deluxe wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:


Why should the magazines do this? One, to make them relevant,
two, to allow them to be more relevant than the online consumer
reviews, which tend to vary in their accuracy, depending on
the reviewer. Can the magazines do this? Yes, they have the
resources, they have the time. If the goal of magazines is to
provide enough solid information to consumers to make themselves
interesting and valuable, they have to be better than what is now
free online. If you take all aspects of a magazine and compare them
to the free online information, you will see they are losing ground.
-Rich


I agree with Rich here.
The joke that Astronomy has become is probably beyond help, but when Sky
and Tel did their "watch" review, it really made me wonder.

There's dozens of great scopes and accessories requiring a review, and
only 12 issues in a year, better start making those 12 issues count.

I think the internet is well on its way to taking out at least 50% of
the magazine market, only the very strong will survive.

I do 90% of my "hobby" research online now, as opposed to 8 years ago
where 100% was in mags, books, and at the library.

I don't think it's so much a case of magazines backsliding, as it is the
www overtaking them (note, I didn't say "the internet overtaking them").
It is impossible to compete with an infinite number of opinions/reviews
by and infinite number of authors.
Sky and Telescope isn't a telescope review magazine. It's a magazine of
general astronomy interest. I don't think there IS a telescope review
magazine.
As to Rich's pronouncement that the the magazines can and should do this
because "they have the resournces, they have the time", I put it to you
that he knows nothing about the magazine business. He is a wind chime
posing as a barometer.

Uncle Bob

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source