Hey @oz6bl,
Just in case you missed that, you can send messages like that with a private message to @BOCTOK-1 by clicking at your profile image at the top right and then on the pop up menu by clicking on the envelope. On the new page you will find a “New Message” button.
As this message is public, I would like to take the opportunity to add some comments and info about vetting.
In the whole process of automating observations (scheduling one, performing it, demoding/decoding data, making graphs from data etc), the part of vetting is one of the less automated right now.
Sometimes vetting is easy but some other times it takes more time in order to verify things. Also there are cases that vetting is not done correctly for several reasons. This means that we need a better automation and/or more people able to vet.
The current status is that an observation can be vetted from the observer and the station owner. We all spend our spare time in this project so we need to be patient on how fast vetting is done, in any way unvetted observation is not something bad. 
Two changes are going to be implemented soon, the one is the new permission scheme, that will allow a station owner to vet observations on all stations and not only on stations that owns. The other change is to stop auto-vetting in some modes, like CW, that don’t give results that we can be easily verified. That will improve a little the whole vetting process.
For the future, there is still an open discussion on automating vetting through machine learning and/or participate in citizen science communities, allowing many people, with simple instructions, to vet and verify observations.
Any feedback or steps to the above two directions is more than welcome.
@oz6bl, thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about the vetting status!