eQSL vs. LoTW

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KC9GLI, Nov 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-innov
ad: l-sarc
ad: l-rl
ad: L-rfparts
ad: Subscribe
  1. KC9GLI

    KC9GLI XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Like many of you, I maintain logs on both eQSL and LoTW. And like many of youI often wonder why there is no reciprocity between the two systems. Surely it can't be for technical reasons -- it should be relatively easy to create a log interchange for LoTW and eQSL users. Why are these two major, popular online logs so distant and separate? And what does this tell about us as a community?
     
  2. K8WLT

    K8WLT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have used eQSL log very little and lotw seems to be a real pain sometimes -- K8WLT
     
  3. M6RIK

    M6RIK Ham Member QRZ Page

    LOTW is a waste of my time. I have twice tried to use it but have given up on it. the registration process is a real pain and doesn't work.

    I like eQSL but it could do with modernising.
     
  4. W8MR

    W8MR QRZ Member QRZ Page

    QUOTE=W8MR

    Presently the return rate on qrz, lotw, hrdlog, is about 15%. E-qsl amazed me, with about 35%. Everyone has different qso's and everyone doesn't belong to every program. I tried all the above. Unfortunately i have to spend most of my time doing paperwork and filing logs into every program, rather than on the aair having fun.
    Its ok to have many programs, but some things should be universal such as input files, and credits from all programs.towards same awards. I don'y see why e-qsl should not be accepted for dxcc, as long as it is from a guaranteed member. The "paperwork" envovled to enter all the data makes it not as much fun.
     
  5. W8MR

    W8MR QRZ Member QRZ Page

    QUOTE=W8MR

    Presently the return rate on qrz, lotw, hrdlog, is about 15%. E-qsl amazed me, with about 35%. Everyone has different qso's and everyone doesn't belong to every program. I tried all the above. Unfortunately i have to spend most of my time doing paperwork and filing logs into every program, rather than on the air having fun.
    Its ok to have many programs, but some things should be universal such as input files, and credits from all programs.towards same awards. I don'y see why e-qsl should not be accepted for dxcc, as long as it is from a guaranteed member. The "paperwork" envovled to enter all the data makes it not as much fun.
     
  6. W0ELC

    W0ELC XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    IMHO, they're both cumbersome to update, but for degree of difficulty LOTW handly wins the race! I recently got a vanity callsign and trying to get LOTW to send me a new cert is a real PITA! Eqsl is a little better, but doesn't count towards ARRL awards (if I understand it correctly)...
    I would like to see BOTH programs become more user friendly.
    73,
    Jimbo WØELC
     
  7. K0QEI

    K0QEI Ham Member QRZ Page

    LOTW works just fine so does eqsl, the biggest difference is there is a much more rock solid proof that you are who you say you are on LOTW, eqsl one could "claim" to be anyone and is not good for ARRL awards because of it, very few people are "AG" on the site and actually one of the ways to prove who you are to get that credit is to upload your cert from LOTW
     
  8. KG5VK

    KG5VK XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    The difference with respect to ease of use in eQSL versus LOTW,
    is in the feelings within the ARRL
    To change that Members must voice their input to the league via their representatives.

    It is as simple as that, just whining about it will not change a thing !

    Email your section manager or talk to them at the state convention (Ham Fest), other wise the ARRL will continue to require Secure Digital certificate use (Tqsl), as if they were guarding the gold that is in Fort Knox.

    And even if you are NOT an ARRL member contact the section managers and voice why
    these are fellow amateurs and they do listen, the wheels like that of any large organization turn slowly but they do turn.

    I prefer LOTW because, because those credits are valid for the awards I chase (mainly DXCC) however I do still reciprocate those that eQSL or even snail mail them to me, albeit much slower on those returns.

    I believe, you are not going to find the ARRL accepting eQSL credits for ARRL awards,
    it comes down to funding as in money lost in paying for the credits

    Membership in LOTW is FREE,
    however the credits (QSL's) for QSO's while small in cost compared to snail mail, are NOT free.

    My TI5/KG5VK Q's are immediately uploaded to both LOTW and eQSL upon returning home from Costa Rica, as well as after each contest I participate in here at home.

    Steve
    KG5VK
     
  9. 2J0COQ

    2J0COQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi

    I use LOTW and e-QSL all the time, I find both simple to use. I mainly use data modes so have set-up HRDLog to auto upload to e-qsl. Weekly I just export my log, and sign it an upload it to LOTW. Whole process takes 3 or 4 minutes weekly. Even if I use JT65-HF and have to manually upload to both sites it just takes a couple minutes longer.

    The application process for LOTW was simple once I read the instructions and was completed in just a few days despite having to post documents from the UK to USA over the run up to Christmas. E-qsl was equally easy.

    I can understand why LOTW would not take e-qsl confirmed contacts, as the double blind system on LOTW is what gives it the greater acceptance for more serious awards. I like the great immediacy of contact confirmations of e-qsl.

    regards

    Leslie

    MJ6BDJ / 2J0COQ
     
  10. K6DY

    K6DY Ham Member QRZ Page

    I prefer EQSl and I've been AG since the beginning and have never had a problem. If a contact doesn't match my log it gets rejected it's just that simple. The whole think with the ARRL not wanting to accept EQSL is it boils down to money and I'm an ARRL member! EQSL log entries are also good for CQ magazine awards.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page