An earlier post noted my intent to see whether I could make Cites & Insights more personally gratifying by simulating the "delayed gratification" I get from seeing a column or article appear in print, a month or three (or four or twelve) after I wrote it, and maybe with editorial improvements.
I've now read through the first four issues of volume 4 (2004), and am most of the way through the fifth (the Broadcast Flag special.
Three conclusions so far:
- The scheme works: I'm able to approach the months-old publications with a fresh eye, and some of the articles and perspectives aren't half bad.
- I could really and truly use an editor, but that's not going to happen with this kind of a zine. There's not an issue that doesn't have at least one typo and several phrases that could have been improved. But then, that's true of most weblogs as well...
- Mea culpa: Somehow, in the mix of stuff surrounding vacation and speaking last March/April, my already-slack editing standards went straight to ... well, let's just say that the typos and sloppy text in the Broadcast Flag special are way worse than is reasonable even for a freebie. My apologies. (Not for the content itself: There's good material there. Just for the number of wrong words, repetitions, and the one flagrant layout problem that either Word or Acrobat managed to cause.)
Oh, and my prediction in that issue--that, unlike the heavily-downloaded CIPA special, it would be one of the least-downloaded issues of the year--appears to be wrong so far (use statistics are back). It's in the middle of the pack for volume 4. The lowest--except for 4:10, for which most downloads are from an alternate site--is the "Catching up with copyright" special issue, which doesn't have a specific hook. If I was specifically looking for popularity, that would tell me something. Of course, if I was specifically looking for popularity, a lot would change in Cites & Insights...