I cleaned, fixed, checked and finally uploaded all my recorded contacts
for the past 11 years and after doing so the LoTW web page reported back
to me the number of confirmed contacts--totaling 3% of what I entered.
I'm not a big time station and I don't force the power company to go to
their nuclear backup plan when I key the radio, but is 3% typical? Is
there any practical way to see which stations are confirmed? I
understand that the league doesn't want anyone trolling for broken
callsigns, but the alternative would be to enter each call ever worked
to see if they are also uploaded. Yikes.

Gary
AB5RM

Gary,

Unfortunately, if the bulk of your log is older contacts it is probably
about right. I sent in logs back to 1979. I have probably 10 percent
matches on contacts, mostly QSO's within the last two years, don't have any
prior to 2000. So far I have 37 countries verified on LOTW. I operate
mostly RTTY and other digital modes and since virtually all the digital
operators have computers and log with computers I would guess that I am
getting a better rate of return than hams operating other modes. Also I
would guess that contests rack up better returns than casual QSO's. Why
people aren't sending in their older logs I can't understand.

I hope that LOTW continues to grow. I have never minded sending a few green
stamps for foreign QSL's and certainly for DXpeditions, but I am getting
sick and tired of getting ripped off by foreign postage thieves.
I feel myself wanting to soap-box which I will avoid and just say that I
hope people continue to join LOTW and that all the issues that need to be
dealt with (and there are some) can be accomplished to get the full support
of all hams.

Trav, WX0Y

Gary,

Unfortunately, if the bulk of your log is older contacts it is probably
about right. I sent in logs back to 1979. I have probably 10 percent
matches on contacts, mostly QSO's within the last two years, don't have any
prior to 2000. So far I have 37 countries verified on LOTW. I operate
mostly RTTY and other digital modes and since virtually all the digital
operators have computers and log with computers I would guess that I am
getting a better rate of return than hams operating other modes. Also I
would guess that contests rack up better returns than casual QSO's. Why
people aren't sending in their older logs I can't understand.

I hope that LOTW continues to grow. I have never minded sending a few green
stamps for foreign QSL's and certainly for DXpeditions, but I am getting
sick and tired of getting ripped off by foreign postage thieves.
I feel myself wanting to soap-box which I will avoid and just say that I
hope people continue to join LOTW and that all the issues that need to be
dealt with (and there are some) can be accomplished to get the full support
of all hams.

Trav, WX0Y

"Gary" wrote

I cleaned, fixed, checked and finally uploaded all my
recorded contacts for the past 11 years and after
doing so the LoTW web page reported back
to me the number of confirmed contacts--totaling 3%
of what I entered.

Hi Gary,

I have about 28,000 QSO's entered into LoTW, and just under 2,600
confirmations. The QSO's I entered are those I've made since I started
using computer logging in the late 80's (I didn't go back and key in any
paper logs). So my 'return rate' is just over 9%, but it is not uniform
over the years. The more recent years (2002, 2003) have return rates in
the 30% range, and there are almost no confirmations prior to about
1995.

Is there any practical way to see which stations are confirmed?

Yes, there's a search engine which allows you to display only those
contacts which have been confirmed by the system, sorted by call or by
date (and maybe some other choices I don't remember right now.

The lions share of my QSL's are from contesters, and 90% are US
stations, although I have returns from 67 countries. Currently there
are only about 7,000 individuals who have entered data into the system.

The DXCC 'engine' will come on line Wednesday, finally giving some
'output' from LoTW, and I'd expect that will draw a lot more logs into
the system. Also, the major logging programs are starting to deploy
products which 'automagically' input data to LoTW without separate
action on the part of the operator. As this capability becomes
ubiquitous in logging software, I think the level of participation will
rapidly rise. People may not be aggressive in capturing old log data
and sending it to LoTW, but going forward we'll likely see a quickly
rising percentage of returns on 'new' QSO's.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Gary" wrote

I cleaned, fixed, checked and finally uploaded all my
recorded contacts for the past 11 years and after
doing so the LoTW web page reported back
to me the number of confirmed contacts--totaling 3%
of what I entered.

Hi Gary,

I have about 28,000 QSO's entered into LoTW, and just under 2,600
confirmations. The QSO's I entered are those I've made since I started
using computer logging in the late 80's (I didn't go back and key in any
paper logs). So my 'return rate' is just over 9%, but it is not uniform
over the years. The more recent years (2002, 2003) have return rates in
the 30% range, and there are almost no confirmations prior to about
1995.

Is there any practical way to see which stations are confirmed?

Yes, there's a search engine which allows you to display only those
contacts which have been confirmed by the system, sorted by call or by
date (and maybe some other choices I don't remember right now.

The lions share of my QSL's are from contesters, and 90% are US
stations, although I have returns from 67 countries. Currently there
are only about 7,000 individuals who have entered data into the system.

The DXCC 'engine' will come on line Wednesday, finally giving some
'output' from LoTW, and I'd expect that will draw a lot more logs into
the system. Also, the major logging programs are starting to deploy
products which 'automagically' input data to LoTW without separate
action on the part of the operator. As this capability becomes
ubiquitous in logging software, I think the level of participation will
rapidly rise. People may not be aggressive in capturing old log data
and sending it to LoTW, but going forward we'll likely see a quickly
rising percentage of returns on 'new' QSO's.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On 2004-05-04, Larry Gauthier (K8UT) wrote:

The other pattern that I noticed is that I am getting the highest rate of
return on digital QSOs (RTTY, PSK) followed by CW, and the lowest is phone.
I suppose that just makes sense... people who use a computer as an integral
part of their operating modes are more likely to capture their logs in
electronic format and will find it easier to move that data to LoTW.

I have noticed that I get a higher return rate on digital qso's also. About
20% overall, with close to 70% on the digital modes. I have also come to the
same conclusion as you did about the use of computers. If one is using
computers extensividly in the shack, one is more likely to have easy access
to electronic logs.



--
Alex / AB2RC
Yaesu FT100 software for Linux http://www.qsl.net/kc2ivl
Why do they call Radio "Wireless", between my shack and antennas
I must have over 1500 feet of wire!

On 2004-05-04, Larry Gauthier (K8UT) wrote:

The other pattern that I noticed is that I am getting the highest rate of
return on digital QSOs (RTTY, PSK) followed by CW, and the lowest is phone.
I suppose that just makes sense... people who use a computer as an integral
part of their operating modes are more likely to capture their logs in
electronic format and will find it easier to move that data to LoTW.

I have noticed that I get a higher return rate on digital qso's also. About
20% overall, with close to 70% on the digital modes. I have also come to the
same conclusion as you did about the use of computers. If one is using
computers extensividly in the shack, one is more likely to have easy access
to electronic logs.



--
Alex / AB2RC
Yaesu FT100 software for Linux http://www.qsl.net/kc2ivl
Why do they call Radio "Wireless", between my shack and antennas
I must have over 1500 feet of wire!

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:16:28 -0500, "Grey Owl"
wrote:

Why people aren't sending in their older logs I can't understand.

I can! I have 44 years of paper logs, and there's no way I'm gonna
key all those details in!
:-)))

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

Oh it's not really that hard ... I put in some QSOs from
the 1954 - 1956 time frame just for kicks. Had a bit of
a problem with some of the countries though, like I1
(Trieste) and 9S4 (Saar) ...

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:16:28 -0500, "Grey Owl"
wrote:

Why people aren't sending in their older logs I can't understand.

I can! I have 44 years of paper logs, and there's no way I'm gonna
key all those details in!
:-)))

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

Oh it's not really that hard ... I put in some QSOs from
the 1954 - 1956 time frame just for kicks. Had a bit of
a problem with some of the countries though, like I1
(Trieste) and 9S4 (Saar) ...

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 05:06:34 GMT, "Hank Oredson"
wrote:

Oh it's not really that hard ... I put in some QSOs from
the 1954 - 1956 time frame just for kicks. Had a bit of
a problem with some of the countries though, like I1
(Trieste) and 9S4 (Saar) ...

LOL! Not to mention M1 (San Marino), VP6 (Barbados), ZB1 (Malta), PX
(Andorra), etc.
;-)

73 de G3NYY

Yup, bunch of those, as well as various Y2 through Y6 calls and UN1 ;-)

Lot of fun figuring out the Pacific Island calls as well.
Many have been re-issued e.g. KG6AGC - Gaum in 1965 is
now a California call, but KG6DX is still Gaum. However the
KX6 (now V7) calls have not been re-issued, same for KW6
(now KH9). Lots more. Hmmm ... KB6BA no longer in T31.
VK9 is another worm can.

Didn't check if KZ5 calls have been re-issued.

And then there is 1Z4NG. QSL card says Norhday Island.
Map on the card looks like it is somewhere around XE4.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net