Re: [APML]: Anyone Autoguiding a G-11 with a Pictor XT?

[Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

Wil Milan wrote:
 
> I find S&T and Astronomy useful and interesting magazines, and I
> read them cover to cover every month. But their product
> evaluations do seem very much skewed to make the products look
> good, particularly the products from the big advertisers (Meade,
> etc.). This despite the reviews being done by very knowledgeable
> folks such as Alan Dyer.
> 
> I don't like it, but I know that's the way it works. I used to
> write for special-interest magazines, and in that business one
> soon learns not to trash the products of a major advertiser.

I think we've been through this before on the list but it's possible
to write a review pointing out problems without trashing the
manufacturer. Does anyone think that if S&T and Astronomy gave a 
poor view of a Meade product that Meade would cease to advertise
in those magazines? I think not. Where else are they going to
advertise and reach the majority of the market? It's a two way street.

An honest but not trashing review can play a constructive roll in
getting improvements in a product. My amateur radio magazine, QST,
gave a poor view of a radio a few years ago. The manufacturer went back
and redesigned it and now has a decent product. This magazine has
refused to publish ads with claims of certain antenna characteristics
because the claims were exaggerated and unprovable. With the advent
of antenna computer modelling programs for PCs they are now accepting
ads that include the previously banned claims as long as all the data
for an individual to run the model himself is publicly available.

I would suggest that manufacturers be banned from making outrageous
claims of optical performance in their ads unless they're willing
to back up every scope with an interferogram. If S&T and Astronomy
were to take a stand on this the consumer would benefit.

Chuck  <aa6g@aa6g.org>