WN3VAW wrote:
>But what keeps getting overlooked, in the zeal of some to get their printed
>eQSL .jpg files accepted, is that what's really important isn't the eQSL
>"card" but the log data behind that card. Now come up with a way to
>securely store and access that log data, so that any organization issuing
>awards can electronically verify an award application without having to
>check over QSL cards, and you've got something that's a real breakthrough.
I just uploaded ~37K of contest QSO's to eQSL for the past few
years and see no major security problems with the way eQSL is implemented.
In fact, it is actually more strict than I would be if I were answering
QSL's directly where I would recognize problems like "wrong band", "wrong
time" due to local time, "wrong date" for the contest, etc. eQSL does
make it difficult to diagnose these problems but you can always reject
the card and ask the sender to check his data again.
I totally agree with Ron's statement above. I am personally aware
of numerous attempts to submit false confirmations for 160 QSO's over the
years and the ultimate test of these is not the quality of the printing,
etc, but the QSO data which is in the log. If a QSO is in question, ARRL
has on several occasions contacted the QSL manager to request actual log
data to verify questionable QSL's. Making complete log data available will
make it VERY easy to catch erroneous confirmations and should improve the
integrity of the system currently used at ARRL. In fact, I suspect the
current system is not nearly as "clean" for most DXCC QSL's as it is for
160 confirmations which are checked at ARRL HQ with someone looking at
a greyline map to weed out obvious problem QSO's. eQSL and LotW should
make the system even better!
I feel eQSL and LotW are major steps in the right direction for
all of us. They will improve the integrity of awards and will especially
make life easier for those of us making many contest QSO's who may not
enjoy the QSL burden that comes with them.
73, Bill W4ZV
|