[UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

[Roger G3SXW]

Standardised reports in HF contests are merely to give shape to the contact. 
They do that very well, particularly in contests with minimal exchange like 
CQWW, IARU, HFC. With more traffic to exchange they could be dropped, as 
happens in Sprints. So it depends on what else is being exchanged in each 
contest. To cut out the report OR the serial in IOTA doesn't sound right: 
non-island stations with no IOTA reference to send would be left too little 
to send and keep 'shape' to the QSO.

Of course, the argument for retaining meaningless signal reports is 
especially strong in non-contest pile-ups, to manage flow. I have no input 
on VHF contest exchanges.
73 de Roger/G3SXW.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy GD0TEP" <andy at gd0tep.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee


> The issue with real reports on HF and VHF points to how different contests
> are on HF to VHF.
>
> I think it's more a cultural thing that has grown over the years, by that 
> I
> mean HF'ers always appear to hand out 59(9) after 59(9) often when the 
> real
> report could be 439 or perhaps worse. Yet on VHF/UHF and above, real 
> reports
> are often the norm, and offer 'real' information to the station being
> worked.
>
> I sometimes wonder if I worked people in a HF contest and gave everyone
> 53(9) what would be logged?
>
> By all means dumb down the exchange even further on HF, it wouldn't bother
> me as I tend not to take part in them, but leave the VHF+ contests alone,
> real reports are valuable.
>
> 73,
> Andy
> http://gd0tep.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest