There has been much whining, moaning and griping in other posts regarding the content of ME and MEW.

Whether Diane and David collaborate on content or not is of no consequence, if they have an article they see as suitable for the relative may, then it will get published. They can only publish from the selection that is submitted to them.

Diane recently put her head above the parapet suggesting publishing an article on a universal grinding machine in ME, that raised a lot of naysayers from their armchairs, I for one would like to see that article run, it has relevance whichever may it is in, so no harm will come from running it in ME. Just like the other articles to which you are alluding.

I for one do not think there is any 'writing on the wall'

Pete

Model Engineer has always included 'Workshop Topics', perhaps less so since the incarnation of MEW, but they have always been there. I have had nothing but positive feedback since I decided to aim for at least one 'Workshop Topic' per issue (which doesn't alway happen, I know). The two magazines still have their own distinct character – you are unlikely, for instance, to find any model making aritcle in MEW – but they complement each other and you may find that, in the future, this 'partnership' will be strengthened, to the benefit of both.
Many readers have a strong preference for one or the other but some, like yourself, subscribe to both. Most practising model engineers will have some machine tools so it is therefore appropriate to publish some articles about them but most model engineers don't have, for example, CNC machines, so it is perhaps not appropriate to publish much of this type in ME.You wil find those in MEW. MEW is read not only by model makers but extensively by small engineering 'firms' or sole traders. No – the writing is not on the wall for MEW. Quite the opposite!

Diane

.

Diane,

It may or may not fit the MTM business-model but [for this reader at least], this looks like an ideal opportunity to put the ePublishing side to work.

Why not make any series like this available as an eBook [to purchase at a reasonable price] to subscribers to the other magazine?

MichaelG.

Diane,

I also second Michael G's suggestion, good idea

Brian

I'm not really sure why there was a split in the first place, ME did alright for near 100 years on its own, starting as "Model Engineer & Amateur Electrician". I think Diane is heading in the right direction. Ian S C

Interesting the way you tweak the argument in the quote. Michael uses the word "many", you carefully omit it.

.

Please do not mis-quote me.

MichaelG.

• Your quote marks were around the word KNOW … which you capitalised and I did not.
• I wrote: "Whilst I agree that the series might be of relevance to ME readers, I also know that many of these are not really interested in tool-making. … Isn't that why MEW was spun-off in the first place ?"
• You chose to interpret this as: "

  So you 'KNOW' – factual hard evidence? that ME readers are not really interested in toolmaking?? A bold statement to make, I do hope you have hard facts to back that up, I do subscribe to ME and I AM interested in toolmaking as, I am sure, are many others and without hard fact to prove one way or another, it is not a given that toolmaking articles should not be run in ME.

.

• My use of the word "know" was in the sense of "am aware that"
• Your "shouting" " 'KNOW' – factual hard evidence? " puts a very different emphasis upon that innocent word.
• However, for the avoidance of doubt, please let me rephrase the paragraph thus …

  Whilst I agree that the series might be of relevance to ME readers, I am also aware, [from personal acquaintances over the last forty years or so, and from reading many back-issues of ME] that a significant, albeit unspecified, percentage of these are not really interested in tool-making. … Isn't that why MEW was spun-off in the first place ?

I am simply not prepared to be drawn into a fight about this.

MichaelG.

.

Perhaps we could get back to discussing this … which I thought was a constructive suggestion.

Geoff and Brian "seconded" it … are there any other opinions ?

MichaelG.

Thank you Eric. Your comments are very much appreciated. There are so many hours go into producing ME that it is great to know that it is heading the right way. Makes all this 'overtime' worthwhile. The first thing that has to be understood is that the Editor will never please everyone all the time. But, as you say, if there is enough variety, then each page might have something new so might be worth even a quick glance.
I have been in the Editor's chair almost a year now and I have found it a long, difficult job to try to re-engage writers who had become so disheartened. It's my hope that the improvements will be noticed and encourage more new, quality writers to come forward.

Diane