Moderated Re: WAC Award
This would never work without more hardware and that would mean more cost and that would mean these people would have to be charged. That would be reasonable. The problem is deciding what would be a fair charge. Doing it without upgrades would not be fair to current users because of the risk of overloading the system.
Outlook Laptop Gil W0MN Hierro Candente Batir de Repente 44.08226N 92.51265 W en34rb
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Bart Jahnke
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 13:08 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] WAC Award
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Something we can add to the list for review when developing LoTW 2.0.
73 Bart Jahnke, W9JJ ARRL - Radiosport and Field Services Manager
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Gary Hinson
OK, how about providing an LoTW API or function that lets [authorized] awards managers submit lists of entrants’ QSOs for validation?
If this was available, potentially any award could start accepting LoTW confirmations … and LoTW would suddenly become even more popular.
Contest logs might also be validated in the same way, although the volume of checks could be problematic unless they were rate-limited (e.g. by charging for each QSO submitted?) and/or the validation function was slick as a well-oiled Teflon coated pan.
73 Gary ZL2iFB
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Bart Jahnke
Hello John et al, 73,
Bart Jahnke, W9JJ ARRL - Radiosport and Field Services Manager |
|