[CQ-Contest] LOTW and Contest Logs

Edward Sawyer SawyerEd at earthlink.net
Thu Dec 13 17:15:56 EST 2012

Thanks Bob.  And all accurate information I believe.  Honestly, its about
time and hassle factor to certify each one of those callsigns plus N1UR and
NV1N (company radio club call).  QSLs are still available by all who want
them (the old fashion ways).


In my opinion, if your log is open to the public, adding it to the LOTW is
no more of a “loss of control” of your data.  If LOTW is going to bother you
then you are already not submitting logs to CQ.


The system is pretty backwards when the desired card is the one who is asked
to do something for the desiree.  Maybe we should ask QSL Managers to send
cards even if no SASE or green stamp is included.  At the end of the day,
the “user community” would be happier if the desired are made very easy to
be accessed.  It just seems too easy at this point not to.  Apparently, few
agree with me and that’s fine.


QSL direct or through the bureau.




Ed  N1UR


From: Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc at citlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:06 PM
To: sawyered at earthlink.net
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LOTW and Contest Logs


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

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


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list