LOTW is worthless for DX

Discussion in 'The DX Zone' started by WH2HAO, Aug 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-2
ad: l-BCInc
  1. ZL2HAM

    ZL2HAM Ham Member QRZ Page

    My contest call is ZM1G (ZL1G on RTTY) (new for this year). You are in my log for Oceania DX 2012 for both 20m and 40m, already uploaded to LoTW and confirmed. I see we worked in July on 20m as well.
     
  2. KC2UGV

    KC2UGV Ham Member QRZ Page

    While, I've got not love for the antiquated LOTW system, I get a pretty decent 80% rate on it. Probably, because the only contacts I upload are ones logged on eQSL, so the stations are guaranteed to be using some sort of digital logging (I use paper).
     
  3. WD0MYM

    WD0MYM Ham Member QRZ Page

    KC2UGV:

    I like your idea of requiring a match in EQSL before you will upload to LOTW.

    I've been wanting to improve my % rate in LOTW.

    I might start requiring a LOTW match before I upload to EQSL; to top it off I'll need a match in both before I even think about paper!

    We will have to be sure that we don't work each other for EQSL or LOTW award purposes as we won't get a match.

    Thanks,

    Jon
     
  4. KF6ABU

    KF6ABU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Dont you have a logbook that will just upload them automatically? It doesnt even require intervention once its set up. I dont see the point of adding steps to it when it can be automatic.
     
  5. WD0MYM

    WD0MYM Ham Member QRZ Page

    His QRZ.COM page indicates: QSL: QSL VIA EQSL IN ORDER TO GET CONFIRMED ON LOTW PLEASE.
     
  6. W4PG

    W4PG Super Moderator Lifetime Member 279 Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    I upload all my qso's to eQSL and LoTW. My hit rate on LoTW far exceeds that of eQSL. Go figure . . .
     
  7. W5DQ

    W5DQ Guest

    Yeah .... and I bet there is a mad rush to get a QSL from Buffalo, NY. NOT!!!!!!!!

    Even if I needed Buffalo, NY for some strange reason, I'd pass on this request as I don't use eQSL for anything with the exception I periodically upload my logbook to eQSL for those stations that might want a confirmation from me. I, however, DO NOT download any confirmations from EQSL and last time I checked I had over 50 QSL waiting for me to 'fix' my log to match them. Guess I could have a high return rate to like many say they do using eQSL if I know in advance what the errors are and fix them to match. I'd like to have been able to take my Extra Class exam that way or a couple of my advanced digital design finals in college in that fashion. With that approach, I might have graduated with a 4.0.
     
  8. N4UP

    N4UP Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Interesting discussion. I've been licensed since 1963 and was very active in the 60s and to some extent in the 70s and 80s, but was off the air for many years until just a few months ago. So I missed the "evolution" of the whole QSL system, interfacing computers and radios, etc. Now playing catch up.

    Six months ago I stumbled across my old paper logs. Just for fun I started entering the data into an excel spread sheet. Took a while, but thousands of QSO entries later I couldn't wait to get back on the air. So I bought a rig, hooked up an antenna and then started logging new QSOs into my spreadsheet ( about 1,000 QSOs a month ). I quickly realized that things have changed and I needed to be able to confirm QSOs through various means that are convenient either to me or to whomever I work. So I started confirming QSOs on QRZ and eQSL. Since I don't upload QSO data to either QRW or eQSL, and only confirm, my confirmation rates are 100% on both ( yes I know that doesn't mean anything ).

    Perhaps a more meaningful measure for me is that approximately 2% of the people I work enter QSO data into QRZ and approximately 15% enter QSO data into eQSL.

    So then I did the LOTW thing. Wasn't easy, but not that hard, even for a dinosaur like me. I also added HRD to the mix, so I now have a double-entry logging system ( excel spreadsheet and HRD ). I know that is not efficient, but both are valuable to me. I have not been able to upload from HRD to LOTW, but I have been able to convert my excel data into ADIF ( thanks to a set of macros ) and upload ADIF into HRD and LOTW. And I am able to export ADIF from HRD and then to LOTW. So I have uploaded all QSOs since April, 1979 to LOTW. My confirmation rate on LOTW is about 25% but I have only been doing this for a couple of months. Clearly LOTW has some value, to me.

    The only real problem I have had with LOTW was really with HRD, because the first version of HRD that I tried exported corrupt data to LOTW and I ended up with all the QSOs flagged as cross-band when in fact none of them were cross-band. Then I tried the most recent version of HRD and the corruption problem went away and so I re-uploaded all the QSO data to LOTW. Still can't upload directly to LOTW but it is easy enough to export to ADIF and then upload to LOTW. Given the corruption problem, my "real" confirmation rate on LOTW is probably higher than 25% but I haven't bothered to see what percentage of the records are corrupt.

    I do confirm direct QSLs ( direct IN followed by direct OUT ), but I don't bother with the bureau process. Indeed, I am surprised the bureaus have survived given the ease of electronic QSLs. So far less than half of 1% of my contacts send paper QSLs. No surprise there, given my common and ordinary QTH.

    Bottom line --- LOTW is convenient. For me. And apparently for a lot of other folks as well.


     
  9. SV1XV

    SV1XV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi Peter, if IOTA and WAZ could be awarded based on LoTW logs, then the bureau system would die sooner or later. Today I confirmed an ATNO via LoTW ("new" PJ2) but I still requested a direct QSL card.
     
  10. N4UP

    N4UP Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes, that makes sense to me. Perhaps the day will come when almost all awards can be acquired with LOTW ( or perhaps something equally rigorously valid but with more global acceptance ( IARU ? )).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page