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 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What makes you the most reluctant to answer a CQ?  (Read 11106 times)
HB9FXW
Member

Posts: 52




Ignore
« on: August 24, 2017, 10:34:24 PM »

What makes you decide you won't answer a particular CQ?

  • - Too low signals ("Life's too short for QRP")
  • - Bad sending ("No time for noobs")
  • - A country you work too often ("Not DX enough fer me")
  • - Too slow ("No time for noobs" again)
  • - Too fast and not sure they will QRS
  • - Don't like their online profile...
  • - You only answer friends

I often call CQ a lot, and despite being heard and decoded by the Reverse Beacon Network in a few places all over Europe and sometimes beyond, I struggle to find takers. My "success rate" when answering other's CQ is much higher, which seems to indicate that a lot of people hear me but decide not to answer me, and I wonder what I could do to improve the situation. When I was a quite rare multiplier in the H26 contest, it seemed like I had turned on a +20 dB amp and I miss that. I'm not asking for pileups, but c'mon...

For me, the most frequent reason to spin the dial is a low signal, because of my crappy antenna. I'm usually the one with the lowest RST, so if I hear someone faintly there are chances they won't hear me at all. I always work anyone who answers my CQ, though, because then I know they can hear me well enough.

Fortunately, there's not much QLF (well, at least when *I* am not calling Cheesy ) here, but I admit I have a low tolerance for badly sent code. I don't really care for too-wide spacing or the occasionnal "typo", but if your dahs are only 20% longer than your dits and you glue all your letters together in a continuous string, I won't have the skill nor the patience to work you.

What about you?
Logged

Seiuchy, free morse QSO quiz and simulator
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1066




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2017, 11:55:49 PM »

A great survey. To be honest NONE of the above! If I hear any CQ from any of the above I always answer it. For me, I don't answer a CQ if it doesn't end with a K or PSE K, if it ends with <AR> or worse, NOTHING, I NEVER answer it. Also if it ends with UP I don't answer it, unless I really want to and then I'll answer at most 300Hz off frequency. Here are examples of CQ calls I refuse to answer:

1) CQ DX DX ON4UN ON4UN DX DX

2) CQ DX DX <BT> LP ON4UN ON4UN DX DX <BT> LP

3) TU UP

4) CQ CQ YB72RI/1 YB72RI/1

5) TU EG7FDA

This last one currently polluting 10125.000000000 kHz as I write this.

One generally finds avoiding .000000000 kHz one runs into more interesting QSO, especially if it chirps and drifts.

But all those types on your list I always answer.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 11:58:48 PM 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,
OZ8AGB
Member

Posts: 334




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2017, 01:20:13 AM »

My ususal one:
- That guy will probably go into a longer ragchew and I will be lost at 90% missed text and it will be yet another bad qso for me. Either because of the speed or a QRZ page that starts "I learned telegraphy in the army in 19xx.....".
Logged
HB9FXW
Member

Posts: 52




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2017, 01:56:43 AM »

Well, I too hesitate when there's no K at the end of the call. It's hard to answer when you don't know when. I'm not a big fan of split operating either, but I'd give it a try if I think I'll have my chances.

- That guy will probably go into a longer ragchew and I will be lost at 90% missed text and it will be yet another bad qso for me. Either because of the speed or a QRZ page that starts "I learned telegraphy in the army in 19xx.....".

A lot of old timers gladly QRS or patiently repeat anything you miss and most of them don't mind rubber-stamp QSOs. I'll make a note of your call and try to keep it to a bare minimum if we meet on the air, if you prefer short QSOs. I like them too, even if I sometimes prefer longer exchanges.

Logged

Seiuchy, free morse QSO quiz and simulator
GW3OQK
Member

Posts: 386




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2017, 02:31:57 AM »

Bad sending.

Nothing to do with noobs. If someone can't send their own callsign without error, or keep sending extra dits, that makes me reluctant to answer, so I would wait and see if someone else answers.

To add to EEE's list someone who comes on and sends "QRZ?" instead of CQ doesn't get answered.
73
Andrew

Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1066




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2017, 03:00:38 AM »

<snip>or a QRZ page that starts "I learned telegraphy in the army in 19xx.....".
how does my QRZ fare, hopefully it'd not deter anyone from contacting me. I'm always happy to QRS or rubber stamp QSO only not the 5NN ;-)

<snip>someone who comes on and sends "QRZ?" instead of CQ doesn't get answered.
what about someone who sends only "?" at the end of your QSO, is that OK? I agree QRZ? is an abuse of the term, since it should be used only to ask who IS already calling, and one should not reply if one did not call before. The "?" is frequently used by us East Europeans hopefully that would be OK?

I might add, if I KNEW the other person is using a decoder I would not call, but it's hard to tell that before entering a QSO :-)
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,
OZ8AGB
Member

Posts: 334




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2017, 03:19:00 AM »

Lou, it is just me who got burnt on quite a few such QSOs including DCW ones.
After learning the letters etc I wanted to learn to actually copy a QSO and understand at least 80-90% without frantically writing all down.
The common advice is: QSOs on air.
If my training makes me feel I go in the opposite direction then something is wrong. So it has now been a lot of DX hunting and 5NN TU. This I can copy.
Don't really know how to "get back on the horse" again.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 03:21:50 AM by OZ8AGB » Logged
K3TN
Member

Posts: 559


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2017, 03:30:03 AM »

There are  times where I'm only down in the shack to do some DXing where I'm just focusing on that but bad sending is probably number 1 reason for me not answering a CQ.

Actually, another top reason is looooooooooong CQs - after "CQ CQ CQ HB9XYZ HB9XYZ" send twice, if the station keeps sending CQ I spin the dial.

I'll answer weak stations that are copy-able, I always assume if I can copy them they should be able to copy me.

With computer logging, if I've already worked someone on that band/mode I might not answer right away. Will usually listen for a CQ and see if anyone else answers first.

Logged

John K3TN
M0LEP
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2017, 04:35:41 AM »

It might be easier to answer the opposite question, "What makes you decide you will answer a CQ call?"

I need to be at least half-way confident that the caller might hear me, so if their signal is down in the noise, or there's no gap between one CQ and the next, I'll look elsewhere.

I need to be confident that I can read the signal, so if their signal is down in the noise, or very chirpy, or too fast, or too strangely spaced, or I can't make out the callsign for any other reason, then I'll look elsewhere.

I need to be very confident the caller will be interested in my answer, so if they are specifying some particular interest (be it a contest, DX, FISTS, SKCC, or whatever) then I'll look elsewhere unless the specified interest matches one of mine.

If the caller seems to have a pile-up then I'll look elsewhere unless they are someone (or at some place) I really want to contact, and if I do answer and don't get a call back after two or three attempts then I'll assume they can't hear me and move elsewhere.
Logged
KC4ZGP
Member

Posts: 1637




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2017, 06:14:24 AM »


Hmmm....

I have passed up answering calls. I don't know why. I shall make note why I don't and go from there.

A station is not as effective as its antennas. It is as effective as its operator.

On 18.087MHz, Morse, 2200UTC. Won't you join me?

Kraus
Logged
K0UA
Member

Posts: 1380




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2017, 07:13:22 AM »

Number one reason?  bad sending. if you cant send CQ I am not going to answer you. EVER.

 Follow that with very low signals, nope, aint gonna happen, if I have to struggle to copy the CQ because of low signals, I am not gonna try to dig out anything else. There are plenty other fish in the sea,  go find one of them.

Third reason: If his sending is too fast for me.. If he is sending perfect code with s9 signals and above 20wpm, he isn't for me, he doesn't want to work poor CW operators like me, he wants first class operators only. Some will say, "well ask him to QRS.  Nope that doesn't work, he might slow down for a minute or two, but an operator that naturally sends 25 wpm or more usually will speed back up soon and never even realize it. It hurts a 25 or faster op to slow down, just like it hurts me to slow down to 5 wpm.

But above all is the op that sends CQ as  dah dit dah dit    dit dah didah     I hear it all the time.
Logged
W7ASA
Member

Posts: 459




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2017, 07:45:17 AM »

I usually answer most of the CQs that I hear.  Speed is not a problem, because I like both my bug and straight key, so 10 words per minute or 30 , is all fine.  I haven't owned paddles for years (though I am eyeing a Begali when I retire someday), and for me,  above 30 on a bug is do-able , but too gymnastic for me - har har . My copy speed is about 45 with comfort, but I rarely hear anyone that fast these days.

One pet peeve is when the op does not know when to put a question mark on a Q-signal.  Example"

// tuning - tuning - tuning //
QRL QRL QRL    // pause //   CQ CQ CQ DE N....

Do they understand that they just tuned-up, DECLARED the frequency was now busy and called CQ.

If I hear a computer is sending a macro to me, I spin the dial.


73 de Ray  
W7ASA  ..._ ._

Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 1066




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2017, 08:22:46 AM »

I'm the same as you there Ray. K0UA what a shame, you're missing out on a great QSO with VK5EEE. I do ALL those things you mentioned, in rotation, or at the same time, and yet if you answer me with a keyer I will come back with a keyer and outdo you in perfection  Grin so we'll have to wait until I hear you calling CQ  Roll Eyes
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,
KD8IIC
Member

Posts: 648




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2017, 08:42:28 AM »

 There's one in particular that I will not answer due to his poor sending runningallhisletterstogether.
 If after 35 yrs or more of ham radiotelegraphy work on his part I'd want to think he'd be better at it.
Logged
N9AOP
Member

Posts: 645




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2017, 09:18:39 AM »

I agree with the previous poster.  There are quite a few ops today that run all the letters and words together.  This makes it difficult to copy.  As far as the speed, if the other op is faster than me, in almost all cases, they will slow down a bit.  I had a recent qso where the op was apparently using computer generated CW and gave me his whole litany just like they do in PSK.  At least the computer generated code had spaces between the words.
Art
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 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!