Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Incomplete LoTW QSL Records, Worthless ???

Expand Messages
  • R Johnson
    After noting several of my LoTW QSL confirmations were lacking complete Station info !!! I decided to download my latest LoTW Report and do some analysis
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      After noting several of my LoTW QSL confirmations were lacking complete
      "Station" info !!! I decided to download my latest "LoTW Report" and do some
      analysis of the situation.

      I must admit that I was a bit surprised at how bad this problem was.

      Of my 356 LoTW QSL's, 30% of them(108) had incomplete "Station Data" making many
      of the QSL's useless for Awards other than DXCC !!!

      Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
      No Grid = 22
      No County = 2
      No County & Grid = 1
      No ITU Zone = 11
      No CQ Zone = 3
      No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
      No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
      No Grid & ITU Zone = 8

      Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.

      So what is the bottom line ???

      I don't know, but as far as I can see these type of statistics tend to make LoTW
      useless as far as being able to use LoTW QSL's for credit on awards other than the
      ARRL DXCC, WAS and WAC Awards !!!

      The ARRL VUCC Award is questionable due to lack of grid info AND the fact the LoTW
      has very little acceptance by the VHF/UHF/SHF community, but that another story !!!

      Use of LoTW for Non-ARRL Awards is also up for grabs. CQ Magazines Awards and County
      Hunters will need some of the missing data. I don't know about US Islands, Canadian
      Islands and IOTA awards. Awards like 10-10, SMIRK and FISTS are not even supported by
      providing a place to enter their #'s in the "Station" info.

      I think it is up to LoTW to make sure that the "Submitted Logs" contain all of the
      "Station" information.

      This could be accomplished in a number of ways:

      1-LoTW could review (electronically) all of the currently received records and ask
      submitter to update his "Station" info (supply ALL info) and resign and resubmit
      their logs.

      2-Anyone finding incomplete info on a LoTW QSL could submit a list of the offending
      callsigns to LoTW and LoTW could ask them resign and resubmit their logs or have
      them rejected.

      3-LoTW could refuse to accept any NEW submissions lacking complete "Station" data.
      This might cause some of the current "offending" users to take notice and resign
      and resubmit their logs on their own.

      4-LoTW could make the importance supplying ALL of the "Station" data better know in
      the setup instructions. I consider it a poorly documented point.

      I support LoTW, but I'm starting to see it bogging down in a quagmire.

      So far there are less than 6000 Hams worldwide using LoTW at this time, so I see that
      this is the ideal time to make changes.

      73
      Bob, K1VU
    • Pete Smith
      ... I don t know. I agree with you that the statistic about missing ITU&CQ zones is dismaying, but it may be a little over-fierce to say that LotW should
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 05:04 PM 2/3/04 -0500, R Johnson wrote:
        >I think it is up to LoTW to make sure that the "Submitted Logs" contain
        >all of the
        >"Station" information.


        I don't know. I agree with you that the statistic about missing ITU&CQ
        zones is dismaying, but it may be a little over-fierce to say that LotW
        should reject any log submissions that aren't complete to the Nth
        level. After all, as I understand it, any of these folks is free to
        re-upload any of these QSOs with the fuller information. A case can be
        made that in the early months of a system like this, you want to minimize
        rejection of submitted logs for secondary reasons, lest you turn people
        off. When/if CQ comes on board, part of the deal might be a strong
        promotional effort by ARRL to get people to insert their zone data and
        resubmit.


        73, Pete N4ZR
        Check out the World HF Contest Station Database
        Updated 9 Jan 04
        www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
      • rojomn
        I could not agree with you more. I do think though, that it must be FORCED, if the information is not TOTALLY complete the submission should be rejected out of
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I could not agree with you more. I do think though, that it must be FORCED,
          if the information is not TOTALLY complete the submission should be rejected
          out of hand. There is NO excuse to do it any other way.
          The other point about space for support of other awards is CRITICAL to the
          survival of LotW. I and many others will simply give up if these things are
          not done. It would be a shame for such a promising system.

          With all of the time spent on this in design and beta it is amazing that
          these things were missed. Who programmed this, a cber?



          Gil, W0MN http://webpages.charter.net/gbaron
          N 44.082056 W 92.513024 1050'
          Hierro Candente, Batir de repente

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
          > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 4:04 PM
          > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Incomplete LoTW QSL Records, Worthless ???
          >
          > After noting several of my LoTW QSL confirmations were
          > lacking complete "Station" info !!! I decided to download my
          > latest "LoTW Report" and do some analysis of the situation.
          >
          > I must admit that I was a bit surprised at how bad this problem was.
          >
          > Of my 356 LoTW QSL's, 30% of them(108) had incomplete
          > "Station Data" making many of the QSL's useless for Awards
          > other than DXCC !!!
          >
          > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
          > No Grid = 22
          > No County = 2
          > No County & Grid = 1
          > No ITU Zone = 11
          > No CQ Zone = 3
          > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
          > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
          > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
          >
          > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
          >
          > So what is the bottom line ???
          >
          > I don't know, but as far as I can see these type of
          > statistics tend to make LoTW useless as far as being able to
          > use LoTW QSL's for credit on awards other than the ARRL DXCC,
          > WAS and WAC Awards !!!
          >
          > The ARRL VUCC Award is questionable due to lack of grid info
          > AND the fact the LoTW has very little acceptance by the
          > VHF/UHF/SHF community, but that another story !!!
          >
          > Use of LoTW for Non-ARRL Awards is also up for grabs. CQ
          > Magazines Awards and County Hunters will need some of the
          > missing data. I don't know about US Islands, Canadian
          > Islands and IOTA awards. Awards like 10-10, SMIRK and FISTS
          > are not even supported by providing a place to enter their
          > #'s in the "Station" info.
          >
          > I think it is up to LoTW to make sure that the "Submitted
          > Logs" contain all of the "Station" information.
          >
          > This could be accomplished in a number of ways:
          >
          > 1-LoTW could review (electronically) all of the currently
          > received records and ask
          > submitter to update his "Station" info (supply ALL info)
          > and resign and resubmit
          > their logs.
          >
          > 2-Anyone finding incomplete info on a LoTW QSL could submit a
          > list of the offending
          > callsigns to LoTW and LoTW could ask them resign and
          > resubmit their logs or have
          > them rejected.
          >
          > 3-LoTW could refuse to accept any NEW submissions lacking
          > complete "Station" data.
          > This might cause some of the current "offending" users to
          > take notice and resign
          > and resubmit their logs on their own.
          >
          > 4-LoTW could make the importance supplying ALL of the
          > "Station" data better know in
          > the setup instructions. I consider it a poorly documented point.
          >
          > I support LoTW, but I'm starting to see it bogging down in a quagmire.
          >
          > So far there are less than 6000 Hams worldwide using LoTW at
          > this time, so I see that this is the ideal time to make changes.
          >
          > 73
          > Bob, K1VU
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • Hamish Moffatt
          ... Now that s insulting. Did you participate in the beta or are you just an armchair critic with 20/20 hindsight? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:30:44PM -0600, rojomn wrote:
            > With all of the time spent on this in design and beta it is amazing that
            > these things were missed. Who programmed this, a cber?

            Now that's insulting. Did you participate in the beta or are you just an
            armchair critic with 20/20 hindsight?

            Hamish
            --
            Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@...> <hamish@...>
          • R Johnson
            Hi: Glad to see that I m not alone looking at the numbers. I see no reason not to reject for lack of GRID, CQZ, or ITUZ as EVERYONE has that info. County
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi:
              Glad to see that I'm not alone looking at the numbers.

              I see no reason not to reject for lack of GRID, CQZ, or ITUZ as EVERYONE has that info.
              County should be required for ALL US submissions as EVERYONE has one.

              Right now LoTW will bounce an upload for errors, just make "Incomplete Station Data" an ERROR.

              73
              Bob, K1VU

              When I said At 17:21 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
              >At 05:04 PM 2/3/04 -0500, R Johnson wrote:
              > >I think it is up to LoTW to make sure that the "Submitted Logs" contain
              > >all of the
              > >"Station" information.
              >
              >
              >I don't know. I agree with you that the statistic about missing ITU&CQ
              >zones is dismaying, but it may be a little over-fierce to say that LotW
              >should reject any log submissions that aren't complete to the Nth
              >level. After all, as I understand it, any of these folks is free to
              >re-upload any of these QSOs with the fuller information. A case can be
              >made that in the early months of a system like this, you want to minimize
              >rejection of submitted logs for secondary reasons, lest you turn people
              >off. When/if CQ comes on board, part of the deal might be a strong
              >promotional effort by ARRL to get people to insert their zone data and
              >resubmit.
              >
              >
              >73, Pete N4ZR
              >Check out the World HF Contest Station Database
              >Updated 9 Jan 04
              >www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
              >
              >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Joe Subich, K4IK
              ... Nor do you account for those who don t know the difference between CQ and ITU zones or can t even read a zone map and post zones on a completely different
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                > No Grid = 22
                > No County = 2
                > No County & Grid = 1
                > No ITU Zone = 11
                > No CQ Zone = 3
                > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                >
                > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.

                Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                a completely different continent!

                >
                > 3-LoTW could refuse to accept any NEW submissions lacking
                > complete "Station" data. This might cause some of the current
                > "offending" users to take notice and resign and resubmit their
                > logs on their own.

                I don't see how this can be enforced ... e.g., I have no IOTA
                or 10-10 number (and don't care for one). How do you determine
                what data is appropriate for each station and what is not?

                > 4-LoTW could make the importance supplying ALL of the
                > "Station" data better know in the setup instructions. I
                > consider it a poorly documented point.

                "User education" is always good ... but the more pressing need
                is to educate those who are not using LotW about its ease of
                use, etc. We need far more than 6000 registered users (some
                of which are "bad accounts") worldwide for LoTw to really fly.

                73,

                ... Joe, K4IK
              • R Johnson
                ... Hope the LoTW people take note. ... This may be one of the reasons that less than 6000 hams world wide are using LoTW. Maybe a good subject for another
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 17:30 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                  >I could not agree with you more. I do think though, that it must be FORCED,
                  >if the information is not TOTALLY complete the submission should be rejected
                  >out of hand. There is NO excuse to do it any other way.

                  Hope the LoTW people take note.

                  >The other point about space for support of other awards is CRITICAL to the
                  >survival of LotW. I and many others will simply give up if these things are
                  >not done. It would be a shame for such a promising system.

                  This may be one of the reasons that less than 6000 hams world wide are using LoTW.
                  Maybe a good subject for another discussion "Why LoTW is NOT being used".

                  >
                  >
                  >With all of the time spent on this in design and beta it is amazing that
                  >these things were missed.

                  I didn't find LoTW very interested in getting inputs during the Beta stage where
                  some of these problems could have been caught.

                  I'd hate to see LoTW go the same way as the ill fated "QST Index Database Project"
                  that I participated in. Belly up !!!

                  > Who programmed this, a cber?

                  I think the documentation was done by the CB'er and the programming was done by
                  a No-Coder <VBG> !!!

                  73
                  Bob, K1VU





                  >Gil, W0MN http://webpages.charter.net/gbaron
                  >N 44.082056 W 92.513024 1050'
                  >Hierro Candente, Batir de repente
                  >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                  > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 4:04 PM
                  > > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Incomplete LoTW QSL Records, Worthless ???
                  > >
                  > > After noting several of my LoTW QSL confirmations were
                  > > lacking complete "Station" info !!! I decided to download my
                  > > latest "LoTW Report" and do some analysis of the situation.
                  > >
                  > > I must admit that I was a bit surprised at how bad this problem was.
                  > >
                  > > Of my 356 LoTW QSL's, 30% of them(108) had incomplete
                  > > "Station Data" making many of the QSL's useless for Awards
                  > > other than DXCC !!!
                  > >
                  > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                  > > No Grid = 22
                  > > No County = 2
                  > > No County & Grid = 1
                  > > No ITU Zone = 11
                  > > No CQ Zone = 3
                  > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                  > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                  > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                  > >
                  > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                  > >
                  > > So what is the bottom line ???
                  > >
                  > > I don't know, but as far as I can see these type of
                  > > statistics tend to make LoTW useless as far as being able to
                  > > use LoTW QSL's for credit on awards other than the ARRL DXCC,
                  > > WAS and WAC Awards !!!
                  > >
                  > > The ARRL VUCC Award is questionable due to lack of grid info
                  > > AND the fact the LoTW has very little acceptance by the
                  > > VHF/UHF/SHF community, but that another story !!!
                  > >
                  > > Use of LoTW for Non-ARRL Awards is also up for grabs. CQ
                  > > Magazines Awards and County Hunters will need some of the
                  > > missing data. I don't know about US Islands, Canadian
                  > > Islands and IOTA awards. Awards like 10-10, SMIRK and FISTS
                  > > are not even supported by providing a place to enter their
                  > > #'s in the "Station" info.
                  > >
                  > > I think it is up to LoTW to make sure that the "Submitted
                  > > Logs" contain all of the "Station" information.
                  > >
                  > > This could be accomplished in a number of ways:
                  > >
                  > > 1-LoTW could review (electronically) all of the currently
                  > > received records and ask
                  > > submitter to update his "Station" info (supply ALL info)
                  > > and resign and resubmit
                  > > their logs.
                  > >
                  > > 2-Anyone finding incomplete info on a LoTW QSL could submit a
                  > > list of the offending
                  > > callsigns to LoTW and LoTW could ask them resign and
                  > > resubmit their logs or have
                  > > them rejected.
                  > >
                  > > 3-LoTW could refuse to accept any NEW submissions lacking
                  > > complete "Station" data.
                  > > This might cause some of the current "offending" users to
                  > > take notice and resign
                  > > and resubmit their logs on their own.
                  > >
                  > > 4-LoTW could make the importance supplying ALL of the
                  > > "Station" data better know in
                  > > the setup instructions. I consider it a poorly documented point.
                  > >
                  > > I support LoTW, but I'm starting to see it bogging down in a quagmire.
                  > >
                  > > So far there are less than 6000 Hams worldwide using LoTW at
                  > > this time, so I see that this is the ideal time to make changes.
                  > >
                  > > 73
                  > > Bob, K1VU
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                  > >
                  > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                  >
                  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                • R Johnson
                  ... I must admit that you have me scratching my head on this one !!! Are you saying that ONLY US Hams have these abilities ??? I always assumed that Ham Radio
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 18:31 2/3/2004 , you wrote:


                    > >
                    > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                    > > No Grid = 22
                    > > No County = 2
                    > > No County & Grid = 1
                    > > No ITU Zone = 11
                    > > No CQ Zone = 3
                    > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                    > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                    > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                    > >
                    > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                    >
                    >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                    >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                    >a completely different continent!

                    I must admit that you have me scratching my head on this one !!!
                    Are you saying that ONLY US Hams have these abilities ???
                    I always assumed that Ham Radio was considered a "Technical" hobby and
                    most non-US Hams were required to pass a test of some sort.
                    I assume that most people would ask if they didn't know where they were
                    located and that this info was necessary for LoTW use.

                    >
                    >
                    > >
                    > > 3-LoTW could refuse to accept any NEW submissions lacking
                    > > complete "Station" data. This might cause some of the current
                    > > "offending" users to take notice and resign and resubmit their
                    > > logs on their own.
                    >
                    >I don't see how this can be enforced ... e.g., I have no IOTA
                    >or 10-10 number (and don't care for one). How do you determine
                    >what data is appropriate for each station and what is not?

                    A guy ought to know if he was on an Island or not.
                    As far as the 1010#, SMIRK# or FISTS#'s go, these would be optional. If you
                    had one you would know it.

                    Just because YOU wouldn't care for a 1010# doesn't mean that other Hams wouldn't
                    like to be able to use LoTW for 1010 Awards or that a "CW ONLY" operator who
                    belongs to FISTS wouldn't like to be able to use LoTW for his Awards. Same for
                    6M op's and SMIRK.

                    >
                    >
                    > > 4-LoTW could make the importance supplying ALL of the
                    > > "Station" data better know in the setup instructions. I
                    > > consider it a poorly documented point.
                    >
                    >"User education" is always good ... but the more pressing need
                    >is to educate those who are not using LotW about its ease of
                    >use, etc. We need far more than 6000 registered users (some
                    >of which are "bad accounts") worldwide for LoTw to really fly.

                    Before you can "educate those who are not using LotW about its ease of use", LoTW
                    MUST be made easy to use !!! Right now it is VERY User unfriendly and is one
                    of the major reasons that we don't see more users. Also remember that LESS than
                    25% of US Hams belong to the ARRL (23% and falling IIRC) so the other 75% only
                    know about LoTW by word of mouth or some other means.

                    >
                    >
                    >73,
                    >
                    > ... Joe, K4IK

                    73
                    Bob, K1VU

                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                    >
                    >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                  • JV
                    Did you check ALL in the fields tab when you created the adif file. JV
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                           Did you check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file.
                      JV
                       
                      > >
                      > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                      > > No Grid = 22
                      > > No County = 2
                      > > No County & Grid = 1
                      > > No ITU Zone = 11
                      > > No CQ Zone = 3
                      > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                      > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                      > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                      > >
                      > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                      >
                      >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                      >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                      >a completely different continent!
                    • R Johnson
                      No, I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no place to check ALL in the fields tab when you created the adif file Maybe you are talking about
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
                        There is no place to "check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file"
                        Maybe you are talking about some logging program ???

                        I logged on to LoTW, went to "Your QSO", selected "Download Report",
                        set "Show QSL received since:" for 01/01/2000, and checked off "Include QSL detail:"

                        ADIF file has ALL that LoTW has to offer.

                        73 Bob, K1VU

                        At 20:12 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                        > Did you check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file.
                        >JV
                        >
                        > > >
                        > > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                        > > > No Grid = 22
                        > > > No County = 2
                        > > > No County & Grid = 1
                        > > > No ITU Zone = 11
                        > > > No CQ Zone = 3
                        > > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                        > > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                        > > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                        > > >
                        > > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                        > >
                        > >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                        > >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                        > >a completely different continent!
                        >
                        >
                        >----------
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > * <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                        > *
                        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > * <mailto:ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > *
                        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • JV
                        Hi Bob Look again. It is actually called All Fields . It is at the bottom of the Check Files tab. JV No, I have no idea what you are talking about. There is
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Bob
                              Look again. It is actually called "All Fields". It is at
                          the bottom of the "Check Files" tab.
                          JV 
                           
                           
                          No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
                          There is no place to "check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file"
                          Maybe you are talking about some logging program ???

                          I logged on to LoTW, went to "Your QSO", selected "Download Report",
                          set "Show QSL received since:" for 01/01/2000, and checked off "Include QSL detail:"

                          ADIF file has ALL that LoTW has to offer.

                          73 Bob, K1VU
                           
                          At 20:12 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                          >      Did you check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file.
                          >JV

                          > > >
                          > > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                          > > > No Grid = 22
                          > > > No County = 2
                          > > > No County & Grid = 1
                          > > > No ITU Zone = 11
                          > > > No CQ Zone = 3
                          > > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                          > > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                          > > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                          > > >
                          > > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                          > >
                          > >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                          > >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                          > >a completely different continent!
                          >
                        • R Johnson
                          Where do you find this after you log into LoTW ??? I see no tabs for Check Files After I login to LoTW the Web Site I have TABS on the main page (left to
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Where do you find this after you log into LoTW ???
                            I see no tabs for "Check Files"

                            After I login to LoTW the Web Site
                            I have TABS on the main page (left to right):
                            "Home", "Your QSOs", Awards", "Find Call", "Upload File", and "Your Account"

                            Where should I go next ???

                            73
                            Bob, K1VU

                            At 20:54 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                            >Hi Bob
                            > Look again. It is actually called "All Fields". It is at
                            >the bottom of the "Check Files" tab.
                            >JV
                            >
                            >
                            >No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
                            >There is no place to "check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file"
                            >Maybe you are talking about some logging program ???
                            >
                            >I logged on to LoTW, went to "Your QSO", selected "Download Report",
                            >set "Show QSL received since:" for 01/01/2000, and checked off "Include QSL detail:"
                            >
                            >ADIF file has ALL that LoTW has to offer.
                            >
                            >73 Bob, K1VU
                            >
                            >At 20:12 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                            > > Did you check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file.
                            > >JV
                            > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                            > > > > No Grid = 22
                            > > > > No County = 2
                            > > > > No County & Grid = 1
                            > > > > No ITU Zone = 11
                            > > > > No CQ Zone = 3
                            > > > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                            > > > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                            > > > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                            > > >
                            > > >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                            > > >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                            > > >a completely different continent!
                            > >
                            >
                            >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            >ADVERTISEMENT
                            >
                            >
                            >----------
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > * <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                            > *
                            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > * <mailto:ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > *
                            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          • Joe Subich, K4IK
                            ... No, I m saying that between 10% and 20% of the confirmations I have received through LotW have had CQ and ITU zones reversed. It is not a US or European
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                              >
                              > I must admit that you have me scratching my head on this one !!!
                              > Are you saying that ONLY US Hams have these abilities ???
                              > I always assumed that Ham Radio was considered a "Technical" hobby and
                              > most non-US Hams were required to pass a test of some sort.
                              > I assume that most people would ask if they didn't know where
                              > they were located and that this info was necessary for LoTW use.

                              No, I'm saying that between 10% and 20% of the confirmations I have
                              received through LotW have had CQ and ITU zones reversed. It is
                              not a US or European or South American issue ... I've seen in from
                              all continents.


                              > A guy ought to know if he was on an Island or not.

                              Sure, an operator would know but how do you propose to enforce a
                              requirement that the upload/station information include that
                              information ... if it is valid?

                              > As far as the 1010#, SMIRK# or FISTS#'s go, these would be
                              > optional. If you had one you would know it.

                              Again, how do you enforce a requirement to include the
                              information? How do you determine who has a number and
                              who doesn't?

                              A better solution would be to design an interface to LotW so
                              the various organizations (SMIRK, FISTS, etc.) could upload a
                              list of members/numbers and have LotW match/add the data on
                              download.

                              > Before you can "educate those who are not using LotW about
                              > its ease of use", LoTW MUST be made easy to use !!! Right
                              > now it is VERY User unfriendly and is one of the major
                              > reasons that we don't see more users.

                              The only thing user unfriendly about LotW (tQSL/tQSLCert) is
                              the lack of usable documentation. There is precious little
                              data on public/private key authentication ... about saving
                              and protecting keys/certificates, etc.

                              Several logging programs already have excellent LotW support
                              and that support will only improve as the writers are able to
                              figure out the necessary procedure calls to fully integrate
                              the "signing" process.

                              > Also remember that LESS than 25% of US Hams belong to the
                              > ARRL (23% and falling IIRC) so the other 75% only
                              > know about LoTW by word of mouth or some other means.

                              So? Why aren't there articles about LotW in the foreign
                              amateur magazines? Why are there no articles about it in
                              CQ, Worldradio, etc.? Why isn't there a "LotW Introduction"
                              package sent to every new licensee and every local club
                              newsletter editor?

                              Why are ARRL contest submissions tied to LotW (upload the
                              log to LotW and have it automatically copied to the contest
                              desk)? Why isn't that facility offered as a "collection
                              point" for non-ARRL contests in order to collect the log
                              data?

                              There are many ways to enhance participation and ease of use
                              ... it just takes a commitment to do so.


                              73,

                              ... Joe, K4IK
                            • Tom Horton
                              JV, I too am confused...where is this Check Files tab? Tom K5IID ... E Sorter for the ARRL W5 QSL Bureau Williamstown, WV
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                JV,
                                 I too am confused...where is this Check Files tab?
                                Tom K5IID



                                At 01:54 02/04/04, you wrote:
                                Hi Bob
                                    Look again. It is actually called "All Fields". It is at
                                the bottom of the "Check Files" tab.
                                JV
                                 
                                 
                                No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
                                There is no place to "check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file"
                                Maybe you are talking about some logging program ???

                                I logged on to LoTW, went to "Your QSO", selected "Download Report",
                                set "Show QSL received since:" for 01/01/2000, and checked off "Include QSL detail:"

                                ADIF file has ALL that LoTW has to offer.

                                73 Bob, K1VU
                                 
                                At 20:12 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                                >      Did you check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file.
                                >JV

                                > > >
                                > > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                                > > > No Grid = 22
                                > > > No County = 2
                                > > > No County & Grid = 1
                                > > > No ITU Zone = 11
                                > > > No CQ Zone = 3
                                > > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                                > > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                                > > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                                > > >
                                > > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                                > >
                                > >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                                > >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                                > >a completely different continent!
                                >

                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                ADVERTISEMENT
                                click here
                                []


                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                                "E"  Sorter for the ARRL W5 QSL Bureau
                                Williamstown, WV
                              • JV
                                Bob You may know this but one must create an adif of his QSOs first. Then create a tq8 file using TQSL. Now you go to LoTW and upload. The check files/ all
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 3, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bob
                                      You may know this but one must create an adif of his QSOs
                                   first. Then create a tq8 file using TQSL.  Now you go to LoTW
                                   and upload. The "check files/ all fields" step is done in the first
                                  step.
                                  JV
                                   
                                  -------Original Message-------
                                   
                                  Where do you find this after you log into LoTW ???
                                  I see no tabs for "Check Files"

                                  After I login to LoTW the Web Site
                                  I have TABS on the main page (left to right):
                                  "Home", "Your QSOs", Awards", "Find Call", "Upload File", and "Your Account"

                                  Where should I go next ???

                                  73
                                  Bob, K1VU

                                    At 20:54 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                                  >Hi Bob
                                  >     Look again. It is actually called "All Fields". It is at
                                  >the bottom of the "Check Files" tab.
                                  >JV


                                  >No, I have no idea what you are talking about.
                                  >There is no place to "check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file"
                                  >Maybe you are talking about some logging program ???
                                  >
                                  >I logged on to LoTW, went to "Your QSO", selected "Download Report",
                                  >set "Show QSL received since:" for 01/01/2000, and checked off "Include QSL detail:"
                                  >
                                  >ADIF file has ALL that LoTW has to offer.
                                  >
                                  >73 Bob, K1VU
                                  >  
                                  >At 20:12 2/3/2004 , you wrote:
                                  > >      Did you check "ALL" in the fields tab when you created the adif file.
                                  > >JV
                                  > > 
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
                                  > > > > No Grid = 22
                                  > > > > No County = 2
                                  > > > > No County & Grid = 1
                                  > > > > No ITU Zone = 11
                                  > > > > No CQ Zone = 3
                                  > > > > No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
                                  > > > > No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
                                  > > > > No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >Nor do you account for those who don't know the difference between
                                  > > >CQ and ITU zones or can't even read a zone map and post zones on
                                  > > >a completely different continent!
                                  >
                                • R Johnson
                                  ... I m sorry Joe, I misunderstood what you were saying about the Zones. I remember a few people saying that they had reverse them initially, but had corrected
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 4, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 21:20 2/3/2004 , you wrote:



                                    > > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                                    > >
                                    > > I must admit that you have me scratching my head on this one !!!
                                    > > Are you saying that ONLY US Hams have these abilities ???
                                    > > I always assumed that Ham Radio was considered a "Technical" hobby and
                                    > > most non-US Hams were required to pass a test of some sort.
                                    > > I assume that most people would ask if they didn't know where
                                    > > they were located and that this info was necessary for LoTW use.
                                    >
                                    >No, I'm saying that between 10% and 20% of the confirmations I have
                                    >received through LotW have had CQ and ITU zones reversed. It is
                                    >not a US or European or South American issue ... I've seen in from
                                    >all continents.

                                    I'm sorry Joe, I misunderstood what you were saying about the Zones.
                                    I remember a few people saying that they had reverse them initially, but
                                    had corrected the error and resigned and resubmitted their logs.

                                    I have made no attempt to check the accuracy of the Zone Data in my analysis
                                    and only checked to see if the data was omitted from the LoTW QSL's.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > A guy ought to know if he was on an Island or not.
                                    >
                                    >Sure, an operator would know but how do you propose to enforce a
                                    >requirement that the upload/station information include that
                                    >information ... if it is valid?

                                    For the basic information like Grid and Zones which EVERY Ham
                                    WORLD WIDE has could force a bounce if not included in the submitted log.

                                    Every US HAM has a State and County, again if these are not included it should
                                    force a bounce.

                                    Both of the bounce conditions could be handled by programing "TQSL" to not allow
                                    a log to be "Signed" if the required data is missing.

                                    As far as the "validity of the data goes, I would assume each of us would
                                    have to check on his own. If I got LoTW QSL from a DL station with a CQZ of 5
                                    it would raise a red flag for me. The next step would be to notify LoTW or the
                                    station directly.


                                    > > As far as the 1010#, SMIRK# or FISTS#'s go, these would be
                                    > > optional. If you had one you would know it.
                                    >
                                    >Again, how do you enforce a requirement to include the
                                    >information? How do you determine who has a number and
                                    >who doesn't?


                                    You don't need to enforce these. The fact that someone had gone to the trouble
                                    of joining one of these organizations would probably mean that he would WANT to
                                    make sure HE included the data. It is self enforcing, those that have the data
                                    will include it, those that don't belong have no data and leave the field bank.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >A better solution would be to design an interface to LotW so
                                    >the various organizations (SMIRK, FISTS, etc.) could upload a
                                    >list of members/numbers and have LotW match/add the data on
                                    >download.

                                    That is an EXCELLENT idea !!! It would give LoTW the flexibility of
                                    adding new Award Sponsors without forcing everyone to update their logs.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > Before you can "educate those who are not using LotW about
                                    > > its ease of use", LoTW MUST be made easy to use !!! Right
                                    > > now it is VERY User unfriendly and is one of the major
                                    > > reasons that we don't see more users.
                                    >
                                    >The only thing user unfriendly about LotW (tQSL/tQSLCert) is
                                    >the lack of usable documentation. There is precious little
                                    >data on public/private key authentication ... about saving
                                    >and protecting keys/certificates, etc.

                                    Yes, and I feel that this is one of the reasons that LoTW has had such
                                    poor acceptance so far. The documentation STINKS !!!

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Several logging programs already have excellent LotW support
                                    >and that support will only improve as the writers are able to
                                    >figure out the necessary procedure calls to fully integrate
                                    >the "signing" process.
                                    >
                                    > > Also remember that LESS than 25% of US Hams belong to the
                                    > > ARRL (23% and falling IIRC) so the other 75% only
                                    > > know about LoTW by word of mouth or some other means.
                                    >
                                    >So? Why aren't there articles about LotW in the foreign
                                    >amateur magazines? Why are there no articles about it in
                                    >CQ, Worldradio, etc.? Why isn't there a "LotW Introduction"
                                    >package sent to every new licensee and every local club
                                    >newsletter editor?

                                    At the risk of sounding "Anti-League", I see little incentive for other
                                    organizations or publications to give the League FREE advertising for their
                                    LoTW product !!!

                                    Remember LoTW is not a benevolent endeavor on the part of the ARRL, it is
                                    supposed to be a money maker, Just like their Publication and Awards programs.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Why are ARRL contest submissions tied to LotW (upload the
                                    >log to LotW and have it automatically copied to the contest
                                    >desk)? Why isn't that facility offered as a "collection
                                    >point" for non-ARRL contests in order to collect the log
                                    >data?

                                    That is something the ARRL will have to answer. Right now LoTW is strictly
                                    an ARRL thing. If and when Non-ARRL Awards are going to maybe use LoTW, the
                                    ARRL will have to deal with this type of issue.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >There are many ways to enhance participation and ease of use
                                    >... it just takes a commitment to do so.

                                    Yes, and a receptive ear from the ARRL and LoTW people.

                                    This list is great for bringing up and solving LoTW issues.

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >73,
                                    >
                                    > ... Joe, K4IK

                                    73
                                    Bob, K1VU

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                                    >
                                    >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.