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 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: LOTW  (Read 68584 times)
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #330 on: December 18, 2012, 08:48:12 AM »

Clublog will match qso's just like LOTW.
The time window is the same as well.
Just because I have to use some crummy security software on my log file does not mean that the qso occurred!  What's to keep someone from coercing with a dx station to make up a qso?

I agree from a performance standpoint, they are "apples and oranges"
I'd love it if once the ARRL has repaired the bottlenecks, to take note of the Clublog log features for keeping track of qso's and countries. 
For instance, why the heck are we limited to 25 qso's at a time to querrie?
It seems like if the LOTW had more friendly features like Clublog, maybe there would be more support from hams and even sponsors if needed.
I fully understand LOTW is the tool of an organization to more easily administer award credit, but what I'm saying is the logic is flawed to believe that because you've confirmed a file came from s specific party matches another's, that it must be "secure and authentic".
Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1235




Ignore
« Reply #331 on: December 18, 2012, 09:12:28 AM »

What's to keep someone from coercing with a dx station to make up a qso?   ...  I'm saying is the logic is flawed to believe that because you've confirmed a file came from s specific party matches another's, that it must be "secure and authentic".

I'm sure if you have a better idea, one that is easier to implement, better assures authenticity, runs faster, etc., the ARRL would be GLAD to hear your suggestions.
Logged
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #332 on: December 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM »

You can never keep out all the fools from being fools.
The reason I said that is to enforce the point that security is not keeping the validity of the qso.
I know of a dx'er with qso's made by phone call to a friend to make the qso.
So if we can't be more secure than the honesty of some crummy folks, why go so far?
Clublog dances circles around LOTW.  They did what the ARRL should have when building lotw.
I know that the Clublog isn't qso credit for an award, but if the ARRL cares what users think, I have several respected DX'ers in my community who feel the same way.
It's a little nauseating to see the attitudes of the arrl reps when addressing these concerns.
Why not admit the other folks made a nice system and work to make lotw more like what the members want.
Frank KG6N
Logged
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #333 on: December 18, 2012, 10:02:08 AM »

"I'm sure if you have a better idea, one that is easier to implement, better assures authenticity, runs faster, etc., the ARRL would be GLAD to hear your suggestions."

I very respected Dx'er in my area has communicated these opinions to the league and the response has been just short of "too bad".
Frank KG6N
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #334 on: December 18, 2012, 10:31:21 AM »

Clublog will match qso's just like LOTW.

Matching QSOs has nothing to do with authentication or security.

The time window is the same as well.

Implementing a time window has nothing to do with authentication or security.

Just because I have to use some crummy security software on my log file does not mean that the qso occurred!  What's to keep someone from coercing with a dx station to make up a qso?

LotW does not prevent all dishonest means of forging QSOs, but does make it expensive for a user acting alone to forge a QSO.

I'd love it if once the ARRL has repaired the bottlenecks, to take note of the Clublog log features for keeping track of qso's and countries.  

ClubLog's award tracking features are very basic. For example, ClubLog can't highlight spots of DX stations you need for CQ DX Marathon. Logging applications are much better at this; isn't yours?

For instance, why the heck are we limited to 25 qso's at a time to querie?

Why are you doing that manually? Doesn't your logging application automate this for you?

It seems like if the LOTW had more friendly features like Clublog, maybe there would be more support from hams and even sponsors if needed.
I fully understand LOTW is the tool of an organization to more easily administer award credit, but what I'm saying is the logic is flawed to believe that because you've confirmed a file came from s specific party matches another's, that it must be "secure and authentic".

You seem to expect LotW to serve as your logging and award tracking application; that is not its purpose.

LotW is the only means of electronic confirmation that is accepted by the ARRL for its award programs.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #335 on: December 18, 2012, 10:40:46 AM »

You can never keep out all the fools from being fools.
The reason I said that is to enforce the point that security is not keeping the validity of the qso.
I know of a dx'er with qso's made by phone call to a friend to make the qso.
So if we can't be more secure than the honesty of some crummy folks, why go so far?

ARRL award programs like DXCC, Honor Roll, WAS, and VUCC are popular because they are meaningful. Yes, some ops forge 1.8 Mhz QSLs from 18 Mhz QSLs, and a few get away with it. Yes, some ops bribe DX stations into sending them QSL cards. But neither of these techniques will get you anywhere close to the top of the Honor Roll. Your "We can't provide 100% security, so let's not bother providing any security at all" approach would reduce ARRL award programs to a farce.

Clublog dances circles around LOTW. 

F16s can dance circles around submarines, but we don't abandon submarines. You continue to compare apples and orange, apparently because you don't understand the difference.

Logged
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #336 on: December 18, 2012, 10:51:52 AM »

David,
Do you represent the ARRL in these statements?
Are you a paid ARRL staff, or a volunteer for this situation?
Why doesn't the ARRL give any note to feed back?
All I see or hear is defensive arguments and excuses.
In your comments it even borders insulting and a "holier than thou" attitude.
Like the critical thinking comment.  
I understand the purpose of lotw, no need to explain.
I am saying that perhaps if the league wants to develop a support amongst hams, maybe look into ways to make it nicer.
How many articles did QST have to convince us how easy and great it is?
How is the feed back handled?
To me, it seems the league treats members opinions on this the way the DXCC program has always been, a thorn in its side.  If it weren't for the revenue, another entity may have taken over awards long ago.
Cq's awards sure are gaining popularity, huh.
WPX award credits on lotw?
Why not make the user interface more user friendly.
Seriously, what's your big objection to that??
How could it hurt to make it a little nicer?
The information and ability is all there, I wouldn't think searching through the qsl/qso query form should have to be so archaic as to limit 25 at a time.  
Logged
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #337 on: December 18, 2012, 11:01:44 AM »

As far as the the fidelity of the award, I have seen hams make qso's with another hams call and also use way above legal limit power.  The award only has as much value as the operator who did it.  Honor roll is only a matter time with today's technology.  Plenty of ops out there just waiting for expedition to expedition, and if they can't work them, phone a friend.
Logged
EI2GLB
Member

Posts: 558




Ignore
« Reply #338 on: December 18, 2012, 11:03:22 AM »

I am sure I seen a news release saying that there was 2 hams going to help with LOTW. Has anyone else seen this and can you provide a link to it

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 865


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #339 on: December 18, 2012, 11:13:24 AM »

I am sure I seen a news release saying that there was 2 hams going to help with LOTW. Has anyone else seen this and can you provide a link to it

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
I believe that was the Open tQSL, not LoTW.
73's
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #340 on: December 18, 2012, 11:14:32 AM »

"You seem to expect LotW to serve as your logging and award tracking application; that is not its purpose."
Your kinda reaching here.
I have logging programs with plenty of award tracking.
Lotw has an awards section with a half decent interface to view all the options.
Why not use that format at the query page?

Telling me I don't understand the difference is offensive.

So if it's nothing but a confirmation system, what's your point with the dx marathon spotting??
Club log shows the information in many user configurable and easy to read ways.
This is what I think lotw should adopt.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #341 on: December 18, 2012, 11:46:59 AM »

Do you represent the ARRL in these statements?
Are you a paid ARRL staff, or a volunteer for this situation?

What I post are exclusively my positions and opinions.

Why doesn't the ARRL give any note to feed back?

That's a question for ARRL management to answer.

All I see or hear is defensive arguments and excuses.

The only thing I've defended in this thread are facts and logic.

In your comments it even borders insulting and a "holier than thou" attitude.
Like the critical thinking comment.  

Re-read the interaction leading up to that comment. It was a perfectly reasonable response to the implication that only machines can avoid jumping to conclusions.

I understand the purpose of lotw, no need to explain.
I am saying that perhaps if the league wants to develop a support amongst hams, maybe look into ways to make it nicer.
How many articles did QST have to convince us how easy and great it is?
How is the feed back handled?
To me, it seems the league treats members opinions on this the way the DXCC program has always been, a thorn in its side.  If it weren't for the revenue, another entity may have taken over awards long ago.
Cq's awards sure are gaining popularity, huh.
WPX award credits on lotw?
Why not make the user interface more user friendly.
Seriously, what's your big objection to that??
How could it hurt to make it a little nicer?

I have criticized LotW's usability since its inception, added functionality to the free DXLab Suite to shield users from LotW's usability problems, provided documentation to make the use of LotW more clear, and volunteered to reboot the Trusted QSL project from which TQSL and TQSLCert are constructed with improved usability as the primary driver.  Where in any of that do you see an objection to making LotW easier to use?
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #342 on: December 18, 2012, 12:05:09 PM »

"You seem to expect LotW to serve as your logging and award tracking application; that is not its purpose."
Your kinda reaching here.
I have logging programs with plenty of award tracking.

Then why should LotW assign scarce development resources to replicate award tracking functionality that most ops already have in their logging applications?

Telling me I don't understand the difference is offensive.

You continue to conflate LotW with Club Log.

So if it's nothing but a confirmation system, what's your point with the dx marathon spotting?

I was illustrating the point that Club Log provides only basic award tracking.

Club log shows the information in many user configurable and easy to read ways.
This is what I think lotw should adopt.

Great. Go raise the required funding, and convince ARRL management to extend LotW as you suggest.
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3277


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #343 on: December 18, 2012, 12:17:02 PM »

AA6YQ:

Thanks very much for jumping in and doing something to make LOTW a better system!

The ARRL DXCC program is the Gold Standard (for me at least), so LOTW is an important part of that.
Logged
AB8MA
Member

Posts: 762




Ignore
« Reply #344 on: December 18, 2012, 03:05:31 PM »

I am sure I seen a news release saying that there was 2 hams going to help with LOTW. Has anyone else seen this and can you provide a link to it

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

I this this is what you were referring to:

http://www.arrl.org/news/logbook-of-the-world-web-page-now-features-daily-and-hourly-status-updates

Quote
Rick Murphy, K1MU, and Dave Bernstein, AA6YQ, have been charged with rebooting the Trusted QSL open source project. If you have demonstrably strong C++ development skills that you’re interested in applying toward improving LoTW’s usability and efficiency, please contact Bernstein via e-mail aa6yq(at)ambersoft(dot)com.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 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!