开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育
  1. DXLab
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

The problem reported in this thread is not "user confusion over terminology", as implied by the post below. The problem is that LoTW has begun misreporting "DXCC Credit" status for some QSOs confirmed via LoTW and submitted for DXCC credit.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


Not so complicated:

Confirmed QSOs


* A confirmed QSO means that both parties (you and the other operator) have uploaded matching logs to LoTW.

* The system checks the date, time, frequency, and mode, and if they match within certain tolerances, it confirms the QSO.

* This is what counts toward award credit (e.g., DXCC, WAS, VUCC).

So:

Confirmed = Matched and valid in LoTW = Counts for awards.

________________________________


? Verified QSOs


* A verified QSO is typically one that has already been used for award credit, such as a confirmed QSO you've applied toward your DXCC or WAS certificate.

* It’s like a step beyond "confirmed" — it's confirmed and officially credited in your award application.

So:

Verified = Confirmed + Used for award credit (and accepted).
Re: Double click on a spot doesn't change frequency on the RTX

 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Now that you make me think about it, some months ago I've bought a new DELL Keyboard/Mouse wireless set.

Apart from this i didn't make changes (hardware or software) except changing the mouse color pointer (Mouse Windows preferences) choosing black pointer on white background (I'm an Apple technician since 1984).

After reading your post i restored the default setup (white pointer on white background) and double clicking on a spot now the frequency change! Incredible!

+ I'm glad that the "fix" was simple, Franco.

+ When the behavior of a DXLab application suddenly changes, it's essential to immediately determine what cause that change. If you procrastinate, you may forget information about what changes you made to your hardware and software that may be responsible.

Dave, AA6YQ
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

hello,

The issue was said to be a "software glitch"
mmmh, software glitch... duh?

73 de
Salvatore (I4FYV)
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 08:28 AM, wc3w wrote:
Verified = Confirmed + Used for award credit (and accepted).

Maybe AWARDED = Confirmed + Used for award credit (and accepted) would have been a less confusing status...
?
--
73, Ken
WB1DX
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

Weeks ago I made an application to lotw for new credits, less than 40.

After a few more weeks, the application was completed, all good.

Then several?days later over 30 previously?credited QSOs showed up as pending.?

When I looked up these now pending credit QSO, they were also shown as granted!

After several?exchanges with the?help desk, it was fixed. h]the issue?was delclered?to b

The?issue was said to be a "software glitch"

Thanks Dan KC2STA
?

On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 9:33?AM Salvatore Besso via <salvatore.besso=outlook.it@groups.io> wrote:

hello,

?> This is hard evidence of a breakdown in the interface between
?> the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW - probably caused by whatever
?> was done to salvage the DXCC system after last May's "ARRL
?> system disruption

Dave, what is your suggestion, since I was going to prepare my first
submission with LoTW confirmations for now. Could it be risky?

Thank you.

73 de
Salvatore (I4FYV)








--
Dan Ziolkowski KC2STA
SKCC #4290T
Ubuntu LINUX
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

开云体育

LotW status is not my complaint. It? is the overall personify and other logins to ARRL systems such as reading QST that are a pain. The old way of going to ONE place ad having ONE login method to go to what you wat to do was much better and less confusing than the hateful system now.

?

Outlook LT Gil W0MN

Hierro Candente Batir de Repente

44.08226 N 92.51265 W EN34rb

?

?

From: DXLab@groups.io <DXLab@groups.io> On Behalf Of wc3w via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 7:29 AM
To: DXLab@groups.io
Subject: Re: [DXLab] Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

?

Not so complicated:

Confirmed QSOs

  • A confirmed QSO means that both parties (you and the other operator) have uploaded matching logs to LoTW.
  • The system checks the date, time, frequency, and mode, and if they match within certain tolerances, it confirms the QSO.
  • This is what counts toward award credit (e.g., DXCC, WAS, VUCC).

So:

Confirmed = Matched and valid in LoTW = Counts for awards.

? Verified QSOs

  • A verified QSO is typically one that has already been used for award credit, such as a confirmed QSO you've applied toward your DXCC or WAS certificate.
  • It’s like a step beyond "confirmed" — it's confirmed and officially credited in your award application.

So:

Verified = Confirmed + Used for award credit (and accepted).


--

W0MN EN34rb 44.08226 N 92.51265 W

Hierro candente, batir de repente

HP Laptop
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

Not so complicated:

Confirmed QSOs

  • A confirmed QSO means that both parties (you and the other operator) have uploaded matching logs to LoTW.

  • The system checks the date, time, frequency, and mode, and if they match within certain tolerances, it confirms the QSO.

  • This is what counts toward award credit (e.g., DXCC, WAS, VUCC).

So:

Confirmed = Matched and valid in LoTW = Counts for awards.

? Verified QSOs

  • A verified QSO is typically one that has already been used for award credit, such as a confirmed QSO you've applied toward your DXCC or WAS certificate.

  • It’s like a step beyond "confirmed" — it's confirmed and officially credited in your award application.

So:

Verified = Confirmed + Used for award credit (and accepted).
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

开云体育

Yes, and that personify is the most awful , rotten, AND CONFUSING system I have encountered anywhere. I an see why new hams are reluctant to? waste money on ARRL MEMBERSHIP.

?

Outlook LT Gil W0MN

Hierro Candente Batir de Repente

44.08226 N 92.51265 W EN34rb

?

?

From: DXLab@groups.io <DXLab@groups.io> On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 3:48 PM
To: DXLab@groups.io
Subject: Re: [DXLab] Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

?

+ AA6YQ comments below

The big issue is the obsolete software used for the DXCC records.
The DXCC records are maintained on a legacy FoxPro database that
will only run on Windows 95 (97?) and earlier. ARRL have only
one computer that will run that orphaned operating system and
it has no available (up to date) anti-virus and/or firewall for
that OS.

As such, the DXCC records can no longer reside on the ARRL LAN
and automatic data transfer from Online DXCC ("Easy DXCC") and
LotW ... in addition automatic data (status) transfer to LotW is
not possible. Data from Online DXCC/LotW must be batch exported
to portable media, that media must be virus checked on a stand
alone computer before being loaded (and processed) one application
at a time on the DXCC system. Periodically, updated user records
are exported to portable media from the DXCC system, virus checked
on the stand alone system and imported to LotW to update user
records there.

Obviously, there are several "choke points" in the current system
and increased opportunity for data entry errors (like tagging
LotW credits as card credits) ... as well as delays due to the
batch export/validate/import ... export/validate/update processes.

+ Recall that just as the extension of LoTW to support WAZ was wrapping up in early 2018, ARRL management re-assigned the two developers that had been dedicated to LoTW to "higher priority tasks". One task was the deployment of the off-the-shelf Personify association management software package, whose stated objective was to enable ARRL members to renew, shop, and donate in a single transaction; that took another 4 years to accomplish. The other higher priority task was an internal effort to re-implement the DXCC system, which failed outright.

+ I was not aware that the ARRL's solution to the "FoxPro on Windows 95" problem was a sneaker-net connection between the DXCC system and LoTW.

? ? 73,

? ? ? ? ? ? Dave, AA6YQ


--

W0MN EN34rb 44.08226 N 92.51265 W

Hierro candente, batir de repente

HP Laptop
Re: Double click on a spot doesn't change frequency on the RTX

 

Hi Dave,
Now that you make me think about it, some months ago I've bought a new DELL Keyboard/Mouse wireless set.
?
Apart from this i didn't make changes (hardware or software) except changing the mouse color pointer (Mouse Windows preferences) choosing black pointer on white background (I'm an Apple technician since 1984).
?
After reading your post i restored the default setup (white pointer on white background) and double clicking on a spot now the frequency change! Incredible!
?
It takes about 2/3 seconds to QSY but it works (using QSY menu function the change is instantaneous)
?
No other comments.
?
Thank you very much for your unvaluable support!
?
73, IZ4MJP Franco
?
?
?
?
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Tracy Kidder's book was a huge source of inspiration to me when I joined Lund University as an EE student in 1981.
That, and the moon landing in 1969, both had a big impact on my career choices.

+ The we go back a long way, Bj?rn!



73,

Dave, AA6YQ
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

Tracy Kidder's book was a huge source of inspiration to me when I joined Lund University as an EE student in 1981.
That, and the moon landing in 1969, both had a big impact on my career choices.

Bj?rn SM7IUN


On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 8:17?PM Dave AA6YQ via <aa6yq=ambersoft.com@groups.io> wrote:
Since I am banned from posting to the ARRL-LoTW online group, but knowing that ARRL CEO NA2AA religiously monitors the "My ARRL Voice" Group on Facebook, I posted this message there yesterday:

"NA2AA: Since you banned me from the ARRL-LoTW online group for no reason other than my public opposition to your announced LoTW 2.0 plan - which New England Director AB1OC reported was subsequently cancelled because the ARRL couldn't afford it - I'll use this communications channel, which your ex-subordinates report that you carefully monitor, to inform you that the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW are reporting inconsistent status for QSOs to which DXCC award credit has been granted. "

Sure enough, Jon Bloom responded there today:

"I don't believe this is generally true, but there may be particular records that aren't in sync. If you know of specific cases where LoTW users' DXCC records aren't displaying correctly, those should be reported to the LoTW help desk for action. Reporting that the system is "reporting inconsistent status" without any specific detail won't get you far."

In response, I posted:

"Well hello, Jon.

For those who don't know Jon, he's ex-KE3Z - the developer who publicly released LoTW in 2003 with little testing and no user-oriented documentation. It crashed frequently with obscure error messages; its measured availability was less than 90%. Instead of focusing on improving reliability and usability, he instead added functionality: support for WPX and "Triple Play". By November 2012, LoTW ground to a halt, unable to make forward progress -- the result of a longstanding defect that a trivial stress test would have revealed years earlier.

From your response to my post, Jon, it's clear that you've learned nothing since then. Are you aware that in 2013, the ARRL Board was persuaded to approve the acquisition of a second hardware instance so that modifications to LoTW could be tested before being publicly released? Your acknowledgement that "there may be particular records that aren't in sync" makes it clear that you failed to test your changes. Again.
Not only has there been no improvement in LoTW's usability and functionality since 2018, you're now reversing the LoTW development team's hard-won gains in reliability - back when there was a competent LoTW development team.

Were I able to post on the ARRL-LoTW group, I would of course have provided details and examples. You can get them from K1MU, who monitors the online group in which they were reported."

Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick.? Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at) arrl.org

During my 50+ years in the computer hardware and software design business, there have only been two situations in which I was part of? a team that worked flat out to accomplish a difficult technical objective, only to have defeat be grasped from the jaws of victory. The first was documented by Tracy Kidder in "Soul of a New Machine"; the second was the ARRL-LoTW team's attempt to salvage LoTW from 2012-2018. I'll never forget either of them...

? ? ? 73,

? ? ? ? ? ?Dave, AA6YQ
Re: Double click on a spot doesn't change frequency on the RTX

 

+ AA6YQ comments below
For some time now, double clicking on a spot (Spot Collector) doesn't change the frequency of the RTX connected via CAT.
Sometimes after 5 or 6 mouse clicks the frequency finally changes but not always.
Until some time ago this did not happen and by clicking on each spot the radio immediately QSY
+ When did this misbehavior first begin? What changes did you make to your hardware or software around that time?

? ? ? 73,

? ? ? ? ? ? Dave, AA6YQ
Double click on a spot doesn't change frequency on the RTX

 

For some time now, double clicking on a spot (Spot Collector) doesn't change the frequency of the RTX connected via CAT.
Sometimes after 5 or 6 mouse clicks the frequency finally changes but not always.
Until some time ago this did not happen and by clicking on each spot the radio immediately QSY.
?
The strange thing is that if I use the QSY function in the menu (using the right mouse button), the Rtx immediately switches to the correct frequency of the spot. Instantly
I use a PC with Windows 10 and all DX Lab applications updated to the latest versions.
I tried to search through the settings windows to see if there was an item to activate but without luck.
?
Note: DX Lab Commander manages 3 devices (Multiradio) and the problem is present on both radios (1 Icom and 2 Yaesu).
?
Thank you in advance to anyone who wants to give me some suggestions on where to investigate.
?
73, IZ4MJP Franco
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

+ AA6YQ comments below
The big issue is the obsolete software used for the DXCC records.
The DXCC records are maintained on a legacy FoxPro database that
will only run on Windows 95 (97?) and earlier. ARRL have only
one computer that will run that orphaned operating system and
it has no available (up to date) anti-virus and/or firewall for
that OS.

As such, the DXCC records can no longer reside on the ARRL LAN
and automatic data transfer from Online DXCC ("Easy DXCC") and
LotW ... in addition automatic data (status) transfer to LotW is
not possible. Data from Online DXCC/LotW must be batch exported
to portable media, that media must be virus checked on a stand
alone computer before being loaded (and processed) one application
at a time on the DXCC system. Periodically, updated user records
are exported to portable media from the DXCC system, virus checked
on the stand alone system and imported to LotW to update user
records there.

Obviously, there are several "choke points" in the current system
and increased opportunity for data entry errors (like tagging
LotW credits as card credits) ... as well as delays due to the
batch export/validate/import ... export/validate/update processes.
+ Recall that just as the extension of LoTW to support WAZ was wrapping up in early 2018, ARRL management re-assigned the two developers that had been dedicated to LoTW to "higher priority tasks". One task was the deployment of the off-the-shelf Personify association management software package, whose stated objective was to enable ARRL members to renew, shop, and donate in a single transaction; that took another 4 years to accomplish. The other higher priority task was an internal effort to re-implement the DXCC system, which failed outright.

+ I was not aware that the ARRL's solution to the "FoxPro on Windows 95" problem was a sneaker-net connection between the DXCC system and LoTW.

? ? 73,

? ? ? ? ? ? Dave, AA6YQ
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

On 2025-03-29 3:59 PM, Richard Hill via groups.io wrote:

Note that LotW is not updating their status regarding progress on
emptying the backlog.
Based on postings on the ARRL-LotW list, the backlog (processing
delay) for DXCC awards is slowly coming down. It seems to have
fallen from about six weeks in late February to around three weeks currently.

The big issue is the obsolete software used for the DXCC records.
The DXCC records are maintained on a legacy FoxPro database that
will only run on Windows 95 (97?) and earlier. ARRL have only
one computer that will run that orphaned operating system and
it has no available (up to date) anti-virus and/or firewall for
that OS.

As such, the DXCC records can no longer reside on the ARRL LAN
and automatic data transfer from Online DXCC ("Easy DXCC") and
LotW ... in addition automatic data (status) transfer to LotW is
not possible. Data from Online DXCC/LotW must be batch exported
to portable media, that media must be virus checked on a stand
alone computer before being loaded (and processed) one application
at a time on the DXCC system. Periodically, updated user records
are exported to portable media from the DXCC system, virus checked
on the stand alone system and imported to LotW to update user
records there.

Obviously, there are several "choke points" in the current system
and increased opportunity for data entry errors (like tagging
LotW credits as card credits) ... as well as delays due to the
batch export/validate/import ... export/validate/update processes.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 2025-03-29 3:59 PM, Richard Hill via groups.io wrote:
I had a problem with needed QSLs for WAZ being confirmed in LotW DXCC but
not credited under the WAZ Award. I informed LotW of the issue and their
response was basically, LotW is not perfect. N4BAA, WAZ awards manager,
was able to fix the issues in LotW and confirmed my WAZ.
I'd recommend not waiting too long. I doubt that problems will be fixed
without specific fix-it tickets for some time. Note that LotW is not
updating their status regarding progress on emptying the backlog. I
believe they are doing their best and I'm grateful that my little issue was
fixed for the moment, I have more for them. I need to make a new
application, and fix my status in LotW. My three year dues were not
recognized by LotW.
Submit now, worry later, grin!
Rich, NU6T
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:46?PM Stan Gammons via groups.io <buttercup11421=
protonmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hi Dave,


Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick. Bj?rn, Stan, and
Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably
have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at)
<LoTW-help@...>


Not a problem Dave. I think what I sent you off list is proof there’s a
problem. I’ll do what I can to help get it sorted out.

73

Stan
KM4HQE
Monitors

 

I've learned much about monitors and graphics cards, and my ignorance remains vast, grin.? I've decided to try my existing system with a 2K, QHD, 1440p wide monitor, and go up from there as needed.? I'll report more later.

I chose to take a too good Amazon deal for $200 on a Spring sale after seeing a very similar model at Best Buy for $280:



I'm passing this along should others have an interest.??

I may later decide that I need a second small monitor for maps.? I have a 16" portable monitor that may work.? YMMV.

73
Rich, NU6T
--
Richard Hill
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

I had a problem with needed QSLs for WAZ being confirmed? in LotW DXCC but not credited under the WAZ Award.? I informed LotW of the issue and their response?was basically, LotW is not perfect.? N4BAA, WAZ awards manager, was able to fix the issues in LotW and confirmed my WAZ.

I'd recommend not waiting too long.? I doubt that problems will be fixed without specific fix-it tickets for some time.? Note that LotW is not updating their status regarding progress on emptying the backlog.? I believe they are doing their best and I'm grateful that?my?little issue?was fixed for?the?moment,?I?have more for them.? I need to make a new application, and fix my status in LotW.? My three year dues were not recognized by LotW.

Submit now, worry later, grin!

Rich, NU6T

On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:46?PM Stan Gammons via <buttercup11421=protonmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hi Dave,


Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick.? Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at)?

Not a problem Dave.? I think what I sent you off list is proof there’s a problem.? I’ll do what I can to help get it sorted out.

73

Stan
KM4HQE



--
Richard Hill
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

Hi Dave,


Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick. ?Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at)?

Not a problem Dave. ?I think what I sent you off list is proof there’s a problem. ?I’ll do what I can to help get it sorted out.

73

Stan
KM4HQE
_._,_._,_
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

hello,

Dave:

I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have
to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested:
LoTW-help (at) arrl.org
while I thank you for your interest in this problem, I think that I will pause for a while my first DXCC submission using LoTW confirmations, awaiting further developments on this issue.

I don't know if new "first" submissions could be affected by this issue (I've never made one before, so I don't have any credit yet), but I feel it's better to wait on the river bank...

73 de
Salvatore (I4FYV)
Re: Verified vs Confirmed on LoTW

 

Since I am banned from posting to the ARRL-LoTW online group, but knowing that ARRL CEO NA2AA religiously monitors the "My ARRL Voice" Group on Facebook, I posted this message there yesterday:

"NA2AA: Since you banned me from the ARRL-LoTW online group for no reason other than my public opposition to your announced LoTW 2.0 plan - which New England Director AB1OC reported was subsequently cancelled because the ARRL couldn't afford it - I'll use this communications channel, which your ex-subordinates report that you carefully monitor, to inform you that the ARRL's DXCC system and LoTW are reporting inconsistent status for QSOs to which DXCC award credit has been granted. "

Sure enough, Jon Bloom responded there today:

"I don't believe this is generally true, but there may be particular records that aren't in sync. If you know of specific cases where LoTW users' DXCC records aren't displaying correctly, those should be reported to the LoTW help desk for action. Reporting that the system is "reporting inconsistent status" without any specific detail won't get you far."

In response, I posted:

"Well hello, Jon.

For those who don't know Jon, he's ex-KE3Z - the developer who publicly released LoTW in 2003 with little testing and no user-oriented documentation. It crashed frequently with obscure error messages; its measured availability was less than 90%. Instead of focusing on improving reliability and usability, he instead added functionality: support for WPX and "Triple Play". By November 2012, LoTW ground to a halt, unable to make forward progress -- the result of a longstanding defect that a trivial stress test would have revealed years earlier.

From your response to my post, Jon, it's clear that you've learned nothing since then. Are you aware that in 2013, the ARRL Board was persuaded to approve the acquisition of a second hardware instance so that modifications to LoTW could be tested before being publicly released? Your acknowledgement that "there may be particular records that aren't in sync" makes it clear that you failed to test your changes. Again.
Not only has there been no improvement in LoTW's usability and functionality since 2018, you're now reversing the LoTW development team's hard-won gains in reliability - back when there was a competent LoTW development team.

Were I able to post on the ARRL-LoTW group, I would of course have provided details and examples. You can get them from K1MU, who monitors the online group in which they were reported."

Sorry to throw you in to the middle of this, Rick. ?Bj?rn, Stan, and Salvatore: I don't have contact information for Jon Bloom; you'll probably have to reach him via the LoTW Help Desk, as he requested: LoTW-help (at) arrl.org

During my 50+ years in the computer hardware and software design business, there have only been two situations in which I was part of? a team that worked flat out to accomplish a difficult technical objective, only to have defeat be grasped from the jaws of victory. The first was documented by Tracy Kidder in "Soul of a New Machine"; the second was the ARRL-LoTW team's attempt to salvage LoTW from 2012-2018. I'll never forget either of them...

? ? ? 73,

? ? ? ? ? ?Dave, AA6YQ
121 - 140 of 228478