Re: Checking Eqsls


Jerry N9AVY
 

Paul:

 

Understand what you’re saying, but errors may be due to poor log keeping which is something operators should do as a rule – garbage in, garbage out. I get a few errors from time to time, but only on Eqsl.  LoTW , as far as I know, doesn’t allow errors. Blaming it on age seems like age discrimination .

 

However, the have been issues in past with some ops deliberately sending out Eqsl’s for contacts they never made; which is why Eqsl instituted their “checking policy” a couple years ago. Have caught a couple of them and promptly rejected them. 

 

Was in the SWL game for many years before becoming a ham and there were a very few who claimed stations they never heard. One was later caught in the lie and it ended badly.

 

Doubt the HF bands will ever be in danger of being taken over by cell phones unless some amazing technology comes along that will allow operation during sunspot minimums.  On the other hand, VHF/UHF bands may be in danger at some point in time, but a lot of that is panic peddling by certain groups to keep those frequencies occupied.

 

Had to answer a question recently from a new ham who asked how to make a dipole. I answered with the formula (468 divided by freq. in MHz = length )  … that was on Novice test I took in 1977 !  Is it still on Tech test ???   Seems like a few find it easier to go to internet and ask questions instead of just looking it up. Guess I’m a relic…

 

Jerry  n9avy

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Paul Butzi (W7PFB)
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 12:49 PM
To: 070Club@groups.io
Subject: Re: [070Club] Checking Eqsls

 

I will observe that a great many of the qsl’s I’ve gotten with errors in them (including wrong mode, wrong date, wrong time, wrong band, etc.) are from older hams with amateur extra or advanced tickets.

 

Apparently as people (including hams) age, they become a little more error Maybe if I was overwhelmed with an avalanche of error ridden QSLs I’d feel differently but so far it hasn’t been much of a burden for me to reach out in a friendly way and sort out the error by cooperating with the ham on the other end.

 

That seems more productive, frankly, and more in the general spirit of things, than bitching and moaning and accusing people of not deserving a license.

 

Those hams who occasionally (or even frequently) make errors are making an effort.  And they’re just about the only thing that’s standing between where we are now and having our spectrum allocations taken away and given to various private enterprises like cellular, etc.

 

Maybe if you viewed the hams who use FT8 and the hams who make mistakes filling out QSLs as fellow humans and fellow hams, you’d find everything more enjoyable.  None of us are perfect but most of us are trying to get along with one another, and a little tolerance for errors can go a long way.

 

-p W7PFB
73, Don’t forget to smile and have fun!



On Nov 15, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Jerry N9AVY <n9avy@...> wrote:

 

Seems like many are not paying attention to details which I might attribute to those getting easier testing and lower standards.  Not everyone deserves a license.  This hobby shouldn’t be giving out participation trophies. 

 

Am sure some will disagree with me, but that is your right.  No snarky responses please.

 

Jerry  n9avy

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Jim K5SP
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 11:45 AM
To: 070Club@groups.io
Subject: Re: [070Club] Checking Eqsls

 

Cards a look so. Received stack from bureau, and 3 DX were for FT8 which I also have never operated.

 

Jim K5SP 

 

 

 

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10e, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Jerry N9AVY <n9avy@...> 

Date: 11/15/19 9:47 AM (GMT-06:00) 

Subject: [070Club] Checking Eqsls 

 

It pays to check Eqsls for accuracy  This morning I received one from a guy stateside, but it had one glaring error.  The mode was FT8 and I have never operated that mode and don’t even have the software for it.

 

My first reaction was to respond to it with an FT8 QSO on 27 MHz., but I decided it might be an honest mistake so I just rejected it.  However, if he sends a 2nd one ….   😊

 

We should always check Eqsls for accuracy.

 

Jerry  n9avy

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


-- 
Jim,  K5SP #483
Member Services Director 

 

<2729780A51E541BA920D45F51AD1EC51.png>

 

 

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