"Undercurrent" and their "Chapbook"

[DivingGal]

I got my book yesterday. I just subscribed to Undercurrents this year to check it out, partly because of the chapbook you get as a bonus. I can't say I am at all impressed with it at first glance.

--snip--

So, all things considered, the book is a place to start, but I certainly won't use it for more than another place to get information. I know I won't use it as a final determinant of where I might go.

And if the magazine doesn't offer anything more than generic information, I won't be keeping that either.

I received mine a short time ago, and have similar feelings. Although I enjoyed what I did read, there certainly was not enough for me to continue getting the pub. The info, I can gain by asking questions here, is more immediate and I can usually follow up with the author if I have more questions.

 

[5615mike]

All the information seems to be old. Not enough fresh data. Wished I had not subscibed but we learn the hard way don't we!?

 

[Damselfish]

One of the things about Undercurrent is they don't seem to do anonymous reviews, if they did perhaps they'd have more up to date ones. I've tried sending in a couple without my name, and they haven't been printed. I prefer to be anonymous, so I don't bother sending them stuff anymore.

Some years back they printed the chapbook with no dates, perhaps to gloss over the fact that alot of the info was old. Since dates are important that made the book almost useless. I'm sure they got lots of complaints and only did it that one time.

 

[MosheDyan]

Just for the record I like the Undercurrent style...and no advertising. Like anything else it is another tool to assist in maximizing my holiday dollar. It might not be a bad idea if they added a members-only forum...this might assist in improving the timeliness of the information. I will be keeping my sub...
Besides...the COZ/Bonaire-centric orientation of other advert-filled dive publications leaves me cold. Although the UK mag "Diver" (www.divernet.com) seems to be amoung the better written of the bunch.

<edit for correct link>

 

[dnhill]

Don,

I am a subscriber but I must say that this board has provided more up to date information than Undercurrents has been able to do. For example, I will be diving with board member Christi in a few weeks, and there no mention of her operation either in the Chapbook or online.

dnhill

 

[Doc]

I am a subscriber but I must say that this board has provided more up to date information than Undercurrents has been able to do

Here's a recent comment (o1/o4/o4) on that topic from the "Bend Davison, Editor" of Undercurrent:

"...so few divers engage in bulletin boards anywhere--especially my sudscribers whose average age is probably 60 -- that I don't join in them ever for business reasons, rather just to have a little fun and see what people arethinking. They really aren't even a blip on the radar screen."

So know this, U/C thinks your opinion is not important. You're a mere blip and you're not 60 yet. Young blips should stay here, Old Farts should pay $$$ to U/C. Simple.

 

[cyklon_300]

to extoll to his subscribers a free source of info, tho...so, of course, he downplays the relevance of what is discussed on internet boards. Nevertheless, I'll bet the UC subscriber renewal rate is disappointingly low...

And as the song says, "Hope I die before I get old..." 60? No way I'm going there...nope.

 

[MosheDyan]

"so few divers engage in bulletin boards anywhere--especially my sudscribers whose average age is probably 60 -- that I don't join in them ever for business reasons, rather just to have a little fun and see what people arethinking. They really aren't even a blip on the radar screen."

I think that quote was taken out of context...and the meaning you attach to it is YOUR opinion. In order to find solid usable information on this board or others you have to wade through a LOT of crap to find the few useful reports...I prefer to go straight to the meat. Again...Undercurrent would probably serve its members better by starting a members-only forum...it cannot be that much work to do so especially given the amount of online content and web presence already available.
Just my .02 cents..
And for the record...I am not 60
Ted

 

[Doc]

"so few divers engage in bulletin boards anywhere--especially my sudscribers whose average age is probably 60 -- that I don't join in them ever for business reasons, rather just to have a little fun and see what people arethinking. They really aren't even a blip on the radar screen."

QUOTE=I think that quote was taken out of context...and the meaning you attach to it is YOUR opinion.

No, It was not taken out of context. What you were quoted no doubt expressed the intent of U/C.

QUOTE= In order to find solid usable information on this board or others you have to wade through a LOT of crap to find the few useful reports...I prefer to go straight to the meat.

U/C is not meat, it is lard.

QUOTE= Again...Undercurrent would probably serve its members better by starting a members-only forum...it cannot be that much work to do so especially given the amount of online content and web presence already available. And for the record...I am not 60
Ted

But I pray that you are still diving when you are.

My response of any kind was generated by the fawning nature of the start of this thread, a thinly disguised spam for UC by Mr. Acheson. The responses, so far, have been amusing and indicative of the situation.

The only truth is right here on the net. The meat is here.

 

[Cudabait]

DandyDon,

This is the first year I've subscribed to Undercurrents, I was a little disappointed. Probably because the material seems dated and I've become spoiled at the interaction afforded here on the board. Kinda like LDS and online shopping issue, huh??

regards,