My Winlog32 does the eQSL thing automatically.. it does NOT do LOTW auto.. far
from it.IN FACT.. I have not been successful with LOTW in well over two years.
IF winlog32 or any logging program.. like N1MM would do the LOTW auto.. I'd be
plumb happy...and so would a whole lotta other folk too. (the ones that need a
Have a great day,
Dale - WC7S in Wy
> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:25:35 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW confirmation rates
> I am about 47% confirmed on LoTW and much lower on eQSL (although not
> calculated, country list is shorter). DX (outside NA) confirms more often on
> LoTW, and, over all, digital QSOs are confirmed much more often on eQSL. NA
> contacts confirm more often on LoTW or both. Digital contacts are confirmed
> overwhelmingly on eQSL.
> 73, Scott AA0AA; XE1/AA0AA
> > From: "Ktfrog007@aol.com" <Ktfrog007@aol.com>
> >To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:49 AM
> >Subject: [CQ-Contest] LoTW confirmation rates
> >Here's my observation of relative mode confirmation rates in LoTW and eQSL:
> >JT65 > PSK > RTTY > CW > SSB > FM
> >It sort of goes along with computer skills and maybe age.
> >I'm currently running 49.5% confirmed in LoTW. If I took out all the old
> >QSOs from 1960-1999 I'd be well over 50%. I think this is remarkable and
> >partly explains why LoTW seems to run so poorly now - it's a victim of it's
> >own success. A lot of my confirmations come from digital and RTTY QSOs.
> >Ken, AB1J
> >In a message dated 2014-02-10 8:59:24 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
> >email@example.com writes:
> >Many of these QSO's are already confirmed in LOTW (hint, RTTY contesting
> >has extremely high confirmation rates in LOTW).
> >CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list