[taosaur]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Seems to me to be even dumber to assume that B&N is the culprit rather than the book's publisher. I'd be more inclined to think it might be B&N if every instance of the words Amazon and Kindle were changed to B&N and Nook in other books. That this is the only example given indicates to me it is a publisher problem, not a B&N problem.

Is there even a "publisher?" It's a public domain work that was available as a free ebook before B&N got into the business. I don't know how they source their B&N Classics line, but it's possible they prepared it in-house.

ETA:

Originally Posted by AlexBell

It's mentioned in the Discussion forum at

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=180000

with a different source for the information. So it might be true, and be yet another piece of evidence that the major ebook retailers have never heard of proof readers.

Ah, the Ars article answers our questions. The mistake has been confirmed by several sources now, and the book was prepared by Superior Format Publishing.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ed-into-nookd/