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 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: eQSL-LOTW-QRZ Log: Which To Use?  (Read 9198 times)
K8GU
Member

Posts: 716


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2011, 05:14:50 AM »

There is really only one electronic QSL system that is not a toy:  LoTW. 

For the record, LoTW TrustedQSL works wonderfully on the Mac and GNU/Linux (and it should build on any other Unix-like system that can satisfy the dependencies).

I also enjoy paper QSL cards.
Logged
K4BNC
Member

Posts: 33




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2011, 10:45:27 AM »

I have not been sending out QSLs for a good many years (although I will answer any sent directly).  I decided a few months ago to start with LOTW when they added VUCC.  I already have more than enough for 6M. I am seeing confirmations for about half of the grids I have worked; on 2 and 432 it is more like a quarter.

My last DXCC update was 1971.  Although it took a while for them to find the record, it is now linked with LOTW.  One limitation is that the old linked records do not carry specific information such as the band used.  Therefore they only appear in the overall totals but not in the per band counts.  However the LOTW confirmations alone would have been enough for DXCC (and WAS for that matter). 

LOTW seems like a good deal less trouble than physically exchanging cards.  Besides all my walls are already covered with QSL cards.
John

Logged
KE3WH
Member

Posts: 56


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2011, 07:46:42 PM »

I like the QSL in hand first.
I have been using eQSL since it started, im one of the unlucky ones that never seemed to QSO anyone else that used it, or went through the AG process as well.
I just started with LoTW, I had tried 3 or 4 separate times to set it up prior to my last successful attempt. Its certainly a process that needs streamlined.
QRZ just isnt all that popular it seems.

Dan
Logged

First ticket 1980. Ex KA3EWT, N3DSO.
N5UP
Member

Posts: 4


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2011, 03:44:35 PM »

Nobody seemed to give you any hard data.  Here are the facts as of August 2, 2011:

LOTWeQSL.cc
Users42,827180,490
QSL records42 million208 million
Awards26 (+26 endorsements)

Logged
AB4ZT
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2011, 04:41:51 PM »

Here are the real hard facts:

LOTW:  Good for DXCC, VUCC, and other awards

eQSL:   Good for nothing.

73,

Richard
Logged
KJ4FUU
Member

Posts: 162




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2011, 05:45:34 AM »

I prefer a card. While I won't be able to use eQSL for awards, at least it does give me the chance to get a card (by using their card printing/mailing service) from stations that normally don't give cards. I don't bother to print and mail default cards, but if someone went through the effort to design a card, and I know that they don't do postal QSLs, or that a postal QSL would be long in coming, I have the card printed and mailed to me.

LotW doesn't let me see cards, but it is good for awards. And, while eQSL and qrz.com both allow you to see incoming requests (even those you never had contact with), you can't cheat LotW with any method I've heard about.

So, I:

a.) load all my contacts into LotW,
b.) respond to contacts in eQSL,
c.) use qrz.com to find out if the ham does QSL cards by mail.

So, they all have their uses.

73,

-- Tom
Logged
W5DQ
Member

Posts: 1209


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 03, 2011, 09:28:34 AM »

Nobody seemed to give you any hard data.  Here are the facts as of August 2, 2011:

LOTWeQSL.cc
Users42,827180,490
QSL records42 million208 million
Awards26 (+26 endorsements)



Not disputing the actual numbers but of those 208 million eQSL database entries, how many are ACTUALLY valid QSLs and not wishful (or after the fact) QSLs. I would bet (based on my results to date with eQSL) that upwards of 10% of them are bogus, maybe more. At the same time, the 42 million QSLs in the LOTW database are guarenteed 100% accurate given the facts that both sides have to enter MATCHING data BLINDLY (neither knows the others entry until it matches) so all QSLs are valid. One interesting fact is although I hear about the level of usage and see numbers like these quoted above, I can't understand why I would have over 200 countries confirmed in LOTW and only 78 confirmed in eQSL if I upload the same data to both sites and supposedly eQSL is used by more hams? Looks and sounds like there is alot of boasting going on but nothing to back it up!

Not sure where the 2 award number comes from for LOTW in the above numbers. If counting awards, there are 3 basic awards (DXCC, WAS, VUCC) but with all the ENDORSEMENTS (let's be fair to both sides in the count) there are 55 awards to earn.

Given the level of exposure that almost every person has daily with computers in everyday life, I find it humorous that many still stand by their comments "I find setting up LOTW too difficult", "I find LOTW too confusing to use", "I don't want to have to wait on a postcard to register", "I don't like LOTW because .........". While I'm sure that process could be more streamlined (I know enough about IT to get me through most of the problems I face at work and home), I think I could safely bet that of the vast majority of hams using a computer and some sort of logging program and that the logging program, once installed and configured, handles the 'work' of interfacing with the LOTW for online QSLing. Once setup, LOTW is no harder to use than eQSL but of course throwing in the ARRL bashers and you get a lot of whining and groaning about LOTW regardless.
 
Like I mentioned in a previous reply, I do ALL avenues of QSLing so I am not biased one way or the other. I use the method that gives me the desired results with the least amount of effort and expense.

Gene W5DQ
ARRL Life Member
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 09:30:55 AM by W5DQ » Logged

Gene W5DQ
Ridgecrest, CA - DM15dp
www.radioroom.org
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2383




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2011, 02:50:07 PM »

W5DQ,

Your reply to N5UP's posting was spot on.

Number of QSL's loaded to eQSL are comparable to number of QSO's (not QSL's) uploaded to LoTW.  Thus, many more QSO's have been uploaded to LoTW than eQSL.  

I also agree with your point concerning number of countries represented in the two systems.  My experience is 296 confirmed LoTW countries; but only 153 on eQSL for the same log data.

I use both; however I'm certainly less enthusiastic about eQSL.  I could care less about their copycat awards that just don't garner the same respect as ARRL and CQ awards.  

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   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!