Amazing how those who don't see a need for a new option have their
opinions and reflect only a view from their use of the software. Again,
we need to think and view this issue from the operator's point of view
that is located in remote DX wanted locations, and end up in a pile-up.
Mostly these stations are getting calls from others not calling CQ
themselves. These users have many reasons why a call blocking option is
a good idea. Many of you will not experience a true pile-up including
myself, operating from our stateside locations in the US mainland. I
spoke with one ham who I know and lives in AK who gets inundated with
hams blind calling him, because he gets reported on a spotting system.
He gets what he calls " blind calling " from stations who want to get
his DX. What happens, stations will call him and they can't hear him,
hoping to be logged, some of them keep calling and calling and sending
false reports like TX3 or TX4 hoping he will log them. WSJT-X will keep
putting that call sign in the TX window for your reply back with an
automatic response, for them, interrupting the QSO in progress, which
again is only a one-way call they can't hear him. You can't get rid of
them, from the decoded Q, they keep calling with a report, and even try
sending RR73. If there was a call blocking "OPTION" yes option, I said,
you could click on that call sign, and stop them from decoding and
interrupting the working QSO , for some period of time.
I want to make a point, what is wrong with options to improve the
operations of our ham software? Some of you are making new options or
changes that can improve the operations as being a bad thing. If you as
a user don't want to use a let's say " blocking option ", don't use it.
If the developers Joe, Steve, and Bill, feel it is helpful to the DX
operations, and the F/H mode, and they decide to add this option or any
other, then it should be fine for all of us, if it is not helpful for
your station operations, then don't use it. I would think the only hams
who would object to a call sign blocking as a option is maybe a ham who
might be blocked someday? If that was the case, just move on to the next
station who will want to work you, it's not that important, remember its
only one QSO!
As Mike said ears for the opinions from those hams who have lived in a
pile-up at their location with the WSJT-X modes.
73
Eric/WA1SXK
On 12/2/2019 4:52 PM, Black Michael via wsjt-devel wrote:
I'm all ears for opinions from operators who have had a call pileup on
them.
If Call 1st is to be implemented at all it should be robust.
It's a trivial patch which I'll make myself and submit for
consideration in WSJT-X.
de Mike W9MDB
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
