Clublog OQRS non-respondents to direct QSL requests

This is a follow-up to this post, to bring it up to date.

Since that post, I have received cards from CT3MD and 9X5RU. Thank you.

---

 

Clublog offers a service, known as OQRS (for "online QSL request service"), whereby one can send a direct request for a QSL to those stations (or their QSL managers) that are willing to accept such requests. As part of the process of sending the request, Clublog automatically connects to Paypal so that the requester can pay the fee that the recipient of the request demands. This can be very useful: it makes requesting, and paying for, direct requests relatively quick and easy.

However, a very few people (or their respective QSL managers) who offer direct QSLs through this service appear to take advantage of the system to collect the money from Paypal without sending the requested QSL.

Generally speaking, when someone whose QSL I desire does not respond to such a request within six months, I will send a polite follow-up e-mail, giving details of the QSO(s), the amount paid and the transaction ID and/or receipt number of the Paypal transaction that transferred the money. If I hear nothing after a further three months, I repeat this exercise, but send this last e-mail from a different account, in case the account from which the first e-mail was sent is, for some reason, blocked by the recipient or some intermediate party.

After all this, there is a handful of stations who, in my direct experience, have neither sent the requested (and paid-for) QSL, nor responded to any of the e-mails.

These are the stations that, by my direct experience, have failed to fulfil the obligation to send a responsive QSL (with dates of the request up to the end of June, 2025):

Year of request          Call

2020                     D3AM
2021                     7X3YOTA
2021                     HC90IARU
2021                     PY0F/PP1CZ*
2021                     5X8C**
2021                     PY0FW
2022                     OH0T
2022                     TI9/3Z9DX***,†
2023                     CT3M
2024                     EA7KW
2024                     OF9X
2024                     EA7X
2024                     CT8/S51TA
2024                     3D2CR†
2024                     3D2CCC†
2025                     KP2B‡
2025                     FR4NT

 

* The Paypal payment was reversed by the recipient a couple of months after payment was made. No explanation was forthcoming from the recipient of the money (despite my questioning him via e-mail), and no QSL was ever received.

** A discussion took place via e-mail, and it was agreed that the QSOs in question had indeed taken place, but there was some doubt as to who was responsible for sending out the requested card. Despite assurances that the issue would be resoled and a card would be sent, none was ever received.

*** I did receive a responsive e-mail to this request, stating that the QSL would be sent at some future (unspecified) date; as of the date of this post, however, it has not yet been received. Were it to arrive, I should gladly remove the relevant call from the above list.

† I note that these entries all seem to be the responsibility of k38dom@gmail.com; sadly, I have never received any QSL in response to any money sent to that e-mail address. I continue to hope that that will change, and would be glad to hear from anyone who has had a more positive experience after sending a Clublog OQRS direct request to one of these calls. It would be marvellous were I to receive the requested cards and so be able to remove these calls from the above list.

‡ KP2B's QSL manager is EB7DX. He tells me via e-mail that the requested card for KP2B has been sent -- twice; but as of the date of this post, nothing has been received. Cards for other stations managed by EB7DX have been received, although often only after waits of many months.

I wish to emphasise that the great majority of stations faithfully respond to direct Clublog OQRS requests in a timely manner, and I thank such stations for offering this easy way to obtain their QSLs. This post is made merely so that those experiencing the disappointment of requests that have gone unanswered can discover the stations that have likewise disappointed me.

 

 

Continent-Based Analyses from 2025 CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW logs

In addition to zone-based analyses, we can perform similar analyses based on continent rather than zone using the public CQ WW logs (see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2025.

Continent Pairs

We start by looking at the number of QSOs for pairs of continents from the contests for 2025.

The procedure is simple. We consider only QSOs that meet the following criteria:

1. marked as "two-way" QSOs (i.e., both parties submitted a log containing the QSO);
2. no callsign or zone is bust by either party.

A counter is maintained for every possible pair of continents and the pertinent counter is incremented once for each distinct QSO between stations in those continents.

Separate figures are provided below for each band, led by a figure integrating QSOs on all bands. The figures are constructed in such a way as to show the results for both the SSB and CW contests on a single figure. (Any pair of continents with no QSOs that meet the above criteria appears in black on the figures.) Note the logarithmic scale.

Continents and Distance

Below is a series of figures showing the distribution of distance for QSOs as a function of continent.

Each plot shows a colour-coded distribution of the distance of QSOs for each continent, with the data for SSB appearing above the data for CW within each continent.

For every half-QSO in a given continent, the distance of the QSO is calculated; in this way, the total  number of half-QSOs in bins of width 500 km is accumulated. Once all the QSOs for a particular mode have been binned in this manner, the distribution for each continent is normalised to total 100% and the result coded by colour and plotted. The mean distance for each continent and mode is denoted by a small white rectangle added to the underlying distance distribution. The 99% confidence range of the value of mean is marked by a small blue rectangle (typically entirely subsumed by the white rectangle). The median is marked with a vertical brown rectangle.

As usual, only QSOs for which logs have been provided by both parties, and which show no bust of either callsign or zone number are included. Bins coloured black are those for which no QSOs are present at the relevant distance.

The resulting plots are reproduced below. The difference between EU and the other continents is stark.

Half-QSOs Per Continent, 2005 to 2025

A simple way to display the activity in the CQ WW contests is to count the number of half-QSOs in each continent (a single QSO contains two half-QSOs, so a single QSO may contain two different continents or the same continent twice). We count half QSOs, making sure to include each valid QSO only once (that is, if the same QSO appears in two submitted logs, it is counted only once).

If we do this for the entire contest without taking the individual bands into account, we obtain this figure:

The plot shows data for both SSB and CW contests over the period from 2005 to 2025. I include only QSOs for which both parties submitted a log and neither party bust either the zone or the call of the other party. The black rectangles represent contests in which no half-QSOs were made from (or to) a particular continent. Perhaps more than any other plot, this makes unmistakable the dominance of EU in the CQ WW contests.

We can, of course, generate equivalent plots on a band-by-band basis:

As in prior years, the activity from EU so overwhelms these figures that in order to get a feel for the activity elsewhere, we need to move to a logarithmic scale:

Intra-Continental QSOs

We can also easily look at the percentage of QSOs that are between two stations on the same continent, and in particular between two EU stations:

So, for example, in CQ WW SSB in 2025, about a quarter of all QSOs were within the same continent, and nearly a fifth of all QSOs in the contest were between two European stations.

Continuing to flog the dead horse as I do every year, on 160m about two-thirds of QSOs in this "world wide DX" contest were between two European entrants, even in the more DX-friendly mode. On SSB, more than three-quarters of all QSOs were between two European entrants.

Intra-EU QSOs

Mostly because I wondered about the effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I've been taking a look at the percentage of QSOs (half-QSOs, really) with the different EU countries over time.

I continue find the results interesting, not only for clarification of the above issue, but also in regard to the changing activity from different countries between CW and SSB, and over time: 

 

Zone-Based Analyses from 2025 CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW logs

A large number of analyses can be performed with the various public CQ WW logs (cq-ww-2005--2025-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2025.

As usual, there follow a few analyses that interest me. There is, of course, plenty of scope to use the augmented files for further analyses.

Below are some simple zone-based analyses from the logs.

Zones and Distance

As in prior years, we can examine the distribution of distance for QSOs as a function of zone.

Below is a series of figures showing this distribution integrated over all bands and, separately, band by band for the CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW contests for 2025.

Each plot shows a colour-coded distribution of the distance of QSOs for each zone, with the data for SSB appearing above the data for CW within each zone.

For every half-QSO in a given zone, the distance  between the stations in the QSO is calculated; in this way, the total  number of half-QSOs in bins of width 500 km is accumulated. Once all the QSOs for a particular contest have been binned in this manner, the distribution for each zone is normalised to total 100% and the result coded by colour and plotted. The mean distance for each zone and mode is denoted by a small white rectangle added to the underlying distance distribution.

Only QSOs for which logs have been provided by both parties, and which show no bust of either callsign or zone number are included. Bins coloured black are those for which no QSOs are present at the relevant distance.

The resulting plots are reproduced below. I find that they display in a compact format a wealth of data that is informative and often unexpected.

 

Zone Pairs

As in prior years, We can examine the number of QSOs for pairs of zones from the 2025 contests using the augmented file.

The procedure is simple. We consider only QSOs that meet the following criteria:

1. marked as "two-way" QSOs (i.e., both parties submitted a log containing the QSO);
2. no callsign or zone is bust by either party.

A counter is maintained for every pair of zones (i.e., 1-1, 1-2, 1-3 ... 40-39, 40-40) and the pertinent counter is incremented once for each distinct QSO between stations in those zones.

Separate figures are provided for each band, led by a figure integrating QSOs on all bands. The figures are constructed in such a way as to show the results for both the SSB and CW contests on a single figure. (Any zone pair with no QSOs that meet the above criteria appears in black on the figures.)

It is clear from these figures, as from those for earlier years, that CQ WW is principally a contest for intra-EU QSOs, and secondarily one for QSOs between EU and the East Coast of North America. This format is undoubtedly popular, as CQ WW, in both its SSB and CW incarnations, would seem by any reasonable measure to be the most popular contest of the year. But I continue to wonder whether there isn't some other format that would more strongly encourage participation from other parts of the world, instead of concentrating activity in these limited areas. Or maybe the sad and simple fact is that, when you get down to it, ham radio basically doesn't exist outside of those areas.

 

Non-Zero Zone Pairs

The activity between pairs of zones in the CW and SSB CQ WW contests over the period from 2005 to 2024 may be usefully summarised in a single figure:

There are 820 possible zone pairs: (z1, z1), (z1, z2) ... (z1, z40), (z2, z2), (z2, z3) ... (z39, z39), (z39, z40), (z40, z40). The above figure shows the number of different zone pairs actually present in the public logs, for each mode and for each year for which data are available, separated on a band-by-band basis and presented in the form of percentages of the maximum possible count (i.e., 820).

The top two lines require some additional explication: the line marked "MEAN" is the arithmetic mean of the results for the six separate bands for the relevant year and mode. The line marked "ANY" is also constructed from the data for the individual bands, but such that any give zone pair need be present on any one (or more, of course) of the individual bands to be included on the "ANY" line.

Half-QSOs Per Zone for CQ WW CW and SSB, 2005 to 2024

A simple way to display the activity in the CQ WW contests is to count the number of half-QSOs in each zone. Each valid QSO requires the exchange of two zones, so we simply count the total number of times that each zone appears, making sure to include each valid QSO only once.

If we do this for the entire contest without taking the individual bands into account, we obtain this figure:

The plot shows data for both SSB and CW contests over the period from 2005 to 2025 (each year has a rectangle for SSB on the left, and a rectangle for CW on the right). As in earlier posts, I include only QSOs for which both parties submitted a log and neither party bust either the zone or the call of the other party. The black rectangles represent contests in which no half-QSOs were made from (or to) a particular zone. By far the most striking feature of this plot is the way in which activity in EU overwhelms that in the rest of the world.

We can, of course, generate equivalent plots on a band-by-band basis:

 

 

 

 

 

As in the past, the activity from zones 14 and 15 so overwhelms these figures that in order to get a feel for the activity elsewhere, we need to move to a logarithmic scale:

 

 

 

 

 

As in prior years, these figures speak for themselves.