[WriteLog] Enter sends exch/QRZ?

Alan Maenchen ad6e at arrl.net
Mon Aug 25 17:18:31 EDT 2014

Gary,  good points .. but see below.
73, Alan  AD6E

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Gary AL9A <al9a at mtaonline.net> wrote:

> Alan,
> Tacking "TEST" to the end of a CQ does serve a purpose.  If you are tuning
> across the band in CW and hear just the "TEST" part of the message you know
> one thing right away.  Whoever the station is he is calling CQ to solicit a
> contact in a contest.  You now have several options other than wasting a
> few seconds for him to call CQ again.

I generally know that anyway simply by the part of the band he's in and the

> 1. Keep tuning.
Yes, I really should.

> 2. If you are using a spotting cluster check the WL band map and see who,
> if anyone, is spotted there and hope that is the correct call.  Sometimes
> Skimmers get it wrong!
Packet gets it wrong sometimes too, but as a single-op, I don't do packet
or skimmer. Band maps and panadapters are wonderful tools, especially if
integrated. A good reason for not tuning on up the band is to get the call
and add it to my band map.

> 3. Call the station in the blind by sending only your call.  This is
> accepted practice anyway.  Even if you caught his call in the CQ, don't
> waste his time and yours by calling "W7XYZ de AD6E".  If the station
> responds with your call and his exchange, send your exchange absent his
> call sign.  This will usually result in a "TU W7XYZ" or whatever his call
> is. Now you have both his exchange and call without having to wait until
> his next CQ.
I hate to call blind because it can waste both of our time in the likely
case that he's a dupe. What I usually do is throw out a quick "?" to
indicate that I didn't catch the call. Quite often it results in a shorter
wait time for the next CQ. But sometimes it results in the other guy
sending "?"  :-(   The only time I would blind call is when the other guy
has a pileup going and never IDs. If it turns out to be a dupe then, I can
feel glad that I wasted some of his time after he wasted so much of mine.

> 4. Wait for his next CQ message and call him then.

> Finally, the other purpose served by "TEST" is it tells the casual
> non-contester op who just happened to tune onto the frequency that the
> station is calling in a contest.  This means he is NOT seeking a rag chew
> QSO and expects a short abbreviated report.  If the tuner listens a bit he
> can even discern what that exchange might be - RST plus serial number,
> zone, state, whatever.  With this info in hand he can now make a call and
> work the CQing station.
So, you DON'T want a casual op to call you?  Every once in a while I find
someone not interested in the contest but I'll take a minute or two to do a
short chat if the rate is low anyway. Makes them happy about contesters and
I've got another point. The proper place to say TEST is as part of the
CQ:   "CQ TEST AD6E"   or if you want to be more specific  "CQ HQP KH6RR".
Adding TEST at the end just seems redundant.

> If a station doesn't add "TEST" to the end of a CQ you might have missed
> his call anyway.  Or perhaps the station should send his call multiple
> times? How many times would be enough?  Two, three four?  How is he
> supposed to know the exact moment you might tune by his frequency seeking
> to get his call?  Asking "Who are you?" serves no purpose.  It is not his
> fault if you caught just the "TEST".  You should have been there sooner!
Or I didn't copy the call. Several reasons why I might have fumbled it. I'm
not blaming the CQ station for his (or my) timing. Just that the extra TEST
seems like a waste of time. That was my original point.

> 73,
> Gary AL9A

More information about the WriteLog mailing list