[UK-CONTEST] Fw: Redundant contest reports? (SSB CC (and other80mcontests))

[Peter Hobbs]

Sorry Clive, cannot agree.  This business of relating S points to absolute 
level is actually a bit of marketing that came about when Collins (or 
whoever) first felt the need to justify having an *S-meter* on their rigs.
The RST code has always been officially defined as follows (for the benefit 
of the non-G3s!), which for me gives a very useful indication of how I'm 
being received by the other guy if it is used correctly.

Readability

R1    Unreadable
R2    Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable
R3    Readable with considerable difficulty
R4    Readable with practically no difficulty
R5    Perfectly readable

Signal Strength

S1    Faint, signals hardly perceptible
S2    Very weak signals
S3    Weak signals
S4    Fair signals
S5    Fairly good signals
S6    Good signals
S7    Moderately strong signals
S8    Strong signals
S9    Exceptionally strong signals

I won't bore you with the "T" definitions, which originally date from the 
days of spark and MCW and are usually superfluous today (except for the "C" 
and "K" which can follow)

73, Peter G3LET

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 11:00 AM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Fw: Redundant contest reports? (SSB CC (and 
other80mcontests))


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
> To: <gw0etf at btinternet.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Redundant contest reports? (SSB CC (and other
> 80mcontests))
>
>
>> There is no such thing as a true report. So just forget it, all reports
>> are dependant on multiple factors outside the control of the station
>> seeking the report.
>>    The only valid report type is you are stronger or weaker than before 
>> by
>> X db if X can be measured and by measured I don't mean an S meter.
>>    Other than that I can do without an RST that is NOT required for DXCC,
>> as in the case of EME where a report of O is often given. 73 Clive GM3POI
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Stewart Rolfe" <gw0etf at btinternet.com>
>> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:46 AM
>> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Redundant contest reports? (SSB CC (and other
>> 80mcontests))
>>
>>
>>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>From: <g3ory at lineone.net>
>>>
>>>>> I found that I missed the 5NN/59 as a lead in to the serial
>>>>> number  in the 80m Sprint last autumn.  Maybe there is someone
>>>>> else out there who missed it too.  I expect he is a G3 as well.....
>>>
>>>>When you don't expect to hear 5NN, you don't miss it. Of course,
>>>>for as long as you're not used to contest exchanges without
>>>>reports, you might miss them.
>>>
>>>>73,
>>>>Paul EI5DI
>>>
>>> More to the point surely is the fact that 59/5NN (as against true
>>> reports) is redundant information, adds to the general inefficiency of
>>> the contest exchange and should be left out. It also adds to the
>>> criticisms contest bashers use in their diatribes....
>>>
>>> I'm sure the human brain, or at least mine, does become conditioned to
>>> listen for the 5NN etc and I'm almost certainly still 'waiting' for it 
>>> in
>>> classic contests. By now however I find the Sprint style completely
>>> natural and would probably have to double take if I actually did receive
>>> any sort of lead-in report.
>>>
>>> Time to ditch it? (or go back to true reports?)
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Stewart Rolfe, GW0ETF
>>> (A 60+ something G0 of little brain...)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1935 - Release Date: 02/03/09 
17:48:00