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: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Your thoughts on real time online log for dxpeditions  (Read 4076 times)
AJ4RW
Member

Posts: 568




Ignore
« on: July 27, 2012, 08:04:44 AM »

I realize that some of these remote dxpeditions won’t have the ability to use real time online log or access to the internet.  But for the ones that do, wouldn’t using real online log updates be a benefit for everyone?
- it would give everyone that’s wishing to work the dxpedition a better chance.  I know if I’m not sure if I made a contact with the dxpedition, I’m going to work them again.  Either I want to make sure I have that dxpedition in the log for ATNO or for a band fill.
- It would open up more time for the dxpedition to work more stations than having to work someone over and over on the same band or mode.

I appreciate the effort that CY9M has done to make this dxcc entity available to me and I always donate money to the every dxpedition for their efforts.  I have noticed though that CY9M is stating “An online logbook will be available on Clublog probably after the expedition – we make no promises in uploading and updating the log during our activity. Same goes for LoTW”.  I saw where they have been tweeting so they must have some internet access.  This question/comment is not intended to be critical and I know that I don’t have any say in whether they use real time online log but wouldn’t it help cut down on the clutter of repeat contacts on the same band &/or mode with large pileups?  I appreciate your thoughts on this puzzling matter.
Randy AJ4RW
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2012, 08:27:55 AM »

I realize that some of these remote dxpeditions won’t have the ability to use real time online log or access to the internet.  But for the ones that do, wouldn’t using real online log updates be a benefit for everyone?
Randy AJ4RW


This was done with DXA starting back in 2005 - with the Kure K7C dxpedition:

http://www.cordell.org/KURE/KURE_pages/KURE_DXA.html

DXA will be used on Clipperton 2013 and Heard Island 2014 . . . .

Logged
M0TTB
Member

Posts: 184




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2012, 09:38:50 AM »

I saw where they have been tweeting so they must have some internet access.  This question/comment is not intended to be critical and I know that I don’t have any say in whether they use real time online log but wouldn’t it help cut down on the clutter of repeat contacts on the same band &/or mode with large pileups?  I appreciate your thoughts on this puzzling matter.
Randy AJ4RW


I think there's a big difference between getting out an occasional tweet compared to uploading reliably to a realtime log, even regular log updates are problematic with a sketchy connection as they are far larger uploads.
This is a pretty short duration dxped, so it also may be deemed that it's not worth the time and trouble (and cost!)
Logged
N2RJ
Member

Posts: 1135




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2012, 09:50:39 AM »

At least in my experience, data on satellite phones is horribly expensive, unless sponsored. That's probably why real time log uploads aren't doable on every or even most expeditions. In places where there is civilization and internet, sure. On a rock in the middle of the sea? Nah.

Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2012, 11:56:28 AM »

At least in my experience, data on satellite phones is horribly expensive, unless sponsored. That's probably why real time log uploads aren't doable on every or even most expeditions. In places where there is civilization and internet, sure. On a rock in the middle of the sea? Nah.



Kure isn't exactly near anything . . . yet there was near real time log updates that you could monitor on DXA. It costs $7 a MB, and the packets sent via DXA were tiny . . .
Logged
N7SMI
Member

Posts: 305




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2012, 08:34:23 AM »

For the cost of bandwidth for all the high quality photos CY9M are posting to Twitter, they could have uploaded several thousand log files. I do think that the online logs decrease the MANY duplicate 'insurance' contacts.
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2012, 10:34:28 AM »

Quote
I do think that the online logs decrease the MANY duplicate 'insurance' contacts.

In theory that should be the case.  For some reason it doesn't seem to work out that way.  See my comments on the "DXA" technology employed during the K7C Kure Island expedition found in my 2006 eHam article: http://www.eham.net/articles/14879

I'm of the old school, where radio contacts were made without internet assistance, so I'm not a great fan of online logs uploaded during the course of an expedition.  I don't see any evidence that such assistance to DX'ers reduces duplicate QSO rates.

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
K3TN
Member

Posts: 278


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2012, 03:33:01 AM »

Quote
  I don't see any evidence that such assistance to DX'ers reduces duplicate QSO rates.

I only know that it does reduce my insurance QSO rate. If I have a marginal QSO, without an online log to check I will make an insurance contact.  In these days of jamming and so many cluster-clickers calling on the DX stations transmit frequency, etc - for me, marginal QSOs happen more often than they used to. QSOs with slims are another reason, but that seems to happen at about the historical rate.

I don't think DXpeditions without online logs should be considered deficient - I doubt even a 10% in insurance QSOs would even be noticeable in the typical DXpedition pileup. But I'm glad to spend less time making unneccessary insurance QSOs when the online log is available.

John K3TN
Logged

John K3TN
N8HM
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2012, 07:41:49 AM »

For the cost of bandwidth for all the high quality photos CY9M are posting to Twitter, they could have uploaded several thousand log files. I do think that the online logs decrease the MANY duplicate 'insurance' contacts.

Their tweets are via Twitter for iPhone. I'd bet they can pick a cell phone signal up from Cape Breton Island (15 miles away, but across water), but maybe not all the time. Maybe they aren't able to use the tethering feature for some reason to get the logs uploaded.
Logged
N8EHW
Member

Posts: 28




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2012, 08:25:35 AM »

I would certainly agree that log check capability during the dxpedition cuts down on duplicate contacts, and eventually means that a few more operators will make it into the log. 
It also helps keep my buddy honest about how many bands he claims to have worked them on!
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2380




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2012, 02:16:19 PM »

Quote
I would certainly agree that log check capability during the dxpedition cuts down on duplicate contacts, and eventually means that a few more operators will make it into the log. 

I just got through saying that there is no evidence for this claim.  As I recall, the K7C expedition experienced about a ten percent dupe rate, even with the advanced technology of the DXA. 

I think the ubiquitous online logs and DX clusters have enabled bad operating practices-- people continuously calling DX stations that they really can't copy, perhaps hoping that somehow the DX will log their one way broadcasts as a "QSO." 

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3675




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2012, 02:27:34 PM »


I think the ubiquitous online logs and DX clusters have enabled bad operating practices-- people continuously calling DX stations that they really can't copy, perhaps hoping that somehow the DX will log their one way broadcasts as a "QSO."   73,
Chuck  NI0C


Chuck, I honestly think you have hit the nail on the head. You are correct!  WHY in the HELL else would they be behaving that way?
And, in my case, it makes me mad Angry as hell that operators who are actually that STUPID to think they can get a QSO that way were able to obtain a FCC license to operate a station in the first place Huh. Kinda makes my ticket feel a little less "important", at least to me.  73, Gene AF3Y
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 02:31:01 PM by AF3Y » Logged
N6PSE
Member

Posts: 494


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2012, 02:31:05 PM »

On the rare and major DXpeditions that I have been on (ST0R/7O6T) during the final last few days, many of the callers are dupes. Over and over again for hours on end. I don't think realtime or on-line logs benefit the DXpedition in any way.
Logged
W2IRT
Member

Posts: 2595


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2012, 02:42:16 PM »

I don't know if they benefit the DXpedition in a major way, but they certainly benefit at least some of the operators at home directly. If I know I've been correctly logged on 160 I'm not going to call again on Topband. I know some of the dupes are from guys who call in to ask a question when the ops are essentially begging, to be sociable and let 'em know they're being heard well stateside, etc, or in my own case, to work 'em once on QRP if the pileups are ever quiet enough, etc.
Logged

www.facebook.com/W2IRT
Night gathers and now my watch begins. It shall not end until I reach Top of the Honor Roll.
N8HM
Member

Posts: 80




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2012, 03:07:41 PM »

On the rare and major DXpeditions that I have been on (ST0R/7O6T) during the final last few days, many of the callers are dupes. Over and over again for hours on end. I don't think realtime or on-line logs benefit the DXpedition in any way.

Ugh. As someone who called and called with no success on 7O6T, I really hate that there were so many dupes on the last few days.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!