Yesterday, I saw the following Tweet re-Tweeted:
Being a CW geek, of course I was interested. Charlie’s point is that if you get a bad report, you probably should slow down. There’s certainly no argument about that.
What I do take a little bit of an issue with is that Charlie says, “A Readability 4 report should really make it known that information needs to be brief, but repeated – Certainly no ANT/RIG/WX waffle!” According to most sources, Readability 4 means, “Readable with practically no difficulty.” I replied on Twitter that the report should probably have been 319 or even 219.
Of course, RST reports are definitely open to interpretation. With that in mind, here’s how I decide what Readability report to give to the other station:
R5: Perfectly readable. To me, this means that I don’t really have to work much at copying the signal, and it sounds like it’s’ coming out of a code practice oscillator. I can put my feet up on the desk or putter around the shack while I’m ragchewing with the other operator.
R4: Readable with practically no difficulty. “Practically no difficulty” is the key phrase here. There may be some QRN or QSB on this signal, and I have to pay some attention while copying. An R4 is still solid copy, though, and ragchewing is definitely possible.
R3: Readable with considerable difficulty. A signal that rates an R3 needs my full attention. I have to work at copying the signal, and even then might miss characters here and there. Even though I don’t copy every single character, I’m able to fill in the gaps. An R3 signal might not be good enough for a ragchew, and repeating information is probably a good idea.
R2: Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable. A signal that rates an R2 is usually so weak that it’s below the noise level. At this level, the contact will definitely be brief and any important information, such as the callsign needs to be repeated.
R1: Unreadable. Generally, I would never give out this report, as I would never attempt making contact if a signal was truly unreadable.
So, what do you think? How do you decide what Readability report to give?
Here’s what I have observed with signal reports:
R5: You are easily readable. Except, during a contest, this means nothing.
R4: You are difficult to read so I can’t in good conscience give you an R5 but I don’t want to insult you by saying R3 or lower
R3, 2 and 1: rarely used
I know what you’re saying, but I really try to use the entire range of values. It’s like writing in a way. Unless we use the correct meaning of words, then those words are meaningless. Unless we use the RST system of signal reporting correctly, then it is meaningless–and it might just well be already.
Why should anyone feel insulted by getting an R3 report if that indeed is their readability? I know I certainly don’t.
I agree about using the entire range. And I understand not wanting to insult anyone, but poor readability is caused by poor band conditions, so it’s not really insulting, right?
R3 seems fairly common for QRP SSB, like Summits on the Air (SOTA). I use it to mean “had to work at it, but made the contact”. Could be in and out with QSB or just down in the noise.
To me, R2 usually means “no contact”, unless both sides are really working or there is some intermittent interference or noise.
R1 is for propagation notes, not for contacts. For me, those are the signals that appear when I turn off noise reduction, then disappear when I turn it back on.
My comment might have had some sarcasm in it. Hard to tell sometimes.
My favorite signal report goes like this: “you are 59, please repeat your call sign, name and signal report”
A report of 319 or 219 might be interpreted as, I am not readable because my signal strength is in the mud. Wouldn’t a report like 279 say your signal is strong, but I am not reading you. That might be interpreted as a QRS flag.
Here is my simple CW RST system. It works when you don’t have an S meter, and I use it when I am pedestrian mobile. There are only five levels, so it’s easy to memorize: