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: L-MFJ
ad: l-BCInc
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: L-Geochron
  1. W5DQ

    W5DQ Guest

    Since you profess to have been out of the 'game' for several years, perhaps you missed the big controversy over why doesn't LOTW and eQSl share data, etc. After quite a while of back and forth, at least now, you can use LOTW confirmations for WAZ but that is it beyond ARRL awards. At the rate it took to get WAZ added to the LOTW mix, I would not hold my breathe to see a lot more for quite a while. There is talk that stuff isin the works but I'll believe it when it is online and usable.

    Also since you are new to computers (again your revelation), it might interest you to know that one reason that the 2 systems don't mix (at least from the LOTW side) is the fact that eQSL is an open logging system where you can make entries online, fix the present entries and hand confirm (after fixing the data or accepting the QSO as gospel as is) or reject the QSO(s). This is contrary to LOTW which is actually a confirmation management system where the matching of QSOs to create a QSL is done in the background invisible to the users until a QSL is found then both parties are notified and status' updated. This is called a double blind system in case you were unaware (or cared to know ;)). Also for some uknown reason, in eQSL I have north of 50 identified QSLs awaiting an update to my INBOX or corrections to existing QSOs to match these. Problem for me is 1) correction aren't going to happen because I enter my log as is and don't have time to go back through a bunch of QSOs to fix things that probably aren't wrong anyway and 2) I have take a cursory look at a bunch of these 'wayward' QSOs awaiting my action and I have found while one or two were wrong on my end, clearly most of them (well over 95%) were problems on the other end due to logging the wrong time (local not UTC) or wrong band. For example - many of these can be proven wrong by looking at the sequence of my log entries and seeing I was working on say 20M CW and in the middle of this run of SEVERAL QSOs on 20M CW, I get a QSL request for a supposed QSO that happen at the appx correct time but logged as 15M or 10M or whatever meters. This is a solid clue in my book it isn't my problem. And since I don't use eQSL for my confirmations, I don't bother to fix them and these wayward QSLs just pile up. I suppose that the few that I do have errors with in my log are incorrect in LOTW too as I upload the same data set to both LOTW and eQSL. Here it is my loss but I am prety much certain that there are less than 1% in error in my logbook as I try to keep a meticulous log and all the mode, freq, split, etc info is set by the Commander (CAT) module of DX Lab Suite or N1MM so I don't even enter that data myself to be able to screw it up.

    The long and short of this is if you want to earn any awards that actually mean anything to anyone (not including WAZ since it can be obtained from eQSL confirmations), make sure your LOTW confirmations are correct and let the rest fall where it may.

    As to your comment about the bureaus, util such time as no one EVER wants a paper QSL card again or the postal service figure out how to run a economically sound business model and charge 'NORMAL' postage again, the buros will thrive. I am a buro segment manager ("6L" segment) for the W6 Incoming Buro. Believe me when I say the buro system is ALIVE, WELL and very ACTIVE.

    73 and welcome back from the 'abyss'. I too was out of the game for a long while in the 90's but since I have gotten active again, I am having much more fun than before. Call me old fasahioned but I am a big three operator; RTTY, CW and SSB - pretty much in that order too :)
  2. N4UP

    N4UP Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Indeed, I missed all that and appreciate your comments and insights. I now understand that LoTW is a more rigorous process than eQSL and QRZ confirmations, and needs to be.

    Actually I am not new to computers per se, I am simply new to connecting computers to radios. I've been operating and programming computers since 1966, have designed and built computers, have developed specialized operating systems, and have developed numerous computer simulations for industrial and Defense applications ( mostly with regard to atmospheric radiation ). But I missed much of the evolution of ham radio over the past 30-40 years and now I am having to catch up.

    I do appreciate your insights into eQSL, LoTW, bureaus, etc. That is very helpful.

    Thank you. It's great to be back. So far I'm 100% HF, 85% CW and 15% SSB, and looking forward to expanding my operating experience to RTTY and other modes.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: cq2k-1