[CQ-Contest] LOTW and Contest Logs

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

I was asked where to find the LoTW help reflector and thought others 
might benefit if I replied in this followup message.

The LoTW reflector can be found here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/

Note this reflector is NOT managed by the ARRL. It's a regular 
Yahoo!Group that was established in September of 2003 and now has over 
2,000 members enrolled. Recent discussions include the progress being 
made to increase the throughput of the LoTW system, and what impact some 
of the NH8S records will have because they were uploaded as CQ Zone 31 
(instead of 32).

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/13/2012 2:06 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>