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 13863 times)
AB8MA
Member

Posts: 742




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2012, 10:14:28 AM »

One way to see your rate increase: don't upload for a month. Smiley

I had been sort of idle since Thanksgiving. With miscellaneous QSL's from years past (IRELAND, CZECH REPUBLIC. CANADA, BELGIUM, RWANDA, POLAND, JAPAN, and SPAIN) it is obvious that folks around the world are joining LOTW for the first time. So, even without much actual radio activity, most LOTW rates should increase regardless.

Of course, recent uploads from T32C and E51MAN were a plus.
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2662




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2012, 12:33:18 PM »

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

I have been using LoTW for about one year which is when I got back on the air after a multi-year hiatus. I have ~ 10,000 QSOs entered although about half are probably from contests.  My response rate is very close to yours, about 25%.  Since I am mainly a DXer about 70% of my QSOs are with stations outside the USA. I have 210 countries confirmed via LoTW and I have worked 302 altogether.  I've been licensed since 1988 and although I have every unique country uploaded to LoTW I did not expect too many LoTW confirmations from 20 year old QSOs.  I think I have about 5 confirmations from countries where the QSO is 10 or more years ago.

73,

Chris/NU1O

73,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2219




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2012, 04:44:53 PM »

I haven't uploaded many from before 2001, mainly because they were on a paper log. But I received some neat LOTW QSLs from what I have uploaded like

FO0CI (92)
CE0ZZZ (90)
ZA1A (91)
A25GH (91)
AH3C/KH5J (90)

At some point I would like toput them all in, its alot of input, and I would rather be DX'ing.  Grin
Logged
HS0ZIB
Member

Posts: 418




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: January 07, 2012, 05:25:29 PM »

I've made another small batch of uploads over the past week or two.  Confirmed rate now down to 2.0%, not one LOTW confirmation from this latest batch Sad

Simon
Logged
K0IZ
Member

Posts: 737




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: January 07, 2012, 05:38:38 PM »

If you work me, I'll get you a LOTW confirmation !!!
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2219




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: January 07, 2012, 06:47:03 PM »

If you work me, I'll get you a LOTW confirmation !!!

DITTO!!!!!!!!
Logged
WN2C
Member

Posts: 447




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2012, 10:55:20 AM »

Simon, don't let it get you down! If every one who has a low rate of confirmations stopped using LOTW then everyone's rate would fall. Hi Hi. Seriously tho, I only have about a 30 to 33 percent return. It may be the stations or possibly mode(s) you work. Do you when working SSB say you use LOTW? and you will confirm with it?
When I first started using it my confirmation rate was very low, so it may get better. I do know one thing, if you work me you will get a confirmation from LOTW form me.  I do still like getting real QSLs to hang in the shack for those non-OPs to see and ask did you really talk to....(put country name here).

On another note, to all who use LOTW it should be talked up and promoted to those who don't use it, maybe by explaining the benefits of how much money one can save in just postage and green stamps. JMHO

73 Es Gud Dx de Wn2c
Logged
HS0ZIB
Member

Posts: 418




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2012, 04:22:15 PM »

@WN2C, I'm not selective in my QSOs of course, and I work any station that contacts me, or that I can contact.  I always comment that I QSL and all details are on QRZ.com.  I check the QSL policy of each of my contacts on QRZ.com and either send a hard copy QSL card, (especially if it's a new country), AND upload all contacts to LOTW.  I upload to eQSL if requested.

So far, QRZ.com indicates that EVERY SINGLE CONTACT that I've made in the last 4-5 months does not use LOTW! (My LOTW confirmation rate has now dropped to 1.9%...)

Of course, your own mileage may vary Smiley

Having registered for LOTW, it makes little sense to stop using it, and it's a useful depository for my online logs. I'm sure if I persevere, then my confirm rate will increase rapidly, especially once I start making QSOs with NA from my new base QTH.

Simon
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 864




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2012, 03:30:21 AM »

The problem is not that LOTW is a bad idea, just that it is implemented in such a way as to make it fragile and difficult to install.
Look at your local bank - frankly the idea that it costs millions of dollars to implement a web based interface is not correct.
The cost of the software is usually the back-end processing and systems analysis.
There are a lot of web based software and products available in the open source community which are both professional and extensive - lack of technology is not the problem.
A captive customer base is not much of an incentive to change.
Don't misunderstand me, I fully support the ARRL and LOTW is a product of a genuine attempt at serving a need in the amateur community.
But times change, and technology is now available to make the customer experience (hams) both simple and secure.
After all, the important part of the whole process is the data (QSO information), not the interface.
When an interface and setup is unwieldy and difficult it destroys the overall experience, brings attention to the interface, not the data, and causes millions of wasted keystrokes by frustrated users.

Blaming the messenger does not change the message.
Please ARRL, redesign LOTW and see your user base expand.

73s
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 03:40:28 AM by STAYVERTICAL » Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2187




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2012, 03:42:02 AM »

So far, QRZ.com indicates that EVERY SINGLE CONTACT that I've made in the last 4-5 months does not use LOTW! (My LOTW confirmation rate has now dropped to 1.9%...)

Maybe this is like the mice trying to describe an elephant.

I just did the ARRL RTTY RU, and already (less than 12 hours after the end) about 35% of my QSO's are confirmed in LOTW, and I fully expect it to reach 70% or 80% before too long.

At the same time, if you're doing casual phone operation, or working 2 meter FM, modes where most guys don't even keep a logbook entry, I would not be surprised at 1-2% participation.

Coming in and generalizing "little used outside NA" probably is an unimportant factor. I suspect that mode and style of operation have much more to do with it, than geography. Of my DX QSO's in RTTY RU, the confirmation rate at the moment is higher than domestic QSO's.

Tim.
Logged
HS0ZIB
Member

Posts: 418




Ignore
« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2012, 04:23:14 AM »

Tim, I hear what you're saying, but cannot agree.  I only operate on 20 meters, either SSB or PSK from my mobile station.  I'm in a sought-after zone (26), and on an island (IOTA AS-053).  Most of my QSOs are with stations calling CQ DX, and they are very happy to make a contact with me, (as I am with them), and eager for a QSL.  But the facts speak for themselves.  Every single QSO that I've made on 20 metres since I've been active /M (about 4-5 months) has not been confirmed via LOTW (presumably because every single person that I've had QSOs with have indicated on QRZ.com that they do not accept LOTW).

If I were located in the USA, and working states/counties/whatever, then I'm sure my confirmed rate would be much, much higher.

Maybe I need to call 'CQ LOTW only??' Smiley

Simon
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2187




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2012, 06:02:43 AM »

Every single QSO that I've made on 20 metres since I've been active /M (about 4-5 months) has not been confirmed via LOTW.

This kinda falls under the "well when did it last work and what did you change" category.

Search on lotw for last upload for HS0ZIB/M yields:

Logbook Call Sign Activity
Here you can query Logbook to find out the last time log data was uploaded for a particular call sign.
Last upload for HS0ZIB/M: No log data found


Cutting and pasting from the ARRL webpage:

LoTW For The Mobile or Portable Operator-
If you signed your call using /m or /p or some other identifier then you will have to request a signed certificate for the appended callsign. Geographic information is managed by your station locations in TQSL.


If you signed with a portable, such as NT1N/6, or NT1N/R, you should obtain a separate certificate for those calls. Remember, those stations who worked you as NT1N/6 will not get a match to their data if you sign your NT1N/6 log with your NT1N certificate -- each QSO you submit will be tagged with NT1N instead of the correct NT1N/6.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 06:06:55 AM by N3QE » Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3737




Ignore
« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2012, 06:44:50 AM »

(From EI9JU)

I think LOTW a smashing idea but if you think it's cumbersome for a US ham you want to try and register from here.
They don't accept on-line documentation, a scanned and emailed copy of my Amateur Licence isn't good enough, the same applies to the second form of proof, they won't accept scans of my passport or driving licence, they insist proof must be original copies sent through the postal system.....or at least that's how I remember it when I last applied for registration.


Chris, remember this reply you got last August? I still think the number of hams outside the US, percentagewise is miniscule compared to the US.  Gene AF3Y
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1022




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2012, 08:13:41 AM »

Every single QSO that I've made on 20 metres since I've been active /M (about 4-5 months) has not been confirmed via LOTW.

Search on lotw for last upload for HS0ZIB/M yields:

Logbook Call Sign Activity
Here you can query Logbook to find out the last time log data was uploaded for a particular call sign.
Last upload for HS0ZIB/M: No log data found


Cutting and pasting from the ARRL webpage:

LoTW For The Mobile or Portable Operator -
If you signed your call using /m or /p or some other identifier then you will have to request a signed certificate for the appended callsign. Geographic information is managed by your station locations in TQSL.

If you signed with a portable, such as NT1N/6, or NT1N/R, you should obtain a separate certificate for those calls. Remember, those stations who worked you as NT1N/6 will not get a match to their data if you sign your NT1N/6 log with your NT1N certificate -- each QSO you submit will be tagged with NT1N instead of the correct NT1N/6.

pretty good detective work N3QE.  I was wondering about the remote possibility he uploaded for that brief period where LoTW was down and lost some uploads.  I hope your above possible explanation turns out right.  If it does, it should help Simon's rate quite a bit...  Although having to get a separate certificate for /M may make him like LoTW less...
Logged
W5DQ
Member

Posts: 1209


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2012, 09:08:32 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 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



I understand there a many individuals such as yourself that have admitted having difficulties in setting up LOTW. Without casting stones, flames or anything painful in anyones' direction, perhaps if those like yourself who have had problems would describe, without adding personal bias, the problems encountered in enough details to public forums like eHAM to provide a public accounting of the issues so ARRL can possibly update or correct defiencies. Even sharing the info, others might be able to help you get over any hurdles you are finding in your way.  I personally see many entries in multiple forums topics related to QSLing and the like where the poster expounds the negativity and dislike of ARRL's LOTW but only with comments such as your " .... it is frankly a frankenstein/machiavellian hybrid in my experience ..." with no additional information to allow anyone to help them. Another point I should also mention here is the continuing comparison between LOTW and eQSL. Beyond the fact that both can create a 'confirmation' for uploaded QSO data, comparing them is comparing APPLES to MONKEES. There are 2 totally different systems.

Again this isn't meant to criticize you or anyone but without a summary of the EXACT issues that are being found by the user community, the ARRL is probably not going to 'invest' time in doing a wild goose chase to find disliked options. Like was mentioned about banking woftware vs LOTW, they most likely have only a few people assigned to do updates to LOTW and those individuals are probably dual (or more) hatted being that ARRL is a non-profit.

Now having said the above, I personally have had no problems in setting up numerous LOTW accounts for myself, relatives and friends. Outside the delay waiting for a physical postcard, which by the way I think is the main problem a lot of potential users get stuck at, my average time to create a LOTW account and upload the initial logbook of contacts has been around 30 minutes. I simply follow the instructions found on the ARRL LOTW website TO THE LETTER and I never seem to have a problem. I have multiple calls linked in my LOTW account as well as my father (now SK) has 4 calls linked in his account I setup. And we even share a call (W5DQ - I obtained it by vanity call after he passed) so there was that additional hurdle to get over. Almost every account I have dealt with has had 2 or more calls to link.

If I can help you in any way, I'm good in QRZ.COM. Drop me an email and describe (with enough detail) the problem and I will try to help you get going on LOTW. It really isn't rocket science.

Gene W5DQ
Logged

Gene W5DQ
Ridgecrest, CA - DM15dp
www.radioroom.org
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!