[CQ-Contest] LoTW confirmation rates

Bill Parry bparry at rgv.rr.com
Tue Feb 11 16:16:28 EST 2014

I am a little surprised at the complaint about LOTW.  I have been using it
since it started and find the current iteration to be pretty good. I was
irritated a while back when it took long periods of time between when I
uploaded my qsos and when they showed up. But that was fixed and it is now
very fast. 

I think that the HQ folks had been dragging their feet regarding hiring a
new tech person to help. The position had been approved a while back and
nothing had been done. I understand that it was a "subject of conversation"
at the last board meeting. 

Frankly, I don't think the WPX award is much of an improvement. I thought
about applying for it but with the cost per QSO for the award, it would cost
several hundred to get the award.  Not that interested!

I am still using the older TQSL software because it works fine for me but
understand the new one is fine.  I think the ARRL should be congratulated on
this excellent service. I am sure it can be improved and will be.

Bill W5VX

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Ktfrog007 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:50 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com; rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW confirmation rates

I should have qualified my "runs so poorly" statement, or left it out
entirely as it was peripheral to my point.
The uploading log-jam problem was fixed a while back and there is new TQSL
software which is slick as can be and doesn't leave .tq8 files cluttering my
However, there are other problems and I've encountered many of  them.   The 
ARRL recognizes this and has set up a subcommittee to deal  with 'the
"technical debt" owed because Logbook's success has  outrun its original
 Go to the LoTW home page and look at the news  items along the left side,
particularly those from
Jan 30, 2014
Apr 28, 2013
Apr 17, 2013
Also look at W4TV's reply (below).  He states it better than I  can.
Thanks for all the LoTW confirmations.
Ken, AB1J
In a message dated 2014-02-11 3:56:27 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
w5gn at mxg.com writes:

I was  going to post a reply, but decided to keep it private; I'm surprised
at your claim of "run so poorly".  I just renewed my certificate and  it was
a completely user friendly experience, and I find the TQSL single  program
interface from which you can do everything is far better than prior  tools.

I uploaded 3000 Qs and within a day they had been posted to my  account.

What did you find wrong?


Barry  EI/W5GN
In a message dated 2014-02-11 3:50:18 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim,
lists at subich.com writes:

>  Its too bad there isn't as much reflector traffic praising LotW now  
> as  there has been (in the past) complaining about it.

It's easy  to hide a problem by spending $$$ to move it to faster hardware.
To  date nothing significant has been done to resolve what the LotW Advisory
Committee calls LotW's "substantial technical debt."
A second developer has  not been hired to focus specifically on fixing basic
issues with the LotW  code and implementing new awards (e.g. WAZ).
Now staff wants a *second*  system (why don't they fix the disk system and
use the old hardware?) as a  test platform, etc. and the current IT Manager
is wasting time on things  like the ARRL Centennial QSO Party ... and
disabling features that don't  work correctly.

LotW will get praise when it is fixed ... putting a  bigger engine in front
of a transmission that is inefficient doesn't fix  the problems in the
transmission even though the car goes faster for a  while.


... Joe,  W4TV

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list