Schneier on Ebook Fraud

[Worldwalker]

Somewhere or other, I saw a "cleaned-up" version of The Eye of Argon. It was actually rather boring. It's so much more fun when it's weird. Also, the person attempting to turn it into understandable words was utterly baffled by some of the original. I'm not surprised -- I've never figured out some bits of it either.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I've talked to a few slushpile readers, mostly from SF magazines, over the years.

You know how bad you imagine the slushpile to be?

It's worse.

And now, with the advent of ebooks, that slushpile is for sale on Amazon.

We need lots more readers/editors. Simple.

[Frida Fantastic]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I like reader-led gatekeeper communities; I think mainstream publishers are too caught up with "we should try to sell what's already selling" rather than "we should publish well-written books and find a market for them." But anyone who thinks that what's published by the Big Six is "utter crap" has never looked at what doesn't make it through the slushpile--and is now being sold on Amazon and Smashwords.

I agree. What would convince me of the relative value of going self-published is seeing good self-published books with a healthy audience base, especially with content/material that likely wouldn't have been published at a big six publisher. I think books should be judged beyond short-term marketability status, and I'm happy to read pretty crazy books so long as they are good.

As a reader, I don't look at indie books with a different set of standards than traditionally self-published books. It's like with music. Sometimes I listen to indie musicians... not because they're indie, but because I enjoy their work and they just happen to be indie. You can't make listeners/readers become your purchasing customers just because you're successful at demonizing the other big business model. Your core product has to be good, regardless of what your royalty/distribution/whatever system is. Readers don't care. They'll read anything interesting to them if it's affordable and accessible.

Having a lower price point also doesn't mean that readers are more accepting of mistakes. Having a lower price point only means that readers are more willing to "risk" their time with a new unheard of author. If this new unheard of author doesn't deliver, then that opportunity for promotion completely failed and was a waste on the author's time, and on the reader's time. All authors need to perfect any product they want to wave at any potential reader's face, including a good cover and a good blurb.

If the blurb doesn't have proper punctuation, and the cover seems like the author didn't think it was worth paying a decent graphic designer $100 to put something nice on, then why would the reader bother with the work? I'm a 3 minute bike ride away from my local library's comfortable SF section, and I've got a hard drive full of public domain stuff I could cozy up with instead. Authors/creators/etc. need to remember that they are competing with the world of literature at the reader's fingertips.

[crich70]

Interesting. "The eye of Argon" kinda makes me think of Poul Anderson's article "On thud and blunder" a bit.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by bashfulbanshee

Authors/creators/etc. need to remember that they are competing with the world of literature at the reader's fingertips.

Actually, the part that many publishers don't seem to be getting is that they're competing with the entire world of entertainment. A hundred years ago, when the book I just read was published, if you wanted entertainment you read a book, attended a live event in your town (probably within walking distance), or created your own. Today, you can watch TV, listen to the radio, play a video game, listen to recorded music, go to a movie, hang out on MobileRead, attend a live event a hundred miles from home, or read a book. Books have a lot more to compete with than they ever did.

People expect perfection in their TV shows (stilted dialog, for example, will make viewership plummet), in their video games (crashing is right out), in their movies (you really don't want to see the wires), and so on. They expect a similar level of quality in their books, both p- and e-: No obvious errors. Words that are used correctly. Pages that are all there (yes, I've bought pbooks that failed on that). A "great idea" will no more sell a crappy ebook than it will sell a crappy movie, and an error-filled ebook will be received about as well as an off-key song.

They're not just competing with other books. They're competing with everything. Whether they're a bestselling HC pbook or an obscure self-published ebook, they need to be a viable competitor to all of those other forms of entertainment and information, because unlike 100 years ago, it's no longer (and hasn't been for decades) "read a book or stare at the walls." Authors and publishers who think it is are setting themselves up to crash and burn.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But how can Amazon police the professional reviewers when obtaining a new IP address is so trivial? Maybe when we are all given an IP address at birth, to track our every online action

Having a requirement to buy the item they are reviewing and noting the time difference between purchase and review would cut out a lot of the abuse.

[Frida Fantastic]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

They're competing with everything. Whether they're a bestselling HC pbook or an obscure self-published ebook, they need to be a viable competitor to all of those other forms of entertainment and information, because unlike 100 years ago, it's no longer (and hasn't been for decades) "read a book or stare at the walls." Authors and publishers who think it is are setting themselves up to crash and burn.

I agree. This is true for the majority of people, I think. The folks I know who read the most also consume the most fiction in general, so if there's a good TV show on that's more compelling than anything on their to read list, they'll go watch that instead. TV and movies also have the advantage of being (or perceived) to be more social than literature post-oral storytelling era.

I'm a bit of an anomaly, my media consumption is (1) Literature (2) The Internet (3) Podcasts. I watch movies maybe 2-3 times a year, and I watch a TV episode an average of once a month, but that's me just trying to finish Red Dwarf.

I just enjoy the solitude found in literature, and its portability. But that being said, even with a reader like me that's pretty much the ideal customer for an indie author (buys e-books only, doesn't look at books priced more than paperbacks, always on e-book forums and actively searching for indie SF), I still have a lot of other literature to read instead if I see nothing that interests me.

This discussion is reminding me of this cat and girl comic strip http://catandgirl.com/?p=2035

Despite all this ranting, there is a reason why I still actively look for indie authors and read through the stuff submitted to me. I have faith that not everything's been done yet, but I still judge all literature at the same level all other literature I've been exposed to.

[Frida Fantastic]

Another point, ever since the ipad came out, there's been some talk of interactive books, with the assumption that electronic books need to provide some "media experience" to compete with other forms of media.

I think that idea is totally wrong. Good fiction is good fiction, it demands perfection (no wires, no typos, no stilted dialogue, etc.) regardless of the medium. I don't think people watch TV or movies because they're shiny and they move, I think they watch those mediums because they found a lot of fiction that is polished and perfect in those mediums. Some background music and a badly patched together book trailer isn't going to entice me to read a book if the core product still isn't polished.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Having a requirement to buy the item they are reviewing and noting the time difference between purchase and review would cut out a lot of the abuse.

That would solve half the problem, if the Amazon marketplace was the only place to purchase books, or if the Amazon marketplace even wanted to restrict book reviews to editions that had been purchased through Amazon.

No, what we need is an end to anonymity, I feel we are getting there maybe within a decade.

Also, what's with all this competition talk? I mean capitalism/competition is highly exploitative and should be done away with in order for a more equitable system to come about right?

[carld]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I do like pointing out that this is what we'll see more of as we eliminate the gatekeepers.

And I wonder what we've lost because of the gatekeepers. How many stories have we heard about great books being rejected by the 30th or 40th publisher? How many authors have we lost because they didn't submit to that 41st publisher? I contend that it's entirely possible that the greatest novel ever written has not been published and never will be because the author gave up in frustration.

[Frida Fantastic]

Originally Posted by carld

And I wonder what we've lost because of the gatekeepers. How many stories have we heard about great books being rejected by the 30th or 40th publisher? How many authors have we lost because they didn't submit to that 41st publisher? I contend that it's entirely possible that the greatest novel ever written has not been published and never will be because the author gave up in frustration.

I agree that we've probably lost a lot of good books due to publishers, so I'm pretty happy about the way self-publishing in the electronic world allows all writers to put a book on the e-retail shelf. I think that what we need to polish up are reader-vetted ways of getting to the good stuff. It can only get better from here, really.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

No, what we need is an end to anonymity, I feel we are getting there maybe within a decade.

And how would an end to anonymity change things?

Would it stop whack jobs from being whack jobs? Heck no, they're whack jobs face to face. They'd continue to be whack jobs. The people it would affect are the people who don't want to be stalked by the whack jobs.

Blizzard (the computer game company) was planning to do this with its forums. The massive customer outcry made them change their minds. It was pointed out to them, among other things, that not only would this target the wrong people, stifle the good guys, and empower the bad guys, but the basic concept was using the threat of real-world retaliation to replace needed forum moderation.

By and large, nice people don't threaten whack jobs. On the other hand, whack jobs do threaten nice people. Do we really need reviews written solely by the people who dare to admit their identity ... that is, the whack jobs?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

And how would an end to anonymity change things?

Reviews written for the sole purpose of commercial gain would be identified by the network, attributed to the source, and the source would be banned from making any more reviews. That's how.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Reviews written for the sole purpose of commercial gain would be identified by the network, attributed to the source, and the source would be banned from making any more reviews. That's how.

You wouldn't need to outlaw pseudo-anonymity to identify those sort of reviews, you could do it automatically through profiling.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You wouldn't need to outlaw pseudo-anonymity to identify those sort of reviews, you could do it automatically through profiling.

The professional reviewers are known to set up multiple accounts, deleting false reviews is curing the symptom while ignoring the disease.

But are you referring to running all reviews through a filter after submitting but before publishing? That has possibilities but I am mainly interested in the power of collective human cognition. Until we do develop a strong AI, the best judge of a reviews merit is going to be the users of a review site themselves. The readers of any decent ebook site need to be given the collective power to delete any and all reviews they deem to be unworthy of being.