locked Re: CQ instead of 73 #FT8


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 01:03 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
If your QSO partner elects to send an RR73 message in reply to your R+report message then they should not expect any reply.
Bill, that is a subtlety that clearly escapes many thousands of users.

Once you explicitly stated above that no reply should be expected, and I re-read the manual, I understood.
But before that I didn't.

The manual simply states:
"The RR73 message should be used only if you are reasonably confident that no repetitions will be required."

Not knowing the implications of repetition and figuring that not requiring repetition on 90+% of QSOs constituted "reasonably confident" I set mine to RR73 without understanding the full implications.
Perhaps that warning could be more forceful and the implications better explained?

This is creating unnecessary bandwidth consumption in 3 different ways:
1) They keep sending RR73
2) When they do, I need to send an extra 73 to ensure they receive one
3) Some don't confirm the QSO and so I need to periodically reconcile my log with LoTW and QRZ to remove unconfirmed QSOs (so they no longer show up as  worked in WSJT-X), but some of those unconfirmed are intentional and so I end up responding to their CQ repeatedly because their non-WSJT-X software has me recorded as worked and they ignore the calls.

Any reason a double-click on their last RR773 couldn't just position for sending another 73?

Regardless, thanks for your work on WSJT-X.
All the alternatives are far more buggy.

Join main@WSJTX.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.