CQ ragchew?
I wrote back in March about the pros and cons of macros in amateur digital communications, particularly RTTY and PSK31. Since that time I have been much more aware of not over doing the use of macros and as you will see from the recent posts about my 30m contacts last week I have been enjoying some nice long ragchew contacts on both PSK31 and RTTY.
I have seen suggestions that if you’re looking for more than the simple rubber stamp exchanges, which can amount to no more than a brief exchange of macros, then calling ‘CQ ragchew’ might be a good idea. I’m not sure about that because I’m sure not all amateur radio operators for whom English is not their first language would understand.
I prefer to make a generic CQ call and see who replies. After that I’ll play it be ear (so to speak) and if I sense the guy on the other end is in the mood I’ll begin to expand the discussion and rely on keyboard entry rather than macros. I find this works quite well and I always log those contacts where I have had a more meaningful chat with a note in the comment to remind me of a special contact. I always like to QSL those contacts with a small note on the card. It makes for a more personal exchange rather than the more mechanical macro based contact.
I still believe there is absolutely a place for simple macro based contacts, especially where language might be a barrier to something more expansive. However, I would very much like to see a reduction in the amount of irrelevant information contained in macros, especially relating to the computer in use and the myriad components thereof – hint: “I don’t care!”.