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 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 24 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: LOTW  (Read 47688 times)
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1236




Ignore
« Reply #225 on: December 08, 2012, 05:55:26 AM »

If this were happening in a mission critical environment in Silicon Valley someone's
head would be on a pike!

Yeah, true.  But consider how much the LOTW system has grown over the last few years.  And consider how much we PAY for the LOTW service.  ARRL is running this without asking American hams to chip in; they don't even require you to be an ARRL member to use the service.

I for one would be glad to pay $10 a year or a $20 one-time fee to help fund LOTW.  The discussion of how database systems work fine with small amounts of data but bog down with large amounts--that's true as can be.  But a good systems analysis costs money. 

Considering that we aren't paying *anything* for LOTW, I'm not about to gripe about slow processing, not me.
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2145




Ignore
« Reply #226 on: December 08, 2012, 09:54:32 AM »

Quote
Considering that we aren't paying *anything* for LOTW, I'm not about to gripe about slow processing, not me.

And how long have you been a ham?  Grin Grin
Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1236




Ignore
« Reply #227 on: December 08, 2012, 11:08:45 AM »

And how long have you been a ham? 

Since 1991.  And I've been an Extra since 1992.  And I guess you meant that as a joke; hams love to complain.  But it's serious to me:  LOTW is a GREAT service and considering we're getting it for free, it's irrational to blame ARRL for a processing slowdown.  Anybody who is upset can send $20 or $50 to Newington--what you'd spend getting a few direct DX cards or what you'd donate to a DXpedition, and designate the money to LOTW improvements, and if enough of us DO that, THEN people might have some grounds for complaining about it. 
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 917




Ignore
« Reply #228 on: December 08, 2012, 12:04:13 PM »


Yeah, true.  But consider how much the LOTW system has grown over the last few years.  And consider how much we PAY for the LOTW service.  ARRL is running this without asking American hams to chip in; they don't even require you to be an ARRL member to use the service.

I for one would be glad to pay $10 a year or a $20 one-time fee to help fund LOTW.  The discussion of how database systems work fine with small amounts of data but bog down with large amounts--that's true as can be.  But a good systems analysis costs money. 

Considering that we aren't paying *anything* for LOTW, I'm not about to gripe about slow processing, not me.

Well, there are fees charged for award credits, and you have to be a member to apply for an award, so it does generate some revenue.  It is also a great way for the ARRL to net hams the world over. 

Asking if hams complain too much, may be like asking if water is too wet, but still.  If you put the ARRL name on a service, it reflects upon the ARRL and amateur radio as a whole.  I am not an IT expert, but surely it is a little embarrassing to have it limping down the road in its present state.  Hopefully the hardware upgrade stops all of our squeaking, but I would not bet the farm on it.  Probably the software is in need of some good tweaks.  N4CR pointed out a simple change in the software can sometimes make a system 15,000 times faster.  If that is true, getting that done would be money well spent. 
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2145




Ignore
« Reply #229 on: December 08, 2012, 12:28:22 PM »

And how long have you been a ham? 

Since 1991.  And I've been an Extra since 1992.  And I guess you meant that as a joke; hams love to complain.  But it's serious to me:  LOTW is a GREAT service and considering we're getting it for free, it's irrational to blame ARRL for a processing slowdown.  Anybody who is upset can send $20 or $50 to Newington--what you'd spend getting a few direct DX cards or what you'd donate to a DXpedition, and designate the money to LOTW improvements, and if enough of us DO that, THEN people might have some grounds for complaining about it. 


Yes, I was just joking with you. And I certainly didn't mean to belittle the seriousness of your post. (Even in the most serious of times, events, or such I can still recognize the irony or humor of a situation. Maybe its what keeps me going when things get rough.)

Actually I think K9AIM made one of the most stunning statements when you think about it:

"If you put the ARRL name on a service, it reflects upon the ARRL and amateur radio as a whole.  I am not an IT expert, but surely it is a little embarrassing to have it limping down the road in its present state."

We are talking about one of (if not the) premier amateur radio organizations in the world.
Logged
AC4RD
Member

Posts: 1236




Ignore
« Reply #230 on: December 08, 2012, 12:58:14 PM »

"If you put the ARRL name on a service, it reflects upon the ARRL and amateur radio as a whole.  I am not an IT expert, but surely it is a little embarrassing to have it limping down the road in its present state."

We are talking about one of (if not the) premier amateur radio organizations in the world.

It's a valid point, absolutely.  You and AIM are correct that it certainly doesn't look good for the ARRL to have slowdowns like this.  But maybe it's time for ARRL to start charging American hams, or North American hams, some small fee to use the system?  LOTS of us are using it, and it's a great thing not to have to wait for a card that may or may not arrive.  And a small annual (or one-time) fee might fund more hardware and the services of an IT professional to tweak the system.
Logged
AJ4RW
Member

Posts: 568




Ignore
« Reply #231 on: December 08, 2012, 01:36:21 PM »

Quote
And consider how much we PAY for the LOTW service. ARRL is running this without asking American hams to chip in; they don't even require you to be an ARRL member to use the service.

Considering that we aren't paying *anything* for LOTW, I'm not about to gripe about slow processing, not me.

If this is true, what do my membership dues go to?  I know ARRL derives its revenues from several sources and dues are just one source but still dues contribute.  Granted, to use LOTW you don't have to be a member.  But still my membership dues do contribute to LOTW no matter how small an amount.
Randy
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2565




Ignore
« Reply #232 on: December 08, 2012, 06:23:04 PM »

"If you put the ARRL name on a service, it reflects upon the ARRL and amateur radio as a whole.  I am not an IT expert, but surely it is a little embarrassing to have it limping down the road in its present state."

We are talking about one of (if not the) premier amateur radio organizations in the world.

It's a valid point, absolutely.  You and AIM are correct that it certainly doesn't look good for the ARRL to have slowdowns like this.  But maybe it's time for ARRL to start charging American hams, or North American hams, some small fee to use the system?  LOTS of us are using it, and it's a great thing not to have to wait for a card that may or may not arrive.  And a small annual (or one-time) fee might fund more hardware and the services of an IT professional to tweak the system.


Why are you saying hams do not pay to use LoTW. They most certainly do! They charge for each confirmation you use as a credit. I think it's 12 cents a credit. Then there is an application fee and various award or endorsement fees. I was charged about $155 last month for using LoTW. 

I have also read, but I can no longer find the article, that LoTW generated $900,000 in revenue last year.

73,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 711


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #233 on: December 08, 2012, 06:33:31 PM »



I have also read, but I can no longer find the article, that LoTW generated $900,000 in revenue last year.

73,

Chris/NU1O

I so hope that is correct...  If so, then LoTW will be fixed instantly...

73's
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
AJ4RW
Member

Posts: 568




Ignore
« Reply #234 on: December 08, 2012, 07:14:40 PM »

Quote
If so, then LoTW will be fixed instantly...

I think a more appropriate word to use is "should".  Don't forget, ARRL has ARES to consider giving money to hi hi.
Randy
Logged
NU1O
Member

Posts: 2565




Ignore
« Reply #235 on: December 08, 2012, 08:40:21 PM »

Quote
If so, then LoTW will be fixed instantly...

I think a more appropriate word to use is "should".  Don't forget, ARRL has ARES to consider giving money to hi hi.
Randy

What the hell is ARES?  It sounds like a disease.

73,

Chris/NU1O
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 711


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #236 on: December 08, 2012, 09:03:33 PM »


What the hell is ARES?  It sounds like a disease.

73,

Chris/NU1O

Go here to see what it is:
http://bit.ly/VWe7mD

73's
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 917




Ignore
« Reply #237 on: December 09, 2012, 01:34:42 AM »


Actually I think K9AIM made one of the most stunning statements when you think about it:

"If you put the ARRL name on a service, it reflects upon the ARRL and amateur radio as a whole.  I am not an IT expert, but surely it is a little embarrassing to have it limping down the road in its present state."

We are talking about one of (if not the) premier amateur radio organizations in the world.

The more I reflect upon it, the more it seems to me that it is in the ARRL's financial interest to spend money making LoTW state of the art.  One of the neat things about ham radio when I was a teen (and novice) in 1976, was that ham radio operators were cool and a lot of ham radio was innovative and on the cutting edge.  I'm not sure what it would take for the ARRL to make ham radio look as appealing to kids today as things like OSCAR looked to me when I was a kid, but I doubt technolgically savvy teens today are impressed by our LoTW system in its present state.

Hopefully that changes, because LoTW can be something that puts the ARRL in a very favorable light. 

Whoever came up with the idea of LoTW and got it going was visionary.  It deserves a full tune up  Wink
Logged
WA0CRI
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #238 on: December 09, 2012, 09:42:55 AM »

Does anybody have a LOTW QSO update more recent than November 24th ?
Logged
WW3QB
Member

Posts: 693




Ignore
« Reply #239 on: December 09, 2012, 09:52:06 AM »

Does anybody have a LOTW QSO update more recent than November 24th ?

2012-12-05 08:30:42 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: 20121129032832.10147
2012-12-05 08:30:42 LOTW_QSO: User file: ww3qb76a.tq8
2012-12-05 08:30:42 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for WW3QB - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (291)
2012-12-05 08:30:47 LOTW_QSO: QSO record QSLs a contact
2012-12-05 08:30:47 LOTW_QSO:    QSO: WW3QB ZD9UW 2012-10-01 20:38:00Z 15M SSB
2012-12-05 08:30:48 LOTW_QSO: QSO record QSLs a contact
2012-12-05 08:30:48 LOTW_QSO:    QSO: WW3QB TT8TT 2012-10-08 03:18:00Z 40M CW
2012-12-05 08:30:49 LOTW_QSO: QSO record QSLs a contact
2012-12-05 08:30:49 LOTW_QSO:    QSO: WW3QB PT0S 2012-11-22 19:52:00Z 17M CW
2012-12-05 08:30:49 LOTW_QSO: Successfully processed 9 QSO records in 6.315923 seconds
2012-12-05 08:30:49 LOTW_QSO: 3 QSL records entered
2012-12-05 08:30:49 LOTW_QSO: No errors encountered

It took six days in the queue to process. My last QSL is from D3AA 2012-12-09 04:50:20
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 24 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!