View Full Version : Logbook of the World
KG4ZLB
08-25-2005, 05:55 PM
I am interested in people's opinions on LoTW. It seems like a great idea to me but if only 5% or so of your QSL's are responded to via the system, whats the point? I use it along with regular cards via the mail, but is there some objection by the ham community to using it, far too "modern and digital" perhaps http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Just curious!
KG4RUL
08-25-2005, 06:02 PM
LOTW is a programming effort done by programmers with little-to-no understanding of a man-machine interface. It is unnecessarily complicated. And I for one minute don't buy their security arguments. These are not medical records (which by the way are kept secure without this level of user complexity)! This is a hobby and awards are a fun aspect of it. eQSL has a handle on this whole process. ARRL, look and learn from them!
Dennis http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
KG4ZLB
08-25-2005, 06:07 PM
Yes Dennis I see your point - trying to get the system up and running for me was...errr, challenging in itself! eQSL does a great job but I understand that its not acceptable for ARRL awards! Shame really.
W5ALT
08-25-2005, 06:14 PM
LOTW is so complicated that I just uploaded about 450 QSO's and it took a total of 3 minutes from deciding to do it, to exporting them from my log software, to signing the file, to going to the web site, to uploading and seeing that I got about 50 or 60 new confirmations out of the batch.
I have around 15% QSL rate on the LOTW stuff, but it makes very little difference to me. Mostly I do it for others who want my QSL - and it's easy. Personally I still prefer paper QSL cards and take my DXCC cards to get them checked.
The main problem I see with LOTW is that you can't use the QSL's for anything other than DXCC credit. No WAS, VUCC, or anything else. That makes no sense to me.
73,
Walt, W5ALT
KG4ZLB
08-25-2005, 06:22 PM
Walt,
I checked with ARRL recently and LoTW is accepatable for WAS. In fact you can use a comination of LoTW and cards for WAS.
W5ALT
08-25-2005, 06:32 PM
Thanks for the info, but how does one apply for it?
I have WAS on LOTW, I'm pretty sure, but it isn't mentioned in the announcments nor under the awards page nor on the application form. The last I heard, they were "considering it".
73,
Walt, W5ALT
KG4ZLB
08-25-2005, 06:37 PM
Walt,
My limited information (from my local Awards Manager) is that I have to take my cards and the print outs from the LoTW site for his checking and confirmation! Hope that helps.
Does anyone know if this will work? I type the info from several hundred pages of hand written logs into the Cabrillo converter website then send that file to lotw???
Quote[/b] (k8jd @ Aug. 24 2005,19:13)]Does anyone know if this will work? I type the info from several hundred pages of hand written logs into the Cabrillo converter website then send that file to lotw???
Yes, LOTW takes Cabrillo files. You have to sign it with the TQSL software and it converts the file to a TQ8 file for upload on the LOTW site.
Dave
LB1UE
08-26-2005, 07:53 AM
Goofy question ... do you have to pay for uploading, or only when you want the award ?:blush:
And why do they want a copy of my drivers license, they have my picture, my fingerprints, my grandmother and my uncle over there http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KC9AXZ
08-26-2005, 12:38 PM
I had used LOTW with some success until my PC crashed. I lost my certificates and had a bear of a time trying to reinstall the the TSQ program. Finally I gave up on LOTW. I agree it's a bunch of hoops to jump through. When it works it's awesome! You can upload years of logs in very short time. The problem is the security measures. It really does take days or weeks to finally get it running from first install.
Jon KC9AXZ
www.kc9axz.com
Well fellows,
I keep reading all the comments about how hard LOTW is...
I dunno... I've been a participant from the beginning, and while I've been PC literate for quite a while, (mid 80's), I certainly do not consider my self an expert.
Having said that, LOTW was and has been easy to use and install. I just renewed my certificiate for the third time and it too was easy. I transferred the whole thing from my Windoze '98 machine to the XP machine last month. Installed the ARRL TCcert S/W without a hitch.
I don't get it... I must be smarter than I thought.
Gotta tell the XYL about this, maybe she'll agree... But I doubt that!
Seems like a whole lotta angst about nothing.
On a related note: with almost 22k Q's in the LOTW my return rate is a little over 8%. According to my calcs, the overall rate is about 4%. So far I'm ahead of the average.
I E-mailed the LOTW folks, and asked about WAS. I was told that they are working on that on an "As available" basis. Please read the LOTW article in the current QST for more details. WAS, VUCC, and some other ARRL awards are in the mill, but its taking a while.
I too, thought I had LOTW- WAS in the bag, what with over 1900 QSL's but it turns out that no one from Montana has QSL'ed via LOTW! Gotta find a W7 from Montana who will QSL via LOTW.
Wish me luck!
In the meantime, I am continually amazed by all the LOTW complaints from educated, smart people! It can't be that hard, after all, I've done it!
Why don't you?
73 all from Gary WG7X
AE2NY
08-26-2005, 03:30 PM
I saved everything when I formatted my hard drive two weeks ago, then got back online with a fresh install... Reinstalled the TrustedQSL software and when I try to import my saved tq6 and tq5 files under New Certificates I get an error that says...
"Permission Denied"
I've emailed the LoTW staff and in the last week have gotten no response. I've given up on Logbook of the World.
Anthony - W8ANT
W5MEJ
08-26-2005, 04:00 PM
I like the LoTW system - it really isn't that hard to get started, and I have renewed my certificate once with no problem at all. #I have also re-installed the program once when I switched hard drives, and had no trouble with my saved certificate. #I don't know what the problem is there.
I have a little over 18% return rate right now, but a lot of my contacts are from contests. #I seem to get a much higher return rate from the contests than from non-contest contacts.
Good system, all in all - I wish more people would use it!
73
Chuck
Heres why I do not use LOTW. #I don't understand what they want and the latest QST article trying to explain how it works, only made it more confusing. #They use words like "Certificate" and others like "Signed" and "Signature", Tqsl and so forth and so on without explaining what these terms mean. I also understand you need a certificate for each entry submitted. That would mean I need about 7,000 certificates?
To date, I have not found anything to "Sign". #I searched all over the website. #Nope; no place to sign anywhere. #I sent ARRL a photocopy of my signature, drivers license and copy of my ham license but heard nothing back.
I just don't get it. #And whats this about them mailing something to you. #I thought this was the age of computers, why mail anything.
K2WH
KF0RT
08-28-2005, 09:38 PM
I use it, but it does seem awfully obtuse for what it needs to be. My LOTW return rate is about 18-19% (almost twice that of eQSL), but most of my operating is in contests and contesters seem to be "into this" more than the general ham population.
Some basics (if I recall right)...
When you apply for a "certificate", the ARRL mails you a card with a password. They will only mail this to the FCC ULS address on your license -- this prevents someone from getting a certificate for your callsign.
"Certificate" is a computer term. "Authorization" is a better term. You don't really get a certificate, per se. The password you DO get allows you to generate "accounts" on the system. Each account requires a "certificate" to use. I currently have four accounts. One each for WNØAMJ, WBØAMJ, KFØRT and KFØRT/M. That is, one for each callsign I've ever used. Each "account" is locked to a date period for when the callsign was valid FOR ME.
"Signing" is another misnomer computer term. All this means is that you've run your ADIF (or Cabrillo) file through the TrustedQSL software. This "stamps" the file with your "signature" using the "certificate" provided by the ARRL.
So, you don't actually "sign" anything, and you don't get anything to hang on the wall. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
In addition to this, the "certificates" are only good for a year, so have to be renewed.
It's all free, HOWEVER, you do have to be an ARRL member to get awards through the system (I believe this is true of non-LoTW awards, too). And the awards cost on top of that.
My impression is that LoTW is a perfect example of a system designed without ever considering the average user. It's probably way more secure than it needs to be, unless there's a black market in ham awards I don't know about. And while it's not that hard to use for the average computer expert, it is pretty obtuse.
My recommendation -- read the directions four or five times. If it still seems hard, read them another four or five times. Repeat until it makes sense or until you decide it's not worth it.
73, Rob
KC7UP
08-29-2005, 02:41 AM
My 2cents worth. I have uploaded 24469 qso into LOTW. My confirmation numbers 1967 . Percentage is 8.03%. It stinks for percentage of returns and I have only gotten 1 new country that way. For me EQSL is the best way however I will continue to upload lotw with no hope of any gain there.
Curt
Quote[/b] (wg7x @ Aug. 26 2005,08:18)]Well fellows,
I keep reading all the comments about how hard LOTW is...
I dunno... I've been a participant from the beginning, and while I've been PC literate for quite a while, (mid 80's), I certainly do not consider my self an expert.
Having said that, LOTW was and has been easy to use and install. I just renewed my certificiate for the third time and it too was easy. I transferred the whole thing from my Windoze '98 machine to the XP machine last month. Installed the ARRL TCcert S/W without a hitch.
I don't get it... I must be smarter than I thought.
It's even easier if you have an electronic logbook that will submit them for you! You tell it which ones to send to LOTW, it pulls up TCert, enter in your password to sign the file, it sends the file to LOTW, you get a confirmation back that it was accepted and the records are updated as QSL sent in the logbook on your PC. How much easier can it be?
W5LL
Sez:
Quote[/b] ]It's even easier if you have an electronic logbook that will submit them for you! You tell it which ones to send to LOTW, it pulls up TCert, enter in your password to sign the file, it sends the file to LOTW, you get a confirmation back that it was accepted and the records are updated as QSL sent in the logbook on your PC. How much easier can it be?
Yep, It really does not get much better than that does it?
Sounds like you use the same program that I do.
Could be easier, I guess, but right now I can't imagine how!
73 Gary
KG4ZLB
08-29-2005, 10:19 PM
OK, so we have ascertained that its a good program, possibly needs a bit of TLC to get it to work, works seamlessly with many computer based log books, and best of all, its free! So why are people NOT using it ??
W5ALT
08-29-2005, 11:05 PM
Quote[/b] (KG4ZLB @ Aug. 29 2005,18:19)]So why are people NOT using it ??
Only 20% of US hams are QST subscribers?
KG4ZLB Asks:
Quote[/b] ]OK, so we have ascertained that its a good program, possibly needs a bit of TLC to get it to work, works seamlessly with many computer based log books, and best of all, its free! So why are people NOT using it ??
I dunno David, but I think it is a combination of laziness/inertia.
I first started using a computer to log back about 1989 or so.
For the longest time I kept two logs, one on paper and one in the computer. These days, I still have a paper log, but the bulk of my logging is done on the computer.
LOTW for me is just an extension of that, nothing more.
Now back to your original question:
1. Inertia. This is the same reason why we have to turn off the PL tone on the club repeater for our weekly 2 meter net. Even today there are some hams out there who have NEVER installed a PL encoder in their old two meter rigs. These same rigs are probably still crystal controlled too! A PC for these fellows is simply not an option...
2. Laziness. It's to haaard! Sound familiar? Let's not even explore that one, OK?
Oh well...
Now the DX equation is a different kettle of fish. They have to jump through a lot more hoops in the interest of security. I suppose that the ARRL is a little wary of loopholes and cheating in the DXCC program based on some past incidents. Not too sure about that, but based on anecdotal evidence, that would be my best guess.
73 Gary
LB1UE
08-30-2005, 06:25 AM
How about the Profit organization ARRL start thinking of the Hams and not money.
If LotW and eQSL could cooperate, we would be satisfied, we would get better results, better software and more QSL cards.
Then, it's up to the users if they want to use this eQSL system and make sure they never get papercards anymore or not.
I use eQSL and I send papercards, I can afford to give new hams my CS if they want to, else I would chose not to use my radio. I will also sign up for LotW because some of the people I speak with use LotW and only LotW, and I need their QSL card.
So again, instead of having two fractions, the world and the ARRL. Look forward to the next generation, it's all about pleasure, experimenting and excitement of the magic radiowave, not money.
