On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 3:41:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 9:57:55 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
WARNIMG: Longish, U.S.-centric post below!!!

OK - It's winter (again, sigh) in my neck of the woods and some recent RAS
posts touching upon contests and the (over-)reporting thereof in "Soaring"
magazine, plus a kinda-sorta related post from "Soaring's" newish-editor, move
me to muse a bit, here on RAS...

The closest I've been to a "real contest" was crewing at the 2013 combined
Super Regionals and 1-26 Championships in Moriarty, NM (thanks, Tony!); that's
since getting into soaring in late '72. Point being, I'm not a contest pilot,
and have never - seriously - considered becoming one. Yet, topically, the two
most compelling magazine subjects of interest to me upon discovering the sport
and magazine we contest reporting (specifically Nationals) and record
flight writeups. The listing order is meaningless; I inhaled all such
writeups. I also inhaled writeups of unsuccessful record attempts, as well as
writeups of "merely personally good flights," especially those from people
more experienced than I. Why? They were all inspirations for possible personal
future achievements, if I just kept plugging away at building my skill set. I
recognized early-on that were I successful in skills-building, then the
proportion of pilots ahead of me on the skills curve would lessen over
time...but so what? Inspiration is inspiration!

I can further recall when I first saw member-grousing about contest reports in
the magazine. Somewhat to my surprise, by then I (somewhat) agreed with those
writers' perspectives....but NOT for the reasons commonly expressed, which
I'll lump as "too much contest reporting; contests are
meaningless/of-no-interest-to-me/weekend-soaring pilots who constitute the
vast majority of SSA members." What bothered *me* about main-feature-article
contest reporting in the magazine as it evolved from (say) 1965 (back issues,
woo hoo!) through 1985 was a trend away from "you are there" reporting to a
"merely recounting of daily facts" style. What tended to drive that change is
perhaps worthy of its own discussion, but its reality was - and remains, for
the most part (with a few, notable/welcomed-by-me exceptions) - very real.

In short, nationals contest reporting went from the very-interesting
(factually-driven) "telling of stories," to dry-as-dust, Sg't. Joe Friday,
"Just the facts, Ma'am," summarizing. A recipe for more-boring reading is hard
for me to imagine...and I'm a "naturally *interested*" reader! (I write the
"boring reading" bit as a retired engineer - we stereotypically *love* reading
"dry stuff!")

My guess is that even if SSA's membership ratio of contest to non-contest
pilots had been flipped - i.e. if 95% of SSA members flew contests, vs. the
oft-referenced 5% - for all these years, the latter style of reporting
would've, by itself, induced historic reality's complaint rate. BUT instead of
the complaint typically being, "too much contest reporting in the
magazine/boring/of-no-interest-to-Joe-Average-Member!"...it would have been
"boring/lousy contest reporting!"

People's "current interests" vary wildly (duh) and change over time, so
there's no seriously imaginable way any "Soaring" editor could possibly meet
every member's expectations all the time, even were ye Editor blessed with
unlimited selection of beautifully-written articles on every topic of genuine
interest to some membership group. I imagine every "Soaring" editor has sought
to lay out every issue with well-written articles of genuine interest to
identifiable segments of readers as he imagines that readership to be. I
further imagine ye Editor strives for "topical balance" as best it can be
sensed (maybe even quantified via column inches), given the seasonal nature of
our sport.

I *hope* ye Editor gives, even if only occasionally, serious thought to the
nature of some of the sport's "seasonally repetitive" reporting (e.g. contest
reporting) and cogitates on how it might be structured to minimize the
"repetitive bits,"...and then "somehow" seeks to inspire his potential scribes
by conveying some sense of what it is he'd wish to receive in his perfect
world...as distinct from merely hoping it will magically appear "over the
transom."

Whatever ye Editor's actual thoughts on this matter, my guess/sense of the
link down the years between editorial thinking as it's influenced the
magazine's all-volunteer authors is, it has ranged from nearly-non-existent,
through tenuous, to very real, depending upon ye Editor. Regardless, our
wonderful (in my view) magazine has always been critically dependent on those
members with the motivation and "locational good fortune" (in the sense of
"being in a position to report on something") to take the time and make the
effort to create a feature-article-worthy report. No member input, no magazine
- simple as that.

So if I've a point for RAS-idents with internalized "contest-related reporting
gripes" it would be: don't stop at simply grousing on RAS about stuff which is
beyond Joe Editor's direct control. Take your complaints to a higher level,
say, actively seeking to recruit a fellow volunteer perhaps better
geographically positioned than you, or more talented in the writing arena, or
(use your imagination), and take real action designed to actually improve
*your* magazine.

Bob - you can relax now, my soapbox is buried in new snow - W.

I agree with Bob, I have been a member of SSA since 1968, and am holding on to my membership until I hit 2018. I used to read Soaring magazine cover to cover and now can barely just flip through it. I looks as if it is just filler. Nothing of real interest to me, even the sailplane ads are gone.. I too enjoyed the first person account. Articles by Wally Scott, and other long distance flyers. Contest reports from Doug Lamont and Sylvia Colton. I wasn't flying gliders in 1966 but take a look at the August Issue reporting on the Nationals as the "Historic 33rd". How about Wally Scott's article about flying to Gila Bend and many many others. Fascinating, page turners!! I can remember articles by John Joss, Roger Clark, JJ Sinclair, Charlie Spratt and Charlie Minner. I realize that the editor doesn't write, but how about recruiting. Maybe great articles are out there just waiting from the likes of Ramey Yanetz, Tim Taylor, Bruno Vassel. I would like to go back to the page turner soaring rather than to cancel my membership.

gary kemp "NK"

I could reply to many here, I picked you (sorry if you don't like it).

I agree, some of the old contest articles were more of a, "You're not here, thus some of the other stuff that went on.......".
I brought this up in 2015, I was sorta hammered by the, "Welllll..... use Facebook, etc. for that stuff......"
Yes, times change, I'm NOT adverse to change.

I will say, not everyone has free time to chase some of the "alternatives", peeps outside of "contests" may not find those "gems".
I also TOTALLY understand that info is based on SOMEONE GIVING UP THEIR TIME TO WRITE INTERESTING STUFF!
Even for soaring magazine (heck, even my own club newsletter), one of the biggest issues facing an editor is a dearth of stuff to put in.
Thus, even "low level, dry reporting" goes in because it's WAY better than NOTHING.

I will state, I have been very limited in supplying info to either Soaring or my own local club newsletter.
Shame on me......

I truly appreciate contest reports that have the, "You're not here, but here is the little/fun stuff" (Juliet niner [sorry if I got it wrong], I love your reports as well as others I have read over the decades!)
I do NOT hate other reports, I understand it's a volunteer effort, if I wanted more, maybe I should write it.
I will accept the fact that someone else is taking their time to put up something.

I really miss SRN, mostly I miss Charlie, but this was a way to get great stuff from contests without "upsetting" SSA membership that didn't care about contests.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. I wanted the extra info, I paid for it.
The general SSA member, if they didn't want contest info in "Soaring", they received the minimum info. The rest paid for it.

So, anyone that is not happy with any type/level of reporting, maybe you (or, myself...) should write stuff so the editor has to kill some things because of a stack of submissions.
If the editor has a small pile, maybe everything gets "printed" just to fill things out.

"I looked into the mirror, and the enemy is me...." (sorta hacked, but hope the point gets across........)
[Now, back to an old article draft for local club newsletter.....]