New SI - Santana

About 6 months after I let it lapse, I just renewed & last week's NASCAR extravaganza made me wonder why - not a single thing in there I would have even clicked on to read for free.

This week's came today. And it's not looking great yet. I read Selena Roberts in the back, and I'll take your word for it that she was good at the Times - I rarely read her there. The column on Clemens & Lance Armstrong had a perfectly fine point, but was terrible to read. Clumsy, heavy handed, trying to hard (there was one nice image - the raindrops) etc. I won't be surprised if the firejoemorgan is the best thing I read, and I don't generally read that for free. Anyone want to buy 50/52 of a subscription?

Am I being too pessimistic? Eventually, after reading about them here I was able to get the Joba piece & the Majerus one too on line. I'm not interested in them sending me soft core porn in my magazine, but even if I was, they put that on the site too. What on earth am I paying for?

 

Guy's soulmate:

 

Never been a fan of S.I.

 

I was thinking about getting a subscription. Then I read this post and remembered why I let it lapse.

 

Cover jinx!!!!

 

I haven't read the dunking story yet, but I thought it looked very interesting. I like Ballard's work.

 

Another odd column by Selena. Hard to understand what's going on there.

 

It's fantastic. Great use of first-person in the lede -- gets his point across without making it all about him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/the_bonus/02/20/dunking0225/

 

Glad to hear it - I'm looking forward.

 

I like the way that piece starts, too. But when I scrolled down and saw "1 of 6", I couldn't go on. To me, the idea of clicking five times to get through the whole thing is more off-putting than having it run in one long scroll.

I'm not even in the coveted 18-34 demographic, but I seem to have their short attention span when it comes to a piece being run across too many pages. And, while this isn't the reason I object (mostly, I object because it's tedious and a time commitment to plow through six), it seems like a bogus way to get more "clicks" in some absolute sense.

Guess I should opt for the "printable version," if that's an option.

 

Of course, I just realized that I was griping about the Web treatment of the story, while this thread is about the print magazine. Sorry.