Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 000 Magazine: Necessary improvements and feedback

  1. #1

    000 Magazine: Necessary improvements and feedback

    Since I didn’t have Pete’s email currently.

    Pete, I really love the concept of 000 Magazine, and want it to succeed.
    Most of the articles are great.

    However, two things are bothering me:

    1. There have been fairly obvious technical mistakes in the articles. Take the most recent article that references 1973 RS’s. It’s not true for example that the lightweight option car had different steel or glass than the touring. When you allow errors like that it it takes away from the credibility of the other articles too.

    2. Don’t go in the direction of Architectural Digest which no longer writes on great architecture but rather selects houses based on celebrity ownership. Always choose the most interesting car.

    Overall, it’s a great effort and well worth subscribing too.

    Please eliminate the errors though. And publish corrections of errors if they slip through.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by rower View Post
    Since I didn’t have Pete’s email currently.

    Pete, I really love the concept of 000 Magazine, and want it to succeed.
    Most of the articles are great.

    However, two things are bothering me:

    1. There have been fairly obvious technical mistakes in the articles. Take the most recent article that references 1973 RS’s. It’s not true for example that the lightweight option car had different steel or glass than the touring. When you allow errors like that it it takes away from the credibility of the other articles too.

    2. Don’t go in the direction of Architectural Digest which no longer writes on great architecture but rather selects houses based on celebrity ownership. Always choose the most interesting car.

    Overall, it’s a great effort and well worth subscribing too.

    Please eliminate the errors though. And publish corrections of errors if they slip through.
    Thank you for your feedback, and very much appreciate your support.

    Finding us isn't difficult via 000magazine.com/contact/

    As to your points:

    1. I suspect you're referring to something in the piece on the 1975 930 for Issue 013; will look into that and be back to you.
    2. I'm not sure what prompts your celebrity ownership comment, but rest assured: "celebrity ownership" doesn't do much for us.

    As to errors, we take those seriously—but one example followed by "please eliminate the errors" is a pretty broad brush. We do publish corrections, and have a note on the inside front cover I'll try to grab a photo of that speaks to 000's take re: accuracy as well as research—as we happen to agree with you. Please feel free to follow up with me via PM or via our website—3,000+ pages published into this project, with most of them read three to seven times by these eyes and all of them reads by many more, I can say I've never pushed this far to find new info, new details, more insight into the stories we thought we knew, unpublished images, documents, and more.

    But, in the end, 000 is very much a human endeavor and, as you know, the further you push…

    Thanks,

    pete

  3. #3
    Issue 014. Page 248-9 for example.

    M472 “added standard window glass”
    M471 apparently in contrast though ambiguous “thinner sheet metal”

    We all know both cars came down the same assembly line and the interior and exterior trim packages were all that differed. Thin metal for all until it ran out on series 3.

    Same with the glaverbal lightweight glass.

    Minor one, page 250 says “deletion of radio” when in fact they were standard no radio for both and they had to be optioned for either which few did.

    Little things like that can be jarring to read, but may be careless wording. You set such a high standard everywhere else and put your heart into it that it deserves to be the best it can be.

    As for celebrities, I think you are correct. More cautionary.

    And I recommend everyone to subscribe.
    Last edited by rower; 05-09-2020 at 10:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member frederik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    425
    I would just like to add that I thoroughly enjoy each issue. Especially the way in which multiple articles are combined to give an almost encyclopedic overview of a particular subject. For example in issue 013 where there are three subsequent views of the 930, and also the two “Iowa made” articles.

    I would appreciate more early 911 coverage (loved the 67S special), maybe also for the more “normal” versions like a T or a plain early 911. And maybe a little bit of love for the 996 Carrera? The comparison of the 986 and 718 Boxster was very nice and your observation that it’s best to own a classic and a newer Porsche at the same time (because they each make you appreciate the other more) actually made me decide to buy a 996 this winter — which has proven to be a great car. So thanks for that!
    1970 2.2S Elfenbeinweiss
    1972 2.4T Targa Aubergine (MFI) [For sale]
    2002 996 TT Midnight Blue
    Member #3833

  5. #5
    Senior Member Chris Pomares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,081
    I think Pete's efforts are to be commended. Could any of us put out that many articles with so few mistakes? I doubt it. I certainly couldn't and I've read everything Porsche I could get my hands on for 50 to 60 years. Maybe corrections would be better handled with a PM.
    1959 Auratium Green 356A Super w/ Rudge wheels
    1970 Irish Green 914-6 w/2.2S
    Current -1967 Bahama Yellow 912 POLO 2cam4 #1
    www.reSeeWorks.com
    Personalized Vintage Porsche's and parts
    I couldn't find the sports car of my dreams, so I built it myself-Ferdinand Porsche

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pomares View Post
    I think Pete's efforts are to be commended. Could any of us put out that many articles with so few mistakes? I doubt it. I certainly couldn't and I've read everything Porsche I could get my hands on for 50 to 60 years. Maybe corrections would be better handled with a PM.
    They were passed on before but not responded to.

    It’s a magazine that aspires (and is priced) to be reference quality and hence should be subject to public correction.

    Obviously, given my encouragement to others to subscribe I feel the good vastly outweighs the mistakes but it’s worth pushing us all to be better. In that case, I think no one really proof read that section. Clearly there are some experts available.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pomares View Post
    I think Pete's efforts are to be commended. Could any of us put out that many articles with so few mistakes? I doubt it. I certainly couldn't and I've read everything Porsche I could get my hands on for 50 to 60 years. Maybe corrections would be better handled with a PM.
    Well said.

    Keep up the great work, Pete. You've created something very important to the community in a very short amount of time and you can count me a fan.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by rower View Post
    Issue 014. Page 248-9 for example.

    M472 “added standard window glass”
    M471 apparently in contrast though ambiguous “thinner sheet metal”

    We all know both cars came down the same assembly line and the interior and exterior trim packages were all that differed. Thin metal for all until it ran out on series 3.

    Same with the glaverbal lightweight glass.

    Minor one, page 250 says “deletion of radio” when in fact they were standard no radio for both and they had to be optioned for either which few did.

    Little things like that can be jarring to read, but may be careless wording. You set such a high standard everywhere else and put your heart into it that it deserves to be the best it can be.

    As for celebrities, I think you are correct. More cautionary.

    And I recommend everyone to subscribe.
    Thank you for the page references—was worried we'd gotten something wrong in the main 930 piece with re: to the RS 2.7. I see you are referring to two captions in Spec v Spec, which is meant to be fun (but no less correct).

    • Agree that "standard window glass" and "thinner sheet metal" should have been addressed better and more correctly per the above. Offset is you only get so much space in a caption, but that's no excuse.
    • Radio "deletion," yes. Meant as more of a contrast to the radio selection in the Touring in the caption/illustration above, with a focus on its absence leaving the flat six to supply the audio, but the lack of precision > leading to a false takeaway is fair criticism. Also noted.


    I was confused on the comment about celebrity ownership, but I don't think there's much to worry about there. We don't seek cars with celebrity ownership, but we won't turn away from the right car that happens to be owned by a celebrity. Point is: It's irrelevant to us.

    And many thanks for the recommendation, as well as the point-to on a story idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by frederik View Post
    I would just like to add that I thoroughly enjoy each issue. Especially the way in which multiple articles are combined to give an almost encyclopedic overview of a particular subject. For example in issue 013 where there are three subsequent views of the 930, and also the two “Iowa made” articles.

    I would appreciate more early 911 coverage (loved the 67S special), maybe also for the more “normal” versions like a T or a plain early 911. And maybe a little bit of love for the 996 Carrera? The comparison of the 986 and 718 Boxster was very nice and your observation that it’s best to own a classic and a newer Porsche at the same time (because they each make you appreciate the other more) actually made me decide to buy a 996 this winter — which has proven to be a great car. So thanks for that!
    Many thanks, and I'm glad you do! That's what 000 was for.

    All of the above noted and the feedback/wants are appreciated. Some are in line with things we've been discussing, and others are a good prod.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pomares View Post
    I think Pete's efforts are to be commended. Could any of us put out that many articles with so few mistakes? I doubt it. I certainly couldn't and I've read everything Porsche I could get my hands on for 50 to 60 years. Maybe corrections would be better handled with a PM.
    Thanks, Chris. 000 makes previous projects look like child's play, but I don't think any of us were built for stasis. As for critical feedback, I always told the Pano team the nit picks were a blessing—because they told you people were actually reading it.

    Quote Originally Posted by rower View Post
    They were passed on before but not responded to.

    It’s a magazine that aspires (and is priced) to be reference quality and hence should be subject to public correction.

    Obviously, given my encouragement to others to subscribe I feel the good vastly outweighs the mistakes but it’s worth pushing us all to be better. In that case, I think no one really proof read that section. Clearly there are some experts available.
    Oh, it was proofed. And not just by one person. Everything is. But some things get through.

    When I used to play foosball in college, my roommate had a seriously impressive hole-shot. You didn't see anything; you just heard two hits in quick succession: his player hit the ball, and the ball hit the back wall of the opponent's goal. The opposite was "the slow roller," a meandering foosball that slowly weaved its way all the way down the table no matter how furiously everyone—no matter how skilled—tried to stop it before it dropped lightly into the goal. Certain typos and mistakes are slow rollers. They can look correct and be wrong. Whether a typo, or a mistake. You develop ways to eradicate them over the years. You can get pretty good at it, and you can assemble a team that's even better. But you'd be surprised what gets through. Even when you knew better.

    Looking at it a different way: How often do pitchers throw perfect games? How often does a restored (or factory…?) car get a perfect paint job? Does Porsche ever build a car that needs a repair? Or one that will never need a repair? The trick with print is: You have to press go at some point. And then it's set in stone. Sure, you can run a correction. And I've run plenty of them over the last 20 years, never hiding them. But that doesn't help much if someone doesn't look at the next issue for that correction when it counts. And yes, this does weigh on us.

    I suppose the alternative is to not reach. Our take is printed on the inside front cover of every issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    Well said.

    Keep up the great work, Pete. You've created something very important to the community in a very short amount of time and you can count me a fan.
    Thanks, man, and we will. 3.5 years in, Alex and I feel we've only really built a chassis/proof of concept…something more 901 or 996.1 than RS 2.7 or RS 4.0…or, for that matter, even 911S or C4S. This has been the most challenging project either of us has taken on, and we're thankful for all those who joined in alongside us and for all those who have supported this crazy project. Our goal is simple: Make 000 better. Execution is trickier…but we're still hungry. Believe me.

  9. #9
    912->911 conversion
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by stout View Post
    When I used to play foosball in college, my roommate had a seriously impressive hole-shot.
    Note to self - next time I venture down from Canada to a Porsche event and spot the lanky frame of Pete about, find a foos table. I am a terrible player, but love to watch those who are skilled
    Keith Adams
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Early 911S Registry #906 | PCA member IG: @912R
    1969 Blutorange 912R - 912 to 911 conversion
    1969 Mercedes 280 SE (W111) Coupe

  10. #10
    Senior Member StephenAcworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chelsea, Québec
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by stout View Post
    This has been the most challenging project either of us has taken on, and we're thankful for all those who joined in alongside us and for all those who have supported this crazy project. Our goal is simple: Make 000 better. Execution is trickier…but we're still hungry. Believe me.
    I have no doubt that this is extraordinarily challenging - and I wholly get that 'go to print' button you mention... as an academic I often revisit things I've published that have been proofed by me, by colleagues, and then by Journal editors, and still see something annoying... it is the name of the game I guess... I won't mention the publication of a book chapter where the final editor managed to omit my name and credentials completely from the printed book (that took threats of legal action to remedy)...

    In the two years I've been a subscriber of 000, I continue to be impressed with the level you attain and I hope that you manage to keep it 'up there' as the best magazine I ever read... (I know that's highly subjective)... as for the occasional error, I'm not going to get too exercised, so long as errata are published later...

    The one thing I would like to see at some point is an on-line index...

    And for sure, the people who bother to point out the errors are welcome proof that our work is being read!
    1966 911 Coupe - Slate Grey - 304598 - still in restoration!

    Member #1616

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer and Terms of Use
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.