Opinion Piece – Is it just me?

The following is an opinion piece by Kevin Perkins which you can read in full. Then follows my point by point replies to most of the issues that Kevin raises. Then it’s over to you FishingMagic members to offer your own views – Graham Marsden, Managing Editor

For a variety of reasons, (writes Kevin Perkins) which I won’t bore the reader with, I’ve been away from my keyboard for long periods of late. Now, one consequence of that is that I haven’t been sending my inane ramblings into FM with any regularity. In fact, my article writing (if you can call it that) output has dropped to almost zilch. I did manage to get one piece under the radar and onto the pages of Barbel Fisher (thanks, Fred!) and recently got conned into writing an article for my local Community News, circulation 11,000 no less.

That last piece was probably the hardest 600 words I have ever written. That was because with my ever so slightly sarcastic eye, the subject I was asked to cover was the goings-on of the remote controlled model yacht aficionados who ‘sail’ on our local lake. Given that these weekend admirals take their sport so seriously, to stand and watch grown men doing ‘dad-dancing’ movements with their remote controls in order to try and catch the slightest zephyr of wind, was almost more than I could take, let alone write a serious article about it. I did a lot of knuckle biting that day down on the lake I can tell you.

To give you a slight flavour of how difficult it was, I told the yacht club secretary that I was doing a half-page piece spotlighting their activities, and said any input would be welcome. The response came with a close typed, four page specifications of the models that they raced that the club would like to see included in full in the article.

A couple of times during my sabbatical, I have sat down and tried to write an article for FM. And by this, I mean the ‘new’ FM, of course. And there’s the rub, whereas I was positively garrulous in the past, I find I am struggling to find anything to write about now. Not only that, I wonder if my inane ramblings still ‘fit’ into the new FM format. Looking back, I could always find something to tie into a TickleTackle article. The ‘Silt-Walters’ series seems to have run its natural course, and the Donald and Damien** tales aren’t going any further.

But why is this? Well, whilst I desperately tried to not plagiarise or repeat anything when creating my writing niche, the inspiration of a lot, and I do mean a lot, of what I wrote came from the antics of the members in the forums on the ‘old’ FM. Usually a quick trawl through the forums would provide any number of little nuggets, which to someone like me who tries to find humour in observation was a rich vein to mine in an effort to find material for an article.

On the rare occasions when I couldn’t find anything to inspire my writing madness from the Forum, I could always turn to the Angling Times and Anglers Mail. But resorting to the weeklies to find something stupid/comical isn’t really a challenge; you normally don’t have to get more than three or four pages in before something catches your eye. Just to digress, there was a good one in the sports pages today where a report said that the (highly paid) spokesman for a (hugely overpaid) footballer accused of some misdemeanour declined to comment. Now that’s not a bad job, getting paid for not doing what you’re paid for.

Back to the writing, and not only did my inspiration come from the Forum, but also from the characters that used to inhabit it. And here I might be going out on a limb, but there was certainly more of an inclusive ‘club’ feel to the old FM, in fact it was bordering on almost like being part of a family, albeit of the cyber variety. And like all good families there were plenty of laughs, plenty of arguments, plenty of making friends, plenty of falling out, but always, there was a strong sense of belonging.

So much so, that the ‘old’ FM seemed to be a more united force, indeed it felt that we had a voice to be reckoned with, the site had opinions that counted.  Maybe the new site has watered down that message; perhaps it has become a lot less edgy, even sanitised to a degree. Now, perhaps it is just me, but the ‘new’ front page with ‘rolling’ articles reminds me of being in some foreign hotel room with CNN showing on the television. You know it’s on, but it just doesn’t grab your attention.

And maybe that’s the problem, because the shelf life and interest in the articles seems to be very short these days. Either they are not up on the site long enough, or perhaps the content isn’t deemed to be worthy of comment. I say this because an awful lot of them seem to pass through without raising a ripple of interest on the forums.  So, given this apparent lack of interest, have articles now just become a sideshow on the site?  If so, is that due to the quality of content, or is it the quality of the contributors who write the articles.

Maybe it’s become a vicious circle, with writers (or prospective contributors) not feeling that they can be bothered with the effort to put up articles that won’t be read or apparently appreciated. Or is it that the current members only skim through pieces because it’s perceived that the standard or content of the articles is not as high as it used to be in the past?

And speaking of articles in the past, it’s a shame that the new site doesn’t yet have all the old articles sorted and/ or archived, accessing the huge back catalogue of contributions isn’t easy for anyone wanting to browse previous pieces. But there again, perhaps no one actually wants to, so its it worth spending the time and effort cataloguing them all, and do the articles matter anyway?

It seems that the site is far more Forum driven now, with twelve separate categories of entries and 30 sub-divisions of those categories. In fact there is so much going on with the forums that you have to page down five times just to view all the headings. With such a plethora of opportunities to comment, everyone’s tastes must be catered for.

Or maybe this is all too much information, perhaps it is a scattergun approach, which misses more than it hits. Would less be more, and maybe a distillation of all this would bring about an improvement?  I’m not suggesting that the previous incarnation of the Forum was a cerebral sparring ground liberally peppered with inspired postings, bon mots, urbane ripostes and rapier wit, but in the past there appeared to be a higher quality to the posts, and posters, for that matter.

It has to be said that we do appear to have ‘lost’ a fair few members who were once respected, even famous (or in some cases infamous) but have now apparently been lost to the site. Whether they were worn down by continued negative comments or gave up due to apathy, we may never know, but having gone, are they ever likely to want to come back?      
  
*And finally……..

Before the site switch over, I archived all ‘my’ old articles, just in case it all went t*ts up during the changeover. Whilst doing so, I collated all the Donald and Damien pieces together, tidied them up a bit, took some passages out and added a chapter or so. Having done all that, and just as a personal, maybe even selfish thing, I had one proof copy made up into a book, more as a memento than anything else. 

The book is all ISBNed up and if I push the button, it could go on sale on Amazon tomorrow, but I don’t think it should. In a sense, Donald and Damien belonged to the members of the ‘old’ site. It was written for them and with them in mind, and sad to say, I feel that that rapport has now gone.

Given the lack of an online archive I also toyed with the idea of doing a compilation book containing the best bits of the ‘Alternative Angler’ series, again more for posterity than anything else. I even had the absolute temerity to ask Cliff Hatton to do some thumbnail sketches for chapter headings.  Having trawled through nearly 300 articles, the problem was to find enough passages that warranted the title of ‘Best Bits’ to fill a book.

A slim pamphlet maybe, but perhaps nowhere near enough for a volume of any note. Oh well, at least now I haven’t got to shell out for all those illustrations!

Graham Replies

A few of Kevin’s comments I agree with, some I don’t agree with, and some I don’t understand. Nowt new there then, some would say!

But let’s look at them point by point, and I’ll try to be as unbiased as possible, which won’t be easy as it’s my natural instinct, and my right, to defend the site against what I feel is unjust criticism.

Let’s start from the top.

“Whereas I was positively garrulous in the past, I find I am struggling to find anything to write about now.”

That happens to all of us who write regularly, nothing remarkable there. You just write your way through it and hope your efforts are at least up to your usual standard. Very often they’re better as you have to try harder.

“Not only that, I wonder if my inane ramblings still ‘fit’ into the new FM format.”

Apart from the different software that runs the site, and the actual design of the pages, there is no new format in the context I assume you mean. It hasn’t changed. We still accept interesting fishing articles from anyone who cares to submit them. If anything had changed regarding the type of article that’s acceptable, or we now stifle free speech, this particular ‘inane ramble’ wouldn’t have seen the light of day.

“Looking back, I could always find something to tie into a TickleTackle article. The ‘Silt-Walters’ series seems to have run its natural course, and the Donald and Damien** tales aren’t going any further. A lot, and I do mean a lot, of what I wrote came from the antics of the members in the forums on the ‘old’ FM. Usually a quick trawl through the forums would provide any number of little nuggets, which to someone like me who tries to find humour in observation was a rich vein to mine in an effort to find material for an article.”

I can only assume you mean the antics of those who were responsible for driving away a few of the more sensible members with continual backstabbing and thread destruction. I have to assume that for, apart from Deanos who was quite unique and always good for a laugh, the rest are still here and at times as daft and humorous as ever.

“On the rare occasions when I couldn’t find anything to inspire my writing madness from the Forum, I could always turn to the Angling Times and Anglers Mail. But resorting to the weeklies to find something stupid/comical isn’t really a challenge; you normally don’t have to get more than three or four pages in before something catches your eye.”

This is one of the bits that I don’t understand; on the one hand you say it’s hard to find something to write about and on the other you say it’s no problem finding something in the weeklies. If it’s just more difficult to find something on the forum maybe we really do have a more mature, thinking readership after all! And that can’t be a bad thing providing the humour is still there, which it is in abundance.

“Back to the writing, and not only did my inspiration come from the Forum, but also from the characters that used to inhabit it. And here I might be going out on a limb, but there was certainly more of an inclusive ‘club’ feel to the old FM, in fact it was bordering on almost like being part of a family, albeit of the cyber variety. And like all good families there were plenty of laughs, plenty of arguments, plenty of making friends, plenty of falling out, but always, there was a strong sense of belonging.“

Apart from Deanos and maybe Baz, I can’t think of any other notable ‘character’ that’s missing, and like any gathering such as the forum, new characters have appeared as old ones disappeared. And I honestly think the forum is still like a family, at least that’s the feeling and impression I get. I’ve not met all the regulars but I feel as though I know them. I still find there are plenty of laughs, plenty of arguments, plenty of making friends, plenty of falling out, and always, a strong sense of belonging. The only thing that’s missing, I’m really pleased to say, is the nastiness that came from some of the characters who have disappeared for one reason or another. Think on too, that the ‘club house’ we meet in is new and different, and even though it’s mainly the same members you need to give yourself chance to get familiar with the surroundings again. Perhaps you’re not spending long enough on the ‘new’ forum to appreciate the family atmosphere that still prevails.

“The ‘old’ FM seemed to be a more united force, indeed it felt that we had a voice to be reckoned with, the site had opinions that counted.  Maybe the new site has watered down that message; perhaps it has become a lot less edgy, even sanitised to a degree.”

The ‘new’ FM is still run by me, and I have the same attitude towards running it as I always have, which is for it to be the voice of all anglers who want to have a say (within decency and legality), either through articles or on the forum. If the inference is that somebody is pulling my strings then that inference is very wrong. Editorially, including the forum, that is 100% under my management and if that should ever change I’ll be out the door faster than Ron can say ‘Dick Walker’. We still have a voice to be reckoned with and opinions that count. If you could read my private emails from many very important sectors of angling you would know that.

“The shelf life and interest in the articles seems to be very short these days. Either they are not up on the site long enough, or perhaps the content isn’t deemed to be worthy of comment. I say this because an awful lot of them seem to pass through without raising a ripple of interest on the forums.  So, given this apparent lack of interest, have articles now just become a sideshow on the site?  If so, is that due to the quality of content, or is it the quality of the contributors who write the articles?”

Articles are on the home page longer than they were on the old site and we have four running headline images instead of one. Almost every article has a thread with my name on it started from it automatically. I reckon the content is as good, if not better, than ever, with a greater variety of contributors. There always have been, and always will be, articles passing through that don’t raise any comment. The forum has always been the greatest participant part of the site (naturally) and articles are being read as much as ever. The quality of the contributors is not for me to say, as I’m one of them, so the members can offer their opinion on that one. As for articles not being up on the site long enough, the oldest article on the current home page is well over two months old and the oldest news item is exactly one month old, and the oldest headline article at the top has been there for more than a week, so I don’t know how we can be expected to have them on the home page for longer yet still have a realistic and healthy turnover.

“Maybe it’s become a vicious circle, with writers (or prospective contributors) not feeling that they can be bothered with the effort to put up articles that won’t be read or apparently appreciated. Or is it that the current members only skim through pieces because it’s perceived that the standard or content of the articles is not as high as it used to be in the past?”

I’m puzzled as to how you’ve worked out that the articles are not read or appreciated. Is the standard or content not as high as it used to be? The members can answer that, but if we’re still comparing the old site to the new site, the contributors, to the forum and articles, who stopped contributing before the new site was born, don’t come into the equation. Also, simply because an article may disappear off the home page without comment, or without the writer being told how good he is, doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t worthy of comment or that it wasn’t appreciated.

“And speaking of articles in the past, it’s a shame that the new site doesn’t yet have all the old articles sorted and/ or archived, accessing the huge back catalogue of contributions isn’t easy for anyone wanting to browse previous pieces. But there again, perhaps no one actually wants to, so its it worth spending the time and effort cataloguing them all, and do the articles matter anyway?”

Yes, it is a shame, but as I’ve pointed out probably a dozen times previously, a lot of data was either lost or corrupted during the transfer from the old platform to the new one, and that we will put this right over time. Fish and Fly Ltd is only a small team compared to Magicalia. But if it wasn’t for Fish and Fly there would be no FishingMagic to moan about. As for no one wanting to look at old articles that’s a hell of a contradiction being as you’re intimating in one breath that the older articles are perceived as better quality.

“It seems that the site is far more Forum driven now, with twelve separate categories of entries and 30 sub-divisions of those categories. In fact there is so much going on with the forums that you have to page down five times just to view all the headings. With such a plethora of opportunities to comment, everyone’s tastes must be catered for.”

“in the past there appeared to be a higher quality to the posts, and posters, for that matter.”

I don’t know about forum driven but I certainly realise that the forum is, and always has been, a very important part of the site and I make no apologies for the new forum offering a plethora of opportunities to comment and for it trying to cater for everyone’s taste. As for the old forum having higher quality posts and posters, I disagree; since some of the idiots and trolls have been ridded out I think the quality of both has gone up considerably. Page down five times? That depends on your screen and resolution, it takes me three times. The old site averaged 300 to 400 posts per day, yesterday the new site clocked up 359 posts. If you think back to the time before the days of forums and blogs and social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, when fishing magazines had several lively letter’s pages, they were the pages that most anglers turned to first to follow the debates between contributors and readers. It’s no different today, but the letter pages are forums.

“It has to be said that we do appear to have ‘lost’ a fair few members who were once respected, even famous (or in some cases infamous) but have now apparently been lost to the site. Whether they were worn down by continued negative comments or gave up due to apathy, we may never know, but having gone, are they ever likely to want to come back?” 

Who are these fair few members who have gone since the birth of the new site?

I know of a few who went before the old site died,  but quite who are the ‘respected and famous’ ones you refer to? If you mean those who appear in angling journals, ie, Gary Knowles, Bob Roberts, Andy Nellist, Wol, Matt Brown, Lee Swords and one or two who have sadly passed away (apologies to any I’ve missed who may fit into the ‘respected and famous’ bracket who at some time wrote for FM, but I mean no disrespect, just a bad memory, and I haven’t included current contributors), they’re still around but don’t post as often. Neither do I, come to that. Were they worn down by ‘continued negative comments’? You mean from the ‘characters’ you drew your inspiration from?

Mark Wintle has recently retired and is busy getting his life in order and working on other projects to boost his income, although he still finds time to make occasional contributions. I don’t know of any other regular writer, other than yourself, and you’ve given your reasons above, who isn’t still contributing. Other than those who stopped a long, long time ago, long before the old site died. But I dare bet that there are more new articles and news items going up each week than ever went onto the old site. We’re lacking where reviews are concerned but again, that will be put right very soon.

“In a sense, Donald and Damien belonged to the members of the ‘old’ site. It was written for them and with them in mind, and sad to say, I feel that that rapport has now gone.”

I don’t get that one, they’re the same members, the majority of them coming over to the new site, plus a great many new ones who’ve joined since the new site launched, many of whom are joining in and bonding really well. There will always be a turnover of members. The readers of the angling weeklies will not be the same readers from five years ago. As for not having a ‘rapport’ with the forum now I have a feeling that isn’t going to get any better…..

Far be it from me though to try to claim that all is well with the new site, and I think there is an element of truth in some of the things Kevin says, but nothing like as bad as he seems to be suggesting. I think the quality of our article writers and articles is as good as ever, and also the quality of our forum posts and posters; in many respects I think the latter is better. We’re busy working on ironing out the bugs and improving the new site every single day (I may be paid for only two days a week but believe me, I do far more than that) and given time we’ll iron out most, if not all, of the things that don’t work quite right since the move. We’ve got some interesting threads going at the moment, and there are some decent articles on the home page. It’s a new team running the new FM and we just need time to get it absolutely right. The old FM was 10 years old, the new one is less than 10 months old. We certainly have the determination. My personal opinion is that Kevin, although basing his opinions on elements of truth, is not being fair to either me or the current FM team, its contributors and posters.  Or should it be me asking – ‘Is it Just Me?’

Anyhow, it’s over to the members to discuss the points that Kevin raises. Please don’t confine your views to simple ‘I agree/disagree’ but explain why. Thanks, Graham.