Newsgroups: sci.aquaria

After some correspondence with Ed Bauman, editor of _AFM_, it appears
that I wasn't edited, but the text was lost somehow.  Because of a 
lot of net traffic (CIS?) about this, Ed asked me to post this to
*.aquaria.  BTW, part 1 of the article was almost entirely unedited.  

------
George
 
==============================
From Ed Bauman:

I have noticed a number of postings on the net concerning _AFM_ and its
contents, as well as the "hack" job done on Geroge and Karla's plant
articles.  These comments seem to lack insight as to the editorial process,
the purpose of _AFM_ or the reasons for certain editorial decisions.
 
First, it appears that one of the files sent to me by George either never
made it or was inadvertently deleted, accounting for the loss of text that
did not appear in the published articles.  Very little editing was done to
their articles and any suggestions to the contrary are simply wrong.
 
Second, _AFM_ is not _FAMA_, which is why it has more than twice the paid
circulation of _FAMA_.  _AFM_ is for the average hobbyist--beginner and
intermediate.  This is most definitely not the audience that _FAMA_ is
serving.  Those who are experienced hobbyists should not expect _AFM_ to
provide some of the esoteric articles (which have little or no editing) that
appear in _FAMA_.
 
Third, the installments for articles are the only way to provide enough
information on some of the topics covered.  It would be less of a service to
readers to simply leave out a lot of information in order to make the
articles fit in one issue.  Inasmuch as 80% of _AFM_ readers keep their
issues, these article series provide a valuable reference library.  Those
who object to this presentation of material are welcome to write to the
magazine with suggestions (CIS ID 76107,460).
 
Fourth, whoever made the less-than-insightful remark about metric
conversions in the magazine clearly doesn't live in any of the dozens of
countries where _AFM_ is read by hobbyists who use only the metric system.
These conversions are done for their benefit, not for readers in this
country.
 
Fifth, the remark about _AFM_ being overedited could only come from someone
who doesn't have to earn a living by putting out a successful magazine.
There is nothing to be gained by producing a sloppily edited publication
that cannot be read with ease and understanding by the average aquarist.
The accuracy of information in _AFM_ is higher than in any other aquarium
magazine in this country, and when errors are made, they are acknowledged in
the following issues.  Expecting readers to find the errors themselves and
decide what is and isn't accurate is not a service to them and only adds the
confusion already prevalent in the aquarium hobby.
 
I am more than willing to explain and discuss any aspect of the magazine
that anyone in these *.aquaria groups would like to know more about.  Please
try and keep in mind that special-interest magazines are niche-marketed
publications.  _TFH_, _FAMA_ and _AFM_ servce vastly different audiences,
with less than 25% of _AFM_ readers taking either of the other two
magazines.
 
Ed Bauman
Editor
_Aquarium Fish Magazine_


Newsgroups: sci.aquaria