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
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|