[SOC] O.T. Logbook of the World and eQSL.org

Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:23:43 -0500

Parsimoniously?  Can you SAY that on the radio?  Certainly not on CW!!!!
(Okay... I confess... I hadda look that one up!!)

There have been some interesting replies (including several flames) to my
original post.  I'm surprised that several folks find that paper QSLs are
distasteful and consider it too expensive an act to perform.  I suppose if I
was a Dxer and made several thousand Q's a year, my opinion would change...
But I'm more of a rag-chewer and I was taught that the QSL is the final act
of courtesy for a good QSO.  I've also set a personal goal of WAS on 20M
PSK-31 with 10 watts or less, which is one reason I want the paper cards.  

I've decided that I'll upload all my Q's to LOTW and eQSL and follow up the
ones I need for whatever award I'm seeking with a 'real' card.  Of course,
I'll reply to any cards that I receive as well.  I've been a ham for nearly
30 years and still get a thrill out of getting a card in the mail.  Maybe
I'm just getting senile!!!

71/2/3 to all,

Mike
KG8L

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jan Clute
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [SOC] O.T. Logbook of the World and eQSL.org

Bob and others,

I QSL (parsimoniously) every other year whether I need to or not (with a
little luck I lose the cards before I have to QSL). I do like cards, but
hold out for triples or other special things that happen to interest me. Now
I can NOT QSL in more than one medium! (At tax time I remember why I don't
like to do paperwork). Cool! 73 Jan N0AAA SOC#*(

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Nielsen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: [SOC] O.T. Logbook of the World and eQSL.org

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:00:32PM -0500, Mike Besemer (KG8L) wrote:
> > Sorry for the off topic post, but my curiosity is getting the better 
> > of
me.
> >
> > I'm just curious how many of the folks on this list are using LOTW
and/or
> > eQSL.org... And what your thoughts are on either of these.
> >
> > I started playing with eQSL a few months ago, and just got started 
> > with
LOTW
> > today.  eQSL seems to be doing much better for me... About a 10% 
> > return rate.  As for LOTW, I uploaded 60 log entries today and got 2 
> > hits,
which
> > makes the return rate about 3.3%.
> >
> > Personally, I still prefer a card sent through the mail, and I 
> > generally follow up an electronic QSL with a paper card.  LOTW 
> > leaves you with
nothing
> > to look at and nothing to touch, which really kind of turns me off.  
> > At least with eQSL, you get a card you can print.  Still, it's hard 
> > to beat getting a card in the mail... At least in my book.
> >
>
> I have uploaded 2,583 QSOs to LOTW with 256 confirmations, so far 
> (9.9%).  I just looked at eQSL and I have received 263 there (I 
> haven't uploaded any).  I have many more DX QSLs at eQSL than at LOTW,
however.
> I have been using electronic logging (tlf) for over a year and it is 
> really easy to convert these files with TQSL and upload them. I'm 
> slowly entering my paper logs into the system.
>
> LOTW QSLs will be valid (with a fee which is less than postage) for 
> major awards (at least ARRL ones), while eQSLs are not, as far as I 
> can tell.  Of course, I prefer getting the cards also, but (in the SOC
> tradition) I don't get around to sending them out as often as I should.
> I have a pretty big pile I that I really must send to the buro.
>
> 73, Bob N7XY
> _______________________________________________
> SOC mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/soc
>

_______________________________________________
SOC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/soc