Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
A serious question: why would they NOT do so? They have a system in place to report content errors. What reason would there be not to use it?
|
Harry:
Simplest reason is, they have an easy, go-to contact for
every single self-pubbed book; use the email on the KDP account. BPH's don't have KDP accounts, they have publisher agreements with FTP. The contact tends to be a VP in charge of digital distribution, not the head of the Editing department.
I'm not saying it
never happens. Diap's memory about that one book is correct, and the same happened with Annie Lamott's Bird by Bird. But it seems to take a lot MORE to get them to nag a BPH than it does for a self-pub, no matter whether it's Barry Eisler or Joe the Garbage Guy.
That's my issue; it's a double standard with selective enforcement (and sometimes NO enforcement). And I can say factually from my own experience that, trust me, authors who've had books made by REAL formatters have far, far better books in terms of formatting and other things than BPH books sent to (insert third-world country here) for scanning & "conversion." Doesn't that seem like the enforcement is backwards? And again, what about all the utterly crappily unreadable books? That no one is reading nor reporting upon, because the LITB steers them away?
Policeman, police thyself, is my thinking. If they're gonna do it,
great: but do it on
EVERY book. Don't just penalize the authors who
are actually being read. That seems utterly counter-intuitive and downright stupid.
Or am I the only one who thinks this way? It wouldn't be the first time. Seriously, sometimes I can get off the tracks on some weird topics....my POV on this is, obviously, biased. (Although, I don't think that plays into how I feel about the whole, "I'm gonna report a TYPO! And they'll run and FIX it!" thing. {Thinks}. Nope. I view that as a reader.)
Hitch