mattyfatz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/27/06
Posts: 1132
Loc: R E N O
|
|
Maybe they read this forum... but I doubt it, because they sure don't read their own feedback....
I just cancelled my S&T subscription for good. Its not just the new binding. When they say "New Format" they mean a whole new magazine.. aimed at a whole new demographic. The magazine is smaller, has less articles, and proportianally more adds than the "Old Format". to prove my point the Oct 2000 magazine had 166 pages and 56 full pages of adds, the Jan 08 issue has 114 pages and 41 adds. Now I'm sure someone will point out that there are the same number of articles in both issues... A garden in Hawaii vs an article on detecting Gravitational Waves? How to use a finderscope  vs a Jupiter Observing Guide? Why you should let your mirror cool vs how to build an ALT AZ mount!
The lack of substance is insulting. I don't know what happened up there but I don't approve. in the editors original explanation for the content change he stated it was to offset costs... I'd gladly pay more for the old format, ...and content.
--------------------
*****MATTY******
All sorts of stuff
|
desertstars
Deja moo
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 30019
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
The shrinking size I expect; every magazine to which I subscribe is reducing its page count. They really don't have much choice, with the increases in postage rates (among other considerations, I'm sure.) But the content of the magazine seems to me much improved of late, with a renewed emphasis on material of interest to beginning and intermediate amateur astronomers. This last tells me they do indeed listen to feedback from readers. When Night Sky folded up there was a long thread here on CN regarding the loss of such a resource, and loud pleas to increase beginner-oriented content in S&T. Looks to me as if someone was paying attention.
As for articles on matters that are sort of "fringe" such as astronomy themed gardens, I find stuff like that rather refreshing.
By the way, they do pay attention to what is said here. The editor-in-chief, the assistant editor, and at least one each of their editorial associates and contributing editors (that I know of) are Cloud Nights members. 
I extended my subscription a couple of years, in large part because I am pleased with the recent changes. In magazine publishing, as in so many things, you win some and you lose some. 
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going." Professor Irwin Corey
|
firestar
Born to be Mild
Reged: 10/18/06
Posts: 3942
Loc: Cleveland Ohio USA
|
|
A good reason to visit the local library.
If they don't have it,ask for it!
--------------------
Eastlake Ohio
Lots of cheap Asian glass  
Antares 12" Dob,Antares 8" Dob
Meade 8" SCT, Celestron C8 SCT
Zhumell 152 mm F8,Antares 127 mm f9.4
Orion short tube 90 F5.6,Celestron 80 ED F7.5
Imaging Source DMK 21AU04 ccd camera
Stellarvue bv3's with 32,26,23,21,9 mm pairs
Olivon 42,35,28mm,siebert 21,12.5,7mm,GSO superview 20mm,Meade swa 13.8mm,Hyperion 13mm
|
desertstars
Deja moo
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 30019
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Anything that gets folks back into the habit of visiting libraries works for me.
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going." Professor Irwin Corey
|
helpwanted
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/04/07
Posts: 1757
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
i kind of agree, but i see Astro and Sky&Tele as "can't not get", even if you are not crazy about the articles.
kind of like having a booth at a trade show, you hate doing it, but if you are not there, your customer's will notice your absence
--------------------
|
mattyfatz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/27/06
Posts: 1132
Loc: R E N O
|
|
I actually agree with all of you to a certain extent. I though Night Sky was a great idea. I'm not sure why it folded.
As for S&T I waited for three issues before I cancelled, keeping an open mind and hoping it would improve. The content seems way too "fluffy" for a magazine of science. They seem to be lost somewhere between hard science and "Popular Mechanics" type articles.
The clincher for me was when I recieved a complimentary issue of Astronomy Technology Today....
Here is a magazine thats far from perfect, but it does'nt claim to be. They come right out and say the mag is all about equiment and focus on equipment buffs. They also use cheap and eco friendly printing methods yet the magazine is less than 1/2 the cost of S&T.
Firestar is right. I'll still read S&T at the local Library, or at Borders drinking some coffee. When they snap out this dummied up phase and start printing some substance again, I'll re-up.
--------------------
*****MATTY******
All sorts of stuff
|
Todd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/04
Posts: 1381
|
|
The 'Net is killing magazines and it's getting harder and harder to keep a magazine afloat financially.
You may be willing to pay more --- but I would venture a guess that many, many more are not.
A balance has to be struck that accomodates an interest by all readers. Beginners will be intimidated if the articles are too confusing for them. Advanced amateurs will see the magazine as being dumbed-down if there are too many beginner pieces.
You can't please everyone. All a magazine can try and do is cover a wide spectrum of topics in hopes of maintaining the general interest of an audience whose interest is diverse and wide-ranging in regards to experience.
If you send them an e-mail you can bet they read it. But what are they supposed to do, change the next issue or two immediately to exactly suit the latest complaint?
|
mattyfatz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/27/06
Posts: 1132
Loc: R E N O
|
|
I understand that. But if you read the above posts Night Sky Magazine folded up. Now they changed the format of S&T to more closely resemble Night Sky....
--------------------
*****MATTY******
All sorts of stuff
|
Todd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/04
Posts: 1381
|
|
I would suspect that they came to the realization that two magazines weren't cost effective as separate entities, therefore it was better to combine the two and use the best parts of both to create a magazine that the majority find interesting.
|
desertstars
Deja moo
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 30019
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Quote:
I would suspect that they came to the realization that two magazines weren't cost effective as separate entities, therefore it was better to combine the two and use the best parts of both to create a magazine that the majority find interesting.
From the comments in another thread on this topic , not so long ago, I would say they have succeeded. The majority of the participants approved of the recent changes in style an content.
If this is any indication of the the feedback they are receiving in general, I would not settle in to wait for a change backwards. Seems most unlikely it will ever occur.
|
mattyfatz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/27/06
Posts: 1132
Loc: R E N O
|
|
Well perhaps I need more Science and technical reviews and less fluff. I doubt I'm the only one around here who feels this way. I hope more people subscribe and profits go up for them.
--------------------
*****MATTY******
All sorts of stuff
|
esd726
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/30/04
Posts: 731
Loc: Howe, IN
|
|
I just wish both magazines had more on observational astronomy and scopes/eps, etc and less on "theories"/cosmology. How about NONE 
I agree the garden article was pretty ridiculous to have in there. The finderscope one too. I was one of the, I thought many, people on the old thread that wasn't that thrilled with the new format. I also would pay a little more for them to go back to the old format-both look and content. It seems newbies are usually younger and younger ones are usually a little more interested in things online. Following this, if Sky Publishing was wanting to mix Night Sky with S&T, why noy keep S&T like it was, for us and let the beginners that subscribed to NS get their info online? Seems to me to make a little more sense than "messing up" ( a little) a time tested format. I still subscribe just miss my old S&T.
--------------------
No more scopes :-(
|
mattyfatz
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/27/06
Posts: 1132
Loc: R E N O
|
|
Your right.
I also subscribe to two magazines from the Taunton Press... Fine Homebuilding and Fine Woodworking, these magazines are the cream of the crop in a market flooded with publications. They make no attempt to appeal to people who buy their tools at Wal-Mart, and they charge $7.99 and issue cover price. They pride themselves on excellent content. For people in that industry... or people who are serious about the hobby, those magazines are a must. As for S&T, just like helpwanted noted above, we would have whined a little but we would have kept subscribing at a higher rate.
--------------------
*****MATTY******
All sorts of stuff
|
LivingNDixie
Lord of Ferrets
Reged: 04/23/03
Posts: 15790
Loc: Hoover, AL
|
|
I was a little surpised at the finderscope article too. Maybe they should consider a section for new people in the hobby.
I however thought the garden article was interesting.
--------------------
Preston
Celestron 11" Nexstar GPS XLT
Lunt LS60T/Ha 60mm f/8.33 (on order)
It’s not finishing something when your tank is empty that makes you a stronger person. It’s brushing yourself off and refacing the foe that defeated you with the same determination and willingness to fight that you had when you began your journey.
|
helpwanted
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/04/07
Posts: 1757
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
i don't even remember the finderscope or the garden article, so i must have really glazed over them!
--------------------
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
we haven't received our Jan issue yet, we usually don't get it till the first week of the new month (in this case December). it's out on the shelf, but we have a subscription. the bane of living in t3h Canada...late magazines 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 10956
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Quote:
I just wish both magazines had more on observational astronomy and less on "theories"/cosmology. How about NONE
Hmmm. Plenty of observational info on-line--literally thousands of sites with drawings, pictures, lists, and info about each object.
But not too many sites dealing with the hard science of astronomy and astrophysics.
If they built the magazine just for me, it wouldn't sell because it would be ALL articles about astronomy and reviews of hardware, and none about observing.
Dave Mitsky's monthly lists of objects to observe (here on CN) beats any observing article in S&T.
And who needs the center pages with the star charts when you know the stars or have a planisphere?
Point is, there are as many opinions about S&T as there are readers.
If I have any real criticism of S&T it is that it is aimed too much at the beginner. It doesn't challenge a newbie to go read up on topics to help him understand the articles because they are written at his level. What remains for the experienced amateur? Just about nothing. Not everybody is a newbie.
Yet I still read it, though the two days to read it have shortened to 15-20 minutes. Content is a bit light. And it needs more photos, which would expand the page count. And Astronomy Technology Today wouldn't have existed if S&T had had 5 or 6 reviews every issue.
Now if they had kept the size and content of the old S&T and merely added the content of Night Sky, it would have been a more universal magazine--thicker and with more content.
And more expensive.
I have compared it to the older magazine (pre-80s and even pre-70s). It's a vastly different magazine, but these are vastly different times. Amateur telescope making is nearly dead (though those who pursue that end of the hobby are quite prolific), and people expect wonderful color shots of everything. But the old magazine wasn't really very deep, either. Science articles were aimed a little higher, I think, but they weren't generally any longer.
I'm not sure what I REALLY want to have in content in S&T. A little bit of everything, I guess. A little more ATM, a little more sketching, a little more hard optical science, a few more reviews--even more ads.
Speaking of ads, there are a lot of companies in the hobby that I never see ads for in S&T. That means the cost of advertizing is too high. But then again, it is published on paper and mailed.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
edwincjones
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/10/04
Posts: 4421
|
|
I currently receive S&T, Astronomy, AA, and subscrived to ATT. At the end of the current subscriptions, I will not renew Astronomy, may S&T, will AA, and will then decide on ATT. With CN and the internet, the paper rags just do not add that much any mone for me.
edj
--------------------
n w arkansas
Binocular, Solar, General Amateur Astronomy
|
Scott Regener
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 03/31/06
Posts: 840
Loc: SE Minnesota
|
|
I just finished reading the Jan issue yesterday. Like others, I thought the "garden" piece was very strange.
However, note the article on somewhat hard science: a reviewing of the Hipparcos data. It exemplifies the best and worst of cutting-edge science to me. Lots of information, and then a little note that says, "What this means is that there is a 70% chance that the star is actually within this distance." So much of what we think we know about the universe is wrong - past history has shown time and time again that the professionals get it wrong more than they get it right. So for me, these articles are little more than "here's another interesting theory that will likely be replaced by another interesting theory ... until we actually go and collect the hard data from these places." We're still figuring out the geology of Mars, and it's right next door. You think we have a higher degree of certainty about stuff that's literally not even in our galaxy?
I found the mirror-cooling article to be very worthwhile to me. I've been cooling my telescope for 2 hours before use, and still find high powers to be spotty at best. Now I think I know why.
--------------------
Orion SkyQuest 4.5XT
Orion SkyQuest XT10i w/COL
Urban (red) skies
Limiting Mag 3.5-4.0 Average
|
Clive Gibbons
Mostly Harmless
Reged: 05/26/05
Posts: 10312
Loc: Oort Cloud
|
|
I'm a member of a Canadian astronomy list and several members are reporting that their January issue is missing the yearly Astro Almanac.
This (and other complaints) seems to be prompting a few of those subscribers to cancel.
Looks like S&T will be getting some disgruntled e-mails about all this... 
--------------------
A few telescopes of dubious value.
Understanding wife and three curious cats.
"Semper ubi sub ubi"
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 