You send "123". He says, "112?" You send "RR3". So, assuming he even read
this email and got the code, he fills as "113". He's screwed. Seriously,
how many guys send "112?" vs. "NR?" Normally you wouldn't know what he
actually copied, only that he needs it again. Doesn't sound like a viable
recommendation, Doug.
George W1EBI
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of kr2q@optimum.net
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 5:15 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WPX SN...has to be a better way!
If condx are tough, or if you're just weak (my signal comes to mind), there
has to be better
way of "correcting" the sent serial number.
Currently, it seems we all are limited to sending the complete SN over and
over, even if only
one (1) digit is wrong. This can lead to too much stuff to send as well as
having previously
correct digits converted to incorrect digits.
I'm thinking about a "cut number - like" solution. So if I'm sending SN 123
but the other guy
copied 112 and asks a CFM, I should be able to send something like RR3 or
KK3 or something
so that he knows that he has the other stuff correct but that the last digit
(in this case) is
wrong. Sending 1324 multiple times is a pain. Sending RR2R would be much
better (I think?).
Comments? And please don't tell me to just run more than 5 watts. :-)
de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
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
|