From: sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton)
Subject: Re: b.s.m proposal - discussions released f
Organization: UNIX Today!
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 05:01:56 GMT

In article <Bz1M34.6ME@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <9212090855.aa02686@openage.COM> "Paul A. Fischer, Sr UNIX Sys Consultant" <paul@openage.com> writes:
>>>bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey CDP) writes:
>
>>They got us Mike.  It's too late.  The conspiracy is falling apart all around 
>>us.  I guess we should just give up.  Too bad...  I hoped that by tricking them 
>>into forming a biz.sco.magazine group I could get more feedback on my articles, 
>>correct mistakes, and in general (not the news group) become a better writer.  
>>The cat is out of the bag now, and it looks like we may never have a forum for 
>>discussion of a magazine, where both the readers and authors and editors are 
>>all on line at once.
>
>Actually if I thought that biz.sco.magazine was a place that the writers and 
>editorial staff would hang out I would probably be *very* interested. I don't
>remember getting that impression though. If it's true it would I think make for
>an interesting place to hang out.
>
>Please clarify if your post was totally sarcastic or if perhaps that is the 
>intent (or could be). It changes the flavour a lot. And in my mind to something a 
>lot more interesting then I originally saw. My initial reaction was that I didn't
>see anything terribly interesting but had no real objections if Ed saw fit. 
>
>Let's toss this around some more with this premise!
>

NOTE: The following is a somewhat abbreviated version of mail I
sent Ed Hew on this topic. I hope it helps clarify our reasons for
wanting to see this group succeed.

sean


The idea for this group is to provide a forum for readers and SCO
users to discuss articles and ideas in SCO Magazine. Since our
magazine focuses on the SCO community, this group would be of logical
interest to most if not all of the SCO community, whether they
currently subscribe to our magazine or not. 

If they are current subscribers, they can get a clearer understanding
of what it is we do and participate in the magazine in some way,
either by suggesting article ideas, providing input into our planning
process, or just providing criticism on articles we have published.

You may not know that we spend thousands of dollars each month
conducting surveys of our readers. The surveys are sent to an average
1,000 readers out of our total 50,000 circ., and the results of those
surveys are given to Mitch and I so we can focus the editorial content
of the pub more toward our readers' interests. These surveys have been
a tremendous help in building the publication you see today.

Having a newsgroup for SCO Magazine would do two very important
things: First, it would give our readers a chance to comment on and
participate in each issue. By that I mean getting immediate feedback
and questions from readers about the things we all write. Second, this
group would give us a presence on the net; it would give us a forum
for discussion and generation of ideas that doesn't exist today.

I've seen a number of responses to Mike's post claiming that there is
not sufficient traffic on the topic to generate a specialty group.
Having suffered the slings and arrows of the last year and a half, I
will simply say this is not true.

Unfortunately, all of these past posts have been in technology
centered groups where comments about the content of our pub really
aren't appropriate. I recall one particular thread about putting an
Adaptec 1740 into enhanced mode. Somone had a question, someone else
responded that they had seen info on how to do this in our most recent
issue. From there, the discussion diverged into two threads: One about
whether we were a reliable source of information and how did we know
what we wrote would work, and the other focused on the actual issue at
hand. I would have liked to have posted something explaining that we
got our information directly from SCO support, and that yes, it was
reliable. But I didn't feel that comp.unix.sysv386 was an appropriate
forum for this type of digression. A specialty group focused on the
publication would be a better place.

You may realize from reading our pages that we are slowly gathering
an arsenal of really talented writers who turn out some quality copy.
Many of these writers are already regular participants on the net.
Mitch and I will both monitor a biz.sco.magazine closely and
participate in net discussions in that group, much in the same way as
sco participates in the biz.sco hierarchy today. In addition, our
writing staff will also be regular readers and contributors to the
group, giving it immediacy and accessability.

Remember that our goal here is to serve the SCO community; the very
same people your groups and mailing lists serve. Our goal with the
magazine is to help people get the most out of their SCO systems. This
is not unlike the mission the newsgroups themselves set out to
accomplish. 

I don't see the new group as a competition to the existing biz.sco
groups, but rather as an excellent complement to the existing groups.
I'd like to see SCO staff participate in the new group (as I suspect
they will), and I can vouch for my people's participation. I think
that with this kind of commitment, the readership will grow and this
will become a popular group. 

It is my hope that this group will become a valuable extension to our
publication, providing SCO users access to the publication that serves
them, and giving us better access to our readers so that we can make the
publication more useful to them.

Sean Fulton
Technical Editor
SCO Magazine
 


Newsgroups: biz.sco.general