Re: Another rant
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Yes, I agree that Eqsl is too easy to use. Most of the Eqsls I get are from PSK stations in Europe, many of them are newbies as well. Part of the problem is , I think, the use of automatic Eqsls which if you don't catch a mistake goes out with that mistake.
I was a QSL Manager back in the day when everyone had paper logs. I spent a lot of time searching though logs trying to match up QSL cards with log entries ... some were actually hours off and some were actually a couple days off. Mostly because people were sloppy about their logs with time keeping. There was actually a case where I received a bunch of cards , one for each band, from a well-known big DX station and some were for bands that the station I managed never operated. No response was ever made. I wasted a lot of hours trying to get people their cards. Oh and one of the stations I managed was making in excess of 25,000 Q's a year !
Back to the Eqsl, I'm sure there are many bogus entries in LoTW, some are duplicate entries, some are time corrections, some may be "busted" calls and other may be just that some folks don't use LoTW. I send everyting I work to LoTW. Sometimes I'll get a surprise when I get a confirmation from a station I worked 30 years ago ! Yes, LoTW does have its faults, the main reason is that it's so darned hard to get it up and running, but when it's finally running it works.
Last night I received an apology from one of the 13 Colonies stations:
My sincere apologies. No K2x contacts I made were meant to be uploaded to eQSL as (call) My logging program to my dismay inadvertently and automatically uploaded to eQSL a small number of contacts I made as (call) even though I had set up a separate log identity for K2x. This was not intentional but an inadvertent computer error. I did discover this shortly after our QSO and deleted all affected contacts from my eQSL log. Unfortunately, I did not catch yours before you saw it in your inbox. Thanks again for emailing me and I appreciate your participation in the Special Event.
I left the guys call out so as not to cause any embarrassment. His actual call was replaced with (call) and of course, I changed the k2 call as well in the above quote.
What I learned over the years is to send out QSLs with accurate information and not guesses. A few times I have messed up was because MixW does not automatically change bands when I do.That created several errors on my part. Some were kind enough to reject the Eqsl. Others, well... ? (N1MM follows band changes automatically.)
Even the bureau cards I receive can have errors. Lost a few cards for want of some info being left off.
I always think of QSLing as something which should require accuracy. Like like being a CPA where a decimal point could mean the difference between a hundred bucks or a Million or the wrong account number could make someone a millionaire and another a pauper. But there does need to be standard where almost doesn't count.
Finally. for me there is no value in Eqsl ... on LoTW I have DXCC 336 and on Eqsl I have less than 200 DXCC countries/entities. Besides, I only go after ARRL awards.
While I'm at it I should make the comment that while LoTW $ Eqsl have been around the longest, the newcomers that ask me to use QRZ.com or HRD.log or any other service get zero response from me because I regard them as people who jumped on the QSL bandwagon just to "muddy the waters".
From: "ve3oij@... " <070@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 5:39 AM
Subject:  Re: Another rant
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