eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC

Joe Yuna (W4JDY) on July 10, 2013
View comments about this article!

After comparing a number of logbook programs and working daily with tactical Intel systems, I find eQSL the easy and smart way to log and QSL. LOTW is byzantine as is its intent. Cheating on DXCC - that would mean the end of the world?

Ham radio is to be about having fun, and not slaving to some archaic complicated certificate-based application that takes forever to set-up and confirm.

If this was one of my government systems, I would have failed LOTW on the basis of accessibility and usability - meaning the end user need not struggle to employ it.

37,000 plus global users and a GUI that makes LOTW seem eQSL look like Windows 8 to DOS.

Time for ARRL to quit dictating, and start supporting. If they do not understand modern software design and testing, then that is their problem. LOTW needs to be punted, and ARRL swing to eQSL that is so easy my daughter can use it intuitively in its native web portal or HRD access GUI.

I can confirm any QSL and any award in seconds with a single click or 2 keystrokes at most. Everything mates to any database or file export or import file format.

And the choice of generic QSL or homebrew QSL cards makes eQSL my favorite, leaving me to concentrate chasing down the weak ones instead of burning my eyes and brain out arm wrestling with LOTW.

W4JDY

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KE7TMA on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
How about we forget these proprietary web-based services that only exist to blast banner ads up our behinds and just use email?

Everybody has it - at least, everybody who could use eQSL, there aren't any banner ads, and it's never going away.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by NU4B on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
How is the ARRL dictating? Nobody is telling people they can't use eQSL.

DXCC is an ARRL award and they can set the standard for their award. It sounds like you are dictating to the ARRL.

If you like eQSL then you can apply for their DX award.

By the way eQSL is not a better way to DXCC because you can't use eQSL for DXCC. So by definition your title is wrong. It should be "eQSL - No way to DXCC"

The idea that a licensed amateur radio op can't figure out how to use LoTW is rather sad. How do they operate their rigs? I've never had a problem and its easy to upload and download to LoTW from my logging software.

Would cheating on DXCC be the end of the world? No.
But one reason many DXers go after the award is the integrity of the program. Integrity EQSL can't or won't match.

Bottom line: You don't have to use LoTW and I don't have to use eQSL. So let eQSL advertise for themselves.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"Time for ARRL to quit dictating, and start supporting."

NU4B posted his comment while I was typing mine, but...

There is only one way to DXCC. DXCC and DX Century Club is a registered trademark belonging to the ARRL. It is their program so they set the rules one needs to follow in order to qualify for their award.



 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N4OI on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"There is only one way to DXCC. DXCC and DX Century Club is a registered trademark belonging to the ARRL. It is their program so they set the rules one needs to follow in order to qualify for their award."

I have found LOTW to be a very easy to use and effective method to gain my DXCC without a single physical card.

My HRD also automatically uploads to eQSL for those who need to use it, but frankly, there are always some broken QSOs logged there.

I do not know how the ARRL could ever control the integrity of the DXCC without also controlling the electronic submission technology (i.e., LOTW)and process.

If a ham cannot, or will not, use LOTW, paper QSLs are available as an alternative. eQSL is not needed.

73
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KG4RUL on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
This is going to break down to two different camps: those who have been able to use LOTW successfully; those who have discovered the "joys" of a byzantine piece of software.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that eQSL is not needed. Its just another entity that has its own awards program and its own method of confirmation.

I have been using LoTW almost since the beginning. Yes, there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get into the system, but you only have to do it once (thank goodness!).

The instructions are very precise and they have to be followed in order and you can not skip any steps. If you follow the instructions to the letter, it will work... I promise!

I also use HRD and uploading to LoTW is almost as easy as eQSL. eQSL is 100% automatic and with LoTW, all I have to do is select the entry (or entries) from the log and click one button to upload the contacts to LoTW. There is no need to export the file into ADIF then convert that into a TQ8 file. All of that is handled with the HRD upload utility and yes, it even works with the free version of HRD.

For a single contact, the uploading process takes 10-15 seconds... if that long. And if its not a major contest weekend or the week following one, the contact is in the system in a minute or two... if that long.

So what's the problem?



 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K5WCF on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
The real difference here is obvious. The Logbook of the world is first and foremost not a logbook. I have to do all my logging somewhere else then create and upload a file. Why not make this logbook of the world just like every other logging program out there with direct entry. the idea of any program is to simplify a process and logbook of the world falls short of that goal. I should be able to sign in to LOTW and start entering my contacts, but instead I have to go through another program to enter my logs then create a file and then upload said file to LOTW. The only thing I can say is ARRL come on simplify this process and give me something I can use. Also when I open up LOTW and click on my QSO's thats what I should see not a query form. and same thing with awards show me the status of my awards not a page full of pull down menus. Not to mention there are so many other options eqsl, qrz, so you never know if you are actully going to get a qsl or not. IMHO if they would make this program a little more simple and a little more automated and allow for direct entry, then more hams might take to using it and moving us all forward towards an actual standard online logbook.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W5CPT on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
What NU4B said.

Clint - W5CPT -
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by WA8UEG on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Could not disagree more.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"The Logbook of the world is first and foremost not a logbook."

I absolutely agree with this 100%. The name "Logbook of The World" is misleading because LoTW is a portal to the ARRL award programs, nothing more. So let's call a spade a spade and stop whining about LoTW's shortcomings as a logging program.

"the idea of any program is to simplify a process and logbook of the world falls short of that goal."

Again, the goal of LoTW is to simplify the awards submission process by not requiring paper cards and in that respect, it is a complete success.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K0IC on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I think LoTW is great if there were not glitches with it, sometimes not the fault of the end user. I plan to use LoTW after in having it, and can not renew its certificate a year or two ago. I am all for technology as long as one does not have to get a college education to run it.

I have not had trouble running eQSL, but I think there are some calls I have not worked trying to get confirmation.

I still believe in paper logs for backup.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W3TLN on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Simply solution. ARRL needs a logging program integrated with LOTW.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way for some things  
by AI2IA on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have participated in eQSL since September, 2007. I have always held firmly to the concept that, "The QSL card has always been and continues to be the final courtesy." So, I use it mainly to continue to exchange QSL cards in a fast and inexpensive way, especially for foreign QSLs where postal rates are so costly.

I never was a paper chaser. I like to keep my shack decorations simple and uncluttered. Memories are for me the best awards.

For these purposes, I find eQSL is efficient and useful. As for my logs, my method is the paper logbook.

Variety of options is always best. I see no reason to create hostility between methods.

I wish that all hams may enjoy the activity to the fullest.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K6CRC on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
N0IU sez:
"I have been using LoTW almost since the beginning. Yes, there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get into the system, but you only have to do it once (thank goodness!)."

Just wait until you have to renew your cert. For me, it didn't work, no one seemed to know why. Took a while, but it is working again.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W8EIR on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
What AI2IA said. I use LoTW and eQSL to benefit those who are award chasers. I paper log call my calls too, and don't really have a need to chase after awards. My paper logs are my awards.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K6CRC on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I think the idea of a separate group maintaining a DXCC-like program is great, for those hams who enjoy challenges. eQSL or LoTW.

I am not sure if the ARRL is the group to do it, however. The LoTW is way behind on technology. The site is awkward and many have had glitches making it work. Even with recent hardware upgrades, it continues to be slow and intermittent in the log on operation. Read the reviews on eHam forum. There are clearly intelligent people, technical professionals themselves, who have had major issues getting LoTW working. Not just Luddites or ARRL bashers.

This is NOT a knock on ARRL or it's people. They are a user advocacy group not a technology supplier. We are talking two different kinds of operations here. Different people, different business.

ARRL may be better off spinning LoTW off and setting up as a user supported/ad supported site. They could put several ARRL people on the operations board to maintain to oversee the integrity of the awards, if that is an issue. Raise money from Hams, ads, provide awards for a reasonable fee, charge for card verification, etc. Maybe issue cards from DXpeditions, help them raise funds. Lots of possiblities here.

Another issue is the fact that LoTW is controlled by an American organization. I don't think that most Hams care, but there are many who would prefer a more global organization, and one not tied to a country.

eQSL exists because many see an need to have options to LoTW. The hobby really doesn't need more splintering than it already has. The average age of western Hams is rising, and we need to spread the hobby out around the world. Best way is to think though a more global, self supporting LoTW -type solution that utilizes technology much better.

I am an ARRL member, and believe it is a good organization. But, as they head toward the 100 year anniversary, it may be time for a reflective look at their role in global Ham radio hobby.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by WA8UEG on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have had it since the beginning and have had 0 problems . The initial process had me confused but a simple call to ARRL and I was walked through the process, took about 5 minutes. Since then not a glitch. I tried the new updated TQSL certificate that lets you sign and upload with one mouse click and it works great. My LOG PROGRAM which LOTW is not intended to be will process, sign & upload with a single click but the new TQSL program works with ease also. I would never give up my log program for an online log, I would not give up DX spotting, Rig control, rotor control, tracking of ALL awards, worked before and notes windows, Voice and CW machines, highlighted calls of countries needed, Gray Line, Switching to digital modes with one click, etc, etc, etc.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N4KC on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
In a review of LoTW here on eHam a while back, I gave the service a "3" because it was undergoing some serious processing issues and because I felt the whole security thing was a bit much. Since then, processing speed has been greatly improved. Renewing my TQSL a month ago was a breeze...once I figured out that the email link on the LoTW site to send the request to was incorrect.

They are making it better. Some of the guys working on it have posted a very short survey and everyone is invited to complete it:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M5VWV9V

Should ARRL develop a "logbook" app to go with LoTW? No! Every logging program I know--free ones and for-sale ones--interface very well with the system. I use N3FJP's ACLog and it takes a whopping 10 seconds to upload and another whopping 10 seconds to check for confirmations unless it is the Sunday night after a big contest. I see no need whatsoever for a "logbook" app from the League. Use the resources to continue to make LoTW work better and faster. And to figure a way to make it easier for DX stations to become users.

By the way, I also upload to eQSL on occasion as a courtesy. I typically find that 25% of my received "QSL cards" are from stations that are not in my log. Much as we fuss about the League's NSA-class security, I have NEVER gotten a confirmation on LoTW from a station I did not work, nor have I ever confirmed a QSO with someone else that was not in my log.

Oh, and if that cluttered, ad-filled interface on eQSL is what you prefer, I can give you some links to other sites you will just love...most affiliated with local radio broadcasters or old, self-designed MySpace pages.

73,

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
(Author of the new book RIDING THE SHORTWAVES:
EXPLORING THE MAGIC OF AMATEUR RADIO)

 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N2RJ on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I get a lot of bogus QSLs in my eQSL account. With LoTW there is blind matching.

I'd hate for some guy to get on honor roll with bogus QSLs.

BTW there IS a way to use eQSL to get DXCC. Print out the card and have the other station sign it.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by NU4B on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"BTW there IS a way to use eQSL to get DXCC. Print out the card and have the other station sign it. "

Great point!
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
N0IU sez:
"I have been using LoTW almost since the beginning. Yes, there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get into the system, but you only have to do it once (thank goodness!)."

K6CRC sez:
"Just wait until you have to renew your cert. For me, it didn't work, no one seemed to know why. Took a while, but it is working again."

Sorry you had problems, but I have been using LoTW long enough to have already had to renew my certificate. It was completely flawless and seamless and there was zero downtime from the time one expired to the time the new one became effective.
 
eQSL -- Another Way to DXCC  
by AI2IA on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
As I mentioned earlier up the chain, I have been using eQSL since September, 2007. I have never gotten a "bogus" QSL. There is a world of difference between a bogus QSL and an erroneous QSL. All it takes is a mis-copied letter or digit to get an error. Also, I have encountered many hams over fifty-one years in radio, but never one who wanted a paper award so badly that he would cheat to get it.
 
eQSL -- Another Way to DXCC  
by AI2IA on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
As I mentioned earlier up the chain, I have been using eQSL since September, 2007. I have never gotten a "bogus" QSL. There is a world of difference between a bogus QSL and an erroneous QSL. All it takes is a mis-copied letter or digit to get an error. Also, I have encountered many hams over fifty-one years in radio, but never one who wanted a paper award so badly that he would cheat to get it.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N6EZS on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I don't use any of them. I just print my own awards. (I just need Neptune for my WAP.)
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AF3Y on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
NU4B sez: The idea that a licensed amateur radio op can't figure out how to use LoTW is rather sad. How do they operate their rigs?

I agree, and the VERY short time I tried eQSL, I received many QSLs that were NOT in my log.

Since CQ has started accepting eQSL, my WAZ certificate does not mean nearly as much as it did before. But... At least I know all QSLs to get my award were legit and made by myself and the other station, not some less than honest ham wanting a QSL or award that he did not deserve.

To put it bluntly, I wont touch/use eQSL with a ten foot mast. hi hi
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K6RIM on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Most serious DXers define DXCC as an award issued by ARRL.

One cannot be awarded DXCC from the ARRL based upon "confirmations" received from eQSL. eQSLs don't count for DXCC or ANY award sponsored by ARRL.

So eQSL is clearly NOT "a better way to DXCC" as asserted in the subject of the post. Not if we are talking about the DXCC award sponsored by ARRL.

73,

Al, K6RIM



 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K8QV on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Whom do we impress with our "awards" anyway? Wives and girlfriends? Other hams? Ourselves?

I'll do my best to get a real QSL card from any rare DX I work just as a memento for my own nostalgic pleasure. I don't need to prove what my contacts are; nobody else cares anyway.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KO3D on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I've been critical of both systems. I think ARRL has come along way since they fixed their server problems (read: spent enough money to run the service). I also respond to anyone's valid E-QSL request (I don't post logs to the site.) Both systems are inadequate to replace paper QSLs at this time. I qualify for a couple of WAS and have 98 DXCC entities, but am not interested in ARRL awards. I have my cards and that is my proof of contact and of having met my goals. I've never seen a real award that you have to pay to get. It has the ring of sending in 50 box tops and a SASE when I was a kid. EQSL is fun for a casual "card" after a contact but it's still tied in with a proprietary system.(Quite frankly, I'll bet ARRL will be around alot longer than e-eqsl.) Most of the cards use the free templates and look the same. I get at least 3 false cards a month. The bottom line is use whatever system you like and enjoy. I would like to see a non-proprietary open source electronic QSL standard developed by a consortium or the IARU.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AC0X on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"Cheating on DXCC - that would mean the end of the world?"

As soon as I saw this in the article, I stopped reading. End of the world? Of course not. But if you're going to try to achieve any goal with an attitude of "cheating, so what?", you're not serious about it.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W0DLR on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have done accounting most of my life and used sophisticated software that would do practically anything. At no time have I experienced such a piece of stupid software as this LOTW is. It is hard to describe without the complete use of profanity. Long live Eqsl, of course ARRL will never accept it because it works, and above all, someone might cheat. Whooptiedo..it is just a hobby, and one that has become rapidly overpriced at that.
W0DLR Dave
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by ZL2AL on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
ARRL DXCC = A club which hosts the Premier Awards program in Amateur Radio. It also means Integrity as it cannot be fudged or cheated because it is blind matching. LoTW is just a method to cheaply match and confirm QSOs. LoTW is not all that difficult to use (I'm 75!!!) You don't have to use LoTW to achieve DXCC. There are other methods. But you still have to prove that you worked the entities that you claim with each of the three methods.

eQSL is like having a "print" of the Mona Lisa on your wall. It's not the real thing. It has little value outside eQSL users and frankly, I could Photoshop a better Certificate to hang on my wall if I wanted to.

DXCC is not an award. It is a club of like minded DXers who struggle to work every entity. I have great pleasure in belong to that club. I can't be bothered with second rate, easy to achieve awards.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W0DLR on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I failed to mention I don't give a flying flip about DXCC, mine or yours.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K4EZD on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
If the goal is to have confirmed contacts with a specified number of entities or countries, then make the contacts, get confirmation in any form that satisfies your own standards and then you are there. A piece of paper does not mean anything and is not the goal of the quest. If you make the confirmed contacts to your satisfaction then that should be enough gratification. You can download a copy of the DXCC certificate, photoshop in your own name and put it on the wall if that makes you feel better. It is not a medical degree, it is a made up certificate from a small private organization.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K7LA on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have no issues with LoTW, and found it easy to work with. Use eQSL if you like, just don't plan on getting ARRL awards.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by STRAIGHTKEY on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"37,000 plus global users and a GUI that makes LOTW seem eQSL look like Windows 8 to DOS."

The eQSL website looks like it was designed using Edlin in DOS. LOTW has its faults, but eQSL is just gaudy. But when you get down to it, eQSL and LOTW serve different purposes. LOTW is for ARRL award programs. eQSL is for people wanting to print out QSL cards or seeking awards other than ARRL awards.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W9CPI on July 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I always upload my logs (as both W9CPI and while operating from Paraguay as ZP9EH) to LoTW and eQSL. As ZP9EH I receive a substantial number of "blind" confirmations via eQSL looking for a positive answer for a QSO that never happened. That does not happen with LoTW. While I will always upload to eQSL as a service to others that do hunt their awards, I am impressed with how many "fishy" or faked requests I get from that system. I think LoTW is much more trustworthy.

Steve, W9CPI/ZP9EH
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"As ZP9EH I receive a substantial number of "blind" confirmations via eQSL looking for a positive answer for a QSO that never happened. That does not happen with LoTW."

In a very minor way, because eQSL will present you with the option to accept or reject QSL requests that are not in your log, this can actually help with LoTW.

If someone shows up in eQSL that is not automatically confirmed, I will look in my logbook just to make sure. In a few cases, the contact may be in there, but some element of the contact did not match such as the band or mode. If it is a state or country I would like to have, I will contact the other person and tell them what I found and give them the opportunity to correct their log.

With LoTW however, I would never know that someone attempted to confirm a contact that was legimiately in my log, but just that some piece of it was wrong. If I see that person has uploaded to LoTW at some time after the contact was made, I will contact them and ask them to check their log.

But even that is not the "end of the world" because unless it is a DXPedition to a rare country, I am sure I will have other opporunities to confirm that entity at some other time... unless it is Vermont on RTTY!

 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K5WCF on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"Should ARRL develop a "logbook" app to go with LoTW? No!"
Really it's called "logbook" of the World but has no logbook of it's own, let's stop and think about that for a second. If it's doesn't have a logbook then they need to consider a name change or add a logbook.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KT4EP on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I use both LoTW and eQSL for logging, to obtain certificates and awards, and to assist others for what ever QSL / QSO data and information they are seeking. LoTW seems more complicated but only at first. As to the software, whether up-to-date or obsolete, I don't particularly care about it as long as it works and I can understand what I'm doing with it. Believe it or not, I actually enjoy the typing part of my LoTW input. I do it manually. I like fiddling with my eQSL QSL "card" design. (Sadly, I think the days of paper QSL cards are nearer than we think, just like the art of writing a letter.) Although I like working for and getting awards and certificates, it's not the end-all of my operating. It's more about having fun on the radio, talking to new and old-time hams, and forever playing with antennas. Using LoTW and eQSL help me to document what I do on the air. Heavens, I still keep a paper log, too!
73
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N4KZ on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Once I began using a computer logging program that could upload and download LoTW confirmations, using LoTW became a breeze. I have renewed certificates twice without incident. I have stopped using eQSL because a bunch of people sent me eQSLs who were not in my log and I do keep a very accurate computer log. I've never gotten a single bogus LoTW confirmation.

The idea of having ARRL turn over LoTW and/or its awards program to another party is silly. It's not going to happen and it shouldn't. That goes into the same category as those who want the Dayton Hamvention to travel around the country. It's a huge show that uses a small full-time paid staff and a bunch of trained volunteers. Rotating it around the USA is completely impractical. The League started DXCC and I appreciate their efforts to maintain its integrity because there are those out there who will cheat if given a chance. Like those who request eQSL confirmations when you never worked them.

74, N4KZ
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by VE3KKQ on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
If you have Ham Radio Deluxe 6.x and set it up with the features it has, your HRD log is automatically uploaded not only eQSL and LoTW but HRDLog.net. HRDLog.net will even let you see who is on the air and what frequency they are on.

I use eQSL and LoTW, LoTW is a pain in the seat, eQSL is a cake-walk to use. The level of security at LoTW gives me the impression that the folks at the ARRL believe every ham is a cheater till proven otherwise. Cheaters only cheat themselves, their "accomplishments" hollow, mere losers.

All the awards by all the ham radio organizations in the world are great and serve to keep us all active, to poo-poo one system over another is just childish and serves no purpose at all.

No logging system is perfect, work with what you find works for you.

Now get off the computer and grab your mike, lets all get radio active!!

John
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K2AFY on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Very well said.

Each has its place. If someone wants to cheat they will find a way. Just like locks on a door they only keep the honest people out.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by NZ5L on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I admit I'm going to place myself in the "OT" category with the following, but here goes anyway:
The actual, physical paper QSL card is more than a path to an award, it is, and rightly should be, a physical reminder of a significant 2-way radio contact.
This significance may or may not be connected with an awards program.
Ideally, we should enjoy the process of communicating via radio while building international goodwill, and at some point, stand back and say "Hey, I've got more than enough cards to apply for DXCC" instead of rushing thru a 3 second contact (sometimes after a 30 minute wait) in order to log a new prefix.
I wonder how many hams with "computer only" verification are going to leaf thru their computer files 30 years from now to remember the high points of their DX achievements? It is regrettable that IRCs are no longer available in the US, but to my way of thinking a paper QSL is still well worth the time and effort.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
If I only had QSL cards for "significant" contacts, I wouldn't have very many!

I haven't been licensed as long as you Walt, but still when I started, the only way to QSL was on paper. I did go through my shoe boxes not too long ago and honestly, I couldn't tell any more about those contacts other than what was written on the card. I am sorry, but I just did not get all misty and teary-eyed reminiscing over those contacts from years ago.

As far as those "3 second" DX contacts... Most of the time after I give the other station his signal report, my name and QTH, 9 times out of 10 they will come back with, "73 Thank You Good DX... QRZ?"

And no, I don't look at the 100 electronic files that it took to get my DXCC Mixed, but I do look at that certificate on the wall every day. That is the high point of my DX achievment... so far! And am I OK with that. (One more RTTY confirmation on LoTW and I will have DXCC Digital)
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Norman... I had another page open with a guy named Walt!
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KB3PQT on July 11, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Good discussion. I use LOTW and EQSL. The problem I have with LOTW is there is no QSL card that goes with it. I'd like to introduce my nephews to ham radio some day. I can show them my log book, but seems kinda hard to show them a LOTW file. And while the decline of snail mail will eventually kill the paper QSL, an eQSL can be customized and stand out like a traditional card. I wish all hams would use both. With a computer log like N3FJP or HRD it is easy. Just quit fighting about which is better and use both.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W4FID on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Both "sides" are right.

e-QSL is easier to use and is a great way to get non official confirmation quickly. At age 67 I like to get a card ASAP and as inexpensively as possible. I do a file save and run them as a .JPG slide show on one of those electronic picture frames in my shack. It gives me a lot of pleasure and shows off my shack nicely. I know I worked them -- so I'm happy - working them is 95% of the fun for me. Confirmation is the tail -- it doesn't wag the dog in my world. A little show off to visitors is an added kick I get easier/quicker with e-QSL. I respect the paper DXCC certificate many of my long time friends have -- but I'm OK without it in my shack.

But it is not as "tight" as the paper card verification or LoTW and if I had DXCC via the traditional way I would feel the integrity -- value -- of my award was diluted or "cheapened" by an alternate system that wasn't as fully verified. Let's not loose sight that DXCC is an ARRL program. They invented it. They administer it. They do own it.

So have fun working DX. And participate in whatever follow up system -- if any -- you like for the level of verification you like for your definition of ham radio and it's related activities.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N7KFD on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!


I can't help but laugh at some of the comments posted here. How some people can be so passionate about a piece of software is comical. If you don't like it don't use it but don't allow it to be life altering, its still just a program.


 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N1RB on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
As to the comment about eQSL being akin to Windows 7, I have been enrolled in eQSL since 1986, and the interface is essentially the same now as it was then---what Windows version was available then---3.1? The LoTW came along much later and was set up to assiduously maintain the integrity of the awards. To compare DXCC with the eQSL awards is quite a leap. If you aren't concerned with honesty, or if you believe that all hams are in it for fellowship, good will, etc., I invite you to tune in to 14.313 some time.

I too, have had a few "false" contacts logged through eQSL. You will note that eQSL has lately attempted to improve the veracity of the contacts by including the time in the confirmation box. The bottom line is, "you get what you pay for". It is clear that the writer doesn't appreciate the ARRL awards program, so he can post his eDXCC creds in his shack and be happy.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W4KVW on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
eQSL is a joke.I have 1049 cards awaiting me(7/12/13) & I looked at the list & I have not even worked several of them.It is very easy to fake these contacts & some people just answer anything that comes into their eQSL box & never check to see if they actually worked them.I do not & will not be retrieving those QSL's.I let anyone who reads my QRZ.com or eham bio know that I only do REAL PAPER QSL's & I also do not use Logbook of The World.Some people who are associated with eQSL think that everyone is REQUIRED to answer the eQSL's that are sent to them & even sent me an email DEMANDING that I answer them but I just ignored him & his ranting.AS far as I'm concerned eQSL is useless & a waste of time I wish the people who run eQSL would just remove those of use who do not wish too use their so called service so people would stop wasting their time sending them to us & awaiting a reply which will NEVER come.It's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE & I and many others CHOOSE not to uses eQSL NOW or EVER. {:>)

Clayton
W4KVW
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KB3LIX on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I am mostly computer illerate. My background
is in radio BEFORE computers hit the scene.
I had NO PROBLEM getting LoTW set up and I use
it after each contest, and twice a month
for general logging.

As someone else said, eQSL-NO WAY TO DXCC

I have had NUMEROUS bogus QSL show up on eQSL.
I always check my log before I confirm contacts.
Many of the entires I have rec'd were crap.
No such contact.
So many that I have quit using eQSL months ago.

Sorry, I'll stick with LoTW.

It works for me, and the awards I want are supported
by LoTW.

eQSL is worthless to me.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AF3Y on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Just use LOTW and ASK FOR A PAPER CARD, if needed/wanted. How hard is that? I use LOTW, but I always want a card for a new one. I can send the $$, if needed, to get it, but LOTW is still my choice. Two many cheaters on eQSL.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by VE3FMC on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have used EQSL for a few years now. Since I am not chasing any ARRL awards it does the trick for me. I upload the log info after every contact, as soon as it enters HRD log.

I have had a few cards show up that I did not have in my log and I reject them with "Sorry not in the log" I get cards for JT65 contacts that I did not receive a signal report for, I reject them as they are not in my log.

I wanted to set up a LOTW account but did not want to bother photo copying my license and other paperwork so the ARRL would be satisfied it was me who was actually setting up the account. Plus I had to mail all of that to them, they do not accept that documentation by email. (This is year 2013 isn't it?)

So for me EQSL works just fine. Saves me a lot of money in stamps and I can save the Jpeg's and print them out if I want a certain card on paper.

Both systems have their merit so to each his own I say.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KG4RUL on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I am paper only. I don't chase awards so I don't need or use LOTW or eQSL. As someone looking in from the outside, and with an extensive background in software development, I can comment that eQSL is light on validity checking and LOTW is way over the moon in validation. As others have rightfully commented, it is supposed to be a fun pursuit, not a holy war!!!!
 
eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by AI2IA on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I repeat for the benefit of the easily influenced down the thread, what I said back a way up the thread:This is my true statement -

I have been using eQSL since the Fall of 2007. I keep a handwritten log book. I have Never had a single so-called Bogus eQSL. None. Zip. Nada.

If you want to beat the drums for LOTW, as good as any other, saying you have seen so many Bogus eQSL entries is raising things to a most suspicious level.

To all I say try both, don't go by what others try to tell you. See for yourself. It is not a case of Bogus at all. It is indeed a case of what features mean the most to you. So, for all you who can think for yourselves, believe none of what you read and half of what you experience for yourself.
 
RE: eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by NU4B on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"believe none of what you read and half of what you experience for yourself."

Does that go for the original article?
 
RE: eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by AH6WX on July 12, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I am from the paper log generation, and I type with one finger. OK, don't forget us as we still work our share of DX. Ham radio is for all generations,

Personally I find logging programs and LOTW to be useless in my situation.

I use a paper log, and I want a paper QSL from the recipient when I work a new country. Some computer log entry just isn't the same. My disappointment is great when a new one just says Lotw and/or Eqsl only. I might just as well have not bothered to make the contact.

Let's be a little more tolerant, remembering DX seeking operators can range from elementary school children to centenarians.
 
RE: eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by K7DZW on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Since the new owners took command HRD SUCKS.
HAMRADIODELUXE HAM RADIO DELUXE SUCKS.
 
RE: eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by G3RZP on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I am like AH6WX - paper log, an FT102 and 339 on the current DXCC list confirmed. Would be nice to finish 9BDXCC - 4 bands to go - and even nicer to have KP1 activated!
 
RE: eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by N4KC on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Guys! If you want to keep a paper log--or chisel it into a block of granite after every contact--do it your way!

If DXCC and award-chasing is, to you, the equivalent of recreational mud-wrestling, then fine! Ragchew or QRP or PSK or do with your nice little RF emitter whatever yanks your crank.

If you refuse to QSL any way other than with a paper card or by eQSL or by LoTW or by engraved, commemorative, minted, silver coins delivered by carrier pigeon, then go right ahead. Though it seems a bit discourteous and inefficient not to use all available means of confirming a contact, it's certainly your right to do as you please.

The point of this article--and one that is quite obvious--is that if you want to earn DXCC, the eQSL service is superior to Logbook of the World. That is wrong, of course, since you cannot easily earn DXCC credit for contacts confirmed through eQSL. Or credit for just about any other major award for that matter.

If you simply want a generic electronic QSL "card," one you can print or stick into a digital picture frame, then yes, eQSL offers that at no charge.

If you want to receive verification that you have worked enough states or zones or "countries" for awards offered by the ARRL or--in some instances--CQ Magazine, then you have three options: 1) Logbook of the World, 2) traditional paper cards, or 3) a mix of both. And their service is free as well.

Since LoTW offers true verification of contacts and is, despite all the bellyaching, not that difficult to use, I employ option 3 above. It is an extension of my computerized logging software, which I also choose to use, though no one is denigrating anyone else for doing something less 21st-century. I grab LoTW updates in seconds and it automatically tracks totals. And when I get a QSL card in the mail or a pack of them from the bureau, I check a box on each QSO record to verify I received it and again when I send out one. That gets added to the totals, too.

I have 300 countries worked and 277 confirmed, with over 100 confirmed on all bands but 160 and 80, either through LoTW or by good old paper cards. I have not applied for any certificate yet. I may or may not.

You have to understand that getting the valid confirmations is part of the challenge, not just working them. Sure, I know I worked them. I have it confirmed and the software log and LoTW helped mightily in keeping up with it all. Gosh knows how much time and money and effort I have saved getting many of the confirmations via LoTW.

But if you don't want to fool with any of this stuff, fine. If you don't care, why do you post on a topic like this to tell us you don't?

Is it that old "my way or no way" mentality? I posit it is so in many cases. "If you don't like what I like then what you like is junk!"

As the late Rodney King asked, "Why can't we just get along?"

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
(Author of the new book RIDING THE SHORTWAVES:
EXPLORING THE MAGIC OF AMATEUR RADIO)




 
RE: eQSL -- twisted into bogus eQSL? - Not!  
by N0IU on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"The point of this article--and one that is quite obvious--is that if you want to earn DXCC, the eQSL service is superior to Logbook of the World."

The thing you don't understand (no matter how many amateur radio books you have written) and that the OP does not understand and as I pointed out above as have other people who have contributed to this "article" is that DXCC® and DX Century Club® are registered trademarks of the American Radio Relay League... period! End of story.

This is not my opinion. It is not speculation or a matter of conjecture. It is not open for debate. It is not something that needs to be interpreted by the FCC or a communications attorney.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

OK, so let's say you want to be a member of the ARRL's DX Century Club® but you don't want to use a "byzantine" piece of software that is overly complicated and too difficult to use. No problem! Just submit your paper cards the way it has been done since the program started and still works today.

So there are two ways to gain admission into the ARRL DX Century Club®; electronically or on paper.

But then let's say you want to get an eDX100™ certificate? There is only ONE WAY to do this and that is with confirmations through eQSL. And just like the ARRL will not accept eQSL confirmations, eQSL will not accept paper QSL cards for their awards.

"13. No proofs of contact other than eQSL cards posted to the eQSL.cc database will be permitted."

Furthermore, a "normal" confirmation is not good enough!

"10. Proof of contact is defined as an eQSL card received from another ham with an approved Authenticity Guaranteed certificate."

So who has a system that is more flexible, the ARRL or eQSL?
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AC7DX on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
What NU4B said and if your too lazy to deal with the LOTW promps..DONT USE IT!!!!
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N7WY on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
eQSL is not the way to DXCC. LoTW is the only way. Some folks call LoTW complicated, others not. My experience: a) download the software and install it (easy), b) request validation using TQSL Cert (easy), c) when the post card arrives, finish the certificate process (easy), d) dump your logs into ADI type 2 format (key, value, not XML) (most modern loggers do this easily), e) use TQSL or your logging program to upload your logs (easy), and f) see where you stand and apply for ARRL awards using the ARRL LoTW website (easy).
Using eQSL for a bunch of QSOs is torture.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N4KC on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
N0IU, kindly read the rest of my post--including the very next sentence after the one you excerpted--before calling me an egg-sucking dog.

73,

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
(Author of the new book RIDING THE SHORTWAVES:
EXPLORING THE MAGIC OF AMATEUR RADIO)
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KB2FCV on July 13, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with some of the other comments on eqsl.. I have many cards there of people I've never worked. DXCC is easier than ever with lotw now. As long as eqsl works the way it does it will never integrate with arrl dxcc program. Arrl has their rules and that's just the way it is. It works for me and thousands of others.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Well then I apologize Don.

But that next sentence says, "That is wrong, of course, since you cannot easily earn DXCC credit for contacts confirmed through eQSL."

I made my statement because you can not earn ANY credits for ANY other award through eQSL except for their own awards.

OK Don, maybe you do get it, but the author of this "article" does not. I also find it interesting that he has not made one single contribution to his own article since the initial submission.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N4KC on July 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
N0IU:

"I made my statement because you can not earn ANY credits for ANY other award through eQSL except for their own awards."

Actually, you can...sorta. Print that lovely "card" that wafted in on eQSL, send it to the DX station, have him sign it and return it to you, and then submit it for checking, just as you would a traditional paper card.

Like I said, it ain't easy!

You and I are in total agreement. LoTW is not perfect but it certainly beats the old way for many of us, and continues to get better. (I do wish the League would make it easier for DX stations to get going!) If you want electronic validation of contacts for ARRL (and now some CQ Magazine awards), LoTW is the only way. But you can still do it the way guys have done it since before you and I were modulating a baby bottle...by going through the bureau/"green stamp"/SASE/begging exercise to (maybe) get a card.

eQSL is okay for those who want what they offer. I go there and confirm valid contacts periodically as a courtesy.

And again, I love getting paper cards, especially now that printing methods have lowered costs and allow guys to do customized cards that show and tell us about their corner of the world, occupation, family, shack, non-ham interests and more. My first card was a map of the U.S.A. with a star in my state. Wow! That's informative!

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
(Author of the new book RIDING THE SHORTWAVES:
EXPLORING THE MAGIC OF AMATEUR RADIO)


 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by WA8KAZ on July 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
To each their own. Follow the rules for the award you want. I have DXCC using both cards and LoTW. I work
for awards from ARRL and CQ.

WA8KAZ Wayne
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K9NZ on July 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!

LoTW is not perfect, But you have play by the ARRL's rules or it not "DXCC" that simple. I am not that great on a computer but even I managed to get it going.
There are too many things today made easier because the
Original was too dif·fi·cult (1.Needing much effort or skill to accomplish) just my thoughts.
K9NZ









 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by VA3MA on July 14, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I don't know how this article was justified by the moderator - as information of value or general interest.
It is just a single persons opinion that has no general interest or value to others.
Please in the future eliminate such articles.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W1JKA on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Re:VA3MA

What is no value to you may be of considerable value to others, it is up to the individual reader to separate the wheat from the chaff in accordance with his/her own way of thinking.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have no objection to someone expressing their opinion. My objection is that the premise of the article if factually incorrect.

It has already been well established by me and others that you can not earn DXCC through eQSL... period.

And I also think it is curious that the author of the article has not made a single contribution to this discussion beyond the original article. But after reading some of the responses, I don't know if I would come back if this was an article I had written!
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W4AMP on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I prefer regular QSL cards myself.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by M0EDY on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
NO BANNER ADS ON MY EQSL SITE USE A AD BLOCKER
I BET ALL THE MOANERS ABOUT EQSL WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK
ME IF I HAD A P5 CALL SIGN AND QSL VIA EQSL
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KG8JF on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
There was a short period of time after eQsl got up and running where the ARRL was going to accept eQsl for DXCC credit. Then they got paranoid and created LOTW which is a byzantine effort, to "keep us honest".
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K2XE on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I am not taking sides - I use both. I have been subscribed to both since 2009. I send the same logs to both about once a week. The results are 138 countries confirmed on LoTW and 92 countries confirmed on eQSL. It appears to me that more hams worldwide are using LoTW. With that said, I still have about 5 countries confirmed on eQSL that are not confirmed on LoTW.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by STRAIGHTKEY on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>I BET ALL THE MOANERS ABOUT EQSL WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK
ME IF I HAD A P5 CALL SIGN AND QSL VIA EQSL

Not really. Eqsl isn't valid for DXCC. But you would probably make the handful of people pursuing eDX awards happy.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KD8MJR on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Why use LoTW over eQSL?

Simple, LoTW has 70 years of history behind it. When I win an award my name Joins onto a list that goes back to the days of my Grandfather and my achievement is gauged against all the legendary Dxing Ham Radio operators who have ever graced the bands.

With eQSL I feel like I am winning a Internet prize and I know it has no history behind it.

BTW the other posters are right in saying that with eQSL you do get bogus contact claims. I have also gotten a few people emailing me trying to do the same with LoTW but the volume is much smaller.

One thing I will agree with is that LoTW needs to update their software ASAP.
 
All awards are illusions  
by AI2IA on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
LOTW, eQSL, no matter!

All awards are illusions. All of them.

Your personal highest accomplishment is your logbook, and for all of you hopefully it is a work in progress.

Awards are what others confer upon you. Logbooks are testimony of what you can do for yourself.

This is the real reason, the only reason, that it does not matter whether LOTW or eQSL. You hold the accomplishment in your own logbook.

Every thing else is just a decoration. Your logbook is your own record of facts.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N8YQX on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
What's the big concern with fake QSLs? Considering the technology available to average hams today, it would not be difficult to fake a QSL card with a good consumer grade printer and some card stock. Since most DX stations return using the self-addressed envelope, most QSL cards don't have any stamp or cancellation stamp as proof that it was sent from the DX.

In fact, I've received QSL cards from hams printed on photo paper using their inkjet printer.

It's not like card checkers have some magical power, and it's not like QSL cards have some official security feature (hologram, encrypted bar code, etc). So we put our trust in paper QSL cards, but are worried that dishonest hams will fake eQSL? Is that logical, rational thinking?

Ultimately, its ARRL's award, and they can run it as they see fit. But does it make sense for the ARRL to make us work harder because of a perceived threat, that it ignores on another front?
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC? Not really.  
by N1KDO on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
There is NO DXCC with eQSL.

I have uploaded the SAME logs to LoTW and eQSL.

Guess what?

on LoTW I have 145 countries confirmed, and DXCC
on eQSL I have 67 countries... less than half.

on LoTW I have WAS, all 50 US states worked.
on eQSL I only have 42 states.

This is the EXACT SAME logs.

Your mileage may vary. My opinion is that the ARRL awards are recognized and respected worldwide, eQSL, not so much. I don't think the serious DXers are putting much effort into eQSL, but they do upload to LoTW.

I too am appalled that so many "Extra Class" hams cannot seem to get LoTW working. "It's too complicated." Get a grip, folks, this is a technical hobby. If it's too difficult for you, perhaps you should take up bowling.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by JOHNZ on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Some hams prefer regular QSL cards, but I prefer irregular QSL cards.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by STRAIGHTKEY on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>Some hams prefer regular QSL cards, but I prefer irregular QSL cards.

Activia can fix that.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W2NLS on July 15, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I use Ham Radio Deluxe and have it set up so as send and receive confirmations from both eQSL and from LOTW. Setting up LOTW was, indeed, a nightmare. I edited various computer journals and ran online computer help areas for 25 years. Based on that I think that the LOTW certification process is the most complex consumer-level website design of which I am aware. This is more secure than any bank-on-line system, and credit card area and certain government areas. There is no doubt that DXCC awards need to be secure from fraud. There is also no doubt that this system discourages an order of magnitude of users more than it enables. Is that an even tradeoff? I don't feel that it is. There are many other styles of systems that would not require the draconian certification process. In fact, I think the present certification process is hackable and is not as secure as ARRL may think. I would like to see LOTW move to some sort of system which does not require the certification program.

eQSL, on the other hand, is open and friendly and easy to use and does not seem to have caused a tremendous amount of fraud. I know that I used eQSL to apply for and receive a few CQ Magazine DX awards as well as three from eQSL. I don't see CQ Magazine suddenly backing away saying the dam busted on the amount of applications.

Full disclosure -- I do have DXCC that was almost solely earned via LOTW. Only two paper QSLs and that was because I was impatient. So I am not saying LOTW is impossible to use. But it is far, far, far more difficult to use than it has any need to be.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"Setting up LOTW was, indeed, a nightmare."

"So I am not saying LOTW is impossible to use. But it is far, far, far more difficult to use than it has any need to be."

Step 1) Download and install the software. They even have instructions with screen shots.

Step 2) Once the software is installed, you request a certificate using the software.

Step 3) Authenticate your location. This is where they mail you a postcard with an 8 digit number on it and then you type that number into the certificate software.

Step 4) Using that email, load your certificate per the included instructions.

Step 5) Create a station location. Pretty obvious what to do here.

Step 6) Sign and upload your logs. Very easy to do with most logging software. It does it all in one step.

This is a nightmare for you?

Over 58,600 hams worldwide seemed to have figured it out!

And I am with N1KDO. I have sent LoTW and eQSL the exact same logs and there is not one single category in which I have more confirmations on eQSL than on LoTW despite the fact that eQSL has more than 215,000 users!

Sure, it may be easy to set up eQSL, but fewer people seem to be actually using it!
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KB3WGE on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I have used eqsl,postal qsls (direct)& hrdlog.net means of attaining 113 dx contacts operating in a 9 month period ssb 40-10 mtrs.I plan to go to Newington CT to plead my case in person to the ARRL for a DXCC award. In my opinion they should be more than happy (with burnden of proof I provide by the afformentioned means of verification) pay the $$$$ for the certificate & print it while I wait!! If they will not play ball with me that way, well lets just say they should be a little more openminded. Respectfully Jimi* Ryder KB3WGE ROCK ON !!!!!! juttard@yahoo.com
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W2NLS on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Yep, that is a nightmare compared to almost any other type of security on the net. Did you go through all of that to access your bank account online? The fact is that this is a silly level of security for what it is that they are trying to protect. And, as I said, it is eminently hackable. Indeed, the silly-season secirity is just the type of thing which could attract a hacker as a challenge.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
KB3WGE sez:

"I plan to go to Newington CT to plead my case in person to the ARRL for a DXCC award."

Its your gas, waste it if you want.

The rules for gaining admission into the DX Century Club and very specific and very clear. Why should they let you make up your own rules?

You go on to say, "If they will not play ball with me that way, well lets just say they should be a little more openminded." So since you don't want to "play ball" by their rules, they are the ones who are not being open minded?

OK, so let's use your criteria and say that I want an eDX100 plaque. They are really nice looking and would love to have one on my wall. I have well over 100 cards from DX stations that I can submit to eQSL. But you know what? Those cards are absolutely useless in terms of qualifying for an eQSL award!

At least with DXCC, I have the choice of using cards or LoTW verification. But with eQSL, there is only ONE way to qualify for their awards. And not only do they have to be eQSL confirmations, they have to be "Authenticity Guaranteed" to boot!

So really, who is being more open minded? Why isn't anyone complaining and whining and moaning about how hard it is to get an eQSL award?
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W2WP on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I use both LoTW & eQSL. I like LoTW world better as eQSL seems to have to many wrong/bogus/error contacts. I get a few 80m contacts to confirm every month as well as 160m every few months. I have no capabilities to work those two bands.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by JOHNZ on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
@straightkey
LOL, a good one! Activia. Glad to see you and I don't take this ham "hobby" so seriously. Could never understand the serious way hams go after qsl cards to win some silly ARRL certificate, as if the certificate was a college degree from some famous university.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W0DLR on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
You got to admit the ARRL takes it serious, you sure don't need a degree to listen to 14.313.00 The Pride and Joy of Amateur Radio, makes CB look good somtimes.
Dave
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KD8MJR on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I think this is all very pointless. It all comes down to just a few things.

1) We all agree LoTW software is crap.

2) We all know eQSL is more susceptible to Fraud. Some people don't care but most do.

3) Almost everyone agrees that LoTW awards are more prestigious than eQSl and certainly more coveted.

Add up all the factors and it turns out that eQSL is not a better way to DXCC. Mainly because only half of Hams think it's worth the paper it's written on and the other half don't seem to care one way or the other but everyone seems to covet a LoTW based DXCC so it's clearly the best way to go if your interested in recognition by all your peers.



 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by STRAIGHTKEY on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>You got to admit the ARRL takes it serious, you sure don't need a degree to listen to 14.313.00 The Pride and Joy of Amateur Radio, makes CB look good somtimes.

I must not have drank enough yet because this just doesn't make sense.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by STRAIGHTKEY on July 16, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
>We all agree LoTW software is crap.

I don't agree with this. The implementation is technically strong, they just don't make it user friendly. The software does work well once you get it set up. Understanding the whole certificate thing is what jacks people up.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
"We all agree LoTW software is crap."

I am also with STRAIGHKEY on this. I have no idea how the software works in terms of the nuts and bolts of how the Trusted QSL software is written, but the LoTW program, as a means of confirming contacts to be used for their awards, works extremeley well.

As far as the banks not being as secure as the LoTW system, maybe they should be!

From the NY Times May 9, 2013.

"In two precision operations that involved people in more than two dozen countries acting in close coordination and with surgical precision, thieves stole $45 million from thousands of A.T.M.'s in a matter of hours."

"In the first operation, hackers infiltrated the system of an unnamed Indian credit-card processing company that handles Visa and MasterCard prepaid debit cards. Such companies are attractive to cybercriminals because they are considered less secure than financial institutions, computer security experts say."
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by M0EDY on July 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
NO BANNER ADS ON MY EQSL SITE USE A AD BLOCKER ITS EASY
I BET ALL THE MOANERS ABOUT EQSL WOULD BE HAPPPY TO
WORK ME AND EQSL ME IF I WAS USING A P5 CALL SIGN
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by N0IU on July 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
M0EDY, how many times are you going to post the exact same message?
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by VE3CLQ on July 17, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Never received a bogus eQSL yet in 6 years....and yes, I check each on received.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by NN3W on July 18, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
This coming from the guy who has been DXing for about two years....

Consider your sources.
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W3WN on July 19, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
* sigh *

Again? Really?

If you don't want to use LotW, then don't.
If you don't want to use eQSL, then don't.

Each system has it's strengths and flaws. Each system serves different (though somewhat overlapping) purposes. Neither system is the latest or greatest thing since sliced bread or canned beer.

Neither system will be all things to all people.

And harping ad infinitum ad nauseum on the two systems doesn't actually solve anything.

Sheesh.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KB2YAN on July 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
If you do a "Find Call" in LOTW you'll see W4JDY has never uploaded any QSO's to LOTW.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AA6I on July 22, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I was originally neutral on eQSL. I upload all my logs to both eQSL and LOTW. The awards are different, and I thought both were OK.

Then, as I was getting ready for Field Day, I was trying to learn a logging program and entered some psk31 traffic into my system to see how it worked, as opposed to finding out on Field Day. The following day I noticed a psk31 confirmation on eQSL that I didn't recognize. Long story short, I had inadvertently entered a qso to eQSL and the poor guy on the other end confirmed it. It is in fact bogus.

While I still upload, but don't advertize, to eQSL, security is sketchy and open to innocent mistakes. To me, that's a problem.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by V73NS on July 24, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
60,000+ QSO's and not one will ever be posted to or confirmed on eQSL.

Need a confirmation? Send a card to my Manager or upload to LoTW.

I do not chase awards but others do, and since ARRL is the benchmark for all awards, why waste my time posting to an unsecure system?

I use LoTW because it is secure, it doesn't ask me to confirm anyone. If the logs match - the magic happens.

Printed QSL's from eQSL? No ...if you want a physical card write for one. Otherwise copy my card from the internet, put your call on it and try to feel good about yourself.

Another driving factor was when USPS rates passed $1 for international mail and I can't see pocketing the change when it was hard for someone to come up with green stamps and postage from a far far away place.

"Is that a real DXCC or is that a eQSL DXCC?
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by V73NS on July 24, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
" instead of burning my eyes and brain out arm wrestling with LOTW "

It takes me 4-5 minutes, once a month, to upload 600-1000 QSO's to LoTW and 2-3 minutes to download and update confirmations in my log ... all from within Winlog32.

How long does it take you to manage your handful of QSO's???????

You must be running DOS gear!
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by W8DSN on July 25, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
ZL2AL, very well said.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KC2UGV on July 28, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Meh. I confirm and log using eQSL, then download an ADIF, sign with TQSL, and upload to LoTW.

Aside from the onerous setup process with LoTW, it's not a big leap to do.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by OE3SGU on July 30, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
DXCC=ARRL=LotW. That's how it equals.

EQSL=nice to have but not valid for ARRL DXCC.

It's as simple as that.

Is LotW 'difficult' to setup and/or use? Not if you 1) are able to read and 2) follow a few simple steps.



73
Hannes, OE3SGU
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by K8SI on July 30, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
To those who say they've never gotten a bogus QSL on eQSL, I have a fair number of bogus QSL's in my reject folder, some of which are from the several years that I was not even on the air! All of them are from hams I never worked...calls not in my log. How much more bogus can you get?
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AC7DX on July 30, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I think its a personal choice to use ARRL or Eqsl just like Code and No code....different likes, different abilities.
I prefer LOTW myself ...to each his own
73
Ron
AC7DX
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AA3EJ on August 2, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I've been using the eQSL service for about 20 years! now, saved a great deal of money on "NOT" using the obsolete "snail mail" method! The eQSL service is the ONLY way to go, as most DX'ers currently agree!! -
73's Dave, AA3EJ
CWops# 694, CFO# 1014
 
RE: eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by HK5NLJ on August 3, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
Very good. Seeing all different and valid opinions of friends in this forum. Most important thing I can see about it, is that one of major concerns of ARRL to create LotW, is security and fraud. I'm using both eQSL and LotW systems. It is true that LotW is somewhat more complicated to use and activate, but honesty on eQSL, it seems ilogical to think ARRL disqualifying eQSL cards, because it is less secure. I wonder... In the same way we get false QSL by eQSL, we have reached physical paper QSL's also false? I thinks it's very simple. For any route you got QSL received, always confirm the QSL received against the log, to see if it is true.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by KG8JF on August 10, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I really have to agree with the writer. There was a very small window when ARRL was going to accept eQsl for DXCC and WAS. Then they went into their paranoid mode where everyone was out to cheat. There is nothing intuitive about Lotw and it tries its damdest to get inside your head and make you feel like a real dummy. Oh how I hate it so.
 
eQSL -- A Better Way to DXCC  
by AI0F on August 27, 2013 Mail this to a friend!
I absolutely cannot find any reason to use LoTW! It's a pain to set up to begin with. The biggest problem is they have shot their own foot off with it...maybe not theirs, but definitely ours! I have many, many awards over the years, all done with good, dependable qsl cards...not to mention they are fun to receive! The problem with getting an award through LoTW is you can work whomever you wish and upload it, but if the person you worked does not use LoTW, then you'll never have confirmation!! It's a ago old story, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!! Never needed LoTW before and don't need it now!
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
DXCC and Remote Operation, an Opinion
The Final Courtesy


Other Recent Articles
Boy Scouts Get Their Hands On 'Ham' Radio in Cheltenham:
Water District OKs Ham Repeater:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #44 de K7RA:
Ham Radio Operators Ready for 'Nilofar':
Strange Radio Signals Detected from Ancient Underwater Building Near Malibu