Re: Another rant


ve3oij@...
 

I don't think eQSL is populated by more flakes than LotW or anywhere else.  The difference is that eQSL shows you their flakery, while LotW does not.  It would be interesting to dig into the LotW database and see how many "rejected" QSLs there really are in there.  I think that result would be surprising.

Lots of people make logging errors.  Make no mistake, any eQSLs you reject would have ended up as a paper log back in the day and again, you just wouldn't know about it and wouldn't be able to say "no" to them.  Also, YOU make log errors - maybe you missed logging one... that happens a lot more than you might think with macros.

People say "eQSL has no credibility in DX", but what does that mean?  It's a reasonable log backup place, and it's convenient.  That's the only credibility I've ever assigned it.  In every way I can see it is precisely as credible as Logbook of the World.  In fact, the only substantial difference between LotW and eQSL is that the former can be used for ARRL awards and costs money to do so, whereas the latter can be used for CQ awards and is free to do so.

Do people fudge on eQSL?  Yep.  They fudge paper QSLs too - I just got a paper card from someone for a contact 9 years ago.  Seems his callsign has changed and he's re-issuing cards with the new callsign.  Sorry dude, I didn't make a contact with W1**, I made it with K4***.  Do paper QSLs have credibility in the DX world?

I've never figured out what level of awesomeness would be necessary to get people not to hate on eQSL.  My guess is that it's actually too easy to use - people seem to like the difficulties and hassle that LotW presents.

eQSL... use it... or don't... but don't think there's some kind of high ground by not using it.

73 de VE3OIJ
-pdc

Join main@070Club.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.