开云体育

Dave,
I would like to suggest that if an entity (or band-entity) is
represented only by a QSO or QSO's that have been marked 'X'
in the QSL-RCVD box then the 'W' in the DXVIEW status listing
should be either removed or changed to an 'X'.

Yes, the contact was made, but hope of obtaining a QSL has
now evaporated. Perhaps for that reason an 'X' in the status
table would be preferable to showing a blank. The 'X' would
be replaced with a 'W' when another, non-expired, QSO was
made with that band-entity.

In my case I had a 1978 40M QSO with ZD8HR (later N6HR) which
resulted in a 'W' in the status view. He passed away in
2007 before I really started "data-mining" my log. I
just inserted an 'X' in the QSL box but the 'W' persists.

Obviously if one inserted hundreds of 'X's at one time
it could cause a major subsequent but short-lived
slowdown in DXKeeper,but I doubt that that happens.

Thanks and 73
Pete K5GM
Pete Jordahl, K5GM
k5gm@...



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Pete,

If you mark both QSL Rcvd and LotW QSL Rcvd to X then it won't appear
in DXView as W. For if both are not marked X, you haven't truly given
up on the QSL.

I do like your idea of X showing in DXView if only one is marked X.
However I have a feeling that would be a major undertaking. Perhaps
adding it as a feature request for when Dave has more time to
implement it.

73 Art W2NRA
"Keep to the Code!"
w2nra.com

On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Peter Jordahl <k5gm@...> wrote:

Dave,
I would like to suggest that if an entity (or band-entity) is
represented only by a QSO or QSO's that have been marked 'X'
in the QSL-RCVD box then the 'W' in the DXVIEW status listing
should be either removed or changed to an 'X'.

Yes, the contact was made, but hope of obtaining a QSL has
now evaporated. Perhaps for that reason an 'X' in the status
table would be preferable to showing a blank. The 'X' would
be replaced with a 'W' when another, non-expired, QSO was
made with that band-entity.

In my case I had a 1978 40M QSO with ZD8HR (later N6HR) which
resulted in a 'W' in the status view. He passed away in
2007 before I really started "data-mining" my log. I
just inserted an 'X' in the QSL box but the 'W' persists.

Obviously if one inserted hundreds of 'X's at one time
it could cause a major subsequent but short-lived
slowdown in DXKeeper,but I doubt that that happens.

Thanks and 73
Pete K5GM
Pete Jordahl, K5GM
k5gm@...



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks Art and Dave,
I had not thought to also mark the electronic confirmations as 'X'.
That will
be easily done and solves the problem. I have several such
QSO's; does
anyone
know whether others can QSL for an SK ham given that they have a log
showing
the QSO (I have in mind specifically 3A2GL, now SK) just as if they were
a
QSL manager?

Obviously I should have kept more up-to-date with my QSLs!

73
Pete K5GM

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:42 +0000, "aa6yq" <aa6yq@...> wrote:

I believe the current implementation to be correct: if you are so certain
that a QSL will never be confirmed that you don't

want it counted as

"worked" in your DXCC award progress, then set both "QSL Rcvd" and

"LotW

QSL Rcvd" to 'X' as Art suggests below; if you no longer wanted

it

counted towards your WAZ award progress, then also set "eQSL QSL Rcvd"

to

'X'.

If you've written off a QSO in this way, I don't see the point of
highlighting its existence in award progress displays and reports.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

There have been many cases where a 3rd party has been able to take over qsl
duties for a deceased ham.
I don't know if there is an 'official procedure', for such a continuation.
But I have seen notices that a xyl or family member has turned over the logs
to a friend or club member of the deceased.

I and other QSL Manager Assoc. members took over possesion and qsl duties
when one of the big qsl managers passed a few year back.


On 9/2/2009 12:46:23 AM, Peter Jordahl (k5gm@...) wrote:

Thanks Art and Dave,
I had not thought to also mark the electronic confirmations as 'X'.
That will
be easily done and solves the problem. I have several such
QSO's; does
anyone
know whether others can QSL for an SK ham given that they have a log
showing
the QSO (I have in mind specifically 3A2GL, now SK) just as if they were
a
QSL manager?

Obviously I should have kept more up-to-date with my QSLs!

73
Pete K5GM

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:42 +0000, "aa6yq" <aa6yq@...> wrote:

I believe the current implementation to be correct: if you are so
certain
that a QSL will never be confirmed that you don't

want it counted as

"worked" in your DXCC award progress, then set both "QSL Rcvd" and

"LotW

QSL Rcvd" to 'X' as Art suggests below; if you no longer wanted

it

counted towards your WAZ award progress, then also set "eQSL QSL Rcvd"

to

'X'.

If you've written off a QSO in this way, I don't see the point of
highlighting its existence in award progress displays and reports.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Another example: The YASME Foundation answers QSL Requests for Lloyd Colvin and his XYL (Both SK) since they sponsored many of their DXpeditions. I recently got them to send me a card for a QSO in 1985.

Mark WC5M

--- In dxlab@..., "FireBrick" <w9ol@> wrote:

There have been many cases where a 3rd party has been able to take over qsl
duties for a deceased ham.
I don't know if there is an 'official procedure', for such a continuation.
But I have seen notices that a xyl or family member has turned over the logs
to a friend or club member of the deceased.

I and other QSL Manager Assoc. members took over possesion and qsl duties
when one of the big qsl managers passed a few year back.


On 9/2/2009 12:46:23 AM, Peter Jordahl (k5gm@) wrote:

Thanks Art and Dave,
I had not thought to also mark the electronic confirmations as 'X'.
That will
be easily done and solves the problem. I have several such
QSO's; does
anyone
know whether others can QSL for an SK ham given that they have a log
showing
the QSO (I have in mind specifically 3A2GL, now SK) just as if they were
a
QSL manager?

Obviously I should have kept more up-to-date with my QSLs!

73
Pete K5GM

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:42 +0000, "aa6yq" <aa6yq@> wrote:

I believe the current implementation to be correct: if you are so
certain
that a QSL will never be confirmed that you don't

want it counted as

"worked" in your DXCC award progress, then set both "QSL Rcvd" and

"LotW

QSL Rcvd" to 'X' as Art suggests below; if you no longer wanted

it

counted towards your WAZ award progress, then also set "eQSL QSL Rcvd"

to

'X'.

If you've written off a QSO in this way, I don't see the point of
highlighting its existence in award progress displays and reports.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ