It's been a while since I've sent card's (or lotw confirmations) to the ARRL to update my dxcc totals.

I'm trying to figure out which report to generate so I know which entities I need to submit.

- I have 334 dxcc entities confirmed
- I have previously sent in 325 cards/lotw
- My goal is to pull a report to identify the 9 dxcc entities that are confirmed in Logic9, but I have not submitted to the ARRL
- All of my previous DXCC submissions have been marked with DXCCSUB: in the comment field.

So which report do I need to pull and how in order to identify the 9 entities to send confirmations to the ARRL?

Thanks

Rich - N5ZC

... the "AWARD" or the "AWARD Multi Column" reports include a panel to find QSOs for which you have cards to submit. This panel in the reports ...



... allows you to exclude the QSOs for which you have already submitted cards.

G'Day,

While I track my achievements using the LOGic awards reports, I do not feel the need to submit cards and actually apply for awards. So I have never done this up until now.

I started up my "test and development" copy of LOGic, and ran some experiments with the standard "AWARDS" report - the one supplied with Logic. Looking at the report definition, it is rather complicated. Dennis must have lost a lot of hair doing that report.



This is true, but I don't think that means the report cannot be useful for your purpose, Rich.

I looked through my test log and tracked down a few QSOs for which I have cards, and selected DXCC 40M CW as a good source of data for testing.

After running the report many times, with different inputs, here is the final result.

I selected ONE 40M CW QSO with Croatia and hand edited into the comment field "DXCC40MCW:". For me, that means I am pretending to have submitted this card to the ARRL for an award sometime in the past. This QSO is listed in the report if I just run the report in the normal way. Which I guess is why you concluded that the code is only used to tag the result.

I ran the AWARDS report again, and this time selected DXCC, and 40M, CW in the appropriate panels. I then entered entered "DXCC40MCW:" in the panel for tagging the qsos - shown above in this topic.

In this panel ...



... I clicked on the filter and selected - NOT COMMENT CONTAINS DXCC40MCW:, QSL_RCVD EQUALS F.

Note the Help text in the panel. Cards NOT meeting this "filter" will be ignored. So what results should be ...

NOT (NOT COMMENT $ "DXCC40MCW:" AND QSL_RCVD="F") which means ignore "COMMENT contains DXCC40MCW:" and QSL_RCVD="F". Yes, a bit tricky!

I then clicked through and displayed the result on the screen. I effectively had a list of QSOs with cards that could be submitted for 40M CW to the ARRL - the QSO with Croatia for which I have already submitted a card was not listed. Here is the report output ...




I am still wondering about the QSL_RCVD="F" and its effect on the report. But, the report is a "black box". It did what I wanted it to do.

I would be very interested in the result on your log, Rich.

Also, I would love to hear what result others may achieve with this material.





Your correct ... but I think you mean COMMENT "contains" DXCCSUB: - not "equals" DXCCSUB: . The two are subtly different. You can use this in a filter on a log form if you want. I tried ...

NOT COMMENT $ "DXCC40MCW:"
band=40M
mode=CW
qsl_rcvd="F"

... and got 53 QSOs compared to 16 for the report. I guess that is because the report only shows the first QSL card for each DXCC entity. More work is needed to confirm that.

I too could not find any one place where QSL_RCVD is defined, but I have seen it, somewhere. The values have the obvious definitions F/ulfilled, S/ent,R/equested etc but an official definition would be great. I keep wondering when I would put W in the QSL_RCVD field. X, I understand is not wanted.

Finally ...

What if one of the cards selected by LOGic, you don't wish to submit. It may be too nice a card to risk in the post. How does one mark the card to be ignored? I guess one can abandon the report and put some code in the comment field, "IGNORE:", and then add this to the filter in the report. A user defined field could also be used.

It is a bit much to have the report sitting on the screen while one tries to find the cards in "the shoe box". We want to mark the comment field when we exit the report - but what if some of the cards cannot be found? I guess the "exceptions" will be small in number, so one could use a tag that is unique to THIS submission, say "DXCC40MCW-DEC2013:" and mark the QSOs anyway. Now one can process the report selection, get the cards together, and later hand update the QSOs for the exceptions.

Thanks for the topic Rich. If we keep this up, we will be much younger and more alert for years longer.

G'Day,

Back again!

This is so easy I have made a mess of it all. Faulty observations leading to wrong conclusions.

The report works as designed. Previously submitted cards do not appear in the report output.

If you do as my last post said - yes it works. But when you click YES to tag all the QSOs, the : is missing from the tag. I was reluctant to tag all my qsos yesterday.

So I repeated all my work, and got a different result. I am now missing more of the hair of which I already had very little.

My observations of yesterday, now appear incorrect. Today, if I use the code with the :, the "already submitted" QSO does not appear in the report.

Yep, I was as surprised as you may be.

For those of you who emailed me for assistance with this, I would love to know the result you are getting with your log. On the forum please - just add to this topic.

There are other issues we might discuss with regard to this, but I will leave all that until I hear what others experience.