Macmillan Ebook Poll

[nrapallo]

Originally Posted by Gideon

That was.. odd.

That's for sure! It had an unsettling effect near the end as I answered those persistent questions about paying to register, paying for samples...

I think Macmillian is hanging out in the stupid department too much. Pay for access to samples? Really? Insane.

I recall getting questions 22. & 23. (I think) that wanted to know how much of a one-time fee would I be willing to pay for access to samples and then another question, and get this, would I be willing to pay more for a 1/2 book (50%) sample. I originally answered a sample could be 25% of the book. Sheesh, talk about maximizing your revenue stream. A sample is a (free) sample and not additional revenue!!!! Greed, greed, greed...

You give me samples, I am more likely to get the book (assuming it is good.) Samples in an of themselves have very little value.

Ya, and if they offered to double the size of the "sample" in exchange for more cash, would it just not revolt you altogether and make you find another reseller...

[junkyardwillie]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I may have phrased it incorrectly, the question was more about giving out your email to get access to chapters or some such. In any case, I don't give out my email, not for preview chapters, not for much of anything.

EDIT: see Q13 and 15 in Daffy's post (thanks for that Daffy).

I got the one on would you register to read this content. I forgot the exact question

[dreams]

I tried to take the survey and received the below message..

We have reached our threshold number of responses to this survey. It is now closed.

Thank you for your interest and willingness to provide feedback.

[columbus]

They have certainly dropped the ball! I tried to respond to the survey & just got this message (timed as this post)

We have reached our threshold number of responses to this survey. It is now closed.

Thank you for your interest and willingness to provide feedback.

[zelda_pinwheel]

seems pretty odd having a limit on how many replies they are willing to recieve. maybe they read this thread, realised what a huge mistake they are making, and pulled the survey for now with plans to rethink it and do a new one.

[Wetdogeared]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

seems pretty odd having a limit on how many replies they are willing to recieve. maybe they read this thread, realised what a huge mistake they are making, and pulled the survey for now with plans to rethink it and do a new one.

I often see polls qualified like the following example:

This poll, conducted among 1,125 respondents, is accurate plus or minus 4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

These are usually national polls, and the number of respondents to be statistically accurate (usually around 1,200) to between plus or minus 4 percentage points doesn't seem to be very high.

WDE.

[JSWolf]

Could not partake in the survey. It says it's full and now closed. Well done not leaving me a slot to give my answers.

[3pete]

Originally Posted by Wetdogeared

I often see polls qualified like the following example:

These are usually national polls, and the number of respondents to be statistically accurate (usually around 1,200) to between plus or minus 4 percentage points doesn't seem to be very high.

WDE.

I suspect you are thinking of surveys based on a random sample. Given the decidedly non-random approach taken for this survey, no such generalization can be made. Think "Family Feud" rather than Gallop polls.

[Wetdogeared]

Originally Posted by 3pete

I suspect you are thinking of surveys based on a random sample. Given the decidedly non-random approach taken for this survey, no such generalization can be made. Think "Family Feud" rather than Gallop polls.

You're right, they were random samples, usually taken over the telephone.

WDE.

[Abecedary]

Originally Posted by 3pete

I suspect you are thinking of surveys based on a random sample. Given the decidedly non-random approach taken for this survey, no such generalization can be made. Think "Family Feud" rather than Gallop polls.

Based on the questions asked, it was most likely supposed to be as close to a random sampling as Macmillan could get from their own mailing list. However, since the link was posted here, the results are now very skewed towards a non-representative sampling of readers. At the same time, though, they can filter the results based on the unique string in the URL. If they're smart about it, they can now have two data sets from which to draw conclusions--one comprised of a fairly random sampling of their mailing list subscribers, and another comprised of e-book enthusiasts.

[dickon25]

I subscribe to their emails but got no notice of this survey. I've just attempted to participate through the link on this thread and got the 'survey is full' message! Not at all sure how representative the results will be!!

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by junkyardwillie

T
Owning content is the way of the past.

And of equal intellectual and moral capitol... owning homes is a thing of the past. owning food is a thing of the past. Owning vehicles is a thing of the past. Owning tools is a thing of the past.

And the corollary that goes with it - Access to any one of those things is not a right. you don't own it.

I'll pass on all of it.

[Gadget]

"We have reached our threshold number of responses to this survey. It is now closed.

Thank you for your interest and willingness to provide feedback."

That's so awesome. Great work everybody!