Another way to get at least an educated guess of who it might be, and
hence be able to decide if it is worthwhile hanging around for is to see
who is spotted on that freq.
Kinda use the spots in reverse. find the station, then look to see who's
there.
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 11/26/2012 9:17 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
I don't mind the idea of including something in the rules, and I applaud
those stations who incorporate their callsign into the ack message (TU
VE4XT).
But I think complaining about it is much ado about little. Here's why: the
stations already in the pileup know (or think they know) who the guy is, so
he's got a ready collection of customers without further solicitation.
Secondly, after doing SS writeups for more than 10 years, the number of
times a significant position in the standings comes down to one QSO is rare.
Moreover, the number of times that one QSO difference comes down to that
station who's not ID-ing is even more rare.
The original logging program (CT) had a calc that showed "Mult worth xx
minutes". It was a relational between your current rate and the value of new
multipliers. It was valid ONLY if you knew who the mult was. If you don't
know who the mult is, or even if he is a new mult, the value of spending
time working the guy plummets like a rock.
Don't even try to work him. If you think he's important, put him in a memory
and check back from time to time. You'll make a lot more QSOs making QSOs
than you will fretting over the guy's lack of ID. If you've worked the band
dry and can't or won't change bands, THEN you can spend an inordinate amount
of time on him.
Those stations stuck in a pileup on a guy you don't even know? Let them!
Heck, they might be working the wrong guy (happens all the time with busted
spots), in which case they've not only lost all the time they wasted working
the guy, they're losing the QSO they wasted all that time on too!
Even if you know it's a double mult (because you know that from his zone
it's guaranteed you also need his country), the value in fixating on the guy
is limited.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 11/26/12 5:53 AM, "Tim Shoppa" <tshoppa@gmail.com> wrote:
OK in the past I have complained about this too. This year though, I think
I'll be in the top 10 for SOAB(A) LP, other contests I go into
non-assisted, which qualifies me as a "competent" little gun S&P station
and I feel qualified to talk on the issue again.
I think the no-ID problem was at its worst maybe 3 or 4 years ago. Some of
the worst no-ID offenders have also been caught by contest organizers for
other infractions. Other worst no-ID offenders from the past seemed to have
reformed themselves and now were doing a great job. This year, my feeling
is that in CQ WW there was excellent form by the vast majority of big guns,
with many ID'ing religiously after every QSO. I don't even do that when I'm
running and there's a line (OK a rare situation but it does happen!)
Most amusing to me, was one station, whose long-form CQ was evidently just
"CQ TEST". He did not get worked by me. I had no idea who he was.
On CW this year, the number of stations who thought "QRZ?" was equivalent
to an ID or a long form call was very very minimal. I am very very glad we
have moved beyond that. When I was a kid I was often chastised, chewed out,
belittled by contesters who told me that the only valid form of call was
"QRZ?". Oh, things are so much better today.
Keying quality was much better this year too. In past years there was an
interesting intersection between worst signal quality and worst ID'ing,
that allowed me to ID some of the worst offenders purely by keying defects.
This year only a few stations seemed to be missing filter caps from their
amps, and only a few had rubbered their amp keying to the point that they
were dropping dits and dahs :-)
Tim N3QE
I just worked one Zone 33 station for the THIRD TIME on 10 meters. Because
he goes TWO TO THREE MINUTES between IDs.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|