One of the MOST frustrating things I noticed at 6Y1V were all the times I'd send
"DL4?"
and a hundred guys, none of whom had DL4 in their calls, or even anything
close, and were nowhere
close to Germany, would pile on.
So we'd send "DL4?" again. Now, about 98 of these hundred guys kept calling.
So we'd send "DL4?" again. Now, about 70 of these hundred guys kept calling.
It was only after the fourth time sending "DL4?" that enough guys would shut
the hell up so we could
hear. I didn't mind if someone whose call was "close" dumped in (maybe
something like K3DLV).
The advantage to this tack is that for a short while, the pileup would become
somewhat more
responsive to selective responses. And it did seem to help keep the pileup in
check, at least for a bit.
Americans seemed to be the most polite in this regard. Europeans, less so.
73, kelly
ve4xt
>
> From: David Wilburn <dave.wilburn@verizon.net>
> Date: 2008/12/05 Fri PM 02:11:48 CST
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rising IQ This Year
>
> I believe some of the responsibility has to lay with the operator
> (driver) of the pile-up. I have heard generally orderly pile-ups get
> out of hand quickly when an operator allows it. In some cases, it is
> going to happen anyway. But I have heard it, where all is going fine,
> but the operator is trying to sort out someone to respond to. Then
> someone sends, after everyone else stops. The operator takes that
> one, as it was in the clear. As soon as that happens, folks in the
> pile-up will start sending later and later to get in the clear.
>
> As I said, some nuts are going to keep sending regardless.
>
> But if the operator is able to work their radio, use their filters,
> and pick out partial calls, it usually goes pretty well.
>
> The same goes for tailgaters of folks going when not called. When the
> driver says KN4? and someone that is not KN4 replies, and still gets
> worked, then folks are going to take advantage of that.
>
> I'm not trying to put all the blame on the drivers. But if you look
> at what is happening in the pile-up, and griping about the bad habits,
> I think both sides of the communication should be evaluated.
>
> I thought the list below was well stated, but admit, things can still
> get out of hand.
>
> Suggestions for DX Pile-ups???? by Uncle DX
> http://www.dxpub.com/dx_news.html
>
> Dave Wilburn
> NM4M
>
> ve4xt@mts.net wrote:
> > I don't think anyone advocates operators NOT giving their calls frequently,
> > but it seems the traffic
on
> > this reflector is from those operators on the calling side of the pileup
> > who are oh, so
inconvenienced by
> > having to wait a Q or two or three for the station to ID. More than that is
> > irresponsible. I'd agree to
that
> > entirely.
> >
> > Sorry, but having been "under the wall" of a pileup, I can say there are
> > times when you DON'T
WANT to
> > attract any more attention to yourself. When you can't make out any of the
> > hundreds of stations
calling
> > already, why would you want to add any more to the pile?
> >
> > I can well imagine a new contester's prayer: Please God, don't let anyone
> > spot me! I know, 'cuz I
said
> > that myself a couple of times during WW.
> >
> > Also, I don't see anything wrong with the following:
> >
> > pileup: xadapug%&(*&D K1TTT (*&)%&^$%&DLHDI&^*(%^(*&#@@ K1AR
> > &)&)^&^()*&^
> > me: k1ttt 599 8
> > k1ttt: 599 5
> > me: k1ar 599 8
> > k1ar: 599 5
> > me: tu 6y1v
> >
> > I don't think it's fair to say that DX stations who do not ID as frequently
> > as you'd like are being lazy.
I
> > don't think there is any requirement for a DX station to open up to an open
> > QRZ after every Q if he
has
> > a list of callsigns derived from the last pileup.
> >
> > Put yourself in the shoes of the DX station, who well may be inundated with
> > a massive pileup that
most
> > of which you can't hear. Most of these guys are in a pressure situation and
> > really are trying their
best to
> > work through the pileup the best they can.
> >
> > Also, there were times when I'd work three Qs while the pileup was still
> > raging. And I ID'd every
time. It
> > is certainly possible that just because YOU didn't hear him ID doesn't mean
> > he didn't. After all, all
these
> > guys were still calling even while I was working three other guys.
> >
> > There are two sides to every story. Please just try to see both of them.
> >
> > 73, kelly
> > ve4xt
> >
> >
> >> From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
> >> Date: 2008/12/05 Fri AM 06:59:08 CST
> >> To: "'Glenn VA3DX'" <va3dx@sympatico.ca>,
> >> "'David Kopacz'" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
> >> CC: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rising IQ This Year
> >>
> >> I think the point is "Why can't the running station give his call more
> >> often?" How could it be a waste of time to verify the call of the station
> >> you're calling? You'd still have to wait for him to give his call after he
> >> worked you... unless you plan on asking everyone you work what their call
> >> is. How much time is saved then?
> >>
> >> These guys have come to rely on the cluster and it's made them lazy. They
> >> start out giving the call often but when the pileup starts, and they know
> >> it's because someone must have spotted them, they ditch that and leave it
> >> to
> >> the cluster to do their identifying.
> >>
> >> I've found it's easy to get into a good rythym of giving your call after
> >> every contact on phone and, in CW, the logging programs have macros that
> >> can
> >> do it automatically so it shouldn't even be an issue. I've heard many top
> >> ops doing it and it doesn't seem to bother their scores too much. Although,
> >> I do find it funny that I still get guys asking for my call immediately
> >> after I have just given it out.
> >>
> >> After all, isn't it in the running station's best interests to ensure that
> >> anyone calling, not just the cluster users, has all the necessary
> >> information to complete the contact as quickly and efficiently as possible?
> >> Why complicate matters by leaving out the first part... the callsign? A
> >> handfull of "CL?" or "your call" wipes out any time advantage they've
> >> gained
> >> by not giving the call anyway.
> >>
> >> Think of it from a marketing perspective. Your callsign is your ad and if
> >> you don't put it out there enough, you're missing a part of your market?
> >>
> >> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> >>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Glenn VA3DX
> >>> Sent: December 4, 2008 14:54
> >>> To: David Kopacz
> >>> Cc: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rising IQ This Year
> >>>
> >>> If you needed ZONE 37 , and the station was gining 59937...
> >>>
> >>> Why wouldnt you call ?
> >>>
> >>> You would be wasteing operating time while you waited for him to ID
> >>>
> >>> VA3DX
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:17 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rising IQ This Year
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> If I don't hear the DX station give his/her call sign, I don't call.
> >>>> Even if I followed a spot from the cluster, I can only presume the
> >>>> call sign using the frequency. It is each operator's
> >>> responsibility to
> >>>> listen first, and then call the desired station only after
> >>> identifying
> >>>> the station using the frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would anyone do anything different?
> >>>>
> >>>> It wouldn't hurt my feelings if packet clusters were banned
> >>> altogether
> >>>> in contesting.
> >>>>
> >>>> David ~ KY1V
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> >>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Barry
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:47 AM
> >>>> To: n2ic@arrl.net
> >>>> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> >>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rising IQ This Year
> >>>>
> >>>> I've (mostly) solved that problem by replying with cl? and not
> >>>> sending my exchange until he responds with his call. That usually
> >>>> works, but sometimes the non-IDer sends TU or ditdit anyway, as in
> >>>> reality, there is no exchange to copy in this contest. If so, he
> >>>> winds up with a ding for N-I-L.
> >>>>
> >>>> Barry W2UP
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve London wrote:
> >>>>> It gets real interesting when you work the zone 33 station without
> >>>> knowing his
> >>>>> call. You send "5nn4 cl?", and all you get is dit dit. So, you say
> >>>> piss on it
> >>>>> and spin the dial...there's lots of other zone 33 stations signing
> >>>> their calls.
> >>>>> And then, after the contest, the same zone 33 station
> >>> tells you that
> >>>> you are
> >>>>> being unsportsmanlike for costing him a NIL penalty. Very funny !
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 73,
> >>>>> Steve, N2IC
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|