Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 5435300" data-attributes="member: 221">Let's say Article A is scheduled for release on Wednesday, Jan 5th, and Article B is scheduled for release on Friday, Jan 7th. You release Article A on January 1st, a Saturday, but Article B is 2 days late and doesn't get released until Sunday, the 9th. This means you have a whole week with no new content. If your goal is to release something each week you have a weeks worth of &quot;dead space.&quot; Besides which, as you acknowledge, Article B makes everyone look bad. Now you can fix this by not having a schedule, but, IMO, that also makes you look unprofessional. Both are unprofessional and therefore undesireable. If I am running a business I would hate to have to keep choosing between 2 bad choices. What evidence do you have of this? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, KQ sends out the contracts for their articles a couple of months before print and those are generally for articles submitted months earlier. In fact, the article I just had published in KQ 16 had been in their slush pile for about 9 months. Sure, layout is not done that far in advance, but the writing often is. You can do that. But again, it means you will have content coming out at irregular intervals, a greater possibility of stretches with no releases; and if you are behind, everyone will know it too. Say what you will, I'll continue to think releasing on a preset schedule to be the better way of running a publication, dead tree or electronic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wicht, post: 5435300, member: 221"] Let's say Article A is scheduled for release on Wednesday, Jan 5th, and Article B is scheduled for release on Friday, Jan 7th. You release Article A on January 1st, a Saturday, but Article B is 2 days late and doesn't get released until Sunday, the 9th. This means you have a whole week with no new content. If your goal is to release something each week you have a weeks worth of "dead space." Besides which, as you acknowledge, Article B makes everyone look bad. Now you can fix this by not having a schedule, but, IMO, that also makes you look unprofessional. Both are unprofessional and therefore undesireable. If I am running a business I would hate to have to keep choosing between 2 bad choices. What evidence do you have of this? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, KQ sends out the contracts for their articles a couple of months before print and those are generally for articles submitted months earlier. In fact, the article I just had published in KQ 16 had been in their slush pile for about 9 months. Sure, layout is not done that far in advance, but the writing often is. You can do that. But again, it means you will have content coming out at irregular intervals, a greater possibility of stretches with no releases; and if you are behind, everyone will know it too. Say what you will, I'll continue to think releasing on a preset schedule to be the better way of running a publication, dead tree or electronic. [/QUOTE]

Verification