SOD is ending it's weekly print edition

[Contessa Donatella]

This is some good news you bring us! Michael is a great guy & a good writer & a serious soap fan! 

[janea4old]

SOD's print issue usually had two spoiler articles for each soap.  Each soap would have

• one longer preview article or spoiler interview.
• and one smaller article in the "Hot Plots" section.

Usually one of each type -- for a total of two for each soap.  (B&B sometimes had only one article in a single issue because their episodes are only half the length, so there are less storylines in a given week.)

The print issue would be in stores Fridays, and it would be on sale in digital(online) format Thursday nights at midnight(for early Friday).  Also many public libraries would have the new issue in digital format for free on Fridays.
I would check it weekly for all the spoiler articles previewing the coming week.

For the past few weeks, now that SOD has gone to website only, this is the pattern I've observed:  They seem to posting these same articles as I described for what the print edition did (two spoiler articles per soap per week, with B&B sometimes having only one) --- but they usually upload each article to their website the night before its spoiled events air.  For example if a character is spoiled to do something specific, the spoiler article about that appears on the SOD website only 12-24 hours in advance. So instead of previewing the week ahead with a bunch of articles the way the print issues did, the website now previews one day in advance for one soap at a time. So if you didn't check the website, you'd miss the specific new preview.  I mean shouldn't the articles come out a few days in advance? 

The layout of the front page of the SOD website seems to have the new article at the top but sometimes it's not obvious on the front page, or new things fall down the page rapidly.   I have had to click on the individual links for each soap, daily, to see if new articles/interviews are posted for that soap.

I'm hoping it's simply them learning the ropes of being online only, which I would understand.  (I'm hoping it's not an attempt to make me click on their website frequently.)

Sometimes they tweet out a link to a new article right away, and other times the tweet appears up to 24 hours after the article first appears on the website, which is why I've been checking the website directly. And sometimes they tweet it again a few times over the next few days and weeks. (not a retweet but a brand new tweet saying the same thing with the same link).

Edited November 23, 2023 by janea4old

[j swift]

Their tweets (X's?) are nuts, they keeps regurgitating old news

This is literally from an hour ago

Please register in order to view this content

 

[janea4old]

 

Exactly.

SOD tweeted on Oct 31, Nov 1, Nov 4, Nov 11, and Nov 18 -- that Tyler Christopher died.
Each tweet was new but identical, and all linked to the same Oct. 31 article.

Edited November 23, 2023 by janea4old

[Errol]

Their social media scheduler needs to be fired. It's beyond disrespectful at this point. I get re-sharing content to keep people engaging with your social media channels, but between them and a certain other site I won't mention (y'all know which I'm talking about if you pay attention), it's insane. That said, SOD has topped that other site in re-sharing news that isn't necessarily old in context but is definitely old in reporting. They might as well report Jacklyn Zeman died at this rate (no disrespect intended on my part).

I'm happy that people are finally calling them out on this posting style, even if it's only because they keep re-sharing that Tyler story. 

When I post a story on the site a day after it's reported elsewhere (for example) and I share my article on the SON Twitter, a certain someone (or two) responds by saying "old news" which irritates me. But I would never do what that SOD scheduler is pulling by regurgitating the same news over and over.

[dragonflies]

The same TV INSIDER that took a fake article and posted it as truth on their site recently? I Know Michael Logan is great, but TV INSIDER doing that I lost a lot of faith in their "reporting" 

They posted the Tyler Christopher passing article 4 times since he passed 

[Errol]

The problem with mainstream outlets like TV Insider, PEOPLE, Us Weekly and sites like those is they hire interns who do not have much media experience and, therefore, are easily susceptible to fake news. Just because they went to college to learn how to be a journalist doesn't mean they know how to do it in the real world. Anyways, that being said, that John McCook story was unforgivable. I agree. 

• I think you meant Michael Maloney. Different people. Michael Logan is on Twitter, but he's no longer doing soap news after TV Guide let him go years ago.
• As @janea4old noted, it was five times. I wouldn't be surprised if they posted it again.
• They keep reposting the John J. York story, the Bryan Datillo story and the Day of DAYS fall/winter preview, among other posts that keep getting shared several weeks and more than a month since they were originally posted. They've already reshared the J. Eddie Peck and Colleen Zenk stories multiple times.

[lucaslesann23]

I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing that, I don't go to the page so I thought it was just my Twitter timeline. But I keep seeing the same articles day after day.

[Contessa Donatella]

The other day I read a brand new article & then I looked at the drop down & the top three looked interesting so I clicked & each of them was in excess of 2 years old. I can't replicate that right now. And, I don't think only they do it. I just know I hate it. 

[janea4old]

Re: TV Guide... That Michael Maloney interview with Melody Thomas Scott is now up on the TV insider website
(spoilerish)
https://twitter.com/TVInsider/status/1727419176464322763

https://www.tvinsider.com/1111605/the-young-and-the-restless-melody-thomas-scott-nikki-escape-claire/

Edited November 24, 2023 by janea4old

[dragonflies]

Duh yeah it was Michael Maloney @Errol  my bad 

[Contessa Donatella]

Back when we were actively campaigning to try to get the monster Albert Alarr fired Digest just kept tweeting their regular teases. It had already become glaring that only they were not covering the investigation in any form. Total news black-out from them - and only them - on the subject. So, their teases were met every tweet with sarcastic replies & digs about them not being on board with the fan campaign. I even sent msgs telling them to turn off their auto-posting & why. Nothing changed. I mean, you can't help someone who won't help themselves. And, the worst of it was how many were fluff teases. 

[janea4old]

@JAS0N47  and anyone else reading who collects print issues of soap magazines:
You might be interested in the above posts (and previous page) of this thread,
discussing the new issue of TV Guide print magazine with its special feature on soaps written by Michael Maloney.  It's a two-page feature.
It's not a "soap magazine" but still interesting.
Cover date "Nov.  27 – Dec. 17, 2023  Triple Issue"
Print issue cover is "NCIS: Sydney"

Please register in order to view this content

Edited November 24, 2023 by janea4old

[vetsoapfan]

I'm surprised to see that TV Guide still publishes a print version of its magazine.

I thought it was discontinued ages and ages ago.

The (inferior and not-missed) Canadian version has been gone for a few decades.

[Contessa Donatella]

Some years back they changed from the digest size to a magazine format. I think when they made the size change many people thought it had gone away completely. When they made the size change they also completely redid the organization & presentation.