I assume that's a habit/workaround you carried over from other protocols,
right?  I think that's where all this comes from...habits learned elsewhere.
Though it may feel strange to not send a 73 that's the way this protocol
works if you want to save 2 minutes (or use the shortcut like you show).
But your solution may cause you to lose QSO confirmations from the small
crowd that won't confirm on non-standard exchanges.
And another problem with your shortcut is it doesn't contain the callsign
of either party which is a bad idea too.

RRR
Mike W9MDB

<https://www.avast.com/lp-safe-emailing?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/lp-safe-emailing?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Jerzy Najda <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Mike
>
>
>
> I use sequence
>
>
>
> CQ HF1D
>
>                                    HF1D DK1XX JO43
>
> DK1XX HF1D -09
>
>                                     HF1D DK1XX R-03
>
>
>
> And finally
>
>
>
> RR TU 73LOTW
>
>                                    HF1D DK1XX 73
>
>
>
> Best regards, 73
>
> Jerry, HF1D
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Игорь Ч [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 2:52 PM
> *To:* WSJT software development <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] RR73 message button
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> That is exactly what happens: after the RRR message most users consider as
> polite way to send the 73 mesage.
>
> Alternative option could be R73.
>
> 73 Igor
>
> Re: [wsjt-devel] RR73 message button
> From: Michael Black <mdblack98@gm...> - 2015-12-11 13:23:54
> Attachments: Message as HTML
> We've gone through this discussion before...I used to think it was a good
> idea too. But...RR73 is a grid location...and RRR is the last message for
> the CQ side of the QSO...not 73.
> So you don't save any time by doing RR73 unless you would otherwise do an
> RRR followed by an unnecessary 73.
> It's just hard to drop the habit of using 73 like you use on every other
> protocol.
>
> RRR :-)
> Mike W9MDB
>
>
>
> Пятница, 11 декабря 2015, 12:15 +03:00 от Игорь Ч <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi Joe and all,
>
> I have checked statistics based on the All.txt file: at least every second
> operator transmit manually generated message RR73 or 'RRR 73' instead of
> the standard RRR message. File with the summary and raw data in MS Excel
> format is located there: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4KBg/UoqJWw6rK
>
> Summary does not include scenario where some operators use 73 message
> instead of the RRR one.
>
> There are three reasons to modify user interface with this message:
>
> 1. It should reduce spectrum usage and interference on the overcrowded HF
> bands
> 2. It will make GUI  more user friendly one
> 3. It will save time, both, in terms of the QSO length and manual message
> generation
>
> Also possibility to activate prompt for QSO logging on the RR73 message
> would benefit users.
>
> May I ask to consider the code change in some future release, please?
>
> 73 Igor UA3DJY
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Reply via email to