Unclear on the Concept: DX Spotting

In the beginning, when we heard a rare DX station we would pick up the telephone and call our friends. They would get on the air and work the DX, and then they might call their friends. These telephone trees were always shallow with few beneficiaries. But there were many of these small trees spread across the globe. They relied on those with the time to spin the dial and find stations, and a smaller number that globally networked with other DXers. This was how groups of DXers found stations and, importantly, knew when and where stations were likely to appear.

The internet changed everything. Now we have a large number of DX spotting clusters networked together so that when a stranger on the other side of the world spots a station we learn about it almost instantly. We click on the spot and our transceiver interfaced PC instantly jumps to the DX station and might even set the correct mode and frequency split. 

It has never been easier to chase DXCC and other operating awards. I've benefitted and it's likely that you have as well. Some laud the technology, exploiting it to the maximum. Others sneer at the ease and simplicity and mourn the loss of the traditional skills of research, tuning and listening. I'll set that debate aside to focus on a different and modern problem: poor and improper use of spotting networks.

First, what is the proper way to spot DX? We can debate which stations to spot, but that's pointless since we will never all agree. It can be rare DX, but it can also be anyone and everyone during a contest, or simply a kind note about a non-rare station who was a pleasant conversationalist. Regardless of your thoughts on this I think we can agree that spots should ideally include the following information:

• Frequency
• Call sign
• Whether the station is operating split, and optionally the offset
• The location of the station if it is not obvious from the call sign; e.g. IOTA, grid square, state/oblast/county/zone, POTA/SOTA, etc.
  

Only the first two are mandatory. The rest depends on how helpful you want to be. It isn't unreasonable to avoid including optional information so that others must do their part by listening. I'm a minimalist when I spot a station.

The list of poor spotting etiquette is long. We can roughly categorize those as careless, inappropriate or malicious. I'll talk about the ones I've encountered that aggravate, surprise and amuse me. And why not? The height of summer is a great time to relax and have some fun. I'll leave the technical topics for another day.

Above are a few examples that I randomly selected for the purpose of this article. They are assembled from screenshots collected from a web-based spot aggregator. In these screenshots I am redacted personal identification even if the spotters are not shy about what they're doing.

Careless

We all make mistakes. The proper way to deal with it is to correct the error. Few do for their bad spots. In the example above, I'm not sure if the correction was distributed out of sequence or whether the error "corrected" the correct call sign.

Careless mistakes that I often see include:

• Automatic spotting while running: Many logging applications include a feature to spot every call sign you type in or log while spinning the VFO. If you forget to tell the software that you're running (CQing on a frequency) the spots will continue to be generated. This is of course irritating for those who click on the spot and find that the station isn't there or not workable because it's the spotter's frequency. A few hams do it deliberately (bragging about their big signal?) though most often it's just a mistake.
• Call sign error: Mistyping a call sign can cause confusion. It can be a dropped letter, transposed letter, changing "0" to "O", or just a typo. Most logging software will let you make the mistake. If I click on the spot, work the station and log it, I should not expect a confirmation! These mistakes are common, so listen carefully.
  
• Propagating an error: I know this one well. Someone copies my call during a contest as "VE3UN" and spots it. Many hams miscount dits when the CW speed is very high in a contest, and this error is very common for my call. The mistake is propagated when callers, drawn in to work a new station, fail to listen and also spot the erroneous call.
• Spotting the wrong frequency: This is common for split operation in a DX pile up. Rather than spot their receive frequency (where the DX station is transmitting) they spot their own transmit frequency. This is worse than simply unhelpful since most logging software give precedence to the most recent spot. You click on the spot and find yourself listening to the pile up instead of the DX station. You either hunt for the DX or manually locate an old spot with the correct frequency.
  

Inappropriate

There is a fine line between careless and inappropriate spots. My criterion is that the inappropriate spot is one whose purpose is not that of informing about a station's call sign and frequency. That is, using the spotting system for communication of other kinds of messages is inappropriate. 

Examples are legion, but here are a few that I regularly encounter:

• No copy: These are variation of "nope, I hear nothing". If that's the case, what is being spotted? Your failure to copy a station not only doesn't justify a spot but also misleads others to believe that you have heard the station. Few hams notice the added comments and solely rely on their band maps and spectrum maps that just plot the call sign at the frequency.
• ESP attempts: The DX station is working a pile up, not reading spots. You cannot effectively communicate with them this way. Pilot stations for the especially rare DXpeditions may, but that's about it, and it still won't help you. Cries of "you got my call wrong!" are not only pointless but non-radio attempts to correct the DX station's log is inappropriate. Do what the rest of us do: work them again. The same goes for spot messages such as: "turn to NA", "I need you on 160 SSB" or "upload your log!".
• Shaming: We all make mistakes. Using the spotting network to publicly shame other hams is inappropriate no matter the reason. Naming the alleged guilty party with a call sign and a message like "UP UP", "20 khz splatter", or "DQRMer" is very rude. Your impatience or frustration are not a valid excuse for your inappropriate behaviour.
• Help me: "Where is he listening?", "did he QSY?" and so forth are inappropriate. Spots are not a chat line. There are venues where assistance can be requested.
• Complaints: There are an awful of spots of this variety. Examples include: "they only work EU", "too much $$$ for a QSL", "he's deaf" and insults for a host of perceived affronts. Public tantrums are not cute after you've passed the age of 3.
• Brag: "DXCC300", "worked with qrp and dipole", "human to human" and so much more. We should be proud of our accomplishments, but not in this way. The implication with some of these messages is that those who operate differently from them or have accomplished less are lesser hams. Bragging is almost always impolite, and it is certainly inappropriate in a spot.
• Skimmers: There are always a few hams who connect their personal skimmers to spotting networks rather than to the RBN.
  

Many of these inappropriate spots should not be sent at all or should be fodder for the announcement feature of the cluster network. But few hams pay attention to announcements -- for good reasons that I won't get into here -- and these are people who want to be heard. But that's a poor excuse to misuse the spotting network.

Malicious

Human beings continue to be human when they sit in front of a radio. Hams are not angels. Those with malice in their hearts or who harbour grudges don't always set them aside when they operate. When these individuals are sufficiently uninhibited they will use the spotting network to expose their inner demons.

I won't give examples of malicious messages since this is intended as a lighthearted article. Consider the following:

• Political and hate speech
• Impersonation of others to post inappropriate messages
• Deliberate frequency and call sign errors to misdirect or confuse

You've probably seen examples of all of these types of malicious message. I suggest that you ignore them and use a cluster that actively monitors for and filters abusers of the network. Which brings me to the next topic.

Filters

Cluster operators do not act independently. They share tools and filters and discuss ways to minimize improper use of the network. They not only filter users but also clusters that permit or encourage bad actors. It is to our benefit that they do. I don't believe enough hams are aware of their efforts on our behalf.

In addition to the filters applied by the cluster operators you can have your own filters. Filter features are provided by most of the cluster software applications. You can configure those with applications such as CC User by VE7CC. 

You can also create filters in your logging software. I have done this for several hams that persistently make careless and inappropriate spots. Don't overdo it since most hams eventually correct their behaviour.

In truth, I'm rarely annoyed by poor cluster etiquette. Most of the time I find it quite funny. For example, when a busted call is posted and others echo the mistake rather than listening. Their carelessness is mostly undermining their own award chasing and contest scores. I just shrug, smile and move on.

Is the above example of spotting behaviour inappropriate? Sure. Funny? Very. Sometimes you get the right result by doing the wrong thing. Relax, laugh and don't take poor cluster etiquette too seriously.

Note to readers: You may have noticed a longer than usual gap since my last article. Nothing has happened except summer weather and too many projects. It isn't easy to sit in front of a computer and bang on the keyboard when the weather is fine. I'll soon get back to regular blogging to talk about some of those projects.