverages are still up and some simple wire
> verticals have been added to continue beeing
> >QRV the next days and nights.
> >
> >It seems we are in rain season now. No afternoon without close
> thunderstorms and all the noise on the bands.
> >Propagation is still poor however last night was a short window
> around 12:30 to work a few lucky W4?s.
> >
> >In the thunderstorm noise call sign logging is guessing. I am sure
> that I am not almost right with the call.
> >I called a W4 for about 5 minutes and thought it was K4SV. At the
> end I was logging K4SV but I had the feeling
> >that this station was not happy with that call and I may have it
> wrong ... as much as you can hear in the crashes...
> >(QSO interpretation later)
> >
> >When it comes to the question if a QSO is a QSO or not there is no
> unique standard. Thanks to all for discussing
> >the question about FT contacts that must be initiated by an
> operator. I feel that the discussion is still open
> >and a solution accepted by the majority of topbanders is not there
> so far. It was clearly indicated that the
> >station must be observed during the contacts so automated contacts
> do not count for DXCC. Still open is if the
> >contacts must be initiated by the operator or just by software. Some
> said it is OK that the operator is still
> >watching that everything goes well. In my opinion an operator (and
> ARRL clearly uses the word OPERATOR) is only
> >an operator if HE OPERATES, means, a visitor cannot be an operator
> by just watching the traffic.
> >So my personal conclusion is that every contact MUST BE INITIATED by
> an operator MANUALLY - like in old days
> >before MSHV software. I have the feeling that this cn start a
> revolution in DXpeditions of today because I FEEL AND KNOW that most
> DXpeds are running FT contacts unintended and uninitiated however
> nobody has prove of
> >it as long as the DXped guys state that they are work in strict
> order of DXCC rules - do they ? what do you think :-) ?
> >
> >Also in CW mode its interesting to define if a QSO is a QSO. A QSO
> is not just happen that one operator calls
> >and the DXped picks him up and give him a report. Station must hear
> that the call was given correct and the report
> >is for him and he has to answer without delay. Even then QSO is not
> sure as long as both partners have not confirmed
> >the contact by TU. Very often on topband QSB has prevented a QSO to
> finish.
> >
> >However this is a hobby and rules give room for interpretation. One
> station told me that I worked him 3 times
> >but logged his call wrong so he does not define this contacts as
> good. He wrote: "at the 3rd time you came close
> >to my call but it still was wrong so I continue trying next nights".
> This is a pretty high QSO standard!
> >
> >I am not so strict. I know that under this hard QRN situation call
> errors happen and I will have contacts wrong for sure.
> >I still log it even I know it may be wrong but there is no penalty
> in DXpedition compared to a contest
> >If a station gives me proof that it was HIS CONTACT by telling me
> the wrong call, his call, the date+time and the
> >exact QRG he transmitted - we might correct his call sign, as long
> as the noted call in log is not requested by another
> >station. However his call must be close to the logged call, mostly
> wrong just by one letter.
> >I wonder if topband community agrees with me or not.
> >These are some "contacts once in a liftime" so I do not want to make
> it harder as neccessary.
> >
> >Long writing, sorry for that. I hope it is still interesting for you
> readers. Topband is a very serious part of the
> >hobby and who else as the topbanders should define the standards of
> a GOOD QSO.
> >I do not want to create confrontation and bad discussions but I
> think its essential to think about QSO rules for us.
> >
> >more to follow
> >73 Dietmar
> >
> >_________________
> >Searchable Archives:
> >http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> /> > - Topband Reflector
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> />
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 251, Issue 31
> ****************************************
>
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
More information about the Topband
mailing list