ARRL QST magazine vs, CQ,.. etc..

[W3DBB]

One advantage CQ has is an easier to read print size and much higher quality reproduction of photographs. CQ is easy on the eyes. I'll bet their advertisers like that too. It's a good-looking magazine.

I'm not sure about some of their editorial content, but it's gone hand-in-hand with changes in the hobby over the years. Some of their articles, irrespective of their April Fools pieces, are not to be taken seriously.

QST is written on a higher level but that is changing too, and for the same reason. I don't always agree with ARRL policies but for what they do it's the only game in town.

CQ Communications seems to be, dare I say, a freewheeling outfit. They'll take your money but getting them to hold up their end of the deal without some prompting is apparently SOP for this outfit. I have some history with them.

I resubscribed 2 months ago (after a break of a few years) and was surprised when CQ Communications charged my credit card in short order. This in spite of the fact that lead times in the magazine publishing industry mean no magazine could possibly have been received until a substantial period of time later. I gave them 6 weeks for the first issue of CQ to arrive in my mailbox before making an inquiry. Didn't happen. Following my emailed inquiry, I'm now on the list to receive the June issue. I'm not holding my breath.

There must be an exemption from normal credit card billing procedures the magazine publishing industry enjoys that I am unaware of. My position is: charging the credit card substantially in advance of sending the first issue is bad form, to say the least.

Back in May 1990 when CQ Communications acquired Ham Radio Magazine at the Dayton Hamvention, I had a subscription to CQ with less than a couple of years remaining and also to Ham Radio with less than three years remaining. I was informed via both outfits the issues of Ham Radio would be replaced with CQ, and in the event of a subscriber taking both magazines, the years/months remaining on the Ham Radio subscription would be tacked onto the CQ subscription.

Didn't happen. I gave CQ a couple of months to get it together. That didn't happen either. I called Long Island and explained my predicament to the woman there and she said no problem; it would be taken care of.

The result of my phone call was I started receiving 2 issues of CQ every month. After a second phone call to LI things were finally straightened out. By the Fall of 1990 I was receiving what I had paid for. Too much hand-holding IMO.

CQ Communications seems to require a lot of maintenance from this subscriber's point-of-view. Since their buyout of HRM, I've subscribed to CQ on and off over the ensuing 22 years and now am starting back again. Like anyone else, they have some good articles from time to time but also a lot of fluff. You pay your money and you take your chances.

Incidentally, one of the biggest mistakes ARRL ever made was removing the section manager reports from QST. Since the SM reports went online, I know of at least one ARRL section that apparently only issues a report a few times per year. Makes one wonder just what exactly is going on in that particular section.

ARRL has struggled with their lack of transparency for a very long time. Removing the Section Manager reports from QST didn't help. Putting it online apparently resulted in a de facto change making the creation and posting of the SM report optional.

I see some encouraging signs ARRL is attempting to improve itself in the transparency department, but they still have a long way to go. And in the case of removing SM reports from the pages of QST, their actions became less transparent. It was a step backward.

[N2EY]

Does he work for NPR, now?

No, not his style. They deal with facts.

You'd find 'NSD on FauxNews.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

Incidentally, one of the biggest mistakes ARRL ever made was removing the section manager reports from QST. Since the SM reports went online, I know of at least one ARRL section that apparently only issues a report a few times per year. Makes one wonder just what exactly is going on in that particular section.

ARRL has struggled with their lack of transparency for a very long time. Removing the Section Manager reports from QST didn't help. Putting it online apparently resulted in a de facto change making the creation and posting of the SM report optional.

I see some encouraging signs ARRL is attempting to improve itself in the transparency department, but they still have a long way to go. And in the case of removing SM reports from the pages of QST, their actions became less transparent. It was a step backward.

I think the issue is that the SM reports took up a lot of space and were only of interest to those in the section. Also, much of the SM report space was taken up by net and traffic reports, which today aren't as numerous.

I don't know that every section posted a report every month back-in-the-day. You might want to check.

I think a lot of the changes were due to reader feedback.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[W4HAY]

Does he work for NPR, now?

Nahh. He ain't that stupid. Besides, he has enough trouble being taken seriously as it is.

[N2EY]

Nahh. He ain't that stupid.

No, NPR isn't that stupid.

Besides, he has enough trouble being taken seriously as it is.

With very good reason!

73 de Jim, N2EY

[W1RFI]

Another thing is your able to search every issue from #1 to present on there website plus a lot of other features no one else offers.

With the introduction of the digital edition, all of the QST articles from years past are downloadable by members. The 1914-2011 articles are in the QST archive and the 2012 issues are all available in the digital QST page on the ARRL.org web site.

If there are any folks who are not familiar with QST, send me an email to w1rfi@arrl.org and ask me to send you a recent issue to look at. (This offer applies outside the US, too, as non-US hams will now have instant access to the digital edition at the same time US hams do.)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org
ARRL Lab Manager

[K5FH]

I'm not sure I'd take anything ol' 'NSD says at face value. Fella tends to remember stuff that didn't actually happen.

True, in some cases. The one big thing that mitigates against his credibility is his constant harping about cold fusion and how "a commercial home unit" will be available shortly (which he's been saying for well over a decade, and probably before).

He claims to have paid authors $10,000 out of his own pocket, on the promise of being reimbursed. In those days $10,000 was a heck of a lot of money, and would have bought a lot of articles!

At that time Wayne and a partner were running a business manufacturing and selling hi-fi equipment, which probably subsidized his time at CQ. He is a little sketchy on many details.

Elsewhere in that blog he claims to have founded American Mensa as if it were something he did alone. But there's no mention of him in the histories of that organization.

Interesting...

Read his tirades in 73 and you'll see opinion presented as fact and fact presented as opinion.

Those ranting editorials were about the only thing that kept people buying and subscribing to the magazine for as long as they did. Nowadays, if we want similar entertainment, we have to make do with Alex Jones and suchlike.