[UK-CONTEST] RSGB Contest Committee

[Andy Cook G4PIQ]

I've done and been successful in IOTA frequently and I'd vote for not changing the exchange. RST adds structure and makes us look a little less ridiculous to non-contesters. Exchanging both serial and island doesn't impact rate much and accurate checking of both sets of details should help split accurate and in-accurate operators. Maybe we should introduce a 3x penalty system like CQWW to really get some more focus on accuracy...

73

Andy G4PIQ
On 8 Aug 2010, at 10:27, "Jim Fisher" <gm0nai at btinternet.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest