Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who is the most prolific CQer? Check YOUR rank!  (Read 5628 times)
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1053




Ignore
« on: August 27, 2017, 05:09:36 AM »

What is your rank worldwide among CW Ops calling CQ? Who has called CQ for the most hours in the past year?

I was surprised to learn, that even though I was QRT for 4 months, that I rank 746th out of (if my memory serves me correctly) some 70,000 CW CQ callers in the world. I was caught calling CQ for a whopping 687 hours during the past year, and that is not counting 4 months almost QRT, and another many hundreds of hours EVADING the RBN by calling on the top end of the bands and using a BUG style which is consistently NOT caught by RBN.

I was even surprised that my few mobile CQs IN RBN BAND had been picked up, as most of those were again on frequencies the RBN doesn't cover.

Check out your own ranking? Did you beat VK5EEE? I have seen several callsigns I regularly QSO in the top 100!

It's a sobering thought that I've been calling CQ well over 687 hours in the past year. Don't you wonder how I manage it, with all my posts here on eHam, all my Emails and other writing? Do I sleep? Yes I do! And those 687 hours are proof that my CW is not ALWAYS bad -- those are the 687 hours of clear coherent CW required for a callsign with three discrete dits at the end to be picked up by RBN.

Look up your own here: https://foc.dj1yfk.de/activity/rank
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 05:11:39 AM by VK5EEE » Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
N3HEE
Member

Posts: 433


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2017, 06:25:58 AM »

I'm at 569 hours over the past 365 days.  Rank #1096.  I do allot of CW contesting.  The RBN will also record your call if you simply repeat your call sign a few times with or without CQ or TEST in front of it.  So if you are repeatedly calling a DX station you will sometimes get spotted on the RBN. Interesting stats ! 
Logged

Joe
N3HEE
CW Academy Advisor (Level II)
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4880




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2017, 06:34:35 AM »

Well I'm way down the list at #287.

I'm a little surprised that if I search my log for non-beacon calls around the #200 ranking, that I have not worked even half of them. Inveterate non-contesters, I guess.
Logged
G4LNA
Member

Posts: 144




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2017, 07:25:48 AM »


Check out your own ranking? Did you beat VK5EEE? I have seen several callsigns I regularly QSO in the top 100!



Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that, just don't tell the wife, she says I spend too much time on the wireless as it is, that's why I'm going to do some voluntary work apart from my part time job.

Logged

K0UA
Member

Posts: 1362




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2017, 09:27:46 AM »

44,555    You can tell I work a lot of cw....
Logged
G4LNA
Member

Posts: 144




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2017, 09:55:41 AM »

I'm just trying to figure out how they come to those results, according to that I'm calling CQ for nearly 5 hours per day, just not possible  Undecided

I know I'm prolific on the air, but that's plain ridiculous.
Logged

GW3OQK
Member

Posts: 386




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2017, 10:04:32 AM »

I'm not listed at all! Should I be ashamed of myself? I'm a replier rather than a caller.
73
Andrew GW3OQK
Logged
M0LEP
Member

Posts: 489




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2017, 10:14:45 AM »

It seems you have to have been spotted calling CQ by RBN for at least 11 hours (or whatever it counts as "hours") in a year before you feature...
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4880




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2017, 11:24:58 AM »

I used a different criteria, to come up with a ranking of most prolific CQ'ers in the past year, not by number of hours they were CQ'ing, but by number of times they were spotted.

I see a much improved correlation between this ranking system and the calls I am super familiar with.

Here is the top 25 ranking by that criteria:


 # call   number of spots
-- ------ ------
 1 F5IN   290843
 2 AA3B   259587
 3 OK2RRR 205788
 4 PV8ADI 195147
 5 NR4M   163957
 6 HA8RM  163449
 7 UA3KW  152992
 8 RK3ER  148139
 9 K3WW   134811
10 9A1A   130843
11 DL5YM  129307
12 HG7T   128320
13 HA8GZ  123126
14 S57V   120593
15 N4BP   120239
16 KW7D   113615
17 4X6TU  112363
18 RM1T   110976
19 LZ9W   110810
20 N5PHT  106616
21 EA6NB  106326
22 Z31NA  105000
23 N3QE   103781
24 K3LR    98479
25 ON4UN   98268


« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 11:27:56 AM by N3QE » Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1053




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2017, 07:22:54 PM »

The RBN will also record your call if you simply repeat your call sign a few times with or without CQ or TEST in front of it.  So if you are repeatedly calling a DX station you will sometimes get spotted on the RBN. Interesting stats ! 
Thanks OM I did not know this! It used to be that RBN only recorded CQ and TEST? This explains things. Also I wonder the hours total is hopefully not just calling CQ, but time spotted on air, a difficult thing to measure for sure.

Well I'm way down the list at #287.

I'm a little surprised that if I search my log for non-beacon calls around the #200 ranking, that I have not worked even half of them. Inveterate non-contesters, I guess.
That, and or you are both calling a lot and those who call more than search may miss other callers more. Or not.

Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that, just don't tell the wife, she says I spend too much time on the wireless as it is, that's why I'm going to do some voluntary work apart from my part time job.
No wonder we don't QSO daily, we are both calling CQ a lot?  Grin

I'm just trying to figure out how they come to those results, according to that I'm calling CQ for nearly 5 hours per day, just not possible  Undecided

I know I'm prolific on the air, but that's plain ridiculous.
Phew, I was wondering the same about myself! OK so N3HEE explained the reason why. It's NOT just CQ.

I'm not listed at all! Should I be ashamed of myself? I'm a replier rather than a caller.
73
Andrew GW3OQK
No, Andrew, you should be PROUD of yourself! I consider it a better skill tuning around and pouncing, than sitting on a frequency and calling (which I'm frequently guilty of). More effort, and better results. BUT, if it wasn't for you we'd all be calling CQ without ANY answers. And if it wasn't for us, you'd not get many QSO either!

I used a different criteria, to come up with a ranking of most prolific CQ'ers in the past year, not by number of hours they were CQ'ing, but by number of times they were spotted.

I see a much improved correlation between this ranking system and the calls I am super familiar with.

Here is the top 25 ranking by that criteria:


 # call   number of spots
-- ------ ------
 1 F5IN   290843
 2 AA3B   259587
 3 OK2RRR 205788
...25 ON4UN   98268



No wonder we are having ever worse and more crazy and rude and stupid ways of calling CQ -- ON4UN is on the top 25, imagine the poor example that is setting!

There is a problem though also with your way of measuring, N3QE, and that is that if I call CQ and have QSO for 16 hours of every day on 30m from VK, I will rarely be picked up by RBN stations. If I call CQ even with QRP on 40m in Europe, I will be picked up each time by dozens of stations. Same for North America.  Of course there is no perfect system by computer but they're interesting stats nevertheless.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4880




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2017, 06:12:51 AM »

No wonder we are having ever worse and more crazy and rude and stupid ways of calling CQ -- ON4UN is on the top 25, imagine the poor example that is setting!

ON4UN is not setting "poor example". I have 32 QSO's with him in the past decade. His form is fine but maybe not the most efficient possible because it's a bit overly verbose.

Quote
There is a problem though also with your way of measuring, N3QE, and that is that if I call CQ and have QSO for 16 hours of every day on 30m from VK, I will rarely be picked up by RBN stations. If I call CQ even with QRP on 40m in Europe, I will be picked up each time by dozens of stations. Same for North America.  Of course there is no perfect system by computer but they're interesting stats nevertheless.

Yes, there are some biases in any method due to the worldwide distribution of skimmers not being perfectly even. Eastern USA and Western Europe have superb skimmer coverage. Oceania, South Africa, etc., have a handful of really key important skimmers but not nearly so extensive or deep coverage.

I do want to point out, that the Australian skimmer operated by VK4CT has perhaps the best ears in the world. I am spotted by him under all kinds of obscure openings - especially daylight-to-daylight well-past-gray line on 40M. I myself am beginning to realize that 40M is often best for extreme DX before sunset or after sunrise.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 06:16:07 AM by N3QE » Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1053




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2017, 07:12:08 AM »

ON4UN is not setting "poor example".
I agree he is not setting a poor example. He is setting the most ATROCIOUS examples that are indefensible:  see here and here and he is not verbose and is fair game for public criticism because of this.

I do want to point out, that the Australian skimmer operated by VK4CT has perhaps the best ears in the world. I am spotted by him under all kinds of obscure openings - especially daylight-to-daylight well-past-gray line on 40M. I myself am beginning to realize that 40M is often best for extreme DX before sunset or after sunrise.
Indeed grey line is great and works on a wide range of frequencies. I'd not be surprised VK4CT is not in a noisy area, and maybe a good path to you as well or not. But he doesn't cover 30m and some other bands. Which is fine, just saying, RBN doesn't cover the world equally nor the spectrum. Perhaps that's a good thing. Darn computers. Don't you think I'd be better off without one?!
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4880




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2017, 07:34:16 AM »

ON4UN is not setting "poor example".
I agree he is not setting a poor example. He is setting the most ATROCIOUS examples that are indefensible:  see here and here and he is not verbose and is fair game for public criticism because of this.

I think you're being extremely overcritical of him especially because you didn't hear both sides of the QSO (a rather common situation for skip zones).

ON4CT's CW recommendations are certainly better than, say, the classic ARRL examples.

And ON4CT's recommendations are way better than a lot of bad operating procedures I commonly hear by SSB and digital mode operators.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 07:36:18 AM by N3QE » Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1053




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2017, 08:38:24 AM »

ON4UN is not setting "poor example".
I agree he is not setting a poor example. He is setting the most ATROCIOUS examples that are indefensible:  see here and here and he is not verbose and is fair game for public criticism because of this.

I think you're being extremely overcritical of him especially because you didn't hear both sides of the QSO (a rather common situation for skip zones).

ON4CT's CW recommendations are certainly better than, say, the classic ARRL examples.

And ON4CT's recommendations are way better than a lot of bad operating procedures I commonly hear by SSB and digital mode operators.
Sorry but you have not read those links at all! I know, tldr; but in that case you can say so. The attrocious examples do NOT require listening to any side of a QSO they are the method of calling CQ.

I'm not referring to ARRL, I know little of what they say as I'm not in USA. I am referring to IARU which is international and publishes this unethical ethics book, all of it explained in detail at above links, all of it severely criticised by several knowledgeable bodies including a national society and a reputable organisation of CW Operators. The errors are obvious to all amateurs of long standing and all professional telegraphists world wide, and were brought numerous times to the author's attention due to the dismay it has caused. The author flatly refuses to listen to the opinions of thousands of experts and his fellow nationals confirm he is a very arrogant individual which could explain his irrational refusal to correct.

That he then is also a hypocrite is evident in that he now calls CQ in manners that NO OTHER OP in the world does, which is FINE, I have NO issues with that, BUT he is contradicting his OWN false advice "standards" with yet another false one and this is totally unacceptable unless, of course we are dealing with an insane individual.

And, due to personal circumstances that affected him, as explained by his friends, yes he could well be insane or un-sane and that is ALSO UNDERSTANDABLE and totally forgivable. What is then not understandable and forgivable is that the IARU is not an individual so it should NOT be insane, unless we accept the Polish psychologist psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski who demonstrates just how organizations can themselves be psychopathic and thus, we might say, insane.

Either way, it is not good, and it should be terminated -- the nonsense that is. It is grossly unfair to all newcomers and returning old timers with senility to find completely wrong guidance in the name of what is supposed to be ALL OUR NAME via the IARU. I addressed this issue with K1ZZ and he conceded that this would be corrected, if my memory serves me, I have the Email, but it seems nothing has been done. There's no excuse for promoting this by IARU members societies.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever

Support CW and join CW clubs. QTT: FIST#1124, HSC#1437, UFT#728, RCWC#982, SKCC#15007, CWOPS#1714, 30CW#1,
DJ1YFK
Member

Posts: 253


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2017, 09:07:44 AM »

Hi Paul,

I'm just trying to figure out how they come to those results, according to that I'm calling CQ for nearly 5 hours per day, just not possible  Undecided

what this thing counts is the number of hours with at least one RBN spots. This means that if you send one CQ call at 11:59:30 and get some spots in the 11:59 minute and some a minute later at 12:00, it records 2 hours "with some RBN activity". So with calling CQ once you may get two "active (clock) hours". If you repeat this every 2nd hour, with a few minutes of calling CQ, you may trick the system and get a lot of "active hours".

This is not meant to be a scientific measure of activity, neither should anyone assume that x hours of RBN activity equal to x hours spent in front of the radio. For those CQing a lot, the figure is inflated, for those mostly tuning up and down the bands, it's deflated.

N3QE's measure of simply counting the number of spots is another (and also completely valid) view on the data, but additionally to the number of hours spent on the air it also strongly correlates with the signal strength of this station. When I am at the radio club (DL1A) and call CQ on 20m or 40m at the right time of the day, I "hit" something between 50 and 70 skimmers. When I am at home (10W, vertical), maybe one third of it.

Sure enough, someone calling CQ with a big signal will generate more contacts in less time, but is he "more active" than the guy with 5W and a dipole who spends so many more hours on the air?

It's all relative! Everyone is invited to make their own stats from the RBN data; it's freely available and a great exercise in "big data".  :-)
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!