[CQ-Contest] LOTW and Contest Logs

Robert Chudek - K0RC k0rc at citlink.net
Thu Dec 13 15:06:25 EST 2012

Hello Ed...

Theoretically that idea should work fine, i.e., automatically ingesting 
adjudicated contest logs into the LoTW system. Technically is would 
"only" take a process of requirements gathering, software design, 
coding, testing, implementation, and support. Casting all that aside, 
there's another issue...

I believe some people would not be as philanthropic as you, when you 
wrote: /"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."/

It would be argued that their personal activity should not be a revenue 
source for "the league" in any manner. You only have to look at the 
controversy that irrupted regarding the "open logs" policy of the CQWW 
contests. And there's NO money involved with that! That boils down to 
the "loss of control" over their data.

But I am curious why you chose to not upload your logs to LoTW for the 
benefit of other operators? You did participate in the system 5 years 
ago, according to the "Last Upload" for your call sign. Your QRZ page 
says /"I am QSL Manager for 9M6/N1UR, XX9TEP, C6ARS, A52UR, PJ2E..."/ 
and none of those calls have ever participated. I would think you would 
make a lot of people happy by loading those contacts into the system.

I will say the support for getting users "up and going" on the system 
has REALLY improved since the last time you participated. There's also a 
reflector dedicated to helping walk people through the process when 
their initial attempt(s) get derailed.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

On 12/13/2012 10:15 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list