Reply With Quote
Depends on what band the contest is on, for example HF I'll give 59(9) but on VHF/UHF you normally give a proper signal report.
Yes, 599 / 59 is fine
Maybe Depends on Contest
No, give a True Report
Don't know, don't do contesting myself
Should we give true RST reports in Contests??
Following a discussion I had this morning regarding an upcoming contest, should we give true RST reports in Contests??
Last edited by M0TZO; Tue 19th Jul 2011 at 11:04.
Depends on what band the contest is on, for example HF I'll give 59(9) but on VHF/UHF you normally give a proper signal report.
Peter, 2E0SQL - http://www.m3php.com
In ALL contests you should provide the real report, why else send it? If it's always 59 then remove it from the required information to be exchanged. If you don't want to read the radio meter then randomly, within your perceived received signal strength, so to ensure the other person is logging correct when it comes to adjudication. I think people should send a random 2 or 3 digit number instead, possibly generated by the logging SW.
Also readability 5 is only a 5 when there is NO QRM/QRN and you copied everything without the need for a repeat (unless it was just your head being fried)...
Gavin, M1BXF.
There's not a single answer to this because it depends on whether you're operating on VHF or HF.
On VHF I always try and give a semi-accurate signal strength. I don't bother looking at the S meter though, if a signal sounds strong then it's a 59, if not then I'll grade it otherwise.
6m is a bit of an inbetween, when working the UKACs then I'd give an accurate report as to how the signal sounded but if there were any Es about then everyone gets a 59.
On HF, everyone gets a 59(9). It's expected and even if you give a different report, it'll probably be logged as a 59(9) anyway. Before I operated HF contests I wasn't so sure about this but having now taken part in a few I can understand that it's the convention and so it should be followed.
Lets face it, most signals on HF are either 59 anyway, either that or you can't hear them!
During IOTA you should be giving 59(9) all the time.
Not so, Gavin - Someone can be R5 when there's QRM/N. It's possible to get perfect readability but have craploads of noise as well. That's still perfectly readable despite the noise.Originally Posted by m1bxf
The word Perfectly is the one in question here, also might I point out I perceive readability as the means score of the of the radio channel, not the person, or persons ego, in which I'm in QSO with. R4 is still a fully copied QSO, just with more difficulty than 'Perfect'.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RST_code
1. Unreadable
2. Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable
3. Readable with considerable difficulty
4. Readable with practically no difficulty
5. Perfectly readable
If you ignore the word Perfect in the Readability scale then there is no distinction in readability between a station who is talking with QRM under them and when there is not. When a QSO is in progress and there is QRM in the background there is every chance you would give the other station an R5, However when, and if, the QRM vanishes, it is easy to argue the chance of understanding the other station increases (thus thier Readability), at this point would you still give the other station an R5 meaning you didn't asses the radio channel Readability before correctly? You couldn't possibly give them an R5+ (unless you were on CB) although their Readability has arguably improved due to the now clear channel due to no QRM. So looking at the Readability scale, and the gradient therein, it is easy to argue a Readability less than R5 is more suitable when QRM is present, nothing to do with the readability of the other station but the readability of the radio channel.
Would would agree with you though Keith that if you make them out without asking for repeats, even under QRM, I would give them an R5. But I now question why this is? I can only conclude that if I didn't the other station would get offended or start checking their microphone connections, such is the general lack of understanding of basic operating knowledge nowadays.
I have also sent some reports to people on VHF as 39 where their audio is distorted to buggery, likewise I've also send 50 where on a quiet band and direction even a station registering no signal was a very easy copy.
Last edited by m1bxf; Tue 19th Jul 2011 at 13:17.
There's been an "interesting" discussion on the UK-Contest list recently about this as well.
Personally, my take is: you choose whether or not to send a "real" report. On VHF they can be very useful - if you send me a 53, I'll probably try and bring the beam round, or send information more slowly, or something. 59 will get you everything once, rather fast.
Whatever happens, though, you should ensure you log the report you send, and log the report you receive. And you can't question it either - you don't know whether someone has a 20dB pre-amp in and an S0 noise floor, or S9 of noise and an omnidirectional antenna.
I'm happy for the report to be part of the contest exchange, even if it is mostly 59(9) on HF. But assuming you'll always get sent that report will end up losing you points if you don't listen properly!
Cheers,
Rob, M0VFC
Yes, I've given "3 by 9+40" to some stations on HF as well! But that leads on to a whole discussion about getting people to actually listen to their transmitted audio on a separate receiver...
I only help people that are in the contests by hopefully giving points away, then when they take the time for three or four attempts to get your call and then give you a 59?
And then their report from me is a true one!!
That slows them down, all the contest logging software aimed at HF autofills a 59 report as standard. Anything other than that causes inconvenience! On HF where one can be working a really high rate, they won't thank you for those points as it throws them off their stride and slows them down. Of course, the chances are that they'll log it as a 59 anyway and as you probably don't submit a log, it doesn't really matter.
If anyone is of the belief an HF contest exchange should be 59 regardless of the actual report then I suggest they start a campaigning for it to be removed from the contest exchange leaving just a serial and other required data to be exchanged, otherwise expect and train yourself to receive non 59 reports.
Reporting whatever you like would not be an issue to anyone who takes part in contests in order to place themselves.....but most of the time a 59(9) is kinda expected as its the count that counts and not the report.
Can't believe the response to this thread so far in one afternoon.
I think they should be true, even in HF contests.
Regarding serial numbers, remember some contests don't use them. CQ WW for example it's zone numbers & computer can usually auto fill this for you too. So what's the exchange for?
M0TZO in Wintest or N1MM would auto fill 59/14.
May as well just say the callsign & move on.
So thinking out loud then why do they bother coming back to a weak signal like mine?
If it's all about numbers why not just stick with the calls that rattle the windows?
And I'll give up doing it now as I'm unloved in the contest world!!
Pete - please don't, we do love you! :-)So thinking out loud then why do they bother coming back to a weak signal like mine?
If it's all about numbers why not just stick with the calls that rattle the windows?
And I'll give up doing it now as I'm unloved in the contest world!!
But in all seriousness, it's not working the big guns that wins you contests - everyone works K3LR, D68C etc. It's how many of the little guys you work that really counts! Better yet, if you do submit your log afterwards (even as a checklog), then you get to penalise anyone who did not copy your non-59 report correctly, which should help emphasise how important accuracy is.
Some contests do not check the exchange as part of adjudication - and in that case, I really do wonder why it's included at all. However, all the RSGB contests do include it as part of the checking process, so as long as they have your log, then it's definitely important for the receiving station to copy it correctly.
I don't mind if people choose to only send 59 - that's their choice, and I'm not going to inspect their station and look at their S-meter :-). But they should certainly be prepared to get a 57 from me, and log it accordingly.
Cheers,
Rob, M0VFC
I have taken part in many contests over the past year, mostly CW and the occasional RTTY, and can honestly say that I have given 59 to every single exchange but, then again, I use contests for one reason and one reason only...to fill up my log after so many years away from the hobby.
Not being fortunate to have a directive antenna or large area for elaborate loops of wire etc (I live in an apartment) and also having a radio that actually does have a better receiver and an extremely accurate 'S' meter, I know I am giving a false reading as much as I know I am not receiving an accurate one back. But so what! I give accurate readings when I have a "proper" qso, as I would imagine most of us do. Lets face it, most of us are pleased to make an exchange to some far of land that normally wouldn't probably be bothered to endure the hardship of anything less than a 59 exchange.....so lets just be thankful we made the contact and not worry too much whether he really was 59 or not.
The "Strength 9" report is absolutely useless and should be dropped.Indeed one can argue that the 5,9 is therefore meaningless and just gets in the way. I offer you these thoughts.
These "S" meters are only relative. Indeed they can all be tweaked so that they can read "S9" even without any signal whatsoever. Listening on 80 metres recently I heard an operator giving another a report of "5 and 60dbs over 9". In order for his receiver to be truly receiving the volts necessary for that it must have been sitting under the BBCs mega-kilowatt transmitter!
The "S" meter was often calibrated so a signal strength of 1 represented 6dbs. So "S9" was 54 dbs. This is more or less came about when the US Collins company introduced it after WW2 and other companies followed suit.
When the "S" meter is calibrated for S-9 = 50 microvolts, as in a Collins , then it takes 500 microvolts for a "20 over 9", 5,000 microvolts for a "40 over", and a whopping 50,000 microvolts into the receiver for a "60” over.
If you work me, don't be insulted when I say that your report is 5 and 9, I don't give dbs. after all, as mentioned above, 5 and 9 means Readability 5 (excellent) Strength 9 (strongest). How much better can you get? However, basically “S” meters are totally worthless, none have 6dbs increase per "S” point these days (3db per point is closer to the norm from modern manufacturers, which represents 20 microvolts =S9) unless there's been some attempt at D.I.Y. calibration, and even then you're unlikely to get it accurate across the range. Interestingly, there has never been any official specs for “S' points, it is strictly down to a manufacturer's whim.
So let's drop the farce of 5,9 and just give the message number and possibly the maidenhead locator.
Last edited by John_D; Tue 19th Jul 2011 at 18:03.
I can remember the first two receivers I used in the late 1950s/early 1960s didn't even HAVE S-meters. Oh, woe! How am I able to give a meaningful RST report? The way we did it then was: we listened to it and rated it by our own estimation. Just about all new hams in that era had been shortwave listeners for some time - we knew a strong signal when we heard it, we knew whether we were having any trouble copying, and we could tell the "tone" part by listening for any hum on the "dahs".
I fully agree with John D. I've given 439 reports in contests many times and they've never been questioned. And yes, I work mainly CW and HF.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks