[CQ-Contest] LOTW and Contest Logs (What's LoTW running?)
Martin , LU5DX
lu5dx at lucg.com.ar
Fri Dec 14 17:55:24 EST 2012
Thx for the info Bob.
I can't reach http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/Description
I see in that reflector you refer to a big log being processed today. In
fact LP1H's log is over 100K Qs and 37,464 QSLs have been generated for it
There are still 25K Qs left that are not showing in LoTW. Not sure why.
I've uploaded the log on Dec, 4th.
I'll contact N0KLV regarding my subscription to the group in yahoogroups.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc at citlink.net>wrote:
> Here's the link to the splash page:
> Discussion Group for ARRL Logbook of the World (LoTW)
> LoTW was designed as an alternative to paper QSLs for award credit. It
> offers a lower cost and a more efficient way of confirming the contacts in
> your log.
> This discussion group provides a forum for LoTW users to get technical
> help and as a collection point for tools and information.
> If you wish to join please include your callsign in the subscription
> This is my way of protecting the membership of the group from spam.
> The group description is signed by *NØKLV*, so I "assume" he is the
> gatekeeper. His email listed on QRZ dot COM is:
> n0klv at n0klv.org
> His email address suggests he has a website but *n0klv.org* does not
> Looking him up in "Who is" says he has a couple other domains.
> His email is listed as:
> *kevin at gibsonhome.org*
> Some of his domains are registered with Godaddy and he is the admin:
> Admin Name:Kevin Gibson
> Admin Organization:N0KLV
> Admin Street1:2152 Beacon Drive SW
> Admin Street2:
> Admin Street3:
> Admin City:Rochester
> Admin State/Province:MN
> Admin Postal Code:55902
> Admin Country:US
> Admin Phone:+1.5072813116
> This address matches his QRZ dot COM listing.
> You should be able to chase him down with this information. I suspect the
> ARRL-LoTW administrative emails generated by the group might be going into
> a spam trap. (He is not seeing the subscription requests.) Or he's on
> vacation? I manage some Yahoo!Groups and have run into that problem and
> needed to take proactive action to prevent it.
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
> On 12/14/2012 6:40 AM, Martin , LU5DX wrote:
> Hi Bob.
> Do you know who manages the LoTW yahoo group? I've sent a subscription
> request and my membership has been pending for approval for the past ten
> days or so.
> Also I'd like to know if there is a landscape of the application.
> Right now there seem to be almost 9 million records representing little
> over 3.6 GB of data and LoTW needs almost ten days (!!!!) to process that
> amount of information, when it should not take more than just a few hours.
> Someone told each time a log is uploaded, statistics for it are calculated
> on the fly, in the same DB. So I guess there is not a separate reporting
> server or a data mart.
> Despite the fact that new hardware is being procured, what needs to be
> seriously revised is the app architecture. Otherwise, sooner or later, LoTW
> will be facing exactly the same issues, or the ARRL will be involved in a
> race for more and more hardware to keep up with the growth of the app,
> which is nonsense.
> Vy 73.
> Martin, LU5DX
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc at citlink.net>wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> has put all of its integrity eggs on the "validation of the source of
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> with every paper QSL submitted. So the same system can be used to make
>>>> 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
>>>> has been for the past decades), the ARRL LOTW has limited itself
>>>> in what should be a very painless expansion by just adding all final
>>>> logs to LOTW.
>>>> Its too bad but I am sure far too "bought in by the administration" and
>>>> too political to be changed. Lets just realize what "could be" if it
>>>> done differently.
>>>> Ed N1UR
>>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest