Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Fakes & FraudsEt tu Scientific American?

20th Jul 2013 19:28 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

This month SA had a full page ad for "helenite". Similar to this.

Note: Be sure to check out the appraisal page.

BTW: What kind of "cut" is that? Unkindest?

Clearly we need to add "helenite" to Mindat and Gemdat.

On a more uplifting note, check out p. 21.

Unfortunately the link on the SA website doesn't show the image.

Second try. If mgmt is deleting, please explain.

20th Jul 2013 19:35 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

"Clearly we need to add "helenite" to Mindat and Gemdat."

See:

http://www.mindat.org/min-26410.html

20th Jul 2013 19:42 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Must have had a typo in my DB :-(search

20th Jul 2013 22:15 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

As is typical for many Americans, Scientific American ceased being scientific some years ago.

21st Jul 2013 00:12 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

Steve,

How true... And, I miss the Amateur Scientist articles that were discontinued years ago.

Gene

21st Jul 2013 00:23 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Hi Steve,

SA certainly has been made "simpler" - in some case perhaps "simpler than possible" (to paraphrase Albert E.).

But I still find it very useful. I can read some of the scientific literature " in the raw" - but I no longer want to,

Or at least that's not where I want to start.

I suppose that "Science" or "Physics Today" etc., are "better" alternatives.

But at this point in life, "simpler than possible" works for me.

Modris

21st Jul 2013 02:11 UTCTim Jokela Jr

Lots of crap adverts in the sci mags. Sci Am at least hasn't gone to the point of poor Wired, where you can no longer tell the articles from the adverts...

21st Jul 2013 02:35 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Edit: My question has been rendered irrelevant.

21st Jul 2013 06:25 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

To return the discussion to the starting point.... Can you post the SA advert you find problematic? Hard to pass judgement on something I can't see.

21st Jul 2013 14:36 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Sorry Steve - the link is actually in my first msg (the word 'this"). But looks like that came out too obscure.

Here is the link more explicitly: link to helenite

Edit: But be aware that, even if you have "do not track" on, you will probably be pestered by "targeted ads" if you visit this site.

21st Jul 2013 15:18 UTCLászló Horváth Manager

Re: Scientific American

I was astonished to see in SA kph for speed instead of km/h (at least I assume that is what they mean). If they can sink this deep to cater to the ignorant, what can we expect from the main-stream media?

21st Jul 2013 16:55 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

The ad is unclear to me. Are they claiming the green material was found at the volcano, or (like I've heard other claim) the green material is laboratory-produced from volcanic ash?

21st Jul 2013 17:24 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Steve, After talking of the violent eruption of Mt St Helens - "But once the chaos cleared, something beautiful was discovered. A brilliant green creation was produced from the heated volcanic rock dust. Named Helenite after the mountain from which it was born, ..."

The casual reader may be left with the impression that this synthetic glass was actually found naturally on the volcano, like obsidian, although the ad does not actually say that, so legally their arses are covered. Clever advertising.

21st Jul 2013 17:47 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Steve - the appraisal page clearly states: "lab created (synthetic) green glass".

However, the SA ad doesn't mention this. It just has a lot of chatter about "explosive origins" and "flashes of light", etc.

The prudent buyer would of course be expected to visit the web site (given in tiny print at the bottom of the ad).

But questioning the legality of the ad was never my point.

21st Jul 2013 18:50 UTCFred E. Davis

I fail to see the significance of including Scientific American in the discussion. No doubt those ads have appeared in many magazines. The discussion seems to assume SA has the luxury of editing their advertisers, or demanding they pass a purity test. Manufacturers are no fools, and choose ad space where they can reap the most benefit by association while paying homage to P. T. Barnum. Magazine publishers are no fools, and will take money where they can get it. Just be thankful that Rupert Murdoch hasn't bought the magazine and inserted an astrology column.

21st Jul 2013 19:02 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Fred - Would you call the editors of "Science" and "Physics Today" fools if they don't accept such ads? (Or at least I don't think they do ...)

Should there be Burger King ads in Phys Rev to keep it out of Rupert's clutches?

I'm not really faulting SA for accepting the ad. I'm just bemoaning the fact that it is "foolish" not to do so.

21st Jul 2013 19:22 UTCFred E. Davis

Modris Baum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fred - Would you call the editors of "Science" and

> "Physics Today" fools if they don't accept such

> ads?

If Science etc. don't accept this style ad, then either they have a smaller readership or loyal advertisers with deep pockets (surely an editor's wet dream).

> Should there be Burger King ads in Phys Rev to

> keep it out of Rupert's clutches?

If Rupert wants it, Rupert gets it notwithstanding Burger King et alia. If BK ads appear, then SA's advertising base is evaporating and Rupert could get a bargain price.

> I'm not really faulting SA for accepting the ad.

> I'm just bemoaning the fact that it is "foolish"

> not to do so.

If it's silly ads or no magazine (one that has been among my reading material from an early age - yes, I too miss Amateur Scientist, Martin Gardner, etc.), I still know how to turn the page.

21st Jul 2013 20:13 UTCJoan Kureczka

Magazines need to take what ad sales they can get. Science News has had such advertising from Stauer for years. Subscriptions are way down and so are print ad buys. As long as there is nothing to muddy the waters between editorial copy and ads, making it different to tell the difference, there is no problem whatsoever IMO. Science and Nature and the like are higher priced peer-reviewed scientific publications (both of which also include some non-peer reviewed articles), not mainstream magazines and Science has the financial support of AAAS as well. So -- yes, you won't see such ads in these.

21st Jul 2013 20:40 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

I really hate to prolong the agony ... But I think old man "Slippery Slope" is at it again.

I know that American Mineralogist and Canadian Mineralogist are peer reviewed journals with "other means of support".

But my understanding is that things are getting very tough.

In your opinion, would it be OK for these journals to accept Stauer ads if that meant the difference between continued existence or not? If not - why not? Where would you draw the line in this case? How about Min Rec?

But if no one wants to "bite", that's OK. These debates never seem to get anywhere anyway.

Over and out.

21st Jul 2013 21:46 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

I won't discuss the ethics of magazines accepting these ads or not - As others have pointed out, they may not have much choice. Why do magazines on health accept ads for highly dubious dietary supplements? The same questions/situations apply to fields other than publishing too - Why do mineral show organizers accept dealers selling rugs and glass beads and placebo rocks? The show organizers whom I know personally would rather not accept those non-mineral-related vendors but, again, do they have a choice? Economic reality is what it is.

And from another angle, do readers really care? I doubt I'm the only one who just tunes ads out and pays no attention to them.

21st Jul 2013 23:44 UTCModris Baum 🌟 Expert

Hi Alfredo,

I think I have a cogent rebuttal for most of your points. But I promised to be good and not prolong this thread - no need to point out that I'm doing it anyway - so I will resist.

However, I wouldn't want you to go through life wondering what dazzling insight I'm withholding. (You are wondering that - right?)

So here's a hint: "imprimatur".

Over and Out (all over agin).

22nd Jul 2013 01:56 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

I agree with Modris, its a slippery slope, if I see ads for dubious products in a magazine, its credibility plummets! I understand everyone needs to make a buck, but not by selling lies.

22nd Jul 2013 12:14 UTCFred E. Davis

Better dead than read?

23rd Jul 2013 05:38 UTCDean Allum Expert

The ads in Scientific American are an adequate reflection of it's scientific rigor. After subscribing to it for over 25 years, I dropped it in 2009. The majority of it's article authors are now journalists rather than researchers. It is no longer objective, but injects politics into most of its' articles. Others must have noticed this also, since it's circulation has been declining about 7% per year. You would think that the parent corporation would notice this and swap out its' management.

27th Jul 2013 08:10 UTCJustin Zzyzx Expert

People look at ads?

You've just BLOWN my mind! =)

3rd Aug 2013 00:55 UTCDana Morong

I think I lately saw that ad, or one very much like it, in another magazine, but I forget whether the magazine was professionally edited or not. I just figured that someone had melted down some rock into a green glass and given it a name.

I had much more recently received another version of a possible scam - I may have won (a list of several items) if the scratch-off number matched the number on the back (it did). I wondered how many other people got a winning number, and at work asked around, and found that several people had "won" the same chance - that of wasting ones time going to the auto dealer to get a spiel on some possibly dubious deal (at least now I kinow of one auto dealership to avoid). There is more chance of finding an interesting mineral at a long abandoned local roadcut, if one looks closely. That may be a better winner and more interesting.

Incidentally, once some years ago I picked up some boxes full of old Scientific American magazines (from the 1960s, 70s, 80s) that someone was throwing out. Those years had some wonderful articles, some of them dealing with geology, some with minerals.

3rd Aug 2013 01:12 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Dana, if you read "Archeology" you might have the ad there.....I've seen it in several issues.....and if you follow the arguments it becomes very obvious peer review exists! As has been said already we wouldn't have the magazine without a liberal approach to advertising!

Don

3rd Aug 2013 03:55 UTCMark & Linda Mahlum

I, too, have dropped my subscription to SA. It really has become increasingly political. But it seems that many in science have sold their souls to politics because of the large amount of government money that so many covet. I am not a scientist but as something of a political observer, that's how it looks to me. Am I wrong or is there a bit of validity in this? (I'm sure I'm treading on thin ice.)

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 9, 2024 21:52:04

Go to top of page