Pete,
I use both LOTW and eQSL. They both have their place.
The disadvantage to both is that they are not
universally accepted by many of the popular awards
programs. IOTA, WAZ, USCA immediately come to mind...
LOTW, even within the ARRL Awards program is awkward
to use, particularly if you have more than one QTH.
Also, I'm sure many people don't want to bother going
through the registration process. Those who are
registered and go on DXpedition, sometimes take months
or longer before they post the logs. Timing becomes an
issue, along with, dare I say it, money.
Finally, there are many who still like a hard QSL.
Collecting QSLs is a hobby within a hobby. It's
tangible.
I don't send cards out for every QSO, but I do QSL
everyone either digitally, or if I need them or they
send a card to me. Not always the easiest or more time
efficient part of the hobby, but it is an important
part.
Realistically, I doubt if any single online QSL
service with become the predominant one any time soon.
The logistics, format, various awards requirements and
revenue sharing pose a formidable obstacle. Of course,
if there was agreement and unified pressure from
DXers, Contesters, Award seekers from around the world
(particularly paid members of the various societies)
maybe things would change sooner.
Cheers from Montana where the livin' is easy for a few
more days ;o)
Julius
n2wn
--- Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
> What I've done for about 7 years is to pre-emptively
> QSL from my own logs,
> using a sorting routine that only generates QSLs for
> the first QSO with a
> station on a given band/mode combination. Then when
> QSLs come in from the
> bureau I just cull through them for the ones I need,
> and figure that I have
> already covered the rest. DX4WIN does the sorting
> of outgoing QSLs,
> described above, very easily. Both cost and time
> (in particular) are much
> better than going through each card, and I find that
> year by year I am
> producing QSLs for a smaller percentage of total
> QSOs made. I still QSL
> direct for all cards received directly, though not
> always right away.
>
> That being said, I would love to see LOTW become
> universally accepted - I
> have 96,000 QSOs on it now, so a lot of people could
> get my QSL for DXCC or
> WAS a lot more easily than paper QSLing. But back
> when LOTW started, I
> asked the question whether I should rely exclusively
> on LOTW, and the
> consensus was that it was way too soon to stop paper
> QSLing.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> At 05:23 AM 8/9/2007, Shelby Summerville wrote:
> >Andrei Stchislenok wrote: "LoTW is a good thing."
> >
> >As I sit here, actually dreading to start
> processing another of my,
> >quarterly, 4 pounds of cards, from the bureau, I
> wonder: "if LoTW is such a
> >"good thing", why I continue to get 20+ pounds of
> cards annually"? I don't
> >consider myself an "overly active" contester, and I
> also wonder how the
> >"overly active" stations deal with this issue, if
> they experience it?
> >The vast majority, 95%, of these cards are
> unsolicited, and from RTTY
> >contesters! I have absolutely no problem with
> answering any/all "first
> >request", regardless of band/mode. I do have a
> problem with receiving many
> >duplicate band/mode requests! Just how many times
> can any specific DX
> >station want KY confirmed on 20 meters? I suspect
> that many DX stations
> >"dump their entire contest logs into their outgoing
> bureau"? Sorting the
> >duplicate band/mode request from the "first
> request" cards, is a time
> >consuming process, and has literally taken the
> enjoyment away from operating
> >DX contests, for me! It has also made me seriously
> consider withdrawing from
> >the inbound ARRL QSL bureau, and accepting only
> direct, or email requests. I
> >would much rather receive several email requests,
> after any contest, and
> >return that request, via the bureau, than continue
> to receive 20+ pounds,
> >annually!
> >
> >Bottom line: If you're a DX station, and need my
> card....do us both a favor,
> >and send me an email request!!
> >
> >73, Shelby - K4WW
> >_______________________________________________
> >CQ-Contest mailing list
> >CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|