In reply to MM0FMF:
Well Andy You have lost me .I will crawl back in to my corner.73 Geoff
In reply to 2E0YYY:
I share your concern, Mike. The basic problem is that RST itself is badly out of date, as any active operator knows instinctively. RST was developed as a disciplining aid in the early 20th century during the transiton from spark to CW, long before SSB, FM, APRS, S-meters, rotating beams, computer-based digital modes like PSK-31 and Olivia, and many other technical advances. RST needs to be replaced. Such a replacement has been developed and will be published in a major Amateur Radio publication soon. The new system is called CSQ: Copyability Strength Quality.
The “strength” part of CSQ is based entirely on S-meter readings on the assumption that S-9 is calibrated at 50 microvolts. The top of the strength scale in CSQ is 51 dB or more over S-9. There will be no excuse ever to give that maximum strength report except to a nearby kilowatt station.
The “copyability” parameter of CSQ is based on the approximate percentage of a transmission that is copied successfully.
The 9-level “tone” parameter of RST, which is focused on power-supply linearity problems, is replaced in CSQ with a single “Quality” parameter “R” – denoting “ripple”. Other quality problems like key clicks, chirps, overmodulating and overdeviating are also addressed by Q designators in CSQ.
73, Bruce N7RR n7rr@hotmail.com
In reply to K7MWP:
I fear it will never catch on, Bruce, not because there is anything wrong with the concept but because we hams are traditionalists at heart. SINPO was soon abandoned by our 5 megs operators, although it was specified for the experiment, in favour of the traditional report scales.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
SINPO was soon abandoned by our 5 megs operators
SINPO was a requirement of the RSGB not the licence.
Tell me Brian, is 04433 a valid SINPO report? 
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to G6MZX:
Look at the SOTAWATCH pages… Simple clean black text on a gentle gray background, darker grey backgrounds to highlight areas. The only colour being links in blue and the logo in red and green.
Simple, clean, uncluttered and very easy to read.
Look at the other website. Bright colours, flashing backgrounds. Lots of visual junk and clutter that makes reading the pages hard.
Just because you have 16million different colours available for your text and backgrounds doesn’t mean you have to use them all on one page! Similarly animated backrounds, why? All they do is distract. It’s such a visual affront that it’s difficult to take the information seriously when it’s a nice concise Q code list. Which sort of defeats the point of putting the info up in the first place.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to K7MWP:
> > The 9-level "tone" parameter of RST, which is focused on > power-supply linearity problems, is replaced in CSQ with a single > "Quality" parameter "R" -- denoting > "ripple". Other quality problems like key clicks, chirps, > overmodulating and overdeviating are also addressed by Q designators > in CSQ.Tricky one this, Bruce.
It almost sounds like the cure is worse than the disease 
From my limited experience, any kind of change is percieved as some sort of threat by the Amateur community. Many of the more senior Amateurs, still haven’t come to terms with the scrapping of the Morse requirement for HF and that must have happened at least 8 years ago.
73
Mike M6MMM
In reply to MM0FMF:
Tell me Brian, is 04433 a valid SINPO report?
No, Andy, and the reason for that is that each element of SINPO is based on impressions and given a qualitative description, the S-meter doesn’t figure anywhere in it. Anyway, I abandoned it myself as soon as I saw which way the wind was blowing!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to MM0FMF:
Tell me Brian, is 04433 a valid SINPO report?
Looks more like an international dialing code 
Mike M6MMM
In reply to MM0TAI:
QuestionQRJ Are you receiving me badly? Are my signals weak?
AnswerQRJ I cannot receive you. Your signals are too weak.
If the signals are too weak to be recieved, how did you manage to hear
“QRJ” in the first place.
QSD = Your keying is defective.
Quite a useful one, that …
73,
Walt (G3NYY)
In reply to G3NYY:
Good one walt, I like your style 
Adrian
Mm0tai
In reply to G8ADD:
In reply to MM0FMF:
I really must get a more recent edition if only out of curiosity! My
edition has a chapter on “Operating technique and Station
Layout” which includes Q codes and morse abbreviations and a
paragraph on the evolution of the RST code which is where I quoted QRK
to 9 though I learned that back in the 60s for my RAE.73
Brian G8ADD
All the information you need is in the Licence Manuals for both the Foundation Licence and the Intermediate Licence. I guess that they assume, once you reach the Advanced level, the candidate understands the use of the RST system
Barry GM4TOE
In reply to GM4TOE:
All the information you need is in the Licence Manuals for both the
Foundation Licence and the Intermediate Licence. I guess that they
assume, once you reach the Advanced level, the candidate understands
the use of the RST system
Well, I’m just trawling through my copy of The Radio Amateurs Q&A Reference Manual (second edition) by R.E.G. Petri G8CCJ, purchased in 1987 and so far, I’ve found no questions relating to “Q” codes.
Mind you, there are adverts for Jaybeam, Wood & Douglas radio kits, Thanet Electronics advertising the latest Icom IC-71E, Antennas by Bantex and a Datong Morse tutor at £49+VAT
Happy days
Mike M6MMM
In reply to GM4TOE:
Oh, come on, Barry! You are deliberately being obtuse!
I’ve understood the RST system since I first started as an SWL somewhere about 1958-ish (my original logbook has been lost!) Since the R1155B Rx that I started with didn’t have an S-meter, just a magic eye, I naturally used a descriptive system gleaned from one of the texts of the day, before plucking up my courage to rip out the DF section of the Rx to make room for a mains psu and an S-meter. Yes, I know, vandalism, but if they were not quite ten-a-penny in those days they were only £3!
I know the earlier QRK went to 5, at some point it was changed to 9 and this was the origin of S-units going up to 9, an odd idea in the first place because a sensible person would expect 10. I’m interested to find out how all this happened and so far Google has NOT been my friend!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to 2E0YYY:
Quite funny, the August issue of the German “Funkamateur” magazine has an editoral (the article on the first page) dealing with exactly the same topic.
Some time ago I tried to give real reports in contests and was asked once to give 59 as the contest log software would not allow another report! But in a non contest QSO why not give a more realistic report? We all know most S-meters do not work below real S5 and are not exact below real S9. But you get used to the characteristic of your S-meter and can at least estimate signal strength from the displayed value. Testing S-meter deflection with a signal generator is useful for getting an idea of real S-units.
I estimate a weak signal readable with difficulty with 31 to 33. Not exact but better than 59 or the 50 the FT-817 displays. An acceptable signal with some S-meter deflection may be 44 and a clear but not booming signal 57. At least S9 and above are quite exact on many transceivers so here you can report the meter reading directly.
Is that really so difficult?
73 de Michael, DB7MM
In reply to DB7MM:
This is Bruce Prior, N7RR, not my lovely wife Margaret K7MWP.
Thanks, Michael. I would very much like to to read that article from “Funkamateur”. I can’t write richtig Deutsch, but I can read it just fine.
I think very few people who actually use RST have bothered to read it recently. RST specifies that S-9 is for “Extremely strong signals.” I read that as an outlier, like a kilowatt station within a couple hundred meters. Even within the framework of RST, an S-9 signal report should be given only very rarely. On most S-meters, S-9 is less than half-scale. 50 microvolts is emerging as the de facto standard for S-9 on modern S-meters.
Here’s the thing: when we’re chatting with somebody informally who asks how our signal is doing, we say something like, “You’re armchair copy here and about twenty over nine, but with some distortion. You might try backing off your mike gain.” or “I’m only getting about half of what you’re saying. The noise level here is about S-4, and you’re only occasionally moving the needle above that, but when I can hear you, your audio sounds quite clean.” CSQ addresses the first situation with “XBO” and the second with “54X”. It’s terse, with only three characters; it gives a realistic report just like we usually do when we’re use a whole bunch of words to tell the other operator what the signal actually sounds like. CSQ will be very easy to learn and it’s far less subjective than RST.
73, Bruce N7RR
73, Bruce N7RR
In reply to K7MWP:
Thanks, Michael. I would very much like to to read that article from
“Funkamateur”. I can’t write richtig Deutsch, but I can
read it just fine.
No problem, I just found out they have it on their website, look here:
http://www.funkamateur.de/editorial.html
73 de Michael, DB7MM