Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+QSL\s+survey\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RTTY\]\s+QSL\s+survey\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Don W5FKX" <w5fkx@cox.net>; Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:41:56 -0800; Although this may be a bit off-topic, I hope that it is not objectionable. I am conducting an informal survey of QSLing methods and would very much appreciate your input. Please respond directly to m; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00030.html (6,801 bytes)
2. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Susan King <susan.k5du@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:57:13 +0000; 1. I use LoTW and like it. 2. I don't use eQSL and won't say why because I don't want to start a flame war. 3. I do use the ARRL Outgoing Bureau to respond to QSL requests from DX. 4. I use direct QS; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00031.html (8,203 bytes)
3. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Glenn" <wb5tuf@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:01:46 -0600; 1. I use LOTW and like it. 2. I upload my logs to eQSL but do not use it for awards. 3. I use the QSL bureau system but prefer LOTW. 4. I send direct QSLs when necessary. 50% 0% 40% 10% 73, Glenn Alt; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00032.html (8,305 bytes)
4. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "W5CPT" <w5cpt@bellsouth.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:29:24 -0600; 1 - Yes 2 - No - Only interested in ARRL awards 3 - Yes 4 - Yes 90% 0% 5% 5% Clint - W5CPT Although this may be a bit off-topic, I hope that it is not objectionable. I am conducting an informal surve; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00033.html (7,722 bytes)
5. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Phil Cooper" <pcooper@guernsey.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:57:47 -0800; Don, Not sure whether you wanted this direct, or personally, so I have chosen both. 1 YES! I was in right at the beginning, and have made applications for DXCC based on matches there. 2 NO - definite; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00035.html (8,471 bytes)
6. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Mark <n7mq@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:33:44 -0800; 1. Yes, from beginning and used for number of DXCC apps and endorsements. 2. Yes, but reluctantly. Locals like it and put up logs to appease my friends, but since then not worried with status, report; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00036.html (7,210 bytes)
7. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Dick Kriss <aa5vu@arrl.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:49:45 -0600; 1. Do you use the Logbook of the World (LOTW)? Yes and it is great! Wish more would use it. 2. Do you use the eQSL service? No and have no plans to use it in the future. 3. Do you use the QSL Bureau; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00037.html (8,073 bytes)
8. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Blaine AC0C" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:16:01 -0600; Glen, Please have the reply below. Of all the modes, the RTTY guys are by far the highest responding LoTW group. About 60%. Yet another reason to love this classic mode. 73/jeff/ac0c YES - I use DXKE; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00038.html (9,976 bytes)
9. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Jan Palmquist <jan.palmquist@mailbox.swipnet.se>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:34:06 +0000; SM5FUG: 1. Yes 2. No. One electronic log book is enough for me and I don't like to encourage a second. 3. Yes. I send cards for ragchew QSOs and I reply to all cards I receive this way. 4. Yes, for s; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00039.html (9,306 bytes)
10. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:06:43 -0500; YES - my preferred method. No - after more than a half dozen requests for "confirmations" by a certain middle-eastern station for QSOs for which I had cards in hand and, in some cases, LotW confirma; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00040.html (8,999 bytes)
11. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Andrei Stchislenok <asnp3d@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:21:09 -0500; -- 73's Andrei EW1AR-NP3D -- DXCC RTTY via LoTW only Who has what? - World Wide Rating Please visit: www.k4fo.com/cqrtty/ _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contes; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00041.html (10,703 bytes)
12. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Dennis Gabler <dgabler@prairieinet.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:33:23 -0600; 1. 90% 2. 10% 3. 0% 4. 0% 5. 98% Dennis W5DG -- Dennis Gabler Adel, IA. http://practicesite.iowamars.org _______________________________________________ RTTY mailing list RTTY@contesting.com http://l; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00043.html (9,996 bytes)
13. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Fabi va2up <va2up@live.ca>; Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:44:25 -0500; 1. Yes 90% Efficient, fast way of qsling. Simply love it. 2. No Never really tried it 3. 5% Using a lot less since a LoTW user. Tons of cards from the same stations at times. Simply not enough time t; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00044.html (9,796 bytes)
14. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Stuart Spatz" <slspatz@cox.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:14:10 -0500; 1. Do you use the Logbook of the World (LOTW)? Yes. Convenient and inexpensive 2. Do you use the eQSL service? No. 3. Do you use the QSL Bureau system? Yes. For band countries and replying to sent QS; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00046.html (8,218 bytes)
15. Re: [RTTY] QSL Survey (score: 1): Author: Stephen & Marilyn Haines <steveandmarilynhaines@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:49:32 -0300; Here's some figures that may be interesting. Since 2007 I have uploaded all my logs to both LoTW and eQSL. Right now I have almost equal QSO totals uploaded from Paraguay as ZP9EH and from the U.S. a; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00047.html (8,600 bytes)
16. Re: [RTTY] QSL Survey (score: 1): Author: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:20 -0500; The LotW and eQSL confirmation rates on 20-year-old QSOs are going to be lower than those rates on 1-year-old QSOs. For an apples-and-apples comparison, one should consider only QSOs made within, say; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00048.html (9,393 bytes)
17. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: Tom Carrubba KA2D <ka2d@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:07:30 -0500; 1. I use LOTW and like it. My preferred method of QSL. 2. I upload my logs to eQSL but do not use it for awards. 3. I use the QSL bureau system but prefer LOTW. 4. I send direct QSLs when necessary.; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00055.html (9,603 bytes)
18. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "Stephen M. Shearer" <wb3lgc@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:20:12 -0500; 100% for awards - LOTW = yes. Wish more DX would use. MANY of my latest QSL's are from QSO's more then 4-8 years old. Please upload your contest logs (I am sure you used a computer)... NO card checki; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00056.html (8,663 bytes)
19. Re: [RTTY] QSL survey (score: 1): Author: "danrolla" <iw1qla@tin.it>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:18:47 -0800; Don, perhaps you are interested also in the SWL side for your survey. Here following my answers. 1. No. The ARRL awards are not available to SWLs. 2. Very few. I do prefer a paper QSL. 3. Yes. 4. Yes; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00057.html (8,527 bytes)
20. [RTTY] QSL Survey (score: 1): Author: "Tom Martin" <tmartin@chartermi.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:29:57 -0600; 1. LOTW is my first choice. I have a 38% return. RTTY guys are the most responsive. 160 meter DX confirmations very poor at 16%. 2. Don't like eQsl. Will confirm if begged. 3. I use the various QSL b; /archives//html/RTTY/2009-12/msg00058.html (8,177 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]