GWW - Is it just me missing the lack of projects?

[Steve Maskery]

Nice one!
I must remember that.

Cheers
Steve

 

[dedee]

Take carcase and carcass, for example. The number of time I've read (not in GW of course) about how to glue up a dead animal.

Steve, I specifically remember looking this up when I published details of my chisel cabinet and according to OED I seem to recall both spellings were acceptable. :shock:

Andy

 

[Steve Maskery]

There we are then, Steve Maskery hoist by his own petard. 'B
out time too, eh?



Cheers
Steve, learning something new every day.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Hmm? Yes Steve, but I use both spellings, sometimes even in the same paragraph.

Another teaser-- mortise or mortice? Again I use both spellings.

What about rabbet and rebate or dado and housing, and then there's blind dovetails and lap dovetails, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha.

I've noticed a lot of American terminology along with American styles of woodworking, the latter particularly amongst the amateurs, creeping into British usage. All of it is no doubt due to the influence of internet woodworking forums along with the showing of those insidious Nail-Gun-Norm TV shows on UK TV. Slainte.

 

[Steve Maskery]

.

Another teaser-- mortise or mortice? Again I use both spellings.

And so you should, one is a verb and the other is a noun. Like practise and practice, or license and licence.

Unfortunately I've failed to persuade the GW team of this, despite 10 years of trying! All my mortising becomes morticing, every time. :evil:

Cheers
Steve

 

[Alf]

.

Another teaser-- mortise or mortice? Again I use both spellings.

And so you should, one is a verb and the other is a noun. Like practise and practice, or license and licence.

Unfortunately I've failed to persuade the GW team of this, despite 10 years of trying!

Possibly because it's not the case. This came up on WoodCentral just recently as it happens and despite practically begging someone to tell me I'm wrong, no-one took up the challenge. According to the OED mortice is just an alternative spelling of mortise.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Steve Maskery]

All right then, when I write it one is a noun and one is a verb.

This isn't fair, I'm upholder of the English language and all my cornerstones are being pulled out from under my feet! How on earth can we communicate if two very similar words are used interchangeably to mean very different things?

You'll be telling me that the Greengrocer's Apostrophe is OK next!

Steve, going off to sulk.

 

[Chris Knight]

As an akshul owner of an OED - albeit a 1971 edition (although it has won me plenty of Scrabble games) I can tell you that just about anything goes!

The OED has a distinct preference for mortise - relegating mortice to an also-ran alternative spelling along with - take a deep breath here and try to spot it!

mortas(e) mortays(e,eys.esse), mortyse, morteis, mortaise, mortis(s (e,(mortesce, mortteise) mortoise, mortice.

In the verb form mortise seems favoured followed by mortice.

However, remember that the OED is an historical dictionary and really only goes up to the early 20th century. Longmans dictionary which is better on more current usage also favours the s form for both nouns and verbs.

Collins Cobuild dictionary which is also very good on modern usage favours the s form to the extent of NOT EVEN SHOWING the c form!

 

[Paul Chapman]

:shock: Blimey :shock: :? :?

Paul

 

[mr]

Steve, going off to sulk.

hohoho

Ack! did you correct that as I quoted you?

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Ok. Enough of my nine-month boycott. This has been a fascinating thread, and one that I welcome. It's largely been conducted with intelligence, respect and passion. I applaud the Forum.

I agree that mortise is a verb and mortice a noun, but I've more important things to do than get too worried about that. I'll tell Sophie to bring that in as a new style from tomorrow.

My job is to find the best projects, techniques, products, writing, ideas, philisophies, people, workshops etc... as possible. I do it to the best of my abilities (I hope) and resources, as do the rest of our fantastic team, and we have a lot of fun in the process. I've been so heartened by the amazing letters and emails we've received from readers saying they can sense that fun.

Whether or not we are targeting exactly the right niche in the woodworking market is a mute point. Obviously we'd like more of one type of reader without losing any off the other end. It is a fine balance, and makes editing the most amazing job of all.

I'd love to be able to direct our skills towards all woodworkers, of all abilities and levels, but that's not commercially possible. I'd love to be able to show the Americans how to produce the best woodworking magazines. If we had a fraction of their resources, and a readership base as large as theirs, I'm sure we could take woodworking magazines into a new dimension. But we don't and we have to live with what we can achieve, forever reaching to the sky in the hope that we touch the ceiling.

Gill has it right when she says that many readers only survive for a certain amount of time with any magazine. Some markets only expect a reader to stay for a couple of years. As readers we often consider a magazine has changed, when of course it is we that have moved on. There's nothing like a redesign to provide exactly that sort of punctuation in the life of a publication and the experience of a reader. Fortunately many seem to like what we have achieved.

The amazing thing about producing magazines is that it is a team pursuit. A magazine is the product of an extraordinary dynamic, created by a disparate group of staff and contributors, each person providing their own skills and ideas to complement and develop the vision. I cannot think of any more exciting task than to lead such a team and to realise that vision. And all the time we are listening to readers, to our friends, to colleagues, to the industry and to ourselves, adjusting, developing and fighting for our ideas. And all the time circumstances (in the form of holidays, illness, moves, etc...) get in the way. That's life.

Hopefully we enrich the lives of a few woodworkers a little. Hopefully we encourage a few more to have a go.

Like so many of my generation I am a child of the e-world, however if you want British woodworking magazines to survive then the Forum has to consider whether the promotion of American publications is to everyone's long-term benefit.

One day, once the commercial model exists to reward our skills online, we'll obviously turn our efforts your way, but for the moment let's all live in harmony side by side. We have a lot to learn and benefit from one another. I'd certainly be far more willing to mention UKWorkshop in the pages of Britain's best selling woodwork magazine if there wasn't a risk that readers would find destructive comments and pointers towards rival magazines.

Thanks for reading this, and for supporting Good Woodworking, and especially thanks to our loyal contributors and team. We always welcome contributions and suggestions from woodworkers, and you can contact me at [email protected].

Nick

 

[Barry Burgess]

Nick having read all that has been written I am voting with my subscription - not to renew
Thanks
barry

 

[Philly]

Gee, Barry. That'll teach Nick for coming back to the forum :roll:
Philly :wink:

 

[MikeW]

Ok. Enough of my nine-month boycott. This has been a fascinating thread, and one that I welcome. It's largely been conducted with intelligence, respect and passion. I applaud the Forum.
...
Like so many of my generation I am a child of the e-world, however if you want British woodworking magazines to survive then the Forum has to consider whether the promotion of American publications is to everyone's long-term benefit.
...
Nick

Hi Nick,

Welcome back.

As you responded in a public forum, so will I. We have exchanged several emails in the past, and I think very positive ones. My wishes are only the best for GWW.

My feeling is that business ebbs and flows--not only locally, regionally, but also globally. This applies to all business, not just the publishing world.

Ultimately, if the goal of the readership is to learn, be enriched and be challenged as woodworkers, it is in their best interest to seek out ways to ensure their own needs are met. The challenge of a woodworking publication is to enable the readership to further advance their skills and or encourage them to try to advance in woodworking, all the while serving the publications needs--revenue.

If a magazine has a clear goal and truly believes they are meeting those goals and readership does not come on board to ensure the economic success of said magazine, then what? Is it the readership's error, the publisher's, or a combination? Possibly both to varying degrees for different individuals.

Take me personally. I went from a rather lucrative career to a small fraction of the annual salary I made in about a two year time-span. While I subscribed to many magazines prior to the reversal, I no longer can. I have to make a choice as to which publications I spend my money on. My wants exceed my abilities.

I've said in the past, I could care less whether a magazine is published in Timbuktu if it meets my needs as a woodworker. My job is to decide which one. The publishers job is to determine the target audience and plan to achieve reasonable market penetration into the target audience. No publication will ever gain total market penetration.

Popular Woodworking is a good example here. Over the last few years it has been slowly redefining itself. I believe it is gaining market share against FWW--and rightly so. It has done this, I believe, by focusing attention to what it desires to communicate. I think they have done this in part by listening to people who write in and by perusing the forums, as well as their own journeys in woodworking. By anticipating trends in woodworking, they've sought to align PW's content to a clear vision of how to meet the trends. This seeming growth has not been overnight.

By the above example, I in no way desire to compare GWW to PopWood. It is, I believe, too early for GWW to tell the lasting effects of the redesign and perhaps content changes as regards readership. My only advice is, ensure the content meets the goals and vision of GWW--and that the goals and vision of GWW is what is needed in the UK. When people reinvestigate GWW, perhaps liking "this issue," and see the next is also meeting a need or even piqued their interest, you will grow the readership and hopefully the delivered subscription base will grow. The revenue from advertising will increase, allowing even more effort into expanding GWW's influence in the UK. The adverse is also true.

Again, Nick, my very best wishes to you and the team at GWW.

Take care, Mike

 

[StevieB]

Nick, welcome back to the forum and thanks for breaking your silence

I think you (and Gill) hit the nail on the head when you said that the audience changes as much as the magazine. By definition the magazine cannot change as a readers skills improve, so you have to hope that as readers move away from GWW to a more inspiration based rather than a practical based magazine your format attracts more readers onto the bottom of the market to replace them.

Format changes to GWW will increase this rate of accrual of new readers and sadly loss of readers also, you just have to hope that more come than go. From your comments it appears that this is the case so well done!

Personally, I still learn from GWW so still subscribe. If I continue in this hobby I may well start to look elsewhere as I get better and want different things.

I spend 3 quid on a sandwich at work and thats gone in 10 minutes, GWW takes longer that that to read. In the grand scheme of things I dont think its a great expense if some of an issue is not relevant to me. It would be foolish to expect every issue and every article to match my requirements.

I hope you continue to lurk if not contribute,

Regards,

Steve.

 

[Alf]

I agree that mortise is a verb and mortice a noun

There ya go, Steve. Instead of telling them they're wrong for ten years you should have proved mortise and mortice were in fact interchangable and it'd have been changed to the wrong thing ages ago... ](*,)

I'd certainly be far more willing to mention UKWorkshop in the pages of Britain's best selling woodwork magazine if there wasn't a risk that readers would find destructive comments and pointers towards rival magazines.

I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless.

Nick, we're not your enemy. Like plants that want to grow, we want to get behind a UK magazine and enjoy reading it. But if you get defensive over any suggestions, what can we do? We go elsewhere and find something we do want to read. And we talk about it. It doesn't make us evil enemies of noble British magazine editors - it makes us depressed Brits wondering why, yet again, we have to turn abroad to get something we want. It's just too bad that your vision for GWW happens to be so very different from some members of this forum. Perhaps it should tell you something that it's the most articulate ones. :?

Cheers, Alf

 

[mr]

Perhaps it should tell you something that it's the most articulate ones. :?

Cheers, Alf

I hesitate to say this but it should also be noted that some of the most articulate forum members are also frequent / regular contributors to GWW. From my own point of view GWW doesnt always carry articles I want to read. I cant afford a lot of the kit reviewed so I tend to gloss over the reviews. Even more so in the case of F&C (with their current SCM obsession). There is however always something to read in GWW which isnt always the case with other mags. F&C which was mentioned earlier in the thread attracts criticism that it appears to be by professionals for proffesionals and while I dont accept that this is the case I have to say that there is rarely as much within its pages that I find attracts me. The articles are difficult to read, the obsession with machinery that only a professional workshop can afford irritate me, are the people who buy that kit reading this magazine, or is it simply aspirational, a case of subscribing to Country Life but living in Surbiton (not that theres anything wrong with Surbiton). GWW appears to me to be much more targetted and it may be that a lot of members here arent included in the demographic, perhaps theyre too advanced and wanting different things as has been suggested but even then GWW will often turn up an article thats potentially of interest regardless of skill levels. The interviews, a recent piece on woodlands, the hints & tips etc etc. I could go on but Im starting to bore myself so Ill shut up.
Cheers Mike

 

[Alf]

not that theres anything wrong with Surbiton

Point of order... :wink: :lol:

 

[Gill]

As a former subscriber to GWW, it's strange that it seems to be me who has an urge to leap to its defence. When I started woodworking as an adult, I had no idea how to develop my skills so I turned to magazines and GWW met my needs admirably. As time passed I outgrew it and moved on to other, more specialised reading.

There must be an awful lot of adults who are interested in taking up woodwork later in life. These people won't necessarily have the skills or confidence to know what to do. The chances are they won't have the tools either, but they probably have the wherewithal to buy some. GWW will meet their needs admirably, taking them through a variety of projects and advising them as to which tools they will should acquire.

I daresay many of these woodworkers will be happy following the guidance which GWW has to offer for the remainder of their days. Those of us who wish to develop our skills will be looking outside the remit of the magazine. Due to our specialist interests, it's highly unlikely that one magazine would satisfy us in general terms. Some might like FWW, some might prefer F&C; it all depends which way their inclinations are. For myself, I subscribe to Scroll Saw Workshop but I doubt many others here do.

GWW satisfies a general interest in woodwork (as can be seen from its circulation) whilst most of us here are looking for something else. I find it comforting that the magazine is introducing so many newbies to the craft, giving them the basic skills and equipment to enable them to take it further. I wouldn't expect the magazine to change its approach - the circulation figures show that it's being commercially successful.

This conversation rather reminds me of one that I had a few years ago with a lad who was knocking Kylie Minogue's music, sneering, "Who'd want to spend their life making music that only 9-year-olds listen to". My answer was that 9-year-olds are as entitled to be entertained as anyone else. I still believe that, and I hope some of you more accomplished woodworkers might agree that our craft has a place for its Kylie Minogues as well as its Kaiser Chiefs and Pink Floyds.

Gill

 

[mr]

Gill I dont care what you say but there is NO place in this world or any other for the Kaiser Chiefs!

Like yourself when I started GWW suited my needs best. I havent outgrown it though I do look at other magazines as well. I dont get to see the American ones, living where I do its a 45 min trip to see anything other than GWW. I do read a lot of the" taster" articles on the various American websites and if they were available and funds unlimited I might buy them. I have to say that I dont subscribe to GWW (though I do read every issue) but in the days where I was looking at the magazine racks and would buy the magazine which interested me most in the shop it was GWW that came home with me most often. This may be due to my newb status as much as anything but also , I think, in part to the way the articles are written. Theres a lot of general woodworking knowledge, presented with an attitude / personna rather than straight I did this then I did that, oh and then I used this super expensive multifangled grungewhirdler to achieve this. I like that myself.