[Boatanchors] Re: GB> May QST...Devoted Entirely To Amateur Radio ADVERTISEORS

[Carl Nord]

Unless I am off base, it sounds as if the original poster is not a member / subscriber but goes to the library to read it.. Why not join and help support the League so less advertising revenue is needed?  Or have you contribute an article of interest yourself?

At least some articles for the price you are currently paying!

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: n2ey at aol.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gswynar at durham.net
> Subject: GB> May QST...Devoted Entirely To Amateur Radio ADVERTISEORS
> 
> >Good Day All,
> Â 
> Greetings!
> 
> >I just got back from a visit to the public library in a nearby town 
> here...
> Â 
> >It's a nice place to visit from time to time because they receive QST 
> magazine every month, & I like to review each issue as it comes 
> >out...sure enough, they had the May 2006 copy on the shelf...
> Â 
> >But what an absolute shock as I leafed through it! Was it my 
> imagination, or is almost the entire second half of the magazine this 
>  >month "...Devoted Entirely To Amateur Radio ADVERTISERS"...?! Page 
> after page consisted of NOTHING but full-page, colour pitches >from 
> different manufacturers --- no continuations from previous articles in 
> between...no nothing!
> 
> Those ads pay for most of the magazine's costs. That there are so many 
> of them indicates that there are lots of companies selling stuff to 
> hams.
> 
> Putting all the articles in one place and all the ads in another is a 
> good thing IMHO. Makes the articles easier to read and copy...I mean, 
> refer to...
> Â 
> >I could hardly believe my eyes.
> Â 
> >Reading earlier pages, I saw that the write-up on the results of the 
> November Sweepstakes contest was, well, hardly a write-up at all 
> --->any curious non-contestor Newbie scanning the summary would 
> probably be left wondering what all the fuss about this contesting 
> stuff >was about: there wasn't much of anything there to entice the 
> newcomer to wade in --- heck, there wasn't even enough there to >entice 
> any repeat efforts on the part of existing contestors! 
> Â 
> That's because so many noncontester members of ARRL complained that too 
> much QST space was devoted to contests.
> 
> >Just where were the complete score summaries, anyway...? No doubt off 
> tucked away in some web site someplace (or perhaps >available by way of 
> a paid subscription to The National Contest Journal), but they SHOULD 
> be included in QST, the way they were since >the magazine first 
> started. Period.
> Â 
> Write to ARRL and tell them so.
> 
> Meanwhile, the scores of all ARRL contests for the past several years 
> are on the ARRL website, in a database that makes searching for results 
> easy. There's also a soapbox section that is much larger than could be 
> put in QST.
> 
> >I know a lot of guys will take this opportunity & accuse me of League 
> bashing, etc., but come on, fellas: what's happened to my once >beloved 
> QST magazine? I have nearly every issue going all the way back to 1916, 
> but this latest "offering" is hardly worth the effort.
> Â 
> >Surely Hams deserve better than this.
> 
> What you're seeing is what the members have asked for - or rather, 
> complained about.
> 
> There's a strong and vocal subset of hams who simply don't like 
> contests, or contesters. They have made it known that
> they consider contests a waste of time and QST space - and they let 
> ARRL know. So even as the number of contests grows, the space devoted 
> to them does not.
> 
> In the bad old days ARRL sponsored the SS, DX, VHF SS, Novice Round-Up 
> and Field Day. And maybe one or two more. The CD parties weren't 
> written up in QST except for the highest scores buried in the 
> Communications Dept. column sometimes.
> 
> Today we have all of those except NR - plus RTTY, 160, 10, UHF, EME, 
> School Roundup, and probably a couple I forgot. Total logs sent in for 
> any particular contest are usually less than 2% of ARRL membership. How 
> much space should they all get?
> 
> There's a similar tug-of-war between those who think QST is "too 
> technical" and those who think it's not technical enough. There are 
> folks who have told me, with a straight face, that QST focuses too much 
> on HF CW - which "nobody is really interested in". Etc.
> 
> Look at all the different things in amateur radio today - how is a 
> magazine supposed to cover it all?
> 
> --
> 
> None of this is new, btw. I was reading a QST from the early 1950s 
> [1953?] (my collection is solid back to 1920-something) and there were 
> a couple of letters complaining about how much space QST was giving to 
> SSB - how ARRL was "forcing it down 'fone operators throats". The 
> writers felt that SSB had been very well documented in QST and other 
> ARRL publications, and didn't need any more coverage in the magazine.
> 
> --
> 
> Some time back I pulled a recent QST and its counterpart from 50 years 
> earlier off the shelves and compared how much space was devoted to ads, 
> technical articles, contests, etc. Turned out that the percentages were 
> just about the same, then and now.
> 
> --
> 
> Look carefully at any QST and see who the authors are. Some articles 
> are done by the staff, but many are not, particularly the specialized 
> articles. They're always looking for good articles, but they cannot 
> publish what isn't submitted. And their choices will depend in part on 
> the reactions of subscribers.
> 
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> =0
> 
> 
> ************ The Glowbugs E-mail List Website is: ***************
> *********** http://www.mines.uidaho.edu/~glowbugs/ **************
> *** Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to this address: ****
> ************** majordomo at piobaire.mines.uidaho.edu **************
>