Grade the September Magazine

[chumsferd]

I thought this issue was quite good. I gave it a B.

I'll give this thread an A. It's a great idea. I suspect you will find that responses will be all over the place, which in some sense is desirable for a publication such as this. Different people will find value in different articles, which should expand readership and keep people coming back for more, which is good for the long term health of the magazine. It also provides an opportunity to re-vitalize/advertise some of the less popular games.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I really enjoyed the poker and finance article. Perhaps it is difficult for the layperson to apply the concepts, but a good magazine should have macro concepts as well is very practical micro concepts. Thinking about the game of poker is as valuable as looking at tactics. Take ToP, for instance. The book is universally thought of amongst real poker players one of the top books if not THE top book on poker, yet in the hands of a novice it is of limited practical value. A total beginner has difficulty understanding the FTP and is more interested in starting hands, etc. It is only after acquiring sufficient playing experience that the genius of Theory of Poker is revealed.

[Leavenfish]

A+ because of the variety.

---Leavenfish

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest weakness of this issue is that only three of the twelve articles are strategy articles and not one of them was for hold 'em cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the variety in this issue. There are 11 sub-forums under Texas Hold'em on the website plus MTT and STT. I don't think anyone can say Hold'em strategy is underrepresented on 2+2. The magazine is the perfect place to give some exposure to other games like Razz or 2-7 TD.

What's the lead time for articles in the magazine? August had an explosion of HORSE games on the internet when PokerStars began offering these games. I would have liked to see an article on mixed games like HORSE or HOSE or even BOT.

I also like the non-poker gambling articles. The NFL sports betting article was timely. It would be nice to see the same with regards to the NBA/NHL/NCAA Basketball seasons upcoming. More non-poker gambling articles about backgammon/billiards/cribbage/darts/etc. would also be interesting. Overall good job.

[Beavis68]

well, at first look, this is a huge improvement.

[jfk]

The magazine can't be all things to all people. You'll drive yourself nuts trying to please us.

The variety of the articles is a strong suit. Several of the articles are of little use or appeal to me but that doesn't reflect badly on the magazine. In past months I've enjoyed or found useful several of articles which were widely panned and disliked some of the serial pieces which seem to have a heavy readership.

Perhaps growing the magazine would be a worthy aim. If there are contributing authors who are producing quality work, make a home for them. Twenty quality articles would make for a better read than eleven quality articles.

Your readership has widely varying abilities and interests. The best way to draw readership is to offer a similarly wide array of offerings.

You might even consider a "best of" type series of articles. I don't read all the sub-forums and know that I'm missing some true gold out there. Members like Bruce Z, Aaron Brown and Andy Fox come to mind who regularly make posts which are of a quality to make the magazine. Many regular readers here may miss these posts and it may make sense to pick the best two or three from a previous month to be featured.

Given threads could be edited and rewritten. Inclusion in the magazine would give the thoughts included wider exposure. Additional benefits might be a building of the regular readership in the subforum in which the thread/article originated. The authors get rewarded for the regular quality of their forum contributions and the less regular forum member gets exposed to ideas outside his or her area of interest.

Congratulations on taking over the magazine. While I didn't assign a letter grade (its too early for that) there's no reason to believe that the magazine won't continue to evolve and improve.

[Jay P McCauley]

2+2 might consider incorporating some kind of peer review into the publication process. A few extra eyes on each article -- seeking clarification, probing for implications, challenging analysis -- could only lead to a higher quality magazine.

One possibility would be to have a forum hidden from the view of the general public in which, say, 2+2 moderators can discuss articles submitted for publication. Mason and Bryan might even post a survey in each article thread asking for a rating of the article along with a binary vote to publish or not. If an article is deemed worthy of publication (Bryan/Mason would obviously retain final say), then Bryan might forward comments to the article author and ask for a small revision before publication. I think that this process might also reduce Bryan's workload (or at the very least it should not change by much).

I would have really welcomed such outside advice before my own articles were published. It can be hard to get useful and honest feedback from friends and acquaintances, who are often motivated to be supportive rather than critical.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
2+2 might consider incorporating some kind of peer review into the publication process. A few extra eyes on each article -- seeking clarification, probing for implications, challenging analysis -- could only lead to a higher quality magazine.

One possibility would be to have a forum hidden from the view of the general public in which, say, 2+2 moderators can discuss articles submitted for publication. Mason and Bryan might even post a survey in each article thread asking for a rating of the article along with a binary vote to publish or not. If an article is deemed worthy of publication (Bryan/Mason would obviously retain final say), then Bryan might forward comments to the article author and ask for a small revision before publication. I think that this process might also reduce Bryan's workload (or at the very least it should not change by much).

I would have really welcomed such outside advice before my own articles were published. It can be hard to get useful and honest feedback from friends and acquaintances, who are often motivated to be supportive rather than critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an author (though I didn't get an article in for this one) I would support it. I would further be willing to be on some sort of peer review group for let's say double my mod salary.

edited to add: I haven't had the chance to read your article yet, but judging by the title and a very brief skim we have similar backrounds and write several articles. I'd be happy to read yours if you wish.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
One possibility would be to have a forum hidden from the view of the general public in which, say, 2+2 moderators can discuss articles submitted for publication. Mason and Bryan might even post a survey in each article thread asking for a rating of the article along with a binary vote to publish or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a great idea if your audience was purely moderators and hard core junkies of this site. While there's a place for articles which meet this criteria, it is very important to have offering which don't appeal primarily to this group.

For instance, in the March(?) issue there was an article about the basics of a good desktop setup for internet play. The author covered both the hardware and software basics. The article was badly received on the forum.

As a long time brick and mortar player who was looking to make the long delayed transition I found the article (I believe there was a series) extremely useful. Yes, I could've slogged through countless pages on the software, computer and internet forums and cobbled together the same info, but it was very convenient to have it all laid out in one place and in one well researched voice.

Any regular reader of the those sub-forums would've been bored to tears with the article but to me it was perhaps the most useful article of the year.

You can strive for excellence in the magazine but remember that your audience has wider needs and wants than might be found within a moderator peer group.

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm glad the peer review recommendation was made, because I previously discussed it via PM with a couple of the site people. Obviously it would be a burden if someone had to review several articles a month, especially checking for math errors in more involved articles. But having a group of posters on tap to review articles in different categories would be the easiest way to go. If there is a LHE article, then 4 or 5 posters would be available to preview that, and the same for different areas, so as to spread the review work. In fact with a enough reviewers, the same ones wouldn't even have to review every article in their area of specialty as that could be rotated. And the stakes level of a given form of poker matter as well as different stakes play differently.

2+2 putting up a magazine article is different than a poster writing a post, and so I am sure everyone would agree a higher standard is called for, and the editor can't be expected to be knowledgeable about all forms or more intricate mathematical subjects. So I hope this idea gets some support both from the editor and site and enough posters in different areas willing to help out.

[Jay P McCauley]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be a great idea if your audience was purely moderators and hard core junkies of this site. While there's a place for articles which meet this criteria, it is very important to have offering which don't appeal primarily to this group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, one or two people see the articles and then make decisions about what gets published (which is how magazines often work). Peer review along the lines that I suggest would provide a broader perspective of those who help keep the gate.

I should add that it does not seem to me that having a broader team decide what gets published is or should be the main goal of peer review. A single individual -- the editor -- is certainly capable of guiding the magazine so that the interests of a diverse audience are collectively served well. However, an editor is probably NOT capable of knowing everything about every topic -- some quite technical -- and of providing detailed, meaningful, and diverse feedback to all of the authors who publish in 2+2 mag.

Finally, my suggestion to allow (but not require or expect) the moderators to see articles ahead of time and provide comments to the editor and authors was just the first idea that came to me. There could certainly be other ways to accomplish peer review at low cost/disruption.