I don't think it's quite that simple... or for that matter, that
complicated.
Considering the number of contesters currently submitting electronic logs,
or using logging programs to generate their paper logs... considering
further the number of logging programs that can generate either ADIF and/or
Cabrillo format files, to say nothing of the number of conversion programs
available... what's the big deal about submitting two email submissions --
one to the contest organizer to enter the contest, one to Logbook of the
World -- by those that choose to use the system?
And -- since many have decided, at least for now for any number or reasons
not to participate in LotW, why would we "backdoor" them into the system?
I'm quite sure that there would be many screaming bloody murder about having
their contest logs matched into LotW without their prior knowledge or
permission (which, of course, will be blamed on the ARRL -- isn't everything
these days?). Why are we in such a rush these days, anyway? Do the
bragging rights of the award(s) involved mean that much?
As far as the DX contest credits, yes, they considered it -- I asked about
that at Dayton a year or three ago. The response was very detailed about
what could and could not be done and why, but the bottom line was that it
would only take an extra step and a few minutes to process the log with
Trusted QSL for LotW submission, so what was the big deal about it? I don't
think the "trust" issue here has anything to do with amateur morality, past
or present, but with making the system itself trustworthy. If you believe
the system can be easily compromised by bogus QSO data (as can so easily be
done with eQSL -- and I have a "P5SLIM" eQSL to prove it), you have no trust
in the system. If you do not trust the system, you won't use it or rely on
it.
The onus here should be on the contester & contest station, not the League,
the CQWW committee, or any other organization. If you want fast
confirmation for awards purposes of the contest logs, then encourage your
fellow contesters to submit their logs. It's that simple.
And FWIW, once I finally got off my duff, got my LotW credentials in order,
converted most of my logsm and uploaded them, I got more "confirmed QSOs" in
the first 15 minutes than I've seen in at least 5 years of eQSL activity.
Not sure what that means, but it sure is interesting trivia!
73, ron wn3vaw
12000+ post-1983 QSO's uploaded, pre-1984 QSO's to go
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:34:44 -0500
> From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Stimulating Participation was: Limited
> Antenna Height Category
> To: dezrat1242@ispwest.com
> Cc: CQ-contest@contesting.com
>
> I acknowledge that ARRL would be "letting down their guard" to some extent
> if they allowed block transfers of matched CQWW QSOs, but at some point in
> any such exercise I think you have to ask how much you are giving away for
> the last 1 percent of security. After all, how likely is it that somebody
> would cook both ends of a QSO in CQWW and then have both logs sent in,
> simply to fake out the DXCC system? I suppose you could even carry it a
> step further and have some internal rules about not crediting QSOs where
> both ends are uniques, or perhaps other checks could be accomplished.
>
> Its worth remembering that ARRL used to credit ARRL DX Contest QSOs for
> DXCC, if both logs were sent in and matched. To my knowledge, it was
> workload, rather than any particular scandal(s), that brought the end of
> that practice. Has the morality of the amateur community really declined
> so much that ARRL no longer dares even consider such a thing?
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> 10:59 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:46:57 -0500, Pete Smith wrote:
> >
> > >A harder problem may be achieving the requisite
> > >level of trust between the two organizations, even though things seem
much
> > >better now than in the past, when ARRL would not even mention CQ
contests
> > >in QST.
> >
> >_________________________________________________________
> >
> >The ARRL would have to give up their Trusted QSL protocol, wouldn't
> >they? How would you get around that?
> >
> >--
> >Bill W6WRT
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CQ-Contest mailing list
> >CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|