eQSL vs LOTW

Discussion in 'Logbooks & Logging Programs' started by Guest, Apr 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: L-Geochron
  1. KC9ECI

    KC9ECI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Same records uploaded to eQSL has resulted in 615 confirmations.

    I've got more confirmations from DX via eQSL than LoTW though.

    Both organizations provide paper for the awards chasers. There are those that will argue that the ARRL award is better due to whatever reasons, but the paper all comes from the same trees. It dont make me no nevermind , as long as you got Kitchen Kleen potatoes frying in that pan.
     
  2. WG7X

    WG7X Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    OK, just because everyone else is doing it...
    IF you put them in there, they will count.

    According to the website, some of the bigger contest clubs have qualified for WAS, DXCC and 5 Band WAS/DXCC all on LOTW.

    Personally, I have my DXCC through the LOTW, and I could have applied and gotten the DXCC award long ago. But... I'm lazy and the paper work aspect of the hobby did not attract me at all.

    LOTW has made it easier to get the award offered by ARRL and as such it works FB.

    E-Qsl has too many bogus entries to make it attractive to me. I've used both and prefer to stick with the LOTW.

    73 Gary
     
  3. N0IU

    N0IU Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK, here is mine:

    Amen to the comment about bogus entries. The major flaw with eQSL is that anyone can submit a log with your call in it at which point it will appear in your Inbox. If it doesn't match up with the log you have uploaded, you will have the opportunity to say, "Deal or No Deal" and archive that entry. Before doing that, you should actually check your own log to see if that QSO is in there. Don't be surprised if it isn't.

    With LoTW, you don't have to accept or reject an entry. If someone uploads a log with your call in it and it is not in the log you have uploaded, it simply does not exist. You only get credit for the QSO when it matches in both logs. I guess that's why they call it a trusted QSL!

    Scott NØIU
     
  4. K3STX

    K3STX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here is mine:

    Today is Sun, 30 Apr 2006 UTC
    You are K3STX
    You have 2,204 QSO records
    You have 432 QSL records

    I finally got around to getting my certificates about a month ago, the mailing, etc... What a hassle BUT BUT BUT the point of the hassle is to make it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for any "cheating" to go on. It was easy to set up, even for a computer idiot like me.

    Made copies of my Cabrillo files from the past 2 years of DX contests, email them in, and within 1 day found out I had about 80 contries on LOTW. Most importanly (for a DXCC or CQ-DX award chaser), "common" DX I still need QSLs for in order to qualify for 5BDXCC (like G and HB on 20) are confirmed by LOTW, no need to worry about sending even more cards for these.

    I'm preparing to send in cards for single band DXCC on 40/20/15 (working toward 5BDXCC) and with LOTW instead of mailing up 300 cards I am only having to ship about 120).

    I love LOTW, although I think if everyone did it, there would be less interest in guys sending out cards via the buro.

    paul
     
  5. KC9ECI

    KC9ECI Ham Member QRZ Page

    So what you're saying, is that you can't be trusted to reject a bogus eQSL and that you need the ARRL to be your conscience and protect you from confirming a bogus QSO?
     
  6. N9VO

    N9VO XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I think what he is saying is that the fact that a "bogus" qsl could even appear degrades their system. It's just too easy to cheat. Not the same for LOTW. Go with which ever one you like but for now the fact remains that only LOTW awards really count. [​IMG]
     
  7. KC9ECI

    KC9ECI Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you're going to cheat, you're going to find a way. I have no doubt that there are pre-arranged QSO's in the LoTW that have been verified, yet have never actually taken place on the air.

    I sleep easy at night knowing that all the logs I've uploaded to either program, to the best of my knowledge, are good, and that I've not verified any through eQSL that weren't good.
     
  8. WG7X

    WG7X Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    KC9ECI sez:
    Wow! You really believe that?

    Well I guess anything is possible, but I'm not quite that cynical... yet.

    Yes in any system designed by man there probably is a way to cheat. But darnit! This is just hobby, and cheating on something like DXCC really only hurts the one that cheats.

    (Fill in appropriate sermon here)

    73 Gary
     
  9. N0IU

    N0IU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I guess what I am saying is that people like you can not be trusted to send out legitimate QSLs! It is a sad state of affairs when I should even have to worry about getting bogus QSLs from anyone.

    Is this how new hams are being taught how to QSL nowadays? Do they just put entries in their log and upload them to eQSL and hope the other station doesn't bother to see if they really had a QSO with you? I guess if you fling enough dung against the wall, eventually some of it will stick!

    Scott NØIU
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Well, I reinstated my eQSL account for my old callsigns and signed up my new callsign, and uploaded my logs in ADIF format.

    There were about 150 eQSLs in my inboxes already as of last night.

    When I first used eQSL a couple years ago, I seem to remember you had to manually accept or reject everything that came in, which is one of the reasons I found it so cumbersome and never used it very much. Now apparently they automatically match most of them against my uploaded logs.

    Out of the 150 or so records that have shown up, there were about a dozen that did not match anything in my log. I went through those manually and there were two spurious QSLs that did not even resemble anything in my logs. Those were easily rejected.

    The rest of the bad records had various errors such as times and dates way off, wrong bands or modes, callsigns different than what I had in my log.

    So this is where a decision has to be made. Do I accept or reject those records that have errors? I decided to reject them all. I just decided that philosophically, if the incoming record doesn't match my original log then it should not count. If someone else can't keep an accurate log, I don't want to reward them by confirming an erroneous QSO record. On the other hand, if I'm the one that recorded the wrong callsign, band date, etc.. then it feels like cheating to edit or tweak my own log to match. In other words, it shouldn't count unless I got it right the first time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page