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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 13 Colonies confirmation requests.  (Read 16763 times)
N0IU
Member

Posts: 2005


WWW

Ignore
« on: July 10, 2016, 08:15:13 AM »

I entered the stations in my log exactly as I heard them as K2A, K2B, etc. I upload my logs to LoTW and also to eQSL even though I do not participate in any of the eQSL awards programs. So far I have had two stations that also submitted confirmation requests for those contacts using their own calls. I never heard either of those stations give their own call sign. Because I have no idea who was actually operating the station, I rejected those confirmation requests. And of course, they will never show up on LoTW.

I know that Part 97 says:

Quote
ยง97.119   Station identification.
(d) When transmitting in conjunction with an event of special significance, a station may substitute for its assigned call sign a special event call sign as shown for that station for that period of time on the common data base coordinated, maintained and disseminated by the special event call sign data base coordinators. Additionally, the station must transmit its assigned call sign at least once per hour during such transmissions.

While I am pretty sure that both of these stations complied with this section of Part 97 at some point, I never heard them identify as such. Am I expected to monitor the special event station for an hour just to get the operator's call sign?
Logged
KJ3N
Member

Posts: 386




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2016, 09:47:30 AM »

Am I expected to monitor the special event station for an hour just to get the operator's call sign?

No. That's not your responsibility.

I was 1 of the K2E ops. Twice now, I've had the same person send me a eQSL confirmation request to my personal call. I have rejected it both times with a note that the request needs to go to K2E, not me.
Logged
KA3TKZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2016, 01:13:00 PM »

Greetings,

13 Colonies Special Event, not a contest.  You sweat the small stuff.  I operated as K2B from Virginia.  My call is N3ZV.  I sent out eQSL for N3ZV, N3ZV/K2B and K2B.  You are at liberty to accept any one or all the the eQSLs.  When this is done, the purpose is to TRY to please most of the folks out there.  I know you can only please some of the people some of the time.  Relax and just say not in log for what you don't want.  When I get the notification in my email I just delete it anyway.  No reason to make a stink about it just don't accept that eQSL.


Whitney
N3ZV
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 2005


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2016, 01:55:19 PM »

13 Colonies Special Event, not a contest.

Why should that make a difference? A contact is a contact regardless of the circumstance in which it is made.

My call is N3ZV.  I sent out eQSL for N3ZV, N3ZV/K2B and K2B.

The point is that the only way you identified to me was using the K2B call sign.

When this is done, the purpose is to TRY to please most of the folks out there.  I know you can only please some of the people some of the time.

Confirming a contact isn't about trying to please people, its about confirming exactly what was heard!

I don't know, maybe I have been doing amateur radio wrong for nearly 25 years by rejecting all those QSLs who were NIL. After all, they were just trying to please me!
Logged
KA3TKZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2016, 02:20:44 PM »

You did not get the point.  Just to let you know, I do not confirm contacts like this either.  I said I was trying to please some of the people some of the time.  Relax!  This is no big deal and you are getting your shorts all bunched up.  You only confirm what you want and others confirm what they want, get it. This is no big deal and you do not confirm, I am happy for you and I would bet many others are happy for you too.  You get the last word, I am out.  Thank you.


N3ZV Whitney
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 2005


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2016, 03:22:14 PM »

I am happy for you and I would bet many others are happy for you too. 

N3ZV Whitney

Today is our anniversary and we will be going out for a very special dinner in a little while. I have already heard from our 3 children, 8 grand daughters and great grandson and they are all very happy for both me and my wife.

Thank you!
Logged
W3WN
Member

Posts: 754




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2016, 10:22:22 AM »

Glad you feel that way Whitney.

I too have had several 13 Colony 1x1 contacts show up on eQSL under (presumably) the operator's personal call, not the 1x1 call.  All have been rejected, since that was not the call of the station I worked at the time. 

No big deal.  Nor should it be.

However, it is to some.  I had something similar happen in the past during some SKCC operating events, where the op of the K3Y station QRV at the time sent an eQSL request under his or her own call.... And then got right nasty about the rejection.  Simple solution, though... I just don't work them anymore, there's plenty of other stations to work.

Thanks for your efforts in 13 Colonies, in any case.
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4936




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2016, 10:39:23 AM »

However, it is to some.  I had something similar happen in the past during some SKCC operating events, where the op of the K3Y station QRV at the time sent an eQSL request under his or her own call.... And then got right nasty about the rejection.

Individual eQSL users may *seem* clueless, but really it's the underlying flawed concepts in eQSL that make its users seem stupid.

LOLware.
Logged
N9KX
Member

Posts: 2062




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2016, 09:59:32 PM »

i was expecting the bulk of the QSOs I had w/ special event Colony stations getting LoTW confirmed...  Undecided

no such luck so far...  i guess just because it is an ARRL event doesn't mean its partcipants like LoTW  Huh
Logged
KA3TKZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2016, 04:22:37 AM »

W9RND,

The 13 Colonies Special Event is NOT an ARRL event.  I cannot get a LoTW certificate for just K2B.  I do, on the other hand, have a LoTW cert. for N3ZV/K2B and I uploaded logs as such.  For those that do not agree, don't get your panties in a wad.  I do this for those that want qsl's this way.  Just trying to please some of the folks some of the time as I know I cannot please all the folks all the time!


Whitney
N3ZV
N3ZV/K2B
K2B
Logged
N9KX
Member

Posts: 2062




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2016, 12:44:29 PM »

The 13 Colonies Special Event is NOT an ARRL event.  I cannot get a LoTW certificate for just K2B.  I do, on the other hand, have a LoTW cert. for N3ZV/K2B and I uploaded logs as such.

thanks, that helps explain the poor LoTW participation.  what is strange though is that i do get LoTW from some of the 13 Colony Special event stations, just not very many (both in this year and in years past).  
I'm not sure why you couldn't get a LoTW certificate for K2B since certs are only valid for certain time frames...

K2B did upload to LoTW in 2011 : https://lotw.arrl.org/lotwuser/act?act=K2B

I have K2B LoTW confirmed on 15, 20 and 40m SSB (all in 2011)

K2C uploaded 7/22/2016: https://lotw.arrl.org/lotwuser/act?act=K2C

I have K2C LoTW confirmed on both CW and SSB this year...
Logged
KJ3N
Member

Posts: 386




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2016, 04:12:32 PM »

i guess just because it is an ARRL event doesn't mean its partcipants like LoTW  Huh

If the 13 Colonies had been an ARRL event, I wouldn't have participated.

Contrary to popular opinion, there are many events and contests that have nothing to do with the ARRL.  Roll Eyes
Logged
W3TTT
Member

Posts: 271




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2016, 09:22:50 AM »

Individual eQSL users may *seem* clueless, but really it's the underlying flawed concepts in eQSL that make its users seem stupid.

Yes, don't get me started.  The eQSL site is very bad.  Why should I need to prove to eQSL that the contact is good in my log by entering the time of contact? 

The LoTW is a royal pain.  It's more secure than the Pentagon, and I have worked at the Pentagon.  It is more secure than my bank.  Does ARRL think that QSL cards are more important and valuable than the money in the bank?  It seems that every time that I try to upload contacts to LoTW, that I need a new "certificate".

It is their hubris why they all can't get together and merge the sites so QSLs entered on one site are automatically shared with the other sites.   

Thanks for listening - 73, Joe
W3TTT
Logged
W3WN
Member

Posts: 754




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2016, 08:21:59 PM »

Individual eQSL users may *seem* clueless, but really it's the underlying flawed concepts in eQSL that make its users seem stupid.

Yes, don't get me started.  The eQSL site is very bad.  Why should I need to prove to eQSL that the contact is good in my log by entering the time of contact? 

The LoTW is a royal pain.  It's more secure than the Pentagon, and I have worked at the Pentagon.  It is more secure than my bank.  Does ARRL think that QSL cards are more important and valuable than the money in the bank?  It seems that every time that I try to upload contacts to LoTW, that I need a new "certificate".

It is their hubris why they all can't get together and merge the sites so QSLs entered on one site are automatically shared with the other sites.   

Thanks for listening - 73, Joe
W3TTT
Don't be so quick to blame the ARRL on this one, Joe.

About 12 - 14 years ago, the ARRL & eQSL people were talking to each other about how they could make a cross-integration system work.  Then one day, ironically an April 1st if memory serves, eQSL users could not log into their accounts.  This went on for about 2 days before it was reversed.  N5UP then announced that they (eQSL) had made a 'mandatory' change to their system on the ARRL's demands... btw, ARRL denied making any demands at the time... which didn't work, so they went back to their old ways, and that was that.

The LotW folks at ARRL got a lot of flack over this, as noted, and if memory serves, their response boiled down to "Huh?  This is news to us, we never demanded anything!"

Anyway, I believe that stunt was the end of attempts at cooperation.  It smelled like a setup then, and still does to this day.

I have my own doubts about the eQSL folks.  When they first implemented their 'printed QSL on request, for a small fee' system, I wrote them and said I did not want them to do so on my behalf.  I got an email back from N5UP, basically a lecture on how a database worked, and it informed me I didn't know anything about them, so there.  That's not a nice thing to say to a professional database developer & administrator, not that he knew that. 

But I digress.  Suffice to say, don't automatically assume that the 'fault' lies in CT.

And yes, I agree, LotW is more secure than many banks and financial institutions.  That tells me a lot more about those banks and financial institutions, and what they lack, rather than serves as an indictment of the LotW system.
Logged
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!