[CQ-Contest] Mobile operation uploads to LOTW
mjc5 at psu.edu
Thu May 7 06:04:07 PDT 2009
On May 6, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Ed K1EP wrote:
> I have done this and it has been recommended by the LoTW people (at
> least to me). I have logs with callsign/# and callsign. Some log
> the /# and some don't. If I upload the same log signed both ways,
> then more will get a match. I have a lot of logs with callsign/M or
> callsign/CTY also. I have uploaded both. I don't see why it is "the
> worst workaround".
What we have is a bit of disconnect between database management, and
the desire of a Ham to get a QSO accepted. If you get your QSO
acknowledged, you're happy. That database isn't though. And it begs
the question, if your QSO is accepted as correct the one way, and not
the other, does that mean that you are massaging the log? Are there
other ways of taking advantage of this? Think about it....
Heck, I'm pretty lenient, but if someone submits two logs to me, I'll
ask them to choose which one they are going to claim.
I deal some in databases, and this two log thing is extremely awkward.
At least for my database, other things are being done. I can get a lot
of data and statistics, which would be skewed if there was multiple
entries for one QSO. Why would I want to add things that will distort
or eliminate some of the functionality?
So perhaps I'm a little more sensitive to the issue. To put it in a
Ham radio perspective, it would be like someone using a ratty old CB
linear modified for the ham bands. Most of us would say "That thing
is causing a lot of problems", but the Op using the illegal amp says
"Hey, I'm getting out, and that's all that matters to me!" It isn't
that people are trying to do something wrong in this case with LOTW,
but it doesn't mean its right.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
More information about the CQ-Contest