Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Jay, I concur completely on all points. With JT9 there is NO ambiguity that the incorrect message was sent. I will feel even less bad about not logging those contacts. Thank you for the discussion. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:42 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Bill I know what constitutes a QSO. I always use the standard messages myself. However this QSO was using the JT9H mode with FEC. There is no mistake in what was sent and received. There is no partials involved like there is in ISCAT or FSK441 modes. It's either all or nothing. I think that needs to be considered. If it is such a big deal, then why isnt WSJTX hardcoded with the standard messages so they cannot be changed? This is the final word from me on this subject. Time to move on. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:27 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Jay, From the WSJTX manual... By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like this: 1. CQ K1ABC FN42 2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19 4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR 6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73 The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement. The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every time you change modes. Bill From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Bill I know what constitutes a QSO. I always use the standard messages myself. However this QSO was using the JT9H mode with FEC. There is no mistake in what was sent and received. There is no partials involved like there is in ISCAT or FSK441 modes. It's either all or nothing. I think that needs to be considered. If it is such a big deal, then why isnt WSJTX hardcoded with the standard messages so they cannot be changed? This is the final word from me on this subject. Time to move on. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:27 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Jay, From the WSJTX manual... By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like this: 1. CQ K1ABC FN42 2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19 4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR 6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73 The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement. The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every time you change modes. Bill From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are flo
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Ah, now I understand that although I doubt if I will be working anyone in that grid in the Arctic Ocean anytime soon. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: George J Molnar Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 23:06 To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer RR73 is also a valid grid square and could cause confusion in software. George J Molnar KF2T | AFA9GM Twitter: @GJMolnar SUPPORT HR-1301 & S-1685 http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act On Aug 24, 2015, at 15:40, Jay Hainline wrote: Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Message- From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 2:13 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Not logging it? That seems a little harsh. The sequencing was correct up to that point. He had already received my R-signal report from me and just bunched the RR73 into one transmit sequence. All I wanted to do was send the 73 transmission but for QSO purposes, it was complete at that point. I did manually send the 73 sequence and the QSO was logged. 73 Jay Jay Hainline KA9CFD Colchester, IL EN40om -Original Message- From: Bill Ockert - ND0B Sent: Monday, Aug
Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer
Jay, >From the WSJTX manual... By longstanding tradition, a minimal valid QSO requires the exchange of callsigns, a signal report or some other information, and acknowledgments. WSJT-X is designed to facilitate making such minimal QSOs using short, formatted messages. The process works best if you use them and follow standard operating practices. The recommended basic QSO goes something like this: 1. CQ K1ABC FN42 2. K1ABC G0XYZ IO91 3. G0XYZ K1ABC –19 4. K1ABC G0XYZ R-22 5. G0XYZ K1ABC RRR 6. K1ABC G0XYZ 73 The messages suggested and in fact the messages that WSJTX (and WSJT) generate reflect RRR as the long standing minimal acknowledgement. The manual is clear, the software is clear and the effort to do it that was is actually less than doing it the other way... no messages to change every time you change modes. Bill From: Jay Hainline Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H withauto sequencer Just to clarify, the line contained both calls and RR73. This was AFTER reports had been sent both ways. So I don't know what the difference would be in receiving 2 "Rogers" instead of 3. :-) Jay KA9CFD Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Smartphone Original message From: George J Molnar Date: 08/24/2015 5:23 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Bill Ockert - ND0B , WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Fw: sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Agree, Bill. Auto-sequence should be the same as manual, and RR73 isn't a good way to complete, nor is anything else that fails to include your callsign. George J Molnar, CEM, CHPP Nevada Statewide Interoperability Coordinator @GJMolnar | KF2T | AFA9GM On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Mike, No I do treat RRR 73 as a valid ending when I handle it manually. I treat RR73 as improper in both in content and in white space. Bill From: Michael Black Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:53 PM To: Bill Ockert - ND0B ; WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer Just curious Bill -- do you treat RR73 as a valid QSO ending? About 7% of users use that according to my logs. Mike W9MDB On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bill Ockert - ND0B wrote: Jay, I do not view it as harsh. Harsh was when I went off HF JT modes completely for well over a year because of it. I am one of about five stations in ND that are on JT HF modes, one of about three on both JT HF modes and LOTW and one of one on JT HF modes, LOTW and 12 and 160 meters.I get on about twice a year to help folks with WAS, I am not a fan of HF period so it is generally not an enjoyable experience and I get a resentful when folks start counting teeth... I already know I am about ready for McDonalds or the glue factory. Both the WSJT and WSJTX manual clearly state what is considered a minimal QSO and I am in complete agreement with it. A QSO is complete when all of the essential elements of if are complete and that includes one station receiving an RRR. If others choose to use a different format that is purely their business just as it is mine to choose not to accept less than the published minimal contact. At one point I had a much more lenient policy about that which included sending TX3 a second time then emailing the station letting them know what the issue was and offering a retry. However I was point blank told that I had no right to tell other stations what to transmit, I capitulated completely and now have a policy where I terminate the contact immediately upon deviation from the minimal QSO and do not offer a retry. The person who was doing the complaining called me a crazy old ^&%$#$% when I made the change so it must have been exactly the right thing to do. As a personal side note I was hoping to make it to 60 before that happened but oh well... I believe if there is going to be an auto sequencer one of its functions should be to enforce the minimal QSO and not facilitate less than minimal QSOs. That is both for integrity of the QSO reasons and because it would be a pain to program all of the variations that are floating around out there. The only question mark there should be for an auto sequencer is how to gracefully shut down the contact. There is a catch 22 in the logic to handle 73's that I believe is handled reasonably well in the WSJT ISCAT auto sequencer that I hope to move over the WSJTX. For those users who feel otherwise they can always override the auto sequencer and advance if they feel the auto sequencer was being too strict. 73 de Bill ND0B -Original Mes
