I just got the May issue of S&T today. It is different from the previous ones. To me, it seems just as good as the older-style issues, except that the "Small Scope Sampler" is gone! I enjoyed reading that section. Now there is "Deep Sky Wonders" to replace it by the same author, but using a 10 inch scope along with a 4 inch scope. I'm afraid that it will evolve into a "Large Scope Sampler".
Any thoughts on this?
New Sky and Telescope
Started by
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
, Mar 20 2004 02:46 PM
41 replies to this topic
#2
Tom L
-
-
- Posts: 31,061
- Joined: 07 Jan 2004
ISS
Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:17 PM
Hi Ian, I haven't seen it yet, but it makes sense to include both sizes since it seems (atleast to me) that most people have one or the other (or both) size. Did the article cover both equally?
#3
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 20 March 2004 - 05:19 PM
Did the article cover both equally?
Yes, both apetures were equally covered. However, all the targets were galaxies 9th magnitude and fainter.
#4
desertstars
-
-
- Posts: 46,648
- Joined: 05 Nov 2003
ISS
Posted 21 March 2004 - 11:46 AM
Overall, I like the look of the changes. I do a lot of magazine reading at bus stops, so the reduction of glare brought about by the change in paper is most welcome, as are changes in type and column arrangement. I'm also happy with the expansion of Wood's lunar observing column; it always bugged me that lunar observing was chucked in toward the back and very brief, as if it was of lesser importance. Beyond these initial impressions, I'll need to actually sit down and read the issue to see what I think of content changes.
Curiously enough, the "new" version reminds me somewhat of the look and feel of the S&T I knew 30 years ago.
Curiously enough, the "new" version reminds me somewhat of the look and feel of the S&T I knew 30 years ago.
#5
Fiske
-
-
-
- Posts: 9,311
- Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Oberwerk Ambassador
Posted 21 March 2004 - 01:24 PM
I'd also like to enter a vote in favor of S&T's new look. Not just in favor. I'm delighted with the changes. The spacious, two-column format is relaxing to the eye and brings the content to the fore. It's about time!
I've been disenchanted with magazine design trends for years. Designers have concentrated on graphic hype to the detriment of readibility. This is understandable when one considers that the mag business is all about advertising, the number one goal of which is to grab reader attention. Unfortunatley, the result is that article content of many magazines is shoehorned in between blasts of graphic blandishment.
Anyway, three cheers for the S&T staff for stepping back and redesigning their publication with readers in mind.
I've been disenchanted with magazine design trends for years. Designers have concentrated on graphic hype to the detriment of readibility. This is understandable when one considers that the mag business is all about advertising, the number one goal of which is to grab reader attention. Unfortunatley, the result is that article content of many magazines is shoehorned in between blasts of graphic blandishment.
Anyway, three cheers for the S&T staff for stepping back and redesigning their publication with readers in mind.
#6
Tom L
-
-
- Posts: 31,061
- Joined: 07 Jan 2004
ISS
Posted 21 March 2004 - 11:43 PM
I look forward to seeing the new S&T. I like the content in "Astronomy's" News section, but they have to change the font size, font, color (foreground and background), etc for every different news article and it is very distracting. I hate it, actually...but the content is why I read it. Don't use font size 6 or 8 for middle aged people! Jeez!
#7
dc2861
-
-
- Posts: 736
- Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Viking 1
Posted 22 March 2004 - 02:20 AM
Middle Aged? What about us young bucks whose eyesight has gone south? I whole-heartedly agree with you on the font and color issues in 'Astronomy'.
#8
Fiske
-
-
-
- Posts: 9,311
- Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Oberwerk Ambassador
Posted 22 March 2004 - 07:52 AM
I agree -- Astronomy's re-do is pretty much a disaster!
#9
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 22 March 2004 - 11:27 AM
Other things in the new S&T that annoy me:
-The use of cartoon sketches in at least two articles. It looks less professional. One article made repeated use of them, and I disliked it. They other place was in the new "Hobby Q&A" (copy of Astronomy's Ask Astro?) where a nice computer-generated diagram would have been much neater.
-Author's names are not capitalized in the article heading! Why do they do this?
-As previously mentioned, Small Scope Sampler is gone! Replaced by Deep Sky Wonders with 4 and 10 inch telescope descriptions. I guess the Small Scope Sampler made me feel like my scope was important, I could do something with it, they cared about small scope owners. With the added 10 inch descriptions, that nice touch was lost.
-Information on the planets during the month is no longer opposite the all-sky chart. The Calender Notes section is GONE, and there is no longer a table listing transits, etc of Jupiter's satellites!I realize that they now have features on their website that show this, but I like having all that information in one magazine.
But it is only fair to tell what I do like
-I really like Stephen James O'Meara's new column, Eye on the Sky.
-It doesn't matter to me, but other people will really like this: the Southern Hemisphere all sky chart is on the reverse of the fold-out Northern all sky chart.
Overall, I dislike the change. I want the old version back. (Just my oppinion. Probably other people like it.)
-The use of cartoon sketches in at least two articles. It looks less professional. One article made repeated use of them, and I disliked it. They other place was in the new "Hobby Q&A" (copy of Astronomy's Ask Astro?) where a nice computer-generated diagram would have been much neater.
-Author's names are not capitalized in the article heading! Why do they do this?
-As previously mentioned, Small Scope Sampler is gone! Replaced by Deep Sky Wonders with 4 and 10 inch telescope descriptions. I guess the Small Scope Sampler made me feel like my scope was important, I could do something with it, they cared about small scope owners. With the added 10 inch descriptions, that nice touch was lost.
-Information on the planets during the month is no longer opposite the all-sky chart. The Calender Notes section is GONE, and there is no longer a table listing transits, etc of Jupiter's satellites!I realize that they now have features on their website that show this, but I like having all that information in one magazine.
But it is only fair to tell what I do like
-I really like Stephen James O'Meara's new column, Eye on the Sky.
-It doesn't matter to me, but other people will really like this: the Southern Hemisphere all sky chart is on the reverse of the fold-out Northern all sky chart.
Overall, I dislike the change. I want the old version back. (Just my oppinion. Probably other people like it.)
#10
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 23 March 2004 - 04:52 PM
I wrote S&T a letter the yesterday telling them about what I think about the changes. I tried to be even handed. I wonder if I will ever hear back from them.
#11
desertstars
-
-
- Posts: 46,648
- Joined: 05 Nov 2003
ISS
Posted 23 March 2004 - 06:17 PM
You just never know. And watch the "Letters" section. You just might show up there, in a couple of issues.
#12
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 23 March 2004 - 07:42 PM
My letter was a page long.
If other people would write asking for the return of "Small Scope Sampler" maybe they would put it back. I am afraid they won't, though, they probably think that "Deep Sky Wonders" will suffice as replacement.
If other people would write asking for the return of "Small Scope Sampler" maybe they would put it back. I am afraid they won't, though, they probably think that "Deep Sky Wonders" will suffice as replacement.
#13
Tom L
-
-
- Posts: 31,061
- Joined: 07 Jan 2004
ISS
Posted 23 March 2004 - 09:22 PM
Ian, you realize that once a change is made, it won't be back...it is a pride thing. Sorry you lost the small refractor section.
#14
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 24 March 2004 - 06:58 AM
once a change is made, it won't be back...it is a pride thing
To bad. I just thought it was fair to let them know what I think. One letter won't make a difference, though. And all the 10 inch scope owners are happy. S&T could at least add some easier targets for small scopes.
I guess S&T caught apeture fever.
At least there is a couple of years worth of "Small Scope Sampler" in the online archive.
#15
desertstars
-
-
- Posts: 46,648
- Joined: 05 Nov 2003
ISS
Posted 24 March 2004 - 10:56 AM
They may not change anything back, but if enough small scope owners give them this sort of feedback they could easily add a feature, or edit DSW feature in an appropriate manner. I've seen such corrections made in publications after an overhaul.
By the way, I sent them a note expressing my "concern" over the loss of the Small Scope Sampler, so that's two.
By the way, I sent them a note expressing my "concern" over the loss of the Small Scope Sampler, so that's two.
#16
Tom L
-
-
- Posts: 31,061
- Joined: 07 Jan 2004
ISS
Posted 24 March 2004 - 04:08 PM
Hopefully the editor is paying attention to his readers. It seems there are a lot of small APOs out there (in addition to all the small achros) and I will bet that some of those people will be very loud. They will probably post someone's that is short and concise in the upcoming letters to the editors section about it.
#17
desertstars
-
-
- Posts: 46,648
- Joined: 05 Nov 2003
ISS
Posted 25 March 2004 - 02:46 PM
The main thing is for the people who dislike the change to step up and say so. Otherwise the editor has every right to assume that the new version is being well received.
#18
Tim2723
-
-
- Posts: 5,765
- Joined: 19 Feb 2004
The Moon Guy
Posted 26 March 2004 - 10:28 AM
I like to see the old format back but keep the new paper and fonts for easy reading!
#19
LivingNDixie
-
-
- Posts: 19,307
- Joined: 23 Apr 2003
TSP Chowhound
Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:24 PM
IAn,
I hate to be the bringer of bad news but I'm kinda glad they got rid of he small scope section (here me out first). I have now (and had for a while a 10in dob) a 10in scope SCT so usually the object in the small scope forum were bright for me and usually stuff I have seen. BUT the opposite is true with Ken Hewitt-Whites part of the mag. He was using a 17in scope so many of things in that forum were invisable to me.
I guess they should have kept the small scope forum and I hired a new writer for a "medium scope forum." This is comming by the way from someone who loves Sue Finchs writing style
I hate to be the bringer of bad news but I'm kinda glad they got rid of he small scope section (here me out first). I have now (and had for a while a 10in dob) a 10in scope SCT so usually the object in the small scope forum were bright for me and usually stuff I have seen. BUT the opposite is true with Ken Hewitt-Whites part of the mag. He was using a 17in scope so many of things in that forum were invisable to me.
I guess they should have kept the small scope forum and I hired a new writer for a "medium scope forum." This is comming by the way from someone who loves Sue Finchs writing style
#20
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 19 April 2004 - 04:32 PM
As I looked at the editor's page, it said that a "targets section" would begin next month. The next issue should arrive soon, so I'll see what that is. Maybe a decent replacement for Small Scope Sampler.
#21
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 24 April 2004 - 11:34 AM
I got the June issue of S&T today. I immediately turned to the Deep Sky Wonders article to see if anything had changed.
Well, there were still 10 inch descriptions, though there seemed to be more about views through a small scope. There were eight targets, but four of them were 11th magnitude galaxies. Why can't they have a large scope article and a small scope article? Then they would have two focused articles instead of one long, divided article.
I never even got a response to my letter. My opinion of S&T is somewhat lowered now. There is little for small scope owners in there anymore.
Well, there were still 10 inch descriptions, though there seemed to be more about views through a small scope. There were eight targets, but four of them were 11th magnitude galaxies. Why can't they have a large scope article and a small scope article? Then they would have two focused articles instead of one long, divided article.
I never even got a response to my letter. My opinion of S&T is somewhat lowered now. There is little for small scope owners in there anymore.
#22
jwaldo
-
-
- Posts: 4,066
- Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Smart Mime
Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:17 PM
Things i like:
Deep Sky Wonders.
Other stuff (descriptive, eh?)
Things I dislike:
The calendar notes are gone!
Deep Sky Wonders.
Other stuff (descriptive, eh?)
Things I dislike:
The calendar notes are gone!
#23
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 April 2004 - 11:27 AM
I would guess that they are also trying to avoid duplication with their new magazine, Night Sky. I've not seen the debut issue yet, but from the adverts it's aimed at beginning-intermediate scope users, who probably are using a lot of small refractors and reflectors of 6" and under (read, astronomers who've not upgraded their aperture yet). While this does leave out those advances users who have nice apos, it's likely that the thought process when along the lines of "if they have a tak apo, they don't need the 'small scope sampler' to find targets."
So I think the concept is to minimize the overlap, and make S+T the publication for the more advanced observer with a larger scope.
So I think the concept is to minimize the overlap, and make S+T the publication for the more advanced observer with a larger scope.
#24
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:47 PM
What about intermediate observers who still have small scopes because they don't have the space or (in my case) money to upgrade yet?
I saw they have a small "Variable Star" column each month. Why don't they have a small "Double Star" column as well? Doubles are great for small scopes, but even advanced amateurs who have never really bothered with doubles might appreciate it.
I've never seen "Night Sky". However, I'm sort of an intermediate observer. I can locate a whole bunch of constellations, have seen such showpieces as the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula, and Alberio. Small Scope Sampler was just at my level, or maybe a little above. That's why I liked it. It was new, (more) obscure material, challenging, but I could locate many of the targets.
I don't like Deep Sky wonders as much. 11th magnitude galaxies don't go well with small scopes under light polluted skies.
I've said this before, haven't I?! Sorry about the repetition.
I saw they have a small "Variable Star" column each month. Why don't they have a small "Double Star" column as well? Doubles are great for small scopes, but even advanced amateurs who have never really bothered with doubles might appreciate it.
I've never seen "Night Sky". However, I'm sort of an intermediate observer. I can locate a whole bunch of constellations, have seen such showpieces as the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula, and Alberio. Small Scope Sampler was just at my level, or maybe a little above. That's why I liked it. It was new, (more) obscure material, challenging, but I could locate many of the targets.
I don't like Deep Sky wonders as much. 11th magnitude galaxies don't go well with small scopes under light polluted skies.
I've said this before, haven't I?! Sorry about the repetition.
#25
desertstars
-
-
- Posts: 46,648
- Joined: 05 Nov 2003
ISS
Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:30 AM
Having read the May issue of S&T and at least looked through the June issue, I have to admit I'm warming to the change. I am very relieved to see that the cartoon-figure thing illustrating the debunking article in May is not a regular thing. Talk about cheesey! 
That style of illustration is the reason I subscribe to Scientific American, and not to Discover! I read at bus stops a lot, and the change in shape, paper, and printing have all made this just a little easier. Also, being a lunar observer, the greater prominence give to Wood's column is appreciated.
That style of illustration is the reason I subscribe to Scientific American, and not to Discover! I read at bus stops a lot, and the change in shape, paper, and printing have all made this just a little easier. Also, being a lunar observer, the greater prominence give to Wood's column is appreciated.
CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.
Recent Topics
-
NASA should postpone any Mars flight until a suitable craft is developedRichA - Today, 02:39 AM
Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others
-
Beginner - used Nagler 9mm type 1 vs AT-XWA 9mm, which to pick?
cmdr_disco - Today, 01:18 AM
Beginners Forum (No Astrophotography)
-
Apeninne, Caucasus and Vallis Alps in color with Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF + TC-20E III
otoien - Today, 12:51 AM
Lunar Observing and Imaging
-
-
-
setting sun in front of cloud bank, what is happening here?bill w - Yesterday, 11:46 PM
Solar Observing and Imaging
-
-
-
Repurposing old laptop instead of buying a NUC?fastfiveoh - Yesterday, 10:29 PM
Beginning Deep Sky Imaging
-
Nikon or Vortex? Which one is better for binoculars under $150
Subhan - Yesterday, 10:15 PM
Binoculars
