Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
"Why your data isn't the data that my data thinks your data thinks my data is (and other distinctly pointless distinctions)."
This whole kerfuffle has gotten silly. Silly internet kerfuffles are a dime a dozen.
I do find it ironic, though, that the bulk of Shatzkin's "refutation" (quotation marks used only to stay in the spirit of his writing technique) of Howey's public analysis of scraped public data lies firmly ensconced behind a paywall.
Should Howey's analysis be viewed as gospel? Of course not.
Is it relevant at all to today's "publishing" (sorry, can't help myself) landscape? You bet your ass it is.
It doesn't need to be totally vindicated to be relevant.
|
THANK YOU!!!! These useless discussions debating the validity/accuracy of other peoples studies is crazy.
The only thing that truly matters is that someone outside of BPH has FINALLY made an attempt to show authors and anyone else that cares, that self publishing CAN be profitable. All he is pointing out is that authors need to take the time to investigate ALL of their options now and not take what some agent or BPH says is gospel.
All that is important is to get the word out to aspiring authors that getting published by a BPH is not the only way to have your work validated or to be taken seriously as an author.
Most get into it to make money, if left up to the establishment they won't get any or very little. So take a chance and put it out for yourself and see/hope you get lucky.
Needless to say, the BPH & Shatzkins of the world don't like this since it has an impact on their bottom lines. Oh well too bad so sad.
I say bravo to Howey for making the attempt to make it easier for everyone to get at least a little info in this crazy business all in one place to read and figure out for themselves if it is worth it.
Knowledge is power, whether 100% accurate or not.