I haven't taken the time to figure out the quote function for the forum, but I will continue my discussion of my points.
one: objectivity vs advertising. The proven standard for objectivity in published testing is no advertising. Consumer Reports, while having it's own problems and agenda, is still a respected magazine of testing that succeeds in part because of the refusal to accept advertising. I am sure that as an individual, you, Mr. Turber, are a no bull kind of guy. My assertion is not a personal assertion. But it remains true that when analyzing any piece of data, you must analyze the source. For example, I really enjoy National Geographic. But if you look at the primary advertisers for that magazine, you see a lot of oil and automobile ads. And when you look at what National Geographic doesn't publish, it's stories about oil and automobile companies impacts. So I have to temper what I see in National Geographic against its business interest. The news magazines are also heavily advertised in by perfume, alcohol, cigarettes, and cars and you pretty much know by that that their stories are going to be slanted to appeal to the beliefs of that demographic.
Similarly, a knife magazine including ads and being operated with the intention of making money will have an editorial slant that affects the objectivity of the content. Simply having a fixed editorial board and staff writers causes this. The voice of the magazine is required to be limited and non-egalitarain by the very nature of it being a magazine. In the days of a paper press, it was the best and potentially fairest method available. We are not it in that era, and what you are proposing is merely porting that paradigm to a medium with different potential and requirements.
two: free timely info. A montly publishing schedule, with multiple writers, coordination of articles and such simply can not be as timely as a continuosuly updated site. And as free sites remain free and will continue to be free and more timely, a web magazine can't compete. The advantage of a hard copy is portability and non volatilitey which a web zine won't have.
third: market dilution. Mike's rebuttal is that the dilution is happening already, maybe. And if you read the forums, you'll see that more and more people are abandoning the paper magazines. (only anecdotal evidence, granted). It's true in all parts of magazine publishing that subscriptions are sliding downhill. When bladeforums was created, the dilution arguments were made and analyzed in pretty good detail. And everyone developed their preferred forum with some amount of people looking at both. But even among those who look at both, they don't devote equal time to both. Their available time has to be split among the available sources. More dilution won't help a for profit enterprise.
four: monthly publishing incompatible with Web timescales. I didn't fully understand Mr. Turber's answer. I'll restate that information that had the creation leadtimes required and then not updated for a month after publishing, doesn't make for timely and recurring hits on a website, which is required to attract advertisers, regardless of rates.
five: Usenet and threaded discussion. Mr. Turber seems to agree that this is the proper realm of BladeForums. Whether it is superior and the true nature of Web publishing is something neither one of us argued. My belief is that it is superior to a static single viewpointed magazine as a way for learning and furthering knives.
six: lack of innovation. I stated that I saw no innovation in what Mr. Turber proposed. He responded that he would be the hear it here first voice of all new products and tests. Probably true, but probably insignificant. The earlier knowledge of up and coming products is simply advertising and hype. Not the role of an unbiased and analytical knife magazine. It also has no measurable benefit for the consumer, as far as early announcements go.
The testing issue is problematic. Developing good repeatable and measurable tests for knives is a DIFFICULT and LARGE project. I believe that the best standards and tests will come from the discussion of knife users and a cooperation between knife makers. Consider the liner-lock tests of AT Barr and J Talmadge (hope I spelled that right). They have become defacto standards for measuring the quality of aspects of knives and it came from free and independent sources. Reviews as performed by single users are interesting anecdotal data points, but until they become standardized and industry wide and agreed upon, it's hard to state objective value of a given test. The review forum is THE place for this to happen. Not in a privately owned and operated magazine. Open and Public. That's what quality product testing is.
If a new web magazine is created, I hope that it succeeds. Success is usually a good thing for a market, especially one with the popular perceptions against knives. However, I can't see myself subscribing at this point, and I think that those who do subscribe will evaporate fairly quickly.
After re-reading my post, I want to expand on my conclusion. I think that the knife market isn't right for the "objective" web magazine or any magazine. The required testing standards dont' exist for objectivity to exist or for analyzing new designs, locks, materials, or methods. Attempting to create the magazine now would embroil it in heated arguments and inflammatory situations that would probably destroy it.
Mike, I think the first step for your stated publishing goals is the establishment of repeatable objective tests, measurements and standards. Those would be the required innovation that would drive your magazine, attract readers and advertisers. If you had that, I might subscribe!
Phil