Kommentteja uudesta kimpparaportointisäännöstä ulkomailta:
Questionable decision regarding collective reports set up by the Finnish DX Association, FDXA
Another very interesting issue is the new rules set up by the Finnish DX Association last winter regarding collective reports and collective verifications.
I don’t know if you saw or paid any extra attention to those lines below written by Mika Mäkelainen in DXing.info in his DXpedition AIH39 report from Aihkiniemi.
In my opinion reports and QSL’s are very private. A QSL is – and should remain – a result of a personal achievement.
What happens in reality is that the participating DX-ers in the expedition divide the work between them of going through all the recorded files and write their “collective” reports asking for a “collective” verification. If there are three participants you can cut the amount needed for a QSL to up to one third of what it used to be.
As I said before both reports and a verifications are a very private matter. It is not like collecting stamps, if you miss one it easy to buy or place a bid. I can’t understand why one organisation make their own rules when there already is a common international practice among the other organisations.
I really hope FDXA reconsider their decision and reverts to the international practice in collecting and counting verifications.
Mika Mäkelainen’s lines in the AIH39 report:
Personally, I have never begun a DXpedition as unprepared as this time. Partly it was a result of a decision taken by the Finnish DX Association last winter. The FDXA changed rules on counting station points, essentially inflating the value of traditional personal verifications.
According to the new rule, collective reception reports resulting in collective QSLs (for instance by a party of two or three who happen to be on the same DXpedition and more or less contribute to a single collective reception report, resulting in one shared QSL) are counted as if they were personal achievements. So, everyone somehow involved can count any “shared” QSL as their own personal achievement and “point” while minimizing individual effort to obtain it. The change is a major deviation from any international practice in collecting and counting verifications. I lost all motivation to take part in FDXA-run QSL competitions and rankings, and felt this might be a good time to take a bit of a break from the entire hobby as well.
I must admit that at first I was very hesitant if I should publish my blog posts or not, because I was to say the least unsure of the “outside world” reaction. Would there be a storm of protest? Mailbox flooded with hatmail from Italy, or perhaps even worse? Well, I chose to publish and I chose to write from the “QSL writer’s” perspective. Have received lots of feedback and it has been entirely positive. Mail from you, Christoph Ratzer, a Brazilian DXer and some mails from Italy expresses gratitude that I published my creations. It feels good.
The story of the Signore Bellabarba (both “senior” and “junior”) we all know of. Now, I do not think it was Dario Monferinis intension in any way to “help” or “support” Bellabarba in his business, but it was just all wrong from the start. Per se not so unusual with Dario. Play DX has always been a “playhouse”.
Now I have no proof whatsoever that this latest percussion cap really is Italian. He states admittedly an address in Italy (Modena), but it might as well be a fool who is only looking to create intrigue by portraying Italian DXers as “bad apples in the basket”. This I discussed with Christoph yesterday. I believe that the greatest value of my post was that I as “QSL issuer” belongs to those who really check listener reports carefully before I verify, and that it is not worth fake it to get a QSL.
Yes, I know the new Finnish rules. An abomination, in my opinion. The gang that carried out the AIH-41, ie before my expedition, used so-called “collective listening”, which means in practice that they all share IQ files! This means that stations will receive identical reports from at least two DXers. Completely crazy, and I hope that SDXF will take the matter up in EDXC. The collective listening and collective reporting can only get one consequence: even worse response rate from the stations. I can honestly say that if Vardö Radio would receive two identical reports, perhaps additionally with two identical audio files from two DXers with different addresses; yes, then I would probably think very carefully before I used my time to verify the “audition”.
I enjoy and visit Hans Blog often and see the comment.
I also think „what is wrong?“ DXing is MY hobby and the „QSLs“ are for MY reception reports. We can talk about Twente, I understand if DX friends from Europe use this receiver if they cannot listen at home because of much QRM.But I dont understand some DXers from Asia who use Twente and NOT mentioned this, but publish the fantastic QSLs they receive for small stations in Europe…
And the same with „collective“ QSLs. An absolut no-go. An example: Both of us stay in Aihkiniemi. You listen to Kiribati on 1440, but I am too stupid and listen on another frequency. So you can write to Kiribati and hope for a friendly reply, but why should I wrote to Kiribati? Should I tell them „My Dx friend Thomas listen to your signal and I stay behind him? …
I would discuss that in SWB because „QSLs“ are very important for many DXers – and most SWB readers did a very good job for our hobby – and it is interesting to learn other views!
Sannerligen intressanta grejor du bjuder på! Jag läste om den galne italienaren i Ekot. Och angående de finska QSLreglerna, så påminner det ganska mycket om “dopning”… Jag har absolut ingen som helst förståelse för den metoden att skaffa QSL. Din kommentar ställer jag mig helt och hållet bakom.
Beträffande grupprapportering så var frågan uppe i SDXF på ett styrelsemöte den 3 mars 2014.
Vi hade fått signaler från Finland om att det fanns oenighet bland de finska DX-arna om grupprapportering/gruppQSL. Vi gjorde då en enkel förfrågan hos några av våra mer erfarna svenska DX-are och fick till svar att man hört talas om att detta förekommer i Finland, men ingen har hört att det tillämpas i Sverige.
Det var även styrelsemedlemmarnas uppfattning att detta inte förekommer i Sverige och att det alltså inte var något vi bekymrade oss om för tillfället.
Styrelsens inställning var att detta tar vi avstånd från, men ansåg inte att vi behövde ta något policybeslut vid den tidpunkten eftersom det inte, så vitt vi kunde bedöma, förekommer i Sverige.
Jag har själv varit på parkaexpeditioner 6 år i rad nu och aldrig märkt, eller hört talas om, något samarbete vad gäller rapportering.
(Lähde: Shortwave Bulletin 1815)