[CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's

[Bill Parry]

Mike,

It is too easy for us to play the "what if this or that" game. I can't speak
for Pete, and he and I don't always agree. I do believe that we
fundamentally agree on this point.

I suggested that there be a thoughtful review of the process by which we
interact with LOTW and QSL submissions by knowledgeable folks. I like the
system and believe that it has huge potential. I have no idea how to deal
with the problems that you and others pose. It points out that intelligent
people can think of issues that need to be addressed in this thoughtful
review.

Unfortunately, we often get caught up in minutiae on these reflectors and
forget the big ideas. I am assuming that most of us on this reflector are
members of ARRL and are interested in what is best for ourselves, our ham
community, and our organization. I firmly believe that our decades old
system of counting cards at the DXCC desk has outlived its usefulness. It is
expensive, slow and manpower intensive. I am sure that the hope of the board
was that LOTW would reduce the manpower requirements considerably, and it
might have done just that. Unfortunately we made other changes in our system
as well. We changed staff members, we added additional popular new DXCC
awards, and we did not include awards other than ARRL awards to broaden the
appeal.

Now we are stuck with a system that can do nothing but grow larger and need
more manpower. This is the reason I said that DXCC is broken. As has been
said many times, "if you keep doing the same thing, you will continue to get
the same results." I am not advocating a wholesale change in any part of the
system. I am advocating that we look at the system and see what needs
fixing. Maybe Pete, my mother and I (she always agrees with me) unhappy with
the current state of affairs. I don't mind if the ARRL makes a little money
of this program and I think it could if it was organized differently.

Currently, I have approximately 55,000 QSOs in the LOTW and I have nearly
10,000 matched qsos (or QSLs). Since many of those are multiple QSLs from
the same station like HC8N or W3LPL, is that the best we can do? I have a
submission at HQ to be added for my DXCC Challenge certificate and it will
not be approved with the current pace until nearly August, is that the best
we can do? After each contest I upload my adi file to both LOTW and e-QSL. I
do this because it satisfies the "wants" of those that I worked. I still get
LOTS of cards from guys that don't use LOTW, is that the best we can do?

If you agree that the current scenario is OK, then you don't have a problem.
If you do agree that it could be better, then you might call or e-mail your
director and ask if we could get some movement on coming up with solutions.
Not my solutions or your solutions but our solutions!

Bill W5VX   

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Keane K1MK
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:38 AM
To: Pete Smith
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's

At 07:17 AM 5/28/2008, Pete Smith wrote:
>When you add the element of a cheater's having to submit the multiple bogus
>logs to a major contest sponsor, who will be making the logs public, the
>scenario becomes vanishingly improbable.  All it takes is one person to
>blow the whistle - "I know that 7Q7AA was on home leave in England during
>the contest, so he couldn't have made the QSO."  The contest sponsors look
>for the one station that worked him, start checking his other QSOs, and
>then hang him from the nearest yardarm.

Okay, someone bootlegs 7Q7AA, calls N4ZR and sends in a Cabrillo log....
and it's N4ZR who then gets hung from the nearest yardarm?

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk at alum.mit.edu

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest