Allow free-form RST in CW mode?

[N1FG]

"So I think our way is best" - believe me Terry, we are all certainly clear on that point.

Since there seems to be the misconception that RST and the Alpha suffix - look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-S-T_system.

The other thread, which you locked, listed issues with dropdown lists containing *hundreds* of entries for a value that is NOT a linear function - which makes scrolling to find a value almost impossible. (i.e. signal report went from 539 to 439 - how many steps between those two entries on the list?)

Please, get some input from CW operators, SKCC Club, CWOps, FOC...

73 de Larry N1FG
100% CW

Edit to add: See bottom of this page for RSGB (Radio Society of Great Britain) guidance on RST: https://rsgb.org/main/publications-arch ... rse-extra/

[IW3HMH]

"So I think our way is best" - believe me Terry, we are all certainly clear on that point.

The other thread, which you locked, listed issues with dropdown lists containing *hundreds* of entries for a value that is NOT a linear function - which makes scrolling to find a value almost impossible. (i.e. signal report went from 539 to 439 - how many steps between those two entries on the list?)

73 de Larry N1FG

if you type "583" while focus is in the dropdown menu, the value 583 is automatically selected.
What is not allowed is to type DONALDUCK as this value is not in the list (to prevent mistakes and user complaints).

i have explained how every user can change those data setting his personal preferences by copying, renaming and editing basically a text file.

I'm not an avid CW operator (at all), but i never heard about those peculiar forms of RST reporting (my fault). And assuming you're right (and you're right, according to wikipedia) how should we do that?
Should we add a variation to all drop down items? like 599, 599A, 599C, 599K... and then 598, 598A and so on?

Or arbitrarily reduce the amount of "used values" excluding 544 because is never used?

With the possible customization you can easily add the values you need and select them by typing on the field...
What wikipedia doesn't mention is that 99% of users will leave 599 as default value for each QSO both sent and received... asking them to type 599 + 599 for each QSO is a must for someone, a shame for many others

73
lele IW3HMH

[G4POP]

Of course you could use the ADIF standard of Propogation reporting and use the Log4OM facility below!

Untitled.jpg (81.41 KiB) Viewed 4840 times

[N1FG]

Hi lele,

You could do what *every other logbook that I have ever used* does - set a default of 599 (or whatever the user selects in config) and let them either keep it or enter something different in a text field. (Look up the ADIF spec for RST.)

It is beyond ironic that you bring up just typing in 583 to select a value (if it is in the list) - the very first post on this talked about that "feature" and how the time limit prevents it from being truly useful. (That leaves aside the error of not allowing suffixes - but it would be closer to normal.)

As to suffixes, the RSGB advice, the ARRL advice, nothing can get through to someone who only knows 599, or doesn't use CW to any meaningful extent.

The primary issue is that the combinations for RST (in CW) are too numerous to be put in any list - and the primary reason that shouldn't be in a list is that they are a NON-LINEAR function. (Again, when a signal drops in readability from 529 which digit changes... it goes to 429 - where is that on the dropdown list? If the signal, like so many long-band signals this last week, has auroral flutter, or maybe a significant chirp, how do we get that in there?)

Here's a screenshot of my log, and likely very similar to the other 27,000+ members of SKCC or 2000+ CW Ops members.

Logbook latest.jpg (158.24 KiB) Viewed 4831 times

Please don't take this as an insult as that is not what I mean, but it's unfortunate that you don't know enough about CW to understand how little you know of CW operators and operations.

I'll keep using Log4OM but make a review for eHam.net and ask my fellow SKCC and CW Ops members to recommend a better logger for CW. I was an HRD user for many years and happy to pay them every year for support - and I have been happy to send a donation every time I have downloaded your software.

I think a video of that 400+ element dropdown list popping down when you're in the middle of CW QSO will be illuminating for many who have only heard of your software.


73 de Larry N1FG

[IW3HMH]

Sometime it's hard to understand why, with fully customization opportunities the user have, the only thing some guys can do is to deprecate the software because the default doesn't meet their own requests.
You can personalize Log4OM exactly as you like, exactly as you want. If that's not enough I can't do anything else than recommending you another software. But leaving a negative review for that is totally unfair, as it's not a software issue but an user requirement not satisfied by default (but easily obtainable with 5 minutes work).
It's hard to continue that way. That's my last word on that argument.

[N1FG]

Again, you don't know how very little you know about CW. (You have a CW Ops member on your team - ask them.)

73 - Larry N1FG

[IW3HMH]

Is there a list of valid values? Official values? 511 is not usual but is valid? 155 is valid? 333?
I'm not a cw operator, right, but I never found in 14 years of Log4OM a list of valid values.
And if you think 111 is never used but mr.x wants to use it, why he can't? So, again, the solution is simple as editing a text file, assuming the list is formally correct (if not, please let me know where I can find a good list)

[N1FG]

Dear Lele -

If only we were closer (geographically) as I would love for you to visit my shack and I could demonstrate why the RST system was designed as it was and, at the time, specifically targeted to CW (as that was the predominant mode of course).

You are very close with your point here - "...but I never found in 14 years of Log4OM a list of valid values." That should tell you something, at any particular time - *any* of the RST values might be the one you send (and all of them can be valid).

Strong signal but almost impossible to copy due to QRN (like lightning crashes on 160m) - RST 399 wid QRN - Very weak signal but good copy with auroral flutter (very common on the long bands this week due to solar flares) - RST 529A.

How about listening to a "boat anchor" (old tube-based rig) that has significant "Chirp" - RST 559C.

Look at this picture from the 1969 ARRL Operator's Manual - page 23 discussing the "Tone" attribute of the RST. (Also remember that almost all rigs, at that time, were tube based and many were homebrew transmitters.) See how the sentence that starts "Note that a signal can easily be T5XK..." describes why a list *couldn't* be fashioned to account for all valid combinations. (Well, I guess it could, get out your calculator to figure how many permutations exist. hihi)

IMG_2550_1024.jpeg (230.3 KiB) Viewed 4813 times

Anyhow, I hope that you will find a CW operator that you can trust somewhere close to you and just spend a bit of time with them. (Note that during contests you will almost always hear 599 as the RST but it doesn't reflect conversational CW - a mode in which we want to know what our signal sounds like at the receiving point.)

If you ever want to hear what RST really means to an operator, I would be happy to email you some audio (MP3) files of typical QSOs that I have. Many of them exhibit the auroral flutter, or other artifacts that the RST code was developed to describe for CW operators.

I realize that you can't get a good picture of what I am describing without the experience and only sorry that I can't really show you.

Best 73 from New Hampshire -
Larry N1FG

[na7c]

This message was intended to be a private message to G4POP but his account has disabled private messages:

I have just recently migrated to Log4om2 from N3FJP because I need access to my log from my Mac and yours is one of the few logging programs that supports MySQL. You also have that wonderful feature of monitoring ADIF files. You also support POTA and SOTA.

I am following the thread on the request to remove the pop-down list on the RST fields. I read one of your posts that said that an eQSL or LoTW upload might fail if one of the RST fields contained something like 599GOOFY.

I just uploaded a single QSO with sent RST and received RST of 599GOOFY to eQSL and LoTW and both uploads were successful. If you would like proof, I can furnish it. Furthermore the latest ADIF specifications state that the RST fields are strings, and eQSL limits that string to 8 characters. I cannot find any restriction on LoTW's handling of RST fields.

May I ask a question and receive an honest answer?

What is the real reason why you are defending your handling of the RST fields?

I request that you change the RST fields back to an open entry field. To me, that pop-down list is startling and of no value. I implore you to give us a way to turn it off and allow us to enter whatever we want in the RST fields. I beg you to reconsider. Thank you for your attention to my request.

[G4POP]

May I ask a question and receive an honest answer?

What is the real reason why you are defending your handling of the RST fields

Not defending anything but before we embark on major re-coding we need to know that there is sufficient support to justify the effort.

If you read my recent post I state log4om was built on users ideas so I am not against anything requested but when you have many thousand of users and just 3/4 ask for something that has not been requested before we have to balance the benefits to the majority to the work involved.

We have not said no so you may find a change in a future release.