[UK-CONTEST] UBN failures

[Robert Chipperfield]

I suspect I could increase my received signal strength and readability 
by upgrading my antenna to a Steppir on a large tower as well, but that 
does not change the signals as received currently :-).

I understand why many chose to give 59 (particularly on HF), but 
certainly criticism should not be levelled at those who chose not to.

There may be nothing in the rules that state signal reports must be 
accurate, but there's definitely nothing that says they must be 59 
either! If someone can be bothered to make a decision on what your 
incoming signal is like with them, then the least you can do is to log it.

The pre-populated 59 is a useful shortcut, to be sure, but it's not a 
guarantee - just like SCP, the locators you received last week, and your 
knowledge of which direction a station is likely to be in when you point 
the beam.

73,
Rob, M0VFC

On 17/07/2011 12:42, Christopher Plummer wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Seeing as it seems to be a problem with filters in your RX, maybe it is time for an upgrade.
>
> Chris
>
>
>> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:14:09 +0100
>> From: peter at tilgate.co.uk
>> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
>>
>> Chris, I suspect you may have been referring to me in last week's SSB
>> CC, an event I do participate in occasionally. I log by hand and so
>> it's easy and appropriate to give accurate signal reports, as well as
>> record those that I receive. If such reports are to be a mandated part
>> of the exchange, then they should have some use or meaning. To be
>> driven by the limitations of automated logging aids is entirely
>> unacceptable, however I suspect that many of these have options to
>> properly set up signal reporting. On Wednesday, only a few exceptional
>> (mainly local) signals were perfectly readable (R5), others were
>> perturbed to a greater or lesser extent by other close-in stuff and were
>> generally reported as 3 (readable with considerable difficulty) or 4
>> (with practically no difficulty). I keep the AGC switched off and so
>> received signal strengths are always subjective, but then so is the
>> RS(T) code, as defined. My estimates varied between S5 and S9 (fairly
>> good to very strong), which is how they were reported. Far from being
>> sharp practice, this is BEST PRACTICE and should be fully supported by
>> whatever logging tools people choose to use.
>>
>> The alternative is to decide to do away with signal reports altogether
>> of course - a pity, but I'd have no real objection - however that would
>> be up to the Contest Committee. And I really don't see why there should
>> be any difference between HF and V/UHF in this regard, especially when
>> DX on 80 and 160m is often at ESP signal levels.
>>
>> 73, Peter G3LET
>>
>> Christopher Plummer wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> To add my halfpenneth. In a recent 80m Club contest one particular contestant was giving every contact 47 or 48, he was hoping, I suspect, that I would log 58 or even 59 and thus get a Busted contact, and he would happily claim the contact as I gave him 59, or whatever my logging program prompted. I have spoken to a number of other contestants from this session and this competitor has done the same to them. I regard this as sharp practice and should be curtailed by a warning, surely every contact he made would not have been readability 4?
>>>
>>> Did anyone else get the same treatment?
>>>
>>> Chris G8APB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:06:11 +0000
>>>> From: g3yyd at btinternet.com
>>>> To: UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UBN failures
>>>>
>>>> I see my 59 for all QSOs provoke the expected knee jerk re-action from
>>>> some contesters. The HF contesters worked out long ago that the rules do
>>>> not specify that the report has to be accurate. Even if the rules did,
>>>> how is it enforceable? QED give 59 saves typing at both ends and hence
>>>> removes a possibility of error in that part of the exchange.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think the RS(T) report should be removed from contests and
>>>> some do just that. It is the serial number and locator code that is the
>>>> real exchange in a VHF+ contest. Even the locator code can come from a
>>>> call history file so that leaves the serial number as being the really
>>>> unique part of the exchange.
>>>>
>>>> 73 David G3YYD
>>>>
>>>> PS just seen Stewart's post in similar vain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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