Hello and good day,
I seem not to to get a full download of all my confirmed LOTW qso's, irrespetively if I initialise the download via log4om or "import" a lotw. log file on its own.
The missing confirmations after a LOTW download seem to have one thing in common:
The missing confirmations are all 6m JT65 mode qso's from 2017.
And in particular, only contacts where the distant station entered JT65 (without submode indicator) and I entered JT65A (after the introduction of submodes a, b and c)
Looking at the LOTW side, all those missing confirmations are ok.
A simple solution to solve the issue? Fault in my settings?
(just started to use log4om - last version) but I am still far from beeing familiar with the program.
Also look for a fast way to confirm "paper QSL cards" received. (a few hundreds)
Thanks
Charly, DF5VAE
download from LOTW to log4om
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10815
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: download from LOTW to log4om
73 Terry G4POP
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10815
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: download from LOTW to log4om
DF5VAE wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 08:23I seem not to to get a full download of all my confirmed LOTW qso's, irrespetively if I initialise the download via log4om or "import" a lotw. log file on its own.
The missing confirmations after a LOTW download seem to have one thing in common:
The missing confirmations are all 6m JT65 mode qso's from 2017.
And in particular, only contacts where the distant station entered JT65 (without submode indicator) and I entered JT65A (after the introduction of submodes a, b and c)
Looking at the LOTW side, all those missing confirmations are ok.
A simple solution to solve the issue? Fault in my settings?
The issue is as you already identified a missmatch in the mode reference.
If there are not many QSO's affected I would manually update your QSO's LOTW status in Log4OM, not forgetting the bulk editing and search filtering in Log4OM can help you do this in no time flat. Again watch the YouTube tutorials!
73 Terry G4POP
Re: download from LOTW to log4om
Thanks
I have received about 1500 cards (6-4-2-70) - would be a fulltime job -
73 Charly
I have received about 1500 cards (6-4-2-70) - would be a fulltime job -
73 Charly
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10815
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: download from LOTW to log4om
Just filter by mode = JT65 and band = 6m etc, then bulk edit the filtered result
73 Terry G4POP
Re: mode mismatch JT65 & JT65a
Hi Terry,
On this subject - which seems to have effected others as well, I do not understand the logic behind a not-justifiable mode mismatch !
LOTW does not make any difference between JT65 and JT65a. Just two names for exactly the same mode, I think we do agree on that?
To my understanding the new name JT65 submode A was introduced to distinguish JT65 from the later VHF versions JT65B & JT65C.
So this is an unnecessary and artificial mismatch (Jt65 - JT65A) which affects only log4om users.
It may be best to remove that "feature" in a future update.
Sure, I appreciate all the work and efforts put in the developement of LOG4OM -very rich of features - but I see this "mismatch" issue as "bug".
Tried to modify (edit) two or three contacts from JT65A to JT65 (only) but no change - so I leave it as is.
73 Charly, DF5VAE
On this subject - which seems to have effected others as well, I do not understand the logic behind a not-justifiable mode mismatch !
LOTW does not make any difference between JT65 and JT65a. Just two names for exactly the same mode, I think we do agree on that?
To my understanding the new name JT65 submode A was introduced to distinguish JT65 from the later VHF versions JT65B & JT65C.
So this is an unnecessary and artificial mismatch (Jt65 - JT65A) which affects only log4om users.
It may be best to remove that "feature" in a future update.
Sure, I appreciate all the work and efforts put in the developement of LOG4OM -very rich of features - but I see this "mismatch" issue as "bug".
Tried to modify (edit) two or three contacts from JT65A to JT65 (only) but no change - so I leave it as is.
73 Charly, DF5VAE
- G4POP
- Log4OM Alpha Team
- Posts: 10815
- Joined: 21 Jan 2013, 14:55
- Location: Burnham on Crouch, Essex UK
Re: download from LOTW to log4om
I was suggesting that you use this method to update the LOTW status not the mode
73 Terry G4POP
Re: download from LOTW to log4om
Hello Terry,
thanks for your quick reply again.
There is no problem at LOTW at all -and - LOTW stated to fully adhere to the adif spec.
http://adif.org/308/ADIF_308.htm (no mismatch between JT65 submodes)
All stations who received LOTW confirmation from me can see their correct status on LOTW (and many other loggers)
In my case this bug effects a few hundred qso which are displayed in error as "not LOTW confirmed".
Fortunately of those there are only a few DXCC's in 2017 which I worked only in JT65 (and not yet again in FT8) which show up in log4om as not confirmed.
73, Charly, DF5VAE
thanks for your quick reply again.
There is no problem at LOTW at all -and - LOTW stated to fully adhere to the adif spec.
http://adif.org/308/ADIF_308.htm (no mismatch between JT65 submodes)
All stations who received LOTW confirmation from me can see their correct status on LOTW (and many other loggers)
In my case this bug effects a few hundred qso which are displayed in error as "not LOTW confirmed".
Fortunately of those there are only a few DXCC's in 2017 which I worked only in JT65 (and not yet again in FT8) which show up in log4om as not confirmed.
73, Charly, DF5VAE