What an excellent idea! A more challenging exchange makes for more meaningful contest. For us newbies, the "5nn k" is really a no brainer. I'd like to be able to believe that what I am copying is a
Author: "Alfred J. Frugoli (KE1FO)" <frugoli@worldlinkisp.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 21:16:12 -0400
I hope all of you who have posted on this topic to the reflector have also e-mailed the contest advisory committee with your comments. Also, we should consider some other options, such as are there c
I would offer that I copy a lot of real numbers/messages during contests.....there's 5, and 9, maybe another 9, maybe a state abbreviation or another series of numbers, maybe even a callsign or two.
To make life more interesting, the contest could require that the exchange you send is the one you just copied in the previous QSO. I think this is used in one of the Scandinavian contests. Not only
zip code is a 5 digit number I hope all of you who have posted on this topic to the reflector have also e-mailed the contest advisory committee with your comments. Also, we should consider some other
Mike Tessmer" <mike.tessmer@hillmangroup.com wrote: "Imagine the fun of explaining to "Joe Casual Contester" how you'd love to work him but first he has to go and register with the ARRL or whoever so
In a message dated 5/8/04 2:17:24 PM Greenwich Standard Time, k4ww@arrl.net writes: Isn't contesting supposed to be fun? I know of very few things, that I consider difficult, that I have fun doing! I
Quack's ZIP Code is in fact a 5 digit NR but wouldn't this eliminate participation by VE3's or any VE's Gotta do better than this and how do we get the program to recognize all NR exchange and/or com
It was used in the Internet Sprint last night, at least for the name part. Good 20m propagation enabled me to make 127 Qs - a lot of fun! As far as I know, the concept was first introduced by Dennis
You want meaningful? How about Zip+4! Leave the existing contest exchanges as they are. If you want a "meaningful" exchange, create a new contest (call it the "Meaningful Exchange Contest" or MEC) fo
Author: "Alfred J. Frugoli (KE1FO)" <frugoli@worldlinkisp.com>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:27:51 -0400
How is this hard to explain. "Send to the next guy what you recieved in the previous exchange" seems to cover it pretty well. Furthermore, little harm would be done if the casual contester just sent
all good and fine, but answer the only important question: how to do you get 100 ops or so to frequent both 80 and 160 meters in a JIDX or RDX or CQ-M contest? _______________________________________
How about a four digit number - your birth month and your birth year? 0873. Quack's ZIP Code is in fact a 5 digit NR but wouldn't this eliminate participation by VE3's or any VE's Gotta do better tha
Try explaining this at 30 WPM to somone who does good copy at 15 and ur trying to make a score ??? How is this hard to explain. "Send to the next guy what you recieved in the previous exchange" seems
KE1FO says explaining an unusual contest exchange is easy, but he must be talking about on SSB. It is very difficult on CW. Even some otherwise good CW operators can't seem to copy anything but calls
It seems to me that the simplest way to vary the exchange in each QSO is to use serials - all contest loggers can handle them. Also, it could be argued that one step towards meaningful exchanges migh
"Paul O'Kane" <paul@ei5di.com> wrote: "Also, it could be argued that one step towards meaningful exchanges might be to omit meaningless exchanges - in particular, RST." This is already being done! BA
It seems the folk who think hard exchanges should be easy to explain are assuming, possibly in error, that the casual operator is going to care enough to listen... As much as 'we' may like the idea o
At 11:33 PM 5/10/2004, Kelly Taylor wrote: It would be interesting to compare the number of valid callsigns recorded in submitted logs in WW or WPX against the number of submitted logs. I suspect the
In a message dated 5/11/04 11:13:51 AM Greenwich Standard Time, ve4xt@mb.sympatico.ca writes: It would be interesting to compare the number of valid callsigns recorded in submitted logs in WW or WPX