locked Re: QSO sequence #QSO_practices

Bill Somerville


you are confusing the message protocols and the order of messages exchanged in QSOs, they are very different things. No changes were needed to the protocols to enable the application to automatically select the Tx2 message when replying to a CQ call, nor to select an RR73 grid square message when replying to an R+report message or equivalent.

Why do you take the view that a reply to a CQ call without a grid square should be ignored by the software? A lot of work was put into the current 77-bit payload protocols to support non-standard calls, why do you think that is of no value to you? I should point out that often the most desirable QSO partners may have non-standard calls.

Your proposal is not fair, in fact it is grossly unfair to those users who have to use non-standard callsigns!

If operators reply to your CQ calls with no grid (enforced or otherwise), then please understand that is their choice. You can choose to ignore them and work a different station, but the software itself is not going to support automation of such censorship.


On 01/10/2021 13:40, chas cartmel wrote:

I opened a can of worms what I posted this issue a few days back.

It seems that the developers ignoring the protocol in the official documentation succumbed to pressure from the users to allow the disabling of the TX1 response. Also a slight to the protocol designers who were basically told you got it wrong.

Can I therefore ask that a corresponding action be taken to disable the auto sequencing response to replies to CQ calls where the grid square if not included (TX1)?
Seems only fair.

73 Charlie



Stay safe out there



From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tom Melvin
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:04
To: main@wsjtx.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices


Hi Bill


No sorry never ignored your comments - definitely not on purpose  would I.


Yes I know there are issues with Special event calls, did mention that - impossible to send grid in CQ and needs to be freehand.


Contest mode - there was an issue a while back where the reports were changing willie nilly - and logging would take the previous details (think if you switched QSO partners mid QSO) - yes I know both of those have now been fixed.  However, there were so many problems with report issues (this was also the time where the were some Looong gaps between versions). The RSGB activity contest (6m and up) suggested users don’t use Contest Mode - normal mode worked a lot better, some Eu contests then followed suit. This was to avoid the string of complaints - it was the 1st few contests - things have stabilised and quite a bit of UK and Eu activity on these contests.


There is nothing now (as far as I can tell) from reverting back to using Eu contest mode - is that nag message still there ‘you should be in contest mode’?. Except users have got in the habit of using Normal Mode. Add in, on 6m in particular all it takes is a nice Es opening to coincide with a contest and all goes to pot - yes it has happening - people prefer to work the DX than contest stations - contest mode gets switched off to stop the nag message (it was there at the time).


I would take a guess it will take a while (at least a year?)  to get the - is there such a thing as average user - don't want to upset anyone - but getting someone to read the docs (even read contest rules!!) can be - shall we say be problematic.  Change now a long term process. 


The only way I can see this changing is to make contest mode ’transparent’ to the user - if someone calling CQ TEST then the remote system responds with grid/serial number without any action being taken, someone with a vanilla CQ is answered by contest station - full grid and pseudo number sent without originator doing anything. This all assumes a) there is interest, b) a spare bit exists to be used and c)  Someone willing to code it as I doubt in roadmap.


I do see where HF station want to save time - they want to break the 10K FT8 QSO Count! - some DX may want to give as many stations as possible that Prefix.  On the other side there is 6m (even 10m station to open up) and up where quantity is not the driver.


So sorry again if you thought I was ignoring your comments - I wasn’t - you and the others do a good job.








On 1 Oct 2021, at 11:06, Bill Somerville <g4wjs@...> wrote:




it seems to me that you thanked me for my comments then completely ignored what I stated! A couple of points to clarify what I stated:


1) non-standard calls cannot send Tx6 or Tx2 messages containing a grid square - the protocol has no room for that information.


2) the supported contest modes that require exchange of grid squares or locators on air do that for all participants (with the caveat that non-standard calls other than standard calls signing /P or /R cannot participate).


I will add that the facility to reply to a CQ call with a Tx2 message along with the facility to replace an RRR response with an RR73 response were both added with some reluctance due to the huge number of stations doing exactly that on the HF bands by modifying the messages sent manually.




On 01/10/2021 08:15, Tom Melvin wrote:

Thanks for comments Bill


I will stick with the comments of 6m and up should send grid.


The other issue not seen is contests - the phrase ‘ all data must be transmitted on air’ - looking up QRZ does not really count :-)  QRZ is often wrong - I adjudicate some VHF FT8 contests and the number of points lost due to missing/wrong locators is rather high.


And; you should not substantially alter the contest log prior to submission - editing a pile of locators hmmm


Anyhow, there are circumstances Special Event calls, JA’s and those that want to save a period - so it’s up to individuals - personally I don’t like it. However there is damm all I can do about it, developers are not going to alter software at this stage of the game.


It just need to make education high on the list pointing out, for some people receiving no grid can be a PITA.


Have fun on the bands and enjoy





On 30 Sep 2021, at 20:12, Bob Abernethy <winston.rothschild@...> wrote:


My experience has been DX stations on the receiving end of a pile up prefer it.




On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 2:50 AM chas cartmel <chas@...> wrote:

Not sure if this is a new trend but lately I am having CQs replied to with a report as the first data sent rather than a locator.
Not a big deal here as I do not collect squares, but still ‘off process’. It does speed things up though J



73 Charlie


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