Bitcoin Forum

I am thrilled to have received my PDF copy of Bitcoin Magazine, but very disappointed that the article The Bulls and the Bears: Twelve Bitcoin Hits and Eight Spectacular Misses has been revised to now be The Bulls and the Bears: Eleven Bitcoin Hits and Nine Spectacular Misses.  And the text about Bitcoinica has been rewritten to describe its failure rather than its success, noted "updated July 2012".

What's wrong with leaving the original version of the magazine intact?  The magazine was accurate as possible at the time it was published, there is no reason it needs to be revised.  Bitcoinica crashed and burned after the magazine was published.

As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face". Bitcoin Magazine just reflects reality. Electronic version was published recently and there is no good reason to list Bitcoinica as a huge success now.

Next time we will try to reduce the wait between print and digital editions to reduce chances of the bitcoin winners to become loser meanwhile.  :)

Well damn, I was holding off on digitizing the original, but I might as well if the digital version is rewriting history.

Since I paid for 2 copies and only got one..  Can I have the difference back ?

Yes there is a good reason, many of them in fact: archival purposes.  Academic purposes.  Research purposes.  When most publications make a mistake or find out something pertinent after the fact, they add a footnote to the bottom clarifying it.  They don't simply cut a new revision of the same issue with the story changed.

The PDF file format offers a fantastic mechanism for adding callout annotations.  Use that feature to note issue #1.  Address Bitcoinica's fall in issue #2.

I'm sadden to read this if that's the case.  >:(

On a lighter side, did the ink smudge while reading the PrettyDumbFuckup copy?  ;D

Were any grammatical errors--albeit few--corrected? If not, then why not?  ;)

Being from Indian is not the only reason I believe Matthew is Amish. He's rucky I'm busy with other ongoing investigations, otherwise this faux pas would have been looked into.  ::)


I'll have to agree here. Sorry, Bitcoin Magazine team.

~Bruno~

+1

Thanks for feedback.

So tell me how to fix this little problem? Would sending out one more pdf with original text help?

I think leaving all of the original text is best. If something major changes especially if the outdated info could hurt a reader an amendment, marked as such can be made in addition to all of the original text.

I'd do that. Perhaps use PDF annotation feature as said by casacius to add a note stating that when the magazine was published, Bitcoinica was still operating normally.

Non-fiction books usually add heavy footnote annotations that totally change previous events and this is the sort of thing that should have been added:

'Despite the downturn in 2007 when others were losing millions, XYZ Fund still managed to make a large profit, which shows the exceptional talents of Mr ABC^*1

_____________________

1. Since this paragraph was written XYZ Fund has lost over 50% of its AUM in the first half of 2008. (+ Huge wall of text describing what happened.)

Same here, I've bought two copies of #1, but received as of now just one.

spiccioli

LOL. Awesome quote. I'm going to have to use that one. Ofc, I've never heard it before because I'm absolutely beautiful.

Hmm, I paid for 3 and only got one. Already reminded them of it, will I ever get them?

Someone from the bitcoin's magazine team:

Can I share the digital version? Like on my facebook?

It was announced a while ago that they were being sent out next issues (dunno if just Issue 2 or both 2 and 3) to subscribers, IIRC, so maybe we'll start seeing "AH GOT MAH SECOND ISSUE TOODAY!" threads by the end of the week.

I meant do the opposite - publish the PDF to match the print edition, and add annotations to say something happened after it was published.  No revising the story!

I think I'd have no problem with revision of minor obvious typographical errors... but changing a story is a huge journalistic no-no.

+1

I would be severely disappointed if you change the story after it has been published.

I dunno about magazines, but technical publications regularly publish "errata" as a few pages separate from the main publication.

That's what I meant too. Adding a note explaining why this failure is listed as a success. I agree the contents should match the printed version.

I will add a +1 to don't revise your magazine.  Issue #1 is issue #1 and it should remain that way.  Are you going to revise all the print copies, and issue new ones?

If you feel it is absolutely necessary a footnote being added to the ORIGINAL UNEDITED COPY reporting on the subsequent demise of Bitcoinica is about as far as you should go. 

Without reading the posts that follow this one, may I suggest learning from this little error and not doing it again. Since you asked in your post how you can fix it that, in itself, speaks volumes.

Thank you kindly, Vladimir, for all your efforts to date.

Later, bud.

~Bruno~

+1

I'm with the majority here: No journalistic revision of published articles. Do it seperately or address it in the next issue.

You guys would make horrible sock puppets for politicians!

I would GREATLY appreciate this.

I agree with everyone else stating that the digital issues should be a mirror copy of the physical issue. I'm not familiar with PDF, so I'm not sure how you would annotate things and whatnot, but I don't think that's as important as having the digital issue match the physical issue.

Other then this, I'm LOVING this issue. I had my issues mailed to an address I don't inhabit during the summer, so this is the first time I am seeing this issue and I love it! Thanks!

I assume that ordering the paper versions will get me the originals, right ? (was just about to do so but waiting for confirmation now)

Technically and legally digital issues are different publications. They (will) have different ISSN numbers, different UPC numbers, they have slightly different content, different ads, various formats, different article and text arrangement and format, depending on device and even depending on how you hold your device, additional features such as hyperlinks internal and external, zoom into images, slide shows etc, as well as different date of publication. Digital issues eventually will have content that is not present in printed publication and vice versa. I hope you will not insist on us publishing videos that are present in digital issues, frame by frame in print as well, when at some point we release digital before print?

I think I speak for the majority when I say, with all due respect, that I don't care, and that you're totally missing the point.  If the PDF is substantially page-for-page the same as the print magazine to the extent that they resemble one another at a glance, then it should be identical, save for minor minutiae and typographical errors.  Just to be clear:

* is it OK if the UPC code is different between the print and digital versions? YES
* if there is a spelling error that went to print, is it OK if the digital version fixes it? YES
* if a picture didn't turn out in print, and the same picture is improved and put in its place? YES
* if a picture didn't turn out in print, and a different picture is substituted in its place? NO
* if somebody didn't pay their ad bill, and it went to print, is it OK to replace it with a different ad for digital version? NO - leave it blank with a placeholder if you absolutely must, we as customers won't like that but we'll understand, but do not publish new content in its place
* if the followup to a story you publish turns out to be more spectacular than what was known when the print version was made, should the digital version be changed reflect it?  HELL NO!  Add something extra (like an extra page in the PDF or a callout annotation) if that is needed, but DO NOT CHANGE IT, regardless of whether it's a new ISBN, UPC, or whether it's legally OK to.

* if you publish the magazine in a brand new medium (e.g. HTML, iPad) that doesn't preserve a notion of numbered pages like a physical magazine, is it OK to make changes to advertisers, layout, art choices, or to omit some content? for the most part YES, just please don't substantially revise stories.


With all due respect, this is a ridiculous suggestion that clearly demonstrates you're missing the point.  No, nobody will insist on this, nor will anyone insist on there being no after-publication extras, as long as they don't replace content that appeared in print.  Please sit down and have a meeting amongst yourselves and put on the agenda, WHY DO PEOPLE BUY BITCOIN MAGAZINE, and see if you can come up with any good reasons as to why publishing a manipulated digital edition tarnishes the desirability of the magazine as a whole.

To save everyone a lot of heartache on this topic, I'll say that we set ourselves up for this mistake by releasing the digital so late in the game. We felt the responsibility to be accurate outweighed the demand of the first issue being identical, but it was obviously taken quite seriously and for that there is nothing to do other than apologize and set a policy in the future for never letting it happen again.

I have my own views that don't exactly go with either side here, as I would gladly change some design elements in a digital edition for various reasons (it's a special version of the magazine afterall), but I do agree that informational elements shouldn't have been changed, just annotated.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention guys! We'll have a corrections section in the credits section of the magazine from now on to handle this precise issue.