And how about setting up a separate e-mail address for such reports?
I'm thinking that would encourage people to report bad sigs, and would
serve notice to deliberate violators that a report is just a few
keystrokes away. N1MM Logger makes it very easy to annotate a log with
such reports, whether or not you work the offender.
I'm planning to do some SDR recordings in the next significant phone
contest and see what emerges.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 4/13/2015 6:57 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
Randy,
How about adding a something in the LCR reports if you received an
excessive bandwidth report or you received 3 reports. That way the
station, if they are looking at the LCR's would have a heads up that
hey someone said my signal was lousy at XXXXX time and maybe they
would look into it......
Mike W0MU
On 4/13/2015 4:53 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
I think we all know "excessive bandwidth" when we hear it. I.e., you
can
hear the splatter or clicks for many Khz before you tune on to the
signal.
The CQ WW DX Contest issued a number of warnings for poor signal
quality for
the 2014 contest. We had the first disqualification for poor signal
quality
to a station on CW.
The CQ WW Committee is not omnipotent. We don't spend hours tuning
through
the SDR recordings looking for bad signals. We rely on the
participants to
report signals that were causing problems on the band (with call
sign, time,
frequency, and details). We do follow up on all of these reports.
Not everything reported is objectionable enough to warrant any
action. But,
it is important that the contest community speak up about signal
quality -
not only to the sponsors but to the offenders as well. High power
and wide
signals are one of the biggest threats to our enjoyment and to
recruitment
of new contesters into our ranks.
We would be delighted to receive serious proposals for a technical
standard
around signal quality. It should be something easily measured using
an SDR
recording. Until then, we will continue our function of serving as
referees
that call them like we see them.
Randy Thompson, K5ZD
Director - CQ WW DX Contest
email: k5zd@cqww.com
web: www.cqww.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/cqwwdx
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of
Paul O'Kane
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:53 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion
for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea
On 13/04/2015 01:54, brett graham wrote:
<snip>
Will be interesting to see where in the results these filthy signals I
recorded end up.
I suggest that all this talk about excessive bandwidth will remain just
so much hot air until and unless contest sponsors define what they mean
by "excessive bandwidth" - with parameters such as maximum width at,
say,
40db down for both CW and SSB.
CQWW was the first major contest to introduce an "excessive bandwidth"
rule, backed up (as claimed) by a worldwide network of SDRs and digital
recorders
- three years ago or so. However, the rules make no attempt to define
excessive bandwidth, and I'm not aware of any penalties having been
imposed for this reason alone. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be
corrected.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|