Nice to see that Graham Hedges' missive in Journal 5/13 raised a few eyebrows and elicited 9 very full replies. Nice one H
In my view the NGS were both brave and honest to print the original letter and the large number of replies.
For my part I hope the N Gauge Journal does not lose it's charming style and readability. For a lowest common denominator like me who buys RTR locos and rolling stock, and enjoys the reviews with their quirky style and additional facts that the mainstay mags don't bother with, it is both different and highly readable. Even the not so good photos sometimes and bits of layouts that I think are bettered by parts of mine are inspirational - it makes me feel I am getting somewhere and one day may improve to a level that gets me a hairs breadth above unworthy. If N Gauge were to become the sole preserve of diehards with four digit NGS membership nos it will in my view fade away.
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and to express it - but they have to expect that others may not agree with every one of those opinions.
Interesting discussion and some good articles including at least one from a member of the forum.
I was surprised the letters editor felt it appropriate to print the rather peculiar letter containing the rant about the lack of code 55 rail and rather silly dig at the 2mmSA.
I can't decide if the magazine has gotten dumber or I've got better. I'm going to pretend it can only be the latter :beers:
Alan
Quote from: EtchedPixels on December 14, 2013, 11:05:45 PM
I can't decide if the magazine has gotten dumber or I've got better. I'm going to pretend it can only be the latter
That's the age-old problem for hobby magazines of all sorts. They're most attractive to beginners, may be read by intermediate-level hobbyists, but eventually become too shallow to appeal to the advanced hobbyists. It isn't the magazine that changes, it's the readership, and all hobby magazines have to appeal to a new readership on a continuing basis. My understanding is that most hobby magazines expect people to read them for a couple years before dropping them.
At any one time the majority of model train hobbyists won't be experts or people who prefer to kit-build all their rolling stock. It would be truly insane for any magazine to focus on just 10% of their potential readership to the exclusion of the other 90%, especially if that 10% doesn't buy or read the magazine anyway, and has little/no interest in the advertisements published in it either. I've worked with a major hobby magazine in another field for about 15 years now, and one editor tried to do exactly this, turning it into something for the more discerning hobbyist interested in the most challenging aspects of the hobby. The result was not a success.
My real problem with Graham Hedges' letter wasn't that it was wrong but that it was uncharitable. At the end of the day the NGS Journal is put together by volunteers, and unless Mr Hedges' is volunteering to help 'improve' the journal in the directions he suggests, his letter seemed (to me) a bit unkind towards the people running the society and its journal.
I also don't like the assumption that people who aren't kit-building (or scratch-building) aren't modelling. That smells of elitism to me, which is a bit daft since we're all playing with toy trains and really don't have anything to be elitist about. It's not like we're doing Ironman triathlons or something similar that genuinely separates the boys from the men*! But what constitutes real railway modelling is perhaps another discussion for another day...
Cheers, NeMo
*And something I'm the first to admit I'd definitely be among the worst at!
^^^^ Well said NeMo.
In my view, the model world does tend to be dominated by older people these days. I say this based on my time as a member of the Railway Enthusiasts Club in Farnborough, where most of the members were over 40.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, but younger people today tend to prefer electronic entertainment equipment... Xbox, playstation etc.
To get younger people interested in modelling I think manufacturers have to develop models so that they can buy and run, with all the detail that involves. I too can't expect to produce models on par with those available rtr, and I'm happy to buy the models I like the look of.
As you'll know, I'm also trying to build the Royal Train using etches from Hurst, and I've got the NMT coaches and 3 other RTC coaches to do afterwards. I'm also hoping to buy some kits from the NGS, but I don't expect any of my efforts to come anywhere near the quality of the rtr stuff.
If Dapol were to make the coaches of the EWS Executive train, the Royal Train or the NMT, I Would gladly buy all of them, but I'm not holding my breath. I am enjoying my Royal efforts, and I'm learning all the time, with the help and encouragement of members of this forum.
The NGS too inspires me to have a go, having not done any model making for a number of years. My good lady had a go at me a few months ago saying I kept buying models but not doing any modelling.
To each their own, and all encouragement is valuable. Criticism is also valuable, if well intentioned, and correctly administered.
Just my thoughts. Cheers, Timmo
QuoteIf N Gauge were to become the sole preserve of diehards with four digit NGS membership nos it will in my view fade away.
Dunno if that's a dig at me; what gets up my nose about the RTR only gang are the ones who complain and whinge at length about not having a particular loco, coach or wagon and won't even consider advancing their skills by attempting a kit, or possibly doing a bit of hacking.
They will never know the satisfaction and pride that can come from being able to say "I did that".
Also consider if we all became RTR only, then Alan (Etched Pixels) and others producing kits and items for scratch builders would have to look for other sources of income.
I've nothing against the RTR gang, I have been known to buy RTR from time to time, but as I choose to model the Ex LSWR part of the Southern Railway as it was in the 1930s there are only 4 RTR locos that "qualify", and no coaches; if I include LMS stock that came into the area via the Somerset and Dorset line then I can add 3 or 4 more locos and maybe some of the Stanier coaches.
Quote from: Dorsetmike on December 15, 2013, 12:16:30 AM
QuoteIf N Gauge were to become the sole preserve of diehards with four digit NGS membership nos it will in my view fade away.
Dunno if that's a dig at me; what gets up my nose about the RTR only gang are the ones who complain and whinge at length about not having a particular loco, coach or wagon and won't even consider advancing their skills by attempting a kit, or possibly doing a bit of hacking.
They will never know the satisfaction and pride that can come from being able to say "I did that".
Also consider if we all became RTR only, then Alan (Etched Pixels) and others producing kits and items for scratch builders would have to look for other sources of income.
I've nothing against the RTR gang, I have been known to buy RTR from time to time, but as I choose to model the Ex LSWR part of the Southern Railway as it was in the 1930s there are only 4 RTR locos that "qualify", and no coaches; if I include LMS stock that came into the area via the Somerset and Dorset line then I can add 3 or 4 more locos and maybe some of the Stanier coaches.
No dig at you Mike - you seem to be a very decent guy.
But it is a dig at Mr Hedges letter that came across as sneering at newbies and the inexperienced. Us lowest common denominators need pandering to by the likes of the NGS Journal. That's the only way we will learn apart from by our own mistakes. Mr Hedges seemed to me to be craving for the mag to raise its standards to only that of the few elite. Like a cycling magazine that only writes for elite athletes.
Nemo you have hit the nail on the head by letting us know it is a charitable magazine, OK we pay a subscription but we expect something in return and what do we get a magazine, So we have a new editor and maybe he does not do things the same way as others in the past but he does it for free and we should be grateful instead of calling the guy, pius what is dumbing down that is brought up and pandering to the lowest common denominator, its all a little sensative to me.
The new Editorial team could say we are not taking this and just call it a day and where would the society be, its all very strange and to print all of the replies as well they must really be down by all this.
I for one will not stop my subscription but will watch what happens via the armchair reading the magazines, I am not an expert modeller but an every day guy that enjoys reading anything that is useful to help me with my toy trains, oh it must be awfull not getting what you want but hey the world is never perfect.
All I can say is a big thank you to the N Gauge society team for keeping me on track.
Quote from: Dorsetmike on December 15, 2013, 12:16:30 AM
QuoteIf N Gauge were to become the sole preserve of diehards with four digit NGS membership nos it will in my view fade away.
Dunno if that's a dig at me; what gets up my nose about the RTR only gang are the ones who complain and whinge at length about not having a particular loco, coach or wagon and won't even consider advancing their skills by attempting a kit, or possibly doing a bit of hacking.
Hi
That's what annoys me too. How many times do you read I don't have the skills or time to do that?
I don't believe anyone is born with the skills to make models, it is all down to practice. I have been modelling for the last thirty years and I am still learning. Ten years ago I used to shy away from etched brass kits as I could never put them together well enough, then one day I read something about using flux. Since then I am quite happy to attempt any etched kit. My next challenge is learning to use the airbrush as I have always brush painted in the past.
I don't have as much time for modelling as I used to but ten minutes here and ten minutes there get things done. I am currently building a Mermaid from a Stephen Harris kit and in the past I would have had this built in around three evenings. This one has now been under construction for the last ten days and I have nearly finished the chassis. The time spent has been enjoyable and surely that is the point of the hobby.
Cheers
Paul
Graeme is not sneering at anyone, he has started a debate that has been going on, in other circles. I know several people who have had material rejected by the journal as too high brow.
If we are not allowed to give negative feedback then nothing in live will change. I personally skim through the journal, unless I see something of interest. I have other issues with the society and journal but will not raise them here and will continue biting my tongue.
Quote from: ParkeNd on December 15, 2013, 12:27:40 AM
But it is a dig at Mr Hedges letter that came across as sneering at newbies and the inexperienced. Us lowest common denominators need pandering to by the likes of the NGS Journal. That's the only way we will learn apart from by our own mistakes. Mr Hedges seemed to me to be craving for the mag to raise its standards to only that of the few elite. Like a cycling magazine that only writes for elite athletes.
I think you need to re-read the original letter - you have obviously completely missed the point.
It's not about changing the content to be only 'advanced' or 'elite' but to more inclusive and cater for all enthusiasts - currently it only panders to the 'starter' (and the membership isn't solely composed of them). Plus it's about raising the quality and production values for the entire magazine which all articles (both newbie and experienced style) will benefit from.
H.
Quote from: NtasticShop on December 15, 2013, 09:14:52 AM
Graeme is not sneering at anyone, he has started a debate that has been going on, in other circles. I know several people who have had material rejected by the journal as too high brow.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor rejecting unsolicited submissions on the basis that they wouldn't appeal to his/her magazine's readership. Has happened to me, professionally, many times. While it's never nice, there are two ways to respond. One is to just forget about it and write something else. The other is to rewrite the piece, but in a way that makes it more accessible.
The thing you must never do is take it personally.Like it or not, the job of an editor is, in part, to understand his/her readership. Arguing with an editor is generally pointless. I've spent about ten years of my life writing for commercial hobby magazines as my main source of income, and continue to do so on an ad hoc basis. In that time I've probably had well over 500 articles published. And not once,
ever, have I convinced an editor to take a piece he/she didn't think was right for his magazine.
What one person sees as "high brow" another sees as inaccessible. Teaching is about making new material accessible by building on what the learner already knows (or so I was told at teacher training college). I'd love to read a piece that showed me how to get started with a N gauge brass kit of something simple, like a wagon. I'd like to see the writer show me how the skills
I already have from making plastic kits can be used. Ideally, such an article wouldn't assume I had soldering skills or even a quality soldering iron, but perhaps chose a kit that could be done with glue instead. Perhaps the next article in the series could tackle soldering! But in any case, a simple, step-by-step article would be, I'm sure, accessible to the NGS readership and welcomed by the editor.
Quote from: NtasticShop on December 15, 2013, 09:14:52 AM
If we are not allowed to give negative feedback then nothing in live will change. I personally skim through the journal, unless I see something of interest. I have other issues with the society and journal but will not raise them here and will continue biting my tongue.
I think it's pretty clear that the NGS Journal has been very open to criticism, firstly by publishing Mr Hedge's letter and then by printing a whole slew of follow-up letters. In absolutely no sense can I see them "not allowing" anyone to voice their opinions. Full credit to them for being so open and, frankly, big hearted.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: H on December 15, 2013, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: ParkeNd on December 15, 2013, 12:27:40 AM
But it is a dig at Mr Hedges letter that came across as sneering at newbies and the inexperienced. Us lowest common denominators need pandering to by the likes of the NGS Journal. That's the only way we will learn apart from by our own mistakes. Mr Hedges seemed to me to be craving for the mag to raise its standards to only that of the few elite. Like a cycling magazine that only writes for elite athletes.
I think you need to re-read the original letter - you have obviously completely missed the point.
It's not about changing the content to be only 'advanced' or 'elite' but to more inclusive and cater for all enthusiasts - currently it only panders to the 'starter' (and the membership isn't solely composed of them). Plus it's about raising the quality and production values for the entire magazine which all articles (both newbie and experienced style) will benefit from.
H.
I accept that you can voice your opinions and to that end I have just this minute re-read Mr Hedges letter as you have proposed.
The tone of the letter is uncharitable and it's slant is contrary to the line the NGS needs to appeal to its wider membership.
There are already well produced and comprehensive magazines like Model Railway Journal which for £4.20 per copy meet what seem to be Mr Hedges beef with the mag and is aimed squarely at the model railway engineer with donkey's years of specialist experience. The NGS would in my view fail to meet its objectives to the majority of its membership if it moved in this direction.
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 09:32:16 AM
Like it or not, the job of an editor is, in part, to understand his/her readership. Arguing with an editor is generally pointless. I've spent about ten years of my life writing for commercial hobby magazines as my main source of income, and continue to do so on an ad hoc basis. In that time I've probably had well over 500 articles published. And not once, ever, have I convinced an editor to take a piece he/she didn't think was right for his magazine.
There is quite a difference between the 'commercial publications' and editorship of them and the NGS Journal. With a commercial magazine the editor falls or survives on his ability to select appropriate content that won't adversely affect sales. The journal is different - there is no commercial pressure for sales (the circulation is fixed by the membership), they do not pay for submissions (unlike Railway Modeller, etc., so there is no competitive financial pressure) and in general all the content is provided by the members (so as they are also the readership no doubt they have some interest in it).
Additional, especially as it is an in-house society thing, I would expect the editor to explain the reasons for rejection with more than just a 'too high-brow' comment. Of course, that may or may not have been done but I've not heard that explanation.
H.
Quote from: ParkeNd on December 15, 2013, 09:53:12 AM
There are already well produced and comprehensive magazines like Model Railway Journal which for £4.20 per copy meet what seem to be Mr Hedges beef with the mag and is aimed squarely at the model railway engineer with donkey's years of specialist experience.
You've obviously still failed to understand if you think that I consider MRJ to be what I expect from the NGS Journal.
H.
Quote from: H on December 15, 2013, 09:53:42 AM
There is quite a difference between the 'commercial publications' and editorship of them and the NGS Journal. With a commercial magazine the editor falls or survives on his ability to select appropriate content that won't adversely affect sales. The journal is different - there is no commercial pressure for sales (the circulation is fixed by the membership), they do not pay for submissions (unlike Railway Modeller, etc., so there is no competitive financial pressure) and in general all the content is provided by the members (so as they are also the readership no doubt they have some interest in it).
Thanks for your explanation here. I do understand what you're driving at.
However, I disagree. The Journal is part of how the NGS sells itself. If someone like me, new to N gauge, visits the NGS stall at a model show, one of the things I'll flip through is the journal*. If few or none of the articles appeal, I'm less likely to join the NGS than if most or all of the articles appeal. In other words, the Journal is a sort of "shop window" where the NGS sets out its wares in the hope of attracting customers.
I don't know the articles rejected so can't comment on why. But if they lacked a "hook" to get the interest of less skilful hobbyists, I can see why the editor would reject them. As I suggested above, I'd love to see articles that would "hold my hand" through the next steps in modelling from plastic kits and scenery making. So if that's what you want to see more of, you have my vote! But if you want articles that *assume* years of soldering and kit building experience, I would humbly suggest that such articles would be of such limited appeal the Journal would understandably be reticent about publishing too many (though surely one or two per issue wouldn't be a bad idea at all, suggesting to newbies what they're aiming for a few years down the line).
Cheers, NeMo
* Yes, I know about the shop and the RTR stuff.
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 10:05:01 AM
However, I disagree. The Journal is part of how the NGS sells itself. If someone like me, new to N gauge, visits the NGS stall at a model show, one of the things I'll flip through is the journal*. If few or none of the articles appeal, I'm less likely to join the NGS than if most or all of the articles appeal. In other words, the Journal is a sort of "shop window" where the NGS sets out its wares in the hope of attracting customers.
The above don't dismiss or contradict the three main points I raised - they are factual, still stand and are a major difference between the Journal and 'commercial' magazines.
The journal may be a window to non-members but it is debateable whether that is a consideration for the editor and even if so it is certainly a very small window. The NGS stand, with journals to peruse, attends a very small percentage of the hundreds of model railway exhibitions around the country. So the opportunity to look at it in such a casual way by non-members is very restricted. Sure you can also 'order' one by post but that means you pay for it and will have needed to have seen the advert. I doubt very much that there is any significant intention in the production of the journal for the editor to make every issue a specific NGS advert - besides wouldn't it be better to have a wide range or articles to showcase the breadth of content and be attractive to more potential members rather than ruling many out.
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 10:05:01 AM
But if you want articles that *assume* years of soldering and kit building experience, I would humbly suggest that such articles would be of such limited appeal the Journal would understandably be reticent about publishing too many (though surely one or two per issue wouldn't be a bad idea at all, suggesting to newbies what they're aiming for a few years down the line).
I've certainly not said anything of the sort (that I want a journal full of such articles). But what I would like to see are articles that lead beginners through and ease them in to being able to undertake skills (such a soldering and kit building) necessary to undertake some constructional modelling.
However there are members who do have years of such experience and having a few articles aimed at them would help make the journal more inclusive and hopefully be inspirational for others. The membership is not 100% beginners and newbies who are only interested in RTR. A broadening of appeal would be a good move IMO.
H.
Quote from: H on December 15, 2013, 10:31:04 AM
But what I would like to see are articles that lead beginners through and ease them in to being able to undertake skills (such a soldering and kit building) necessary to undertake some constructional modelling.
And here you and I are in agreement. Now: we need to find people to write such pieces who are able to explain the 'baby steps' needed for such articles to be successful.
Cheers, NeMo
Whilst I do feel the Journal lacks enough interesting articles (particularly on layouts and new products) at present to make it a good read, as I do not submit anything to the editor all I can say is thanks to all those who give up their time to submit articles and get the journal published.
As for the window into the Society the website is likely to be main touch point for most people so we should get behind the volunteers and submit articles and ideas for the web also. Maybe a members only area also might help.
My main motivation for rejoining the society was in fact the RTR items they produce. I hope these continue to cover the 1980s.
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 10:46:13 AM
Now: we need to find people to write such pieces who are able to explain
Not just the writing but to also take and include some decent explanatory photographs. The problem is who is prepared to take the risk producing such articles knowing that with the current content policy it is likely to be rejected for being either 'too high-brow' or for not being yet another RTR monologue. :D
H.
I have always enjoyed the journals, and I can fully see what both camps are saying.
Personally I enjoy seeing models and layouts from those who are deemed experts but also from those who have had their first go at repainting or bashing a new locomotive together! :) I have a box full of some awful models that I've made....but for about 5 years or more I thought they were brilliant. Now I can look at some of them and laugh. ;) However, they gave me a lot of fun and I was proud of what I achieved at the time. So for me I'd love to see more pictures of layouts and models where members have had a good go at creating something that pleases them and where a model doesn't have to be superdetailed or have perfect lines on them to be published in a magazine. This in my opinion WOULD encourage others to give repainting or the more advanced stages of modelling a go.
I would also like to see more pictures of unique models in the magazines (and on here of course!), but not necessarily with them being in the NGS competitions. Every now and again you see a photograph unique models from model railway shows, or unique items appearing on eBay for sale, but it's a shame that the creator hasn't necessarily put a picture or workbench thread on the internet for us all to drool over! :D
I wrote to the editor last year with much the same view Grahame expressed, and was frankly shocked by the reply.
My main beef with the NGS is that the magazine is too passive. There is an attitude that 'it's not our fault the content isn't great as no one sends stuff in'. Can you imagine a newspaper editor saying the same? No, they seek out stories.
Where is the full page notice asking for articles, reviews, layout photos? Who on the staff is browsing through this forum and RMWeb and emailing members asking if they'd like to write up something for the journal?
Given the editorial vacancy this is a very timely debate, and the opportunity is there to create a really good journal - not highbrow, but inclusive for all skill levels.
I also agree with the sentiment expressed above that people are put off submitting articles as it's almost embarrassing to see your work included alongside what does get published. I don't mean this as an insult to other modellers, but when blurred out of focus photos are considered acceptable for printing, it's just not something I want to be associated with.
This forum alone has enough interesting content - at all levels of experience and skill - to fill the journal several years over. I give this and RMWeb a daily read. The NGS Journal? A ten minute flip through, a sigh, then straight in the recycling bin sadly.
David
H I can see your point but surely the N Gauge Society is doing you a big favour or any other mag a favour as not to specialize for everyone, surely the point at the end of the day is if you need to learn something new or is out of your remit then you go to a forum and ask for advice or find another mag that is specialising in that subject.
And maybe N Gauge Society has no plans to change there ways, at least we know what we are buying into.
Quote from: H on December 15, 2013, 10:56:28 AM
Not just the writing but to also take and include some decent explanatory photographs. The problem is who is prepared to take the risk producing such articles knowing that with the current content policy it is likely to be rejected for being either 'too high-brow' or for not being yet another RTR monologue.
In the world of commercial magazines, you'd ask the editor beforehand whether the article sounded appropriate. In other words, you'd pitch the idea. The editor might then submit an article specification -- basically what he/she expected in the finished article. Sometimes this is restrictive, sometimes much looser. That's when you go ahead and spend masses of time and energy (and possibly expense if photographers and travel expenses are necessary). So not a big deal.
The same approach would be appropriate here, surely. Tell the editor what you'd like to write about, see if he/she bites, and then dive in!
And in the spirit of amity and progress, I'd be happy to help* anyone write an article for the NGS, perhaps if they want someone with experience to proofread their article or suggest ways to tackle certain problems.One surprise for me when I submitted to the NGS was that I heard almost nothing from the (then?) editor until he told me he needed a couple more pictures. The time between submission and that e-mail was at least six months, by which time I'd totally rewritten the thing. So what got published felt more like a first draft to me, and I was honestly a bit disappointed I wasn't sent proofs or the edited versions for comments and corrections. But that won't stop me submitting something else when the muse calls!
Cheers, NeMo
*Without being a coauthor I mean, but just as one NGF member helping another.
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 11:30:53 AM
One surprise for me when I submitted to the NGS was that I heard almost nothing from the (then?) editor......
As an addition to this, I know of a few members who had articles published without even knowing until it dropped through their front door!
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 11:30:53 AM
The same approach would be appropriate here, surely. Tell the editor what you'd like to write about, see if he/she bites, and then dive in!
Yep, in an ideal and commercial world, but we're talking about a society magazine which is of and for members. And judging from BMthtrains post it seems that they are desperate for articles to be sent in - hardly a position in which to be picky and reject some.
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 11:30:53 AM
One surprise for me when I submitted to the NGS was that I heard almost nothing from the (then?) editor until he told me he needed a couple more pictures. The time between submission and that e-mail was at least six months, by which time I'd totally rewritten the thing. So what got published felt more like a first draft to me, and I was honestly a bit disappointed I wasn't sent proofs or the edited versions for comments and corrections.
Hmmm, well, yes, err . . . . it certainly seems like something is not going right at NGS Journal towers. I edit the DEMU UPDate magazine and send people who submit articles a PDF of it after editing and how it will look to check that no errors have crept in.
H.
Hi
I'm afraid if the Journal goes down the elitist route,the N gauge society will loose my membership,I have to use RTR items.
I really used to like making kits and kit bashing,but now I can't I had stroke about 3 years ago and now only have limited use of my right hand now.
Even my newest layout,I had to get from Boxfile models because I couldn't lay the track,so the journal as it is now is ideal for me.
Mike
Quote from: NeMo on December 15, 2013, 11:30:53 AM
In the world of commercial magazines, you'd ask the editor beforehand whether the article sounded appropriate. In other words, you'd pitch the idea. The editor might then submit an article specification -- basically what he/she expected in the finished article. Sometimes this is restrictive, sometimes much looser. That's when you go ahead and spend masses of time and energy (and possibly expense if photographers and travel expenses are necessary). So not a big deal.
The same approach would be appropriate here, surely. Tell the editor what you'd like to write about, see if he/she bites, and then dive in!
Cheers, NeMo
*Without being a coauthor I mean, but just as one NGF member helping another.
I think that is exactly the right approach. I have had about 20 model related articles published, mainly in French rather than English. Each time I ran the idea past the Editor first, and for each of them the "final" draft was run past my wife. This is quite simply to test whether what I have written can be easily understood. She also does not pull her punches - so I get an honest appraisal. An advantage is that people are less likely to miss the point of what I have written because I explained it badly.
I enjoy the NGS Journal and Model Railway Journal. Yes there is room for the NGS Journal to cover more complicated modelling but I would want even those articles to be written so that they are accessible to all the membership. It would require a different level of time input and technical expertise from the editorial team, a blend which might well be difficult I find in a "volunteer" environment. That is probably what Grahame was driving at in the original letter in Journal 5/13.
Quote from: NeMo on December 14, 2013, 11:27:37 PM
At the end of the day the NGS Journal is put together by volunteers, and unless Mr Hedge's is volunteering to help 'improve' the journal in the directions he suggests, his letter seemed (to me) a bit unkind towards the people running the society and its journal.
As someone with a 4 digit NGS membership number, it starts with a 7, I think it fair to state that Mr Hedges has probably "done his time" as a volunteer. In the years that I've been a member he's written letters and had articles published about his layouts. He also headed the Modern Area Group and very nearly got far enough along with that for it to start to build a layout.
Since "stepping back" from the NGS he's headed a national modelling railway organisation, which was mainly focussed on OO, and has produced his excellent series of N'Spirations magazines.
Mr Hedges just wants the NGS to raise their game a bit, especially with the Journal, and in that matter I'm with him. All I've saved from the Journal in 21 years of membership are 137 articles, the rest were consigned to the recycling bin. When the Journal arrives I go through it, editorial (no), reviews (don't say boo to a goose and already covered elsewhere), steam layout (no), shop matters (yes), anything modern image (yes). All in all it's about a 20 read/scan every other month. So why be a member well I'm in it for access to the shop, which is excellent (don't change it please), and the exclusive kits and RTR items. The subscription isn't that much per year so I feel I break even, I've even written the odd letter down the years.
As to improvements in the Journal perhaps the Annual Model Making Competition should change its rules so that an entry
must be submitted with a "how it was done" document. This would instantly provide an increase in available content for the Journal and therefore address one of Mr Hedges concerns. I personally like to know how a model was built/converted/whatever and most of the time I don't get that information. So how about it NGS committee members if you're monitoring this Forum?
For the record I intend to stick with the NGS for the time being but given the ever increasng move to electronic media I think it may need to revise its method of diseminating information to its members.
Nigel
I've been lucky enough to have had several articles published in the NGS Journal, although the last couple were changed around and even had mistakes added. Apparently they went through several proofreaders.
My main area of interest is US outline, although I do have a small British layout. Although the Journal doesn't cover a lot of US stuff I still get ideas from other peoples layouts. Continental coverage is ok and there is the occasional Japanese layout.
I can see where H is coming from but at the end of the day it is our Journal and if you want to see decent articles then we have to submit them.
This forum has a lot of talent and number of members are in the NGS. So when you do a write up for the forum, or a conversion, or a how to do, why not expand it and submit it to the NGS.
I've not done much for the past year or so but I do have a few ideas for an article or two.
Alex :wave:
wow looks like i have some awesome bitching to read when the 6/13 arrives cant wait!
anyway im off to play trains and enjoy myself.
by the way i read this article today in 5/13 while on the train to work how funny!
bart
I like the Journals - sometimes there are articles which are of no real interest to me but I accept that they appeal to others. It's a bit like this forum, many of the threads don't interest me so I don't read or don't contribute to those.
When I first returned to railway modelling I joined the NGS but left after a year or so as I found the journals too uninteresting as much of the content was beyond my simple comprehension.
However, I rejoined about a year ago and now find the journals interesting and informative.
It's horses for courses.
H's approach to the hobby has always seemed to me to be one of encouraging people to have a go and showing how easy it can be to make small changes to proprietary items to take their realism to another level. I have never viewed his approach in any way to be elitist, although his standards and final product are self evidently very good.
The debate here in my opinion needs to centre around where the NGS Journal should pitch itself. The volunteers that currently run it have my admiration for giving their time to it regardless of the final product. After work and family commitments I have precious little modelling time, let alone time to produce a publication! They have also been disarmingly open in publishing the letters and encouraging the debate H started.
If the journal is not meeting what we want to see in it, then it's down to us to contribute. I think a spread of articles is appropriate, because this thread shows a thirst for a mix and clearly the NGS is a broad church of interests and skills, which is how it should be.
The question I now have to answer myself is this: Does the article I was about to send in pass muster? It's too late to go back and take all those 'work in progress' pictures now!
The one thing I do know is that I joined the NGS because of the access to the shop, kits and RTR products. The journal is a welcome read and whilst I do not find all of it relevant to my interests I would never expect it to. There is enough to interest me even if not directly related to my area of interest.
The latest one has a good article regarding semaphore signals. Does the RTR product from Dapol make this irrelevant? No, not in my opinion, as I need to figure out how to make a bracket semaphore (or two) for my next project. They're not yet available from Dapol, so the information in the article was useful despite it being steam era and I prefer modern diesels.
I fully expect someone to criticise the journal in the Mailvan next February for devoting too much space to the letters! The editor will never please everybody, but H's comments on style and design are apposite and would benefit all articles whoever they are aimed at. What those articles are however is down to us to get writing.
When you think what the 'Team' at NGS actually do it's a pretty brilliant job. I happily renewed a month ago and intend to remain a member as long as I remain able to 'work' in 2mm.
As to the current spat/exchange of views etc - chacun a son gout or as they say oop north paddle yer own canoe laddie Compared to some model clubs, NGS is fantastic and I'm proud to be a member
:thankyousign:
This is certainly achieving what H set out, I think, to achieve what is healthy debate! The one thing this discussion shows is that you can’t please all the people all the time.
I for one, being still a novice within this hobby, have begun to lose interest in the NGS Journal which is one of the reasons I joined about two years ago. I’m also beginning to regret, sadly, renewing at the beginning of this year, for a three year subscription. Mainly because whenever I come across something of interest I then have to go to other sources for further information, generally here on NGF or even RMWeb!
It’s good to see what others are doing but for me it’s also important as to how it was done and mistakes made so that I can learn, so as to improve or adapt what I’m trying to achieve. I’ve often referred to my Handbook for something or other but I can’t remember when I’ve referred to any copy of the Journals for something. Considering I have several commercial magazines that I’ve kept for future reference, I find this quite sad for a dedicated N gauge Journal.
It seems from some of the comments that one of the problems is getting past the editor’s spike! If any of the NGS Editorial staff are following this thread, perhaps an article or two within the Journal encouraging and explaining how they would prefer any given article to be presented for publication, along with how to produce better quality pictures.
I also accept that not all members of the Society will want internet or computers and here is where perhaps the new incoming editor maybe a little proactive in encouraging members from various forums to offer their articles for publication. With a quick encouraging message via a forum’s PM system who knows what can be achieved? Maybe the shy ones may come forward with an article.
The experienced members are needed so as to pass on knowledge, but I feel if they are not catered for within the NGS they may take their knowledge elsewhere.
It takes a brave person to poke a “hornet’s nest”, but there are times when someone may have to do it!
In some respects although the Journal may not have the space to include articles going into too much detail,might I suggest that it does try to at least "whet the appetite" of those less skiiled/experienced and tempt them to look for further detail. If they see something that interests them then they may well follow it up. I note that some articles are followed by references to both print and internet, that can only be a help.
I can't help feeling that some people are missing the point and creating an entirely false straw man argument - there is nothing elitist or uncharitable in anything that Grahame has said, in fact the exact opposite - he's trying to encourage people to explain how to do things and to show a bit more ambition in their modelling (and ultimately the content of the Journal).
Cheers, Mike
I've bought H's recent publications, and I'm really looking forward to reading them. I also get the Journal when published, and I enjoy reading that too.
I also buy modelling magazines, and obviously I subscribe to this here great and diverse forum. For me, it's all varied, has good and not so good articles, and all tries to cater for a wide readership.
People have asked why I'm interested in railways, and it comes from my Grandad, who was a driver with a 50+ year career. My Dad bought my first model trains, OO stuff from a mate of his, and then my Grandad bought me more, including N gauge. From small acorns mighty Oak trees grow.
Put 20 trainspotters (FerroEquinologists) on the end of a platform, ask them all the same question, "What interests you about trains?" And they'll all have a different answer.
We all want different things from our diverse hobby. RTR, kit built. scratch built. Encourage, and criticise, develop and nurture, and maybe the future will be bright. Who knows.
Cheers. Timmo
Quote from: red_death on December 15, 2013, 05:36:48 PM
I can't help feeling that some people are missing the point and creating an entirely false straw man argument - there is nothing elitist or uncharitable in anything that Grahame has said, in fact the exact opposite - he's trying to encourage people to explain how to do things and to show a bit more ambition in their modelling (and ultimately the content of the Journal).
Cheers, Mike
I agree, Mike, and would support anybody or anything that encourages us to improve our skills in this absorbing hobby. I see Grahame as a person striving to encourage all of us to raise our individual standards and fail to understand how that can be considered 'elitist'. I do believe we need to feel there is something to strive for but am sorry to say there is little in the NGS journal that does that for me at the moment.
Gerry
since we are on the suggestion soapbox, would not it be a great option if it could be received as a soft copy to help save on postage costs for overseas members and the NGS; other mags do it now as an option
maybe others might also consider this option worth while
bart
Quote from: Cooper on December 15, 2013, 02:48:44 PM
I fully expect someone to criticise the journal in the Mailvan next February for devoting too much space to the letters!
Cheers for the idea - consider it done
* :P !!!
Mike
* - no, not seriously :P
Quote from: 1936ace on December 15, 2013, 06:20:35 PM
since we are on the suggestion soapbox, would not it be a great option if it could be received as a soft copy to help save on postage costs for overseas members and the NGS; other mags do it now as an option
maybe others might also consider this option worth while
bart
Would be handy for UK members too - it takes up a lot less wall in digital format.
Quote from: NeMo on December 14, 2013, 11:27:37 PM
Quote from: EtchedPixels on December 14, 2013, 11:05:45 PM
I can't decide if the magazine has gotten dumber or I've got better. I'm going to pretend it can only be the latter
That's the age-old problem for hobby magazines of all sorts. They're most attractive to beginners, may be read by intermediate-level hobbyists, but eventually become too shallow to appeal to the advanced hobbyists. It isn't the magazine that changes, it's the readership, and all hobby magazines have to appeal to a new readership on a continuing basis. My understanding is that most hobby magazines expect people to read them for a couple years before dropping them.
At any one time the majority of model train hobbyists won't be experts or people who prefer to kit-build all their rolling stock. It would be truly insane for any magazine to focus on just 10% of their potential readership to the exclusion of the other 90%, especially if that 10% doesn't buy or read the magazine anyway, and has little/no interest in the advertisements published in it either. I've worked with a major hobby magazine in another field for about 15 years now, and one editor tried to do exactly this, turning it into something for the more discerning hobbyist interested in the most challenging aspects of the hobby. The result was not a success.
My real problem with Graham Hedges' letter wasn't that it was wrong but that it was uncharitable. At the end of the day the NGS Journal is put together by volunteers, and unless Mr Hedges' is volunteering to help 'improve' the journal in the directions he suggests, his letter seemed (to me) a bit unkind towards the people running the society and its journal.
I also don't like the assumption that people who aren't kit-building (or scratch-building) aren't modelling. That smells of elitism to me, which is a bit daft since we're all playing with toy trains and really don't have anything to be elitist about. It's not like we're doing Ironman triathlons or something similar that genuinely separates the boys from the men*! But what constitutes real railway modelling is perhaps another discussion for another day...
Cheers, NeMo
*And something I'm the first to admit I'd definitely be among the worst at!
I totally agree, we may not all achieve the pinnacle but we're having fun and it is our hobby to do with as we please
Cheers, Graham :thumbsup:
I've bought a number of Grahame's publications, and from my point of view, he walks a fine line. When he's good, he's truly inspirational; sometimes, especially when he slips into language like bemoaning "train set" items, he can come across belittling and alienating.
I can see why the NGSJ team (or the editor as an individual?) might have made the decision to strongly avoid falling into the latter trap, even if it means they do less of the former. If someone is willing and able to write articles on "difficult" topics which include some pointers on how to get *there* from *here*, and steer clear of phrases like "real modellers" and "toys", I'd be delighted to see them in the journal.
I think the NGS Journal could have become a victim of its own success. A few years ago it was much smaller in size and much more managable to edit and produce. Now we've got a 100 page Journal to fill. It is any wonder that we end up with pages of layout photos with little or no supporting text (like Journal 5/13). Increased content takes increased time to fill and it appears that with Richard Bardsley stepping down as editor that that time has become too much to find in amongst other real world demands (like family and work!).
I'd love to know who'd have time to search every forum and club to find the articles we'd all like to see. I spent 1/2 an hour a day on NGF and still only scratch the surface of what there is here. Increase that time and multiply it by the likes of RMWeb and the Yahoo groups and you end up with a full time job. Editors for the likes of Railway Modeller and Model Rail are paid to go out, find and commission articles needed to fill their pages. The NGS doesn't have this luxury. Perhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.
Happy modelling.
Steven B.
Quote from: Buzzard on December 15, 2013, 12:17:46 PM
As to improvements in the Journal perhaps the Annual Model Making Competition should change its rules so that an entry must be submitted with a "how it was done" document. This would instantly provide an increase in available content for the Journal and therefore address one of Mr Hedges concerns. I personally like to know how a model was built/converted/whatever and most of the time I don't get that information. So how about it NGS committee members if you're monitoring this Forum?
As seen in the letters in Journal 6/13 the coverage of the AMMC is already filling up too many pages for the likeing of some members!
Members entering models for the competition already provide up to 75 words (used to be 50) describing how they built their model for the benefit of the judges. These words are used to write the "article" that goes with the AMMC photos. Each member is also asked after the competition to consider writing about their model(s) for the Journal and many already do.
The number and range of entries would create some problems. Many models are repaints of RTR models - do you really want to read "I repainted a BachPol model using Railmatch paints and transfers from Fox" several times in each Journal? How often do you need to know that "the buffer beam was detailed with lengths of wire fitted to holes drilled in the buffer beam"? With over 100 models being entered in each of the last two years the time taken to compile and edit the articles would be huge.
By way of comparison it take me about 30-40 hours spread over three or four days to process the AMMC results, generate the certificates, edit the Journal articles and update the Society website.
I really wouldn't want to see entry to the AMMC to be restricted only to those who also provide a detailed article on how they built their model. If they choose to do so then great! There are some truely inspriational models and some innovative techniques on show at the AMMC but members can't be forced to write an article if they don't want to.
There are no right or wrong answers unfortunatly. However, ideas and suggestions are always welcome. If there are any for the AMMC please start a new thread or drop me a PM/email.
Happy Modelling.
Steven B
(N Gauge Society Annual Model Making Competition Co-ordinator)
Quote from: Steven B on December 16, 2013, 12:53:06 PM
Each member is also asked after the competition to consider writing about their model(s) for the Journal and many already do.
Wasn't aware that this already took place so thanks for making this knowledge known to all NGS members here.
Nigel
Quote from: Steven B on December 16, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
IPerhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.
That idea has merit. IIRC the Railway Modeller had, if it doesn't now, a Junior section for youngsters starting in the hobby. If members felt less daunted at having to live up to the high standards that others can achieve then perhaps we'll all be better for it i.e. not excluded by a lack of expertise.
Nigel
Just received my copy of 6/13. As usual a varied and cracking read. Thanks to all involved.
Can I share a thought for the day:
Railway Modelling is a hobby, a diversion and a way to create something that, certainly in my case, maybe reminds me of my earlier life many decades before cynicism set in. Seems to me that some members of the hobby take it all too seriously - or maybe feel they need to justify playing with trains using a veneer of engineering and modelling professionalism and accuracy. Striving for recognizably higher standards obviously works for these people and we all benefit from their skill and expertise. For others (me included) doing your best and enjoying what you do is much more important. We are all different and we all have different priorities with our modelling. No-one has the right to prescribe what others should do.
As long as my modelling gives me what I want from it - I'm happy and the hobby is working for me.
Live and let live brothers and sisters.
Merry xmas and a happy 2014 of modelling whatever and however you do it.
Ken
:beers:
Quote from: KTM on December 16, 2013, 11:47:31 PM
Just received my copy of 6/13. As usual a varied and cracking read. Thanks to all involved.
Can I share a thought for the day:
Railway Modelling is a hobby, a diversion and a way to create something that, certainly in my case, maybe reminds me of my earlier life many decades before cynicism set in. Seems to me that some members of the hobby take it all too seriously - or maybe feel they need to justify playing with trains using a veneer of engineering and modelling professionalism and accuracy. Striving for recognizably higher standards obviously works for these people and we all benefit from their skill and expertise. For others (me included) doing your best and enjoying what you do is much more important. We are all different and we all have different priorities with our modelling. No-one has the right to prescribe what others should do.
As long as my modelling gives me what I want from it - I'm happy and the hobby is working for me.
Live and let live brothers and sisters.
Merry xmas and a happy 2014 of modelling whatever and however you do it.
Ken
:beers:
WoW!
Very well said Ken. I think you have summed it up for me and a great many others. Excellent words.
Merry Christmas to you too :thumbsup:
Quote from: Steven B on December 16, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
I think the NGS Journal could have become a victim of its own success. A few years ago it was much smaller in size and much more managable to edit and produce. Now we've got a 100 page Journal to fill. It is any wonder that we end up with pages of layout photos with little or no supporting text (like Journal 5/13). Increased content takes increased time to fill and it appears that with Richard Bardsley stepping down as editor that that time has become too much to find in amongst other real world demands (like family and work!).
I'd love to know who'd have time to search every forum and club to find the articles we'd all like to see. I spent 1/2 an hour a day on NGF and still only scratch the surface of what there is here. Increase that time and multiply it by the likes of RMWeb and the Yahoo groups and you end up with a full time job. Editors for the likes of Railway Modeller and Model Rail are paid to go out, find and commission articles needed to fill their pages. The NGS doesn't have this luxury. Perhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.
Happy modelling.
Steven B.
Right on Steven B. :claphappy:
Seems that some lose sight that it is run by
volunteers who do the best they can with their available spare time. Some would have them do a job that is typically dedicated and paid. To reiterate: if you don't like the current situation then take up the reins and show us how it can and should be done.
Could someone explain what are advanced or expert articles that some seem to expect.
Quote from: NinOz on December 17, 2013, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: Steven B on December 16, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
I think the NGS Journal could have become a victim of its own success. A few years ago it was much smaller in size and much more managable to edit and produce. Now we've got a 100 page Journal to fill. It is any wonder that we end up with pages of layout photos with little or no supporting text (like Journal 5/13). Increased content takes increased time to fill and it appears that with Richard Bardsley stepping down as editor that that time has become too much to find in amongst other real world demands (like family and work!).
I'd love to know who'd have time to search every forum and club to find the articles we'd all like to see. I spent 1/2 an hour a day on NGF and still only scratch the surface of what there is here. Increase that time and multiply it by the likes of RMWeb and the Yahoo groups and you end up with a full time job. Editors for the likes of Railway Modeller and Model Rail are paid to go out, find and commission articles needed to fill their pages. The NGS doesn't have this luxury. Perhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.
Happy modelling.
Steven B.
Right on Steven B. :claphappy:
Seems that some lose sight that it is run by volunteers who do the best they can with their available spare time. Some would have them do a job that is typically dedicated and paid. To reiterate: if you don't like the current situation then take up the reins and show us how it can and should be done.
Could someone explain what are advanced or expert articles that some seem to expect.
The last para is a very good question. Apparently it is not the kind of article that appears in MRJ because H has already said that is not what he means so what do you mean H ?
I'm with ken, perfectly said.
I'm sorry I'm not as good as the pros and rivot counters of the hobby or the skill to weather or maybe game enough to destroy something I just paid good money for trying to be like others
BUT I'm in the hobby and I help others where I can(electrically)
Bart
Pristine and proud!
Quote from: 1936ace on December 17, 2013, 09:36:12 AM
I'm with ken, perfectly said.
I'm sorry I'm not as good as the pros and rivot counters of the hobby or the skill to weather or maybe game enough to destroy something I just paid good money for trying to be like others
BUT I'm in the hobby and I help others where I can(electrically)
Sorry, but this sort of comment is part of the problem - trying to create divisions which don't exist. There is no place in our hobby for using a phrase like rivet counter or pro as an implied insult. We are all modellers - end of story. I completely agree with Ken (and have said it myself on many of these types of thread) when he said: "We are all different and we all have different priorities with our modelling. No-one has the right to prescribe what others should do", but to my mind he rather spoilt it by prefacing it with some rather sneering remarks.
Why do people seek to do this? Why create a them and us situation that is so unnecessary?
I couldn't care less if someone is happy with Thomas pulling a rake of HAA coal hoppers - if they are happy then that is great, what we shouldn't do is pretend that it is an accurate piece of railway modelling.
The second fallacy is that we all have the same skills and that those skills are innate! I make no bones about hating soldering and painting, but it doesn't help that I don't practice either enough!
I enjoy building stock and 3D design (and yes, I like to get details correct where possible). We all have different interests so rather than accuse people of elitism/rivet counting just accept that they have different interests to you. Perhaps you might find a piece of information that they have interesting or you might pick up a new technique.
Cheers, Mike
Not being a subscriber to this esteemed publication I haven't lost the thread as I never had it in the first place. :D
Seems to have turned into a slanging match, maybe more like handbags at 50 paces! Being an accountant I have been called a bean counter, but I laugh it off (and secretly enjoy it) , if I was called a rivet counter (I'm not) I couldn't give a monkeys.
By the way when the accountant is asked to perform an evaluation of some aspect of a business or organisation
and recommends closure to save money and/or cut losses he changes from being a bean counter to a cross between Dr Beeching and Adolf Hitler.
Anyway 'tis the season to be jolly so cheer up 'cos there ain't no rehearsal for life, you gotta enjoy it first time round.
Quote from: Steven B on December 16, 2013, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: Buzzard on December 15, 2013, 12:17:46 PM
As to improvements in the Journal perhaps the Annual Model Making Competition should change its rules so that an entry must be submitted with a "how it was done" document. This would instantly provide an increase in available content for the Journal and therefore address one of Mr Hedges concerns. I personally like to know how a model was built/converted/whatever and most of the time I don't get that information. So how about it NGS committee members if you're monitoring this Forum?
As seen in the letters in Journal 6/13 the coverage of the AMMC is already filling up too many pages for the likeing of some members!
Members entering models for the competition already provide up to 75 words (used to be 50) describing how they built their model for the benefit of the judges. These words are used to write the "article" that goes with the AMMC photos. Each member is also asked after the competition to consider writing about their model(s) for the Journal and many already do.
The number and range of entries would create some problems. Many models are repaints of RTR models - do you really want to read "I repainted a BachPol model using Railmatch paints and transfers from Fox" several times in each Journal? How often do you need to know that "the buffer beam was detailed with lengths of wire fitted to holes drilled in the buffer beam"? With over 100 models being entered in each of the last two years the time taken to compile and edit the articles would be huge.
By way of comparison it take me about 30-40 hours spread over three or four days to process the AMMC results, generate the certificates, edit the Journal articles and update the Society website.
I really wouldn't want to see entry to the AMMC to be restricted only to those who also provide a detailed article on how they built their model. If they choose to do so then great! There are some truely inspriational models and some innovative techniques on show at the AMMC but members can't be forced to write an article if they don't want to.
There are no right or wrong answers unfortunatly. However, ideas and suggestions are always welcome. If there are any for the AMMC please start a new thread or drop me a PM/email.
Happy Modelling.
Steven B
(N Gauge Society Annual Model Making Competition Co-ordinator)
I have been a member of the NGS for many years although my membership number starts with 10000 rather than 4 digits. I really enjoy reading the journal and in the main believe it to be very good. For me I would like to see:
1. More info on what tools and materials were used to achieve results. This is not just aimed at the NGS but most publications. Once you start to actually model one realises how scant this sort of info is. What glue, how was it diluted? what is a couple of drops of Fairy? I have learnt so much since I started to "do".
2. More context when reviewing models i.e. period, location, if coaches or wagons what sort of train would they be in? How many, what motive power, what load was carried. It never ceases to amaze me how manufacturers release products without prototype backup. I am sure if modellers had this info then sales would increase.
Merry Christmas
Paddy
I can appreciate that sending in random subject articles chosen by the members, all of varying editorial quality and content must be a huge task for the journal editor to sort out. From some of the raw material I've seen I can imagine that it takes a while to get this into shape. I'm not knocking the submitters content by any means, just appreciating the nature of dealing with uncontrolled media.
And from my experience, the society journal really does holds in high regard the effort and time taken to submit work, and it values it's contributors to such an extent that it can seem too polite and reluctant to ask for changes to be made or for work to be resubmitted. I guess this is one perception of the nature of harvesting volunteer work.
My feeling is that a contributor would want to show their work in the best way possible, and would be happy to meet certain minimum guidelines if it meant that their article would be presented in a better and more appealing way. This in turn would make the editor's life easier with a knock on effect of having more quality turnover.
Not having the journal or handbook at hand, I can't remember whether there's any guidelines for articles other than an email address to send them in to. Likewise, the website offers no more information about what's it's expectations are for articles. Again there's just an email address.
So maybe we could have a 'How to Submit an Article' article, possibly supported by a current wish list?
I'm thinking word count, picture resolution and quality of graphics, spelling, references validated, relevant prototype information. This could even take the from of a template, for example, if a member wished to submit a loco review, there could be a list of criteria that would be preferable such as high quality photographs, packaging, running quality, haulage capacity, slow running, dimensional accuracy, detailing parts, instructions etc. For one thing, it would give a checklist in this case and promote format consistency across articles.
The wish list would help identify what article categories were currently preferable, and give the membership something to mull over when starting a new project or contemplating a new purchase. Maybe an interest could be registered with the editor to gauge future articles or prevent duplications?
I'm sure this would give the membership some guided motivation to help change the content for the better. I'm not saying that everyone could adhere to even a few points of a brief, but even if a few took this up I would bet we'd see a positive change in content.
If we improve the process, we may improve the end result.
Paul
The articles don't just go through the editor. They also get farmed out to a number of proofreaders and an article can get proof read and tweaked 2-3 times before it goes to print. I only knew that my articles had been published when I got the relevant copy of the Journal. A week later I would get a letter stating 'your has been published'. An email would have done and saved the cost of a stamp.
Alex :wave:
I thought it was interesting that the trade liaison officer for the NGS said this in the latest journal
'I like to think that by continuing to focus on helping the beginner and less experienced that we will help grow our membership'
I really do not get this logic as surely of the 5000 odd members at least 50% of those would not fit the above category and the journal/society should be equally focused on keeping those people as members.
I realize that there is a lot of hard work that goes on at the NGS by a dedicated group of people but I have to completely agree with Grahame. Accusations of elitism etc are just ludicrous and if you really want to attract new people then surely the best way to do that is show aspirational modelling. There is not one area of life/commerce where showing things in the worst possible way is seen as the best way to get people to buy a product or engage them in a society. So why does the NGS think that a second rate journal and a stand that looks like it was dragged out the local car boot sale will inspire anyone to join up? The 2mm and 0 Gauge societies both have slick and professional stands as well as great journals so it should not be beyond the NGS to improve on both fronts.
In regards to the journal, an obvious solution would be to put a call out and get six people to in effect guest edit one journal a year with the NGS journal editor acting as a liaison officer overseeing all six...... that way you have one person putting together one journal a year and will give each publication an interesting twist, maybe even Grahame would do one!
I hope that the next journal editor will use forums such as this and RMweb to engage with the membership in the same way that Ben Ando does with NGS Commissions, which for mind have been the only saving grace of the society in the last few years.
Apologies to all those at the society that do such a lot of unpaid work and I fully realize that it must be dispiriting to get criticism.
Dan
In my experience of society journals, magazines, etc, I find some issues you can't put down, others you flick through quickly and soon put away. Everyone has there own particular likes and dislikes, that's the way it goes. But I still look forward to receiving them! It's a hobby at the end of the day!
I still haven't recieved mine :(
Quote from: Truffles on December 17, 2013, 06:01:28 PM
In regards to the journal, an obvious solution would be to put a call out and get six people to in effect guest edit one journal a year with the NGS journal editor acting as a liaison officer overseeing all six
So is this you volunteering to be #1 then, Dan ?
I'm sure the NGS staff will welcome new blood to assist with all their efforts.
For what my two penn'orth is worth, I don't think the NGS journal is dumbing down. Skimming through the past year's issues there are articles on converting Union Mills locos to DCC, making printed circuit boards, scratch-building a brake van, modifying a Dapol M7 and building working semaphore signals. All very useful and instructive, but hardly beginners level. And the 2-page spread of Rugby Road in the latest issue - wow!! That's what I call inspirational, and definitely not dumbed down!
Long may it continue.
Chris
Quote from: MikeDunn on December 17, 2013, 08:14:59 PM
Quote from: Truffles on December 17, 2013, 06:01:28 PM
In regards to the journal, an obvious solution would be to put a call out and get six people to in effect guest edit one journal a year with the NGS journal editor acting as a liaison officer overseeing all six
So is this you volunteering to be #1 then, Dan ?
I'm sure the NGS staff will welcome new blood to assist with all their efforts.
Yep no problem, I look forward to turning the journal into an MRJ for N Gauge...just need to dig out the tweed jacket and pipe. ;)
I got mine last week, I have only skimmed through it so far, but It looks a great little Journal.
Someone goes to a lot of trouble on all our behalves, Its my first too so thanks to all involved.
I think that this thread has served it's purpose and sadly gone beyond that. Please remember that I don't tolerate members getting personal with other members.
This thread will now be locked. :locked: