locked Re: Something new ? #QSO_practices

Jeff Stillinger


This practice has been going on since the inception of FT8. Remember that FT8 is all about numbers collecting over quality of contact.  Collecting massive amounts of contacts is the FT8 equivalent to a number of "likes" a station would have.  There for a long time, stations were only sending a signal report and logging as a complete contact.  Not even a grid, just a signal report.  Out of the blue, sometimes in the middle of a QSO, I would get a random signal report and a few minutes later, I would notice the station had logged it and was requesting confirmation.

So how do you combat the issue?  Outline your requirements on your online biography so that stations are aware.  Take a look at my QRZ biography, or any of the 5 online.  My station, my logbook, my rules.  If the basic standard exchange, as outlined in the WSJT-X User Guide, is not complete.  I will not log and/or confirm the contact.  I even provide a link to the WSJT-X User Guide as a reference.  This really did help cut down just sending a signal report and expecting a confirmation. Virtually stopped the emails requesting the confirmation for a incomplete contact.   The numbers chasers get all twisted up and of course I am chastised for it, but I am into quality over quantity.  Those who confirm on QRZ will get a complete and detailed entry.   This policy is flexible and I can account for poor conditions in choosing to click the Log button or not.  So...  If we are fighting poor band conditions and it's obvious that one of the 73 got lost in space due to poor conditions.  I will still log/confirm the QSO with comments to that effect.  This policy is critical on 6, 2 meters, 70 cm, and 1.2 GHz, as many times the contacts are record setting distances or pathways and solid logging is what gets them in the record books.

Now if we could just get stations to do a complete log entry, that would be great.  Every applicable field should be filled out on the Log QSO window.  My pet peeve being how am I supposed to confirm having a QSO with someone who is using zero output power. That does not make sense and makes those operators look lazy.  But hey...  Have to collect those "likes".

On 1/5/22 15:48, n4qwf . wrote:
I have noticed lately that some of the stations I work do not confirm the QSO. I don't know if this is becoming a common practice but it is not a good idea. The software is set up to auto-log when it sees confirmation. i.ie RR73 or 73. I can understand not getting the final response from a -22 station but when the reports are plus in both directions I have to wonder what gives. Is there something in the operating practices to speed up things that I have no heard of? Anyone else notice this of late?


Jeff Stillinger
KB6IBB Laboratories, Wylie Texas

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