[Dxbase] DXCC QSL sorting.

Tue Aug 31 09:35:31 EDT 2004

Gentlemen,
I have just returned from the ARRL SW Division convention held in Phoenix,
AZ. One of my important reasons for attending was to have some DXCC QSL
cards field checked. I just didn't feel comfortable entrusting
irreplaceable QSLs to the USPS.
While preparing my application using the DXBase logging program I ran into
a snag. The text file version of the DXCC application on the ARRL web site
states in part:
	"This form must be completed if a Card Checker checks the 
 application. In either case, the cards or listed credits must be sorted 
 first by band then by mode. If you fill out the form, supply all 
 information as requested. Be sure to use the Entity name, not just the 
 prefix. Cards indicating multiple contacts must be placed together."
The "FAQ" for DXCC states:
	>Q: How should I arrange my cards?
	>A: This is an important part of the application process. Your cards must
be 	arranged first by band, then by mode. Cards with more than one QSO
should be 	placed at the end. Cards must not be sorted alpha-numerically. 
	>Q: Why do I have to sort cards by band then mode instead of just
alphabetically by prefix?
	>A: The most labor intensive and costly part of the program is the manual
data entry of the QSO information. In the data-entry process, we have to
change the callsign and date with almost every entry. When bands and modes
are properly sorted these fields will not have to be entered with each card
	as they are retained from the previous entry. If the cards are properly
arranged, we can process an application in less than half the time. 
The DXBase program generates a version of the application and uses various
filters to populate the list. I spent considerable time generating a list
while trying to stay within the 120 QSO limit, something that the field
checkers seem to be perfectly willing to overlook, I might add.
Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of ambiguity in the rules stated
above and as we shall see, different folks have differing ideas about what
it says. This includes me.
When I finalized my list, DXBase listed all of my single QSO cards first,
in order of band and mode. No problem here. It then sorted the
multiple-QSO cards similarly; in order of band and mode, except the sort
was at the end of the list. This troubled me so I posted, among other
things, the following to the DXBase reflector on Aug. 13:
>While giving cards with multiple QSOs a QSL number does put them on the
bottom of the list, it doesn't group the QSOs for a given call together,
which I believe is the idea. Instead with multiple cards with multiple
QSOs, it sorts them by band and mode so that they are spread out all over
the place.
>>I'm not too sure the field checker is going to be happy about this.

In response I received the following from Jack, the developer of the DXBase
program:
>We agree with your assessment, but..... some time ago we did some things on
>our own that we felt made the application easier to use. We had a couple
>customers get chastized by some field checker complaining that we didn't
>follow the "letter" of the rule. So, although what you say makes perfect
>sense to us, until and unless the ARRL specifies this in their written
>instructions, we are forced to abide strictly by what their rules state.
>That is, the sorting is by band and mode with no deviations except to place
>multiple QSO cards at the end of the list ( but still abiding by their rules
>for sorting ).

There followed a good deal of discussion on the reflector with a wide
variety of opinions on the "correct" interpretation of the rules. There
were field checkers disagreeing with other field checkers for example. The
fact that there are as many opinions as there are people expressing them
is, in my mind, evidence of the ambiguity.
My field checker was not at all happy with my application. Following the
convention I wrote the following to the DXBase reflector:
>In an earlier message I wrote:
>>"While giving cards with multiple QSOs a QSL number does put them on the
bottom of the list, it doesn't group the QSOs for a given call together,
which I believe is the idea. Instead with multiple cards with multiple
QSOs, it sorts them by band and mode so that they are spread out all over
the place.
>>I'm not too sure the field checker is going to be happy about this...."
>>I can report that, as I anticipated, the QSL checker was *VERY* unhappy
(to put it mildly) with this.
>>Fortunately, I also printed a copy of "Selected for next submission
checklist" and was able to help him by coaching on the band and mode for
each multiple QSO card so he could more easily search the application list.
>>Those considering field submissions might do the same just in case.

In response, the following was posted to the reflector:
>Hello All..
>>I mentioned this before, so please do get upset with me about band width. I
>am the DXCC Checker for the Hudson Division. The sort does not get the
>checker upset.
>>All your cards are entered manually to a database. The callsign band and
>mode are kept in your file at the DXCC Desk. Then know the exact card ou
>submitted for DXCC credit. This was you can use the same card over and over
>for different DXCC awards, without resubmitting the card again. 
>>They like to just hit a dupe key for the multi-qso cards, and only change
>the band or mode for the same call. They do not have to reenter the call
>over and over again.
>>Here is what happened to me. I submitted over 200 cards that I checked for
>one individual. He had his multiple qso at the end, sorted by band and
>mode.
>>A few months later, his submissions was returned to him without his award
>and told, "to follow directions". All multi cards should be at the end
>sorted by call sign only.
>>This is for what its worth. I felt bad for this guy, it was his first
>submission. I re typed it for him, and drove to Connecticut and walked in
>and out with his award.
>>73, Emil
>De KD1F

Somewhere between Arizona and ARRL headquarters is my application,
formatted just like the one Emil speaks of. I hope that it isn't treated
like the victim in his story. I've been to ARRL headquarters and enjoyed
the visit but I'm not about to go there again to get QSL cards checked.
PLEASE change these instructions to remove the ambiguity and clarify
exactly what is required to the members, field checkers and the data entry
folks. As it stands, the field checkers make up their own rules because
being human, they are interested in what is easier for themselves. The
data entry people want to minimize key strokes, so they want something
else. Meanwhile, the ARRL membership is getting yanked around, which is
exactly opposite to the way a democratic operation is supposed to run. 
Regards,
Wes Stewart, N7WS