Hi Jim: Crap is Crap !!! LoTW is LoTW !!! Why upload more QSO s that are worthless to both me or others ??? If you are only a DXCC er, well good luck toMessage 1 of 7 , Jan 22, 2005View SourceHi Jim:
"Crap is Crap" !!! "LoTW is LoTW" !!!
Why upload more QSO's that are worthless to both me or others ???
If you are only a DXCC'er, well good luck to you, If you are
interested in anything else then send the CORRECT and COMPLETE
data to LoTW for your QSO's !!!
At 20:55 1/22/2005, you wrote:
>What is the problem?
>A dupe QSL does not change country, band, state, grid totals....
>Annoying, mildly, life threatening, hardly......
>How do you promote LoTW by boycotting it?
>You have a nice confirmation rate.....Don't you think others would like
>their rate to be as high?
>Upload your QSO's and give another ham a chance.....
>> Hi Guys:
>> Well it finally happened !!! Same QSO confirmed TWICE by LoTW!!!
>> A few days ago a U.S. ham re-uploaded his log bringing his QSO's
>> with me to the top of the list of "QSO's Received".
>> When I started checking the LoTW confirmed QSO's, I found 2 QSO's
>> on the same date and time, but differing by 34 seconds.
>> Back during the BETA testing I complained to the LoTW people about
>> the possibility of this occurring when LoTW allowed you to upload a
>> revised log without(LoTW) deleting the old QSO data from its database.
>> I have uploaded 5,409 VALID QSO's to LoTW.
>> LoTW reports that I have a total of 7,891 QSO records uploaded and have
>> 567 QSL records matching.
>> The bad side is that LoTW has 2,482 bad QSO's from me in its' database.
>> The good side is that I have 10.4% conformation rate.
>> The bottom line question is:
>> If I have some "Double QSO Confirmations", how many of you ALSO have
>> "Double QSO Confirmations" from LoTW ???
>> I down load my LoTW "Detailed Report" twice a month, (1st and 15th) so
>> I can try to back track when this error occurred.
>> I ceased to upload any my contest logs as of 7/30/03 with the exception
>> of my VHF/UHF logs (I'm still trying to promote LoTW to the Non-Users)
>> and my general (Daily Logs).
>> My Reason ??? LoTW has identified problems which haven't been addressed.
>> Why pass them onto the world.
>> Bob, K1VU
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>Yahoo! Groups Links
... Fighting? Why would you need to fight with anybody? ... I think I was addressing the issue of multiple QSO reports. I have no problem with LOGIC. I knowMessage 1 of 7 , Jan 22, 2005View Source
> Ford:Fighting? Why would you need to fight with anybody?
> I've been fighting with you "LEAGUE PEOPLE" since the Beta Phase of LoTW !!!
>I think I was addressing the issue of multiple QSO reports. I have no problem with LOGIC. I know a number of hams that use LOGIC to track their QSOs and they like it.
> This post has nothing to do with the LOGIC program at ALL!!
> I'm using a second copy of LOGIC on my computer JUST to display the IMPORTED
> "lotwreport.adi" file results from LoTW that I download twice a month !!!
>I am sure there are a number of hams that are confused as to how the system works. All I can do is make an effort to ensure that the QSOs I upload are accurate. I've accounted for the several QTHs I've been in over the past 15 or 20 years. The county data and grid data is correct for the QSOs I've uploaded. If there are people using the system incorrectly, they should be encouraged to correct their certificate and upload the log again.
> THIS SHOWS UP ALL THE BAD QSO records that LoTW has credited to my account.
> It also shows up all of the missing CQ Zones, ITU Zones, Grids, Counties
> that LoTW users have failed to include in their "Station Data Setup" !!!
>Unfortunately, you are correct in assuming that LOTW only supports DXCC at this time. I am hopeful that the people developing the system will incorporate the other aspects of paper collecting as well--counties, VUCC, WAS, etc. Until there is support for these other awards, people sharing their precious logs will find little use in accurate certificates besides DXCC support.
> With this kind of support, LoTW will be useless for anything except DXCC.
>Hmmm. You "league people?" I don't call you names. Why would you be angry with me? I too am anticipating an expansion of the awards process. But the changes demand additional development $$$,$$$. Somebody has to come up with the $$$ to make it happen. And $$$ doesn't grow on trees.
> If you "LEAGUE PEOPLE" want LoTW JUST to be a DXCC utility, so be it !!!
> Most of us were expecting much more support from LoTW like WAS and VUCC for
> League Awards.
>Amen brother Bob!
> We were also hoping that LoTW might be used by other Awards from CQ, IOTA,
> etc. !!!
>Amen brother Bob!
> When a "QSO Record" is missing the required details, it renders the ENTIRE
> "LoTW Record" useless to most users !!!
>Welcome to the real world of data integrity.
> The bottom line is, if LoTW tells me that I have 566 HITS, but Really I only
> have 565 what am I supposed to think ??? I don't know how many other QSO's
> are messed up in my account yet !!! Paper and Pencil time !!!
>I think you are blaming these problems on LOTW when in reality the problem is with individual users. Training, support, and effort on the part of all users is needed for the data to be accurate. Expecting the ARRL to track down every user to see if they really did live in or traveled to, for example, McIntosh County ND is beyond unrealistic. The users need to ensure that their certificate is accurate.
> LoTW worried so much about "Security", I now think it dropped the ball on
> "Data Integrity" !!!!
>I think it is a reality problem Bob. Welcome to the real world of dealing with the public. Garbage in, garbage out. It's as simple as that. All the "support" you seem to think the ARRL is capable of providing can not resolve the problems with hams failing to take the time to report their location when they upload their logs.
> Now that I can't rely on LoTW's calculations, I have to do my own on a
> scratch pad !!!! Just like I used to do before LoTW.
> Last thing Ford:
> With your "Snipping Out" of the main points of my post, you seemed to have
> missed the main subject of my post and you are trying to turn it into a
> "Logging Problem" !!!
> It's a "LoTW Problem" !!!
>League people? I am just a guy that enjoys ham radio with gusto. I have never received one dime from the ARRL. Never. Quite the contrary, the money tends to flow the other way.
> You "LEAGUE PEOPLE" just don't get it at all !!!
>"League" rep? Perhaps you can explain what you mean. I have no clue how I managed to strike such a sensitive nerve with you. I think I was attempting to explain a LOTW 'feature', not a bug... You, on the other hand, seem hell bent on laying blame on the ARRL for issues well beyond their control.
> Seeing that you are a "League" rep., why don't you help the "0 Landers"
> get their "Station Data" correct ???
> They are the represent the largest % of offenders of incomplete data !!!
> (Caveat: In most cases) Hi Hi !!!
>Have a great day Bob. Enjoy your radios and your computers. Enjoy those folks you interact with on your radio. Be an elmer to those that are ignorant of the subtle nuances of LOTW. This is a hobby. I think the whole world will be a better place if you put this in perspective a bit.
> Bob, K1VU
END OF THREAD!
Disclaimer: its too early, I haven t had enough coffee, but I m still right! Bob, I just received a *duplicate* QSL card from P5 - I m PISSED OFF!!!!! I don tMessage 1 of 7 , Jan 23, 2005View SourceDisclaimer: its too early, I haven't had enough coffee, but I'm still right!
Bob, I just received a *duplicate* QSL card from P5 - I'm PISSED OFF!!!!!
I don't need no stinking duplicate QSL cards.
And ON4UN keeps sending me cards everytime we work on 80m - I think I'll bad mouth his book. And those JAs and DLs so many duplicate cards!!!!
And KP1XX keeps sending me QSL cards too :)
Bob, nothing personal, but please find something worth complaining about, or everyone will think your an ornery old man like me!
It snowing too - that is imperfect as well,
73 - I mean it
Ted KT1V old ornery and absolutely 100% correct dude
At 11:28 AM 1/22/2005, R Johnson wrote:
Well it finally happened !!! Same QSO confirmed TWICE by LoTW!!!
A few days ago a U.S. ham re-uploaded his log bringing his QSO's
with me to the top of the list of "QSO's Received".
When I started checking the LoTW confirmed QSO's, I found 2 QSO's
on the same date and time, but differing by 34 seconds.
Back during the BETA testing I complained to the LoTW people about
the possibility of this occurring when LoTW allowed you to upload a
revised log without(LoTW) deleting the old QSO data from its database.
I have uploaded 5,409 VALID QSO's to LoTW.
LoTW reports that I have a total of 7,891 QSO records uploaded and have
567 QSL records matching.
The bad side is that LoTW has 2,482 bad QSO's from me in its' database.
The good side is that I have 10.4% conformation rate.
The bottom line question is:
If I have some "Double QSO Confirmations", how many of you ALSO have
"Double QSO Confirmations" from LoTW ???
I down load my LoTW "Detailed Report" twice a month, (1st and 15th) so
I can try to back track when this error occurred.
I ceased to upload any my contest logs as of 7/30/03 with the exception
of my VHF/UHF logs (I'm still trying to promote LoTW to the Non-Users)
and my general (Daily Logs).
My Reason ??? LoTW has identified problems which haven't been addressed.
Why pass them onto the world.
Yahoo! Groups Links