<<<looking at the waterfall (to verify that the CQer's opposite cycle appears to be unoccupied)<<<

<<< only if the opposite slot appears empty<<<

Can someone please provide (or direct me to) me with a clear explanation of how one can tell which slot an OP is using by looking at the waterfall? Obviously, there is far more information that can be discerned from the waterfall than I have understood.

Such additional knowledge would not only make me a better OP, but would also help assure that I am not causing QRM to other OPs.

Thanks.
Dave - KB4JB

________________________________
From: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io> on behalf of Randy, WS4C via groups.io <Randy@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 4:45 PM
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io <main@WSJTX.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] Using WSJTX Waaterfall #FT8

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:27 PM, Sam Birnbaum wrote:

I always look at the waterfall

Sam, this comment about always looking at the waterfall (to verify that the CQer's opposite cycle appears to be unoccupied) makes me wonder whether we may be talking past one another by thinking of different scenarios. I can see how what you describe is practical in situations where the band is reasonably uncrowded. Most of the time when I am on 20 meters, though, not many CQers have their opposite cycle empty. If I were to reply to CQs only if the opposite slot appears empty, I would have to pass up a lot of desirable QSOs.

So I would say that if you are operating on uncrowded bands and/or you're operating very casually and are happy to pass up QSOs that don't fit your operating style in order to avoid QRMing stations that you can see on the waterfall, regardless of how desirable the other station might otherwise be, then I would withdraw my pushback to your operating style for answering CQs. Of course when you see signals on the opposite cycle, you don't necessarily know whether you're seeing people calling that station on his offset, people occupying the opposite cycle for other purposes, or both. With enough listening, you can probably figure out what's happening--at least at the moment. But listening that much and then refraining from calling if you can see that the signal(s) on the CQer's opposite cycle are not working the CQer would amount to that casual operating that I said I'd have to agree doesn't deserve pushback.

I think that a lot of disagreements result from people unintentionally talking about two different things, and that when they clarify what they're talking about, they find their disagreement pretty much evaporating. Perhaps that's what has happened here, in which case I'd apologize for killing your time. But maybe the discussion will prove helpful to others, since there are so many, many possibilities and details to sort through!

Randy, WS4C