just because you have written a book does not make you an author

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Wrong about what? I have a point of view, you don't like my point of view. You have your own view....I am no more wrong than you are.

No, sorry. There's "having a different viewpoint" and there's "bring wrong". You fall into the "being wrong" category.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I don't think you really have such terrible problems finding books to read..

I don't, never have.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

But then what's the fuss? Does it simply offend you that these unapproved books are out there, that no one asked you for permission for them to be offered for sale?

No, I'm not sure why you think that would offend.

But I can see the e reader book sites going the way Twitter and Facebook have gone. Both are great if used as they were intended. But every one now thinks that they have something to tell the world.... I would guess that something over 70% of these sites are meaningless rubbish (if rubbish can be meaningless), but you know what I mean.

That is the way e book sites will become if Amazon and the like don't do something.

[DiapDealer]

Then 'that is the way e book sites will become'.

All you can do about it is whine about the imaginary good old days like every other armchair, reactionary doomsday prophet. Keep up the good work.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, sorry. There's "having a different viewpoint" and there's "bring wrong". You fall into the "being wrong" category.

Ok, I'm wrong. So you will be able to show that I am wrong and you are right; or is that just your viewpoint?

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then 'that is the way e book site will become'.

All you can do about it is whine about the imaginary good old days like every other armchair, reactionary doomsday prophet. Keep up the good work.

You sound as though you are agreeing with me, but where as I would like to see change you have accepted the outcome.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by moonshot

You sound as though you are agreeing with me, but where as I would like to see change you have accepted the outcome.

Then perhaps your perception skills need work. Because I think you are being silly, and I have embraced the outcome.

(and no... I've never written, nor have any aspirations to write, any books. I'm a confirmed reader)

[gmw]

Originally Posted by moonshot

[...]It is only my view point; you would think by some of the response here that I 'was' going to change things next week.

I actually thought your original post was simply a bit of tongue-in-cheek rabble rousing, trying to spark up a bit of conversation (that much worked). But you actually seem to believe that an arbitrary change to the dictionary (based on the fact that you don't like the current meaning) is somehow a realistic thing to consider. And then you have the temerity to accuse those that disagree with you of only doing so because they have a vested interest.

Of course that's not an unusual way to argue when there's nowhere else to go. If, instead, you altered your argument to what I suspect you really mean - that resellers should segregate books based on someone's decision as to whether the book is worth buying - then at least you would be arguing from a position with some basis in reality. And guess what. It already happens. Go to Amazon and check out their bestseller lists. So Amazon already segregates books according to what their customers think is worth buying. If you don't like it, talk to Amazon.

[LovesMacs]

Here is another solution: if you don't agree with how other bookselling websites are being operated and you wish to maintain your own standards, why don't you open your own store and sell books you have vetted yourself? You can even make this a selling point for your website.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by moonshot

I don't, never have.

Getting that confession out of you was like getting the ring away from Gollum. Your argument, such as it is, depends on it being quite difficult to find good books. Since you admit that you don't have any difficulty finding good books to read, your argument collapses.

No, I'm not sure why you think that would offend.

I didn't say it was offensive. Since you admit you don't have any difficulty finding good books to read, it does appear that you are offended by the mere existence of these books.

But I can see the e reader book sites going the way Twitter and Facebook have gone. Both are great if used as they were intended. But every one now thinks that they have something to tell the world.... I would guess that something over 70% of these sites are meaningless rubbish (if rubbish can be meaningless), but you know what I mean.

That is the way e book sites will become if Amazon and the like don't do something.

You can choose who you follow on Twitter, you can choose who you friend on Facebook. If you don't want to read the rubbish then don't subscribe! It's easy to avoid the rubbish. Why should it bother you if someone else subscribes to what you call "rubbish" on Twitter or Facebook? They don't think it is rubbish, or they wouldn't have subscribed. What they read on Twitter or Facebook doesn't harm you, and neither does their reading self-published books.

Ok, I'm wrong. So you will be able to show that I am wrong and you are right; or is that just your viewpoint?

It has been clearly demonstrated that you're wrong. Your refusal to accept facts and reason doesn't change this.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You can choose who you follow on Twitter, you can choose who you friend on Facebook. If you don't want to read the rubbish then don't subscribe! It's easy to avoid the rubbish

So why can't we have a similar setup for ebooks? I switch to turn off the vanity type ebooks.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by moonshot

So why can't we have a similar setup for ebooks? I switch to turn off the vanity type ebooks.

Oh, we already do have a similar setup. Just as you can decline to subscribe to certain Twitter feeds and decline to friend certain people on Facebook, you can decline to read certain books. On Twitter, you're not warned that the Twitter is unapproved, and on Facebook you're not warned that the Facebook feed is unapproved. There's no scarlet letter placed on Twitter or Facebook. It's up to you decide what Twitter feeds you wish to subscribe to, it's up to you decide who to friend on Facebook and it's up to you to decide what books to read. Fortunately, we have adequate tools at our disposal to decide what we might like.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by gmw

I actually thought your original post was simply a bit of tongue-in-cheek rabble rousing, trying to spark up a bit of conversation (that much worked). But you actually seem to believe that an arbitrary change to the dictionary (based on the fact that you don't like the current meaning) is somehow a realistic thing to consider. And then you have the temerity to accuse those that disagree with you of only doing so because they have a vested interest.

Of course that's not an unusual way to argue when there's nowhere else to go. If, instead, you altered your argument to what I suspect you really mean - that resellers should segregate books based on someone's decision as to whether the book is worth buying - then at least you would be arguing from a position with some basis in reality. And guess what. It already happens. Go to Amazon and check out their bestseller lists. So Amazon already segregates books according to what their customers think is worth buying. If you don't like it, talk to Amazon.

You can dress up, change or alter what you think I mean if you want to.

So once more. Those who have typed out words and then clicked them up to Amazon and have added a price, their work should be separated from those who have taken the art of writing more seriously and have had their work proof read, copy edited etc. etc.

If you want to call anyone and everyone who writes something an author, fair enough, but it not the word author that I have an issue with, (although I do not see them as authors) it is as I said above.

I have written a screen play, so am I a screenwriter? I have not sent it off to anyone, it is in my desk gathering dust. Yes or no?

If no, then if I click it up to Amazon, do I then become a screenwriter.

[DiapDealer]

I know I hate seeing all that no-name, cheap, dried cereal mixed right in with the REAL cereal at the grocery store. Why can't they put that crap behind curtains somewhere, so I don't have to look at it when I'm shopping?

[alanHd]

Originally Posted by moonshot

I don't, never have.



No, I'm not sure why you think that would offend.

But I can see the e reader book sites going the way Twitter and Facebook have gone. Both are great if used as they were intended. But every one now thinks that they have something to tell the world.... I would guess that something over 70% of these sites are meaningless rubbish (if rubbish can be meaningless), but you know what I mean.

That is the way e book sites will become if Amazon and the like don't do something.

Why not start a site where only "REAL AUTHORS" are listed, and for the record I'm not an author and I don't plan on ever writing a book.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by moonshot

So why can't we have a similar setup for ebooks? I switch to turn off the vanity type ebooks.

Possibly because those vanity type books are selling quite well and Amazon uses that data to determine whether to make an offer to the authors to become the publisher of said authors. (And not all authors take them up on it, either.)

Possibly because Amazon is making money from those books and those books sell well when put in front of the buying public. If and when they decide there is a business reason for sorting books for you, you might have a case, but it appears that at the moment, Amazon feels it is in their best interests to let the reader sort and choose.