Fine Woodworking Magazine - 'polite' suggestions for improvement?

[ian maybury]

Not to be negative or to rant, but FWW is increasingly getting up my nose.

It's unchallenged in terms of production values (nice pictures, together look and feel etc) but it starting to read like a lot of those writing are not at the top of the hobby/profession, the production values seem to be swamping the content, care seems to be taken to not challenge advertisers, and the high pressure marketing is increasingly an irritation.

I'm posting here because while (surprise) the e-mail addresses of the sales, account management and advertising people selling to prospective advertisers are up front in the magazine, there's no obvious means offered for contacting the editor or staff writers. (names, but no e-mail addresses)

Is it just that I'm bored, past it and spoiled, or is this a more general feeling?

Some personal irritations based on recent and fairly recent developments:

1. On contact information. It'd be nice to feel that key staff were an accessible part of the broader woodworking community.

2. On projects. Taking the dado jig in the recent issue as an example. It's a nice design, but the piece is swamped in pictures and information and as a result is such hard work to read, and more to the point to extract key information from.

There's for example little or nothing that separates what are often largely optional construction details from the principles that matter - like the use of a fixed rt angle fence, use of the guide bush, the width adjustment and so on.

It's like it's dumbed down - written for 'never did it before' readers of an excessively intense mindset (that's something coming from me :p) slavishly following the instructions step by step, but with little overview of what they are at. A much more basic drawing and more concise piece which set these out and not much more would be so much more effective.

3. On technical pieces. There's a similar tendency to provide mountains of isolated facts, but again typically not much by way of an up front addressing of the underlying especially technical principles and broader practice. Especially not if these risk drawing attention to uncomfortable facts.

Product comparisons typically lack the broader and more insightful input you might expect from a user of the equipment on test, and often read more like the five minute impression of a first time user.

This can be misleading, significantly so on occasion judging by the rapid reversing away from some implications following the piece on cyclone based dust systems some time ago. It never really got to the core of these systems - that in the end it's about achieving the required (pretty high) intake CFM for good dust and chip collection, and separation and filtration capability after that. The other details are all just enablers.

4. On the hard sell. I'm sick of the incessant bombardment with e-mails relating to both the website (which I was foolish enough to take out a sub to), and to magazine sales. Not to mention the high handed automatic debiting of my credit card when I didn't specifically ask them to stop.

5. On operation of the website. The video series on the coffee table for example seems to have been stuck on the second or third episode for weeks now. Problems are perfectly acceptable (stuff happens), but it'd be nice if it was handled up front.

6. On language and hype. How's about turning the volume down a bit?

Etc.

Is it just me?

ian

[Bob Falk]

Ian,
I have every issue of FF (I was an original subscriber) and have read them all. I have to agree with your observations. IMHO, the magazine has slipped over the past several years....I find that there is less and less of value for me. I used to spend hours poring over every issue....except for the odd article, I now find I am scanning more and reading less...

My impression is that it is now compiled more by marketers, with the associated language and hype, rather than woodworkers. While, as you note, the look of the magazine is still high quality, the content is starting to have a hollow ring to it.....IMO, it's not the high craft magazine it used to be. I still subscribe, but more to keep my collection complete than anything else. My $0.02

[jason thigpen]

i agree about the quality of content in the magazine. i do however love the subscription to the website. i find that i am searching for articles almost everyday. it seems that most of the useful articles that i find are from issues several years ago, if not decades ago. the magazines also seem much thinner. not sure if it's due to less content, or thinner paper.

[John A langley]

Ian - I like Bob, Subscribed to the magazine in the very beginning. Couldn't wait for it to come in the mail. I had quite a collection. I gave it up quite a few years ago because I came to the conclusion that they were staring to repeat themselves. Now I check it out on the news stand and will occasionally buy it if there is an article that interests me but that's not too terribly often. That's not to say that the publication does not have some merit. I have quite an extensive library and find that there is something useful in them. I think the problem might be they are trying to make changes occasionally to keep people's interest. Just my two cents.

[Robert Champagne]

I subscribed for a while when I started WW, but have since let the subscription lapse as there just isn't much in there that is of interest to me. My wife likes to get me old back issues for stocking stuffers at Christmas, and I found more things of interest in magazines 30-40 years old than the current ones. I was also a subscriber to Woodwork, and really enjoyed their content. They always had a really interesting profile, as well as articles that addressed all areas of woodworking. They didn't have the "I can do this" kind of content for novice woodworkers. Certainly there is a place for that content, but it seems that magazines now focus most of their attention on this area.

[Ed Griner]

I've been reading FWW for over thirty years and the whole company(Taunton Press)have really lowered their standards. FWW's direction has completely changed in the time I've been reading it. The SAPFM group has a yearly publication of very high quality,from some of the best in the country. My main interest is 18th century period furniture.

[David Kumm]

I think the magazine is a pretty good reflection of society itself- or the dumbing down of the same. Dave

[Paul Johnstone]

Honestly, I think I like the magazine better now.
In the "old days" the writers sometimes appeared to be snobbish and condescending to anyone that dare do something a different way.
The magazine still features projects which are more ambitious/difficult than the typical woodworking magazine.
I guess I don't see why anyone would criticize giving more detailed instructions.

I can understand why the staff does not want to give their email addresses. All that does is open them up to more criticism.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are rude over email. I am sure the editor is very busy and does not want to deal with it.
I am not a regular subscriber to the magazine, but surely they have a general contact to the magazine. I can't remember if they still have their "mailbag" feature or not.. but if they have a general contact for the magazine, isn't that good enough?

[Mike Wilkins]

Obtuse opinion here. I too have subscribed to FWW for a lot of years, even when I was unemployed and did'nt need the extra expense. Like most periodicals their contents, layout and overall general direction has changed over the years. But each issue has been a wealth of knowledge; even the subjects that were repeated over the years. I think lots of us, me included, have become the victims of information overload. I subscribe to other WW magazines, and it is sometimes amusing that when one publishes an article, a competitor comes out with a similar article later. I still think FWW is one of the highest quality woodworking publications. At least they have not printed any plans/articles on making lawn ornaments (no offense to those who do).

[John Coloccia]

I'm still annoyed from when Scientific American started going down hill in the 80's, and I was only in my early teens then. I've been grumpy ever since.

[Peter Quinn]

I dropped my subscription a few years back. I still keep the online service, mostly as a search feature, and occasionally for the videos. I was given a pretty complete collection of FWW that goes back to the earliest days, I've read them all. IMO they now have more flash, less depth, and way to much recycling of content. I guess it's cheaper than original work? I think it's a natural progression with any craft that as your skills advance your interest in periodicals will wain. I'm not sure they could simultaneously attract new wood workers and challenge seasoned craftsmen with one magazine consistently. Given the declining. Umbers of people making things they seem to be Positioning themselves to attract that next generation with approachable content which unfortunately leaves many of us bored stiff.

So no Ian, in short it's not just you. If they email me one more ime asking for my opinion I just may give it to them. And I live in the next town over, so perhaps I can deliver it in person!

[Myk Rian]

I never subscribed because the issues I did read were all advertising. Just like Wood, and others.

[Alan Lightstone]

I'm still annoyed from when Scientific American started going down hill in the 80's, and I was only in my early teens then. I've been grumpy ever since.
+1.
I enjoy Fine Woodworking, but I too find that the website provides more useful information than the issues. Production values, and the amazing work of the contributors in the gallery are high points.

[ian maybury]

Thank you for that guys, you're echoing a lot of my own thoughts and it's nice to feel that I'm not alone - although I'm sure there is an element of the jaded 'seen it before' to my perception. I have back issues of the mag on CD, and agree 100% that the thrust was very different back in the day.

:) The motorcycle mags that I was brought up on John were my equivalent of your Scientific American situation. I've been grumpy ever since too - looking forward to the next issue of whatever was a valued part of my life.

Predictably enough I have a view, in that I have a strong sense that the slide in magazine content in general (in Europe too) indeed started in the 1980s as smaller specialist publishing houses were bought up by large combines managed by accountants. The resulting trend towards ad hoc freelance (but mostly amateur) contributors and hype driven sales ended the era of staff writers of long expertise and experience.

It was probably part of the broader 'greed is good' sentiment and shortened attention span that surfaced then too - but here's hoping that we'll get a bounce back towards the opposite polarity sometime soon. Maybe this time without the stifling conservatism...

ian

[Peter Kelly]

I've been reading FWW for over thirty years and the whole company(Taunton Press)have really lowered their standards. FWW's direction has completely changed in the time I've been reading it. The SAPFM group has a yearly publication of very high quality,from some of the best in the country. My main interest is 18th century period furniture.

Add Fine Homebuilding to that as well. Searches for articles on subscriber site of FHB are all totally polluted with results from a separate publication of theirs, Green Building Advisor which you can't view anyway unless you're a (paid) member of that as well. Very, very annoying.

[Brian Kerley]

I'd agree with a lot of your points.

One article in particular I remember from some time ago was an article by Steve Latta on making a Philadelphia Spice Cabinet. Very cool project that I'm sure a lot of readers would want to build. The only issue was there was not a lot of information given in the article about how to actually build one. There were some real broad descriptions of what is in one and some minor construction details, but not even so much as an exploded view, etc. A reasonable woodworker could figure it out, but the exploded view at least would be nice (cut list not necessary). In addition, that article pointed you at the website to get more info, which of course costs more money. The article couldn't even at least give some basic dimensions for the thing.

I think FWW has the most technically difficult projects and some very cool stuff quite often. PWW is more approachable to the average joe. The other cool thing that PWW does is make their editors approachable. The editors all contribute to the official blog where questions can be asked. I've emailed the editors on multiple occasions for more info, and have ALWAYS received a response. Not too mention that the PWW editors visit forums and even chime in from time to time. INFINITELY more accessible for providing info.

I feel FWW banks too much on its history instead of what to do going forward. They want to sell you their web site subscription so you can get all the old articles. It seems that most of their articles point at the website and the need for a subscription to get more info.

Also, their website is a complete disaster....but that's a different rant.

[glenn bradley]

I've been reading FWW for over thirty years and the whole company(Taunton Press)have really lowered their standards.

That about covers it. In their defense, they are battling the economy just like everyone else. It is the periodicals that remain true to their vision through good time AND bad that really make the grade. When they had an issue that ran a little thin awhile back, everyone beat them up. If they ran thinner issues with better journalism and less adverts I think they might find their loyal readers would understand the tough times we're in and give them a thumbs up.

[Don Jarvie]

Magazines are like any other product in the digital age, reach a broader audiance or die. FWW, from my understanding, was geared toward the Pro or Serious Amateur. Thats all well and good where there is no internet and only a few other publications to compete with. Now there's more magazines and websites that they have to complete with so the magazine gets dumbed down a bit to appeal to all woodworkers, not just the pros.

I like the magazine very much and its the only one I read. The projects are challanging and information good.

[ian maybury]

On pro/serious amateur versus wider appeal Don. There is another view. Motorcycling (my other interest) has been through a similar shift in recent years, in that the magazines have greatly reduced and also dumbed down their coverage of racing, competition, technical issues and sports riding - presumably as a result of very similar thinking.

I'm not too sure that it's a great strategy though. A longer view shows pretty clearly that it's the more serious and more committed competition and road going 'lifetime' motorcyclists that keep the show on the road. There's periodic surges of professional and similar well heeled guys in mid life crises buying into the lifestyle with full dress touring BMWs and the like (leveraging the broader familiarity with the car based version of the brand), but they tend to be transitory.

Dumbing down to chase this sort of market to my mind alienates core support and has an element of eating the seed corn about it - it gains short term sales at the cost of longer term commitment. Deeper human motivation being what it is people are anyway unlikely to remain interested in and committed to activities that don't lead them into stretching and growth once they have achieved basic familiarisation.

ian

[Larry Edgerton]

I sent them a letter about ten years ago after being a subcriber since the second issue that it was time to start a new magazine called " Truely Fine Woodworking" and leave the birdhouse stuff for "Fine Woodworking"

Fine Homebuilding started out as a professional magazine and turned into a do it your selfer, so I canceled that as well.

I tried fine Furniture, but that one got canceled on its own.....

Challange me or go away........

Larry

[Rod Sheridan]

I have written FWW several times over the past few years regarding:

- astoundingly poor safety focus for a supposedly premium product. Stop showing tablesaws without guards, we're not idiot's we know there's a blade in there and it's cutting wood, we don't need to see it.

- someone mentioned Fine Birdhouses, that seems to be the complexity focus

- it's FWW, not beginning wood working. I don't need another article on why you need a jointer and a planer, how about some serious stuff for a change

- when you test machinery and produce test results, have an engineer review your process, test results and conclusions. The Festool vac test made me laugh, you buy a HEPA vac because you want to eliminate dust, not because you want to avoid putting a bag in the machine. What's next, a Saw Stop test without a brake cartridge because people won't want to pay for one?

Regards, Rod.

[Ron Kellison]

Very timely that you bring this up! I cancelled my subscription somewhere around Y2K. I've probably bought a dozen issues since then. I just pulled my collection (going back to Issue #2) out of the cabinet in my workshop. Going through the collection I found that I wanted to re-read a large percentage of the older ones but only a couple of the newer ones. Lots of flash, repetition and general dumbing down for the folks that have a 15-minute attention span. I still subscribe to PWW, primarily because of their frequent (usually good) articles on handwork.

Best regards,

Ron

[Shawn Pixley]

I really got bummed when Gardner stopped writing Mathmatical Games.


I'm still annoyed from when Scientific American started going down hill in the 80's, and I was only in my early teens then. I've been grumpy ever since.

[Robert Chapman]

I have subscribed to FWW for about 15 years and have learned a lot from its content. For years I have found that I could always learn at least one useful thing per issue. Now that is not always the case - but maybe that is because I have learned a lot about woodworking - certainly not everything - and there is just less new stuff to learn. I still think that FWW is the best woodworking mag being published - I just don't learn that many new things from it.

[Ron Natalie]

I am a subscriber to the print and the online service. I don't get any emails. I almost certainly told them to take a hike early on even if I didn't opt out when I signed in.

I too have subscribed since the 1988 or so. It used to be pretty elitist. It's somewhat more mainstream now.

[Guy Belleman]

Many magazines are having problems drawing in the new generations into reading magazines. I still prefer paper, but my son does everything online. Quite a few articles about the trend in woodworking towards having more women and children in the activity, which is good, but may affect the publications that write for the audience. I always like FW magazine for the detailed techniques and pictures that cleared up my understanding, even though I might make the project being explained. I do agree with Ian that some of this clarity seems to have decreased. I seem to remember that several of the magazines took survey's last year to ask what they could to improve their product. I know I responded, although I haven't really thought about how the magazine changes corresponded to my recommendations.

[Jim Matthews]

The essential problem is raised by previous posters is the "compression" of skill sets.
There's no way to provide separate skill tracks in each magazine. Noobs can't be overwhelmed - they're likely to patronize the advertisers.
Advancing hacks like me can glean something from most of the "how to" articles.

There's a nod to the Big Dogs in some of the wilder projects, toward the back. Skilled practitioners won't need a road map.

Most of it is intentionally accessible, and leaves further instruction to the schools advertised in the last pages.
I like the compilation issues, as they concentrate on a particular aspect.

In my opinion, their website has invaluable videos that lead to more pertinent searches. Not so easy to search, but handy.
For example, Asa Christiana has a video set with Gary Knox Bennett which revealed a method that works for me.

Gary tossed off three construction techniques therein that I would never have discovered, on my own. Free, too.

Moreover, these people are genuine and approachable in person. Mike Pekovich spent 20 minutes with me dealing with card scrapers - mundane to be sure, but immediately useful.
I don't know many fields where the most recognizable names in the field would be so willing to offer free instruction.

That said, the relentless flogging of power tools distracts from the focus - building things at the top of our ability, out of wood.

It's like audio rags that don't talk about music - gizmology.

[tom deryke]

I'm another one who has all of the FWW's, and I've also noticed changes in the magazine as noted above. Having learned a few things about woodworking in the past 40 years however, none of the periodicals provide as much interest as they once did. An old mentor once told me that if you can get one good, useful idea from a book, isn't that worth the couple of bucks it costs?
I'd like to see less advertising, better articles (especially catering to my interests...) and more innovative projects too, but as long as I can get something from each issue, I'll keep subscribing.

[James White]

I would certainly like to see a return of focus to more advanced woodworking. It gives the less skilled something to aspire to. With that said. One thing that I can not forgive them for is the social network window that pops up when reading the online content. I cant tell you how many times I had to click on the "do not track" option that takes you away to a separate page to confirm one again that you have opted out. Grrrr!! I cant really see woodworkers gravitating toward social networking sites. Am I the only one that gets infuriated when that dam window pops up?

James

[ian maybury]

It was issues with the web site that tipped me into putting up this topic too James - that and the feeling based on past experience that (I've e-mailed more than once over the past year or two to raise issues, but never managed to raise a response) there wasn't much point in contacting the mag.

That said the intention is not to cause offence, or to force a response or anything like that. I don't know how likely it is, but what I'd really love to see is that the mag (which actually does some things very well, and is a very important part of our woodworking infrastructure) just take on board some of the comments here (which in truth seem pretty consistently to point to similar issues), and just quietly get on with a re-appraisal of its raison d'etre. Hopefully to be followed by some changes.

My sense is that it's necessary for a publication like FWW to target a specific market, and then to resonate with the 'vibe' of that market. There are lots of options, but in the end it becomes a case of deciding which horse to bet on.

One well known principle in business strategy that follows from this that's often ignored in practice is that it's not possible to be all things to all men. A manufacturer can for example be a low cost producer of a basic product, or a high service producer of a high end product. Both are potentially valid strategies on which to build a successful business - but there are practical conflicts in trying to be both at once. Most importantly the sort of culture and belief system (the values by which people make decisions) required for success in the first tends to be very different to that needed in the second.

The result of trying to be both at once tends to be that all potential customer groups end up left alienated and unhappy - and the business fails to proposer like it might, or to even survive.

It's a situation that can be the result of a numbers driven, head not heart, financial bottom line above all else and combative management environment. Key decision makers may in such a situation fail to connect or empathise with the market, with the result that the subtler less tangible and more 'touchy feely' aspects of the customer's needs and requirements are not recognised and get trampled on...

This sort of disconnect must inevitably create a feeling of unease in the customer - a sense that mag is 'them' rather than 'ours'....

ian

[Carpenter Mark]

Sorry, have to agree with most- the content of the mag isn't even a shadow of what it once was. I was a subscriber for over twenty years- think I started at #15 and it was filled with articles by pros and some masters who were willing share the benefit of their experience. They weren't being snobby, they were trying to preserve a craft and lifelong learned skill sets. The ownership changed, they got rid of authors who questioned or critisized an advertisers product- even on safety issues- and bent over to those same advertisers. They more and more move away from time proven methods and tools in favor of the newest and shiniest.
A few years back, I had a guy come in and ask where I bought the router bits I used to make an entry door he saw at a clients- while he was leaning on my shaper. I asked him why did he think I used a router, and he began to talk about the FFW articles on it. He also had introduced himself as a furniture and cabinet maker who was going to build a bunch of doors and put together an article on it for the magazine.....

They really have run their course, they'd be better off to re-issue the early issues at 6 a year and do 1 new mag once a year on the newest and shiniest router, sander and Festool.

[Asa Christiana]

Hi, all--
I'm the editor of FWW, and I wanted to let all of you know that I appreciate your feedback. I dont dig into the various forums very often, mostly because I am so busy making the doughnuts! We have passionate readers, and there are a lot of points made in this thread. I'll try to deal with as many as possible.

For a start my email address is achristiana@taunton.com, and I welcome any of you to contact me that way. It is actually better than calling since I can get to it when I have time, and quickly.

There are some conspiracy theories going here, but I can assure you that we are as committed to providing top-notch, practical woodworking info as we ever have been. One of the things that happens as readers grow with us and become more experienced is that their needs and interests change. They no longer need the nitty gritty details on how to build things, or they want only very high end projects and techniques, or their interests fan out, away from the meat and potatoes stuff we all start with (dovetails, routers, etc.) into more obscure corners of the woodworking landscape.

The bottom line is that it is hard to be all things to all people. While we have a lot of very veteran readers, we also have new people entering the tent, and needing the basic foundational info that is so critical. So, in order to keep as many people in the tent as possible (so we can keep bringing you those beautiful drawings and photos that you love), we present a balance of info, some period, some contemporary; some hard, some a bit easier; some stuff like sanding sharpening and finishing that everyone needs, and some stuff closer to the fringes like complex marquetry and how to use a compass plane.

But what we never compromise on is taste and construction. Everything is built to last generations, and designed to look beautiful just as long.

Also, we are always listening and always shifting, surveying our readers constantly and making changes accordingly. Close readers will notice we have a bit more high end techniques, including a bit more hand tool coverage, plus more "I'll bet you've never seen this before" stuff, so we stay relevant and useful to our readers, who, on average, are getting a bit more experienced as the years go on. Unfortunately, not as many new people are entering the craft as they once did. That said, to encourage and feed those newbies, we always make sure we keep the door open for them too. And where we can't quite stretch to give them the super basics, we created StartWoodworking.com, a totally free site that many of us built and fed on our weekends.

Last, I want to point out the FineWoodworking.com let's us go places the magazine can't, for simple space reasons. Check out Jon Binzen's wonderful Masters of the Craft audio slideshows and blogs, which are a continuation of the Back Cover features! Hope all this helps. Keep letting us know what you like and don't like, and feel free to email me personally!

[Pat Barry]

I like FWW and think it is the best woodworking source available on the newstand. It is clearly better than anything else on the shelf. It may be the perceptions of the magazine being something less than it was are more a reflection of the skill set of the people here getting better because of the magazine. You have learned and improved and now you think the magazine has gone backward but you have gone forward.

[James White]

Asa,

Thank you for jumping in here. I for one agree with Pats Barry's comments. FWW is the best woodworking magazine available. I hope it stays that way. See my comments about the pop ups.

I would also like to encourage the members here to take a look at the content you recommend below. Jon Binzen's wonderful Masters of the Craft audio slideshows. It reminds me of the late Woodwork magazine. I watched every one of them just last week.



Last, I want to point out the FineWoodworking.com let's us go places the magazine can't, for simple space reasons. Check out Jon Binzen's wonderful Masters of the Craft audio slideshows and blogs, which are a continuation of the Back Cover features! Hope all this helps. Keep letting us know what you like and don't like, and feel free to email me personally!

[Asa Christiana]

Good point, James. we are redesigning the site to get rid of some of those annoying popup windows. Stay tuned.

[Kenneth Speed]

I think we as readers and woodworkers change and evolve and I think the magazine has changed.

There is no doubt that print media are struggling to survive in the electronic age and I think FWW is struggling as well.

On the other hand, I allowed my subscription to FWW lapse quite a while ago because it seemed every issue was a repeat of one from the recent past. How many sharpening articles can one read? How many, "tune up your bench plane" articles does one need? It also bothered me that the contributors to FWW seemed to be gifted with some sort of God like prescience and were inherently incapable of making a woodworking error- ever.

I occasionally buy an issue although the price is an atrocity but I doubt that I'll resubscribe any time soon.

[michael case]

How about some big boy tool reviews and some big boy woodworking? I'm tired of such inanities as "which table saw had its table aligned most precisely out of the box?" Who cares I'm going to tune any saw I buy anyway. How about something meaningful about the heft and precision of the machining on the table saw. How about having the motors stripped by a qualified tech (not Roland Johnson) and tells us about the quality of the windings and electronics. Maybe the projects should be something beyond "how to make a crosscut sled" - (the wrong way!). The last thing they did that impressed me was a couple of years ago now when they had a properly equipped university lab test the strength of about seven different glue joints. Interesting articles and reviews are getting to be few and far between.

[James White]

"How about having the motors stripped by a qualified tech (not Roland Johnson) and tells us about the quality of the windings and electronics."

Or they could focus on producing content like this.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/arts-and-crafts-dining-table-video-preview/?&lookup=auto&V18=&V19=&V20=&V21=&V22=&V23=&V24=&V25=&V26=&V53=&V54=&Taun_Per_Flag=true&utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_content=20120512-asian-inspired-hall-table&utm_campaign=fine-woodworking-eletter

[phil harold]

I would agree with most on how the magazine has changed...
but
I also think most readers have changed too.
After 30+ years of woodworking and reading FWW I have become more educated in woodworking, while retaining much of the information it is hard to find a new method or knowledge from magazines in print. During the past 30 years Box stores are trying to sell the idea that anyone can be a woodworker or homebuilder and many magazines are tapping those customers too.
I think tool reviews need to be done buy various people in the trade and use the item for 6 months to provide a realistic opinion of the item and comparison to similar products.
In reality in six months a new version would be out

What we need is a professional magazine/forum where if you are not in the professional side of it you dont get in. Just like some of my suppliers that require 3 years verifiable references and professional accounts before letting you buy from them.

For some reason I canceled my FWW subscription for the same reasons posted here, yet I keep my Wood subscription.

[Brad Pickens]

I'm a bit perplexed by this thread--I'm not entirely clear what the complaint is. Which issue was it again that had the birdhouse plans? I must have missed that one. And the low quality work on the hay-rake table or the screens from the last issue, sure, those are aimed at the novice woodworker and the magazine has clearly gone downhill. I was able to get some pine one-bys from the local big box and whip both of those projects out in a weekend, one project for Saturday and one for Sunday.
I have every issue of FWW and regularly re-read them at lunch, just to brush up on skills, find a piece I'd forgotten about, and I'll often find a technique that is useful for something that I'm currently working on. Is. 35 is the one I'm currently reading and it has some pretty high end work. It also has a cover article on picture framing, tips on making router jigs, and wouldn't you know, an article on how to tune a bench plane. Sounds pretty comparable to what is in there now. Now that we all have Asa's e-mail, Id' say that we've put that complaint to rest. In terms of the quality of the contributors, it seems to me that Garrett Hack, Christian Becksvoot, Phil Lowe, and Steve Latta, among others, manage to put together some pretty decent pieces. I guess it's not the same as the early issue Tage Frid articles on using bandsaws, jointers, and routing mortises, but it'll have to do. And if you dislike the tool reviews now, try to make sense of some of the ones from the mid-eighties. Re-reading the old issues reveals the same complaint that comes up here occasionally about the current issues--there was some repetitiveness even in the early years (you can't expect a magazine that's been around for over 30 years to have nothing but uniquely new content) and the second time around lends itself to skimming articles that were read straight through the first time.
There may be some soft focus nostalgia at work in the notion that the early issues were somehow more focused on the "purity" and beauty of the craft (or whatever magic it was that they had that is supposedly missing now) or that they focused strictly on the highest end of the woodworking spectrum. Part of that perception is no doubt linked to the state of the industry then and now. The 1970s were the beginning of the craft revival and it was breaking new (old) ground to describe how to sharpen a chisel or go into the woods to make a chair from a tree. There were guys like Frid (who taught an awful lot of people the basic movements of woodworking through those articles and through his books), and other guys like Wendell Castle, or Art Carpenter who were really exploring new forms and doing exciting things with wood. But now an lot of people manage to do all that in their garage over the weekend and it's lost some of its uniqueness. There is an entire industry dedicated to providing the tools and know-how to allow anyone willing to invest the time and money to do just about anything they want. The world of craft is simply different today, the perception is therefore different, and what will get written about is different. (BTW, the same things can be seen in Fine Homebuilding--the early issues had a lot of really innovative articles on rammed earth construction, "earth ships", and the like. Cool stuff, but thoroughly a product of their time). Neither publication is particularly better or worse than it was, it is just focused on different needs.
I also subscribe to Popular Woodworking (which seems to be strongly appreciated around here). I have to say that I've never given any consideration to the "You Can Build It" section, since I don't need a square footstool or a shelf held together with nails, I'm perfectly happy with my workbench (which like all workbenches has its compromises), I don't have a need for a $4,000 smooth plane (even if I want one), and I'm not sure that I want to give up my calipers or Starrett square for a 19th century way of doing the exact same thing, just because that was how it was done in the 19th century.
Not everything in either publication applies to me, and I don't find stunning insights from every article. Some get skimmed through, and someone might complete a simple process differently than I would, but that might be a valuable way to accomplish a particular goal on a different project. Who knows, someday I may even need to use some 150 year old layout technique to solve a problem. As several others have pointed out, our skills change over the years and what was fresh information when we started may be pretty tired when we see it again. If we develop the skills for that to happen, then that is good, but not everyone is in the same place in their journey. FWW is what it is, and there are places where it could surely improve itself. Like anything else that we become familiar with, there are likely to be some diminishing returns, but that doesn't negate the overall value of what it offers. Some of the suggestions made here are good, but I do wonder if the needs expressed might be better accomplished through a local woodworkers guild or the like that focuses on professional or high-quality amateur work and production processes, rather than expecting a magazine to do all that? Or perhaps a webzine that focuses on that end of the spectrum and that provides what is lacking?

[Keith Hankins]

I have to credit FWW with getting me back into WW about 7 years ago. I had loved it put everything away for years when a casual conversation with my brother it was suggested to check it out as the "best" WW mag out there. Second the forum knots was the best source of information and assistance around. I happened to go there and the rest is history. I can remember this very thread when I started from the "old timers" and wondered why, it was all new to me, but I'll admit I was green. I subscribed to all the mags I could slowly built up my tools and here i am today with some nice pieces under my belt even one from plans (cherry hutch) from FWW. In the beginning being green i soaked it up but found as I developed my skills i relied less and less on the mag but the forum was fantastic. I used to go there several times a day just so I would not have too many messages to read. I subscribed to the online content when that first came out as well. Well here I sit today and I have to agree that it's not what it was even when I started. I could not waite for the copy to arrive and cover to cover was the plan. I can scan in about 15 - 20 min now and while the pictorial quality is great, it is not too challenging. However is that because of content or my skill has advanced and the things what would interest me 7 years ago is old hat now. I don't know. However I will say that after that first flourish into all the ww mags, I've dropped them all except popular WW as I have found it's gone the opposite, its articles hand tools etc writing seem to be getting better over time. Dropped FWW couple years ago. Now I know that knots was a freebee but they killed that forum with the change in systems. I still go there once every few days and see only a hand full of new messages and all the old timers that shared so much and I learned from are all gone. Sad but true. Anyway I hope FWW comes back but It's not looking promising. I do miss it dearly it was the best.

[Roy Turbett]

Asa-

My woodturning club recently issued a challenge to turn a croquet mallet and ball to be judged and used during our summer picnic. A fellow woodturner told me about an excellent out-of-print FWW article on Malletsmithing that wasn't available through the website. The staff at FWW were gracious to send me a clean copy of the article and permission for our club to make a limited number of copies. On behalf of the Michigan Association of Woodturners I want to thank you and your staff for this kindness.

[Matt Day]

I haven't been ww'ing as long as a lot of folks on this site (about 7 years for me), but I still get very excited when a new magazine is in the mailbox (my wife teasingly calls it wood porn)! I grew up seeing the magazine in the mail for my father.

The main request I have is less Arts & Crafts style furniture! Maybe there are a lot of people out there that like it, but I'd like to see some different styles more often. Still, I read the articles and usually pick up a trick or new method of doing something.

I say keep up the good work!

[Pat Barry]

There are three things I look forward to in every issue: The reader projects; the back cover and master class; I would love to see more of each of these..

[Van Huskey]

First, I still enjoy FWW and constantly read back issues (from DVD-ROM) and look forward to the new issues. I never fail to see something that inspires me.

There is one thing I would really like to see though, I would like to see a running series (always one going) which builds a "masterpiece" or "bucket list) piece maybe take a year (7 issues?) or more to do it. Stuff like a Maloof Rocker or Newport Secretary etc. It could inspire the newbies and push the old farts to try something new and different. Each issue could move the piece forward and have a "master class" on one or two of the unusual or difficult details or just a new way to accomplish one the the core steps.

As most of you know I love bandsaws but I devour every BS article since I have yet to find one that didn't show or suggest something new or challenge one of my beliefs. Though not a FWW thing when I saw Ng sharpen a card scraper (something I have been doing fairly succesfully for a long time) it opened my eyes in a whole new way that makes them a far more quick and useful thing for me. Just because it is another article on "fill in the blank" doesn't mean you won't learn something. That useful bit here and there is worth the price of admission for me. If nothing else just seeing the trends in furniture (especially since I am not a period kinda guy) is worth it to me.

To people that think the reviews are poor, try to do one yourself and open it up to peer review. You will never make everyone happy, people defend their purchases and bias. Look at cars... people used to complain the magazines were in BMWs pocket due to ad space, however when ad space was quantified it was clear US and Japanese manufacturers paid them far more money.

Also add the UK published Furniture & Cabinetmaking to your tasting menu, I like it too.

Finally, if you think FWW is too basic what magazine do we have that isn't, even if the food chain has gotten lazy to me it still stands head and shoulder above the rest in FINE woodworking.

[Pat Barry]

I like Van's idea of a running series. That would be outstanding!