eHam Logo

Community
 Home
 eHam.net Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 Speakout
 Strays
 Survey
 My Profile

Resources
 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews



Contest Lists
 3830
 CQ-Contest
 CT-User
 NA-User
 SD-User
 TRLog
 VHFcontesting
 WriteLog

Other Lists
 Amps
 AntennaWare
 Propagation
 RFI
 RTTY
 TenTec
 TopBand
 TowerTalk
 Yaesu

 Mailing List FAQs


Site Information
 About This Site
 Contesting.com Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?
2016-05-28


What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )
2015-07-17


Are you ready the this year's winter contest season
2015-07-05


What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?
2015-04-28


What is your linear?
2015-02-09


View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!


During the 2008 CQ WPX SSB contest a number of stations were reported to have given exchanges with serial numbers but without signal reports. Do you think
  Posted: Apr 30, 2008   (357 votes, 30 comments) by VE5ZX

  stations not giving signal reports should be disqualified
  stations not giving signal reports and those they worked should be disqualified
  signal reports should be removed from the CQ WPX exchange
  Get over it - contesting is just a hobby
  Don't know
  Don't care
    (357 votes, 30 comments)
Survey Results
stations not giving signal reports should be disqualified 48% (173)
stations not giving signal reports and those they worked should be disqualified 3% (12)
signal reports should be removed from the CQ WPX exchange 23% (83)
Get over it - contesting is just a hobby 19% (68)
Don't know 2% (7)
Don't care 4% (14)

Survey Comments
RST
It is in the rules
chang the rule or DQ

Posted by NT4TS on August 17, 2009

Don't know...
...how to vote when the rules are clear that an RST is to be sent as part of the exchange & that the exchange is to be logged by the other side.

That means those not sending RSTs broke the rule (which could lead to a DQ), but those who they worked, had they logged an RST for the one not sent, have essentially a contact that should not count (along lines of busted call or serial number) that should lead to a penalty (not a DQ).

It is unfortunate the survey only gives an extreme & unreasonable choice with respect to those the RST-less worked.

73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.

Posted by vr2bg on April 29, 2008

Its pretty basic = If the rules ask for an exchange and you don't comply then end of story your log shouldn't count.
I must agree with the posts that it gives an artificial score and downgrades the efforts of previous contesters.

WHAT cant people read in the rules when it says :

V. Exchange: RS(T) report plus a progressive contact three-digit serial number starting with 001 for the first contact. (Continue to four digits if past 999 and five if past 9999.) Your log MUST show the correct serial number sent and received for each contact.

Posted by VK4TI on April 25, 2008

Follow the rules
Though 59 or 599 does not reflect a real signal strengh it is still a part of contest exchange and if miscopied the QSO is no more valid.Everyone knows that a shortest report in CW is 5NN which explains why it is set as unofficial standard report in the most contests. My concern - it should not be removed from exchange to follow the old tradition and not allow new artificial records due to this kind of time saving to be set as we should respect the former ones.73's and GL in the contests ! Dima, UA3AGW

Posted by ua3agw on April 11, 2008

Survey
I think that the question is not important to the contest and that rule should be removed.
It´s more important to disqualify those who says that were working LP while using 1K amplifiers.......
by the way 99% of contesters send 59 while your real RS(T) is 53, so: Who cares about RST?

Posted by cx8at on April 9, 2008

RST Report
Simply put:

V. Exchange: RS(T) report plus a progressive contact three-digit serial number starting with 001 for the first contact. (Continue to four digits if past 999 and five if past 9999.) Your log MUST show the correct serial number sent and received for each contact.

Until that changes, go by the rules or it should be considere an incomplete conact.

73
Nat

Posted by n1bnc on April 9, 2008

buga buga buga
Personally, I like that one, makes as much sense as always being 59(9). Next contest, I'm going with buga buga (buga) at least until they start shortening it to "b b b" or "b3"..

It'll never change, but I wish we'd start giving accurate reports.

73,

Mark


Posted by wa5vqm on April 8, 2008

DQ is such a hard thing
..so be sure to mention the possibility of DQ in the contest rules.

Posted by kx1g on April 7, 2008

Some thoughts:

For those flaming about usefulness of 59(9) think about CQ WW, where not only RS(T) is predictable, but also CQ zones are predictable based on call prefix (with exceptions). So please change those rules too :)

For casual contester speed gain of not giving RST is crap. For some very serious contest activities where everything else is tuned to the best, including effecient peeing time organisation etc, may be. But it's their deal.
I think there is downside of not giving proper RS(T) - someone not so "smart" will get confused with your strange exchange format and you will have more bad QSOs. I feel that 5NN is kind of sync :)

And about changing rules - do not forget about world wide pain in the ass to adjust exchange formats in software, Cabrillo format changes (software change or manual text file editing) etc.

So I agree to "Get over it ..."

Cheers!

Posted by yl2vw on April 7, 2008

Signal report,...really?
No matter what the other station says, or how many times they say, "Again, again!" you will still get a 59(9). The signal report kinda gives you a focusing point when the other station returns your information. Otherwise the contact may be too short and your information will have come and gone by the time that you realize that it is "your report" that he is sending.

The "again, again" guy should give you a 55(9) instead? Could make logging a lot slower. Just leave well enough alone. It's been that way for years and will continue on that way. What else would you put there if the RST wasn't there? We could try, "W1AW, your are buga buga buga, please copy #1234." Nah, 59(9) is OK!

I really didn't realize that this was a problem?

Posted by n5vu on April 6, 2008

Doesnt matter
Whats better ? Give still the same 59+seriall or give seriall number only ? I would like to have your problem gentlemans :-)

73 de Milan, OK1VWK

Posted by OK1VWK on April 6, 2008

RS(T) Exchange Element
If you participate in a contest, follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, lobby the organizer for changes. The "accuracy" of a contest signal report can't be adjudicated so '59' is just as valid as any other. Cut numbers and other means of communicating the signal report are fine but "silence" isn't. If the abbreviation isn't understood, then the receiving station should ask for clarification. Stations consistently not giving the required signal report should be DQ'd. In theory, only those QSOs where the complete exchange wasn't given should be deleted, but that can't be easily determined, so DQ is the best way to deal with it. Better yet, stations not getting a complete exchange should feel free to not log the QSO, creating a NIL for the offending station. If we all responded by putting NILs in the offender's log, the problem would resolve rather quickly without the need for any DQing.

Posted by w0yk on April 5, 2008

Survey
If the rules require a sig report and one sends none...DQ

If future contest rules exclude sig reporting...then comparability of scores to previous contests will be skewed.

Since we all default to 59 or 5NN sig reporting in contests has become irrelevant other than time it takes to make the Q.

OK by me to eliminate sig report requirement.

Posted by w5iz on April 5, 2008

RST report
"Real reports based off someone reading thier signal strenght meter and someone giving me blanket 59."

The S in RST is NOT the S meter reading. It is a subjective report based on perceived signal strength. Giving a RST based off the S meter is also inaccuate. What is the person isn't moving the S meter but is perfectly copiable? Are they 50?

73s John AA5JG

Posted by AA5JG on April 5, 2008

RST report
"Eliminate the ridiculous rule since essentially everyone breaks it by giving a sig report which is totally inaccurate and useless."

No where in the rules does it say that a signal report has to be accurate, so giving everyone a 59 isn't breaking the rule.

73s John AA5JG

Posted by AA5JG on April 5, 2008

Get real. EVERY sig report in a contest is 59, even when it takes a dozen repeats to copy the call sign.

Eliminate the ridiculous rule since essentially everyone breaks it by giving a sig report which is totally inaccurate and useless.

Even if I give a 22, I get a QSL saying I was 59.

Posted by n0eq on April 5, 2008

Doesn't matter if RST is useless. If the rules say it's required, it's required. If someone tries to use an advantage which violates the rules, DQ him.

Posted by w2up on April 4, 2008

Signal reports
The signal report is a valid part of the contest exchange. It is required by the contest rules and any exchange withoput a signal report is not a valid exchange. Read the rules.
any other part of the exchange left out Voids the exchange try submiting a november ARRL SS log without the check or precidence. the contact is quickly thrown out. the same goes for the signal report if it is required by the rules. Another thing that bugs me is DX stations running as long as 10 minutes without sending any station call sign. experanced that a lot this year.

Posted by wd5jnc on April 4, 2008

What is your RST worth
Even though I said disqualify them. I question why even ask about it if we will give you a 59 anyhow. Since I have been a ham I get two reports. Real reports based off someone reading thier signal strenght meter and someone giving me blanket 59. To some people it does not matter how strong you are just as long as you work them and others want to make sure they have superb signal strength. Should it be used in a contest. I feel, that in a contest it is meaningless. I believe giving whatever report wether it includeds a fake RST or not it should be given. So, even if it iss always 59 the mere fact is you are giving and recieving the persons report. Should it always be the same or should it be a real rst is another question.

Posted by k8khz on April 3, 2008

Value of RST
I occasionally give out 'real' reports in contests, especially if someone is unexpectedly weak or has a poor note. I doubt many understand, let alone log, a 597 report fom me tho! 73 ZL2iFB Gary

Posted by ZL2iFB on April 3, 2008

Rules are Rules...
I feel that this contest required RS + SN and If stations did not give RS, then they were breaking the rules and should not be considered. Many contests require much more of an exchange, this was pretty simple. To make it fair for everyone, everyone needs to follow the rules. Hams are suppose to "communicate" so two little numbers should not be a problem to send or receive.

73

Ka7ple

Posted by ka7ple on April 2, 2008

Why? Survey silly...
I can see the arguement for accurate RST but RST is not tied to the S Meter. So one can see how the 59(9) in contesting got started since 59(9) is a subjective call. If you do not have a problem with everyone using 59(9) then why on earth do you care about someone skipping and just sending a serial number??? The serial number is enough so get over yourself! There are more important things in life...

Posted by N3MX on April 2, 2008

well, the original point of the serial number is to generate a more difficult exchange (no phonetics for numbers, only cut numbers in CW). I can see the problem with the generic "59", but remember, the signal report is part of most contest exchanges. Eliminate it in WPX, we'll have to do so for CQWW and a bunch of others too.

Posted by K1KAA on April 2, 2008

What is the point
Get real. Everyone gives a 59 report. It is meaningless so why not just eliminate it to speed things up. I always get a good laugh when I spend 2 minutes trying to get the contest station to hear my call sign and then get a 59 report. It is a joke and meaningless. For that matter, why is a serial number needed? Do contacts with hams who do not submit their logs count? Most of the hams I know give out serial numbers but never submit their logs. Does anyone check with them to verify contacts on a spot check basis? What are the serial numbers used for anyway? I would find it more useful to get a real signal report and no serial number. :)

Posted by wm2p on April 2, 2008

Get over it ....Get a grip
Firstly, in the last event I recd plenty of reports that were'nt 59 and logged them accordingly. This hobby is full of complainers/ whiners and will always be so. Get used to them, I am/try....
Why not surveys on POSITIVE subjects.
My personal opinion is that CQ and ARRL: all people who do the thankless work, the contests they sponsor are doing a BIG 5/5. Leave the contests alone and concentrate on positive progress/suggestions without getting in too deep. Love it or leave it...
I love it like it is...
Dan, VE6EX

Posted by ve6ex on April 2, 2008

Exchanges
Considering that contesting is anything but a "level playing field", we need to adhere to what few rules we do have. In terms of the time it takes to make a QSO, those with very short callsigns already have an advantage over most typical calls. If you then allow some stations to just hand out serial numbers without the RS(T), that can increase rate by an additional, non-trivial amount. The results then become meaningless.

It would be better to replace the almost "hard-wired" 59(9) with something else so that there would be some challenge left. How about first two characters of one's grid square?

Jerry
VE6CNU

Posted by VE6CNU on April 1, 2008

Follow the rules
Follow the rules FIRST, for all.
Then ask to change it, remove RST...

73, Claude VE2FK

Posted by ve2fk on April 1, 2008

Always 59(9)
I cant remember anything but 59(9) reports in the 30+ years of hamming / contesting on HF.

Maybe replacing the RS(T) with you year of license like November SS if you really need more to exchange to cross check qso's

Mark
K1PU / VK2IFH

Posted by K1PU on April 1, 2008

Bad survey choices
The survey choices are poor.

I don't log incomplete exchanges. As per the rules of the CQ WPX SSB, signal report is part of the exchange.

Yes, I believe those who chose not to give complete/correct exchanges should be scored appropriately (zero rather than DQ).

However...

Yes, I also believe the signal report should be replaced with something more meaningful in the constest exchange.

The signal report is part of the rules of the game. Don't agree with the rules? Fine, don't play. Just don't try to "pick and chose" what you like and don't like.

73 de Donald

Posted by ae6rf on April 1, 2008

On HF I could not remember giving or getting anything else during last 30 Years and several hundred thousands of QSOs.

VHF is a different story - you get 59 on less than 50% of the QSOs.

73 !

Jiri
OK1RI

Posted by OK1RI on April 1, 2008

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!