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] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "No eQSL pls" - what's this?  (Read 6156 times)
AA6E
Member

Posts: 15


WWW

Ignore
« on: September 11, 2004, 07:36:40 PM »

I work mostly PSK31 these days.  I notice a lot of DX ops are giving their QSL info with "no eQSL pls".  What does this mean?  Two things occur to me:

1.  They don't have Internet access, so eQSL doesn't work for them.  Or

2.  The folks at eQSL.cc are hassling them in some way when they get eQSL's.

I routinely post all my logs to eQSL (and LOTW).  Can that be a problem for DX ops?  I would like to be sure I'm not causing any trouble for non-eQSL users.

TIA, 73, Martin, AA6E
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2004, 06:40:04 AM »

Most likely becaue the ARRL, in an effort to be 'top dog' in the electronic QSL game, refuses to accept eQSL for their awards.  This in spite of the fact that participation in LOTW is less than 10% of that in eQSL.

Dennis / KG4RUL
Logged
AA6E
Member

Posts: 15


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2004, 08:16:56 AM »

We know that ARRL doesn't give credit for eQSLs, but that's no reason to say "don't send me an eQSL".

Maybe it's because there is an option to send email from eQSL.cc to eQSL recipients informing them there is an eQSL waiting.  If non-eQSL DX folks are getting badgered, I could understand their complaints.

I still don't see how simply posting all my logs to eQSL could cause trouble for anybody who didn't want to play the eQSL game.

Martin, AA6E
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2418




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2004, 09:18:47 AM »

"ARRL, in an effort to be 'top dog' in the electronic QSL game, refuses to accept eQSL for their awards."

This is a distortion.  The ARRL DXCC awards programs date back nearly 70 years, and they (as well as CQ) have maintained high standards for acceptance of confirmations.  eQSL simply does not come up to their standards. Keep in mind also, that Lotw has only been in operation for a year.

"Maybe it's because there is an option to send email from eQSL.cc to eQSL recipients informing them there is an eQSL waiting. If non-eQSL DX folks are getting badgered, I could understand their complaints."

I've visited the eQSL site and have perhaps a hundred confirmations waiting for me there, never have downloaded any, yet have never been "badgered" by the eQSL folks.  I have nothing against eQSL's, except that they do not apply to the well-respected awards programs I am interested in.

73 de Chuck  NI0C
   
 
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2418




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2004, 09:56:49 AM »

"... participation in LOTW is less than 10% of that in eQSL."

This is also a distortion.  I just checked the Lotw and eQSL web sites.  Here's what I found.

eQSL claims 40 million QSL's, while Lotw only claims 1.76 million QSL's resulting from 50.5 million QSO records. However, a Lotw QSL results from matching QSO records received independently (and blindly) from both stations.  I believe what eQSL counts as a "QSL" is comparable to what the ARRL counts as merely a QSO record.  By this measure, it appears that Lotw has already surpassed eQSL.  

73 de Chuck  NI0C
 
Logged
N4ZOU
Member

Posts: 340




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2004, 03:15:24 PM »

It's really simple to figure it out. The DX station will not get several green back's from the station wanting his QSL card using an electronic method to confirm the contact. I quit paper collecting a long time ago. If some one wants a "real" QSL card to confirm the contact with me it better have an SASE in there with it. The ARRL electronic method is a hassle to sign up for like I need more problems. At least with eqsl your not forced with loops to jump through. No, I don't upload any files to either one but I do check eqsl every now and then to confirm contacts.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20633




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2004, 07:11:48 PM »

Hmmm.  I don't go out of my way to say "No eQSLs pls," because this data takes more time to send than it's worth.

However, I also don't use eQSLs at all because I simply don't like them.  Personal choice.  I downloaded a large batch a couple of years ago and found half the "card" I had waiting for me were for QSOs that never happened.  Then, printing them on a color printer exhausted more resources than I was willing to invest.  I can print them quickly and cheaply on the B&W LASER printer, but then they're in black and white.  Humbug.

Printing 100+ QSLs (which I always have waiting, as a minimum) in color exhausts my ink...so I'm supposed to spend another $40 or so to print the next couple of hundred?  Not me!

So, although it seems silly for anyone to go out of his way to specify what he *does not* want, maybe I understand the mentality there.  I reply 100% to QSLs received via mail, and I reply via the same route the incoming cards took.  Direct mail for direct mail, bureau for bureau.  I couldn't care less how long it takes, I've already got 150,000 QSL cards and don't need any more.  Replying is a courtesy that I'll never cease to provide.

WB2WIK/6
Logged
N8UZE
Member

Posts: 1524




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2004, 10:01:41 PM »

I think that they are just trying to tell you that they don't bother to check or respond to eQSLs.
Logged
KB1IKD
Member

Posts: 18




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2004, 06:24:09 AM »

I upload all my QSOs to eQSL and LoTW.  It is easy to generate the adif file and LoTW signed files for uploading.  Certainly the time involved is far less than the time needed to process paper cards.  This is very convenient for contest contacts.

I do not notify by e-mail on eQSLs to avoid annoying hams who have no interest in eQSL.  Hams who are interested in eQSL and LoTW will check their records without any e-mail notification.

Cards are sent to all who send me a card.  Perhaps a concern is that no paper card will be sent if an electronic card has been sent, as well as eQSL not being accepted for certain awards.
Logged
VE7NGR
Member

Posts: 28




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2004, 01:29:20 AM »

"eQSL simply does not come up to their standards."

You are leaving out a bit of history. The ARRL told eQSL that eQSLs would be acceptable if certain changes were made to their system. eQSL went to significant effort to make the changes, only to be told by the ARRL that, sorry, they still weren't going to accept eQSLs.

Now wasn't that nice of the ARRL?
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2418




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2004, 05:58:45 AM »

"You are leaving out a bit of history. The ARRL told eQSL that eQSLs would be acceptable if certain changes were made to their system. eQSL went to significant effort to make the changes, only to be told by the ARRL that, sorry, they still weren't going to accept eQSLs.

Now wasn't that nice of the ARRL? "

I have not been aware of any negotiations between ARRL and eQSL, so the omission was not intentional.  You say that eQSL "went to significant effort," however you do not say they met ARRL standards.  I would emphasize the crucial difference between Lotw and eQSL is that Lotw QSL's result from matches in logs submitted blindly by both parties in a QSO; whereas eQSL is based on only one log.

73 de Chuck  NI0C
   
Logged
W3HF
Member

Posts: 697


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2004, 06:37:11 AM »

I think the problem is that eQSL received an informal "checklist" from an ARRL person, implying that "if you do these things, we can accept them." Unfortunately, the checklist was not a formal "offer" from the ARRL, just an email from an individual, and the wording was subject to interpretation. This led to differences of opinion at to what was "good enough." Some would take the cynical view that "nothing could be good enough, as it would hurt ARRL's own LOTW system, and hit them in the pocketbook." Others feel that ARRL has a right to define their own standards for their own awards, and no one has a right to question that authority. Both sides have merit, and I don't want to start a debate on it.

To their credit, eQSL did implement a "double-blind" matching system in response to the ARRL request, and it did work. But many (if not most) users hated it, and it was removed when it was clear that the ARRL wasn't going to accept eQSLs.

ARRL also demanded a trusted certificate system to protect the upload process. eQSL wasn't willing to implement this, feeling that their login system was adequate, as it was the same level of security used by financial systems for online bank accounts and credit cards. This was effectively an "agree to disagree" point.

Finally, ARRL refused to accommodate the eQSL system of having a recipient pay to have a QSL card printed and mailed to them. This sounded (to them) to be too much like a "pay for the QSL card" requirement that is forbidden.

That's my recollection of the history. If anyone wants to review it, they can read through the archives of the OnLineQSL YahooGroup.

Steve
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2004, 02:58:42 PM »

NI0C writes:

"I would emphasize the crucial difference between Lotw and eQSL is that Lotw QSL's result from matches in logs submitted blindly by both parties in a QSO; whereas eQSL is based on only one log."

=====

So if someone submits an eQSL log and I am notified and I confirm the contact, that IS NOT a real contact in the eyes of the ARRL?HuhHuhHuh

I submit that is total b**lsh*t!!

When two people agree that a contact has happened then it surely has happened, ARRL rhetoric aside.

Dennis / KG4RUL
Logged
VA6SZ
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2004, 06:27:12 PM »

Yep, "No e-QSL's". You bet! With no valid way of authenticating e-QSL's, this can be the ONLY solution. I know that I have over 300 e-QSL's "waiting" for me on their site. Not one will get answered (or looked at for that matter) until there is a way found to authenticate the "supposed" contacts.
I know first hand just how expensive and time consuming "manual" QSLing has become. But the fact remains, having the actual card is proof POSITIVE that the contact took place.
Sorry if I offend anyone, it is not my intent.

de Andy VA6SZ
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2004, 04:28:57 AM »

Andy says he "over 300" eQLSs waiting for him.  However, he does not choose to respond to them.

Why not???

Unless you QSL 100% with actual cards, some of those MUST be valid contacts that the other guy would like you to confirm.  What is ths harm in taking a hour and doing just that???

Yes, some of them will be for grid squares, countries, counties, etc. that you already have.  But, they may be a first time for the other guy!

I know, I will hear that an eQSL is somehow illegitimate in that it has not been machine matched in a blind process.  However, an eQSL is human matched (you respond yea or nay).  Just as valid as the machine match in my opinion.

Dennis / KG4RUL
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!