Tim Vasquez
EF5
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,411
This week I've resumed working on a forecasting handbook, one that I was working on for many months back in 2002. I have been agonizing over a particular question. Which is: would you be more likely to buy such a book if the content was presented state-by-state or region-by-region?
In other words, it could either go Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc; or it could go Southern Plains, Gulf Coast, Midwest, Southeast US, etc. This is a 350- to 400-page book and will have a significant amount of content on each region.
Going state-by-state is a novel approach, as it focuses specifically on a given state and is forced to work within the confines of its geographical boundaries. I don't know of any weather books (except for obscure climatological titles) that do this. However it is redundant as there would be 50 chapters, and places like Vermont and New Hampshire are going to be a lot alike.
Going region-by-region is more meteorologically sound but it may not be the most captivating, especially say if someone in Texas has to look in three chapters to see what patterns Texans are accustomed to. For some reason this organization of content seems boring, but I can't put my finger on it. However it would result in maybe ten chapters rather than 50, and give the book a little more fluidity.
It's hard to decide what to do. What do you all think?
Tim
In other words, it could either go Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc; or it could go Southern Plains, Gulf Coast, Midwest, Southeast US, etc. This is a 350- to 400-page book and will have a significant amount of content on each region.
Going state-by-state is a novel approach, as it focuses specifically on a given state and is forced to work within the confines of its geographical boundaries. I don't know of any weather books (except for obscure climatological titles) that do this. However it is redundant as there would be 50 chapters, and places like Vermont and New Hampshire are going to be a lot alike.
Going region-by-region is more meteorologically sound but it may not be the most captivating, especially say if someone in Texas has to look in three chapters to see what patterns Texans are accustomed to. For some reason this organization of content seems boring, but I can't put my finger on it. However it would result in maybe ten chapters rather than 50, and give the book a little more fluidity.
It's hard to decide what to do. What do you all think?
Tim