New CSSA Journal - ugly!

[lancer99]

Perhaps I'm being picky, but has anyone noticed how terrible the layout in the new CSSA Journal (Vol 82, No. 5) is?

I'm not faulting the content, but visually, it's a mess. Type sizes that change from article to article, inconsistent spacing of pictures, pictures that sometimes (but not always) bleed to the edges of the page, etc., etc.

Some particularly egregious examples:

Page 206: One picture protrudes jarringly into another.
Book reviews on pages 217-219. Enlarged capitals (again, with inconsistent type sizes) on some, but not all paragraphs. But none on the book review on page 216.
Page 219: Spectacularly bad layout.
Page 224: Horizontal spacing between pics, but no vertical spacing, and a really unfortunate overlap.
Page 225: The left margin changes in the middle of the page.

I won't even bring up the "Cactus Tips" section with pictures in the wrong article and misnumbered pics

I realize that Content is King, but such poorly executed design just makes the whole enterprise seem a bit amateurish.

-R

[jenni]

Yeah, its talked about alot here in California. We were laughing at the contents page when you first open it up....Saguaros being members of the Protea family......

[lancer99]

I hadn't noticed that one, hilarious!

Oops, there is one enlarged capital on page 216, just none on the following paragraphs (more inconsistency).
-R

[daiv]

What is that old saying?

"There is no such thing as bad publicity."

Ordinarily, I would want to avoid negative feedback like this, but it could be helpful when kept objective.

It should be noted here as not everyone knows this - that there has been a recent change in editors and the journal has been of very high quality for many years and so the problems it has now stand in contrast to that.

Keep in mind that we have some CSSA officers who either participate or visit the forum here and so this info is likely to be noted.

[A. Dean Stock]

Running a journal and keeping it going issue to issue is a tough job. With the changes in the journal staffing I'm not surprised that they hit a snag or two. They'll get it back to the fine journal it has been.
Dean

[lancer99]

I hope my criticism will be taken as objective and constructive, not just b*tching for the sake of b*tching.

ADS, tough job or not, it's a professional journal, so it's a bit disappointing when the end results are so amateurish.

-R

[Harriet]

It is not easy to make a publication look good. As I understand it, the editor is only there temporarily so it may be particularly difficult if he is not planning to remain in that position. Just getting up to speed on the publication software can be a nightmare, and applying styles to paragraphs is quite often easier said than done. Then there are all the other problems that come with making sure there is enough information to go into the magazine. I imagine that getting the quarterly magazine out is a full time job.

[lancer99]

As my boss in my first job said, "I hear lots of excuses. Now let's see some results."

This is a professional journal, and maybe I am being a bit of a hard-*ss, but change is inevitable, and the CSSA should have been prepared for that.

Temporary editor or not, that's just sloppy, unprofessional work.

-R

[Harriet]

I was trying to be nice. I've been there. The only thing worse for me than seeing my errors in a publication was to have those errors pointed out publicly. It was great motivator for me to produce a "professional" publication, which is apparently not the case for all editors.

[jenni]

What is that old saying?

"There is no such thing as bad publicity."

Ordinarily, I would want to avoid negative feedback like this, but it could be helpful when kept objective.

It should be noted here as not everyone knows this - that there has been a recent change in editors and the journal has been of very high quality for many years and so the problems it has now stand in contrast to that.

Keep in mind that we have some CSSA officers who either participate or visit the forum here and so this info is likely to be noted.

I create the OCCSS newsletter so I know how hard it can be. I get called out when I make an error and I would not want it any other way. My newsletter is 1% of what this editor is doing. But this has been going on all year and you would think that someone else would proof read it or something. Im not trying to be mean or cruel, I just think the Protea family being in the contents was funny.

[Buck Hemenway]

I didn't respond to this, because I am so angry about the situation that has caused the problem. I did forward your comments to the proper folks, Robert. All I can say is that 2011 will see changes in the Journal, for the better, I hope.

[lancer99]

It's interesting (or is it?) that I never got a response from either the CSSA President or Secretary when I pointed out these issues (in a much kindler, gentler way than in this post) in e-mails to them. I guess they are too busy to respond to reader concerns. Likewise, I'm too busy to subscribe to a poorly edited, amateurish journal.

-R

[Buck Hemenway]

OK, I'm not the President nor the Secretary, just a board member. As noted following your first post on this, your comments were forwarded intact to the Presdent and Business Manager of the Society.

I can tell you that we chose a new Managing Editor for the CSSA Journal on Sunday. He is Tim Harvey. For those who know Tim, you will recognize an extremely intelligent man who is devoted to succulents and the propagation and raising of them. I know two potential contributors to the Journal who have been hesitant to submit articles because of the quality of the publication and have already agreed to submit based on knowing Tim.

We have been through a very trying year at CSSA and it looks as though 2011 should be much better. The 6th issue of 2010 has still not been printed, but we are now promised that it will be run on January 25th and mailed soon thereafter (because of the complaints regarding layout, we gave the layout contract for that issue to the printer. If one word changes, it is 15 days turnaround for approval. We aren't doing that anymore).

The first issue of 2011 has been submitted to the printer and will be mailed to all members as of 2010, regardless of whether or not they have joined for 2011.

I certainly understand your frustration Robert. We all share it, and I can tell you that we will fix it.

[peterb]

And I can attest to the thorough, professional and conscientious process used by the CSSA to select a new Editor. I was very impressed by the obvious dedication of all the people charged with the responsibility of making the selection. This is particularly impressive when you consider that most of these people are volunteers.

I look forward to everything settling in and to the usual inspiring, useful, entertaining and cutting edge Journal issues.

peterb

[lancer99]

I was very happy to get the last two CCSA journals in one mailing, and I have to say "bravo" for the Nov/Dec. 2010 issue. Very classic, simple design, and for once, consistency in how the picture captions were done and consistency in the use of type. Well done!

Then there's the new issue (Jan/Feb 2011), and it's back to the poor design. Inconsistency in how picture captions are done (sometimes in a brown box, sometimes with a border, sometimes "Figure XXX," sometime not), back to the old font and type inconsistencies:





back to weird layout faults:



and back to just really awful layout and picture captions forcing awkward text breaks:



Every publisher will provide proofs and allow their clients to see exactly how their publication will look before it's printed. Does anyone at CSSA even bother to look?

-R