Differences between QRZ Logbooks V1 and V2

Discussion in 'Logbook User Forum' started by AA7BQ, Feb 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. W1DQ

    W1DQ Logbook Administrator Volunteer Moderator Volunteer DX Helper Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Perhaps an electronic logbook is not for you, but if you wish to maintain an electronic log then select anyone that is easy for you to use. Make sure that it has the capability or producing an ADIF file. It is just a matter of adjusting to new technology.

    An ADIF file is a text file arranged in ADIF format, it uses a file extension ".adi". If you were to inspect one, it would contain sequences that identify a QSO including such as:

    <call:4>X1XX <band:3>10m <mode:3>ssb ...... etc.

    ADIF files are recognized by ARRL LOTW, eQSL, QRZ Logbook, etc. and they are used to upload your QSO records into their systems without having to perform any extensive entry work. It only takes a minute or so each.

    Find a local club to assist you in getting going. Or, stay with what already works for you, many do.
     
  2. 9A3VV

    9A3VV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Give me Logbook Version 1 back, please! New one is pure disaster!
     
  3. LZ1GU

    LZ1GU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hello Fred,

    I really would like to thank you for you time and help. Please apologize me for my late answer. Wishing you success.
    73 - Hary/LZ1GU
     
  4. F1EPQ

    F1EPQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Simply in your "Account" menu when logged to your personal QRZ account/page :

    For no longer displaying logbook tab:
    Log to your QRZ Callsign >>> My Account >>> Logbook Options >>> "Show the Logbook tab on my callsign page?" select "Disabled" instead of "Enabled"

    For no longer displaying notifications:
    Log to your QRZ Callsign >>> My Account >>> Logbook Options >>> "Accept incoming Private Messsages (PM's) from the Logbook System?" select "No" instead of "Yes".

    That's it.
    Regards,

    Jean-Luc - F1EPQ
     
  5. K4CMC

    K4CMC Ham Member QRZ Page

    First. lets agree that QSO verification integrity is not comparable to nuclear weapon plans despite what some may think. This is a hobby, not a religion nor should it be a job that requires a lot of work. In constrast to what some idiots propose a logging program should not need top secret security or users to have major computer skills just to make a simple QSO confirmation. One of the big problems with other programs like LotW is that the system has been so convoluted and difficult to use that many people have given up and refuse to use it. I tried it back when it was first developed and gave up in disgust after six or seven atempts to register failed. I recently retried it at the behest of the ARRL section manager and after some initial success it now refuses to upload or download QSO's. What you have accomplished in your version 2 is the exact same result. You have made your logging program so much of a PITA that it is just not worth bothering with. Contrast that with EQSL which I have used for well over a decade. It works seamlessly and without requiring jumping through a bunch of hoops and while its' integrity may not be equivilant to the standards of NSA or military encryption standards, I really do not have a problem with that.
     
  6. N0AMT

    N0AMT Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    QRZ doesn't require encryption. It doesn't require digital certificates. It doesn't require anything except that you enter the QSO details. Seriously. It's that simple. Enter the QSO that you made and tada! So you can't click a button to get a confirmation anymore.. comparing that to NSA security standards is ridiculously outlandish and beyond me.
     
  7. KB0TT

    KB0TT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    INTEGRITY

    Fred is ' spot on ' with version 2 .... If an amateur is so ' LAZY ' that entering HIS side for

    confirmation is a PITA, then he is willing to sacrifice INTEGRITY . The ' double-blind ' process

    requires a little bit of interaction . This is a minor price to pay for the validity factor.

    It is just that simple.... Let the lazy bums bellyache , whine or whatever.

    It is like the fellow , who is about to be executed by hanging complains about the

    quality of the ROPE...... One basic prerequisite for amateurs should be INTEGRITY ....

    Whine on ..... Life is tough.....

    JB
     
  8. K4CMC

    K4CMC Ham Member QRZ Page

    The whole original idea of the computer was to make life easier, not harder

    The point here is why make a hobby much more difficult just to demonstrate your programming skills? You and some others who responded seem fascinated by the fact that you can create software that involves jumping through more hoops than the earlier version, supposedly to give the validation of QSO's more credibility. I do not argue that it probably does so. But , as I pointed out in my post, this is a "hobby" not some kind of earth shattering quest for the holy grail. If someone finds a way to cheat in order to get an award I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. In fact, making every single user go though additional steps to keep the pool of cheaters from doing this seems to be rather unfair to the vast majority of users who do not cheat. You also might review the comments of a number of other users who also now state they will not use the logging system due to the new software. Guess you don't mind driving off those guys so you can now brag how secure your new system now operates. I personally make thousands of QSO's per year (currently have over 30,000 hits on my QRZ page) and mostly used the logging program to respond to requests for verification from those who I had made contact with. I certainly have no intention of going though the tapdance that is now required. I was the project director for several mulit-million dollar computer projects during my work career. I would have fired any programmer who created a software system that caused all of the users to expended thousands of unnecessary manhours of data entry for such a ridiculous reason.
     
  9. AA7BQ

    AA7BQ QRZ Founder Administrator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'm not really copying you on that. Signal strength is 5-1 at best.

    Let me make it even simpler:

    The old logbook required that the contact recipient log in and click on 'YES, I HAD THAT CONTACT' and we then considered it confirmed.

    The new logbook requires that both parties actually LOG the contact. When we find a match, we grant it simultaneously to both parties.

    As far as "thousands of unnecessary man-hours", consider this: I use a logbook program at home that is connected to QRZ's XML data. My contact, also uses it. During the course of the QSO, I typed in his callsign, and he mine. At some time subsequent to the QSO, we both uploaded our logs to QRZ (minimal typing required), and, voila! We have CONFIRMATION!

    That's really it in a nutshell. The old logbook was so misused and falsely reported that some have likened it to a "Donkey Kong" video game.

    The new logbook really does try to implement a true system of QSL'ing. All of the most prestigious awards in DX have one thing in common, and that is an assurance, if even minimal, that the reported contact actually took place. Logbook V1 didn't do a good enough job of that and that's why we dumped it.

    -fred
     
  10. W0ZF

    W0ZF XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Hi Fred -
    I've never really paid much attention to the logging features of QRZ before, because:
    - I already upload to LoTW
    - the old single entry method (v1) never made much sense - I'd get 'QSOs' in my logbook that I never made
    - I mostly use QRZ to update my local log via XML (a great feature), rather than via the web.
    Today I logged in and noticed some messages waiting, which were automated messages asking for confirmations. I went to the logbook, it did some kind of conversion to v2, and from what i read it looks like a MUCH improved system!

    Here's my question - if i look at my v1 log, it shows just 3 'confirmed' contacts - those were ones I confirmed when playing with the logbook long ago, before deciding it wasn't for me. However, the v2 logbook shows 132 confirmed. i don't recall uploading any logs to the system. How is it that these are now showing confirmed? The detail appears to show that they were confirmed at about the time it did the v1 to v2 conversion tonight.
    I'm just curious - I'm still not sure if I'll use the logbook regularly, but if I can understand why these now show 'confirmed', I'll have a little more faith in the system and might start uploading regularly here too for the benefit of others who use it and want confirmations.
    Thanks for all you do with QRZ
    73, W0ZF
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page