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 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Interesting LoTW Data  (Read 11978 times)
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1743


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #45 on: December 18, 2012, 11:05:13 AM »

David, why are so adversarial to all these comments?  

I have challenged claims I know to be false, and pointed out the flaws in the logic behind them; if you consider that "adversarial", so be it. Ham spirit does not require one to remain silent when a person who's never reviewed LotW's architecture, database schema, or code proclaims that they are "confident that hardware upgrades are not the solution, but only a temporary fix".

There are plenty of valid reasons to be unhappy with the ARRL's management of LotW; there's no need to invent new ones and justify them with sloppy logic.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 11:25:36 AM by AA6YQ » Logged
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 77




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2012, 11:19:32 AM »

Ham spirit is not law, it's a gentleman type of thing.
I am sure your right about the technicalities, but I'm sure your wrong in your attitude towards other hams here.  
You seem to take some of the criticism as if your responsible for the complaints.
I don't think you caused any problems, your trying to help, but the way your going about this dialogue is putting you in a light as a bitter ARRL representitive.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 11:24:18 AM by KD6KVL » Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1743


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2012, 11:19:42 AM »


What was K1ZZ's response to your question?

From what "other organization" would the ARRL accept proof of contact for DXCC award credit?


I reviewed my email to him in which I expressed concern that the LoTW software be tuned up in addition to doing a hardware upgrade, and his reply (which was very fast btw) suggested the current problem *is* a hardware problem period. 

None of LotW's hardware is malfunctioning. The current storage subsystem is limiting the throughput of the system. Clearly, the current crisis should have been averted by upgrading the storage subsystem long before things reached this point.

I would hope the ARRL leadership already thinks proactively about maintaining the amateur services they provide now and will provide in the future, and I and had not specifically asked him about future plans for LoTW.  However, I did just contact him regarding that issue since maybe the ARRL team has not asked themselves such important questions(s)   Huh

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, LotW staffing for development and maintenance has been insufficient, and has focused on adding new functionality rather than insuring system integrity and performance. I expect that will change once the current crisis has been brought to an end. Expecting ARRL management to spin up such an effort before the crisis remains unresolved is not reasonable - particular given the current staffing level. The more our ARRL representatives learn of the need for this, the more likely it is to occur.

As for your question about "from what 'other organization' would the ARRL accept proof of DXCC award credit" -- I think you misread the post. My suggestion was another organization (one yet to be born perhaps) may arise which will offer a QSO confirmation and DX award service.  There are many innovative hams out there who have come up with some great things.  Maybe an organization like ClubLog might be the organization to do it (or maybe someone we have never heard of). 

I understood your post. For all of its difficulties with LotW, the ARRL remains the gold standard for DXing awards, and I don't think that's likely to change.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1743


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #48 on: December 18, 2012, 11:25:11 AM »

Ham spirit is not law, it's a gentleman type of thing.
I am sure your right about the technicalities, but I'm sure your wrong in your attitude towards other hams here.  
You seem to take some of the criticism as if your responsible for the comaints.
I don't think you caused any problems, your trying to help, but the way your going about this dialogue is putting you in a light as a bitter ARRL representitive.

I am neither an ARRL representation nor am I bitter; on the contrary, I'm excited to have the opportunity to address some of the usability issues that have plagued TQSL and TQSLCert all these years. I do have a low tolerance for BS that makes difficult problems harder to solve, and nonsensical predictions about the storage subsystem upgrade are exactly that.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 11:31:31 AM by AA6YQ » Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3233


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #49 on: December 18, 2012, 12:16:02 PM »

AA6YQ:

Thanks very much for jumping in and doing something to make LOTW a better system!

The ARRL DXCC program is the Gold Standard (for me at least), so LOTW is an important part of that.

Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1075




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2012, 12:40:02 PM »

For all of its difficulties with LotW, the ARRL remains the gold standard for DXing awards, and I don't think that's likely to change.

probably not, although I bet Barnes & Noble and Borders felt the same way about an online-only book seller like Amazon at one time.

I see no reason why an organization less specifically American could not become *the* DX award and QSO confirmation organization given the present problems with and lack of priority given to LoTW.  Surely there are secure ways of minimizing fraud that are far more user friendly than LoTW.  Hopefully the ARRL is about to release a new system and not simply put bandaids on the present system.

Those currently on the honor roll might resist a new DX award organization the most, unless said organization accepted LoTW QSL's for credit *and* started from the current approved entity list. 

A few year's ago I asked the ARRL thru the LoTW site if a Worked All Canada award could be created.  The response was one was already in the works.  I have yet to see it.  Must be *really* difficult for them to create  Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 12:47:33 PM by K9AIM » Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2408




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2012, 12:45:34 PM »

I second KY6R's comments.  Both the DXCC and WAZ programs were started before most of us here were born, including me.  These programs have both history and integrity, and are not likely to be replaced.   

73,
Chuck  NI0C

Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2408




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2012, 01:05:44 PM »

I should have added to my remarks above that AA6YQ's free DXLab Suite has become the "gold standard" of logging programs.  Thanks for that, Dave, as well as stepping up to the plate for LoTW.

73,
Chuck  NI0C
 
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2408




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2012, 01:48:23 PM »

K9AIM wrote:
Quote
A few year's ago I asked the ARRL thru the LoTW site if a Worked All Canada award could be created.  The response was one was already in the works.  I have yet to see it.

Maybe they don't want to duplicate any of the Canadian awards already offered:
https://www.rac.ca/en/rac/services/awards/cdn-awards.php

The WAVE award has been around for probably fifty years.

73,
Chuck NI0C
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1743


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #54 on: December 18, 2012, 02:06:21 PM »

For all of its difficulties with LotW, the ARRL remains the gold standard for DXing awards, and I don't think that's likely to change.

probably not, although I bet Barnes & Noble and Borders felt the same way about an online-only book seller like Amazon at one time.


The cost of ARRL awards is minimal, so there is no opportunity for another organization to seriously undercut them on price, as Amazon did to its bricks & mortar competitors. What sets the ARRL apart from other award sponsors -- existing and hypothetical -- is its large market share among DXers, who strive to earn DXCC awards from the moment they discover that "DX Is!"

I see no reason why an organization less specifically American could not become *the* DX award and QSO confirmation organization given the present problems with and lack of priority given to LoTW.  Surely there are secure ways of minimizing fraud that are far more user friendly than LoTW. 

Much of the complexity emanating from LotW's approach to security can be hidden from users. That's a primary goal in rebooting the TrustedQSL project.

Hopefully the ARRL is about to release a new system and not simply put bandaids on the present system.

The ARRL is not about to release a new LotW system, nor is it bandaiding the present system. It is in the process of eliminating the throughput bottleneck in the present system by upgrading its storage subsystem.

Those currently on the honor roll might resist a new DX award organization the most, unless said organization accepted LoTW QSL's for credit *and* started from the current approved entity list. 

No one is happy about expansion of LotW's processing queue over the past several months, but no serious DXer I know is contemplating abandoning the DXCC award program. They want LotW fixed.

A few year's ago I asked the ARRL thru the LoTW site if a Worked All Canada award could be created.  The response was one was already in the works.  I have yet to see it.  Must be *really* difficult for them to create  Roll Eyes

Unless you received the "already in the works" response from an ARRL exec, I wouldn't put much weight on it.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1075




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2012, 12:58:17 AM »

The cost of ARRL awards is minimal, so there is no opportunity for another organization to seriously undercut them on price, as Amazon did to its bricks & mortar competitors. What sets the ARRL apart from other award sponsors -- existing and hypothetical -- is its large market share among DXers, who strive to earn DXCC awards from the moment they discover that "DX Is!"

Well, Amazon did have great prices, but they also made customer focus their main mission.  They made the online shopping experience easy, customer-friendly, and reliable. They also had vision to see that a significant share of brick & mortar sales would shift to online shopping in the coming decades.   

Much of the complexity emanating from LotW's approach to security can be hidden from users. That's a primary goal in rebooting the TrustedQSL project.

that is great news; thanks for taking on the task of helping to make that happen!

The ARRL is not about to release a new LotW system, nor is it bandaiding the present system. It is in the process of eliminating the throughput bottleneck in the present system by upgrading its storage subsystem.
as long as it eliminates the present bottleneck and can handle the inevitable growth over the coming years without further bottlenecks, a new system won't be necessary.

No one is happy about expansion of LotW's processing queue over the past several months, but no serious DXer I know is contemplating abandoning the DXCC award program. They want LotW fixed.

there are however quite a few DX operators who have not gotten on board with LoTW because of the perceived complexity of using it.  Hopefully once the changes occur word will spread quickly.  One thing is for sure, with each passing year a greater percentage of hams will be inclined to use a QSL service like LoTW than were the hams of yesterday. 

Unless you received the "already in the works" response from an ARRL exec, I wouldn't put much weight on it.

That is unfortunate if those fielding LoTW user questions on behalf of the ARRL do not normally give credible answers. 
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1743


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2012, 08:09:05 AM »

The ARRL is not about to release a new LotW system, nor is it bandaiding the present system. It is in the process of eliminating the throughput bottleneck in the present system by upgrading its storage subsystem.
as long as it eliminates the present bottleneck and can handle the inevitable growth over the coming years without further bottlenecks, a new system won't be necessary.

As I have repeatedly stated, the storage subsystem upgrade should eliminate the current bottleneck on throughput, but the next level of performance this step reveals may or may not be immediately acceptable, or acceptable for the next N years. If not, then it will be necessary to identify and eliminate the next bottleneck. In summary, upgrading the storage subsystem is necessary, but may or may not be sufficient.

Unless you received the "already in the works" response from an ARRL exec, I wouldn't put much weight on it.

That is unfortunate if those fielding LoTW user questions on behalf of the ARRL do not normally give credible answers. 

Most people aren't born software product managers, and so, for example, might not understand that a hallway conversation they overheard about support for a new award does not constitute the level of commitment required to tell a user "its already in the works".
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1075




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2012, 10:11:25 AM »

As I have repeatedly stated, the storage subsystem upgrade should eliminate the current bottleneck on throughput, but the next level of performance this step reveals may or may not be immediately acceptable, or acceptable for the next N years. If not, then it will be necessary to identify and eliminate the next bottleneck. In summary, upgrading the storage subsystem is necessary, but may or may not be sufficient.

so someone expressing confidence the storage system upgrade will not of itself eliminate the problem could be correct, even though they jumped to that conclusion prematurely from a strictly logical perspective. 

Quote from: AA6YQ
Most people aren't born software product managers, and so, for example, might not understand that a hallway conversation they overheard about support for a new award does not constitute the level of commitment required to tell a user "its already in the works".

are you suggesting that only born software product managers know the difference between something being discussed as a possibility verses something already approved but yet to be implemented  Huh
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1743


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2012, 11:41:14 AM »

As I have repeatedly stated, the storage subsystem upgrade should eliminate the current bottleneck on throughput, but the next level of performance this step reveals may or may not be immediately acceptable, or acceptable for the next N years. If not, then it will be necessary to identify and eliminate the next bottleneck. In summary, upgrading the storage subsystem is necessary, but may or may not be sufficient.

so someone expressing confidence the storage system upgrade will not of itself eliminate the problem could be correct, even though they jumped to that conclusion prematurely from a strictly logical perspective.  

You posted "I am confident that hardware upgrades are not the solution, but only a temporary fix". As I have explained, the storage system upgrade is not a temporary fix.

Quote from: AA6YQ
Most people aren't born software product managers, and so, for example, might not understand that a hallway conversation they overheard about support for a new award does not constitute the level of commitment required to tell a user "its already in the works".

are you suggesting that only born software product managers know the difference between something being discussed as a possibility verses something already approved but yet to be implemented  Huh

No, I'm suggesting that someone without training and experience as a software product manager might tell a user that an award is "already in the works" when there is in fact no development commitment. This is not unusual behavior in organizations with little experience developing software products and services.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 11:47:21 AM by AA6YQ » Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 839




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2012, 10:47:09 AM »

From the perspective of someone who is employed in IT and has been in project management at least once, I will say that many times the spokespeople have a tendency to oversell.

I will also say that the easiest way to look at the hardware upgrade is that it WILL help no matter what the system is. If the system can do I/O faster it will process faster.

No solution to the LOTW perceived shortcomings of the LOTW system will be permanent. As the system becomes more popular and attracts more users more processing, I/O, network traffic time, and other timing will all increase and at some point if the system continues to grow more hardware/software changes will be required.

That is the nature of the software beast; the better it is the quicker it becomes overloaded.


Oh yes, for database systems the query time (time to find a QSO match) must increase faster than the number of records to be handled. Even 10 years back a pioneer in the Internet world had to split its customer records database into 30+ pieces to maintain  reasonable processing. That was with state of the art hardware and a very large budget.

KF7CG
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 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!