eQSL- why are so many hams so "sniffy" about it?

Apropos of nothing, today I received one of the occasional EMails I get say that there was an "eQSL" awaiting me at www.eqsl.cc.

When I logged in I was greeted with the news that my membership had been "downgraded" (in other words I hadn't made a financial contribution for over a year), so I duly fired up the PayPal screen and bunged them a few quid, as I have always thought that this service has been worth supporting. No big deal.

However this prompted a mental process which recalled all the "please no eqsl" messages I had seen scrolling across the screen whilst operating PSK modes, and I thought to myself "Why the heck not?".

It's completely understandable view from someone who has no PC or internet connection, but my experience is that the vast majority of hams across the world are now connected to the 'net, and therefore by definition (almost) must have a PC available to assist them in their hobby. Certainly virtually every PSK operator has a PC, as that is how that mode usually operates!

I realise that there are "issues" with eQSL not being "acceptable for awards", probably due to "authenticity" issues, (from the point of view of one who _doesn't_ chase awards), but on the whole I find it a splendid service; easy to use, inexpensive (you can use the system completely FREE OF CHARGE if you wish, albeit with some limitations in functionality, which I think is a pretty fair deal), and reliable (I can't recall any service outages over the period I have been using it).

The "accepted" alternative is the ARRL's LotW (Logbook of the World), which, apparently addresses the "authenticity" issues, but which is an absolute pain-in-the-arse to use (IMHO), and doesn't produce any kind of "QSL card" which eQSL does. When my LotW account needed revalidating recently, I had a heck of a job remembering and working out just how I was supposed do do it, and although I got there in the end, I was almost on the point of giving up before I hit on the correct combination of actions.

Some hams like to plaster their shack walls, or fill shoeboxes with pieces of cardboard commemorating contacts - I'm not included in this list, being perfectly happy to have a line in a logbook, or an electronic record such as eQSL.cc provides, and I accept that it "takes all sorts", but "PSE NO EQSL" does seem to be a "dog in a manger" attitude to me!

One QRZ.com entry I came across the other day stated that paper QSL cards were "honourable", and implying therefore the eQSLs were not. I think you can tell that I do not share this opinion.

ROPOCO SSB - a selfish rant

I will be the first to admit that this is a very selfish point of view, but I really am quite annoyed (well as annoyed as I will allow myself to be over something which is a hobby/leisure activity) that the "powers that be" whoever they are, have turned one of the twice-yearly ROPOCO contests from a CW challenge to an SSB or phone one.

Especially ROPOCO1 (April) in which I have previously participated many times.

I am not a contester at all, but I really enjoy this particular challenge as it is, quite frankly, just that, a challenge.

What it challenges, from my own selfish point of view is one's CW sending and receiving ability/technique.

It does this in quite a different way to that of most if not all other contests in that _ACCURACY_ is prized above all else.

Most other contest have so many elements which are predictable (report, serial number, region, and so on) that "quantity" rather than "quality" carries enormous weight, whereas in ROPOCO accuracy is king.

Sending technique and accuracy is challenged. In other forms of amateur CW communications the odd sending error is normally of little consequence - the operator who knows he has made a mistake in transmission has to decide whether or not to correct that mistake, and if he decides to correct it, he has numerous methods open to him how to achieve that. In CW conversation, he will often just let the mistake go and rely on the operator at the other end picking up the error and dealing with it in his own way.

With ROPOCO this concept just doesn't work, and the challenge is for both the operator sending, and the operator receiving knowing how to deal with what they think might be a mistake in either transmission or reception. Mistakes lose points!

If you have never participated in ROPOCO this notion might be somewhat lost on you, but those of you who have will know exactly what I mean.

It could be argued, and I am sure that it will be, that this format should translate perfectly well to a "phone" format, and I am sure it will, but my point is that the corresponding challenge in speech communications is quite different to that in telegraphy.

For my money, I "they" wanted to try out ROPOCO in speech form, they should have had an _extra_ contest for the speech boys and left us brass pounders with our twice-yearly bout of fun.

The reason why I am so narked that the April test has been changed is simply because that is the one I usally participate in!

How selfish is that?!