I'm not that naïve. I've been in publishing a while, I know when I'm being played.
Also, we don't speak to marketing people at companies and ask them to find us an author. We go directly to authors we want to write, and ask them. Marketing departments usually aren't so excited when they find out they're getting some back-door PR, and that the piece isn't even about their company or their product.
And because most technologists rightly mistrust people like me (editors) we have the articles reviewed by other technologists - yep, similar to a journal - just to make sure people like me aren't getting the wool pulled over their eyes.
Why would we create such an odd magazine? Because we're a non-profit, with no secret agenda. ACM is just here to educate technologists, not make piles of $$.
Thanks for your thoughtful flame-free, reply. It's nice to know these types of civil conversations can take place on/., even though I suspect no one will read us at this level down the thread. Alas.
Anyway, I wholly concede our first issue was awful. And we blew it with a host of readers -- you're right, you only get one first impression. Beleive it or not, I actually started here at Queue as the editor with the 3rd issue, and I like to think we're a whole lot better since then.
One thing to note, *all* of our articles are reviewed by technologists for accuracy and for hype-free-ness. I wager none of our competitors (Dr. Dobbs, SD Times, App Dev Trends) can boast of that. Our board is not just a list of names on the masthead, we all meet every month. They choose the topics, they choose the authors -- oh, and a reviewer and author generally can't be from the same company (e.g. if the author is from company X writes a piece, at least some of the reviewers have to work elsewhere than company x). And yes, some of the stringent rules we have in place are as a result of the blunder of issue 1 -- even though our hearts were in the right place w/that issue, some junk slipped through. Perhaps we're not perfect yet, but I'd say we're the most un-biased pub out there (other than/. of course!).
The whole point of Queue (which is run by a non-profit, btw) was to finally have there be a magazine that was actually credible and not infused with ad $. We don't have to make big $$ to be a success, we just have to pay the bills.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but the proof is in the pudding. I hope you'll give us another chance, but if you're turned off by us, I'll hang my head and go. If you'd like me to point to some real great examples of what we do (like an article from a researcher at Intel on how chip design is kinda screwed, and the whole focus on Mhz is now a big problem) I can (but don't want to overpromote my own pub here).
Thanks again Jeffrey! Feel free to contact me off-line: edgrossman ANDTHENTHEATSIGN acm ANDTHENTHEDOT org.
Hi, editor of Queue here. I hope my reply get's modded up:)
I must say that I strongly disagree with your characterization of Queue. We *emphatically* disallow any product pitching whatsoever -- in fact, it's a requirement (as stated on our authors FAQ) that articles focus on *problems* not solutions (i.e. technologies, not products). You cite two articles, and I think you're analysis of them is unfair.
First off, we always invite technologists to write our articles, not journalists, not marketers. Why? Because we feel technologists are the only ones who can credibly speak to other technologists -- and can specifically rise above the marketing fray we believe is all-too-common in technology publishing. The TCP/IP Offload and the search/IT articles you mention are both written by experts in their fields. Surprise, they also work for companies that match their area of expertise. You don't want us to get a hard-drive expert to talk about C++ buffer overruns do you?
Second, as readers will see in both articles (and I of course invite any and all scrutiny) neither of the articles you mention promote specific products. And, where they discuss any given approach to a problem, they also point out shortcomings with those approaches, and problems left to be solved. I hardly call this self-serving editorial (pointing out problems w/you own area of technology doesn't tend to sell more products!)
Lastly, all of our articles are reviewed, not by advertisers or even hordes of editors -- but by other technologists. If an article smacks of cheerleading, it's rejected. And believe me, we reject plenty. In fact, you should also know that the vast majority of are articles are *solicited* by Queue from authors, and not the other way around.
I hope you'll take another look at Queue - we think it's *more* objective than any other technology publication out there!
Slashdot Mirror
Hate do be a bug, but please mod the parent down. Site is performing fine, so no need to post here.
I'm not that naïve. I've been in publishing a while, I know when I'm being played.
Also, we don't speak to marketing people at companies and ask them to find us an author. We go directly to authors we want to write, and ask them. Marketing departments usually aren't so excited when they find out they're getting some back-door PR, and that the piece isn't even about their company or their product.
And because most technologists rightly mistrust people like me (editors) we have the articles reviewed by other technologists - yep, similar to a journal - just to make sure people like me aren't getting the wool pulled over their eyes.
Why would we create such an odd magazine? Because we're a non-profit, with no secret agenda. ACM is just here to educate technologists, not make piles of $$.
I hope that helps clarify.
Edward
Thanks for your thoughtful flame-free, reply. It's nice to know these types of civil conversations can take place on /., even though I suspect no one will read us at this level down the thread. Alas.
Anyway, I wholly concede our first issue was awful. And we blew it with a host of readers -- you're right, you only get one first impression. Beleive it or not, I actually started here at Queue as the editor with the 3rd issue, and I like to think we're a whole lot better since then.
One thing to note, *all* of our articles are reviewed by technologists for accuracy and for hype-free-ness. I wager none of our competitors (Dr. Dobbs, SD Times, App Dev Trends) can boast of that. Our board is not just a list of names on the masthead, we all meet every month. They choose the topics, they choose the authors -- oh, and a reviewer and author generally can't be from the same company (e.g. if the author is from company X writes a piece, at least some of the reviewers have to work elsewhere than company x). And yes, some of the stringent rules we have in place are as a result of the blunder of issue 1 -- even though our hearts were in the right place w/that issue, some junk slipped through. Perhaps we're not perfect yet, but I'd say we're the most un-biased pub out there (other than /. of course!).
The whole point of Queue (which is run by a non-profit, btw) was to finally have there be a magazine that was actually credible and not infused with ad $. We don't have to make big $$ to be a success, we just have to pay the bills.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but the proof is in the pudding. I hope you'll give us another chance, but if you're turned off by us, I'll hang my head and go. If you'd like me to point to some real great examples of what we do (like an article from a researcher at Intel on how chip design is kinda screwed, and the whole focus on Mhz is now a big problem) I can (but don't want to overpromote my own pub here).
Thanks again Jeffrey! Feel free to contact me off-line: edgrossman ANDTHENTHEATSIGN acm ANDTHENTHEDOT org.
Edward
Hi, editor of Queue here. I hope my reply get's modded up :)
I must say that I strongly disagree with your characterization of Queue. We *emphatically* disallow any product pitching whatsoever -- in fact, it's a requirement (as stated on our authors FAQ) that articles focus on *problems* not solutions (i.e. technologies, not products). You cite two articles, and I think you're analysis of them is unfair.
First off, we always invite technologists to write our articles, not journalists, not marketers. Why? Because we feel technologists are the only ones who can credibly speak to other technologists -- and can specifically rise above the marketing fray we believe is all-too-common in technology publishing. The TCP/IP Offload and the search/IT articles you mention are both written by experts in their fields. Surprise, they also work for companies that match their area of expertise. You don't want us to get a hard-drive expert to talk about C++ buffer overruns do you?
Second, as readers will see in both articles (and I of course invite any and all scrutiny) neither of the articles you mention promote specific products. And, where they discuss any given approach to a problem, they also point out shortcomings with those approaches, and problems left to be solved. I hardly call this self-serving editorial (pointing out problems w/you own area of technology doesn't tend to sell more products!)
Lastly, all of our articles are reviewed, not by advertisers or even hordes of editors -- but by other technologists. If an article smacks of cheerleading, it's rejected. And believe me, we reject plenty. In fact, you should also know that the vast majority of are articles are *solicited* by Queue from authors, and not the other way around.
I hope you'll take another look at Queue - we think it's *more* objective than any other technology publication out there!
Edward Grossman, Editor, Queue