locked EQSL AND LOTW #general


David Tucker
 

I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE


Bob Blauvelt
 

I receive around 81% QSL via LoTW and/or QRZ from FT-8 contacts. Some contacts state on their QRZ page that they only do paper QSLs which I find acceptable. It would be nice to have closer to 100% electronic QSLs. It would also be nice if the various electronic QSL systems could find a way to accept each others VERIFIED QLSs.
73,  Bob  AJ4LJ

On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:28:36 AM EDT, David Tucker <nu4ndave@...> wrote:

I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE


William Smith
 

Yes and no, while it's trivial to autolog to (in my case, using Gridtracker) GT, PSK Reporter {already part of WSJT-x}, QRZ, eQSL, LOTW, and a bunch of others I'm not currently bothering with, getting those set up wasn't trivial. LOTW, in particular, was a lot of hoops to jump through, and I can see people getting stuck and never finishing.

Not that it's _hard_, it's just complex, not well explained in places, and requires a lot of steps, and each one has several possibilities for failure.

Not that public key cryptography and trusted certs are _easy_, but there's no 'click here, then click there, and you are done'.

Even finding a good tutorial can be an exercise in Google-Fu.

73, Willie N1JBJ

On Apr 17, 2022, at 8:09 AM, David Tucker <nu4ndave@...> wrote:

I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE


Robie - AJ4F
 

David,

Your statement piqued my curiosity about QSL rates for FT8 and FT4
contacts. I did a query of my log and found the following data:

Total QSOs QSOs confirmed
% QSOs confirmed
FT4 777 657
85

FT8 25201 20258
81

My total confirmation rate for all QSOs is approximately 62 %.

Obviously FT4/FT8 users are much more likely to confirm contacts than users
of other modes for some reason(s). I use DXKeeper for my general logging
program and the process for uploading QSOs to LoTW is the same regardless
of the mode used to make the QSOs. My opinion is that to operate the FT
modes the operator needs to be a bit more computer literate than for most
other modes and are therefore more likely to take advantage of LoTW and
EQSL.


Robie AJ4F

On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 9:28 AM David Tucker <nu4ndave@...> wrote:

I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE






ve4cy
 

A lot of hams aren't registered with these services. (I know a couple of WSJT-X users that don't have accounts). There is a bit of work involved getting signed up and confirmed with LoTW and eQSL. It might be more than some are willing to do.

73 de Jim VE4CY

------ Original Message ------
> From: nu4ndave@...
> To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 7:09 AM
> Subject: [WSJTX] EQSL AND LOTW #general

> I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE





Kai-KE4PT
 

The "average" LOTW rate is 2x(324,440,161/1,510,224,177) x 100% = 43% based on 'LOTW status data' on the LOTW web page. If you are at 81% on LOTW then you are well above the average!
I LOTW QSL everything, back to my Novice logs in 1964. Earliest LOTW QSL was for a 1965 QSO. My rate is about 45%.

Kindest regards,
Kai, KE4PT

On 4/17/2022 11:15, Bob Blauvelt via groups.io wrote:
I receive around 81% QSL via LoTW and/or QRZ from FT-8 contacts. Some contacts state on their QRZ page that they only do paper QSLs which I find acceptable. It would be nice to have closer to 100% electronic QSLs. It would also be nice if the various electronic QSL systems could find a way to accept each others VERIFIED QLSs.
73,  Bob  AJ4LJ

On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:28:36 AM EDT, David Tucker <nu4ndave@...> wrote:
I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE









Gary trock
 

I’ll be the first to admit, I couldn’t get the log programs working despite hours of trying until Mike, W9MDB stepped in. It was not intuitive to me. Using LOTW and LOG40M
Gary N8GT

On Apr 17, 2022, at 1:05 PM, Kai-KE4PT via groups.io <k.siwiak@...> wrote:

The "average" LOTW rate is 2x(324,440,161/1,510,224,177) x 100% = 43% based on 'LOTW status data' on the LOTW web page. If you are at 81% on LOTW then you are well above the average!
I LOTW QSL everything, back to my Novice logs in 1964. Earliest LOTW QSL was for a 1965 QSO. My rate is about 45%.

Kindest regards,
Kai, KE4PT


On 4/17/2022 11:15, Bob Blauvelt via groups.io wrote:
I receive around 81% QSL via LoTW and/or QRZ from FT-8 contacts. Some contacts state on their QRZ page that they only do paper QSLs which I find acceptable. It would be nice to have closer to 100% electronic QSLs. It would also be nice if the various electronic QSL systems could find a way to accept each others VERIFIED QLSs.
73, Bob AJ4LJ

On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:28:36 AM EDT, David Tucker <nu4ndave@...> wrote:
I am amazed at number of FT8/FT4 stations do not qsl.
Surely with all the logging prgrams now that it would automaticly upload.
Just my thought.
73' NU4N DAVE













Jim Brown
 

On 4/17/2022 8:26 AM, Robie - AJ4F wrote:
I did a query of my log and found the following data:
I'm a serious contester, chase DX, and chase grids on 6M. I've also been chasing DX on 60M using FT8. My overall LOTW QSL rate since 2006 is gradually approaching 60%. For RTTY and WSJT modes, it's closer to 90%.

Here in NorCal, we get strong 6M openings to JA; three years ago, many JA stations didn't know their grids, relatively few were on LOTW. This past season, nearly all were on LOTW and had their grid entered.

73, Jim K9YC


David Tucker
 

All I was trying to say if you operate FT8/FT4 or any other mode and HamApps says ur are confirmed on eqsl and lotw then use it. The days of the hard copy qsl is about over. The olds say the final courtesy is a qsl but with the electronic era that does not seem to be case.
Just my thoughts. Don't mean to set on anyone's toes.

--
*73'S DAVE NU4N*