Forum menu
Firstly, I do pay for it – I am spanked by advertising every time I visit these websites. That is where the money comes from.
If you buy orange juice from concentrate, you wouldn't expect it to taste like fresh squeezed, right? Advertising on this site barely keeps the lights on in the building, again, you may be "spanked by adverts" but taking a sub is probably less hassle than ad-blockers and in the long run will help to get the journalism you want. Which doesn't give it's advice away for free, papers like the Times and FT sit behind a paywall, if you want independent critical journalism, it costs money, and that can only come from people wiling to buy it.
maybe disagreed with something a politician does?
What has that got to do with bike journalism?
The Shimano issue simply isn’t true. You have clearly had a problem but I have never heard anyone complain of that before
a lot of it is related to how un-shit everything is these days.
It’s rare that a mainstream product is actually shit.
I think this is a large part of it - even Shimano's bottom of the range non-series disc brakes work pretty well (and amazingly well given how little they cost).
Parts/geometry work differently and it must be tough to separate that from 'better' - I've ridden super long/low/slack and it feels really different and does some stuff well, but other stuff worse.
Most of the time people are reviewing stuff that's new. New bikes feel quick, new brakes work better than 2 year old brakes. Long term reviews help but how often are reviewers riding parts that are as old as most of us have on some of our bikes?
How about a reverb review that warns you you’ll need half the price again to rebuild it after it starts sagging through shit design?
What about a Shimano brake review that warns you they bleed oil onto your calipers just at the end of warranty – in my case putting my girlfriend in hospital?
Every year SRAM say they've improved the reverb and a new one feels great, but every single one we've had had ended up sagging and a paid service costs nearly as much as a new brand-x post. I've had a shimano calliper leak (out of warranty) but they were perfectly good for the 3 years beforehand....
I've had loads of Fox rear shocks over the years. The X2 I've had on a bike for the last four is definitely the best performer but every single time it's been serviced it's had some expensive internal part replaced (shock body/air shaft/something else that resulted in needed the 2019 upgrade as they no longer sold the small parts/and now an air can). By the time those issues are apparent theres a new model to review which is 25% more something and 10% more something else.
This is pretty much what I'd want and expect from a "first ride" type review - so well done Andi.
Advertising on this site barely keeps the lights on in the building,
It's the distributed cryptocurrency mining that pays the big money....
IGMC
Advertising on this site barely keeps the lights on in the building,
Out of interest, what does pay the bills then?
Advertising on this site barely keeps the lights on in the building
If that is true why have ads become the absolute **** up they are on this site even for those paying? Something doesn’t ‘ad’ up
The Shimano issue simply isn’t true
You’ve obviously never worked in a bike shop as a mechanic
You’ve obviously never worked in a bike shop as a mechanic
I think he must work for Madison.
If that is true why have ads become the absolute **** up they are on this site even for those paying? Something doesn’t ‘ad’ up
It's the nudge to subscribe, just not implemented well, probably due to the distributed cryptocurr.......
It’s the nudge to subscribe, just not implemented well
You are right, I know you are. I’ve just been finding it annoying, like a big advert for Hanlon’s Razors
"Which doesn’t give it’s advice away for free, papers like the Times and FT sit behind a paywall, if you want independent critical journalism, it costs money, and that can only come from people wiling to buy it."
You could apply this to forums. The most valuable information that a site like STW has doesn't come from any paid journalists - it comes from the accumulated knowledge and experiences of the people who post stuff on the forum.
STW is fantastically well ranked. Search for just about any topic relating to middle-aged blokes and you will find a relevant STW thread. So as the most valuable content comes from its users - we should be paid. Only fair.
The Shimano issue simply isn’t true
More likely the issue simply hasn't happened to a reviewer. What is pretty well known and reported is the wandering bite point thing, which I've seen referenced loads of times in professional reviews.
Mostly pro reviews are good for putting stuff in comparative context - reviewers simply use a lot more stuff than punters - and mostly rubbish on long term reliability because testers tend to use, review and move on to something else. Good reviewers will also tell you more about the character of a bike and who / what it'll suit in a vaguely engaging way, but the bare bones of it aren't really rocket science.
News stuff is different. It's lazy to simply use brand releases verbatim and without comment, but journalists are under time pressure just like anyone else so it happens.
So as the most valuable content comes from its users
Maybe the most valuable content to other users are the comments of the forum, but other than that, they are, for all intent, worthless. The internet is full of comment after all.
Mleh, OP sees no value of something for which he's not prepared to value. Not a massive surprise if he sees it as garbage.
Maybe the most valuable content to other users are the comments of the forum, but other than that, they are, for all intent, worthless. The internet is full of comment after all.
I disagree. The most valuable content to the world in general.
I would guess that this is borne out by the numbers. Forum posts will attract massively more views than any articles published by STW.
a lot of it is related to how un-shit everything is these days.
It’s rare that a mainstream product is actually shit.
This feels about right, a lot of the stuff covered is mid to top end stuff, if there was "what Amazon Full-Susser for Less than £200" article, I'm sure there'd be a lot more to criticise.
Forum posts will attract massively more views than any articles published by STW.
You may well be right and the popularity of the forum may be a key revenue stream without which Singletrack would fail.
But wouldn't that be cause for sympathy rather than being a clever dick about it?
I used to subscribe to this mag for years, but stopped when I realised the only things I liked about it were the pictures and this forum.
I subscribe to Cranked now who don’t write any reviews and have interesting features and interviews.
I also buy editions of Shredder Magazine which is brilliant.
I don’t think it’s fair to tar all MTB journalism as advertorial garbage.
Pinkbike do some fantastic stuff without plastering their site in pop up ads.
Enduro magazine also produce decent content and technical advice.
Then there’s Vital MTB and all the other YouTube channels.
There’s a plethora of decent MTB media out there. Log off this forum/website and have a look you might be pleasantly surprised.
This feels about right, a lot of the stuff covered is mid to top end stuff, if there was “what Amazon Full-Susser for Less than £200” article, I’m sure there’d be a lot more to criticise.
I think this is a big missing piece in reviews. OK maybe not £200 full sussers but other cheap kit. Budget lights are a prime example. Some are actually quite good but they tend to get lumped in with the burn-your-house-down models. There's a huge range of cheap kit that is probably good enough for the average rider. It would be interesting firstly to see how it stacks up against expensive kit and secondly to sort out the good budget stuff from the crap budget stuff. There's quite a bit of this on YouTube for tools comparing, for example, Makita to Chinese copies using the same battery.
The main problem I see with a lot of cycling journalism is that many cycling journalists just aren't very good journalists. There are obviously notable exceptions but I often find the standard of writing and commentary in cycling publications to be pretty poor.
I disagree. The most valuable content to the world in general
So just to clarify, you're peeved because the advertising you don't mind sometimes looks like news which you think is broadly of zero worth all of which helps to support the forum/comments which aren't in anyway advertising and are the thing to which you ascribe greatest worth?
So just to clarify, you’re peeved because the advertising you don’t mind sometimes looks like news which you think is broadly of zero worth all of which helps to support the forum/comments which aren’t in anyway advertising and are the thing to which you ascribe greatest worth?
Not sure what all that means.
I'm just pointing out that forum comments are not 'worthless'.
I’m just pointing out that forum comments are not ‘worthless’.
+1
Seems a ridiculous thing for someone to claim.
I’d go so far to say that the forum hits and comments on this website count for 95% of the figures they use to flog advertising space.
Maybe I’m wrong but I expect this forum is the main generator of traffic and therefore income for the whole operation.
Put a question about MTB in Google and what comes up? There’s a huge archive of tips, technical hints and advice here, all of which has been produced by forum users and very little by the journalists who have written for STW over the years.
A forum will be reactive, a journalist written piece less so.
If I started a thread asking about how to change and grease the pawls on a Hope pro2 hub I'd have a load of useful information before lunch. (and it will then descend into an argument about Brexit, but hey-ho)
And in 2 years time, someone else is going to google the same thing and be directed to that thread.
But if STW made an article about maintaining a several year old peice of equipment and put it on the front page, would many people read it just for fun? Or would 1 person find it in 2023, how can you make a profit from that?
Maybe I’m wrong but I expect this forum is the main generator of traffic and therefore income for the whole operation.
I reckon you nailed it in words 2 and 3.
You have no more idea of the revenue generators for STW than anyone else on this forum. And Mark is unlikely to want to share.
That’s why I said ‘I reckon’.
However if the figure really was 95% from the forum, why bother with the paper mag/rest of the site at all? Hell if you removed the bike bits and just had the chat forum, you’d probably get a broader, mass market, appeal, like Mumsnet or Reddit.
I’m just pointing out that forum comments are not ‘worthless’.
to whom are they worth something, how much is that, and who are the people paying or earning them?
The point of this site AFAIK is to promote an electronic/paper version of a cycling enthusiast's specialist magazine, and to encourage people who stumble across the site to buy the product. The money coming from those sales of that product directly support the 10 (or so, I think) people employed at STW to produce it. The running of the forum may have become somewhat more involved over the years to include sales and adverts, but essentially that's the point of it. Now, it may be that the content of the site provided by the users of the site encourages folk to visit the site, but unless it's driving sales of the magazine, it has no point in of itself.
I'd imagine that relying on online advertising revenue is a precarious business model, which is why whenever Mark talks about this he tends to say things like, "If you want the magazine and forum to survive and grow, buy a sub" It's the safest way to keep the sort of journalism going that the OP wants to see, anything otherwise it's just nibbling away at the edges.
There is a link that is hard to untangle.
My two main bike sites are here, and Pinkbike. Why? The forum and comments section respectively.
2 different models, yes, but the end effect is that I'm reading the articles and therefore the internet ads, promoted content, and so on provided by these two sites, far more than Vital, offroadcc and many others.
Those other sites might have equally good or better journos*, and occasionally I'll end up there too, but most of my traffic is STW and PB.
* I will give a special mention to NSMB, blows everything else out the water, but I only go there once a week or so because it is not posisble for them to generate content and therefore revenue at the required rate.
* I will give a special mention to NSMB, blows everything else out the water
As a journo myself, I'd like to say that it really doesn't.
It's nice that they want to do their own thing and get all in-depth about some things, but it's the bike site most in need of a good editor. My teeth itch when I read it.
As a journo myself, I’d like to say that it really doesn’t.
Well, they might be doing it all wrong but whatever it is they are doing works for me. I can honestly say it's the only bike site where I read entire articles regularly.
the bike site most in need of a good editor. My teeth itch when I read it.
From the point of view of a bike enthusiast, its good.
The quality of the written language might fall short of the Sunday Times, but compared to forums, social media and the illiterates I work with/for, I don't notice at all.
Global decline of the written language and all that.
It’s lazy to simply use brand releases verbatim and without comment, but journalists are under time pressure just like anyone else so it happens.
and there really is no value in rewriting a press release for the sake of it. Someone else spent a load of time putting it together in a way they thought would be engaging so why rework it?
STW approach of
intro para / here's their press release / we'll write more when we've had one to review
is fine by me. maybe with a sarcastic comment about the less plausible claims in the release.
and there really is no value in rewriting a press release for the sake of it. Someone else spent a load of time putting it together in a way they thought would be engaging so why rework it?
Well, as a journalist, I'd say the value you can add to a press release is generally comment and accessibility. A lot of media releases are pompous drivel, you can gut out the important bits and actually produce a sharp, relevant news story without the embroidery and save your reader the trouble to having to wade through the guff. You can tell the reader what's potentially relevant and important and spike the rest.
Or you can just choose to regurgitate the hype. It depends on the release and your readership of course. But yes, it's lazy. But it's also understandable. I'm not saying you should 'rewrite a press release for the sake of it', but if it's as poorly written and puffed up as most releases I see, it's part of your role as a journalist. All imho etc.