Manager


Manager - NA4M
Manager Notes

Reviews For: eQSL

Category: QSL printers; callsign badge engravers; etc.

eMail Subscription

Registered users are allowed to subscribe to specific review topics and receive eMail notifications when new reviews are posted.
Review Summary For : eQSL
Reviews: 236MSRP: Free - Donations accepted
Description:
Electronic web-based QSL exchange service
Product is in production
More Info: http://www.eqsl.cc
# last 180 days Avg. Rating last 180 days Total reviews Avg. overall rating
54.62363.5
WG7X Rating: 2010-12-06
Interesting Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I was on E-qsl some time ago, but have not responded to any "qsl" requests lately simply because too many of the responses were not in my log. I originally uploaded my log files both to LOTW and E-QSL.

No bogus responses from LOTW, quite a few from E-qsl. It really just that simple.

Now, I see many praising the digital crowd for using E-qsl. Maybe they do, I don't have enough data to make an assumption like that.

But in my experience, I can run an RTTY contest and get almost 100% returns on LOTW, usually within hours of the contest ending. I suppose that the same is probably true of E-qsl...

The digital literate were always the first to adopt PC logging.

It is also interesting that with almost twice the reviews of LOTW, it is about the same rating as E-qsl. Seems to me that if LOTW was all that bad, E-qsl would be running far ahead instead of just barely staying even.

So there you go. One man's opinion

73 Gary
N7WE Rating: 2010-12-06
Winning the race with LoTW Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I upload 100% of my QSO's to both LoTW and eQSL. Recently decided to take a run at 100 DX entities - PSK only. To date I've had QSOs with 56 entities, 33 "Authenticity Guaranteed" confirmed on eQSL, but only 17 on LoTW. Every incoming eQSL has checked vs. my log - none bogus. Why the difference in response rate? Based on this experience, I could argue that among digital DX stations eQSL is preferred 2 to 1 over LoTW. Ok, it's only one sample, but that's my experience.
G6UWK Rating: 2010-10-08
Cannot fault Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I cannot fault eqsl, I have not had any fraudulent contacts, it is nice to see progress for each award, I do not know if I will claim them but it is still nice to see.

It seems to me that this is such a good idea that QRZ.com appears to be copying it!

I like eqsl, I like the ability to download contacts as ADIF.

Get registered and use, it is well worthwhile.

Jon
G6UWK

----------------------
Earlier 5-star review posted by G6UWK on 2010-05-12

I am registered with LOTW and have not got my head around using it, eQSL is easy so I suppose this makes it easier for people to fraudulent use, but I am very happy with, perhaps being a bit old fashioned I would like to put actual frequency rather than bands and choice of design for free is rather limited but for a real world solution of electronic confirmation it does what is sets out to do.

Others have said about security for "Authenticity Garantee'd" well my license details are a matter of public record so it is not of great concern to me.

overall very happy with eQSL.

Jon
G6UWK
STAYVERTICAL Rating: 2010-08-04
Dogs and cats Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I have been using eQSL for a year now and have seen it advance rapidly.
LotW is nothing like eQSL, being simply a logbook matching service with validated contacts counting towards ARRL awards.
eQSL is more like a community based QSL swapping and awards system, allowing users to design their own personal electronic QSL's, and swap them with other hams.
After a days operating, I know there will be eQSL cards waiting for me, and I always look forward to seeing how they are designed.

It gives me an insight into the environment and lives of the people I work on the air.
I recently received an eQSL from a russian ham showing his shack, and on the wall were family pictures, which although incidental, really made the eQSL poignant for me.
After all, our hobby is about communicating with fellow human beings - so exchanging small personal details is part of that interchange.

LotW serves a particular purpose, eQSL serves another. They are like Dogs and Cats, some people prefer one to the other.
People who are only interested in ARRL awards, would prefer everyone to use LotW, that way they can achieve their aim more rapidly, but to most of the world that is incidental to the reason they pursue the hobby.

eQSL, LotW, or paper cards - they share different ecological niches, and that diversity mirrors the many different hams who share our love of Amateur Radio.
W4HIJ Rating: 2010-07-04
Ok but not secure enough, Lack of confirmations is frustrating Time Owned: more than 12 months.
I use both LOTW and eqsl. I would rather use them exclusively than fool with conventional snail mail QSL cards but I'm very frustrated with the lack of confirmations I have.
I recently have become interested in awards chasing. I would rather have ARRL awards and I hate it that the league and eqsl can't work out some kind of compromise where eqsl would be acceptable. Unfortunately, eqsl is too easy to circumvent and make up bogus QSL's so the ARRL is not going to accept their confirmations anytime soon.
One thing I can't understand is why everyone thinks LOTW is so much more complicated than eqsl.
Both are fairly easy, LOTW just has tighter security protocols.
If you have enough common sense to use a PC and do eqsl then you should be able to figure out LOTW as well.
NG9W Rating: 2010-07-04
Great Service and Product Time Owned: 0 to 3 months.
I have just gotten back on HF using digital modes. I noticed many of my contacts were using eQSL.cc for confirmation, so I looked into it. I joined initially at the Bronze level using PayPal to make my first monthly donation. I'm planning on reaching the Gold level this way in a few months.

But even at the Bronze level the benefits are outstanding. I was able to use their QSL designer software to create a custom QSL card with a picture of my operating position. This took ma a few hours of tinkering because I'm not a graphic designer (if you ever get one of my cards, you'll probably certainly agree!) However, no one else has a QSL card like mine.

I attempted to get Authenticity Guaranteed status by putting in my LoTW login credentials, but eQSL .cc had trouble verifying me. I don't know if its because my certificate was expired before renewal and I'm currently renewing it, of it it was ARRL moving things around on their website so eQSL.cc could get to the login page. So I scanned my license to .jpg and uploaded the file. The next morning I had AG status--and this is on the 4th of July holiday, no less.

I'm using HRD 5.0 beta Logbook and set it up so it can upload QSOs realtime to eQSL. Apparently, I'm not the only one who's doing realtime uploads, because I confirmed and received confirmation within 10 minutes of a PSK31 QSO to Vermont.

Sure, ARRL still won't accept eQSL confirmed QSOs even from AG status eQSL members for their awards. But there still is LoTW and the bureau for those virtuous ones with infinite patience to confirm QSOs that way. But, its their awards, so their rules.

Meanwhile, you can still chase a lot of paper with eQSL.cc, and from what I've read on here, there is a higher hit rate of mutual confirmations to do that with.

73, David, NG9W
KD8GNC Rating: 2010-05-06
Decent....but there are issues. Time Owned: more than 12 months.
First off, I work strictly digital modes, so keep that in mind. I have a computer at my station and those I work have one there also. I use both eQSL and LotW and keep my log on an Excel sheet. Here are my thoughts:

LotW is a bit tougher to setup. That's simply a fact. And getting it setup on multiple computers is a chore. eQSL is quite simple.
My overall reply rate on eQSL is 66% and on LotW it is 41%.
18% of my contacts don't use eQSL. 51% of my contacts don't use LotW.
Fraudulent QSL requests are nil on LotW. On eQSL I've had a a handful. Not a problem to blow them off. Once a "fraudulent" one pointed out an error on my actual log.

So why the low score? Support. I was a bronze member for a year and had a few issues with "valid" QSOs not registering. I wrote the support team numerous times....no response. I posted on the support forums and users tried to help, but, again, no response from the masters of the site. This is not acceptable, imho. I've let my donation lapse and will not donate again. I will continue use the free service since statistically I get better confirmation than with LotW.

Which is best? You should try both and make up your own mind, right? For me, I use both and cope with the shortcomings as best I can.
W5DQ Rating: 2010-04-27
Ok for some, but not for me. Time Owned: more than 12 months.
eQSL's system is ok for some hams needs as shown in the review posts but for my use, it has limited applicability. I am a paper chaser, mainly DXCC and WAZ awards. For DXCC, it's LoTW or paper QSLs only. Thats the rules, so be it. It was nice to see that CQ started accepting eQSL for WAZ however I have more paper cards for WAZ than show up in my eQSL account so here too it is useless for my needs.

I have to make one comment here regarding LoTW. I see lots of people saying how hard it is to setup and I could not disagree more. Setting up LoTW is as simple as eQSL, with the only exception you have to wait for return postcard with your confirmation on it. Big deal. Get over it. I have setup LoTW for lots of folks and the support team at ARRL HQ are superb in helping you if you get stuck. I doubt you will get stuck if you read and follow the instruction laid out by LoTW on setting up an account.

Uploading logs to either system can be time comsuming on the first go around. I still find that the majority of QSLs I see are from LoTW. I also see lots of erroroneous QSLs from eQSL. They need to fix the system so that it is a double blind system like LoTW to ensure fairness and security of QSLs.

To each his or her own but I'll take LoTW over eQSL anyday. I only upload my logs to eQSL as a favor to those who choose to use the service.

Serious DX'ers use LoTW or paper QSLs.
G4AZB Rating: 2010-03-16
No False Requests Time Owned: 3 to 6 months.
I only get accurate confirmation requests from eqsl, and have nothing but praise for the accuracy of their system. I like the EQSO cards and the Eco benefits, even though they only count for a few awards.

I also have joined LOTW, where my 129 qso's have produced 1 confirmation so far, (no card), but its early days. Having worked a raft of distant stations I am hoping for a better ratio in the future, otherwise its just going to be a pointless paper chase. Worked but not counted !!.....
KD7RDZI2 Rating: 2010-01-25
efficient and democratic system Time Owned: 0 to 3 months.
I haven't found the bad and the ugly of this system yet. Surely I have seen the good! Is this system more efficient than paper qsl? If you have a PC and internet connection, the marginal cost of producing an eQSL is equal to the value of your time to make a few clicks. The marginal costs of producing one paper qsl is not much, if you have hundreds may become expensive both in terms of time consumed in secretary and administrative matters and in terms of price per qsl. If I send out 10000 paper qsl in one year, I would spend about 1000 bucks for the paper qsl, plus I may consider the good externality of saving costs for the bureau to send out paper qsl.

Does eqsl request a copy of your licence or other sensitive information? Not really for what I see if you have registered with the ARRL's Logbook of the World (LotW). Otherwise you may like to remain non AG.

What about awards? The fact that eQSL will never be accepted is not a problem with the eQSL per se, in my opinion.

Is there the incentive to produce eqsl for QSO that were never made? In principle yes, as marginal costs are very little. What if paper QSL costed just like eQSL cards? It would just happen the same! In practice I have seen wrong qsl indicating for example the wrong band! That's because many use software that send out the eqsl automagically, but with the wrong indication of some data. This is not a flaw in the eQSL, it is indeed a flaw in the operator.

Some may believe that if you cannot afford paper qsl you may have chosen a wrong hobby. IMHO this is bullshit, ham radio was not made exclusively for the wealthy people. Ham radio can be done by anyone, the rich and the poor without distinction of class. In its own way eqsl may render more democratic our hobby.