[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] [CQ-Contest] LoTW confirmation rates

To: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] [CQ-Contest] LoTW confirmation rates
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:01:44 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>

On 2/11/2014 1:23 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
Some folks would complain if they were hanged with a new (free) rope.

Someone needs to point out that the emperor [still] has no clothes.

Rick, Bob and Dave have done a marvelous job rebooting Trusted QSL
and expensive new hardware has restored the original rapid processing
(time from upload to appearance) of LotW but none of this has done a
thing to fix the problems in the LotW server itself.


  ... Joe, W4TV

73, de Hans, K0HB
🌵Sent from Arizona 🌞

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM, null <Ktfrog007@aol.com> wrote:


I should have qualified my "runs so poorly" statement, or left it out
entirely as it was peripheral to my point.

The uploading log-jam problem was fixed a while back and there is new TQSL
software which is slick as can be and doesn't leave .tq8 files cluttering
my  computer.

However, there are other problems and I've encountered many of  them.   The
ARRL recognizes this and has set up a subcommittee to deal  with 'the
"technical debt" owed because Logbook's success has  outrun its original 
  Go to the LoTW home page and look at the news  items along the left side,
particularly those from

Jan 30, 2014
Apr 28, 2013
Apr 17, 2013

Also look at W4TV's reply (below).  He states it better than I  can.

Thanks for all the LoTW confirmations.

Ken, AB1J

In a message dated 2014-02-11 3:56:27 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
w5gn@mxg.com writes:
I was  going to post a reply, but decided to keep it private; I'm surprised
your claim of "run so poorly".  I just renewed my certificate and  it was
a completely user friendly experience, and I find the TQSL single  program
interface from which you can do everything is far better than prior  tools.
I uploaded 3000 Qs and within a day they had been posted to my  account.
What did you find wrong?
Barry  EI/W5GN

In a message dated 2014-02-11 3:50:18 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
lists@subich.com writes:
  Its too bad there isn't as much reflector traffic praising LotW now
  as  there has been (in the past) complaining about it.
It's easy  to hide a problem by spending $$$ to move it to faster
hardware.  To  date nothing significant has been done to resolve what
the LotW Advisory  Committee calls LotW's "substantial technical debt."
A second developer has  not been hired to focus specifically on fixing
basic issues with the LotW  code and implementing new awards (e.g. WAZ).
Now staff wants a *second*  system (why don't they fix the disk system
and use the old hardware?) as a  test platform, etc. and the current
IT Manager is wasting time on things  like the ARRL Centennial QSO
Party ... and disabling features that don't  work correctly.
LotW will get praise when it is fixed ... putting a  bigger engine in
front of a transmission that is inefficient doesn't fix  the problems
in the transmission even though the car goes faster for a  while.
... Joe,  W4TV
CQ-Contest mailing list
RTTY mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>