[UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

[Jim Fisher]

I would drop the serial numbers for Island stations and keep the serial for
non-island.
Not on the basis of difficult to receive but on the basis that when you have
an eye watering pile up 
>From an island station 5NN/599 2345 EU123 is a very time consuming exchange
when many people are waiting for the mult.
The cluster generated pileups are a bit mad and a quicker exchange would
match the supply better to the demand.

On the other hand we could introduce sending the station location long hand
like 4m "50Km south of Lochmaddy" as-well
That would really slow things down and reduce the number of Island station
QSOs available.

Dropping the serial number also resolves an other issue around the
implementation of multi-op serial numbers.

73

Jim 
GM0NAI


-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of CHRIS COLCLOUGH
Sent: 07 August 2010 17:00
To: uk-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

As an IOTA contester, and one from an island (EU-005 and EU-124) then I feel

that the serial number for the Island station should be dropped. If the 
conditions are not briliant - like this year - it becomes hard for the
receiving 
station to get all the report in one hit, this we noticed alot on Ramsey
where 
we had to repeat numerous times the report.

In contests where there is no other information then I feel it should be
kept. 

IMHO.

 
Chris Colclough
G1VDP
http://www.g1vdp.com
http://www.mc0shl.com

"If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes"

Tel: 024 7673 5940
Mob: 07505 359709
QTHR




________________________________
From: Roger G3SXW <g3sxw at btinternet.com>
To: uk-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, 7 August, 2010 17:31:41
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

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 

_______________________________________________
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