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.

Page 3 of 5

ad: L-HROutlet

ad: l-rl

ad: L-MFJ

ad: Subscribe

ad: Left-2

ad: Left-3

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.

W1DQ, Mar 3, 2014

#21
9A3VV Ham Member QRZ Page

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

9A3VV, Mar 5, 2014

#22
LZ1GU Ham Member QRZ Page

AA7BQ said: ↑

Version 2 of the QRZ logbook is up and running! As with any new program that is deployed to 1000's of people at once, there is some confusion and an occasional bug. Logbook V2 was written by me (AA7BQ) and Alex (N0AMT). The two of us are working 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, to do our best to make it the best QRZ Logbook ever. We've been answering a lot of questions and working on program at the same time. Today we've had over 100 support tickets and remarkably, we've at least answered them all. Not all of our answers were necessarily great, however.

This article is to discuss some of the major differences between V1 and V2, which may help in slowing down the support tickets a bit and allow us to work on the remaining bugs.

First, it is key to understand that the V1 logbook was a single entry journal of QSO's. This means that whenever a QSO was entered into one logbook, it was automatically entered into the other person's logbook because the two logbooks literally shared the same record. Each record had a Sender and a Receiver side, and both parties were represented equally. This meant, for example, that if the Sender deleted a QSO record that it would also disappear from the Receiver's side because both parties were connected to the same file.

There were a lot of drawbacks to the so-called "shared record" logs and that's why we discontinued them in V2. Now, with V2, each party gets their own, private logbook entry. This is more in line with other logging organizations like LOTW and eQSL which are similar in construction. With the V2 system, you own your logs and nothing you can do with them will affect any other user on the system.

On the V1 system, whenever a log entry was made, it appeared simultaneously in both person's logbook. You could literally log a contact and see it immediately on your Log Status on your callsign page, and, you would also see the same contact on the Receiver's callsign page. That's because the one record was shared by both parties.

On the V1 system, QSO's were confirmed when the Receiver would click on the page and agree to what the sender sent. This "one click confirmation" was fun, but it wasn't considered an acceptable standard for verification. Indeed, some people would just confirm everything that appeared in their logs without ever stopping to check if the QSO was valid or not. It was just a happy-go-lucky video game where people clicked and got gold stars, and not much thought went into it. Granted, some people took the confirmations very seriously, but clearly others did not. This had the effect of casting the validity of the QRZ logbook into question, especially when it came to contact confirmations. Some logging organizations simply dismissed QRZ logs as invalid.

The V2 system operates in a more traditional manner with respect to QSO confirmations. You log a contact in your logbook, and the other party logs a contact in their logbook. The system will then detect a match (if all the criteria are met), and will automatically confirm both QSO records (your and his). This is called "double blind" confirmation because it requires action on behalf of both parties and it requires that both parties independently report the same information. This is considered the Gold Standard in QSO confirmation.

From the description above, it should be apparent now that when you enter a QSO into your logbook on QRZ that it will not show up on the other person's callsign page if and until he decides to log the contact as well. Having unconfirmed contacts displayed on the callsign pages is considered a problem as well because it ruins the double blind integrity of the process. Instead, the V2 logbook will, at your discretion, send a Private Message (PM) to the other party that encourages him to log your recent QSO for credit. The PM does not, however, disclose the details of the QSO, i.e. time, date, band, mode, because the confirming party is supposed to supply that himself.

Another big feature in the V2 logbook is DUPE checking. V1 didn't have it. If you uploaded your logs twice to V1, everything would be doubled. V2 is adamant about DUPES and won't add them. The V1 logbooks literally have thousands of duplicates and it's a given that nearly all of those who are befuddled by "missing QSO's" after moving to V2 were subject to the DUPE filter. Fortunately, this is a one time thing and it will mean much more usability in the future. For example, with V2 you can keep your logs on your logging program at home and periodically upload them to QRZ. The QRZ server will select only those that are new, and will update those that have changed. No dupes!

There are a great many other features in V2 but I wanted to give you this heads up regarding the basic functionality, and why thing seem so different.

Finally, I'd like to thank all of you who are being patient and working with us as we work to make sure that everything works well in the new system. We're going to keep on it, you can count on that.

73 -fred

P.S. it's late and I didn't spell or grammar check this post, so please excuse any typos
Click to expand...

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

LZ1GU, Mar 6, 2014

#23
F1EPQ Ham Member QRZ Page

WX9DX said: ↑

Since I won't be using the new version for a 1000 reasons, how do I stop getting messages from it? Jimmy, WX9DX
Click to expand...

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

F1EPQ, Mar 6, 2014

#24
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.

K4CMC, Mar 13, 2014

#25
N0AMT Ham Member QRZ Page

K4CMC said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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.

N0AMT, Mar 13, 2014

#26
KB0TT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

INTEGRITY

N0AMT said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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

KB0TT, Mar 13, 2014

#27
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.

K4CMC, Mar 13, 2014

#28
AA7BQ QRZ Founder Administrator QRZ Page

K4CMC said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

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

AA7BQ, Mar 14, 2014

#29
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

W0ZF, Mar 14, 2014

#30

Page 3 of 5

Thread Status:: Not open for further replies.

Share This Page