One downside is that R73 won't compress so you may not be able to respond to some call signs properly
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 10:42 AM, Игорь Ч <[email protected]> wrote: > resending the message, there may still be possibility to change standard > QSO exchange sequence: > > Statistics showing different behaviour of users. > > I see there is restriction for RR73 as it is matching to the grid square. > > Just wondering: is there any obstacle to use R73 message instead of the > RRR one? > > 73 Igor > > Пятница, 11 декабря 2015, 8:24 -06:00 от Michael Black < > [email protected] <https://e.mail.ru/[email protected]>>: > > That's why education is important....if you look in the help file you'll > find the standard exchange. I know most people will never read that...so > perhaps we need some pop up the first time you send an RRR which is then > suppressed which says "FYI....RRR is the last message needed for the > calling side of a JT QSO...no 73 is needed...see help file" > > I got educated and quit using it. > RRR > Mike W9MDB > > > > Пятница, 11 декабря 2015, 16:51 +03:00 от Игорь Ч <[email protected] > <https://e.mail.ru/[email protected]>>: > > 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
