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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: LOTW  (Read 50181 times)
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 737


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #60 on: November 09, 2012, 11:57:17 PM »


...ARRL members should be privy to so that members can decide if the proper software and hardware that is being used is sufficient for the job at hand and if they have hired an adequate number of qualified employees.


Hi Chris,

Something about that statement makes me vaguely uncomfortable...  The members should not be making that level of decision, they should make decisions on who the BOD, (and friends), are and who to elect, based on a members positions and performance...  In my experience, (20 years in the data business), having members specifying software, and staffing levels is a sure recipe for disaster.  Follow the chain of command upstream, and push there...  Also I really like your idea of an article on exactly what and how LoTW is built and works. 

73's
Dave
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2601




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2012, 12:42:43 AM »


...ARRL members should be privy to so that members can decide if the proper software and hardware that is being used is sufficient for the job at hand and if they have hired an adequate number of qualified employees.


Hi Chris,

Something about that statement makes me vaguely uncomfortable...  The members should not be making that level of decision, they should make decisions on who the BOD, (and friends), are and who to elect, based on a members positions and performance...  In my experience, (20 years in the data business), having members specifying software, and staffing levels is a sure recipe for disaster.  Follow the chain of command upstream, and push there...  Also I really like your idea of an article on exactly what and how LoTW is built and works.  

73's
Dave


Dave, I am just very frustrated and your are correct: my suggestion is just micro-managing.  My suggestion would no doubt lead to too many opinions from too many different people.  That's the good thing about this forum.  We all can toss around ideas and those with problems can be dismissed with a sensible rebuttal.

I do feel strongly we deserve a better explanation as to what's going on with LoTW than the current one sentence explanations we are currently receiving on the LoTW home page.  We are paying for this system and we have a right to know whether this will be a common occurrence or if there are plans to scrap the current system and build something much more reliable.  I do know LoTW only has about 53,000 users and these outages aren't going to add users.  We will most likely lose current users and hams who were thinking of using LoTW and that is heading in the opposite direction we need to be going.

I  feel very strongly that Dave, K1ZZ, should write a whole column in QST which explains the system and what went wrong.  If he is serious about transparency that would be a great way to deal with this problem.  In order to lobby our respective Representatives we do need to know what the system is, what went wrong, and whether this is just a temporary fix or a long term solution. My feeling, without knowing the current system, is based upon similar occurrences in the past and I feel they've just applied another  Band-Aid.

73,

Chris/NU1O



« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 12:59:38 AM by NU1O » Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 737


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2012, 05:09:41 AM »


Dave, I am just very frustrated and your are correct: my suggestion is just micro-managing.  My suggestion would no doubt lead to too many opinions from too many different people.  That's the good thing about this forum.  We all can toss around ideas and those with problems can be dismissed with a sensible rebuttal.

I do feel strongly we deserve a better explanation as to what's going on with LoTW than the current one sentence explanations we are currently receiving on the LoTW home page.  We are paying for this system and we have a right to know whether this will be a common occurrence or if there are plans to scrap the current system and build something much more reliable.  I do know LoTW only has about 53,000 users and these outages aren't going to add users.  We will most likely lose current users and hams who were thinking of using LoTW and that is heading in the opposite direction we need to be going.

I  feel very strongly that Dave, K1ZZ, should write a whole column in QST which explains the system and what went wrong.  If he is serious about transparency that would be a great way to deal with this problem.  In order to lobby our respective Representatives we do need to know what the system is, what went wrong, and whether this is just a temporary fix or a long term solution. My feeling, without knowing the current system, is based upon similar occurrences in the past and I feel they've just applied another  Band-Aid.


Hi Chris,

I agree totally with what you are saying, my hope is that this incident will, or has forced a re-think of the current system.  It is clear that something is being pushed to limits, and beyond.  The concept of transparency is such a good thing, but so very elusive in practice.  It really does not matter to me that I am paying for it, my dues did not go up as a result of LoTW being added, what does matter to me is that the act of creating the system, promoting the system, the fact that the ARRL has it's name all over this project, and that it appears to be having some significant issues, which appear to be unaddressed is the real issue.  It tarnishes the ARRL's name, and appears to be half thought out.  You are absolutely correct, a single article in QST covering how it works, and what happened, with a plan to stop it from happening again would go a very long way to mitigate LoTW in my book.

This is very much like the digital edition of QST...  I came very close to writing a scathing review of the digital edition because of the implementation, I didn't because the act of moving forward, towards digital publication is good, and to hammer it so soon would have been a net negative.  It should have been done as an e-book, not whatever propitiatory system they used.  From my point of view the digital QST is not nearly as easy to use as any e-book I own.  It is virtually unreadable on my iPad, and I refuse to sit and read it on my computer.  I see that they have just added an iTunes application for accessing content, so maybe that is better...  I will check it out...

I have always been one of those hams that has been active on air, and a member of ARRL, but inactive in watching the ARRL, and the politics of ham radio.  I have worked my entire life up until last November, and intend on becoming active beyond just getting on the air now that I am retired.

As an aside it is a pleasure swapping ideas with you... 

73's
Dave
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
N7SMI
Member

Posts: 315




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2012, 06:45:38 AM »

We will NOT tolerate such civil and courteous dialogue here. How dare one of you kindly rebut the other and the first simply accept the rebuttal and apologize!?! It's just not normal!

But seriously, I think dialogue and openness from the ARRL is needed regarding LoTW. Many of us are heavily invested in it - more with time, QSOs, DXPedition funding and commitments, software functionality, etc. than in ARRL dues. It's becoming increasingly clear that the infrastructure is not future-proof and is unlikely to handle such sustained growth for much longer, and the present is barely functional when we need it the most.
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 737


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2012, 07:19:59 AM »


We will NOT tolerate such civil and courteous dialogue here. How dare one of you kindly rebut the other and the first simply accept the rebuttal and apologize!?! It's just not normal!


I know...  I felt bad not knee jerking, and screaming...  Smiley  I'll try and do better next time!  Smiley

73's
Dave
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 737


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2012, 07:27:08 AM »

I think dialogue and openness from the ARRL is needed regarding LoTW. Many of us are heavily invested in it - more with time, QSOs, DXPedition funding and commitments, software functionality, etc. than in ARRL dues. It's becoming increasingly clear that the infrastructure is not future-proof and is unlikely to handle such sustained growth for much longer, and the present is barely functional when we need it the most.

I had not even thought about the cost of donations to DXpeditions...  That is an interesting and useful way to monetize LoTW.  I just hope that the ARRL actually fixes the problems, and does not just patch them.  If eQSL can keep a system running, then I would expect ARRL can keep a system running, if they don't, it speaks volumes for their internal organization practices. 

You are correct, if this is not corrected, the continued growth of LoTW will cease...

73's
Dave
PS:  I forgot to yell again...  Sorry!
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2601




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: November 10, 2012, 07:37:11 AM »


Hi Chris,

I agree totally with what you are saying, my hope is that this incident will, or has forced a re-think of the current system.  It is clear that something is being pushed to limits, and beyond.  The concept of transparency is such a good thing, but so very elusive in practice.  It really does not matter to me that I am paying for it, my dues did not go up as a result of LoTW being added, what does matter to me is that the act of creating the system, promoting the system, the fact that the ARRL has it's name all over this project, and that it appears to be having some significant issues, which appear to be unaddressed is the real issue.  It tarnishes the ARRL's name, and appears to be half thought out.  You are absolutely correct, a single article in QST covering how it works, and what happened, with a plan to stop it from happening again would go a very long way to mitigate LoTW in my book.

This is very much like the digital edition of QST...  I came very close to writing a scathing review of the digital edition because of the implementation, I didn't because the act of moving forward, towards digital publication is good, and to hammer it so soon would have been a net negative.  It should have been done as an e-book, not whatever propitiatory system they used.  From my point of view the digital QST is not nearly as easy to use as any e-book I own.  It is virtually unreadable on my iPad, and I refuse to sit and read it on my computer.  I see that they have just added an iTunes application for accessing content, so maybe that is better...  I will check it out...

I have always been one of those hams that has been active on air, and a member of ARRL, but inactive in watching the ARRL, and the politics of ham radio.  I have worked my entire life up until last November, and intend on becoming active beyond just getting on the air now that I am retired.

As an aside it is a pleasure swapping ideas with you... 

73's
Dave
Hi Dave,

I do not think I was as active the first two years I was licensed as the past two years but I never got involved with clubs or the politics of amateur radio at anytime and I now think that was a big mistake.

I only started to participate in this forum about a year to a year and a half ago and I'm very glad I decided to become an active participant. I've learned a lot that did not pertain solely to DX. Perhaps there should be a separate forum for amateurs to debate ARRL policies. It might be a way for an amateur with some fresh ideas to get elected to office and then communicate with the members he represents and even those he does not.  I do not currently see that dialogue and I think more transparency is needed. I strongly feel ARRL members are entitled to an explanation of the current LoTW problems, the fixes, and where we are heading.

Now that you are retired I think it would be wonderful if you got involved in League politics.  

When I was much younger I followed local, state, and national politics very closely. I still follow national politics very closely but all the negativity has turned me off. I would never get involved in politics but someday I may get involved in League matters.  You could be my mentor!  Smiley

73 and best wishes,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 737


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #67 on: November 10, 2012, 07:49:19 AM »


I only started to participate in this forum about a year to a year and a half ago and I'm very glad I decided to become an active participant. I've learned a lot that did not pertain solely to DX. Perhaps there should be a separate forum for amateurs to debate ARRL policies. It might be a way for an amateur with some fresh ideas to get elected to office and then communicate with the members he represents and even those he does not.  I do not currently see that dialogue and I think more transparency is needed. I strongly feel ARRL members are entitled to an explanation of the current LoTW problems, the fixes, and where we are heading.

Chris/NU1O

The idea of a new forum for discussion of ARRL politics would be handy for this sort of discussion...  I hope someone at eHam is watching this and creates one...  I am not a mentor, nor shall I ever be, but thank you.  Much the reverse is how it should work! 

73's
Dave
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2383




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: November 10, 2012, 08:09:55 AM »

The 42 hour processing delay currently reported on the LoTW website is obsolete.  They were reporting a 42 hr delay shortly before the big system crash a few days ago.  I doubt that any processing of the backlog took place while the system was being fixed, and meanwhile people had Sweepstakes logs to upload, not to mention daily QSO's. 

As of this morning, I'm still waiting for QSO's uploaded last Sunday to show up.  So, we're about six days behind now.  The overall numbers seem to be cranking away pretty fast, though, so maybe the system will catch up before CQ WW CW. 

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
WS3N
Member

Posts: 649




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: November 10, 2012, 09:52:40 AM »

As I also wrote in another post, although my current month's AMEX bill for LoTW was about $150 I would be willing to pay more if that's what it takes to have a reliable system that doesn't get backlogged after every large contest.

Having seen this $150 figure twice, I must say that I wonder about its relevance. How much would you have paid without LoTW. I don't mean in terms of stamps, etc., but just in what you would have sent to the ARRL? In other words, how much of that actually goes toward the costs of LoTW?

That having been said, I'm not disagreeing with your main points. I'm sure everyone would like to see greater reliability, transparency, etc.

Personally, I can't really complain. As a DXLab user, accessing LoTW couldn't be much simpler. And, since uploads are so easy, I usually do so very often, resulting in small files that are quickly processed. Also, I don't provide any financial support, unless they take something from membership dues, although I would gladly pay directly for use. My biggest concern is the impact these problems have on the expansion of the user pool.

Jack
Logged
SV1XV
Member

Posts: 93


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2012, 10:46:20 AM »

I doubt that any processing of the backlog took place while the system was being fixed, ...
Yes, it did. When the system came up I found 3 QSLs from ON5UR with QSL timestamps around 2012-11-09 03:48:16.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 937




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2012, 11:20:51 AM »

The current notice dated 11/13/2012 says LoTW is approx. 48 hours behind but is still processing log data ok. I hope that is right, something tells me it is getting worse.  Given that each new single log submission requires cross-checking that entry with every other entry in the system (right?) -- if there are problems now it will only get MUCH worse as users and log submissions increase daily.

Hopefully there is a BIG upgrade to the system in the works -- if not this year then next.  Anyone know if ARRL has budgeted for that?  Or how much of LoTW credit fees goes directly toward system upkeep?

 
Logged
SV1XV
Member

Posts: 93


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2012, 11:38:38 AM »

Given that each new single log submission requires cross-checking that entry with every other entry in the system (right?) --
Why? Isn't the QSO database indexed at least by callsign?
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2601




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2012, 12:52:12 PM »

We will NOT tolerate such civil and courteous dialogue here. How dare one of you kindly rebut the other and the first simply accept the rebuttal and apologize!?! It's just not normal!
Jared,

From one amateur astronomer to another you have produced some very beautiful pictures of the Heavens and the ISS in transit.  I think your photo of M51 is your Magnum Opus to date but all your Messier work is beautiful.  It must be nice not having the light pollution of the East Coast Corridor.

73,

Chris/NU1O

Logged
AB8MA
Member

Posts: 738




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: November 14, 2012, 09:14:48 PM »

My upload from 22:51Z has been processed already. The back log has decreased considerably.

edit ... Sorry, it was an earlier upload. My latest QSO's were not included.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 09:18:57 PM by AB8MA » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!