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: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: JT65 - Incorrect eQSL Requests  (Read 10669 times)
K6HOM
Member

Posts: 14




Ignore
« on: January 27, 2014, 01:36:32 PM »

Hi All, 

A question for my digital elmers, please.

I upload my LOTW and eQSL QSOs daily.  Several times each month when I download a eQSL confirmation ADIF file, I receive a few "Cannot Match" JT65 QSOs.  These are from stations that I never had a QSO with, although many times I was operating on the band and dates cited.  I have been politely rejecting these QSL requests with a message that they do not match my log.

From time to time I've wondered why I receive these errant requests.  I would never upload a log containing a QSO that I did not have (i.e. one where I had not at least exchanged signal reports with the other station).  Perhaps these "Cannot Match" eQSL JT65 QSOs are guys that heard my CQ and tried to answer (unsuccessfully)?  But how can they ask for a QSL if a two-way exchange never occurred? 

Is this something unique to JT65 or to eQSL?  I've not had this happen on SSB or CW.  I hope that I am not missing something.

Thanks for your help.

Rick, K6HOM
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 1350


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2014, 08:08:08 PM »

Is this something unique to JT65 or to eQSL? I've not had this happen on SSB or CW.

I don't work JT65, but I have been using eQSL for several years. I do this for the benefit of the other users out there that do chase their awards, but personally I don't and this is the reason why. I have received confirmation requests on every mode on every band for contacts that I have never had. I can fogive "fat finger" mistakes that are made when entering information into their log, but there are still quite a few that never happened at all. If uploading to eQSL wasn't 100% automatic, I wouldn't bother with it.
Logged
KD8OSD
Member

Posts: 5




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2014, 08:39:49 AM »

This is why I stopped using EQSL. I was always getting requests for qso's I never made. Quite a few actually.
I stopped using it altogether.

KD8OSD
Logged
K6HOM
Member

Posts: 14




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2014, 03:35:54 PM »

Thanks for your comments, N0IU and KD8OSD.  I learned something new, here.  I'm going to give some serious thought about uploading to eQSL.

Best Wishes,

Rick, K6HOM

Logged
N7WE
Member

Posts: 13




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2014, 06:20:20 AM »

I'm a fan of eQSL and want to offer a different point of view.  Some love it, some hate it.  Different strokes for different folks.  But sending a QSL is the "final courtesy" to the Op on the other end.  And a large percentage of the digital crowd use eQSL.  So before you stop uploading think about these: 

1) Are you sure they aren't SWL reports?  eQSL allows those and I've had several over the years. 

2) The same thing happens with LoTW, but because of the system design you just never see them. This means you don't have a chance to correct an error.  I've received unconfirmed eQSL's that weren't in my log because of my error.  And when the eQSL comes, if I distinctly remember the QSO, I correct my log.  Maybe others never make logging mistakes, but I do. 

And 3),  What do you do when you get a paper card in the mail that isn't in your log?  I just toss them.  That is the same as the reject button for unmatched eQSLs.

Rick - N7WE
Logged
K0YQ
Member

Posts: 509




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2014, 07:16:23 AM »

I use eQSL both as a courtesy to others that do, and I like it since JARL accepts eQSL confirmations toward their awards.  The only eQSL contacts that I really pay attention to are my JA QSOs and I've never had a false request here.

May I ask how do you download a confirmation adif file from eQSL?  I was looking but don't see the option.  I'd be curious...

Thanks,

John / K0YQ 
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 1350


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2014, 07:21:55 AM »

And a large percentage of the digital crowd use eQSL.

Rick - N7WE

My personal experience is exactly the opposite.

I have DXCC Digital (and have had it for some time). OTOH, I still need 35 confirmations for eQSL's eDX100 on PSK and 39 confirmations needed for RTTY.

Do you need any more convincing?

Logged
NZ5N
Member

Posts: 774


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2014, 09:04:41 AM »

I receive plenty of eQSLs for digital QSOs.  I use it since it is automatic upload and I'd like to help those looking for eQSL awards.

There is plenty of potential for fraud, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if someone wants a piece of award paper so badly they are willing to cheat to get it.  But I won't confirm a QSO if not in my log, or at least something close.  Oftentimes what looks like fraud is actually some sort of operator error.

One somewhat sad but funny story: I operate every summer from Europe as OM3BD, with a lot of activity on 6 and 4 meters.  One year I accidentally uploaded my OM3BD log to my NZ5N account.  Over 30% of the 6 and 4 meter QSOs, all with European stations, were accepted without comment.  About 50% were properly rejected without comment.  The remaining 20% emailed with comments like, "Thanks so much, I have never before worked the USA on 6 meters," or "This is great, I did not know that USA hams could operate on 4 meters."

73,
Bill NZ5N
Logged
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 1001


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2014, 12:52:18 PM »

I occasionally get EQSL's for contact I did not make. but mainly due to the fact I did not log them because I never got a signal report from the other station.

Everyone has to remember that human error comes into play, whether it be EQSL or LOTW. Someone enters a call into their log and types in a 6 instead of a 5 or 7. It happens, I have done it! Usually I notice my mistake and correct. But others may not.

I feel that most hams are pretty honest and are not trying to fake a contact with me. It is not like I am rare DX  Grin

Since I joined LOTW I have a grand total of 5 more countries confirmed with it than I do with EQSL. But I also find I get a far better QSL return rate using EQSL than LOTW. Now that could be due to the fact that a lot of LOTW users only upload their log files once or twice a month.

With HRD Log which I use as soon as I enter the contact into the log it is automatically uploaded to EQSL. Not so with LOTW, I have to trigger that upload. So I assume that is why I will wait longer for a confirmation from LOTW than EQSL as I have to wait for others to upload the contact.

As mentioned, SWL's use EQSL, I get those all the time and kindly return a confirmation back to them after I check my log to verify that they did actually copy my QSO. And most of those SWL reports are from guys who are copying my JT65 QSO's.

Logged
KI6LZ
Member

Posts: 599




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2014, 01:02:11 PM »

Don't do digital but about 30 or so QSOs out of 1000 have typos. They go out to LOTW and e-qsl. So over a year maybe 200 bad ones.
Logged
AD0AR
Member

Posts: 26




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2014, 07:12:00 PM »

Hello All!  I've had a couple EQSL requests come my way too that I have no record of.  I use the autologging feature of the JT65 program I use, so I can go look back at ALL band activity, (not just my logged QSO's) for a given date and time.  At first I thought that some of these bogus entries were fat fingers, and I have found that I have made some fat finger boo boos too.  For some reason I tend to see zeros as o's........
 A few days ago I got not one, but two EQSL's from an individual who's been an amateur longer than I have been on this planet.  I do not have any record of any QSO's with that individual either.  I did have activity on that given day on those two bands, so after putting 2 and 2 together, I figure they must have been spotting me, much like a SWL'er.  I'm thinking that the other invalid EQSL's I have gotten in the past were probably fall into this category too.  I simply reject the EQSL under the NOT IN MY LOG category.
  EQSL could probably fix this by adding a Spotter or SWL checkbox option to an amateur's EQSL authoring screen.  I know it would save me time from digging through my logs!
  After all, I am sure there are some operators that may have lost TX capabilities but can still RX fine.
Logged
K3TN
Member

Posts: 293


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2014, 03:26:51 AM »

There's a reason why there are more false QSL requests in eQSL than in LotW, and it mostly *not* people purposely falsely claiming a contact.

LotW does *not* lend itself to uploading a log entry after every QSO, because of the digital signing of log entries - so very few logging programs do so. However, eQSL is much more lightweight and most logging programs do support uploading to eQSL every time you hit enter and log a QSO.

That results in a lot of QSOs that get entered by mistake, or with a callsign/mode/time mistake - the op may correct it soon or immediately but it was already uploaded to eQSL and generate the "no such QSO" or "wrong mode" error, etc.

It's really not a big deal - eQSL works and doesn't issue a QSL and tells the offending op he has an error.

73 John K3TN
Logged

John K3TN
N0IU
Member

Posts: 1350


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2014, 06:13:43 AM »

LotW does *not* lend itself to uploading a log entry after every QSO, because of the digital signing of log entries - so very few logging programs do so.

I wholeheartedly disagree! I still use the free version of HRD and while uploading to LoTW it is not 100% automatic like eQSL, all I have to do is select the contact from the log then select the option to upload it to LoTW. Its just that simple! Unless I am working in a contest, I upload every contact as soon as it is in the log so my backlog is ZERO!

I believe the logging part of the DX Lab suite also uploads in a similar manner, but I don't have any working knowledge of that program.

If you don't have a logging program that provides this sort of uploading utility, GET ONE!
Logged
K0EKL
Member

Posts: 41




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2014, 09:04:05 PM »

When I uploaded my log to eQSL I got a lot of complaints from folks about JT65 eQSLs.

In the ADIF file that I uploaded my JT65 logs were entered as mode "JT65A", which was technically correct. The people who complained had specified simply "JT65" in their logs and eQSL differentiates between the two modes. Even though date, time, and band matched, my log said "JT65A", theirs said "JT65", and therefor no eQSL was generated.

To make folks happy I recursively replaced every occurrence of JT65A in my ADIF file with JT65 and uploaded it again.   
Logged
K3TN
Member

Posts: 293


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2014, 03:41:18 AM »

Notice that neither HRD or DXLab (which I now use) support automatic upload to LotW when you enter a QSO. Yet, they both do so for eQSL. That's because LotW is really not built for that single QSO upload, because of the digital signing operation to create a .tq8 file.

Both of those logging programs do support bulk upload to LotW, which is the function your are using for one QSO at a time. That reduces the load on the LotW servers - rather than check digital signatures for each individual QSO they do it once for a .tq8 file that has dozens or hundreds of QSOs in it vs. just one QSO.

So, yes - you can do it the way you are doing, but there is a reason why the logging programs have automatic single QSO upload for eQSL but not for LotW.


LotW does *not* lend itself to uploading a log entry after every QSO, because of the digital signing of log entries - so very few logging programs do so.

I wholeheartedly disagree! I still use the free version of HRD and while uploading to LoTW it is not 100% automatic like eQSL, all I have to do is select the contact from the log then select the option to upload it to LoTW. Its just that simple! Unless I am working in a contest, I upload every contact as soon as it is in the log so my backlog is ZERO!

I believe the logging part of the DX Lab suite also uploads in a similar manner, but I don't have any working knowledge of that program.

If you don't have a logging program that provides this sort of uploading utility, GET ONE!
Logged

John K3TN
Pages: [1]   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!