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 <n...@ockert.us> 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, August 24, 2015 15:54 > To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer > > The auto sequencer, while it should not have gone back to TX2, actually > acted in a > benign manner compared to what I would have done manually, namely ended the > contact > without the benefit of logging it. > > 73 de Bill ND0B > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Hainline > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 6:56 AM > To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [wsjt-devel] sending RR73 message on JT9H with auto sequencer > > I had a small issue this morning working a station on 6 meters using > WSJTX-devel r5808 using JT9H mode and auto sequencing. The station I was > running with sent calls followed by RR73 programmed in the TX4 message > button. The auto sequencer on my end got confused by this and went back to > TX2 to send the report again. I was wondering if this is something where > the > auto sequencer can be programmed to be a little more flexible? I think if I > copy either RRR or RR73, it should go to transmit TX5 which I have as > sending calls and 73. > > The station I ran with says he is using version r5803 and claims RR73 was > pre-set for TX4 inside that particular version he downloaded. My WSJTX > 1.6.1 > copy has always had TX4 programmed with calls and RRR. > > 73 Jay > > Jay Hainline KA9CFD > Colchester, IL EN40om > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
