Another Awful Scope Review

Dennis Woos wrote:
In fact, it seems to me that if "Astronomy" wanted a biased review,
then it would be in their interest to make sure that it was detailed
and technical, and so sound more convincing.

More convincing to you and me, perhaps, but I should think that such a
hypothetical editor would prefer that their readers complete the review.
As such, they would include only as many technical details as are needed
to sound modestly tech-ish, and no more.

I do not intend to insinuate that Astronomy has done this, or has even
considered doing this.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

A friend of mine has the 14" Meade and it is a super scope. He has
used it to take many nice images and it performs well optically and
mechanically.

Based on his scope, I think the review was accurate.

jeff



Brian Tung wrote:
Dennis Woos wrote:
In fact, it seems to me that if "Astronomy" wanted a biased review,
then it would be in their interest to make sure that it was
detailed
and technical, and so sound more convincing.

More convincing to you and me, perhaps, but I should think that such
a
hypothetical editor would prefer that their readers complete the
review.
As such, they would include only as many technical details as are
needed
to sound modestly tech-ish, and no more.

I do not intend to insinuate that Astronomy has done this, or has
even
considered doing this.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:02:29 -0500, "Dennis Woos"
wrote:

The review of the Meade 14" SCT in the March '05 "Astronomy" is pretty
useless vis-a-vis the optical performance of this scope. It should not be
too hard to do better than "I viewed a number of close doubles with the
magnification pumped as high as 404x with a Meade 8.8mm UWA eyepiece. It
was satisfying to resolve companion stars impossible to see with a smaller
telescope." Why don't they do better, or why can't they? My two kids
could, and would, do a more analytical and critical review.

Dennis


Aww come on! Do you expect them to do a real review on a measly $5000
telescope? They are catering to a lower-echilon of observer and
they know it. The magazine has one purpose; To advertise and sell
products for it's advertisers. You, the consumer are the target.
-Rich

On 1 Feb 2005 15:15:02 -0800, "Jeffk1965"
wrote:

A friend of mine has the 14" Meade and it is a super scope. He has
used it to take many nice images and it performs well optically and
mechanically.

Based on his scope, I think the review was accurate.

It can be accurate and still a bad review. If they take a good scope,
and state only "this is a good scope", I think most people would agree
that the review leaves something to be desired.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
I do not intend to insinuate that Astronomy has done this, or has even
considered doing this.

LOL!

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

A friend of mine has the 14" Meade and it is a super scope. He has
used it to take many nice images and it performs well optically and
mechanically.

Based on his scope, I think the review was accurate.

The complaint is not that the review is inaccurate, but that it doesn't give
you much useful information. You can say, "It's a nice scope," and while
that may be accurate, it doesn't really tell us much. Instead of saying it
had nice views of double stars, it would be better to compare contrast with
another scope in that range, or report on smoothness of the optics, or SA
correction or...

Instead it is fluff. Accurate fluff, but still largely fluff. I think the
other posters are correct. They want to sound techish without scaring off
their readers (or challenging the readers to learn more than may be
easy/comfortable)

;-)

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************


jeff



Brian Tung wrote:
Dennis Woos wrote:
In fact, it seems to me that if "Astronomy" wanted a biased review,
then it would be in their interest to make sure that it was
detailed
and technical, and so sound more convincing.

More convincing to you and me, perhaps, but I should think that such
a
hypothetical editor would prefer that their readers complete the
review.
As such, they would include only as many technical details as are
needed
to sound modestly tech-ish, and no more.

I do not intend to insinuate that Astronomy has done this, or has
even
considered doing this.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Tim Killian wrote:

Put yourself in the position of editor where you have to decide
between
publishing a review that might cost the magazine $ millions in legal
fees and lost advertising, or a softball review that a few guys on
SAA
will bitch about.

I can understand the loss of advertising revenue for a poor review, but
legal fees? Just what would a company sue for? Libel? Product
defamation? IANAL, but that seems a bit frivolous. But then again,
that's par for the course these days.

Aww come on! Do you expect them to do a real review on a measly
$5000
telescope? They are catering to a lower-echilon of observer and
they know it. The magazine has one purpose; To advertise and sell
products for it's advertisers. You, the consumer are the target.
-Rich

Damned expensive catalogues too, aren't they?
*
Chris.B

Correct on all points discussed.

Yeah, but advertising dollars aren't the whole story. S & T often does
much better reviews and they take lots of Meade's and others' $$,too.

And where's Meade going to go anyhow? Both sides need each other.
There are only a couple of other major astro mag ad outlets.

The equation that ad $ = pablum for content is overstated. Many mags
that have lots of ad $$ and still do critical, thorough assessments,
e.g., computer magazines. And, at different times, the astro mags have
done more thorough jobs (e.g., optically testing 10" mirrors, technical
analysis of eyepieces, 6 & 8" dob round ups, etc.).

There's simply too light a touch on many Astronomy reviews; a magazine
institutional culture kind of thing (and/or reviewer misconception of
"popularization"). They could do lots more assessment and evaluation
without causing any real offense and serve their readers much better.

Which Berry review got him in trouble? I have back issues and I'd be
interested in reading that...

By the way, where's the *evidence* that CR has toned down its reviews or
assessments? I'd be very interested in proof of that...

Larry Stedman
Vestal