[davidw]

> Scientific American

My wife got that for a year, and I was quite unimpressed. It's not that detailed, mostly, and there's a lot of not very rigorous editorializing, from what I recall. Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe".

[function_seven]

> Also, their 'please renew' campaign was quite deceiptful, sending us some kind of "you owe $$$!!!" notice that was really "you owe $$$ if you want to resubscribe".

It amazes me how the entire magazine industry is like this. The most staid and respectable publications have circulation departments that make my local used car dealer look like a saint. It's a huge disconnect, and has always bothered me.

[aninhumer]

I remember when I was subscribing to The Economist, and they had a dark pattern in the process to trick you into paying for another publication. I strongly considered cancelling (and only didn't because I was ordering for other people as well.)

[CWuestefeld]

I've had that with them, too. While it's true that they're not super detailed, I'm also not an expert in every field, and in the majority of articles I found it a good balance. But years later, perhaps I've moved beyond that.

I subscribed for several years until I got tired of their political agenda. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was a feature article on cleaning up landmines in southeast asia. Now, surely this is an important topic, but it's not what I come to a science magazine to read about.

From there I moved to American Scientist magazine, which I found a bit deeper in many cases, and much better regarding editorializing.

[sageikosa]

Maybe I'll check that out. I stopped reading Scientific American in the 1990s due to the editorial bent.

[fapjacks]

It used to be so good back in the early 90s!