[UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

[John Lemay]

Bob

I expect many people on here will agree with you and Roger about reports,
and as you say you can "lead" the other station with the signal strength
indication and the pace at which you give that report.

It could be the hundreds or thousands who don't subscribe to this discussion
group that could benefit from some education.

Thinking about it, many HF reports really will be "S" 9 anyway - anything
less is buried in the qrm ! That's why I like VHF and UHF so much more - a 5
and 3 signal can be copied 100% first time !

CU

John G4ZTR G0VHF/P

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob Harrison
Sent: 16 July 2011 11:36
To: Roger at G0BSU.net; UK-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

Hi Roger,

I agree, if the station is weak I'll give a lower report and "hope" the 
other end is savvy enough to realise I'm not copying to well, and slow down 
and possibly give the details twice. If on the other hand it's anything from

57 to 59 Just fire it at me quickly. If I'm getting a low signal and get 
"your 59" they're either a good set up or using default software, and I 
can't tell other than knowing regular good portables  may be getting a much 
better signal.

I'm afraid a lot of this is filtering down from HF contesting, and VHF/UHF 
is a different ball game, plus inexperience VHF ops. Hopefully time will 
improve things, but it'll not happen overnight.

73

Bob G8HGN

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Thawley" <roger.thawley at sky.com>
To: <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures


>
> I'm with you on those thoughts Paul and Rob.
>
> I'll always give a report, which reflects the actual signal received. In
> doing so, I hope that the other station will take that as a hint to 
> either:
> a) Where my report indicates they are strong and fully readable, feel it 
> is
> then unnecessary to respond by first repeating all the information I've 
> just
> given them and then repeat their report to me two or three times.
> or
> b) Where my report indicates they are weak and difficult to hear, do just
> the opposite!
>
> This turns out to be wishful thinking at times!
>
> Roger, G0BSU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob Harrison
> Sent: 16 July 2011 11:15
> To: Paul Selwood; 'David G3YYD'; UK-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
>
> I'll second that, apart from the callsign the one thing that's unique in 
> the
>
> over, and makes the QSO valid. To default to is just laziness and a ploy 
> to
> make more meaningless cntacts, mainly in contests. Ban it now.
>
> Bob G8HGN
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Selwood" <g3ydy at blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: "'David G3YYD'" <g3yyd at btinternet.com>; <UK-Contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 11:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
>
>
>>
>> Better still remove the auto 59 from all software
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David G3YYD
>> Sent: 16 July 2011 10:44
>> To: UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
>>
>> The obvious conclusion is always give 59 as the report then no problem.
>>
>> 73 David
>>
>> On 16/07/2011 08:16, Roger Thawley wrote:
>>> I see an interesting trend within UBN reports received by M0GVG. A
>>> number of failed contacts are due to broken reports and, in almost
>>> every case, we have logged that the other station has given us a
>>> report other than '59' but the other stations have all logged that they
>> have given us a '59' report.
>>> Typically, the report we have logged is similar to the report we have
>>> sent, perhaps suggesting that both the logged reports are correct. I'm
>>> left wondering if the other stations logging software is automatically
>>> inserting '59' and if the other operators are failing to replace this
>>> with the 'actual' report they sent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger, G0BSU (M0GVG/P)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3767 - Release Date: 07/15/11
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 6298 (20110715) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6298 (20110715) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6298 (20110715) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com