Having just opened issues 119 and 120 – I’ve been away for 3 months – it seems that TTG has disappeared.  It was one of my favourite bits and the first section I read.  Have I missed something?

Dogsy

Gone 😞

Yeah, one of my favourite bits too.

Long term tests are actually useful for consumers.

I’m sure there’s a business reason, but it’s a step backwards imo.

That was one of my favourite bits too. I loved the pictures of used dirty kit rather than box fresh stuff.

Mark (or someone else from ST) explained it on another thread – the kit tests will all be on the website now. Something to do with people more likely to read them online or something blah like that. I sort of welcome it, because when I have a mag I want to read every word, whereas the website , I can just read the things I want to read reviews of.

This means I can avoid those reviews of stupidly priced kit that they always featured and only served to annoy me. Like £300 jackets, that sort of thing.

This means I can avoid those reviews of stupidly priced kit that they always featured and only served to annoy me. Like £300 jackets, that sort of thing.

Luckily, they’ve made extra room for stupidly priced identikit travel features.

What a shame.  The TTG selection of stuff was always really good and I picked up some really useful info and suggestions of kit.  I sort of get the group test issue with high end kit but you could make the same call with travel articles about places I can’t afford or want to go to our with bike tests.

Ho hum.

Dogsby

One of my favourite bits too.

Don’t see why it cannot be in print and online?

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/any-point-subscribing-to-the-mag-anymore/page/2/#post-10170550

There’s the explanation. Apparently kit reviews in the mag are not worth their time.

Seems odd because they still do expensive bike reviews…maybe worth surveying the readership?

i loved the TTG reviews too – much more interesting that first time reviews of over priced bikes IMHO

Yep agreed …. Miss it in the magazine…bringing it back to the magazine would be great.

I volunteer to test kit and do a write up for the magazine 😉

Next you’ll be telling me they dont show the top 10 forum posters anymore!!

Maybe there needs to be a readers’ campaign to help bring it back, if we can be arsed I suppose…

But how useful is a review that is restricted to 500 words?

We review far more stuff and in far greater depth online than we ever did in print. 500 word reviews and a single image of complex bits of kit are useless when a quick google brings up far more reviews and in greater depth with multiple images and video. Print is now such an unsuitable medium for reviews. Singletrack print magazine has always been about the long form.

We even tried running short 500 word reviews in print and a corresponding greater depth piece online but it just means the reviewer has to create two pieces of work with print version being a disappointing lesser version of the online review. When you add the words, “for a more detailed review of this product see our website” you are signalling that what is in print is sub standard. That doesn’t fit with the concept that what is in print should be better because you are paying for it. How annoying as a reader to discover that you’ve paid for the crap bit but the good bit is online and free.

We test things thoroughly. We take pride in that and always have done. At the end of often months of living with a product to then have to boil it all down to 500 words and a couple of images at most is frustrating and leaves the tester in a position of having to choose what to leave in and what to leave out. In short they are compromised reviews. Online we can include everything we want to say about a product. That’s better.

Reviews are more in-depth online and are read by thousands more than ever read the print version. They are searchable and shareable. They better serve every invested party from the reader to the author and also the brand when they are given the space they need to breathe. There is simply not enough space in print.

That said, can anyone suggest a way that a review can be written and presented better in print than online?

I basically didn’t renew my subscription because of this.  I love reading the reviews even if I’m not or can’t buy the product.  I like reading the articles about biking trips but reviews are what make bike mags in my opinion.  I’ve always thought that the articles on bike trips etc luxe some element of review.  Even what bikes were being ridden and what bits of kit people used.  I think it’s not a bike mag without the through the grinder reviews – it becomes more of a travel mag.

There’s only so many words you can read about someone else’s ride.

TTG was great and a part of a rounded magazine. 500 words is plenty if you talk about what’s important.

Long time magazine subscriber but I don’t look forward to it coming through the door anymore. Thinking time. Check out ‘cyclist’. Good roadie example of a balance between rides and gear.

The grinder wasn’t the same as the rest of the mags reviews though. Or at least I assumed it wasn’t based on the ratio of “fresh goods” to “grinder”.

A grouptest of 20x different pedals may well put a set of crankbrothers on top as they’re functionally  great pedals. The grinder was where you should revisit them a couple of months later when the bearings collapse mid ride and admit that actually you all ride shimano 520/540 pedals like everyone else.

Either that or re-think it as a place to review kit that fits the category “good value stuff that’s surprised us by lasting really well”.

I basically didn’t renew my subscription because of this.  I love reading the reviews even if I’m not or can’t buy the product.

I’m close to this. I miss the grinder section and lots of articles on foreign travel just frustrate me as I can’t go.

Mark’s points make sense but don’t fit with where I am. Mag arrives now and loads of it I don’t read.

But how useful is a review that is restricted to 500 words?

It seems that quite a few of us found them useful. Regardless, I’m not wild about using the space for more travel features. It’s possible I’m in a minority of course.

How annoying as a reader to discover that you’ve paid for the crap bit but the good bit is online and free.

If you aren’t particularly interested in the travel features (I’m not), that’s exactly what we have ended up with.

I got the impression that in the end it was a combination of the fact that they were more expensive overall because they were shorter and requirement from the suppliers that they be online for both more audience and so they can be found by people researching purchases

I miss them too

For those that didn’t see it, this was discussed in a thread only a few days ago.  This was (part of) Mark’s response (similar message to above):

The actual truth is that reviews in the mag are not worth our time – No matter how many dozen people on here claim that because they miss them or even that this is the reason they cancelled their subscription, that does not alter the fact that the few who do like reviews in print are in the minority. The amount of space they take up and the cost of their production is better spent on content that we know DOES work in print and does get a better response.

Since multiple people across a couple of threads have shared this view (essentially that they would rather see reviews in the mag than travel features) with little strong opinion supporting the alternative, it suggests that either i) it isn’t as small a minority as Mark thinks it is, or ii) the tiny minority that do like print reviews are also the ones that frequent, and post on the forum.  I’d suggest this demographic would be the ones more likely to embrace online content, but it appears not?  Perhaps the majority that prefer this, just don’t feel the need to comment?  Costs, and pressure from suppliers to put reviews online seem like much more likely reasons for the change to me.

I  am another subscriber who would love Through the Grinder to return to the printed magazine. A major reason that I buy other bike magazines is when one catches my eye on the newsagent shelf when it is reviewing something I am contemplating buying. Since What MTB ceased to be I think there has been a gap in the market for a magazine which places more focus on reviews than on ride guides and foreign travel. I would be happy to see either full reviews in the printed magazine and online or just summary reviews in the printed magazine and wouldn’t be offended if the more indepth version appeared online. I suggest you do a survey of your printed magazine subscribers to see what they actually want to see rather than what you perceive they want or works as I would hazard a guess that most of your readers do not have the time, money or lack of family commitments to go on a 2 week mountain biking holiday somewhere exotic but do want reliable reviews on what components would be good value for money on their local trails.

I can see Mark’s point, but the balance of the magazine has shifted almost entirely to lifestyle/travel and the bike and all the geeky stuff that a lot of us are in to has all but disappeared in the magazine.

This, I guess, is the conundrum of actually having the print edition still going, but as there is a subscriber edition that gives Mark the option of putting something geeky/techy/gear review in the extra bit.  This could even take the form of a review of what reviews that have taken place on the website and maybe some pictures to go with this.  That would mean that it signposts us to what you have done and should not take the form of a smaller review which is not as complete as you would like.  It also then serves as a reference for those who subscribe but do not use the website much to go and seek out the reviews that we want to read.

This would also give a bit of balance back to the print edition.  If you look at the magazine  the website the one is not a refelection of the other.  Mark may be able to tell us if the magazine has to have these aspirational lifestyle/ travel angle to sell in the shops, or are there more technical reasons, such as the 500 word restriction for a review, for the loss of the technical content.

The bottom line is that I love the quality of the journalism in the magazine as well as the stunning photography, but the bike nerd in me is starting to feel a bit neglected (which may not actually be a bad thing).

Since What MTB ceased to be …

Unfortunately kind of answers the point, doesn’t it.

I too just seem to skim the foreign ride features – they’re all a bit samey just in different places and obviously mostly bought in. They’d be much more interesting with info panels identifying bikes and kit and reviewing that kit. Kind of a TTG within the foreign ride articles – but that’s probably not available on bought-in articles which just seem to be ‘we visited a cool place, met up with some cool riders, sank a few beers and did some gnarly downhill bits’.

At the end of the day, Singletrack is a commercial enterprise and Mark & Co have a business plan. I like the quality of the paper, the feel of the magazine (journal?) but despite that I’m not looking for a coffee table travel mag; the majority of readers currently subscribing may be though which is what is driving the business plan.

As with all things started by enthusiasts, sometimes the business has to take over from the dream; you can’t pay the mortgage with dreams.

EDIT: the 500 word restriction is a bit of a red herring – that is an editorial decision. They can allocate as many words/pictures to whatever takes the editorial team’s fancy in reality.

I take the point that you can do a more in depth review online. The problem is that I don’t like reading reams of text on a screen, which is partly why I still subscribe to the print edition. I love the video reviews but rarely read the online reviews these days.

I’ve got a pair of Vaude shoes that I bought on the back of a TTG review (by Hannah I think). I’d never have thought of them, but they are one of my favourite bits of kit.

For a short while there was a STW recommends bit which would be a good option. Basically here is the stuff that we got in to review and still really like after a few months of use.

I’m another that doesn’t like the ride articles that now make up the majority of the mag. In fact I only tend to read them if I notice that they are using a bit of kit that I’m interested in (to see how it holds up). Otherwise I just tend to look at the pictures, which are great.

it isn’t as small a minority as Mark thinks it is, or ii) the tiny minority that do like print reviews are also the ones that frequent, and post on the forum.

Or, they are exactly as tiny a minority as suspected, just very vocal as they’ve had their toy taken away, so have gone into their echo chamber for some positive reinforcement.

The irony of people posting online about how they don’t want to read stuff online is, well…

If loads of folk want kit reviews, they can buy whatMT…. oh wait a second, they can’t, because they don’t (or not enough do)

No, I enjoy reading stuff online, I just don’t like reading long articles online, which is indeed ironic* given the length of some of my posts 🙂

*OK it probably isn’t, but I can’t be bothered to look up the definition of ironic again

I subscribe and will continue to do so, but I read very little of the magazine these days…travel articles seem to have taken over, and unless they’re about somewhere I’ve been, I’m not interested.  I read the short opinion (op-ed?) pieces, and bike tests (even of bikes I have no interest in)…and that’s it

After reading this edition of the magazine, I do genuinely feel the MTB magazine’s have repeated the same format for the last 20 odd years, and STW feels it is going or is running out of Steam.

Saying that I like the fact Chipps editorials are feeling like Steve World’s retrogrouch from the day, talk more of the issues in MTB, some articles are good – Iceland one was the last one I connected with, if you want the review section at length put it in the subscribers section full length rather than another travel article.

Kind of a TTG within the foreign ride articles – but that’s probably not available on bought-in articles which just seem to be ‘we visited a cool place, met up with some cool riders, sank a few beers and did some gnarly downhill bits’.

The article I enjoyed most in the last edition was the bikepacking with kids. Possibly because it talked (humourously) about the adventure but also the kit that works. But why was it tucked away at the back?

Honestly not to keen on content featuring ex drug dealers tatting about LA on a bike in ripped jeans (so cool…) Its FILLER!.

Get readers to submit their cycling stories/rides instead of this tosh.

Most of us want kit reviews, I can guess why you really want to drop them but if you lose readers advertising revenue will dry up anyway. Stick to the ‘buy this if you…’ line.

Sorted.

Ps. If only it was this easy!

I liked it too, but it’s gone and from Mark’s explanation I can understand why.

I do like the idea of a more regular ( 2-3 times a year?)  Singletrack Recommended printed in the subscribers section though. When I buy stuff, I’m looking for it to last and a quick mention in FGF or a launch special doesn’t tell me that. Sure, everything works or looks great after a few rides, but how does it do after 6-12 months?

We do get a few of these on the website, but not enough compared the amount of stuff you’re sent. I get that you can’t do an in depth review of everything you’re sent, but it’d be nice to know more about the stuff that does stand the test of time, rather than just a constant stream of shiny, shiny, shiny

Where are all the ‘I’m sick of having the latest kit constantly rammed down my neck, constantly telling me I need to upgrade/my bike is obsolete’ crowd hanging out these days?

Where are all the ‘I’m sick of having the latest kit constantly rammed down my neck, constantly telling me I need to upgrade/my bike is obsolete’ crowd hanging out these days?

You’re trying too hard.

Most of the complaints on this and the “should I renew my subscription thread?” are more about the limitations of a printed publication Vs the huge choice in content online.

My favourite bit of bike magazines was always product reviews. I don’t read bike magazines anymore as reviews are so much better online.  Most of my purchases are online so It is unlikely I will get to go to a shop and look at a product before I buy it so I want a review to have as much detail and photos as possible 500 words a single product shot it just not going to cut it for me.

Wow, some people don’t like (constructive) criticism…

im another in the I’ll read it if it’s in the mag but, really, the new forum layout actively discourages me from exploring online content so the reviews are missed. So, thanks for that.

i resubsribed to mag after an absence due to my loss in interest in mountain biking generally, something that bikepacking has thankfully rekindled. There’s nothing for me within the mag these days, the ‘aspirational’ stuff is not a patch on, say, Jenn Hill’s inspirational Tour Divide piece.

i miss TTG, it exposed me to stuff I wouldn’t ordinarily chance upon.

ive been meaning to cancel the print for a while (guess I kept hoping that I’d find something that catch my interest). I really must cancel it.

Long form makes sense in print – I get that, but you need shorter pieces to break it up. I’d say 40% long form punctuated by shorter pieces throughout would make it much more pick-up-able for me. Customer validation trumps theory and common sense every time Mark.

I also don’t subscribe to Google covering reviews nowadays. The stuff you used to test in TTG was often quite niche. Reviews don’t exist for most of it.

My favourite bit of bike magazines was always product reviews.

and

I don’t read bike magazines anymore as reviews are so much better online.

Which is the conundrum Singletrack is up against. Put the reviews online, kill the magazine?

For me, TTG wasn’t just a review section, it was a slightly more personal and in-depth report of items used over a period of time rather than a list of new goods with marketing dept spiel. More importantly it mixed up the magazine too, making it (IMO) more interesting. Articles, along with the one-page contributions, that could be hit on a pick-up-the-mag-for-five-minutes basis rather than settling down to the multi-page travalogues. But then I used to enjoy Fish Out of Water bitd