barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (05/07/91)
About 2 weeks ago, I wrote a scathing letter to AC TECH magazine,
complaining about the quality of a UNIX article in the second issue. Among
the topics I raised was: "Don't you have a technical review board to
weed out mistakes...?"
Well, I got a call from Ernie Viveiros of AC TECH today. Indeed,
the magazine does *not* have a review board, but it wants to form one now.
I have accepted a position as reviewer of UNIX-oriented articles, so that
"slot" is taken. But if you have a strong background in other Amiga-related
topics, and you want to volunteer to be a member of this board, contact Ernie
Viveiros at (800) 345-3360.
This is a VOLUNTEER job; that is, you don't get paid. However, I've
been given complimentary subscriptions to AC TECH and AMAZING COMPUTING for
my work. (Of course, I can't guarantee that you'll get this too, since I'm
not a representative of AC TECH. But I'd guess that it's likely.) Ernie
says that he would like to pay the board members "eventually", but there are
no funds to do this now.
I am not a representative of AC TECH -- in fact, before today, I
had never spoken with anyone on its staff before. So standard disclaimers
apply....
Dan
//////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University |
| INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | |
| COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP |
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (05/09/91)
In article <8275@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >I have accepted a position as reviewer of UNIX-oriented articles, so that >"slot" is taken. But if you have a strong background in other Amiga-related I hope they don't plan on only having one "reviewer" for each "area" -- they could easily get somebody who knows only %50 of a subject area, or somebody who's personal politics interferes too often. ("Motif Rules! Therefore, this article on OpenLook gets trashed") -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... (UNIX is a trademark of Unix Systems Laboratories).
dlarson@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dale Larson) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.233824.5196@menudo.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes: >I hope they don't plan on only having one "reviewer" for each "area" -- > they could easily get somebody who knows only %50 of a subject area, > or somebody who's personal politics interferes too often. > ("Motif Rules! Therefore, this article on OpenLook gets trashed") Not to mention the fact that any one reviewer often misses many things but that things missed are distributed randomly such that the more reviewers ya got the fewer things you'll miss the better suggestions you'll get and the better article you can produce. -- Dale Larson, Software Engineer, Amiga Network Development dlarson@cbmvax.commodore.com "A distributed system is one that stops you from getting any work done when a machine you've never even heard of crashes" -Lamport
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (05/09/91)
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes: >In article <8275@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >>I have accepted a position as reviewer of UNIX-oriented articles, so that >>"slot" is taken. But if you have a strong background in other Amiga-related > >I hope they don't plan on only having one "reviewer" for each "area" -- > they could easily get somebody who knows only %50 of a subject area, > or somebody who's personal politics interferes too often. > ("Motif Rules! Therefore, this article on OpenLook gets trashed") >-- >J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 >Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... >(UNIX is a trademark of Unix Systems Laboratories). Gee, this is wonderful. in the latest AC there was a knock-down-drag-through-the-mud-AmigaWorld-is-the-Anti-Christ-of-publications and the turn around and copy the AmigaWorld Tech Journals lead. i looked through the AC tech journal and thought to myself "so what's so tech about this?" I mean, it was filled with beginners articles that have always been in the regular AC. while the AmigaWorld Tech Journal had helpful thought out articles for those that already know quite a bit about the machine, but don't happen to have any experience in that particular area. I will NEVER buy another issue of AC since the last editorial and found the AC Tech Journal to be worthless. i had previously liked AC, felt they covered some areas that were left out by many other publications, but AC's Attitude lately has been so hypocritical that it offends my sensibilities. well, sorry for the bandwidth, but i just felt that needed to be said. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (05/11/91)
>Gee, this is wonderful. in the latest AC there was a >knock-down-drag-through-the-mud-AmigaWorld-is-the-Anti-Christ-of-publications >and the turn around and copy the AmigaWorld Tech Journals lead. I don't think AW has any special claim to the concept of "technical review staff". I think AC Tech should have had one before now, but better late than never, and no shame because the other journal did it first. >I looked >through the AC tech journal and thought to myself "so what's so tech about >this?" I mean, it was filled with beginners articles that have always been in >the regular AC. while the AmigaWorld Tech Journal had helpful thought out >articles for those that already know quite a bit about the machine, but don't >happen to have any experience in that particular area. I agree that the quality of articles in AC Techs issue #1 and #2 varied somewhat widely. I think there were some excellent articles therein. I agree that the AW V1#1 was a better, albeit smaller, effort--but then they had Commodore people writing for them. Money talks to a certain degree, and I think AW, as a publication of enormous IDG, has more of that. > I will NEVER buy >another issue of AC since the last editorial and found the AC Tech Journal to >be worthless. i had previously liked AC, felt they covered some areas that >were left out by many other publications, but AC's Attitude lately has been so >hypocritical that it offends my sensibilities. well, sorry for the bandwidth, >but i just felt that needed to be said. > I respect your opinion but must disagree. Despite the good quality of AmigaWorld Tech Journal, AmigaWorld magazine proper has offended my sensibilities a few times too often. I cancelled my subscription when I figured out that whenever I knew something about a topic, AW got it significantly wrong. I find their approach very cosmetic, containing very little useful information, and of course their cutesy style is legendary. Not that this explains the AC editor's actions. But if the facts he mentioned are true, then I find his response justified. If you withhold a story for the benefit of the Amiga community in general, and a competitor runs it against the wishes of CBM, then an editorial is the appropriate response/explanation. No problem there. >| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | >| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | >| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | -- Thom Cleland // tcleland@ucsd.edu \X/ I'm having fun now.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (05/12/91)
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) writes: >>Gee, this is wonderful. in the latest AC there was a >>knock-down-drag-through-the-mud-AmigaWorld-is-the-Anti-Christ-of-publications >>and the turn around and copy the AmigaWorld Tech Journals lead. > >I don't think AW has any special claim to the concept of >"technical review staff". I think AC Tech should have had one >before now, but better late than never, and no shame because the >other journal did it first. Granted, but my point was not that AC didn't have a right to do so, it was that AC just went through a rave about AmigaWorld and then turns around and copies them. > >>I looked >>through the AC tech journal and thought to myself "so what's so tech about >>this?" I mean, it was filled with beginners articles that have always been in >>the regular AC. while the AmigaWorld Tech Journal had helpful thought out >>articles for those that already know quite a bit about the machine, but don't >>happen to have any experience in that particular area. > >I agree that the quality of articles in AC Techs issue #1 and #2 >varied somewhat widely. I think there were some excellent >articles therein. I agree that the AW V1#1 was a better, albeit >smaller, effort--but then they had Commodore people writing for >them. Money talks to a certain degree, and I think AW, >as a publication of enormous IDG, has more of that. No, i think it was that AmigaWorld started their Tech Efforts first and got the best people. AC turns around and feels it's being left in the cold so it does the same thing and finds that all the good people have been taken. > >> I will NEVER buy >>another issue of AC since the last editorial and found the AC Tech Journal to >>be worthless. i had previously liked AC, felt they covered some areas that >>were left out by many other publications, but AC's Attitude lately has been so >>hypocritical that it offends my sensibilities. well, sorry for the bandwidth, >>but i just felt that needed to be said. >> >I respect your opinion but must disagree. Despite the good >quality of AmigaWorld Tech Journal, AmigaWorld magazine proper >has offended my sensibilities a few times too often. I >cancelled my subscription when I figured out that whenever I >knew something about a topic, AW got it significantly wrong. I >find their approach very cosmetic, containing very little useful >information, and of course their cutesy style is legendary. Well, i've never had the occasion to find flaws in articles myself, not that i'm saying they aren't there, but any magazine can have errors, and AmigaWorld is no exception, i might say that i found many errors in AC as well. I also agree that AW may be a bit too commercial, but I think they cover things quite well for the novice. that's what the Tech Journal is all about, if it's more than a novice can handle it should go to the Tech Journal. > >Not that this explains the AC editor's actions. But if the >facts he mentioned are true, then I find his response justified. >If you withhold a story for the benefit of the Amiga community >in general, and a competitor runs it against the wishes of CBM, >then an editorial is the appropriate response/explanation. No >problem there. If you read the editorial carefully you can read between the lines : "We are still piecing the story together" translates into "We didn't even know about this A3000T until we found out AmigaWorld was running the Article which was too late to do anthing about it." nowhere did they say that CBM had told them not to run the story. I have heard no rumors that AmigaWorld go into trouble with CBM because they did. The 3000T WAS shown at CeBit in Germany several weeks prior to AmigaWorld hitting the shelves. if CBM shows the machine publicly it's fair game for anyone to write a review of it. i saw tons of people talking about it hereon usenet. "Obtained an engineering prototype..." means that CBM gave them a machine to review. why would cbm give them such a machine if it wasn't meant to be reviewed? In short, AC was jealous. that's all there is to it, their editorial was nothing more than a public mud-slinging match. I don't think #1 of the Tech journal was all that small. there were about a dozend articles and they were very good. about the same number you'd find in another publication, just because they didn't fill them with source code to fill up page space, that doesn't mean it's small. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (05/14/91)
In article <4888@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) writes: >>smaller, effort--but then they had Commodore people writing for >>them. Money talks to a certain degree, and I think AW, >>as a publication of enormous IDG, has more of that. >No, i think it was that AmigaWorld started their Tech Efforts first and got >the best people. AC turns around and feels it's being left in the cold so it >does the same thing and finds that all the good people have been taken. I don't believe there is anything preventing a tech review board member from being a a review board for two differnet magazines. These are not political positions, they are technical positions. There should be nothing preventing AC from asking the same people that AW has to also review the articles it puts together. Nor should their be anything preventing those same people from accepting similar duties with another magazine. I know there was no contract signed forbidding me from reviewing an article in any other magazine, as a matter of fact I would refuse to sign such a thing. Review board members are not there to endorse the magazine, they are their to improve the contents of the magazine. -- Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/23/91)
In article <4873@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes: >>In article <8275@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >>>I have accepted a position as reviewer of UNIX-oriented articles, so that >>>"slot" is taken. But if you have a strong background in other Amiga-related >>I hope they don't plan on only having one "reviewer" for each "area" -- >while the AmigaWorld Tech Journal had helpful thought out articles for those >that already know quite a bit about the machine, but don't happen to have any >experience in that particular area. I suspect that this kind of journal is a difficult thing to put out, period. There are quite a few articles, at least in AW Tech Journal, by people who really do know what they're talking about. The main reason is that AW went out, hunted these people down, and convinced them to write. At least, that's how they got me to do an article. Plain old generic rags can do a decent job with staff writers, but if you're writing for the experts, that writing has to be done by the experts. And, unfortunately for the magazine people, the experts generally gave a full load already. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.