eHam

eHam Forums => DXing => Topic started by: N3QE on April 03, 2013, 09:32:14 AM



Title: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N3QE on April 03, 2013, 09:32:14 AM
Interesting to me that "Please - No LOTW" is a common refrain among many prominent DX stations.

  https://www.google.com/search?q="please+no+lotw" (https://www.google.com/search?q="please+no+lotw")

I wonder if this just a language issue and they really mean "I do not use LOTW". Or if they really didn't want me to upload their QSO info (along with the rest of my log) to LOTW.

Maybe they don't grok LOTW in the same way I do, where I just upload everything. I do know several hams who only upload to LOTW upon special request and/or payment.

Tim.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: AB8MA on April 03, 2013, 09:36:27 AM
I would translate this to "Please do not anticipate any LoTW confirmation".


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: W1VT on April 03, 2013, 09:43:38 AM
I think most of these hams are traditionalists and only wish to exchange paper QSLs.

Zack W1VT


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N2RJ on April 03, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
I think most of these hams are traditionalists and only wish to exchange paper QSLs.

Zack W1VT

I don't think tradition has much of anything to do with it.

Either they don't want to be bothered with the LoTW setup/verification, or they want the green stamps.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N7SMI on April 03, 2013, 10:34:55 AM
or they want the green stamps.

Ding, ding! I think we have a winner!

I actually don't mind too much if someone doesn't do LoTW if they QSL via the buro, but if they only QSL direct and require exorbitant postage, one can't help but question their motives. I generally check folk's QRZ pages before I work them and if I see these demands, I'll usually spin the dial.

I think "Please - No LOTW" generally means "Please stop pestering me about LOTW".


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: W6GX on April 03, 2013, 10:42:47 AM
The most common QSL comment I've seen is 'no eQSL!'  I have it and I think its fatal flaw is that it requires the user to spend time filing all the incoming confirmations.  LoTW is much simpler in that in that respect.

73,
Jonathan W6GX


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N3YZ on April 03, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
Just a sidebar comment.... I am surprised at the large number of "regulars" participating in the several "WAS nets" who also do not use LOTW. I assumed that most WAS net users would also LOTW. Unfortunately, Not true. 73! John, Annapolis, MD


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N3QE on April 03, 2013, 11:00:30 AM
Just a sidebar comment.... I am surprised at the large number of "regulars" participating in the several "WAS nets" who also do not use LOTW. I assumed that most WAS net users would also LOTW. Unfortunately, Not true. 73! John, Annapolis, MD

I am not awful surprised when I run across folks who don't use LOTW especially once I get away from contesters and DX'ers.

Not to be "mode-ist" but the guys who like to participate in nets simply are not going to have a lot of overlap with LOTW users. Similarly the chance of finding big field day stations that do LOTW are very very low as well (even though I think ARRL offers bonus points.)



Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N3QVB on April 03, 2013, 11:44:39 AM
As mentioned in other threads. more and more DX stations are subscribing to LoTW.  I've found a number of DX ops who state "no LoTW" upload eventually.  They just wait a bit to see if they get cards w/green stamps first.  I'm not implying they are in it for the $$$; it just may be their way of handling QSLs. 

Here's a nifty little resource; stations (stateside and DX) that are known users of LoTW.  Interestingly you will find some DX on the list that have said "no LoTW".

http://www.hb9bza.net/lotw-users-list (http://www.hb9bza.net/lotw-users-list)


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: WH7DX on April 03, 2013, 11:53:24 AM
I dont get it.  

Most Hams use computers.

Uploading takes a minute.   I didn't use LOTW or eQSL in the beginning until I had a contact with an older retired ham who mentioned postage costs.

That's when I decided to offer as much as possible because it's FREE and easy.  I just switched my general logging from N1MM to DXKeeper so it's a click of a button now and I can track QSLs.

Yes, I usually don't read the details and screwed up with LOTW - didn't request the postcard at first (common mistake - change the format etc.).. but figured that out and it was simple.

I send out QSL cards for those I want have in my collection.  I ALWAYS enjoy those I get in the mail as well.

At first I had the usual SASE - then I saw a guy who said.. "if you bothered to send it to me.. I can send one to you as well on my dime".  I figured that worked for me.. if I ever got slammed I could change it to SASE..   I'm not some rare DX.

I think these services are great.




Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N2RJ on April 03, 2013, 12:49:15 PM
Some non-US hams are offended at the thought of sending an ID document and a copy of their licence to get setup on LoTW.

I would suggest to ARRL that they have some other process that could help in this regard. For example, they could allow card checkers to validate LoTW credentials.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: K3STX on April 03, 2013, 12:50:25 PM
I dont get it.  

Most Hams use computers.

I wonder if that is really true. I have never seen a stat, I know I do not use a computer log but I manually enter DXCC counters I still need for LOTW.

paul


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: WH7DX on April 03, 2013, 01:13:34 PM
I think the latest QST or the one before had Quiz stats on that and I was surprised to see that most had 5 or more computers in the house if I remember correctly. 

I think most were always into electronics so playing with the first computers was natural and logging was an obvious step....   and DATA etc..

Nothing wrong with paper logs.   To each his own.

<For those offended at the thought of showing they are who they say they are>

The first thing that popped into my mind was showing ID for voting..  How anyone can think that you can walk in and vote without ID is crazy. 

Like the lady working for the polls that was proud to have voted 6 times and said she wanted to vote more....

Crazy... ???



Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N2RJ on April 03, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Oh, it's the "it's just a HOBBY!!!1!111!!ONE!!!1" attitude.

So what, that doesn't mean that ARRL can't choose to have some integrity in their system.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: AF3Y on April 03, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
Some non-US hams are offended at the thought of sending an ID document and a copy of their licence to get setup on LoTW.

I would suggest to ARRL that they have some other process that could help in this regard. For example, they could allow card checkers to validate LoTW credentials.

I wonder if thats the problem with hams from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Hungary, ect, ect. DO ANY of those guys use LOTW?  Every time I start checking my logs to see who owes a card, the list is MOSTLY hams from those countries, who just dont seem to use LOTW.  WHY???????????????

73, Gene AF3Y


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N3QE on April 03, 2013, 03:52:55 PM
I wonder if thats the problem with hams from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Hungary, ect, ect. DO ANY of those guys use LOTW?  Every time I start checking my logs to see who owes a card, the list is MOSTLY hams from those countries, who just dont seem to use LOTW.  WHY???????????????

All of those countries are filled with very active stations (multi-multi superstations even) that are prominent LOTW users and active in every contest. At least on RTTY and CW, I don't know much about phone. They also tend to be pretty thorough in paper cards via buro, I have huge stacks here under my call, and they show up very commonly when I help my sorter ferry around cards too.

Montenegro may be the highest LOTW success rate I've ever seen (95%+ of 4O QSO's are confirmed by LOTW in my logs.)

(Incidentally I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-paper. I think the buro system is the best thing since sliced bread and I'm so so happy when I get a stack of pretty cards from my sorter.)



Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: KE8G on April 03, 2013, 04:06:49 PM
Some non-US hams are offended at the thought of sending an ID document and a copy of their licence to get setup on LoTW.

I would suggest to ARRL that they have some other process that could help in this regard. For example, they could allow card checkers to validate LoTW credentials.

I wonder if thats the problem with hams from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Hungary, ect, ect. DO ANY of those guys use LOTW?  Every time I start checking my logs to see who owes a card, the list is MOSTLY hams from those countries, who just dont seem to use LOTW.  WHY???????????????

73, Gene AF3Y

Gene/AF3Y,
I did a quick search on my LoTW confirmations on the countries you mentioned, and found that I have no less than 10 for any one of them.  So, there are many stations that use LoTW.  I would suggest maybe look for the special event stations, as they appear to use LoTW quite often.

73 de Jim - KE8G


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: AC2EU on April 03, 2013, 04:54:59 PM
Believe it or not, there are some HAMs who can't figure out why they can't login and use LOTW. I tell them "read the directions, there's a process involved". A year later one guy is still baffled!  :o

I'm a new guy on the HAM block, but of 214 QSOs I've loaded, there are only 49 confirmed QSLs.
That will make WAS or anything else a lot more difficult to get with a 23% QSL rate...

I like the concept, it's just too bad that others don't put the effort into it.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N6ORB on April 03, 2013, 05:22:11 PM
"I wonder if thats the problem with hams from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Hungary, ect, ect. DO ANY of those guys use LOTW?  Every time I start checking my logs to see who owes a card, the list is MOSTLY hams from those countries, who just dont seem to use LOTW.  WHY???

73, Gene AF3Y"

I have all of these countries confirmed on LOTW, but I was surprised to see I had only 20M confirmed for 4O3A. I logged in to LOTW and did a search for 40* and got a hit for 403A on 10M. I then realized that I had entered a zero in my search instead of an O, but it turned up the same typing error for the 10M contact in 2011. I uploaded the corrected QSO info to LOTW and quickly got a match. So, thanks for your comment, Gene. Thanks to you I now have another band confirmed for Montenegro.  :)

By the way, I was also in the ASA as a 98C, so I've had a lot of experience working with garbled call signs.

Dave, N6ORB


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: AF3Y on April 03, 2013, 06:30:55 PM
"I wonder if thats the problem with hams from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Hungary, ect, ect. DO ANY of those guys use LOTW?  Every time I start checking my logs to see who owes a card, the list is MOSTLY hams from those countries, who just dont seem to use LOTW.  WHY???

73, Gene AF3Y"

I have all of these countries confirmed on LOTW, but I was surprised to see I had only 20M confirmed for 4O3A. I logged in to LOTW and did a search for 40* and got a hit for 403A on 10M. I then realized that I had entered a zero in my search instead of an O, but it turned up the same typing error for the 10M contact in 2011. I uploaded the corrected QSO info to LOTW and quickly got a match. So, thanks for your comment, Gene. Thanks to you I now have another band confirmed for Montenegro.  :)

By the way, I was also in the ASA as a 98C, so I've had a lot of experience working with garbled call signs.

Dave, N6ORB

Glad to help you out there with a bandfill Dave!  I guess I just pick the wrong Bulgarians, etc. to work hi hil I will have to try a few morel

Some days I still think about ASA and the guys I worked with. Wow, that was 50 years ago!
It was a good trip ;D.

73, Gene AF3Y


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N9FB on April 03, 2013, 09:30:18 PM
Interesting to me that "Please - No LOTW" is a common refrain among many prominent DX stations.

  https://www.google.com/search?q="please+no+lotw" (https://www.google.com/search?q="please+no+lotw")

I wonder if this just a language issue and they really mean "I do not use LOTW". Or if they really didn't want me to upload their QSO info (along with the rest of my log) to LOTW.

Maybe they don't grok LOTW in the same way I do, where I just upload everything. I do know several hams who only upload to LOTW upon special request and/or payment.

Tim.

If you have a list of hams who only upload to LoTW upon special request or payment please post their callsigns. I only verify using LoTW so if some of the DX I have worked will confirm if I email or pay, I would love to know which ones and how much if anything it will cost me... 

Some do find the LoTW registration process too complicated, though late last year I heard someone was working on making that process more user-friendly.  Over the coming years, I would think the LoTW system will improve and become easier to use without compromising security. 

One thing I have always wondered about is what is in it for the DX station that works ridiculous and often rude pile-ups week after week after week? Not the DXpeditions, but the people who reside in, and are licensed by, these rare entities...  If and when all QSL'ing goes virtual will that de-incentivize these op.s or is it wrong-headed to think they are motivated by green-stamps? Maybe it is neat to help hams around the world get the thrill of working a rare one and also to get a good feel for radio propagation based on who is calling, etc.   "59, thanks" and stations calling over and over even when you say "only (insert prefix here)" has to get pretty old...


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: VK3HJ on April 03, 2013, 09:41:55 PM
I've found that generally, all those former communist bloc countries have lots of great CW operators, and find no shortage of them to work on air, every day (except Turkmenistan, HI).
My preferred QSL is LotW - almost no effort required for confirmations. Getting set up on LotW is a bit involved, and it seems to beat some people.
My QSL rate I think is ok. I have over 15k Q's in the system, of which about 3100 were after my return to radio and are mainly local (VK/ZL) Q's from local contests, etc., so lots of repeat Q's. Discounting those, I have nearly 30% of  DX Q's confirmed in LotW. Lots of DXers are "coming over" to LotW, and I find the participation much better than eQSL (which I think is a nice system too).
Statistically, of 307 DXCC worked (all confirmed), LotW accounts for 279, eQSL 185 and paper 251.
The LotW server is generally working quite well after the recent upgrade, and I see more and more DXers using it. It may never be "universal" but it is the best out there now. Those who don't want to use if for whatever reason are free to do so. HRD Logbook now shows which callsigns are in LotW, and you can also also check HB9BZA's LotW User list. Just seek out and work another one, if the station you just worked just wants GS sent their way.
The only paper cards I am chasing up now are for a few Top Band unconfirmed countries.
Yes, I do like to see QSL cards turn up in my mailbox, but I only have a smallish "wait list". The pile that arrives from the bureau from time to time makes me break out in a sweat!
Oh, and WAS Nets, the "bang-bang 22" reports I've heard, sent me off at a gallop!
73,
Luke VK3HJ


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: NU1O on April 03, 2013, 10:21:34 PM
As mentioned in other threads. more and more DX stations are subscribing to LoTW.  I've found a number of DX ops who state "no LoTW" upload eventually.  They just wait a bit to see if they get cards w/green stamps first.  I'm not implying they are in it for the $$$; it just may be their way of handling QSLs. 


What would be the reason other than $$ to hold off on uploading to LoTW?

73,

Chris/NU1O


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: NU1O on April 03, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Some non-US hams are offended at the thought of sending an ID document and a copy of their licence to get setup on LoTW.

I would suggest to ARRL that they have some other process that could help in this regard. For example, they could allow card checkers to validate LoTW credentials.

The ID is what keeps LoTW honest.

I have never submitted QSLs to a card checker. Must a US ham show his license or an ID in the US and can a foreign ham get QSLs checked overseas and must they show a license or ID?

If the protocol is different between the way it's done in the US, and overseas, I can see why a foreign station would feel like they aren't being trusted.

I don't recall the protocol when I signed up for LoTW.  Did I have to include a copy of my ham license or an ID?

73,

Chris/NU1O



Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: K3TN on April 04, 2013, 03:22:46 AM
Many reasons touched on why more DX hams don't use LotW - some (like the $$ aspect, or no computer logging or just traditionalist) aren't going to change.

One that can change is the ARRL making LotW a bit easier to use for non-English speaking hams, and to have some outreach to the other IARU clubs to encourage usage.

The ARRL has formed an LotW Ad Hoc Committee, with the following charter: Logbook of The World ad hoc Committee: The Board voted to create the Logbook of The World (LoTW) ad hoc Committee. This committee has been tasked with reviewing policies and practices associated with how LoTW runs today (including the fixed and variable costs), issues concerning user interface and usability, and economic value of an LoTW award point or credit. The committee will provide the ARRL Board with a progress report and preliminary recommendations at the 2013 Second Meeting in July..

N1TA is the LotW person at the ARRL, below are the members of this committee:

  • •Gregory P. Widin, K0GW, Dakota Division Director, Chairman
    •Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY, Chief Financial Officer
    •Rick Niswander, K7GM, Treasurer
    •Michael Keane, K1MK, Information Technology Manager
    •David Patton, NN1N, Membership & Volunteer Programs Manager

All of them can be reached at callsign@arrl.net and to be safe you can always copy hq@arrl.net - send them your thoughts!

Here's part of the email I sent to that committee:

I was glad to see the ARRL has formed the LotW Ad Hoc Advisory Committee and look forward to continued improvements and reach of LotW. I've been an enthusiast user and advocate of LotW for 4 years now and have some recommendations I'd like to make:

Most importantly, please communicate with the other IARU clubs to try determine ways to encourage greater participation by non-US hams. This may include language issues, usability issues, privacy issues, etc. that could be easily overcome. There are many hams who will just not use electronic QSLing for a wide variety of other reasons that will not change, but if the committee focuses on these areas I think the number of non-US users can greatly increase.

Please don't raise LotW pricing before you solve the increased participation issue. Increase market share first, raise prices later! If fiscal reasons require additional funds, reach out to the DX and contesting communities for donations, or get increased sponsorship/advertising on the LotW site. The "value" of an LotW QSL increases dramatically only when both sides of the QSO are using LotW!

Personally, I did not find LotW hard to initiate but of course I work in Internet security! I don't think there is a real need to change the underlying mechanism or process, but I think the help information could be much better. I also think there are many "Volunteer LotW Coordinators" would be willing to "Elmer" hams having problems, perhaps the League could support/broker such a process.

The performance of LotW has been phenomenal since the recent hardware upgrades. The next big improvement needs to be doubling the number of non-US hams that participate. I look forward to recommendations from the committee that focus on that goal and would be glad to provide any help that you might need.

73 John K3TN


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N2RJ on April 04, 2013, 06:19:02 AM
As mentioned in other threads. more and more DX stations are subscribing to LoTW.  I've found a number of DX ops who state "no LoTW" upload eventually.  They just wait a bit to see if they get cards w/green stamps first.  I'm not implying they are in it for the $$$; it just may be their way of handling QSLs. 


What would be the reason other than $$ to hold off on uploading to LoTW?

73,

Chris/NU1O


Hassle.

It's easy for US hams but foreign hams need to go through additional steps that we don't have to. The certificate/tqsl process can also be daunting for some, especially folks who really don't do much with a computer.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N3QE on April 04, 2013, 06:57:08 AM
If you have a list of hams who only upload to LoTW upon special request or payment please post their callsigns.

From recent memory (meaning past week or two): 4Z5PJ will upload individual QSO's but you have to E-mail him. LZ9W has detailed instructions on their QRZ page about how to get a paper QSL and a LOTW upload. Both are very prompt (e.g. just a day or two) if you follow their instructions.

I've remarked about my poor record-keeping in the past, and would basically be lost if I didn't upload everything to LOTW and clublog and let them sort it out. I am not the kind of guy who gets honor roll by carefully making just 350 QSO's :-). Before LOTW I had accumulated thousands of paper QSL's in several decades as a ham, but had absolutely no rhyme or reason to organizing them. I was sending paper requests with GS to entities I had confirmed many times over, and I was neglecting to chase confirmations for the ones I really needed. After joining LOTW I had DXCC and WAS electroncially confirmed in just a few months. Clublog is very useful when combined with LOTW; it tells me the handful of DXCC's I need to confirm by paper.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: WA8UEG on April 04, 2013, 07:41:27 AM
Don't know about other log programs but mine (Logger32) shows which stations QSL via LOTW, makes it pretty easy to get confirmations via LOTW or work toward awards cheaply. It also automatically uploads to LOTW & will download from LOTW and update all records in the log. Heck it will automatically upload to Eqsl after each log entry without doing anything if you want. 


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: V47JA on April 04, 2013, 08:13:44 AM

Hi,

The only real additional step for "foreign stations", is to send a copy of your license/operating permit to the ARRL for verification. Other then that it has the same "hassles" to get on LoTW.

From my 53+ years of operating all I had, before LoTW. was a stack of shoe boxes full of QSL's with no organization or system.  LoTW has turned out to be a blessing for me, at a glance I can see all the awards for which I qualify (not that I ever apply).

Personally, the 2000+ QSL's a year requests I get, and send out, is not real fun, but it keeps the postman busy. I wish all my contacts Uploaded to LoTW as do I, especially other DX stations.

See you at Dayton.

73 and DX,

John   W5JON - V47JA - J68JA - V31FB - G0AOH


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: K7KB on April 04, 2013, 08:26:40 AM
I don't recall the protocol when I signed up for LoTW.  Did I have to include a copy of my ham license or an ID?

73,
Chris/NU1O

No, you didn't. But it's fairly easy for the ARRL to tap into the FCC database to find all of your licensing info. That's not the case for all amateurs outside of the US.

John K7KB


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N2RJ on April 04, 2013, 08:44:28 AM

I don't recall the protocol when I signed up for LoTW.  Did I have to include a copy of my ham license or an ID?

US licensees don't have to do that. They are mailed a postcard. This is because ARRL checks the FCC database. They can't do that with other countries so they ask for a license copy and ID document.

In fact I had to submit one for my other foreign callsign.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: N2RJ on April 04, 2013, 08:45:58 AM

Hi,

The only real additional step for "foreign stations", is to send a copy of your license/operating permit to the ARRL for verification. Other then that it has the same "hassles" to get on LoTW.


I had an EI ham tell me that because he had to mail a copy of his license and ID that he felt insulted and felt that ARRL did not trust him. That is why he decided not to do LoTW.


Title: RE: "Please - No LOTW"
Post by: KE5GAE on April 04, 2013, 01:08:50 PM
I'm a small timer in this discussion, relatively new to chasing DX (three years now) and strictly digital mode.  I'm focused right now on DXCC, so that means most of my contacts will be non USA.  But I've got a 50% percent response rate for my QSO's uploaded to LOTW, and 68 of my confirmed 91 countries ("entities") are LOTW.  On PSK31, I occasionally see the "no LOTW" and just take it to mean that they don't use LOTW, so don't expect a QSL that way.  So I'll look them up in QRZ and see what they prefer.  Been doing a mostly JT-65 lately, and of course the format doesn't easily allow sending a "no LOTW" (though I do see a few final transmissions that are positive with respect to LOTW).  As for eastern Europe countries, I have paper (i.e. no LOTW) QSL's for Belarus, Estonia, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and LOTW for Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania.  Overall, I'd say eastern Europe has been harder to get LOTW QSL's than most other areas.  But I wouldn't attribute it to the desire for green stamps; I think it is just as likely to be the hassle involved, as well as some nationalist issues that may make some of them reluctant to affiliate with a USA organization.  I have scores of Cuban QSO's, and several QSL cards, but only a single solitary LOTW confirmation out of Cuba.  I have to believe that LOTW usage in Cuba is even way below LOTW usage in eastern Europe.