Sky and Telescope now stitched?

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Sep 2007 10:24:28
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

I just received my October 2007 issue of Sky and Telescope, and I notice
that it's stitched, not perfect-bound like the last decade or so. Does
anyone know why this change was made? Cost?

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
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.html

Date: 12 Sep 2007 20:13:17
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Quadibloc wrote:
> He notes as one possible cause that advertisers might be spending more
> money advertising on the Internet.
>
> Compared to the other possible cause he notes, I suspect this is a
> minor contributing factor. There are legitimate ways to advertise on
> the Internet, such as buying space on Google, but very few web sites
> have enough visitors for banner ads to be an economic proposition.

I suppose I should note, though, that this depends on a fairly narrow
definition of "advertising".

The Internet can't replace a magazine like Sky and Telescope as a way
to reach prospective buyers who haven't heard of your company.

But it's perfectly possible to switch to a smaller print ad, and refer
people to your web site for a list of products and prices, and some
companies have done that. This isn't necessarily such a good idea, as
new buyers may not know *why* they should be interested in going to
your web site...

John Savard

Date: 11 Sep 2007 19:08:41
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Molo wrote:
> S&T dropped off my radar in the 80's after Regan invaded
> Grenada and Cambridge, and even S&T thought it was Moscow!

I do remember when the U.S. invaded Grenada - this was at the request
of its Governor-General, after the Prime Minister there refused to
accept that Parliament had been dissolved. So this was not a case of
aggression; this was a case of enforcing the law.

I was astonished, though, that after this, the Governor-General was
called to Britain, apparently to be criticized for his actions.
Because dismissing the rebel politician who failed to obey the Queen's
representative was really a British responsibility - the fact that he
had to ask the U.S. for help meant that Britain had *failed* to live
up to its duties to maintain democracy for the people of Grenada.

I doubt that anyone mistook the invasion of Grenada for the beginning
of World War III. I know Scientific American sometimes dabbles in left-
wing politics, but I wasn't aware that Sky and Telescope did that sort
of thing - except perhaps to criticize the U.S. government for not
funding observatories and unmanned space probes well enough.

John Savard

Date: 11 Sep 2007 06:48:16
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

AstroSketc...@gmail.com wrote:
>(I also miss the old Unitron ads . . . ;-)

The Observer's Hanbook used to have a Unitron ad on the back cover.

As a recent ad in S&T pointed out, the price of an 8-inch SCT (from
Celestron) has hardly budged upwards at all, despite inflation.

While some short apochromatic refractors that are pretty pricey enjoy
a brisk market, telescopes that are bulky, like the classic Newtonian
with a 48" focal length (6" f/8, 8" f/6) are less popular...and large,
long-focus refractors, being both expensive and bulky have doubtless
taken the most precipitous drop in popularity.

If you want to sell an eyepiece at other than a low price, it had
better have at least a 68 degree apparent field! Amateur astronomers
today can buy better stuff, but that means it's a tougher market out
there.

John Savard

Date: 10 Sep 2007 22:10:07
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Anyway, if the editorial formula had been working -- if we had been
> attracting new readers at the same rate we'd been losing old ones --
> we would never have tinkered with it. The S&T editors are a pretty
> conservative bunch, not at all fond of change for change's sake.

I can't quarrel with that - as I've noted, Sky and Telescope didn't
*begin* to be available in supermarkets until it moved to a somewhat
less technical orientation, so that moving further in that direction
would seem like a reasonable response to declining circulation is not
unreasonable.

One thing, though. Astronomy magazine's new cover design looks a lot
like that of a British amateur astronomy magazine available here at
specialized newsstand stores. And now the SKY and Telescope logo is in
a typeface resembling Gill Sans, which gives it a "British"
appearance. I'm not sure if both magazines are trying to improve their
sales in the UK, or if this is just some bizarre coincidence.

John Savard

Date: 10 Sep 2007 18:44:03
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 10, 7:17 pm, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@_NO_SPAM_verizon.net >
wrote:

> Now, I know the old nose-in-the-air taunt that if you want to really see a
> picture of a nebula or galaxy, then just open a book to a picture taken by
> Hubble. Well, why play golf when you can watch Tiger Woods play it
> fabulously better on TV?

One of the better comebacks I've heard in a while...think I'll steal
it!

:-)

Unk Rod

Date: 10 Sep 2007 10:25:24
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 9, 5:42 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <ayiomami...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I usually read the magazine cover to cover with one exception: David
> Levy's column. There is always something of interest in the magazine
> for my tastes but I have yet to read a column of Levy's that I have
> enjoyed.
>
> Many times he gives me the sense that he is rambling just to fill
> space and I have certainly grown tired of his incessant "my wife
> Wendee and I". Is there an issue where he does not use this particular
> quote?
>
> The man may be a prolific writer and observer (and comet-discoverer)
> but I just cannot seem to enjoy his montly column.
>
> Anthony.

Guess we'll just disagree on that. Dave's column is one of my favorite
features--if not THE favorite--in the magazine. One reason for that?
The personal nature of his missives. David's style is such that I feel
like I'm sittin' with him on a star party field and just shootin' the
breeze. "Different," informative, highly personal...how can I not like
it?

Unk Rod

Date: 10 Sep 2007 10:22:12
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 9, 11:39 am, AstroSketc...@gmail.com wrote:

> I noticed that loss of subscribers was mentioned in Fienberg's above-
> linked posting. Our hobby has undergone some major changes in recent
> years. We've gone from a group where nearly everyone used their own
> eyes, brains and muscles to point a telescope to a group where some
> point a telescope the old-fashioned way and others use one of the more
> modern approaches. We've gone from a group where most people did most
> of their amateur astronomy from a dark sky to a group where most do
> their astronomy under various degrees of light pollution. Then came
> the CCD. More and more people are setting aside their eyes and
> replacing them (at the "eyepiece" end of a telescope) with CCDs. In
> short, amateur astronomers have evolved into a more diverse group; or
> into several, different, individual, splinter groups.

HI Bill:

When was that? Most people--east of the Mississippi, anyway--have been
contending with light pollution during most of their observing since
the late 1960s - early 1970s. As for go-to, it's probably done more to
keep this hobby growing (yeah, that's what I said, "growing") than
anything else.

As for the "debate" about _Sky and Telescope_ here and on Cloudy
Nights, it's amusing the way folks "remember" the older issues. I have
always loved the magazine, since I received my first issue back in
1965, but go back and look at issues from the 60s and 70s and you'll
find amateur astronomy was purty much ghettoized in the back of the
magazine. If you want hard-core amateur-related-hands-on info, the
magazine has been getting better and better since the 80s.

Has it reached its peak and is it now on the downhill slide? It's a
tough time for all magazines, but the month-to-month content in S&T
seems as good to me as it has been over the last decade. I don't
expect every article to be of interest to ME, however, any more than I
expect every article in Newsweek or National Geographic to be of
interest to me.

But, yes, it's a little distressing to see the magazine downsize a
bit. As for the "why," IMHO if Sky and Telescope and Astronomy are
having a hard time, it has nothing to do with some amateurs liking to
shoot the sky with CCDs or eschewing dobs for go-to rigs; it has to do
with the decline of ALL magazines and other traditional media. What's
the solution? The folks at Skypub, whom it's been my privilege to work
with on occasion, will no doubt do the fine-tuning required as the
magazine moves into the 21st century and don't need my advice; they
are some of THE most talented folks in this biz.

But since when has somebody not _needing_ my advice ever stopped me
from givin' it? ;-)

My suggestion? It's time to at least SUPPLEMENT the magazine with a CD/
DVD. Go into a bookstore in the UK and you'll see that most magazines
come with a CD. That's not just a promotional ploy; it allows the
publisher to add content (including audio and video) at less cost, and
continue to update that content closer to the deadline.

Why not just put ever'thang on the web, then? If you're going to
continue with paid subscribers, some folks just simply want something
non-virtual in the mailbox every month. Even if it's just a CD shrink-
wrapped with a cardboard backing listing disk contents.

Please note that I don't have anything against _Astronomy Magazine_
per se; it's just that I've never worked with them (I have met Dave
Eicher once, briefly, and he seemed like a pretty nice dude) and know
less about the folks at Kalmbach. For that reason, I'm less willin' to
comment on what goes on there.

Finally, did you call the subscription folks at Skypub and explain
your problem? They are pretty much eager to help with such problems.
Or did you just assume nefarious intent? ;-)

Unk Rod

Date: 11 Sep 2007 00:17:11
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

I haven't read the Cloudy Nights thread, but I can imagine how it's gone.
S&T in the 1960s and prior, as much as I enjoy the old issues, was really
very thin. If people think the current version is thin, then they ought to
look at the magazine ca. 40 years ago. There was no Orion or Meade to pour
advertising $$ into it, just lots and lots of little garage businesses. The
editorial content was mostly directed at Very Serious Astronomers. I
actually liked it, but articles about cosmology and astrophysics often
included mathmatical equations and graphs for readers to puzzle out. I
often had the impression that articles were mostly unpublished masters
theses.

As for the present version, I knew that S&T's purchase by a public company
was probably for the worse. I can't think of an instance in any area of
interest to me where acquisition of a little company by a big company didn't
result in a decline in the quality of the product, as bean-counters and
stockholders wrested control from those who simply wanted to put out a good
product without losing their shirts. Even the "Shop at Sky" has gone
downhill, with far fewer items offered than even a couple of years ago. The
latest reformatted version of S&T looks a lot like another version of
Astronomy, and it leaves me wondering why I should get two of the same
thing. Still, after saying all that, I've been a loyal subscriber since
1959, apart from a brief hiatus in the mid-1960s, and I'll stick with it. I
guess I'm old-fashioned. I discovered astronomy in Dec 1954. I'm 62 now.
Much as I love computers and the Internet, they don't replace a real,
sit-down-and-read-it magazine for me.

As for the proud declarations of the "I'm a visual observer, and I don't
need no stinkin' CCD" group -- I know how you feel. But at this stage of my
life, I've seen all of the deep-sky spectaculars visible from my latitude
hundreds of times. I love being under a very dark sky and trying to see
galaxies at the very limit of my scope and vision, but I often have a sense
of "been there, done that," and my vision just isn't what it was a few years
ago. I recently took up CCD-ing with a used ST-7E, and I'm having a ball.
Now, I know the old nose-in-the-air taunt that if you want to really see a
picture of a nebula or galaxy, then just open a book to a picture taken by
Hubble. Well, why play golf when you can watch Tiger Woods play it
fabulously better on TV? Like golf, astronomy is (for many of us) a "doing"
activity (I hate calling it a "hobby"). The effort and the journey is more
important than the destination. I'm reminded of a line from the movie
"Heat": "The action *is* the 'juice.'" That's how I feel about astronomy at
this stage of my life.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33�27'59"N, 117�05'53"W

Date: 10 Sep 2007 23:37:45
From: Molo
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

you're not alone. I revived spectroscopy which I hadnt done
since 1963. 50% think Im nuts and the other 50% "know I'm
nuts"! S&T dropped off my radar in the 80's after Regan invaded
Grenada and Cambridge, and even S&T thought it was Moscow!

Curtis Croulet wrote:

> I haven't read the Cloudy Nights thread, but I can imagine how it's gone.
> S&T in the 1960s and prior, as much as I enjoy the old issues, was really
> very thin. If people think the current version is thin, then they ought to
> look at the magazine ca. 40 years ago. There was no Orion or Meade to pour
> advertising $$ into it, just lots and lots of little garage businesses. The
> editorial content was mostly directed at Very Serious Astronomers. I
> actually liked it, but articles about cosmology and astrophysics often
> included mathmatical equations and graphs for readers to puzzle out. I
> often had the impression that articles were mostly unpublished masters
> theses.
>
> As for the present version, I knew that S&T's purchase by a public company
> was probably for the worse. I can't think of an instance in any area of
> interest to me where acquisition of a little company by a big company didn't
> result in a decline in the quality of the product, as bean-counters and
> stockholders wrested control from those who simply wanted to put out a good
> product without losing their shirts. Even the "Shop at Sky" has gone
> downhill, with far fewer items offered than even a couple of years ago. The
> latest reformatted version of S&T looks a lot like another version of
> Astronomy, and it leaves me wondering why I should get two of the same
> thing. Still, after saying all that, I've been a loyal subscriber since
> 1959, apart from a brief hiatus in the mid-1960s, and I'll stick with it. I
> guess I'm old-fashioned. I discovered astronomy in Dec 1954. I'm 62 now.
> Much as I love computers and the Internet, they don't replace a real,
> sit-down-and-read-it magazine for me.
>
> As for the proud declarations of the "I'm a visual observer, and I don't
> need no stinkin' CCD" group -- I know how you feel. But at this stage of my
> life, I've seen all of the deep-sky spectaculars visible from my latitude
> hundreds of times. I love being under a very dark sky and trying to see
> galaxies at the very limit of my scope and vision, but I often have a sense
> of "been there, done that," and my vision just isn't what it was a few years
> ago. I recently took up CCD-ing with a used ST-7E, and I'm having a ball.
> Now, I know the old nose-in-the-air taunt that if you want to really see a
> picture of a nebula or galaxy, then just open a book to a picture taken by
> Hubble. Well, why play golf when you can watch Tiger Woods play it
> fabulously better on TV? Like golf, astronomy is (for many of us) a "doing"
> activity (I hate calling it a "hobby"). The effort and the journey is more
> important than the destination. I'm reminded of a line from the movie
> "Heat": "The action *is* the 'juice.'" That's how I feel about astronomy at
> this stage of my life.
> --
> Curtis Croulet
> Temecula, California
> 33�27'59"N, 117�05'53"W

Date: 11 Sep 2007 15:54:11
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

> ...and even S&T thought it was Moscow!

Huh?
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33�27'59"N, 117�05'53"W

Date: 10 Sep 2007 23:31:49
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33�27'59"N, 117�05'53"W
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1189444932.294452.218980@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 11:39 am, AstroSketc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I noticed that loss of subscribers was mentioned in Fienberg's above-
>> linked posting. Our hobby has undergone some major changes in recent
>> years. We've gone from a group where nearly everyone used their own
>> eyes, brains and muscles to point a telescope to a group where some
>> point a telescope the old-fashioned way and others use one of the more
>> modern approaches. We've gone from a group where most people did most
>> of their amateur astronomy from a dark sky to a group where most do
>> their astronomy under various degrees of light pollution. Then came
>> the CCD. More and more people are setting aside their eyes and
>> replacing them (at the "eyepiece" end of a telescope) with CCDs. In
>> short, amateur astronomers have evolved into a more diverse group; or
>> into several, different, individual, splinter groups.
>
> HI Bill:
>
> When was that? Most people--east of the Mississippi, anyway--have been
> contending with light pollution during most of their observing since
> the late 1960s - early 1970s. As for go-to, it's probably done more to
> keep this hobby growing (yeah, that's what I said, "growing") than
> anything else.
>
> As for the "debate" about _Sky and Telescope_ here and on Cloudy
> Nights, it's amusing the way folks "remember" the older issues. I have
> always loved the magazine, since I received my first issue back in
> 1965, but go back and look at issues from the 60s and 70s and you'll
> find amateur astronomy was purty much ghettoized in the back of the
> magazine. If you want hard-core amateur-related-hands-on info, the
> magazine has been getting better and better since the 80s.
>
> Has it reached its peak and is it now on the downhill slide? It's a
> tough time for all magazines, but the month-to-month content in S&T
> seems as good to me as it has been over the last decade. I don't
> expect every article to be of interest to ME, however, any more than I
> expect every article in Newsweek or National Geographic to be of
> interest to me.
>
> But, yes, it's a little distressing to see the magazine downsize a
> bit. As for the "why," IMHO if Sky and Telescope and Astronomy are
> having a hard time, it has nothing to do with some amateurs liking to
> shoot the sky with CCDs or eschewing dobs for go-to rigs; it has to do
> with the decline of ALL magazines and other traditional media. What's
> the solution? The folks at Skypub, whom it's been my privilege to work
> with on occasion, will no doubt do the fine-tuning required as the
> magazine moves into the 21st century and don't need my advice; they
> are some of THE most talented folks in this biz.
>
> But since when has somebody not _needing_ my advice ever stopped me
> from givin' it? ;-)
>
> My suggestion? It's time to at least SUPPLEMENT the magazine with a CD/
> DVD. Go into a bookstore in the UK and you'll see that most magazines
> come with a CD. That's not just a promotional ploy; it allows the
> publisher to add content (including audio and video) at less cost, and
> continue to update that content closer to the deadline.
>
> Why not just put ever'thang on the web, then? If you're going to
> continue with paid subscribers, some folks just simply want something
> non-virtual in the mailbox every month. Even if it's just a CD shrink-
> wrapped with a cardboard backing listing disk contents.
>
> Please note that I don't have anything against _Astronomy Magazine_
> per se; it's just that I've never worked with them (I have met Dave
> Eicher once, briefly, and he seemed like a pretty nice dude) and know
> less about the folks at Kalmbach. For that reason, I'm less willin' to
> comment on what goes on there.
>
> Finally, did you call the subscription folks at Skypub and explain
> your problem? They are pretty much eager to help with such problems.
> Or did you just assume nefarious intent? ;-)
>
> Unk Rod
>

Date: 10 Sep 2007 06:20:18
From:
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 9, 10:57 pm, canopus56 <canopu...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> I feel it has more to do with the recent purchase of S&T,
> professional marketers deciding to refocus S&T to take
> _Astronomy_ head-on, the costly failed _Night Sky_
> spin-off, and changes in S&Ts distribution
> system ...
>
> Had acquisition management left things alone and stuck with the
> traditional format and distribution, they would have kept their
> subscriber base.

I wish it was as simple as that! But in fact, both the advertising
revenue and the circulation were down long before the change of
ownership had even been contemplated. That's easy to check, if you
don't believe me.

As Rick said in his Cloudy Nights post, the ad/editorial ratio is kept
pretty nearly constant, and it's easy to find out how many pages each
issue has. If you don't have access to hardcopy, go to
SkyandTelescope.com, click on Advanced Search near top right, selected
"PDF Archive", and search for all Focal Point columns. That's been the
last page of the magazine for some time now.

As an aside, it's amazing to me how many people here and elsewhere
have speculated about declining page count without bothering to take
the 5 minutes or so it would take to gather hard data. Some kind of
scientists!

As for circulation, it's printed once a year, in the December issue,
as required for all audited magazines.

Anyway, if the editorial formula had been working -- if we had been
attracting new readers at the same rate we'd been losing old ones --
we would never have tinkered with it. The S&T editors are a pretty
conservative bunch, not at all fond of change for change's sake.

For what it's worth, S&T's high point came just before they hired me.
So if you want a scapegoat, I'm ready and willing.

- Tony Flanders

Date: 10 Sep 2007 14:05:39
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

tony_flanders@yahoo.com wrote in news:1189430418.306677.24660
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> For what it's worth, S&T's high point came just before they hired me.
> So if you want a scapegoat, I'm ready and willing.

Well, quite a few other companies had their high points around that time. I
don't think you can be blamed for all the industry woes ;-)

From their balance sheet and filings, I was under the impression that
that Meade was going bankrupt. Well, I was both right and wrong at the same
time. Meade couldn't have survived with some serious cash injection, and
(somewhat surprisingly imho) they just found a good samaritan.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070827/meade_stock_offer.html?.v=1

who believes in the turnaround. Obviously, Meade's health and prospects
have a big impact on anyone relying on their advertisement budgets...

I am sure about every amateur astronomer has his own opinion on what S&T
should be but have you considered asking people who stopped
subscribing/buying the magazine why they went away?

AFIAC

News section: utterly useless. I know everything that's in there before it
is even in S&T. They are usually offloaded as "empty facts", Men's Health
style. I guess I am just the average Joe here, and that is the issue...
Average Joes are well informed today. Blame it on the Net. Nature's News
and Views, where the impact of the results presented in the hard science
articles is discussed by a specialist are the gold standard imho. Granted,
it might be a difficult goal...

Advertisemenst: actually, I like advertisement better in S&T than in other
medias. Magazine ads are, somehow, more concrete than Internet one.
Flipping through S&T to look at the ads is actually much better than
searching on Anacortes web site.

Sky Lore type stuff: (Schaaf, French, et al...) great, usually well written
and quite entertaining. That type of stuff is usually the product of decent
research or great knowledge, or both.

Tests: abysmal. But you are in a quandary here. Can't afford to vex
advertisers in the difficult context. Once one is used to the style of the
test articles, one can usually read between the lines. Still, they are very
poor. That's a real plague. BBC Sky at Night is usually a bit more direct,
eventhough their hair splitting percentage ratings are often a bit
meaningless. Cloudy Nights has become a one man (T.T.) show. A commendable
effort, btw, but it becomes predictable... In theory, S&T should be able
to deliver better tests. If only positive reviews are palatable, simply
decide to review good stuff only :-)

In-depth/focus pieces: what about making them really deep or focused?

Oh, well...

--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis

Date: 09 Sep 2007 20:45:04
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

canopus56 wrote:
> Before the acquistion, S&T was in
> every supermarket right next to _Astronomy_.

Yes, that will definitely be a setback. Of course, I can remember when
Sky and Telescope wasn't available anywhere on newsstands; so moving
from its original more technical orientation *partway* to taking on
the more popular magazine "Astronomy" had previously worked for it.

Certainly, if management has made mistakes, that will contribute. But
if "Astronomy" is losing advertising dollars too...

John Savard

Date: 09 Sep 2007 19:57:09
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 9, 9:18 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
John wrote:
> That certainly was interesting to read; it disclosed one thing not
> referred to in the editorial in the magazine - that the magazine had
> become a bit smaller due to less advertising coming in.
> He notes as one possible cause that advertisers might be spending more
> money advertising on the Internet.

I feel it has more to do with the recent purchase of S&T, professional
marketers deciding to refocus S&T to take _Astronomy_ head-on, the
costly failed _Night Sky_ spin-off, and changes in S&Ts distribution
system. I can no longer find S&T at any local newsstands - except one
of several local Barnes and Noble. Before the acquistion, S&T was in
every supermarket right next to _Astronomy_.

Had acquisition management left things alone and stuck with the
traditional format and distribution, they would have kept their
subscriber base. To me, from the outside looking in over the last
year, this appears like another case of MBAs with expectations of
quarterly double-digit profits and hyper-marketers coming in and
trying to extract more out a good existing company. Instead, moving
the company to the "next level" turns into simply messing things up
with bad marketing advice and crippling the company with heavy
acquisition debt.

That being said, it's still a good magazine and I'll continue to buy
it as I have for years, even with the format changes.

- Canopus56

Date: 10 Sep 2007 01:11:58
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

I'm debating whether i should renew or not right now. My last issue is/was
October. I just looked through the issue again this afternoon and there
really isn't a lot that i use. No fault of S&T really. I just get most of
my astronomy info online. I've been a subscriber since the mid-seventies
without a break. I'm torn as to what to do.

�Florian

Date: 10 Sep 2007 19:23:10
From: katrinaxx
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Florian wrote:
> I'm debating whether i should renew or not right now. My last issue is/was
> October. I just looked through the issue again this afternoon and there
> really isn't a lot that i use. No fault of S&T really. I just get most of
> my astronomy info online. I've been a subscriber since the mid-seventies
> without a break. I'm torn as to what to do.
>
> �Florian
>

Save a tree. :)

Date: 10 Sep 2007 23:38:47
From: Molo
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

katrinaxx wrote:

> Florian wrote:
> > I'm debating whether i should renew or not right now. My last issue is/was
> > October. I just looked through the issue again this afternoon and there
> > really isn't a lot that i use. No fault of S&T really. I just get most of
> > my astronomy info online. I've been a subscriber since the mid-seventies
> > without a break. I'm torn as to what to do.
> >
> > �Florian
> >
>
> Save a tree. :)

Save an astronomer who is 5!

Date: 09 Sep 2007 15:42:42
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

I usually read the magazine cover to cover with one exception: David
Levy's column. There is always something of interest in the magazine
for my tastes but I have yet to read a column of Levy's that I have
enjoyed.

Many times he gives me the sense that he is rambling just to fill
space and I have certainly grown tired of his incessant "my wife
Wendee and I". Is there an issue where he does not use this particular
quote?

The man may be a prolific writer and observer (and comet-discoverer)
but I just cannot seem to enjoy his montly column.

Anthony.

Date: 10 Sep 2007 00:53:49
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> I usually read the magazine cover to cover with one exception: David
> Levy's column. There is always something of interest in the magazine
> for my tastes but I have yet to read a column of Levy's that I have
> enjoyed.
>
> Many times he gives me the sense that he is rambling just to fill
> space and I have certainly grown tired of his incessant "my wife
> Wendee and I". Is there an issue where he does not use this particular
> quote?
>
> The man may be a prolific writer and observer (and comet-discoverer)
> but I just cannot seem to enjoy his montly column.
>
> Anthony.
>

Levy's writing doesn't hold my attention either. Interesting.
-Sam

Date: 09 Sep 2007 14:53:28
From:
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 9, 2:52 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
>
> You might be interested in the current issue, which has an article about
> how to sketch at the eyepiece. I doubt you'll learn anything, but even
> so it should be an enjoyable read.
>

Yes, I would be interested in seeing that article. I might even learn
something. After all, my approach is likely to be at least somewhat
different from that of the article's author. Perhaps I'll make it
into a city soon enough to find an issue to peek at . . .

Often these days I post sketches that are "unfinished" or "rough, at-
the-telescope" sketches. I see little reason for taking my time on
sketches to upload when my monetary return is non-existant. Currently
I'm planning a series of paintings that show more closely how objects
appear to the eye (dropping the exagerrated color, etc.); but I have
so many projects that I would like to do that there's no way very many
will see the light of day.

I enjoy reading articles in a variety of astronomically relevant
areas. As with Marty, (and as a misplaced reply to his posting) I
enjoy astronomical history as well as keeping up on current
discoveries and theories. As I said earlier: "I *do* like the
magazine." Yet, I have my reasons for no longer subscribing.

Bill Greer
To sketch is to see.

Date: 09 Sep 2007 09:47:32
From: john.kulczycki@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

RMOLLISE wrote:
> On Sep 8, 12:24 pm, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> > I just received my October 2007 issue of Sky and Telescope, and I notice
> > that it's stitched, not perfect-bound like the last decade or so. Does
> > anyone know why this change was made? Cost?
> >
> > --
> > Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
> > The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> > Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> > The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> > My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
>
> Yep...there's no secret about that...check out Rick Fienberg's
> editorial.
>
> Unk Rod

I was also struck by the admission that they were not doing "Breaking
News" anymore with S&T. This must be a tough admission for any print
editor.

I'm glad that they've decided to use their web page as the daily news
digest for what's hot, while the magazine will be the thing to read
when you have some time and are away from the computer. I hope this
means that there will be a return to ATM projects in the magazine. I'm
also hoping for good profiles of amateurs and what they are doing for
their observing projects.

I think it's important for magazines to to re invent themselves from
time to time. The cross over period between printed word and the net
has left a lot of editors and publishers confused about how they
should keep their magazines alive.

The most important things we can do as readers, other than buying the
periodical, is to let the editors know what we want to see in the
magazine.

John

Date: 09 Sep 2007 19:42:44
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On 2007-09-09 12:47:32 -0400, "john.kulczycki@sympatico.ca"
<john.kulczycki@sympatico.ca > said:

>
> I was also struck by the admission that they were not doing "Breaking
> News" anymore with S&T. This must be a tough admission for any print
> editor.

With the internet, their "breaking news" is days before yesterday's
news. It's been that way for a LONG time now.

They need to re-focus.

Date: 09 Sep 2007 19:06:23
From: John Nichols
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

<john.kulczycki@sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:1189356452.490340.250060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
<<snippage >
>I'm glad that they've decided to use their web page as the daily news
> digest for what's hot, while the magazine will be the thing to read
> when you have some time and are away from the computer. I hope this
> means that there will be a return to ATM projects in the magazine. I'm
> also hoping for good profiles of amateurs and what they are doing for
> their observing projects.
>

A new ATM column debuted in the current issue.

Date: 09 Sep 2007 09:39:11
From:
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 9, 5:00 am, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> See Rick Fienberg's discussion of magazine length (and other topics)
> in Cloudy Nights, Stellar Media forum, under "Goodby S&T"
> It's near the bottom of the page at this URL:
>
> http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1669...
>

I noticed that loss of subscribers was mentioned in Fienberg's above-
linked posting. Our hobby has undergone some major changes in recent
years. We've gone from a group where nearly everyone used their own
eyes, brains and muscles to point a telescope to a group where some
point a telescope the old-fashioned way and others use one of the more
modern approaches. We've gone from a group where most people did most
of their amateur astronomy from a dark sky to a group where most do
their astronomy under various degrees of light pollution. Then came
the CCD. More and more people are setting aside their eyes and
replacing them (at the "eyepiece" end of a telescope) with CCDs. In
short, amateur astronomers have evolved into a more diverse group; or
into several, different, individual, splinter groups.

I no longer subscribe to S&T. As with many things in life, my reason
is actually a combination of many reasons. One reason was pointed out
in the above linked Fienberg post. S&T cannot satisfy all of the
people all of the time. I'm a visual observer who observes from 6.5
magnitude skies. I still do not own, nor have I ever owned a go-to
telescope. Long ago I set aside my cameras to concentrate more on the
arts of visual astronomy and sketching. My specialized little niche
gets little attention in today's astronomical publications.

Nevertheless, I have a long history of subscribing to S&T. Despite
the reasons given in the previous paragraph, I would still be a
subscriber today if other factors had not also entered into the
equation. One of these is cost. Related to cost are the
circumstances of my last S&T subscribtion. After allowing my previous
subscription to lapse (due to content, cost, and S&T's change of
management), I eventually received an offer to re-subscribe at a price
that actually looked attractive to me. I took up the offer for 12
issues at the reduced rate. A while later I received two of my new
S&Ts. Both were 'back issues". My third issue arrived a bit later;
but even that issue was late enough to be considered a back issue by
some people. It wasn't until my fourth issue arrived that I had what
appeared to be a normal subscription.

It was the above mentioned business practice that *really* soured my
taste for S&T. I've not seen the issue that started this thread. I
would have to travel over 100 miles to even look at an S&T on a
store's (or even on a library's) magazine rack.

Still, I *do* like the magazine itself as well as some of the people
(such as Sue French and Tony Flanders) who make the magazine what it
is today. (I also miss the old Unitron ads . . . ;-)

Bill Greer
To sketch is to see.
http://cejour.blogspot.com
http://www.rangeweb.net/~sketcher

Date: 09 Sep 2007 14:52:59
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:39:11 -0700, AstroSketcher@gmail.com wrote:

>Long ago I set aside my cameras to concentrate more on the
>arts of visual astronomy and sketching. My specialized little niche
>gets little attention in today's astronomical publications.

You might be interested in the current issue, which has an article about
how to sketch at the eyepiece. I doubt you'll learn anything, but even
so it should be an enjoyable read.

_________________________________________________

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

Date: 10 Sep 2007 14:07:59
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in
news:06n8e3ltfoaj64vr30gprchq8nrv0nptc3@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:39:11 -0700, AstroSketcher@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Long ago I set aside my cameras to concentrate more on the
>>arts of visual astronomy and sketching. My specialized little niche
>>gets little attention in today's astronomical publications.
>
> You might be interested in the current issue, which has an article about
> how to sketch at the eyepiece. I doubt you'll learn anything, but even
> so it should be an enjoyable read.

You've nailed it, Chris. When was the last time your learned something
reading S&T?

--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis

Date: 10 Sep 2007 14:10:25
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:07:59 -0500, Pierre Vandevenne
<pierre@datarescue.com > wrote:

>You've nailed it, Chris. When was the last time your learned something
>reading S&T?

I learn little tidbits every time I read it. I could learn lots about
sketching from the article I mentioned (I'm just not interested in
sketching). My comment wasn't meant to suggest that the sketching
article wasn't good, only that I wasn't sure Bill- an accomplished
sketcher already- would learn much. I don't learn much about imaging
when they run articles about that, but I learn about other things that
are outside my areas of expertise.

I still enjoy the magazine, although it's annoying having to call and
ask for a new copy when the mailed one arrives all beat up (never a
problem when they were jacketed).

_________________________________________________

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

Date: 09 Sep 2007 14:38:05
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Like Bill Greer, I keep my observing at a very low tech level. I'm an
astronomical sight-seer. However, I have very broad astronomical
interests... I enjoy knowing the relatively up to date factual science
behind the things I'm looking at, and how they relate to the broader
cosmological scheme of things. I'm curious about the things other
amateurs are doing. I LOVE the history of astronomy, probably as much
as the observing! I have nothing against adopting some clever
astronomical dohingy, if it might somehow enhance observing as I enjoy
it. In the October issue, I ran across a review of a BOOK I've gotta
have, and without S&T, I may never have learned it existed.
S&T gives me a very wide window on the entire field, and I can pick
and choose what I read. So ~ as long as I'm around, and S&T is around,
I'll probably keep my subscription going.
Marty

Date: 09 Sep 2007 08:18:31
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> See Rick Fienberg's discussion of magazine length (and other topics)
> in Cloudy Nights, Stellar Media forum, under "Goodby S&T"
> It's near the bottom of the page at this URL:
>
> http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1669607/page/2/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/4/vc/1

That certainly was interesting to read; it disclosed one thing not
referred to in the editorial in the magazine - that the magazine had
become a bit smaller due to less advertising coming in.

He notes as one possible cause that advertisers might be spending more
money advertising on the Internet.

Compared to the other possible cause he notes, I suspect this is a
minor contributing factor. There are legitimate ways to advertise on
the Internet, such as buying space on Google, but very few web sites
have enough visitors for banner ads to be an economic proposition.

The other possible cause - that astronomy suppliers have fallen on
harder times - I can easily believe.

Just as video games and the Internet have caused a decline in time
spent watching TV, and on numerous hobbies, I'm sure the Internet also
eats into the time some less dedicated people spend observing. and,
more importantly, reduces the number of newcomers taking up hobbies
requiring an investment of time.

John Savard

Date: 09 Sep 2007 04:00:49
From:
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 8, 3:42 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> If I recall correctly the reason they gave way back when for moving away
> from the staple binding was that the magazine had grown too large for it...

Right. Basically, stapling works best for a small number of pages, and
perfect binding works better for a large number of pages. Of course,
there's significant overlap in the middle.

See Rick Fienberg's discussion of magazine length (and other topics)
in Cloudy Nights, Stellar Media forum, under "Goodby S&T"
It's near the bottom of the page at this URL:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1669607/page/2/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/4/vc/1

- Tony Flanders

Date: 09 Sep 2007 09:28:14
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

>See Rick Fienberg's discussion of
> magazine length (and other topics) in
> Cloudy Nights, Stellar Media forum,
> under "Goodby S&T" It's near the bottom
> of the page at this URL:

>http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads
>/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1669607/pa
>ge/2/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/4/vc/
>1

>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0- Tony Flanders

A very good read! Thanks for the link!
Personally, I'd really miss S&T if it ceased to exist. I have
other hobbies, but S&T is the only magazine I regularly subscribe to,
the only magazine I save, and the only one I often look back on.
Originally, I'd pick up copies at the public library in Lincoln,
Nebraska to read, then I subscribed on moving to small town Iowa. And
with S&T, having all the issues back through 1974 doesn't even qualify
me as a "long time subscriber." Over the years, I've watched the
magazine evolve along with the hobby. Sometimes I like the changes,
sometimes I don't. (They shoulda kept the OLD logo on the front,
grumble grumble...) I'm sure the internet does put up a lot of
competition to magazine publishers of all types, but having all those
magazines lined up on the shelf is still a valuable resource. The
internet is a wonderful thing, (heck, it's even given ME a chance to get
published, sorta,) but it will evolve too. At this time, a google
search will run back through SAA and turn up all sorts of info very
quickly, but will it work 30 plus years from now? I've got amateur
astronomy books over a century old that I still enjoy reading now and
then.
I go through phases where I devour S&T, and other times when I scan
it, but if it ceased to exist, I'd miss it badly, and the hobby would be
poorer for it.
Marty

Date: 09 Sep 2007 01:40:39
From: edward
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Brian Tung wrote:

> I just received my October 2007 issue of Sky and Telescope, and I notice
> that it's stitched, not perfect-bound like the last decade or so. Does
> anyone know why this change was made? Cost?
>

Is it disturbing to you? Upsetting? Diabolical? Like a camel in
a horse race? Like no super nova in M31? Like female underwear?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> 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.html

Date: 08 Sep 2007 17:43:51
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

Date: 08 Sep 2007 14:16:37
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

I (Brian Tung) wrote:
> I just received my October 2007 issue of Sky and Telescope, and I notice
> that it's stitched, not perfect-bound like the last decade or so. Does
> anyone know why this change was made? Cost?

Never mind...I just read the editorial, so now I at least know what
*their* explanation is.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
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.html

Date: 08 Sep 2007 18:46:25
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

I dunno... I've always kinda liked staples.
Marty

Date: 09 Sep 2007 00:26:51
From: VicXnews
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

movac5@webtv.net (Marty) wrote in news:25046-46E33451-347@storefull-
3334.bay.webtv.net:

> I dunno... I've always kinda liked staples.
> Marty
>

I know Brian and Alson like Staples...

http://www.slagshouseofstats.com/Lakers/3779TipOffLakers107Minn110Staples.jpg

Date: 08 Sep 2007 17:08:53
From: Howard Lester
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

"Marty" wrote

>I dunno... I've always kinda liked staples.

They've had some great singers...

Date: 08 Sep 2007 13:42:07
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

If I recall correctly the reason they gave way back when for moving away
from the staple binding was that the magazine had grown too large for it...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye

Date: 08 Sep 2007 11:24:56
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Sky and Telescope now stitched?

On Sep 8, 12:24 pm, br...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> I just received my October 2007 issue of Sky and Telescope, and I notice
> that it's stitched, not perfect-bound like the last decade or so. Does
> anyone know why this change was made? Cost?
>
> --
> Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Yep...there's no secret about that...check out Rick Fienberg's
editorial.

Unk Rod