[amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs

[Mac A. Cody]

Paul,

Thanks for the clarification.  Not meaning to hijack the thread, but
I'm a bit surprised about that. I would have thought that the need for
verification would be a given.  I guess it would have been impractical
in the days when verification was only via QSL cards.  With systems
like LOTW and qrz.com, perhaps not as impractical.  Well, who am I to
argue?

73,

Mac / AE5PH

On 02/25/2017 09:46 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> The W4AMI Award does not require confirmations. I log 100%, but some 
> only log new calls.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 22:40 Mac A. Cody <maccody at att.net 
> <mailto:maccody at att.net>> wrote:
>
>     I'd say that it also doesn't help that hams that do use LOTW don't
>     always log their QSOs.  I've been using LOTW for eight monthsnow.
>     I have about 425 QSOs, of which 297 have bee QSL'd through LOTW.
>     Over half of those that have not been QSL'd (over sixty) are with
>     LOTW users.  Most are single QSOs, but a number are hams that I
>     have QSO'd with multiple times.
>
>     Perhaps it may not be important to log those QSOs that have occurred
>     with the same ham multiple times.  For a ham working towards the
>     Barbee (W4AMI) Satellite Operator Achievement Award, every QSO is
>     important.  At what point does one become a nag after politely
>     asking others to QSL past QSOs via LOTW?  I dislike being a nag!
>
>     I've also found that it is sometimes difficult to contact hams to
>     request QSL via LOTW.  LOTW does not provide a mechanism, so I've
>     had to resort to searches via qrz.com <http://qrz.com> in the hope
>     of finding a
>     valid email address.  It is probably asking too much for LOTW to
>     provided a mechanism to politely 'ping' users to log their QSOs.
>
>     73,
>
>     Mac / AE5PH
>
>     On 02/25/2017 06:51 PM, Bob wrote:
>     > The REAL issue is that many people don't confirm via LotW.  I
>     sort of
>     > figure I owe it to the other guy, so I take the time to make sure my
>     > entries are correct.
>     >
>     > 73, Bob, WB4SON
>     >
>     > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John Becker
>     <w0jab at big-river.net <mailto:w0jab at big-river.net>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> I never was able to get it to work years ago.
>     >> Just gave up and moved on.
>     >>
>     >> John
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>.
>     AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>     >> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>     membership. Opinions
>     >> expressed
>     >> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
>     views of
>     >> AMSAT-NA.
>     >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>     satellite program!
>     >> Subscription settings:
>     http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>     >>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>.
>     AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>     > to all interested persons worldwide without requiring
>     membership. Opinions expressed
>     > are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
>     views of AMSAT-NA.
>     > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>     satellite program!
>     > Subscription settings:
>     http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org <mailto:AMSAT-BB at amsat.org>. AMSAT-NA
>     makes this open forum available
>     to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>     Opinions expressed
>     are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
>     views of AMSAT-NA.
>     Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>     program!
>     Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>