On Jan 7, 10:00*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 1/7/2012 6:24 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:









On Jan 5, 8:17 pm, *wrote:
Number six is "Family Handyman", circulation 1,116,214. (The article says
1,116,213 but I just subscribed online.)

Number three is, of course, "American Rifleman" but you knew that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-1...pular-magazine....

Family Handyman

If you have any clue about being a "handyman" you'll be canceling your
subscription soon.

That rag has sucked for years. I used to get it about 10 years ago but
it was either wrong or so basic that it was a waste of time to read. I
recently picked up a copy at a doctor's office and found that nothing
had changed.

Once in a while they included a decent plan for something useful, but
for the most part there was never enough meat for it to be worth the
cost or the time spent reading it.

I noticed the "meat" vanishing from magazines years ago sort of like the
food packaging in the grocery store where the 16oz package is now
12oz in the same size box. I noticed the content of Popular Science and
Popular Mechanics contains more advertising than articles in the last
20 years or so. When I was a kid, I could look forward to hours of
reading with just a couple of magazines not to mention National
Geographic which my parents saved so we had a closet full. Now I do the
majority of my reading online which is good in a way because I can
increase the size of the text so I can see it. ^_^

TDD

Some of the "articles" in Popular Science remind me of the Sky Mall
magazine. Brand new "high tech" gadgets displayed with fancy
descriptions claiming how great they are.

I'd like to see PS publish a "Remember When?" issue 5 years from now
telling us whether any of the products they highlighted actually
worked out to be as great as they claimed.