Marty, http://www.arrl.org/new-amateur-reports works fine for CSV and tab-limited reports. The link to download the report appears at the top of the page, which is easy to overlook. I don’t know what the story is with the HTML report – until just now I hadn’t tried it myself since I had no reason to want a listing in that format.

I understand the desirability of having better demographic data. The online membership application has an optional field for date of birth as does the form in QST, e.g. page 126 of the December issue. I believe our other membership application forms do as well. We have a field in the master record for date of birth and we fill that in when we have the information but it’s up to the member, by editing their profile, to determine whether it is displayed. Siebel only accepts complete information for the master record, i.e. if you enter the month and day but not the year, or the year but not the month and day, the entry is not accepted.

Dave

From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 1:58 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: New Amateurs Report / Membership Applications

Sorry if this has recently been reported on already, but I couldn't find any discussion as to the status of the New Amateur Reports portion of the ODV Web pages.  No matter what period or listing type (e.g., lapsed members) I request, I get an empty report.  Is this a recent problem or one continuing from last spring?  Where is it priority-wise on the punch list, and is there an estimated fix-it date?  I wanted to look through the list of recently lapsed members in our Division and possibly make some calls myself.

Separately, has any thought been given to requesting year of birth rather than birth date on our membership applications? Given our obligations re. privacy of personal data, related member reluctance to share such data and the fact that (AFAIK) we have no use for exact birth dates, we might get better compliance with a year-only request and, thus, more data with which to monitor our membership demographics with less private data exposed to possible leaks.  In the case of life memberships, providing year of birth should be mandatory, since having year of birth would reduce the guesswork and improve the quality of the actuarial data we pay for concerning the life-member fund.  As I recall, we're missing birth information for a significant portion of our life-member group.

Clara and I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.

Marty N6VI