[CQ-Contest] Incomplete LoTW QSL Records, Worthless ???

R Johnson k1vu at tmlp.com
Thu Feb 5 20:43:53 EST 2004

Hi Mal:
Your missing my point. It has nothing to do with how or what logging program was used.

People are not including ALL of their "Station" data when setting up TQSL !!!

Assume that I did not fill in the "STATE Field" in TQSL when I set it up.
Then I digitally signed my log and created a ".TQ8" file and uploaded it to LoTW.

Now you come along and up load your log to LoTW and find that we have a "MATCH"
for a QSO.  When you look at the QSO Details on LoTW you will find MY STATE DATA
MISSING therefor you couldn't use that QSL towards your ARRL WAS Award.

That makes My QSL Worthless to you !!!

If you download YOUR LoTW report and look it you will probably find that you
ALSO have about 30% incomplete LoTW QSL's !!!

So what I'm saying is about 30% of the 6000 users screwed up the TQSL setup and
are STILL screwed up and are sending bad QSL's.

All they have to do is edit their "Station" data in TQSL and then re-sign and
re-submit their logs and everything works FB !!!

Bob, K1VU 
At 19:00 2/5/2004 , N7MAL wrote:
>I have not seen any of these problems with LOTW. I have uploaded logs from
>XMLOG, Logger32, and directly from CT contest logs. I have 10% of my QSO's
>confirmed by LOTW. I think the reason the participation is not as good as it
>could be is because LOTW doesn't count for anything, so far.
>Somehow, someway 6000 guys have figured it out (even me) so it can't be to
>I do know I had a start-up problem and the LOTW guys responded very fast and
>corrected the problem within hours. You might try contacting them directly.
>MAL                N7MAL
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "R Johnson" <k1vu at tmlp.com>
>To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:39 AM
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Incomplete LoTW QSL Records, Worthless ???
>I had originally posted this message on the LoTW reflector. Several hams
>suggested that I might that I might also want to post this message on some
>other mailing lists so that more would be aware of the problem.
>Basic Problem:
>People are not completely filling in the "STATION" info in LoTW's TQSL
>thus causing incomplete QSL records.
>After noting several of my LoTW QSL confirmations were lacking complete
>"Station" info !!! I decided to download my latest "LoTW Report" and do some
>analysis of the situation.
>I must admit that I was a bit surprised at how bad this problem was.
>Of my 356 LoTW QSL's, 30% of them(108) had incomplete "Station Data" making
>of the QSL's useless for Awards other than DXCC !!!
>Here is a breakdown of my 108 bad QSL's:
>No Grid = 22
>No County = 2
>No County & Grid = 1
>No ITU Zone = 11
>No CQ Zone = 3
>No ITU & CQ Zones = 56
>No Grid & BOTH Zones = 5
>No Grid & ITU Zone = 8
>Note: I have no means (yet) of checking for missing IOTA data.
>So what is the bottom line ???
>I don't know, but as far as I can see these type of statistics tend to make
>useless as far as being able to use LoTW QSL's for credit on awards other
>than the
>ARRL DXCC, WAS and WAC Awards !!!
>The ARRL VUCC Award is questionable due to lack of grid info AND the fact
>the LoTW
>has very little acceptance by the VHF/UHF/SHF community, but that another
>story !!!
>Use of LoTW for Non-ARRL Awards is also up for grabs.  CQ Magazines Awards
>and County
>Hunters will need some of the missing data.  I don't know about US Islands,
>Islands and IOTA awards.  Awards like 10-10, SMIRK and FISTS are not even
>supported by
>providing a place to enter their #'s in the "Station" info.
>I think it is up to LoTW to make sure that the "Submitted Logs" contain all
>of the
>"Station" information.
>This could be accomplished in a number of ways:
>1-LoTW could review (electronically) all of the currently received records
>and ask
>    submitter to update his "Station" info (supply ALL info) and resign and
>    their logs.
>2-Anyone finding incomplete info on a LoTW QSL could submit a list of the
>    callsigns to LoTW and LoTW could ask them resign and resubmit their logs
>or have
>    them rejected.
>3-LoTW could refuse to accept any NEW submissions lacking complete "Station"
>    This might cause some of the current "offending" users to take notice and
>    and resubmit their logs on their own.
>4-LoTW could make the importance supplying ALL of the "Station" data better
>know in
>    the setup instructions. I consider it a poorly documented point.
>I support LoTW, but I'm starting to see it bogging down in a quagmire.
>So far there are less than 6000 Hams worldwide using LoTW at this time, so I
>see that
>this is the ideal time to make changes.
>Bob, K1VU
>     The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
>THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
>        http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list