Announcing the QRZ Logbook

1. Yes. Please add my thanks for QRZ.COM. It is a great idea and something every ham should use. I believe that I have received more than the $30 in value of services received and I haven't been a member for even one year yet.

2. There is a "bug" in eQSL and LoTW. They will only match EXACT callsignes. If your contact puts in, let's say, K9AAN/P or K9AAN/QRP, those will NOT match K9AAN in either eQSL or LoTW.

However, YOU can associate those calls with your own.

I had a QSO with a YL who was operating QRP. Her log entry didn't match mine because I used the /QRP suffix. When she added,linked the /QRP to her basic call, she got over 140 more QSOs.

eQSL tells you that there is no match but LoTW just ignores them and doesn't tell you anything.

So if you are getting a lot contacts that don't match, check your suffixes or prefixes that WAS or DXCC might be waiting for you.

 

I wouldn't consider that a bug. G4ILO/P is a different station from G4ILO and I don't want them mixed up. As for /QRP, it is not a legal suffix. If I work anyone who uses it then I log them under their true call issued by the licensing authority, without the suffix.

 

Will this also e-mail QSL CARDS ???

 

Fantastic, Fred. Great work you guys do there.

 

When will this be ready

Fred, When will this go online? Looking forward to seeing and using.

Mike
KE7WRJ

 

That is completely insane and it's no wonder you're getting left behind by progress. Since you did something a certain way everyone else is wrong for not doing it your way. That attitude stifles progress. Do you also think humans should have stuck with wearing loin cloths and chucking a spear to hunt?

I've used direct, LoTW and eQSL for a long time now. Some of my awards are by QSLing direct and some via electronic means. It is about time electronic QSLing came into its own and I wish more people would use it. I don't understand why more DX doesn't use LoTW. If you can brush your teeth you can figure out LoTW, it isn't hard. Follow the directions and it will work. If it didn't work for you then you did NOT follow the directions, so stop complaining about your shortcomings and blaming it on something or someone else.

Even domestic QSLing is expensive. I'm pursuing my 6m VUCC as we speak and I've already spent $120 in stamps in less than 2 months because LoTW doesn't do VUCC and was informed by the ARRL that they wont integrate "LoTW into VUCC for at least the next 1 1/2 years and possibly longer". That's completely insane and the cost is way too much. All it does is give money to the post office and it has nothing to do with the validity of a paper QSL. Regardless of whether it is paper or electronic it all comes down to the integrity of the ops anyway, the medium (electronic or paper) makes no difference.

 

I use eQSL, but place no value upon these confirmations. I can't use them for ARRL awards, so they're worthless. I like the "double-blind" aspect of LoTW QSOs. This is what, in my opinion, gives them validity. Better yet, there's no need to mail them off to Newington, and then wait three months before I get them back. Not that I don't like paper cards. I love them. Nothing is more exciting than getting an envelope of cards from the bureau. But if I happen to work 3000 DX stations in a given year, I'm not going to go through the hassle of QSLing unless I need a card for an award. But I digress. The QRZ Log sounds interesting. I'm sure I'll use it.

 

Incorrect Operating Location Data

Actually, Fred, this doesn't address the problem. Let me give you an example:

Say I work a PSK contest this weekend and contact 300 stations. Each of those 300 stations will receive incorrect information regarding my operating location because the QRZ database will give them my FCC address instead of my operating location. Anyone working toward a Worked All States award and every county hunter will log their contact expecting a confirmation from the wrong location.

Then you say that "Each log entry gives the user the option of modifying his QTH for the particular contact." Do you really expect me to correct my QTH, County, State, Grid Square and other related data for each of these 300 contacts? ... In real time during the contest? Of course, it won't happen.

The logbook will be of little value if the database doesn't show the correct location of both parties in real time during the contact.

Fixing the database to allow users to pre-specify their operating location should not be that difficult. I realize this would be a change to your current policy for the database, and I'm sure you have good reasons for the current policy. However, the FCC does not require that the licensee address of record to be the operating location, nor do they require that your FCC address be changed every time there is a change in the operating location. The FCC only requires that the license address be in the USA and be at a location where the licensee can receive correspondence and formal notifications.

Allowing users to specify their operating location will represent an improvement of the accuracy of the database, and will facilitate a seamless interface with the logbook.

This is intended as a constructive suggestion.

Thanks, Pat / WA6SCW

 

I must admit that until recently I dutifully entered the appropriate data for every contact I made, saving the log sheets in an ever-heavier binder. Those paper logs go back to the early 1980s. But then I started looking over those old pages and I suddenly asked myself, "Why am I keeping all this old crap? Is it really important to be able to go back and note that I worked a certain ZL on March 4, 1987?" That prompted me to look at my two file boxes of QSL cards. I hadn't gone through either box in many years.

After giving it some thought over the next several days, I made an irrevocable decision. As a result they're all gone now, into the trash. No more logs. No more QSLs. No more performing a completely unnecessary task. Life's too short.

 

Hi
Fred
I like the ideal if I like the way it is set up I will be more then willing to pay for it. I do use EQSL for most of my QSL,s cost is a factor in everything I do.
I am still raising a family. Paying 3 or four Dollars to get a QSL Card from overseas forget it I am not that big a collector and it can add up fast.
I will just log it in my log and take satisfaction in knowing I made the contact.
On my QSL Card I mail now I request they respond VIA EQSL I do not need a paper card. I will keep them if I get them. But I scan and place them into a digital picture frame. The EQSL Cards go into the frame also this way I get to
enjoy all of the cards.
I will mail a QSL card overseas if I get a EQSL Card back from them I will be content.
I look forward to seeing how your system works and trying it out.
73,s
KD5BLZ

 

QSL

I use LOTW here and enjoy it. Do not use E QSL but I do hope QRZ gets supported on there logging program. I have over 25,000 QSO's on LOTW and over 11,000 QSL's. So it works. Good luck and I will be watching to see how it works. K4ADR

 

Good Luck With The Log Book!

I think this is a natural progression and a good idea for those who would wish to use it, such as me. As in any maturing business/market all these similar sites offering similar services will eventually consolidate and as far as I am concerned QRZ is the most used database by far, so who not offer Log Book facilities? For those you are unhappy about it, don't use it!

Good luck with it and thanks for the great site.

73
M6LMF (GB)

 

Upload

Fred are we going to be able to upload our current logs? I think that the integration into DM780 and HRD will be a good thing. I use them and DXKeeper for all my other contacts (SSB). I simply like the log of DXKeeper better than any other. Take a look at it and see if there is anything there you might integrate or find a way to tranfer the QSOs on the fly.

The way I look at it is that this gives me more things to try to achieve. I use EQSL, but do not really use it if you know what I mean. I use it mainly for others to get their QSL's.

Hope this all works out and is a great thing!

Bill R.
N5VEI