--- In email@example.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@...> wrote:
*** AA6YQ comments below
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of g4wjs
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:02 PM
Subject: [dxlab] Re: DXView - Enhancement opportunity?
snip<+++ One relatively straightforward change would be to add an "LotW only" box to the "DXCC Bands & Modes" panel on the Configuration
window's Awards tab. Checking this box and then initiating a Recompute would ignore QSL card confirmations not marked as 'V'
(granted DXCC credit) or 'S' (submitted for DXCC credit). SpotCollector would thus highlight everything needed for LotW-only DXCC
awards, but taking into account QSL card confirmations for which credit has been granted or requested. When desired, you could
uncheck the "LotW only" box and Recompute to see "full award progress". While easier to use than the kludge that Paul N1BUG
recounted in his post, then need to Recompute after checking or unchecking "LotW only" is not great. On the other hand, that's how
the QRP box in the "DXCC Bands & Modes" panel works, and it will be awhile till expanding DXCC progress tracking to independently
track Card and LotW confirmations gets to the top of my priority queue given the competition.
To help me understand this: how exactly would it help me to know a spot or call entered in WW/Capture/DXView is worth working to get
a probable LotW confirmation that is an "electronic new one" (i.e. not yet confirmed using LotW)?
*** Say the "LotW Only" option were implement as proposed. You would check the "LotW Only" box, direct DXKeeper to Recompute, and
then direct SpotCollector to Recompute. From that point on, logged QSOs that have been confirmed via QSL card but not confirmed via
LotW will be considered "worked but unconfirmed", and will be so-identified by SpotCollector.
What I'm not clear on is where the new information is shown: is it that the band-mode slot will not show as 'C' in the progress
matrix in DXView if there is not a prior LotW confirmation?
*** Say you have an entity-band confirmed via QSL card. That entity-band will be shown with a 'C' (for "confirmed") in the realtime
DXCC award progress, and will be considered "not needed for DXCC" by SpotCollector. With the proposed "LotW Option" implemented and
enabled, this entity-band would be shown with a 'W' (for "worked") in the realtime DXCC award progress, and would be considered
"needed for DXCC" by SpotCollector.
If this were the case then I wouldn't like it since it doesn't help me choose a real "new one" over a bid to get an extra
confirmation electronically. The problem being that some band mode slots are only available via paper cards and obviously I don't
want to miss those while chasing LotW "dup" confirmations.
*** If you've worked 1S0DX on 80m and have a QSL card, then with the proposed "LotW Option" implemented, spots of 1S0DX on 80m won't
be highlighted as "needed" -- not because of the QSL card (which is ignored), but because you already have a QSO with 1S0DX on 80m,
and another QSO with the same station on the same band won't help. But if 1S0DY is spotted on 80m, SpotCollector would highlight it
as "needed for DXCC" (ignoring the fact that you have Spratley on 80m confirmed via QSL card, as you've directed).
This is where I have a problem. 1S0DY is being flagged as needed at the same time as another, say P5FBDX on 80m, is also flagged as needed which is an entity I've never worked at all. DX Labs is then not helping me work the important one first.
*** 1S0DY may or may not be a known participant in LotW. If not, it's your decision whether or not to pursue the 80m QSO. You might
respond "knowing that I already have a QSL card for Spratley on 80m would be helpful in making that decision". Double-clicking the
Spratley-80m cell in the DXCC Award Progress grid (or in DXView's Award Progress grid) would filter the Log Page Display to show
all of your 80m Spratley QSOs. Assuming you have columns for "QSL Rcvd" and "LotW QSL Rcvd", you'd quickly have your answer.
***I've already spent more time explaining how this would work than I expected it would take to implement and test, which in my
experience is a bad sign...
:) I know what you mean Dave. But DX objectives are a pretty fundamental part of the suite and perhaps worth spending a little more time discussing the options.