Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+LOTW\s+Percentage\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Lee Buller <k0wa@swbell.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:52:37 -0800 (PST)
I am curious as to the percentage of stations worked and station confirmed on LOTW.  Mine is running about 36%  Is that typical or am I low or high? I hope this is not off-topic, but quite a few cont
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00409.html (7,015 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: "Axel Schernikau, DL6KVA" <Axel.Schernikau@siv.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:41:07 +0000
Hello Lee, over all I have 144.800 QSOs in LotW (including a few expedition calls from 4K too). Of them LotW shows 21.380 QSOs are cfmd. So that gives 14.7% of QSOs are confirmed. But interesting ...
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00413.html (8,859 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: W2LE <w2le@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:53:56 -0500
With 95,657 QSO's in LOTW I've got a reply rate of 22% Paul W2LE _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00416.html (8,181 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: "David Levine" <david@levinecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:53:18 -0500
Before I throw out my stats, a bit of explanation might help. I'm a newer ham who has been on HF less then 1 year. Over this past summer I started contesting and specifically RTTY contesting. So I ha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00417.html (9,345 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: marcelo@alternex.com.br
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:34:52 -0300 (BRT)
Hi Lee Interesting question. Mine is 21,6%, my log spans back to '89 so the percentage for more recent contacts might be higher. Marcelo, PY1KN and station confirmed on LOTW.  > Mine is running about
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00418.html (8,078 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:56:13 -0700
You have to be pretty careful how you look at the percentages. Rates for recent QSOs run much higher than for older ones, of course. Contesters tend to routinely upload their logs to LoTW while other
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00419.html (8,672 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: "N7mal" <n7mal@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:20:12 -0800
Here are my numbers, for whatever they are worth. LOTW overall 26.2% LOTW DX contest 24.5% Overall=10years of all my logs I've been active on LOTW since it began.... 73 MAL N7MAL BULLHEAD CITY, AZ ht
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00421.html (8,508 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Lee, Mine has increased noticeably since Jan 1, even stuff from 2003 is starting to show up. Figure about the same rate as yours. SSB QSOs are taking longer than CW. Too, eQSL activity has increased
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00426.html (9,783 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:22:08 -0600
My hit rate is around 23% (10413/44904). _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00427.html (8,828 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Andrei Stchislenok <asnp3d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:55:15 -0500
Uploaded - 107,036 Confirmed - 37,534 It is about 35 percents. Used 9 different callsigns from 9 entities -- 73's Andrei EW1AR-NP3D -- DXCC RTTY via LoTW only Who has what? - World Wide Rating Please
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00428.html (10,747 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Fabian Kurz <Fabian.Kurz@mailbox.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:05:40 +0100
I'd guess it's a good indicator for a lot of QSOs with US stations in your log. My _overall_ LOTW rate is quite low, about 18% (ca. 95k QSOs). For US stations, it's better, almost 37%. For a DXCC lik
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00432.html (8,847 bytes)

12. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:01:57 -0600
My LOTW percentage seems fairly low compared to some of the folks that have responded. I believe that fewer stations upload their logs the longer back we go. I have inputted my logs back trough 1978
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00442.html (9,803 bytes)

13. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Art Searle W2NRA <w2nra@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:02:44 -0500
The percentages I'm seeing here seem low. If I count from when I became active again, Nov 2002, after a long layoff (back to 1997) my percentage is 46.4% (6,752 LotW QSLs out of 14,523 QSOs). QSOs br
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00445.html (8,509 bytes)

14. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: "K0HB" <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:30:53 -0600
I haven't done a "year-by-year" sort, but I suspect a graph plot would resemble a hockey stick favoring the recent. 73, de Hans, K0HB/W7 _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mai
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-02/msg00449.html (9,655 bytes)

15. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: David Pruett <k8cc@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:34:22 -0500
Lee, I think it depends on how old the QSOs are. I have uploaded all of the QSOs made from this current K8CC QTH (i.e., since October 1986). This amounts to just shy of 300K QSOs. The confirmation ra
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00007.html (8,593 bytes)

16. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:39:52 -0800 (PST)
If eQSL would make it easier to post county information, I would think they too would see a major jump in participation again. I like that about LOTW, but it's not useful for any awards. On the other
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00027.html (10,874 bytes)

17. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Ted Melinosky <k1bv@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:55:34 -0500
I understand that this limitation will be discussed at Dayton at the County Hunters Forum by N5UP and a number of county hunters. I've just received and processed the first 100% ALL EQSL confirmed US
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00037.html (12,161 bytes)

18. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Julius Fazekas <phriendly1@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Cool Ted! It will be fun to see who completes ALL of the counties on eQSL first, now small feat I'm sure! Something else that would be worthwhile is having the MARAC contests configured on N1MM, if t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00043.html (14,697 bytes)

19. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:25:43 -0700
it. Yes, they would love to avoid having to exchange paper confirmations. However, they will have to create an eQSL profile for *each* county they operate from. This is no small feat for people like
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00044.html (8,170 bytes)

20. Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW Percentage (score: 1)
Author: Tom Haavisto <kamham69@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:27:44 -0500
I am under the impression that the folks at eQSL made some software changes to accomodate working with CQ. Now that this problem of mobiles operating from multiple counties has been identified, perha
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-03/msg00051.html (8,898 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]
This search system is powered by Namazu