[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and contest submissions

To: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and contest submissions
From: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:20:49 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On the other hand, my general logging program doesn't do my general
logging.  So, after the contest is over I import my log into DXKeeper (my
general logging program).  DXKeeper allows me to upload directly to LOTW.
Even if I used paper QSL's, I'd still need to import my log into a general
logging program.

Also, you're extra steps thoughts are not very valid when you consider the
time it takes to verify and respond to even 1 paper QSL(assuming you don't
QSL 100% for contest QSO's - and if you do, then there are hours and hours
saved by sending 1 extra e-mail).

73 de Al, KE1FO

On Dec 17, 2007 6:53 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw@verizon.net> wrote:

> My recent experience is that more and more contesters ARE submitting their
> logs to LotW.  One recent contest (Pa QSO Party) showed a 25% hit rate
> almost immediately on my personal log upload, and the last time I checked,
> it was approaching 75%.  Several other major DX contests of the last few
> weeks have seen sparse activity from me due to family commitments, but
> those
> too show very high hit rates.
> Yet my overall matches hover around 15%, and will continue to do so for
> quite awhile -- as very few of my QSO's from 1995 and earlier will ever
> get
> matched.
> Logbook of the World IS the future.  But not tomorrow's future.  It will
> continue to grow, and while the growth started off slow, I think it is
> picking up.
> Regarding Cabrillo... you do know that LotW will accept Cabrillo files, in
> addition to ADIF, right?  The security encryption process handles both
> formats.
> Now while it would be a touch more convenent to send off one log entry
> instead of two, consider this:
> When you enter a contest, your logs are being used to compare to other
> logs,
> and after a period of time, discarded.  And only the contest log checkers
> see them (that may change in the future if some get their way on open
> logs,
> though)
> When you upload to Logbook of the World, you are making a "permanent"
> upload, to a server and database system, not a transient one to a contest
> checker.  All the more reason to make sure it's secure.  And I do believe
> in
> the encryption process, the contest information headers are stripped away,
> so as things currently stand, that doesn't make for a very good contest
> entry.
> But -- you're only sending one additional email.  Not ten, not five, not
> even three.  Two emails instead of one.  You know what?  Big deal.
> And... if your contest entry isn't going to ARRL, you'd have to send two
> anyway.
> Having said all that... I'm sure that Logbook of the World could use some
> tweaking and TLC.  If I knew the software well enough, I'd offer my
> services, but I'm not up on the latest in HTML.  I'm sure that Newington
> will consider any offers of help with all due diligence!
> 73, ron w3wn
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:44:49 -0500
> From: "B. Scott Andersen" <bsandersen@mac.com>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and contest submissions
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> The efficacy of LoTW continues to be discussed. Of 7300+ QSOs
> I have 1775 QSL records. This represents a 24% hit rate. I a still
> do not have DXCC or even WAS with LoTW, though both awards
> hang on the wall from paper card confirmations.
> If this is indeed the future, then perhaps the ARRL should push it
> harder. For ARRL sponsored contests the QSOs portion of the log
> could be submitted through LoTW and only the heading part of the
> Cabrillo file with the entrant's mode, power, call sign used, assisted
> vs. unassisted, etc. would be declared. The question in my mind is:
> --> Why should I have to convert my log to Cabrillo when I'm just
> --> going to upload the thing to LoTW again as a whole second step?
> Why am I doing this twice?! I'm especially curious for why I should
> have to give the same organization (the ARRL) my log electronically
> twice! Can't they just take the data once and then draw reports, copy
> it,
> move it, or search that data set as they see fit?
> If contesters were required to submit their computer entries via LotW
> instead of Cabrillo it would probably increase the QSL rate for
> everybody, make the system appear more effective, and save many
> of us who are already uploading our logs to both places a step.
> This couldn't happen overnight. There is some work to do at the
> ARRL and by logging program developers to make this work.
> There would need to be some standardization for the way that the
> exchanges are captured (ADIF is weak on this), for example,
> but that has been a problem in ADIF anyway, IMHO.
> If the contesting community pushes back because "it is too hard",
> then maybe the ARRL would consider other mechanisms for getting
> logs digitally signed that are easier for people to manage such as
> hardware keys (USB dongles) or time-based tokens (little key fobs
> that give you a new magic number every 60 seconds).  The key
> management in the PKI system they have in place today is confusing
> to some. I make no value judgement; I only make an observation.
> I can't help but wonder if there are alternatives that would be
> easier for people to adopt and embrace.
> I'm not trying to start a fight; I'm just trying to save a step--and
> get a better hit-rate on those QSOs I do upload to LoTW. It is
> here. We should use it. But we should be also looking for ways
> to make it better and more relevant.
> My 2-cents.
> -- Scott (NE1RD)
> B. Scott Andersen  | "Magic is real, unless declared integer."
> bsandersen@mac.com | -- The collected sayings of Wiz Zumwalt
> Acton, MA (NE1RD)  | http://www.bsandersen.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>