Confused…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graham Meek on 11/01/2014 10:29:30:

… I personally cannot see what the fuss is about …

.

Gray,

I hope you don't mind my responding to just this snippet of your post.

It's more a matter of confusion than fuss.

I have a large collection of old Model Engineer magazines; most of which I bought secondhand, for a few coppers apiece; and I treasure them for the workshop articles.

When MEW was launched, I started to buy it regularly; and eventually took a subscription. The logic was that the new magazine was expected to carry all or most of the workshop articles, leaving ME to concentrate on the model-making side of the hobby.

… With hindsight, it is now clear that my logic was flawed.

I am delighted to hear that ME has improved under Diane's editorship, but I still cannot justify subscribing to the magazine just for its workshop/toolmaking articles. … This is why I suggested that MTM might sell individual series, as eBooks, to subscribers of the other magazine. [obviously this could work both ways]

MichaelG.

Edit: corrected typo.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 11/01/2014 15:40:18

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

ME is definitely changing on variety. I while ago it would have been all steam or loco related but now it is approaching the 1970's / 1980's layout which IMHO was the highlights of the publication.

 

As Diane says you won't please all the people but with more variety you stand a better chance of pleasing more.

 

Also there will always be the folk who only buy one mag and query which one to buy with funds being limited, there is no real answer to this as the ideal answer would be to roll up 4 or 5 mags of interest to the punter in one but in real life this isn't going to happen.

 

One idea is that because they have made their point clear either on this forum or in postbag / the mags they have proved they can write coherently.

So if they were to write a simple 1 page article for one of the relevant mags that would pay £50, or perhaps MTM could offer a free years subs to a mag of choice.

 

Win, win situation here for both parties.

 

EDIT – Stupid keyboard can't spell.

Edited By John Stevenson on 11/01/2014 15:45:50

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Should I feel aggrieved if an article I would like appears in say”MiM” or ME rather than the mag I subscribe to..well no
It is clear that me and mew are not linked and can run what content they chose overlapping as much as they like.

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 11/01/2014 15:38:55:

When MEW was launched, I started to buy it regularly; and eventually took a subscription. The logic was that the new magazine was expected to carry all or most of the workshop articles, leaving ME to concentrate on the model-making side of the hobby.

It's interesting to read the editor's (Stan Bray's) comments in the first issue of MEW. I'm not sure that he particularly confirms that view. However, one bit is interesting:

"Unlike its fortnightly parent, Model Engineer, MEW will not be embarking on the publication of long, multi-part series of articles. Instead, we intend to deal with each project on a one-off, start-to-finish basis in each issue, so you won't have to wait for the next instalment to complete a job."

That's gone out of the windows these days so it seems that the mandate of MEW (and presumably ME) – if one exists – is not particularly sacred anyway.

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

I think that was a tall order from day one.

We all know how drawn out jobs and therefore the articles become. Who here has started and finished a job in one or two nights ?

Do we not run articles on say offhand, tool and cutter grinders because they can't be completed in a few nights ?

Also I dare say that Stan Bray was treading on unknown ground here, just look at what has gone into the mag since it's start. Would Stan have envisaged say people building their own CNC machines from scratch ?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

OMG

Agreed … on both counts.

As I said "… With hindsight, it is now clear that my logic was flawed."

MichaelG.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

If someone is going to complain that MEW doesn't have all the toolmaking articles what is to be done about such articles appearing in EIM. What about the rest of the world. I presume there are no enigneering related magazines in USA, Germany, Australia, ……

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Well EiM isn't in the running this month.

Was in W H Smidt [ GMBH ] today and the current edition other than a brief article on CNC was all about steam, loco's and a traction engine running on air.

The American mags are very good but expensive because of shipping, not seen any recent Australian Model Engineers but they used to be heavily steam and loco orientated.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I think its more a question of knowing what you are getting. If you were to take out a subscription to ME because you did not want to read workshop related items then I could not blame someone for feeling a bit peeved if they then found 2 -4 pages being taken up by things you did not want.

With mags from other countries you know what sort of content they are likely to have and buy them if that interests you. I have subscribed to MEB since the first issue but would not be that happy to find half a dozen pages given over to Locos. Likewise I usually get the yearly compilating CD of MiM, I know it contains allsorts in advance so am not disapointed if there is a tooling article or two.

 

J

PS Graham there was a very nice Super Landini tractor in one issue of MiM, you tube clip here and several others if you look at the guys videos

Edited By JasonB on 11/01/2014 20:42:28

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

As a reader of both magazines, I'd be quite happy to read a series on a model build in ME, but with related articles from time to time in MEW on, say, pattern making, gear cutting or CNC machining of parts in more detail than would be normal for ME.

Another example could be a CAD tutorial based around creating the drawings for a model – and then the build could be covered in ME.

Another example might be splitting the toolmaking for a clock and the actual build.

Most contributors probably would not want to split their articles in this way, but if done from time to time who knows, such an approach could get the odd reader to 'cross over' from time to time?

Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I think it might be reasonable to limit the discussion to the offerings of one publisher.

The "confusion" relates only to the current versions of ME and MEW.

MichaelG.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Neil, I think we have already had this with the boring bar and large steady in EIM and the Ryder Ericson in ME, work sfor me.

J

Edited By JasonB on 11/01/2014 20:45:05

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 11/01/2014 20:44:13:

I think it might be reasonable to limit the discussion to the offerings of one publisher.

The "confusion" relates only to the current versions of ME and MEW.

MichaelG.

Yes it has to relate to ME and MEW because there isn't any of these posts over on the Village Press forum over the mags they produce.

EiM does not host a forum and their writers have to use this forum ?

So is the problem related to ME and MEW or their readers ?

[Another JohnSParticipant @anotherjohns]

John:

Posted by John Stevenson on 11/01/2014 21:02:01:

Yes it has to relate to ME and MEW because there isn't any of these posts over on the Village Press forum over the mags they produce.

Maybe because those of us "over here" have decided that Model Engineer is the magazine of choice?

This is not a criticism of Live Steam and Home Shop Machinist, but reasons why I changed subscriptions back to Model Engineer. (I know that I don't fit into the norm over here, so any criticisms implicit are directed towards me)

Live Steam. For a while anyway, all it was about was pictures of people at meets sitting behind large "diesels". Not my cup of tea. Really, not my cup of tea.

Home Shop Machinist. I did pick up the odd one (especially Michael Ward's excellent article series on Scraping) but generally, it does not hold my interest. Maybe they target the beginner rather than the more experienced?

Digital Machinist – I do (did??) subscribe, but this is not within comparison of ME/MEW. I do have issues with the contents, but before I complain, I should write articles for it and see if it is just me.

Model Engineer is, for me, the best out there. Maybe EIM, but I don't seem to get to see this very often to form an opinion as to whether to subscribe or not.

Live Steam did have great series, ref the Kozo series on his geared locomotives. He is back with a narrow gauge Colorado locomotive, which looks very interesting. Don Young used to write for it, too, as did many others. It used to be like Model Engineer, but split off the workshop tooling from the trains, just like ME/MEW did.

I do like variety, as I am sure many others do, too. I do read Model Engineer cover to cover, as there are always things to learn.

Anyway, just another iron in the fire…

John.

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

An interesting debate but to go back to my original question/observation

MEW split from ME with the express intention of providing a separate vehicle for workshop topics and keeping ME to model making. Of course prior to that time ME covered both topics, as you'd expect.

My observation was that topics that my reasonably be expected to be in one magazine are appearing in the other and asked why this was the case. I wasn't complaining about the quality of the articles or editorship and I agree with everybody else splitting the editor role has improved the quality of both magazines.

The point I was making was that if this blurring of boundaries continues the individual identity of both magazines would put in question the need for one or the other to exist.

To put it another way, if everybody had their own personal league table of magazine preference, and currently ME and MEW are at the top then if this blurring continues one or the other magazines could well slip from the second place to be replaced by some other organisations offering.

That's all really, its all down to personal choice in the end.

Pete

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Doubletop on 12/01/2014 21:13:12:

MEW split from ME with the express intention of providing a separate vehicle for workshop topics and keeping ME to model making.

Where was that "express intention" expressed?

(See my post earlier on this page).

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Just out of curiousity: Could someone with an archive of ME please check …

1990 Vol. 164 Issue 3872 Page 519

Editor: Model Engineers' Workshop – A New Magazine

Thanks

MichaelG.

[joegibParticipant @joegib]

David Clarke has made comments about publishing policy/readership attitudes from time to time. From these it's fairly easy to see how the present position has evolved. Among the points made are:

(1) In the first instance it's the author who decides where an article judged suitable for publication appears. If someone who's a longtime subscriber to ME knocks out a toolmaking article it will be perfectly natural for him to choose ME as the channel.

(2) Reader surveys and letter page reactions have shown emphatically that MEW readers don't want model-making articles appearing there so:

"running what could become two similar magazines"

— just isn't going to happen in terms of model-making bleeding into MEW.

(3) Curiously, readership surveys have also shown that MEW readers don't like protracted multi-part series. So that creates an opening for ME to publish the more ambitious machine-making projects. Thus, something like a latterday Quorn project would be a better fit for ME than MEW.

Simplifying:

(a) both model making and toolmaking articles may appear in ME depending on author preference or series length,

(b) model making articles will only appear in ME.

Joe

 

Edited By joegib on 13/01/2014 04:06:07

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by joegib on 13/01/2014 03:58:47:

Curiously, readership surveys have also shown that MEW readers don't like protracted multi-part series.

And yet ……

[joegibParticipant @joegib]

Posted by OMG on 13/01/2014 04:00:37:

Posted by joegib on 13/01/2014 03:58:47:

Curiously, readership surveys have also shown that MEW readers don't like protracted multi-part series.

And yet ……

Is there a punchline?

Joe

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by joegib on 13/01/2014 04:11:54:

Posted by OMG on 13/01/2014 04:00:37:

Posted by joegib on 13/01/2014 03:58:47:

Curiously, readership surveys have also shown that MEW readers don't like protracted multi-part series.

And yet ……

Is there a punchline?

Joe

.

The obvious punchline would be … there are so many in MEW.

More detailed answers may be available; but that would require a protracted multi-part series, not an implicit punchline.

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Based on the assumption that the two magazines are linked and can interact in content.

Joegib above makes a good point…maybe a “protracted” build for what ever ( which might be called a model…see entries in model show comps.)..would find ME a more welcoming home.. than MEW….

Short articles for mew long for me ? Well thats not fair on me readers…

Filling a mag with short articles is going to be hard. .protracted builds are great for editors…run x pages this month 2x next ‘cos we are short of stuff…still have another 200 pages to use when needed..

Any way all the above assumes any sort of trading of content is possible..I think not.
Eds. Will run content based on submitted material..if you want to fix it ..well you know what to do.

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by joegib on 13/01/2014 04:11:54:

Is there a punchline?

OK, the long version:

Amongst other things, you referred to two results of MEW reader surveys and comments:

– MEW readers don't want model-making articles appearing there

– MEW readers don't like protracted multi-part series

…. and yet, the second doesn't seem to have made much difference – which provides a context for judging the first.

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 13/01/2014 09:31:39:

More detailed answers may be available; but that would require a protracted multi-part series, not an implicit punchline.

rotfl !

[Author]

Posts