bmthtrains - David Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I put my hand up first to declare this is a bit of a frustrated rant, and probably should have gone for a walk along the beach first before writing this, but... The new issue of the NGS Journal arrived today, and having been increasingly dismayed at its quality over the past few years, this issue has finally tipped me over the edge. The big problem for me is the review section. This 98 page issue has 6 pages of reviews, covering 9 items. The biggest release covered in this issue is the Farish class 70. Now let me remind you that this is the N Gauge Society's Journal here - focused purely on N gauge, so you would naturally expect the best, most thorough and in-depth reviews of N gauge models, compared to say, Hornby Magazine. Alas not. Half a page is devoted to posing a question as to whether the attractiveness of an item influences whether we buy it (setting up the class 70 review perfectly by basically saying the real thing is a hideous loco). A page is then given over to some interesting continental scenic items, well described and critiqued by someone from the international group. And we then arrive at the class 70 - the major release this issue. Ignoring the irritating page layout the Journal uses by starting the review at the foot of one page with about 3 lines of text and a photo, the review is shocking. 50 lines long, only 11 directly relate to the model, the rest being a long diatribe about how hideous the real thing is and pot shots about modern safety labeling on locos. The main photo is of the 70 sat next to an unknown USA diesel. Why? Where is the detailed critique of the model, discussion of its features? It gets worse when the next major item reviewed is the Farish Mk 1 Horsebox. Again, a 50 line review, but this time with no mention of the model other than to say it is well-finished with all mod cons such as NEM couplers and is an excellent model. The entire review is otherwise dedicated to suggesting reasons why you would want to buy the NGS kit version of the same model over this one! Again, what about the actual model? Given the journal is aimed solely at the 5000 paid up members of the NGS, how it can so badly miss the boat with reviews is beyond me. Yes it is put together by volunteers, but if Farish are kind enough to send you a free class 70 to review, at least review it properly! I would expect the Journal to have the most comprehensive review of each new N gauge loco, describing it in detail, taking it apart, checking its haulage, rating its features, critiquing it against photos of the real thing. I'll be sending the same feedback directly to the Journal Manager, as hopefully there are ways this can be improved. There are 5000 members of the society, I am sure a good proportion of them would be able and willing to provide outstanding reviews of new releases - especially if they end up with a free class 70 or Mk1 horsebox for their time... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Grafarman Posted June 7, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 7, 2013 Sadly unsurprising from a Society whose website's gallery features layouts which have long been broken up and nothing new since 2008, and whose journal is trumped IMO by N'Spirations from Grahame Hedges... Unfortunately, I found I was no better off from their offerings in print or online so I surrendered my membership a long time ago. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted June 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 8, 2013 Sounds like you should be putting yourself forward as the Trade Liason officer or Journal Manager! The Society is only as good at the people that volunteer to run it. If you don't think the reviews are any good then write and submit your own! Every person's review of a model will be different. Some will be more interested in the looks, others in the mechanics. This time Fred has used it as more of a discussion peice. Neither approach is right or wrong - especially as there will be slightly differing reviews in each of the main magazines. Updating the NGS website over the last couple of years has been a major task. If you want to see more photos of layouts then take some - I'm sure the new webmaster will be more than pleased to find a home for them. Incidently, there are plenty of pictures on there that have been updated more recently - there are galleries in the AMMC section showing the models entered and this year's models will be joining them throughout the year. Happy modelling. Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 David If you get a response please share it. I need to watch what I say here, due to potential conflicts of interest, so will leave it at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I need to watch what I say here, due to potential conflicts of interest, so will leave it at that. Oddly, I feel the same way. However, to a large extent I agree with Davids OP. Perhaps it's time for a shake up of the journal - certainly things like the 'irritating page layout' could be dealt with and, of course, are not really the fault of the editor or the NGS. But, regardless of any shortcomings and areas that could be improved like the website and journal, being a member of the N Gauge Society is still very worthwhile and there are other major benefits to take advantage of. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 If you don't think the reviews are any good then write and submit your own Unfortunately it's not quite a simple as that - you do really need to have the advanced review sample in your hands to write a review. But if people volunteer would the society be prepared to send them the sample in good time? That might help spread the load and get some different peoples opinions and reviews published in the journal. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin1985 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I completely agree with Grafarman in that Grahame's N'Spirations is the magazine that the NGS journal should be. This comes down to more than just the formatting and scope, but, in my opinion, reflects a very different philosophy. N'Spirations is self-confidently aiming to drive up standards of modelling by featuring photos of the best N gauge layouts, even if there isnt a traditional "layout feature" every month, and features tutorials covering a wide range of ability. In contrast, the NGS journal often seems to be trying to "cater to all abilities" by including some (sorry to be frank) pretty shockingly poor modelling, some of it even below the par of the old Railway Modeller "Right Away" beginners section. I've been an NGS member on and off over the past few years, mainly for the shop and the exclusive kits, but sometimes some of the stuff included in the Journal has been simply embarrassing. My membership has lapsed again at the moment, and I don't really see myself rejoining. This isn't to disparage the work of the volunteers who put the magazine together at all, but I simply disagree with the need to be quite so "inclusive". For example, Model Rail is very inclusive in that it contains lots of tutorials that are relatively simple to follow, projects that don't need special tools etc - BUT you don't see poor modelling featured on the same basis as the main features. Its about helping and encouraging people people to reach the standard of the featured layouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmthtrains - David Posted June 9, 2013 Author Share Posted June 9, 2013 The editor emailed me back saying they will discuss my feedback and try to improve the quality of the reviews compared to the other trade magazines, which was very positive indeed. A few things did surprise me though - firstly that only Farish actually send them review samples, nobody else bothers, so they can only review other items if someone on the committee has bought one and loans it to them. Equally that the editor views recommending their own kit rather than reviewing an RTR offering is acceptable as the manufacturers are stealing their thunder... Most disappointing though is the primary excuse (if that is the right word) for what I see as poor reviews, is that the models coming out now are so good they are running out of ways to keep praising them (!!) Hopefully my feedback will lead to at least a discussion about the matter. I must say thought that I don't subscribe to this idea that because the journal is run by volunteers it is up to the members to send in the material, so the journal is only ever going to be as good as what the members send in. The role of an editor in this kind of publication is to solicit material, as unless you ask for it, no one will send it in. It must be difficult filling 98 pages when very little is sent in, so even the poorest article gets published as that is better than a blank page. The journal team though should be loudly requesting input from its members. Where is the full page listing what they want to see? "Send us your 100 word reviews of your newest locos", "Do you have a project on the go you'd like to share with the members?" Etc etc. I suspect an afternoon spent browsing both RMWeb and the N Gauge Forum would result in a flurry of emails to members saying "we'd love to see this in the journal!" - thus lining up a whole run of articles for future editions. Anyway, rant over, feedback sent and acknowledged, time to see what happens. If the journal want to open up reviews to the membership, they just need to say so... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Thank you for update. I know several people who have sent stuff in to be told it was to high brow, I have sent stuff in review and not seen it all reviewed. That said Items given to the editor have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 The NGS reviews mostly seem a bit like the ones in the Railway Modeller (unless it's changed recently) - highlighting the existence of a new release and describing why someone might want to buy one rather than offering any detailed criticism. This may be because the product doesn't fit with the reviewer's modelling interest or knowledge. A review a few issues back (I think it was the Farish WD) went into quite a lot of detail on haulage versus the kit equivalent, which is something a lot of people might want to know, but it appeared to be down to the fact that the reviewer already had the kit and wanted to use one or the other for hauling long trains on his layout. The class 70 review does mention the good finish, level of detail and the tail lamp switch and suggests that the features of the prototype are "well captured" (but I'm not convinced this reviewer is the best person to comment on this). Other things it would be good to see are something on haulage as I mentioned, confirmation or otherwise of NEM coupler pockets, and how easy it is to dismantle for maintenance or to fit a decoder. Some of these are especially important for the 70 as it must differ quite a bit from other Farish diesel mechanisms to fit within the narrow bodyshell. The question arises of whether all this matters in the Internet age - answers to some of the above have already appeared on forums and if they haven't I can always ask a question. I haven't been reading many mags lately but I think Model Rail in particular is a lot more systematic about presenting a key set of facts to compare performance, along with some more personal commentary about what the reviewer thought and often some commentary on the prototype. They also have reviewers with a wider range of subject knowledge. Doing both is more difficult for a volunteer organisation as the more reviewers there are the more difficult it is to ensure that each one reports the same set of answers on a comparable basis without the review just turning into a checklist. Perhaps NGS needs to choose between systematic assessments by a small team and finding a member with appropriate knowledge to do a more subjective review. Or could even do both by presenting two reviews? At present it doesn't consistently achieve either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Thanks for the update David - there's some interesting information in the feedback, and yep, it would be nice to see some discussion (here and the journal) stimulated as a result. For me the best review in Journal 3/13 was the one on the Dapol Fruit D by Richard which presumably he had purchased examples of. However, the one about the new Farish Mk2 was very dissappointing particularly as it is the first Blue Riband style Mk2 and is one that they would have been provided example(s) of. The review doesn't even draw attention to the fact that it is the Mk2a BSO rather than the Mk2f BSO (that Farish have also announced but presumably are not yet available). It's only about 110 words long - even the review in Rail Express Modeller was in more depth and that was by Simon who is not even a N gauge modeller. I must admit that I'm not surprised about Tricky-CRSs comment that some submitted stuff was considered too 'high brow' - presumably it was rejected which is a shame as widening the approach and content would IMO be a good thing. In repsonse to Edwin_m I would suggest that even in the internet age it still does matter. I'm under the impression that there is quite a high percentage of NGS members who don't have internest access and it is essential for the journal to maintain high standards and be as in depth and as comprehensive as possible. It is, after all, still their premium media and communication source with their members. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Shillabeer Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 After 30 years of membership I found myself questioning whether I should renew my membership in March... Yes, producing a Journal is hard work - I was editor in the 1990s and you are constrained by what is sent to you. Unless you actively commission work - the late Andy Calvert wrote the article about his layouts on the website when I asked him. Maybe earlier success that resulted in a massive increase in pages is now a problem and the size needs to be reduced? N'spirations has much better layouts than the Journal but Grahame doesn't work to a bi-monthly schedule so maybe can afford to wait for good quality material. I also created the website in 1996 and ran it until 2008. The current website is basically a new container for the old contents (apart from Steven B's AMMC photos) - the beginner's guide is 20 years old and tells you that locos cost around £50! The subscription pages are also overly complicated. I've emailed the new webmaster but haven't had a reply yet. The Annual Model Making Competiton is probably the best part of the Society and should be used to propote the Society more. When I used to photograph it in the 2000s I sent the pictures to Railway Modeller but they were never published. I was hoping for a couple of pages coverage like they give to the Gauge O Guild. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 There are 5000 members of the society, I am sure a good proportion of them would be able and willing to provide outstanding reviews of new releases - especially if they end up with a free class 70 or Mk1 horsebox for their time... I'd be happy to do reviews,but do the review models not end up as future competition prizes? On that thought, there appears to be some commotion on other lists about the current Journal competition, in that some appear to think there is an error in it and it's unsolvable!! I've not tried... Best, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 12, 2013 N'spirations has much better layouts than the Journal but Grahame doesn't work to a bi-monthly schedule so maybe can afford to wait for good quality material. I also created the website in 1996 and ran it until 2008. The current website is basically a new container for the old contents (apart from Steven B's AMMC photos) - the beginner's guide is 20 years old and tells you that locos cost around £50! Michael While I agree with some of your points, I feel these two are a bit unfair. I'm sure Grahame won't mind me saying, but he goes out to actively seek content in a way that the Journal doesn't. That isn't to say that the Journal couldn't be more proactive, but it would change the ethos of the Journal. On the website, I can't comment on the previous version but the current version is built on an open source CMS making it easy for multiple people to update content and most importantly keep members up to date. There is a lot of "news" and new information on the site that can't have been there under your tenure! Cheers, Mike (NGS Product Development Officer) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 That isn't to say that the Journal couldn't be more proactive, but it would change the ethos of the Journal. Yes, the ethos of the Journal is probably the nub of the issue. And I don't think changing it would necessarily be a bad thing - in fact it would be very welcome IMO. Currently it seems to have become very staid and 'woolly cardigan' comfortable. There's doesn't appear to be any development edge, no new ideas, no broadening of appeal, no widening of standards. To a large extent the comment that some submitted stuff was considered too 'high brow' sums up the adverse approach to risk and anything outside the current basic comfort envelope. It ought to be more outward looking. Actively seeking out suitable new exciting quality content would be a good start. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Grafarman Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 12, 2013 Michael On the website, I can't comment on the previous version but the current version is built on an open source CMS making it easy for multiple people to update content and most importantly keep members up to date. There is a lot of "news" and new information on the site that can't have been there under your tenure! Cheers, Mike (NGS Product Development Officer) Sorry Mike but I think you're missing the point here; in today's online population a Society who is seeking to gain and retain the interest of new and current members needs to keep its entire portal fresh and updated. Otherwise it comes across as not bothered and out of touch. Just because one page of the site is updated doesn't negate the rest of the site being left in neglect. Far better to shed the old pages altogether and rebuild the site from the News page outwards; at least that would give the impression that NGS has the desire to make its presence felt in the digital age. Don't want to tread on toes or feelings but felt the point needed making; I run our church's website and know that unless we constantly create new content and regularly change things around, the number of visits dips as people look elsewhere for new and interesting things to read/view... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 N'spirations has much better layouts than the Journal but Grahame doesn't work to a bi-monthly schedule so maybe can afford to wait for good quality material. Currently N'spirations is produced on roughly a quarterly basis. But I do also edit and produce the DEMU UPDate magazine http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/71455-update-70/ so I'm putting together eight magazines a year. And in addition, for N'spirations, I undertake all the marketing and distribution. However, as Mike mentioned, I don't actually wait for content (N'spirations) but actively source it by going out and photographing layouts, asking for specific articles (from just a couple of people I know) and write much of it myself. I also actively check out websites, forums and other magazines for developments and information. Perhaps that is a problem for the journal - just waiting for content means they are restricted by what is submitted. Being more proactive would allow them to 'push the envelope', develop things in a controlled manner and improve the overall content/read. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 12, 2013 Sorry Mike but I think you're missing the point here; in today's online population a Society who is seeking to gain and retain the interest of new and current members needs to keep its entire portal fresh and updated. Otherwise it comes across as not bothered and out of touch. Just because one page of the site is updated doesn't negate the rest of the site being left in neglect. Far better to shed the old pages altogether and rebuild the site from the News page outwards; at least that would give the impression that NGS has the desire to make its presence felt in the digital age. David I didn't say that only one page was being updated. I actually fundamentally disagree with you about old information - if it is still relevant then it is a valuable archive of information. The key is ensuring it is still relevant. If people spot things that need updating then drop the webmaster a note. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Shillabeer Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I seem to remember that years ago the suggestion was made to the committe that the Society should pay for Journal content from outside sources. Maybe, given the current bank balance, the Society should consider this again. Yes, the website is recieving regular news items from the AMMC, the shop and product development but no one seems to have been assigned to galleries - a large majority of the pre-2008 photos came from my camera. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Grafarman Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 12, 2013 David I didn't say that only one page was being updated. I actually fundamentally disagree with you about old information - if it is still relevant then it is a valuable archive of information. The key is ensuring it is still relevant. If people spot things that need updating then drop the webmaster a note. Cheers, Mike Sorry didn't make that one clear; yes indeed the old stuff needs to be available if it represents useful information, but not in pages normally assumed to be current - if it's archive then label it Archive, and don't leave it hanging around in other places! That's why I suggested shedding and rebuilding the pages from the News outwards, then you can categorise and include older content in more relevant places. Hoping this make sense; would be nice to see the site come up to current standards... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 12, 2013 David When you standards - do you mean genuine web standards? Or your idea of how a website should be? (a very important difference when talking about standards!). On the latter ask 2 people how a website should be organised and maintained and you will get 3 different answers From a personal point I would change the structure quite a bit, but in the grand scheme of things it does a reasonable job and contains a lot of information for new and current members. As I said, I am sure the webmaster would welcome constructive suggestions. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Grafarman Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 12, 2013 David When you standards - do you mean genuine web standards? Or your idea of how a website should be? (a very important difference when talking about standards!). On the latter ask 2 people how a website should be organised and maintained and you will get 3 different answers From a personal point I would change the structure quite a bit, but in the grand scheme of things it does a reasonable job and contains a lot of information for new and current members. As I said, I am sure the webmaster would welcome constructive suggestions. Cheers, Mike Sorry (again!) I meant web standards; I have a friend who, as part of their job, scans selected sites and advises website holders as to how their information is being displayed, collected and processed and gives advice as to how to optimise their sites, so what I'll do is ask them to have a look at the NGS site and give the Webmaster some constructive feedback... Apologies to David (bmthtrains) for hijacking the thread for this discussion; hopefully it will prove relevant in the long run... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted June 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 12, 2013 The position of Journal Manager (a committee post BTW) is currently vacant - all you need is someone to propose and second your nomination (and then a few people to vote for you!). Similarly all the other committee posts are available each year on the same basis. The opportunities are there to help run (and influence) the Society if you really want to. However, be prepared to loose a lot of modelling time! The only modelling I've done in the last month is to stripe and prime a Dapol DVT; All my other free time has been taken up with admin for the AMMC and I've still got several hours worth of work to do before the AMMC pages on the website will be updated! Happy modelling. Steven B NGS AMMC Co-ordinator. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calnefoxile Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Gentlemen, On the subject of the NGS Website, can I just point out that the current NGS Webmaster has only just taken over the role after the sad passing of Paul Martin, and I know that he has plans for revamping the website, some of which were already in the planning stage by Paul. Please can we give the webmaster a bit of time to investigate these plans and either implement them or look at other ideas for the website. On the subject of the 70 review, can I ask why Ben Ando wasn't asked for a review?? He did the one for Model Rail and he is a Honorary VP of the society and a Product Development Officer. Surely he would have been the better person to do a review, maybe the reviewers need to be split up, one for steam items, one for Diesel/Electric items, etc (I think you get the idea) Regards Neal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 On the subject of the 70 review, can I ask why Ben Ando wasn't asked for a review?? He did the one for Model Rail and he is a Honorary VP of the society and a Product Development Officer. Surely he would have been the better person to do a review, maybe the reviewers need to be split up, one for steam items, one for Diesel/Electric items, etc (I think you get the idea) Yes, although we don't know that he wasn't asked (he may have declined), it would have seemed eminently sensible and would have been a start on actively seeking content and being proactive (that I've mentioned really needs to be undertaken). However, I also wonder whether any of the comments and suggestions made on a thread such as this actually get back to the NGS committee and if any note/action is taken on it. Unfortunately I get the impression that if they don't actively source content for the journal they are unlikely to also regularly check through websites, forums and other magazines for ideas, news and feedback. At least the OP contacted them directly. H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.