[UK-CONTEST] Failure to Identify

[John Lemay]

Perhaps I can be really old fashioned here, and suggest that a qso requires
a minimum exchange of both callsigns and a report ?

John G4ZTR

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob Harrison
Sent: 05 December 2011 10:27
To: uk-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Failure to Identify

Hi,

I've just recently ventured on to 10M, from a long background on VHF/UHF. 
I've done a bit of SWLing over those years so I know how HF operates. I was 
quite taken aback at the appalling operating of some stations, the usual 
calling and not listening, etc, etc. For example this morning VK6ANC on 10M 
was peaking 57 here on my dipole at 4ft off the ground. Now if I can hear 
him, all these large Europeans stations can too, but calling whilst he's in 
QSO, tuning up on the frequency, chatting over the top, and then he went QRT

and they were still calling!  Of course all that has been going on for 
years, but the ID situation is much worse than I can remember. I think 
that's due to the cluster spots and point and shoot software mainly. 
Stations feel they don't have to ID as they are spotted on the cluster. Two 
or three QRZ's is acceptable before giving the call, but I listened to one 
station that was just saying QRZ every time until someone managed to get in 
and ask for the call.

Related to this is the practice of saying 73 etc at the end of a QSO and 
then not indicating you are listening for the final over, so all and sundry 
drop their calls in over the final over. Then the calling station says "the 
DL station with X in the call" or some such phrase. There's no control of 
the calling stations. I was lead to believe you should indicate when you are

ready to receive new callers, and if calling in, wait until the station 
indicates he's lookng for new callers. Some operators don't help their 
cause, and I'm left to decide whether to join the scrum or stick to my guns.

All it needs is the operator to NOT take any calls dropped in during the 
final over, and then when finished give call or QRZ.

Am I a dinosaur and asking too much in these "modern times".

Bob G8HGN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart GM4AFF" <stewart at gm4aff.net>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:19 AM
Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Failure to Identify


>
> I listened for a little while on 10m yesterday. This was outside any 
> contest
> and conditions were superb. There were many stations who were ending their
> QSOs with TU, rather than identifying. Some stations on SSB just go on and
> on and never identify, in spite of not being under any particular pile-up
> stress.
>
> So it's not just the desire to increase rate in contests that causes this.
> In fact, that's just an excuse. I fully appreciate that to not identify 
> from
> time to time is a means of pile-up control, but that's not what these guys
> are doing. Sadly, they just don't know how to operate. Now that we have 
> good
> conditions, I wonder how it will be in the ARRL 10m contest coming up next
> weekend?
>
> During CQ WW SSB I noticed a station on the cluster who was entering loads
> of bad, or busted spots. Everyone, including me, was annoyed by this. I 
> now
> think that he may have been trying to make a point.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Stewart
>
> GM4AFF
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6684 (20111205) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6684 (20111205) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6684 (20111205) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com