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 [4] 5 6 7 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: LOTW little used outside NA - I have a 2.6% response rate :(  (Read 13683 times)
K3TN
Member

Posts: 285


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2012, 03:03:31 AM »

If most of your QSOs are VK/VU/YB/ZL, the HB9ZA site shows these statistics:

Number of LotW Users by Country:

VK - 245
VU - 41
YB - 94
ZL - 152

So, not very big numbers. I have LotW confirmations from all of those countries and don't work a lot of VUs or YBs, but the % of LotW users in Asia Pacific is definitely low outside of Japan - and JA only has 1300 or so LotW users.

For example, I've tried to encourage HS0AC to start using LotW again - I think they stopped in 2009 or so.

But if you are really only seeing 2.4%, the law of averages predicts someone else in HS is probably seeing 50%...

John K3TN
Logged

John K3TN
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1004




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2012, 05:39:17 AM »

If most of your QSOs are VK/VU/YB/ZL, the HB9ZA site shows these statistics:

Number of LotW Users by Country:

VK - 245
VU - 41
YB - 94
ZL - 152

So, not very big numbers. I have LotW confirmations from all of those countries and don't work a lot of VUs or YBs, but the % of LotW users in Asia Pacific is definitely low outside of Japan - and JA only has 1300 or so LotW users.

For example, I've tried to encourage HS0AC to start using LotW again - I think they stopped in 2009 or so.

But if you are really only seeing 2.4%, the law of averages predicts someone else in HS is probably seeing 50%...

John K3TN

I think the % of LoTW users is on the increase the world over and is likely to grow exponentially over the next decade.  If that is true, one day we will all look back at return rates from 2011 and shake our heads in relative disbelief.  We will also be glad we signed up early :-)
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2163




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2012, 08:07:24 AM »

If most of your QSOs are VK/VU/YB/ZL, the HB9ZA site shows these statistics:

Number of LotW Users by Country:

VK - 245
VU - 41
YB - 94
ZL - 152

So, not very big numbers. I have LotW confirmations from all of those countries and don't work a lot of VUs or YBs, but the % of LotW users in Asia Pacific is definitely low outside of Japan - and JA only has 1300 or so LotW users.

For example, I've tried to encourage HS0AC to start using LotW again - I think they stopped in 2009 or so.

But if you are really only seeing 2.4%, the law of averages predicts someone else in HS is probably seeing 50%...

I have 40% of my VK QSO's confirmed by LOTW (includes several Lord Howe)

I have 35% of my ZL QSO's confirmed by LOTW (includes several Kermadec)

I have 100% of my YB QSO's confirmed by LOTW (OK so only 2 QSO's!)

I have 100% of my VU QSO's confirmed by LOTW (OK so only 4 QSO's!)

The majority of the above are not contests. (Indeed there's one VK I chat with several times each week).

I don't think the problem is lack of participation by Asia/Pacific area hams. I'm not sure there is a systemic problem as some try to imply; I only see systemic successes.

Tim.
Logged
HS0ZIB
Member

Posts: 417




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2012, 05:04:51 PM »

I'm sure that if I were working DXpeditions, then my LOTW % would be much higher.

I am generally not working rag-chewers.  I'm typically working stations calling for DX stations in Asia/Far East etc.  I would have thought that they would be using LOTW.  However, I'm the first to admit that I only started using LOTW fairly recently, and have read the various threads on this forum about the pros and cons of the system.  As a software engineer of 20 years experience, I will say (politely) that the implementation and operation of the application needs updating in certain areas - it certainly looks like it is stuck in a time warp Smiley

Perhaps ARRL needs to promote LOTW more to overseas hams.  I'm thinking that the registration procedure for non-NA hams is simply too much hassle for some. 

I'll see how this plays out.  I'm happy to upload my logs to LOTW, and if there is even just 1 confirmed QSO then that's better than zero.

Simon
Logged
KF6ABU
Member

Posts: 351




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2012, 06:14:37 PM »

I have 162 countries confirmed just in LOTW, out of 233 worked in a year and a half. I have 1,800 QSO total.

I think thats pretty good for LOTW.
Logged
LA9XSA
Member

Posts: 376




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: January 05, 2012, 06:44:38 PM »

The sign-up for overseas users isn't much of a hassle: I only printed a copy of my license document and sent it to the ARRL after I signed up. Of course it's harder for DXpeditions and rare entities since hams there have to prove more thoroughly that they're actually who and where they say they are, but for most of us international hams it's easy.

The main problem is the tqsl interface should have guided the user through the process. The how-to document explains it, but I think many people can't be bothered. Personally, I thought it was little work for quick, easy and fairly dependable QSL'ing.
Logged
K3TN
Member

Posts: 285


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2012, 03:22:24 AM »


The main problem is the tqsl interface should have guided the user through the process. The how-to document explains it, but I think many people can't be bothered. Personally, I thought it was little work for quick, easy and fairly dependable QSL'ing.

I agree - I really don't think LotW is much harder to get started with than eQSL but those extra steps and the clunkiness of the TQSL software is sort of like those child-proof tops on pill bottles - causes many people to just throw up their hands and give up.
Logged

John K3TN
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2645




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: January 06, 2012, 02:56:40 PM »

But if you are really only seeing 2.4%, the law of averages predicts someone else in HS is probably seeing 50%...

John K3TN

Can you please explain how if one HS station is receiving a 2.4% return rate the law of averages predicts some other HS station is seeing a 50% return rate.  I am fairly familiar with probability and I'd be interested in your explanation.

73,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
W0GLB
Member

Posts: 45




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2012, 03:13:54 PM »

I haven't gone to the extent in breaking down my results like some who have posted have, but my overall return rate is 58.8%, and my overall DX confirmation rate is 88.7%.  I think a major factor in that is that 75% of my contacts are RTTY and some digital modes, and generally, those folks by definition use software that facilitates LOTW uploads. Just got my DXCC entirely via LOTW confirmations, and well on my way to 20M and Digital endorsements, too.

BTW, I upload EVERY QSO. 
73 es gud DX, Gordon
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 859




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2012, 09:27:41 PM »

Without wishing to be the target of LOTW devotee's, and as a DX station, I would like to add that having tried once to get on the LOTW bandwagon, I would not wish to go through that pain again.
I also tried eQSL and found the verification/sign-up procedure excellent, but without official awards recognition it does seem a bit redundant for my purposes.
So now, I work the direct paper qsl path and will qsl 100% (postage not necessary).
I would certainly use LOTW, but despite the encouragement of those who say it is easy to setup and get registered - it is frankly a frankenstein/machiavellian hybrid in my experience.
When the ARRL can make LOTW as straightforward to use as my banks website and security I will most certainly sign up again.
Of course banks only handle billions of dollars, not DXCC certification, so it only seems prudent to use 1970's software practices and byzantine security for this holy grail.

I am not trying to be cruel, just very frustrated by LOTW.

I live in hope.

73s

« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 10:52:46 PM by STAYVERTICAL » Logged
N3OX
Member

Posts: 8854


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2012, 12:31:34 AM »

When the ARRL can make LOTW as straightforward to use as my banks website and security I will most certainly sign up again.
Of course banks only handle billions of dollars, not DXCC certification, so it only seems prudent to use 1970's software practices and byzantine security for this holy grail.

I am not trying to be cruel, just very frustrated by LOTW.

I've heard the "my bank is easier to use" argument but I think it misses an important point.

When you're a profit making entity handling daily transactions of huge amounts of money and the consequences of screwing that up could kill your corporation entirely and bad security procedures will cause your competitors to look more attractive, an expenditure of a few million bucks to set up a super-secure and user-friendly system is the basic cost of doing business.  You either pay some software firm to do it or you have people on staff to do it... lots of them.

When you are a nonprofit handling an electronic awards program for an obscure hobby, you don't have such resources.  But you do have  some people who take high level DXCC awards nearly as seriously as the money they have in the bank...

Demand for keeping it as hard to cheat as it is with paper QSLs requires security.  But that demand doesn't come with money to have a big team of people to work on that.
Logged

73,
Dan
http://www.n3ox.net

Monkey/silicon cyborg, beeping at rocks since 1995.
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1004




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2012, 04:14:15 AM »

Without wishing to be the target of LOTW devotee's, and as a DX station, I would like to add that having tried once to get on the LOTW bandwagon, I would not wish to go through that pain again.
[...]
I would certainly use LOTW, but despite the encouragement of those who say it is easy to setup and get registered - it is frankly a frankenstein/machiavellian hybrid in my experience.
When the ARRL can make LOTW as straightforward to use as my banks website and security I will most certainly sign up again.

As someone who has attained (afforded QSLing) DXCC only because of LoTW, I have to say you  make a fair point.
If the ARRL could come up with a 'set-up wizard' -- like Outlook and other programs have -- and it walked the user through what
hoops were necessary for appropriate vetting and verification, I think it would become much more favored. 

Right now the choir who sings its praises are the ones who have it and the detractors don't seem to have enough traction with those who find it a breeze.
Logged
K0IZ
Member

Posts: 737




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2012, 06:57:14 AM »

Two comments:

1.   I agree with earlier post that LOTW software is "clunky", and no doubt causes some to abandon process partway through.  I know I gave up a couple of years ago before trying again two weeks ago.  Software needs to be rewritten.

2.  Now that I am back into LOTW, I looked up my LOTW DXCC report.  I only operate 20M SSB, since 2003.  LOTW showed 193 confirmed.  My "real" QSL card confirmation showed 253 of 256 worked.   The missing three were filled in by LOTW.  So my LOTW return was 75%.  But this probably greatly overstates return since for most entities I have worked multiple stations, any of which would have provided an LOTW hit.
Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3726




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2012, 08:28:27 AM »

Well, I am a little curious as to why the big difference in confirmed vs. worked percentages.  I have approx 3000 QSOs listed, MOST of which are DX QSOs, outside US and my confirmed rate is still sticking at about 23%. I have a feeling that these high percentage rates of around 50% are heavily saturated with US QSOs. Just thinking out loud.  Gene AF3Y
Logged
WW3QB
Member

Posts: 695




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2012, 08:40:31 AM »

Well, I am a little curious as to why the big difference in confirmed vs. worked percentages.  I have approx 3000 QSOs listed, MOST of which are DX QSOs, outside US and my confirmed rate is still sticking at about 23%. I have a feeling that these high percentage rates of around 50% are heavily saturated with US QSOs. Just thinking out loud.  Gene AF3Y

My rate is 55%. It is mostly contest and digital QSOs (both mostly DX). These two groups really use LoTW.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 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!