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: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: eQSL etc.  (Read 4285 times)
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2017, 10:47:51 AM »

Rejecting in eQSL is optional.  Totally.

Generally, I don't bother.  If you think about it, it really isn't that important to reject NIL eQSLs.  If someone needs it for an award, they will email you.  If they don't, then generally nobody does.

A lot of NILs are also mis-recorded modes.   There's no rig made that will respond JT9 to its CAT interface.  In the end, mode is still essentially manual.

Thank you, Larry. Right again.  Smiley

It's possible to bulk archive them. I just tried, and seemed to work. Problem solved.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2377




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2017, 02:27:09 PM »

Quote
3) The number of 'not in log' is high. It could be the same with LOTW, but LOTW would not display them since there was no match.

And this is almost certainly true.

It is also why, though I suspect they will never do it, they need some kind of check mark where you can hide all mismatches and turn off all emails.  Then nobody would see this.  Just like they don't on LOTW.

This would, in effect, create something like an "LOTW emulation" mode.  It isn't their concept and so they probably won't do it (I haven't gone on their forum and suggested it -- haven't even looked -- but I rather doubt if they ever will).  It would be too much against their "marketing" to their user base ("but you saved $58,073.34 on paper QSLs").  They really want to be a full QSL card replacement.

However, if they did so, I think they would have an even more popular service for those that either can't or won't plug into their "concept" of "no more paper".
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2496


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2017, 05:10:22 PM »

A lot of NILs are also mis-recorded modes.   There's no rig made that will respond JT9 to its CAT interface.  In the end, mode is still essentially manual.

The digital mode application used to conduct the QSO knows what mode it's using, and can either log this mode directly or include the correct mode in the information sends to whichever logging application the user is employing. Several digital mode applications provide this level of auto-mation: FLDigi, JT-Alert, MixW, MultiPSK, MMTTY, MMVARI, WinWarbler, and WSJT-X, to cite a few examples.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 05:12:31 PM by AA6YQ » Logged
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: June 15, 2017, 05:32:49 PM »

A lot of NILs are also mis-recorded modes.   There's no rig made that will respond JT9 to its CAT interface.  In the end, mode is still essentially manual.

The digital mode application used to conduct the QSO knows what mode it's using, and can either log this mode directly or include the correct mode in the information sends to whichever logging application the user is employing. Several digital mode applications provide this level of auto-mation: FLDigi, JT-Alert, MixW, MultiPSK, MMTTY, MMVARI, WinWarbler, and WSJT-X, to cite a few examples.

I was about to comment on this, but Dave beat me to it. Wink

My IC-718 is always in USB mode. The logged mode is sent by the software in use. If I need to reverse things, like in RTTY, I do it in software as well.

73 de Vince, VA3VF
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 05:37:55 PM by VA3VF » Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4551




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: June 16, 2017, 03:10:25 AM »

And on the other hand... TX5EG has announced they will be uploading to eQSL but they have no plans for LOTW.
Logged
KJ3N
Member

Posts: 323




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: June 16, 2017, 06:33:36 AM »

And on the other hand... TX5EG has announced they will be uploading to eQSL but they have no plans for LOTW.

Logged
N2RJ
Member

Posts: 1947




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: June 19, 2017, 09:12:16 AM »

A lot of NILs are also mis-recorded modes.   There's no rig made that will respond JT9 to its CAT interface.  In the end, mode is still essentially manual.

I thought that WSJT-X set the mode automatically rather than taking it from the rig. I have a generic "digital" mode on my rig which is essentially SSB without any audio filtering or processing.
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 4230




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: June 19, 2017, 02:16:52 PM »

And on the other hand... TX5EG has announced they will be uploading to eQSL but they have no plans for LOTW.

Must be another ham with a beef against LoTW. This really stinks.  I added three new band slots from TX5EG.

73,

Chris  NU1O
Logged
MM0NDX
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2017, 02:41:16 PM »

Funny.  Grin
Have you ever thought that some hams just don't like LoTW plain and simple ? It's not a crime to not support it, is it ? It's not the "be-all-and-end-all" is it?
Logged
KJ3N
Member

Posts: 323




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: June 20, 2017, 07:24:30 PM »

Funny.  Grin
Have you ever thought that some hams just don't like LoTW plain and simple ? It's not a crime to not support it, is it ? It's not the "be-all-and-end-all" is it?

That's considered blasphemy to the LoTW faithful. How dare you!  Wink  Cheesy
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2496


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #70 on: June 20, 2017, 10:02:59 PM »

Have you ever thought that some hams just don't like LoTW plain and simple ?

Name any aspect of amateur radio, and there will be some hams that just don't like it.

It's not a crime to not support it, is it ?

Of course not.

It's not the "be-all-and-end-all" is it?

LoTW is the only form of electronic confirmation that is accepted by the popular DXCC, VUCC, and WAS award programs. In comparison with QSL cards, LoTW saves its users significant time and money.
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 4230




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2017, 11:07:57 PM »

Funny.  Grin
Have you ever thought that some hams just don't like LoTW plain and simple ? It's not a crime to not support it, is it ? It's not the "be-all-and-end-all" is it?

I could care less why some hams don't want to use LoTW but it makes things so much simpler for me that it probably is a be-all-and-end-all.  Many logging programs will upload QSOs to Club Log, LoTW, eQSL and even QRZ.  I don't like QRZ or eQSL but I upload my log to those sites because I know each of those sites has its adherents and I know my uploads will make those users happy.  Why can't those who dislike LoTW simply upload because it makes those of us who use LoTW extremely happy?

73,

Chris  NU1O

Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2377




Ignore
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2017, 11:53:32 PM »

Quote
Why can't those who dislike LoTW simply upload because it makes those of us who use LoTW extremely happy?

According to the dissenters I talk to, the main reason is the security.  Both initially and at renewal time.  Too much hassle.  If that could be simplified, more would participate.  However, I don't really see that happening.

Now, I'm sure we'll suddenly all wax poetic about how important it is and how "not hard" it is.  But, almost everyone who will say so is an LOTW user.

The rest, if there are any, are sovereigns of their own opinions.  And, as long as they think it's too much hassle, it's not on for them.

But, cheer up, by my calculations, LOTW participation continues to increase. It also increases as a fraction of total DXers.  So, it's not just any sort of "we got more hams".  It is a rising fraction compared to the whole population.  I call it a revolution in slow motion.

I have held several callsigns (DX and stateside) for a variety of reasons.  And while my sample size is probably not definitive, it's suggestive.

I suspect that about 75 per cent of DXers now participate since circa 2010 or so.  If one looks at lifetime aggregates, one will come up with a smaller number.  But, I get a breakout (in my case) because I have multiple call signs.  When I plot the match rates for each callsign versus "first QSO date for that callsign", I calculate the recent rate at 75 per cent, allowing for the fact that the raw match rate will understate participation (because you need both stations to participate to get a match, so it is an "AND" relationship). 

But even if you don't do that, you can see a clear rise even if you can (as I do) make a scatter diagram of raw match rates against your various calls (if you have enough of them).
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2496


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #73 on: June 21, 2017, 08:04:28 AM »

Quote
Why can't those who dislike LoTW simply upload because it makes those of us who use LoTW extremely happy?

According to the dissenters I talk to, the main reason is the security.  Both initially and at renewal time. 

There is no security requirement at "renewal time". Renewing a soon-to-expire "callsign certificate" requires exactly 5 mouse clicks in TQSL.
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 2377




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: June 21, 2017, 10:32:32 PM »

Quote
There is no security requirement at "renewal time". Renewing a soon-to-expire "callsign certificate" requires exactly 5 mouse clicks in TQSL.

Ah, but if they don't renew on time?  Some of the dissenters I talk to are indifferent enough to LOTW to let their certificates expire.  To be fair, certs used to be only a year and that now seems to be improved.

Still, it's a sticking point for some and no mistake.  And it's what they were talking about.  They also seem to dislike the whole idea of having to do anything at all to renew.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 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!