[UK-CONTEST] Contest QSLing policies

[Jonathan G0DVJ]

I know I am late replying to this thread but that's symptomatic of  
the time I get to manage QSLs too at the moment.  I certainly would  
never get around to writing 50 cards by hand before breakfast like  
Don XTT :)  Very impressive if you can.

It was a timely thread for me since we had only just discussed a  
possible change to our Harwich Group QSL policy at a committee  
meeting the week before.  The context for us was that in a club of 20- 
ish members, only about half are do-ers as opposed to attend-ers and  
of those another half are computer literate (required for log  
processing these days) and of those few remaining after these  
criteria are applied, we are left with the same 3 bods which do so  
many other jobs for the club already.  So muggins here who has been  
doing it was raising the issue of whether we can simplify the work  
load or spread it around amongst more people or otherwise instigate  
change.

Our current policy has been to reply 100% to all QSLs as far as  
possible but not to duplicate requests.
As a group we have no interest in QSLs.  We never print PSE QSL on  
our cards.  We don't want the cards - they are not denoting  
individual achievement, and many of them are simply ordinary in the  
way that Justin alluded to in his posting to the reflector.  In fact  
I have some sympathy with both his views and with Nigel TXF's views  
despite them being practically opposite!   Cards we receive as a  
group simply end up taking up space in shoeboxes in someone's house.

The problem is as much one of policy as it is about mechanism.   In  
fact some aspects of the global QSL problem are incredible beyond  
belief.  There are stations who regularly (e.g. maybe 6 contests a  
year) work M4U on 6 bands/modes and QSL 100% of their contest log on  
paper to us.  So they are potentially sending us up to 72 bits of  
labelled up card across the world per annum, none of which we want.   
(I understand that 100% generation is done because its easier than  
them sorting out what comes in throughout the year etc.) But this  
innocent policy combined with our also innocent but different QSL  
policy results in us then sending them back some related number of  
useless bits of card which they don't want either.


So two incompatible policies are responsible for the unnecessary and  
unwanted exchange of card many times each year.  I am sure this is  
repeated for many more groups.  This is downright stupid!


We are only a small group - but M4U generates much interest from QSLs  
as well as G0RGH/P when used in NFD and Club Calls.
We use LoTW and eQSL and upload to both - these are not a problem and  
a great boon over the situation before we had such systems.  Neither  
are the small number of direct QSLs we receive - I am happy to  
process these by hand, and send back a paper card in a supplied SAE -  
the dollar bill is a nice thought but hardly necessary given the volume.
Those stations which use eQSL to request a card via the Bureau as  
well are a pain.  These requests have so far been integrated into the  
batches of cards I print filled out using ADIF files from the  
aggregated station logs into QSLMaker - this is not sustainable.

So we have a number of policy change options.  Our small group does  
want to as far as possible follow the ethos of QSL which Nigel  
described in his posting to the thread.  But it will not move to the  
100% send option - both in terms of cost and the fact that it just  
adds to the stupid problem I described above.  We will continue to  
use the 2 major electronic systems to cover as many requests as  
possible.  If batches from the bureau arrived at ideal times for  
someone who is already busy enough to deal with before a backlog  
builds up then it would be less of an issue but this isn't going to  
happen.  We propose to continue to check "whether the QSL is for a  
valid QSO", and that "the QSL is not a duplicate request for a card  
already sent for the same QSO".  Both of these checks add time per  
card to the process of generating batches to be printed.   We may  
split this part of the task from the mechanical process of printing  
the actual cards.   We are likely to move from printing the cards  
with the QSO details on to having pre-printed cards to which labels  
with the QSO and station data on are stuck.   This will add to the  
impersonal nature of the cards we send which will look more like the  
types of cards Andy was referring to.  Maybe we will get someone to  
volunteer to squiggle some so-called signature on top of the labels -  
but this too is a pain.

More I could write but am going to bed now !
73
Jonathan G0DVJ
--