5
« on: September 19, 2016, 09:48:10 pm »
Hey everyone, Alex Strickland, Editor-in-Chief of Adventure Cyclist here. A colleague let me know about the thread and I couldn't resist jumping in. A quick preface: I'm at the Interbike tradeshow in Las Vegas this week so my responses might be a little slow — thanks for you patience. Plus, you can always reach me at astrickland@adventurecycling.org. OK, on to a few things:
- First, digital archives can be found at adventurecycling.org/archive. It's not complete issues, but rather individual stories, columns, etc., dating back to 1983. They're pretty easily searchable by keyword or a number of other filters. I use it all the time, as it's much easier for me than digging through physical back issues. Plus, you can sort by author, so it's easy to pull up the older Brown/Schubert/etc. pieces.
- Second, the "normal" debate is really a fascinating one and something we try to strike a balance on. I don't want to sail around the world or climb K2, but I love reading about it. We hope that bringing stories of "capital A" Adventure are entertaining and inspiring, if not instructional. With that, though, we do try to capture some more manageable trips. One thing I personally find interesting is that I might receive a bunch of feedback about a specific issue leaning much too far in one direction, but by the time the reader has seen it and written the note, another issue is already off to the printer, which leans quite far in the opposite direction. Where I might see a balance with the benefit of knowing what's coming down the line, readers might sometimes only see the big swing off to one side.
Regardless, it's something we're always looking at and trying to figure out the best combination of submitted pieces, assigned stories, etc.
- Finally, regarding POG's reviews: this was also really interesting to hear (read?). In general, we subscribe to the idea that there's no sense wasting ink in the magazine on bad products, largely because SO many of the bikes out there are so very good. Long before a review makes it onto the page, at least a handful of folks have determined that the bike is worth investigating — in some cases despite taller gearing, a weird fork, etc. — and so odds are any negative commentary are more nits to pick rather that out and out warnings to avoid. Do we miss on occasion? Without a doubt. But hopefully O'Grady's reviews are entertaining as well as informative, I certainly find them to be.
With all that said, I hope you don't read this as defensive. I find the process — and how the editors and readers view it — completely fascinating and despite what you might think, we don't get a ton of feedback on the mag. I love a good conversation, so consider this my small contribution. Look forward to hearing people's thoughts and continuing the back and forth!
-Alex