Looks like qrz.com is down? Well it is for me 
2 Likes
But hamqth.com is up. So a good opportunity to make the switch and adopt a EU based callsign database!
5 Likes
Why do (almost) every hamradio website look like they are from 1998 ? I mean, just look at the logbook of the world … who wants to use that !?
Luckily sota team has done a very good job at making a very decent website 
8 Likes
Maybe its the view of, it works, why change?
It’s been down for a few days.
3 Likes
Maybe they are upgrading to at least 2015 state now 
So expect lot of rounded corners and ‘Flat design’ 
. Scroll for 5 minutes to get over all the ads 
73 Joe
5 Likes
Because user interface quality is part of what makes something truly work . A program may technically function, but if the user has to endure an hour of command-line typing just to get a result, very few people will want to use it.
I see the same issue with websites overloaded with ads. At home I use an AdGuard DNS blocker, so I rarely see them. But whenever I browse without it and a site is full of intrusive ads, I usually just close the page and move on.
1 Like
TBH, very seldom actually look at the website. I don’t even use TQSL directly all that often. I do, however, have my logging program talk to it pretty much daily.
I do kind-of wish that there was one worldwide federated system (analogous to the postal bureau system) for exchanging and confirming electronic QSLs (and handling call-book functions, too, if the pigs aren’t merely flying but making it to orbit 
), rather than the piecemeal each-to-their-own patchwork of mostly non-communicating different systems we have today. The closest we get at present is that QRZ and LotW can sort-of co-operate…
3 Likes
Paper logs. 
1 Like
qrz.com does logs? Never knew that. I thought it was just qth info and a big goon-fest forum.
1 Like
QRZ has had a logbook function for ever but it wasn’t widely used until recently. There seems to be a trend towards maintaining logbooks on line (only) which, although I can see the attraction, isn’t for me.
LotW now allows agents other than TQSL to submit QSO data. Club Log started doing it a few years ago and I cannot remember the last time I actually used TQSL or the LotW web site - I just do everything via Club Log. My homebrew logging program, StarLog uploads QSOs to Club Log automatically in semi real-time. About once a week I get Club Log to upload my new QSOs to LotW and download any new QSL records, which I can then view in Club Log or StarLog.
As far as I am concerned, LotW is the worldwide federated QSL system. ARRL runs it free of charge for all amateurs world wide, only charging if you want to claim DXCC awards, as it always did long before LotW.
BTW, QRZ.com is up but extremely slow, so I expect they have lost a big network pipe somewhere.
Or being DDOS’d without Cloudflare protection.
for Club Log
1 Like
You got me pondering my logging now. I started with paper logs in 2024 and entered logs to QRZ manually. For CW I like to log to paper so I can scribble, jot, cross out, erase and generally ‘pootle’. It is nice to build a collection of tangible notebook logs too I think. Personal preference.
I’d like to have a local backup, paper aside, that I could export from QRZ and PoLo to a locally hosted solution. Linux though, not Windows.
Are there some decent options available outside of *.csv etc for Linux that folks would recommend for locally archiving logs?
QRZ Seems to be OK this morning. Yesterday it was very sluggish, taking maybe 5 minutes to get signed in and many seconds to get a return on a callsign query.
K6YK
The quote I was answering was about LotW, but yes, I think my logger would also talk to QRZ if I gave it the appropriate access information (and maybe also sent a few bucks QRZ’s way - I’m not sure how much of that functionality requires a subscription). My local club has the club’s log hooked to QRZ.
When out and about, paper’s my primary logging medium. Back in the shack, the electronic copy usually, these days, gets updated before the paper log, but I do aim to keep the paper log up to date, and there are some things (like notes on equipment checks, antenna EMF assessments, and all that other guff) that only get noted in the paper one…
More like a single point of failure, if last year’s extended outage is any guide…
1 Like
Regarding the online logging and LOTW, I keep paper logs of everything. I have boxes of logbooks from when I started hamming in 1957. I started trying to do computer logging in the 1980s but due to computer/software failures I lost a lot of stuff that I had typed into those logs. Finally in 1991 I got going good and now have about 150,000 QSOs in my current computer log. It’s great for looking things up in many different ways. And I keep a copy of it on a flashdrive “just in case”.
LOTW is a great thing, truly a worldwide confirmation clearing house, either for awards, or just for your own personal pleasure to see what you have worked/confirmed over the years. And you can download the info from LOTW, merge the QSL info into your own personal log. I am not very automated so I upload my log once a month and download the received ;QSL info once a month or so. It all takes a couple minutes.
73,
John, K6YK
3 Likes
It wasn’t ARRL’s finest hour, that’s for sure. But for most it was a minor inconvenience, especially those that just use it as the QSL verification service it was intended to be. No data were lost and the system was, eventually fully restored. In my view the outage illuminates perfectly the reason that no-one who is even just fairly active should be relying solely on on-line logging.
Whilst I wouldn’t contemplate paper logs any more they are, at least, a fairly reliable single point of failure. Local computer logging is capable of far better resilience because one can make multiple backups. On-line logging one is at the mercy of whoever is providing the service and you get what you pay for, which is why I would never use it.
I was a very early adopter of computerised logging, arguably going back to the start of my computer career working on IBM mainframes in the early 1970s but more obviously so with the advent of home microcomputers and, eventually, the PC. Since 1967 G3WGV has made literally hundreds of thousands of QSOs that have been stored on everything from a paper to punched cards to cassette tapes to floppy discs to hard discs and beyond. So far, although there have certainly been a few near misses, I have never lost a QSO record yet.
If your intention is merely to archive your log then the obvious file format to use is ADIF. Club Log, LotW, QRZ, etc. all use ADIF for both import and export. It’s not the prettiest, nor the most efficient protocol out there but it is ubiquitous and fully expansible. ADIF is just a flat ASCII file, so Linux can handle it just fine.
If you’re looking for a logging program which gives you all the advantages of ease of logging, logbook queries, DXCC/QSL status, Rig interfaces, SOTA/Club Log/QRZ/LotW interfaces and so on then I fear your options in Linux are limited by the simple fact that only about 5% use it. There are more options for MacOS (16%) but inevitably most logbook authors write programs for the 70% who use Windows.
I am no fan of Windows, especially the nonsense that’s going on in W11 with agentic AI and all that. But at least for now, that’s where nearly all the dev work is concentrated. For me it is the least worst option.
2 Likes
Same. I only use it at work because I have to.
If there isn’t anything decent for Linux then rather than waste resources on a Windows VM I might go back to the best computer of all-time and give Delphi’s Oracle or Superbase a try!
I remember Superbase, vaguely. Also the C64 has a very cool SWL cartridge that can decode RTTY RX which could be fun.
Of course, with it being a C64 cartridge you can only use it when you have guests over and want to flex. Like when yer mum only uses the best tableware and/or fires up the percolator on a Sunday or Christmas (after the Angel Delight and tinned mandarin segments of course).
Oh my ! C64 stuff! I had a go at C64s back in the 80s, Lots of fun and education.
Seems like I had a cartridge for RTTY but can’t remember the name of it. Worked very well, and was my first try at computerized RTTY. I also found a basic RTTY program that required making a card-edge connection to my HAL ST-5000 TU. That setup worked even better.
One of the main problems with those C64s was the card-edge connectors being flaky, you might be right in the middle of something and bump the computer and whoops it’s all gone. Start over again.
K6YK
2 Likes