[arrl-odv:32004] QST Shortcomings
This week I had a phone call from a member/volunteer not pleased that the paper that QST is printed on appears to now be of considerably lower quality than was used in the past. My March QST looks somewhat like the paper was once soaked in water, and later dried out. The quality of the paper used in NCJ, QEX, and even OTA, is of much higher quality. CQ Magazine also continues to be produced on quality paper. Why? Approximately 11 pages of the March 2021 issue are reprints/summaries of articles and advertisements from past QST's. All members have access to these issues, not only those such as myself who retain our paper copies. It is the paid staff's responsibility to acquire and/or produce appropriate material for our flagship publication. Only waiting for articles to come in over the transom might not be working. Both in terms of physical product and content, today's QST product is not up to the standards which I feel appropriate for us to be providing to our membership. I hope this can be improved. 73, Dick, N6AA
I echo Director Norton’s concerns: 1. I received my copy of the March 2021 issue of QST yesterday in a tightly sealed paper envelope. The envelope exhibited zero evidence of water damage, but the pages of the magazine inside were exactly as described by Dick below. The paper is reminiscent of some of the wrinkled and flimsy instruction sheets included with various off-shore computer accessories I have occasionally purchased. 1. While I rather enjoy a page or two from the past each month, I agree that anything much beyond that should raise questions. The fact that three full pages were devoted this month to reprinting a review of a piece of Heath test equipment that was probably of interest to a very small minority of hams back then (or now) is particularly bothersome. I’m not even sure I would devote three pages to reprinting the review of the Collins 75A-4 or Signal One transceiver -- arguably two of the most exciting new product introductions we older hams have witnessed! Each passing month brings forth seminal accomplishments in a wide variety of areas relevant to QST readers that I believe would make better use of our flagship periodical’s limited page count. Perhaps we need to encourage our technical department and others at HQ to increase their focus on an outward search for such material, and also review our policies and compensation for outside authors. And here’s a gripe that’s mine alone: I absolutely detest the inclusion of “stiff” advertising pages in QST! What do I do with those pages while trying to read a QST article with the magazine lying flat on the kitchen table when I am holding a messy chicken sandwich or fajita in one hand? I get the scissors and I cut out the offending page as close to the binding as I possibly can – that’s what I do! So much for extra advertising exposure! I’ve already forgotten who the offending advertiser was in this month’s issue. Bud, W2RU From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Richard Norton via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: "Norton, Richard N6AA (Dir, SW)" <richardjnorton@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 at 12:01 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32004] QST Shortcomings This week I had a phone call from a member/volunteer not pleased that the paper that QST is printed on appears to now be of considerably lower quality than was used in the past. My March QST looks somewhat like the paper was once soaked in water, and later dried out. The quality of the paper used in NCJ, QEX, and even OTA, is of much higher quality. CQ Magazine also continues to be produced on quality paper. Why? Approximately 11 pages of the March 2021 issue are reprints/summaries of articles and advertisements from past QST's. All members have access to these issues, not only those such as myself who retain our paper copies. It is the paid staff's responsibility to acquire and/or produce appropriate material for our flagship publication. Only waiting for articles to come in over the transom might not be working. Both in terms of physical product and content, today's QST product is not up to the standards which I feel appropriate for us to be providing to our membership. I hope this can be improved. 73, Dick, N6AA
I must agree with Bud’s comments. I think we can fill the pages of QST with more relevant and better material. As to the paper, what are we looking at as far as cost savings? Are there other reasons for changing the paper? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) <w2ru@arrl.org> wrote:
I echo Director Norton’s concerns:
I received my copy of the March 2021 issue of QST yesterday in a tightly sealed paper envelope. The envelope exhibited zero evidence of water damage, but the pages of the magazine inside were exactly as described by Dick below. The paper is reminiscent of some of the wrinkled and flimsy instruction sheets included with various off-shore computer accessories I have occasionally purchased.
While I rather enjoy a page or two from the past each month, I agree that anything much beyond that should raise questions. The fact that three full pages were devoted this month to reprinting a review of a piece of Heath test equipment that was probably of interest to a very small minority of hams back then (or now) is particularly bothersome. I’m not even sure I would devote three pages to reprinting the review of the Collins 75A-4 or Signal One transceiver -- arguably two of the most exciting new product introductions we older hams have witnessed!
Each passing month brings forth seminal accomplishments in a wide variety of areas relevant to QST readers that I believe would make better use of our flagship periodical’s limited page count. Perhaps we need to encourage our technical department and others at HQ to increase their focus on an outward search for such material, and also review our policies and compensation for outside authors.
And here’s a gripe that’s mine alone: I absolutely detest the inclusion of “stiff” advertising pages in QST! What do I do with those pages while trying to read a QST article with the magazine lying flat on the kitchen table when I am holding a messy chicken sandwich or fajita in one hand? I get the scissors and I cut out the offending page as close to the binding as I possibly can – that’s what I do! So much for extra advertising exposure! I’ve already forgotten who the offending advertiser was in this month’s issue.
Bud, W2RU
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Richard Norton via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: "Norton, Richard N6AA (Dir, SW)" <richardjnorton@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 at 12:01 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32004] QST Shortcomings
This week I had a phone call from a member/volunteer not pleased that the paper that QST is printed on appears to now be of considerably lower quality than was used in the past. My March QST looks somewhat like the paper was once soaked in water, and later dried out.
The quality of the paper used in NCJ, QEX, and even OTA, is of much higher quality. CQ Magazine also continues to be produced on quality paper.
Why?
Approximately 11 pages of the March 2021 issue are reprints/summaries of articles and advertisements from past QST's. All members have access to these issues, not only those such as myself who retain our paper copies.
It is the paid staff's responsibility to acquire and/or produce appropriate material for our flagship publication. Only waiting for articles to come in over the transom might not be working.
Both in terms of physical product and content, today's QST product is not up to the standards which I feel appropriate for us to be providing to our membership. I hope this can be improved.
73,
Dick, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I'll agree with the crappy paper, and pretty much the same also, (except the "vintage" articles, which I personally enjoy.) My March issue was sent first class in a very nice envelope, and the magazine itself looked like it had been sitting open near a swamp in Florida in the summer (No offense to Mickey...) Are they just not getting enough quality articles to print? I find that hard to believe, as I have heard through the grapevine that they get many more submissions than they have room for. 73; Mike W7VO
On 02/12/2021 9:59 AM David Norris via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I must agree with Bud’s comments.
I think we can fill the pages of QST with more relevant and better material.
As to the paper, what are we looking at as far as cost savings? Are there other reasons for changing the paper?
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
> > On Feb 12, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) <w2ru@arrl.org> wrote:
>
> >
I echo Director Norton’s concerns:
1. I received my copy of the March 2021 issue of QST yesterday in a tightly sealed paper envelope. The envelope exhibited zero evidence of water damage, but the pages of the magazine inside were exactly as described by Dick below. The paper is reminiscent of some of the wrinkled and flimsy instruction sheets included with various off-shore computer accessories I have occasionally purchased.
1. While I rather enjoy a page or two from the past each month, I agree that anything much beyond that should raise questions. The fact that three full pages were devoted this month to reprinting a review of a piece of Heath test equipment that was probably of interest to a very small minority of hams back then (or now) is particularly bothersome. I’m not even sure I would devote three pages to reprinting the review of the Collins 75A-4 or Signal One transceiver -- arguably two of the most exciting new product introductions we older hams have witnessed!
Each passing month brings forth seminal accomplishments in a wide variety of areas relevant to QST readers that I believe would make better use of our flagship periodical’s limited page count. Perhaps we need to encourage our technical department and others at HQ to increase their focus on an outward search for such material, and also review our policies and compensation for outside authors.
And here’s a gripe that’s mine alone: I absolutely detest the inclusion of “stiff” advertising pages in QST! What do I do with those pages while trying to read a QST article with the magazine lying flat on the kitchen table when I am holding a messy chicken sandwich or fajita in one hand? I get the scissors and I cut out the offending page as close to the binding as I possibly can – that’s what I do! So much for extra advertising exposure! I’ve already forgotten who the offending advertiser was in this month’s issue.
Bud, W2RU
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Richard Norton via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: "Norton, Richard N6AA (Dir, SW)" <richardjnorton@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 at 12:01 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32004] QST Shortcomings
This week I had a phone call from a member/volunteer not pleased that the paper that QST is printed on appears to now be of considerably lower quality than was used in the past. My March QST looks somewhat like the paper was once soaked in water, and later dried out.
The quality of the paper used in NCJ, QEX, and even OTA, is of much higher quality. CQ Magazine also continues to be produced on quality paper.
Why?
Approximately 11 pages of the March 2021 issue are reprints/summaries of articles and advertisements from past QST's. All members have access to these issues, not only those such as myself who retain our paper copies.
It is the paid staff's responsibility to acquire and/or produce appropriate material for our flagship publication. Only waiting for articles to come in over the transom might not be working.
Both in terms of physical product and content, today's QST product is not up to the standards which I feel appropriate for us to be providing to our membership. I hope this can be improved.
73,
Dick, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> _______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I agree with this but I’m interested to hear the rationale and how much cost savings this produced, ergo is it worth it to reduce the quality to our members. Ria N2RJ On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:00 PM Richard Norton via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
This week I had a phone call from a member/volunteer not pleased that the paper that QST is printed on appears to now be of considerably lower quality than was used in the past. My March QST looks somewhat like the paper was once soaked in water, and later dried out.
The quality of the paper used in NCJ, QEX, and even OTA, is of much higher quality. CQ Magazine also continues to be produced on quality paper.
Why?
Approximately 11 pages of the March 2021 issue are reprints/summaries of articles and advertisements from past QST's. All members have access to these issues, not only those such as myself who retain our paper copies.
It is the paid staff's responsibility to acquire and/or produce appropriate material for our flagship publication. Only waiting for articles to come in over the transom might not be working.
Both in terms of physical product and content, today's QST product is not up to the standards which I feel appropriate for us to be providing to our membership. I hope this can be improved.
73,
Dick, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (5)
-
David Norris -
Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) -
Michael Ritz -
Richard Norton -
rjairam＠gmail.com