My thoughts on the subject(s)
Joe F wrote:
Quote:
"There's also a sense the hobby publishers are just "filling pages" and lack a real strategy for where we need to take the hobby next."
Perhaps the problem is that the publishers should spend less effort on trying to determine where to take the hobby and more effort on reporting where the hobbyists are going with it?
When the "few" (the publishers) try to tell the "many" (the hobbyists) where to go (heh); they may discover that the collective are not interested in that direction and have wandered off to other areas.
You asked in an earlier thread for suggestions ... many were offered, no real need to open a new discussion for that here.
Joe also asked:
Quote:
"... have WE changed?"
Well, of course you have; for the better (for the most part). Your magazine is now monthly vice quarterly. The amount of content (including advertising ... which is not a BAD thing, as sometime people seem to have difficulty determining my intent with such statements) has also increased. When you were only putting out four issues a year, (and the magazine was "new"), you could be much more selective about content ... only the very best made it to the published edition.
In the early days I found nearly every article to be "interesting" and worth my time in reading. Today that is simply not true. It is rare for me to read even one or two MRH articles all the way through; but over the course of the year, the number of articles published in MRH that keeps me coming back for more, is still about the same, just spread out over 12 issues instead of four. The increased content has resulted in many more "specialized" articles that have appeal to smaller groups ... it is the nature of the beast I suppose.
One area that could use some improvement (in my opinion) actually falls under the editor's hat. There are some authors who I will read anything they write, start to finish; and then go back and read it again. And there are others who I will stop reading almost as soon as I see their name as their particular writing style goes against my particular nature.
Not really sure how to describe this (and perhaps I should conduct a "scientific" study using Word to confirm/verify this); however, it does seem that those authors that I don't bother reading use words such as "I", "me", and "my" a lot. The article becomes more about "them" (the author) and what "they" are doing and less about "what" is being done and "how" it is being done (the hobby).; i.e., I prefer articles written from an "This is what I did" point of view vice the "I did this" perspective. That is all I will say about that.
Joe F wrote:
Quote:
"Since the 90s, there's been no real sense of advancement and fresh insights coming to the hobby, and no prominent thought leaders, and little in the way of new directions being suggested by the hobby press."
DaveB answered this one for me. I agree with DaveB in that the hobby has made some significant changes since the 90's for all the reasons that he listed earlier. DCC by itself has been a "game changer" in the hobby.
Where is the "magic" today? I think a lot of it resides in folks like M C Fujiwara and Professor Klyzir who have taken the hobby out of their homes and to the public. M C and his group of N-scale "FreeMoNers"; seem to be having a blast. Every time he reports on their adventures (achievements?) I find myself wishing that I could be there. Doesn't get much more magical than that.
Likewise the Professor is an amazing machine, churning out show-level layouts that consistently gain high marks from the public. He is none too shy about sharing his experiences and ideas, just for the sake of helping another fellow modeler achieve their dream and avoid some of the pitfalls lurking about.
One of the reasons I like the forums here so much is that there are so many folks, from all walks of life, young and old, who have a common passion and are willing to freely share that passion with others. That is the magic of model railroading. Dave O