Here's the link to the splash page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Group for ARRL Logbook of the World (LoTW)
LoTW was designed as an alternative to paper QSLs for award credit. It
offers a lower cost and a more efficient way of confirming the contacts
in your log.
This discussion group provides a forum for LoTW users to get technical
help and as a collection point for tools and information.
If you wish to join please include your callsign in the
subscription request.
This is my way of protecting the membership of the group from spam.
*N0KLV*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The group description is signed by *NØKLV*, so I "assume" he is the
gatekeeper. His email listed on QRZ dot COM is:
n0klv@n0klv.org
His email address suggests he has a website but *n0klv.org* does not
"browse".
Looking him up in "Who is" says he has a couple other domains.
His email is listed as:
*kevin@gibsonhome.org*
Some of his domains are registered with Godaddy and he is the admin:
Admin Name:Kevin Gibson
Admin Organization:N0KLV
Admin Street1:2152 Beacon Drive SW
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Rochester
Admin State/Province:MN
Admin Postal Code:55902
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.5072813116
This address matches his QRZ dot COM listing.
You should be able to chase him down with this information. I suspect
the ARRL-LoTW administrative emails generated by the group might be
going into a spam trap. (He is not seeing the subscription requests.) Or
he's on vacation? I manage some Yahoo!Groups and have run into that
problem and needed to take proactive action to prevent it.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/14/2012 6:40 AM, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
Hi Bob.
Do you know who manages the LoTW yahoo group? I've sent a subscription
request and my membership has been pending for approval for the past
ten days or so.
Also I'd like to know if there is a landscape of the application.
Right now there seem to be almost 9 million records representing
little over 3.6 GB of data and LoTW needs almost ten days (!!!!) to
process that amount of information, when it should not take more than
just a few hours.
Someone told each time a log is uploaded, statistics for it are
calculated on the fly, in the same DB. So I guess there is not a
separate reporting server or a data mart.
Despite the fact that new hardware is being procured, what needs to be
seriously revised is the app architecture. Otherwise, sooner or later,
LoTW will be facing exactly the same issues, or the ARRL will be
involved in a race for more and more hardware to keep up with the
growth of the app, which is nonsense.
Vy 73.
Martin, LU5DX
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC
<k0rc@citlink.net <mailto:k0rc@citlink.net>> wrote:
I was asked where to find the LoTW help reflector and thought
others might benefit if I replied in this followup message.
The LoTW reflector can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
Note this reflector is NOT managed by the ARRL. It's a regular
Yahoo!Group that was established in September of 2003 and now has
over 2,000 members enrolled. Recent discussions include the
progress being made to increase the throughput of the LoTW system,
and what impact some of the NH8S records will have because they
were uploaded as CQ Zone 31 (instead of 32).
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/13/2012 2:06 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
Hello Ed...
Theoretically that idea should work fine, i.e., automatically
ingesting adjudicated contest logs into the LoTW system.
Technically is would "only" take a process of requirements
gathering, software design, coding, testing, implementation,
and support. Casting all that aside, there's another issue...
I believe some people would not be as philanthropic as you,
when you wrote: /"However it seems a shame that my logs that
are clearly //"//in the system" for contest results can't be
put to good use by those that do like LOTW and that the league
can't get more revenue from it."/
It would be argued that their personal activity should not be
a revenue source for "the league" in any manner. You only have
to look at the controversy that irrupted regarding the "open
logs" policy of the CQWW contests. And there's NO money
involved with that! That boils down to the "loss of control"
over their data.
But I am curious why you chose to not upload your logs to LoTW
for the benefit of other operators? You did participate in the
system 5 years ago, according to the "Last Upload" for your
call sign. Your QRZ page says /"I am QSL Manager for 9M6/N1UR,
XX9TEP, C6ARS, A52UR, PJ2E..."/ and none of those calls have
ever participated. I would think you would make a lot of
people happy by loading those contacts into the system.
I will say the support for getting users "up and going" on the
system has REALLY improved since the last time you
participated. There's also a reflector dedicated to helping
walk people through the process when their initial attempt(s)
get derailed.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/13/2012 10:15 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
I agree that LOTW could be considered "off topic" for
contesting. However,
if the "backlog status and report" is going to be paraded
in front of us
then this topic is more relevant than that topic, in my
opinion.
I personally am not an LOTW user. And I don't feel like
spending the time
to "re-certify my legitimacy" to be on it. However it
seems a shame that my
logs that are clearly "in the system" for contest results
can't be put to
good use by those that do like LOTW and that the league
can't get more
revenue from it.
Mike, W0MU, has completely missed my point on "faked
contacts". The League
has put all of its integrity eggs on the "validation of
the source of the
log" from LOTW but none on the "quality of the log data".
The Contest
organizers, with CQ leading, have put all of their eggs on
"verifying the
QSOs actually occurred" but truly very little on "did you
really operate
from where you said you did?".unless someone actually
accuses someone of a
non-legit operation.
At the end of the day, the DXCC desk already has a system
on making sure
that a contact does not get DXCC credit with a bogus
operation. They do it
with every paper QSL submitted. So the same system can be
used to make sure
that "tentative LOTW confirmations" don't get DXCC
credited when applied for
if the log uploader doesn't have sufficient documentation
to prove where
he/she was and with permission.
By having a system that puts security on the "upload"
rather than at the
"DXCC credit" point (which is ironically exactly what the
paper based system
has been for the past decades), the ARRL LOTW has limited
itself immensely
in what should be a very painless expansion by just adding
all final contest
logs to LOTW.
Its too bad but I am sure far too "bought in by the
administration" and far
too political to be changed. Lets just realize what
"could be" if it were
done differently.
Ed N1UR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
|