Re: The QSL debate

[Risto Kotalampi <rko@xxxxxx>]

This is a message from Risto Kotalampi <rko@xxxxxx>
to hard-core-dx@xxxxxxxxxx list. To unsubscribe the list, send
"unsubscribe hard-core-dx" in mail body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx


> My own view is that a QSL card proves nothing.  For example there are so many
> bulletins and magazines (Hard-core DXing included) that contain good detailed
> reports, that anyone could send of a bugus report using somebody else's details.

I agree 100%. I don't know many who would say that QSL really proves anything.
There is always possibility of cheating and you must always trust DXer
that he has really heard the station and QSL is not a fake. Even if you
have QSL can you be sure you really heard the station? This is very serious
issue at least in Finland that when you can tell you have really ID the
station. In Finland you must have heard an identification of the station to
be sure you have really heard the station you are listening to. Identification based
on frequency/language is never enough.

Also, sometimes getting 100% identification is really hard. Reception is bad sometimes
and there is no way to get clear ID everyone would agree. It is sad that there
are DXers who "turn their ears" and get the ID they WANT. It is the fact that
if you want to hear something really bad - you will hear it if you want. Sad truth
is that some identifications today are too optimistic.

With QSL there is 2 problems:
a) did the listener really heard the station, or does he only believe he did.
   Is the ID 100% or only "twist of ear".
b) did the station really check the report?

If we start to think about this I would like to see someone who could claim the
QSL is the proof of the reception. Collecting QSLs is fun, they are beautiful and
have a value to listener and are memories from past catches. But do they prove
others he did really heard the station? No way. If someone shows you a QSL do
you believe the QSL or the DXer? I believe the DXer who says he/she heard the
station, not the paper. His/her logging on a magazine is as reliable proof in
a magazine as is his/her QSL. Also, if someone says QSL is really the proof of
the reception, doesn't it mean that if the station doesn't verify the
reception report it is proof that he/she didn't really heard them?

If we really want to prove that you have heard the station, then recording of the
event is much better evidence. Recording of the station ID can be fake of course
and there is never 100% way to give a proof. But tape is a step to better proof
in my opionion.

> May I take it, that unless I receive any objections, I may use the
> contributions?

I don't object. Remember to mention Hard-Core-DX too:)

Yours,

-- 
Risto Kotalampi, Hayward, California
rko@xxxxxx - http://www.iki.fi/rko/