Rex, I admire your response sir.
There does however appear to be some misunderstandings about how much astrophysical information one needs about the object at the eyepiece. Take the 1st and 2nd editions of the Sky Atlas 2000 companion for example. It gives a brief observational and astrophysical explanation about each object that's short enough to be easily usable under the stars. Of course I agree, it wouldn't be practical to read entire pages or several detailed pages under the stars.
There are in fact, some interesting but limited deep sky notes about some of the objects in NSOG, for example, Barnards star. In my opinion, it's important to teach others to take a little time to understand more about these interesting objects we are seeing in the night sky. Not doing this, deprives not only the observer, but others from appreciating even the most subtle of objects in appearance, in essence, a cure that helps avoid aperture fever that plagues observers. That's what was so genius about Burnham. He observed with his mind, rather than just his eyes, something lacking all to often with observers these days who are clueless about what they are actually looking at and believe me, they are clueless!
Take M92 and M13. Since everyone will point at M13, it's up to the observer to explain why M92 is also an interesting globular and that's not what's happening. Any observer who lacks the skill to explain or teach others that faint or less attractive objects may have great significance is not a very skilled observer in my opinion. A good observer knows how to make the universe an interesting place by knowing more about what they're seeing. NGC2419 isn't the finest globular from a visual perspective, but I'll bet if you explain to others why it's so faint, they will appreciate it much more. NSOG actually did this, so it's not entirely lacking.
NSOG is still a good guide in my opinion and don't get me wrong, I actually like certain parts of it. If you go to p.97 vol 1 and see the description of NGC2362, NSOG actually gives a nice, little description of the object that could easily be read under the stars at the telescope. All I'm suggesting, is that writers and authors take a little more time to put down something brief, but interesting so it can be shared with others at the eyepiece to help us all contemplate what we are seeing.
Remember folks, the attention span of the average observer is next to nothing. Many of them do not study because they don't have the patience to sit down and read Burnham's but if writers take a little more time to offer a brief explanation about the object, it will be the first step to getting other observers to wake up and think more about what they're seeing. The universe doesn't always need to be a loud, saturated, colorful place like we see in Hubble pictures. Writers, authors, editors, for crying out loud, just put a little more depth into your other than just another endless visual description.
Several of you have already complained about how the visual descriptions don't even match what you see anyway. I'm not saying to eliminate the visual descriptions at all. It's important to have them. Just minimize them and use the space in the book for other important notes. There are always going to be factors like experience, seeing, darkness etc effecting what we see vs. what others see. For that reason I always take other visual observations with a grain of salt.
I have and use both Burnham and NSOG. For an understanding of what the object is and why it is interesting, and why an object is worth looking at, I use Sky Safari Pro, which has lots of data on most objects and their astronomical significance. A book that contained all that would probably be too heavy but versions of Sky Safari run on an iPhone or Android or similar device.