S&T - 1997 vs. 1982
Tom Polakis
A lot has been said here about the demise of "Sky & Telescope", mostly
regarding its loss of substance and increased emphasis on design over
content. I have subscribed for 20 years now, and thought I agreed. So
I took a look at two issues 15 years apart to sample how it has changed,
and my feelings about those changes. I was surprised to learn that I
like today's S&T more.
The two issues I picked were October 1997 and November 1982. I tried to
judge comparable departments and features, and notice what is new as
well as what has been completely dropped since 1982. The first glaring
difference - and it is glaring - is the number of full-page
advertisements in the opening pages. The 1982 issue had 2 in the first
36 pages. That number is 15 this month. I know this isn't S&T's fault,
but the Orion ad with the caricature aliens looking through a cheap Dob
was particularly insipid, while one wondered if that detailed Whirlpool
image on p.33 was taken while the porch light bounced around inside the
C8's tube. Perhaps these pages aren't any worse than noted astronomer
Leonard Nimoy on the 1982 back cover, looking seriously over the same
telescope.
Secondly, the type is now larger, as much as 50% so. I estimated that
the old magazine could fit 1500 words on a page, but only 1000 fit on a
1997 page. Although the 1997 pages have more color, the space taken up
by illustrations isn't much different, which is contrary to what I'd
expected.
Here are a couple features that we lost sometime between 1982 and today:
- History Lessons - I can't say that I'm personally a fan of much of
this, but Joseph Ashbrook, Owen Gingerich, and others did a nice job
summarizing history of astronomy. These still appear in today's S&T,
mainly covered by E.C. Krupp, but not as frequently or as in-depth.
- Some of the data in the Celestial Calendar section - I'm not sure why
the tiny space devoted to variable star maxima or minima needed to go.
Ditto for the moon's distances.
- Deep Sky Wonders - I had wished that Alan MacRobert would have picked
this up, but he writes well on other subjects beside deep-sky observing,
and still needs to be an editor. Now we get only sporadic deep-sky
coverage.
- Comet Digest - This column is sorely lacking. While ninety percent of
all observable comets are mere fuzzballs, John Bortle's feature was
among the first columns I turned to. His column single-handedly got me
interested in comts.
What did we gain since 1992?
Focal Point - I know this is a favorite for many people. Here is a
moderated opinion/story column written from a wide variety of
perspectives. It often makes for good newsgroup fodder.
Product Reviews - Face it, folks. S&T isn't going to come out and say
any advertiser's scope sucks. Remember, though, that there were _no_
product reviews in the old days. Their comparison of small, commercial
Dobs a couple years back was candid enough for me to come away disliking
all of the scopes.
Astro Imaging - This month's travelogue about Grove Creek Observatory is
a poor example, and maybe belonged elsewhre, but imaging and photography
deserve at least one column per month. The early '80's S&T had no
regular feature about the nuts and bolts of photography.
Gallery - Here is an opportunity for showing off the best photos they
receive. I would bet that for every photo that makes it, there are a
dozen rejected. Amateur photography has become so good that it's not
just M42 ad nauseum anymore.
More subjectively, what got worse since 1982?
- Opening ads and countless Meade ads at back.
- News Notes content - In 1982, there were 11 articles, 6 of which came
in at 500-1000 words, and full of information. This month, there were 7
at 200-300 words, still very well written, but just not as much to
them. Comments to come about News Wire and Mission Update.
- Book Reviews - 4 or 5 reviews approaching 1000 words each have become
two 600-word reviews and a page about software.
- Rambling Through The Skies- This one is almost a toss-up. E.C. Crupp
makes up for some of the lack of history coverage, but you couldn't beat
the late George Lovi's wonderful explanations of celestial mechanics.
- Gleanings for ATM's - Now replaced by Telescope Techniques, which
again, isn't as thorough as it once was. Given the state of ATM'ing
observed at the past few RTMC conferences, maybe this is just a sign of
the times.
- Price - People may complain that in 1982, a subscription cost $18, and
it is twice that amount today. That works out to 5% inflation for 15
years. Not so bad after all.
And what has improved since then?
- Understandable graphics - It doesn't bother me that the
color-magnitude diagram on p.44 or the daily temperature range of Mars
on p.17 are plotted in color. In fact, I think both diagrams are
clearer for it. As long as they don't start presenting bar charts that
proclaim "We're Observing More!", it'll be fine. The information is
still there.
News Wire/Mission Summary - The old magazine lacked quick turnaround on
recent happenings. This partially makes up for the reduced content in
News Notes.
- Computing - This is as unfair as saying the ATM section got worse.
There's simply more computer power, and more interesting projects are
available to everybody. Not too many folks are programming HP
calculators anymore.
- Sky Guide - Some say it has become glitzy, but I think it's just more
readable. Good additions included the calendar, relative sizes of the
planets, and the Solar System diagram. That table contains the same
information as the 1982 table. Just because it isn't typed in a somber
black on gray doesn't make it less serious. I should mention though
that I find their new detachable sky chart unreadable in the field next
to Lovi's.
- No star party coverage - I'm happy to see this getting dedicated
coverage in the pages of "Amateur Astronomy" and this newsgroup.
Occasional star party coverage is fine now that there are so many of
them, but that Stellafane article every year sure got tedious.
- The Cover! - Some people don't like text over the picture, and find it
too tabloid-ish in appearance, but I was left with one impression from
the '82 cover, which shows a partially eclipsed sun setting over Paris.
For a magazine with the word "sky" in it's title, that may be the
ugliest example of sky that has ever been captured on film.
So if you counted up the words in 1982, I imagine you'd come up with
something like twenty percent more in forty less pages than they take
today. You would learn more about books, comets, and what the pros are
doing, but you'd lose product reviews, Focal Point, and technical
imaging articles. In a nutshell, I think the articles lost depth, but
gained wider coverage of the subject. I'm convinced that professional
and amateur astronomy is much more interesting now than it was 15 years
ago, so there's more to cover. Beside the occasional Caldwell Catalogue
and Sidereal Eye article, there's not much that I want discarded from
current issues.
I don't think you can learn everything "on the streets" without the 90
percent noise factored in, so I still like S&T despite the changes. I
guess I'm not a grumpy old man yet.
--
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Sky Photography
http://www.psiaz.com/polakis/skyphoto.html
Jeff Medkeff
Tom Polakis <pol...@sprintmail.com> is suspected to have said:
>- Deep Sky Wonders - I had wished that Alan MacRobert would have picked
>this up, but he writes well on other subjects beside deep-sky observing,
>and still needs to be an editor. Now we get only sporadic deep-sky
>coverage.
I would have wished almost anyone would have taken this function
over. This loss is significant to me, as it is the loss of a
steady source of information about observing with backyard
telescopes. This particular kind of information I personally find
more important than any other.
>- Comet Digest - This column is sorely lacking. While ninety percent of
>all observable comets are mere fuzzballs, John Bortle's feature was
>among the first columns I turned to. His column single-handedly got me
>interested in comts.
Ditto, and again, this is the kind of information I have valued
over all other kinds to be found in S&T. Why was this column
discontinued? It disappeared while I was at college and was not
subscribing to S&T.
>Product Reviews - Face it, folks. S&T isn't going to come out and say
>any advertiser's scope sucks. Remember, though, that there were _no_
>product reviews in the old days. Their comparison of small, commercial
>Dobs a couple years back was candid enough for me to come away disliking
>all of the scopes.
By and large I agree with you here. At least there is something
to be learned about the brand name products now, other than what
can be gleaned from advertizements, which are far more biased
than the reviews!
Another review that was 'candid enough' was the one about the
small, short focus telescopes that put the Celestron refractor
down as a pretty undesireable instrument.
>- Gleanings for ATM's - Now replaced by Telescope Techniques, which
>again, isn't as thorough as it once was. Given the state of ATM'ing
>observed at the past few RTMC conferences, maybe this is just a sign of
>the times.
Many of the old Gleanings columns were not as universally
appealing as I would have liked, but I admit I do miss it when I
read the new S&T. Never having been to an RTMC conference, I
cannot comment on your observations there, but I tend to see some
pretty interesting things happening with homemade scopes,
particularly among some of the members of the ATM mailing list.
>I should mention though
>that I find their new detachable sky chart unreadable in the field next
>to Lovi's.
That's interesting; I found both Lovi's and the current
incarnation about equally difficult to read....
>- No star party coverage - I'm happy to see this getting dedicated
>coverage in the pages of "Amateur Astronomy" and this newsgroup.
>Occasional star party coverage is fine now that there are so many of
>them, but that Stellafane article every year sure got tedious.
Hmmm, should I be offended at this? ;->
Actually I agree with you, I always thought the yearly Stellafane
coverage reflected a provincial bias, which I think the magazine
largely lacks now. In this respect is is improved.
Overall, Tom, I would agree with most of what you say. I
understand that the inclusion of imaging articles somewhat offset
sthe loss of articles, such as Deep Sky Wonders and (to a lesser
extent) the Bortle column, that are about visual observing. But I
still feel that the loss of these two columns alone represents a
loss of quality and value in the 'new' S&T. Perhaps this makes an
inordinate qualitative difference to me. As always, I would like
to see more about observing, and although the word count on
observing technique is perhaps the same in the old vs. the new
S&T, I feel the quality and flavor seem lacking.
Although I do think that the current S&T is inferior to the old
in this respect, I still feel it is a worthwhile magazine (which
is more than I can say for Astronomy). My September issue of S&T
finally caught up with me today, and I am not disappointed in it.
(And its tardiness is my fault, having recently moved.)
Still, I think it could be better with no significant increase in
the effort made to produce it.
--
Jeff Medkeff | If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
An Amateur Astronomer in | where is the man who has so much as to
Sierra Vista, Arizona | be out of danger?
Michelle Stone
Thanks Tom for a very well written and detailed analysis
of the magazine content!
Michelle