Re: is this the beginning of the end?
don said:
It's pretty hollow.
not surprising. even the article put it all in the future tense. and h.p. talked about "potential", while amazon merely confirmed.
This book has not yet been processed, but if you preorder we’ll process it faster and notify you when it’s ready.
Right.
it makes perfect sense to me. how else would you prioritize which books should be done first? as for skepticism on the time-frame, how much time do you think it'll take 'em to prep a book? i would guess that it's a matter of mere minutes. (seconds for the scripts to run, and then a minute or two for a human to execute the quality-control.) *** jim said:
bookprep
thanks for running that down, jim. good info. *** gardner said:
What's your point?
"what's my point?" well, it's pretty obvious, i would think, isn't it? if h.p. is correcting the o.c.r., that's a big deal. but if they're just printing the scansets, it's not. so there is an informational asymmetry at work.
If there are pages missing or illegible sections, then it might be better to skip that volume, versus go ahead selling it to folks who are likely to complain or return it.
ok, i see what you meant when you said "proofing"; i consider checks like that to be "quality control"... those problems were common in the first few years of the google scanning, but are fairly rare nowadays.
But if you're lazy, you'd skip that step and let the customer inform you if a given volume is unusable.
well, we differ on terminology again, because i wouldn't call that "lazy", as it's more like a business decision, but i'd think a quick screening for those types of problems would be cost-effective, as opposed to making good on any complaints that your customers would have later on. shipping is gonna be one of your biggest expenses, and shipping a book twice, to make-good, will be expensive... (not to mention a costly infrastructure to field complaints.)
If you get a lot of complaints about a specific volume, you can then go and figure out what exactly is wrong maybe find a fill-in source or what have you.
the "fill-in" source is likely right there in the umichigan stacks.
But why take on that work up front?
again, google and michigan have each separately worked on correcting these problems, so i'd think very few remain. and a quick check by h.p. can eliminate any glitches that do. i'd guess most of google scanning nowadays is clean-up work.
People will pay the same whether you invest up front or not.
but people will only pay once for a book. so if h.p. has to print and ship _two_ books to make that customer happy, they've lost money on that sale. that's why they'd "invest", up-front, to ensure they won't have to face that prospect. at least that's _my_ take on your particular point here... i guess real life will show us whether you're right or i am. -bowerbird
Rather than worry about HP's "bookprep", consider that Amazon has just announced "Kindle for the PC" and "Kindle International Version" http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1345297&highlight= http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1339430&highlight=
If anyone want to "check out the competition" Amazon has just released "Kindle for the PC" Free download at: www.amazon.com/KindleForPC I installed it in about a minute, given that I already have an Amazon account I was "up and running" in less than a minute. Unlike the "hardware" versions of Kindle, there seems to be no way to import files other than directly from Amazon. Other than that, it seems like a very decent reader, but no better or perhaps worse than what they were already offering via Mobipocket. Except the new version is integrated with the Amazon online store, and the Mobipocket version isn't. Downloads are extremely fast. Also B&N has a competing hardware reader called "Nook" showing up in their stores end of this month. It includes Wi-Fi which the Kindles do not, and of course ties you to the other big book vendor. I tried reading from my PC using KindleForPC, but somehow, personally, I have no interest in seriously reading from anything that doesn't have more-or-less a book-like look and feel, such as a Kindle, or Sony Reader, or Nook for example.
Here's a list of "best-sellers<http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text>". (It turns out that Amazon appears to use the same list for Kindle and Amazon itself, but the point is the same.) They're almost exclusively free books, and largely our bread and butter. If I download, say, "Oliver Twist" (#38.) The prologue states: "This etext was created by Peggy Gaugy. Edition 11 editing by Leigh Little." I bet somebody here can tell me what that means.
It means that Kindle and Amazon are obtaining at least some of their books from PG. This particular Oliver Twist is PG #730 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/730), originally prepared by Peggy Gaugy and Leigh Little in November, 1996. It was checked over and generally cleaned up, and an HTML version produced, October 10, 2008 (by me, as it happens).
From the prologue wording quoted below, Kindle/Amazon have the 1996 version, not the 2008 version.
Al ----- Original Message ----- From: don kretz To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:54 PM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Real Competition to PG Here's a list of "best-sellers". (It turns out that Amazon appears to use the same list for Kindle and Amazon itself, but the point is the same.) They're almost exclusively free books, and largely our bread and butter. If I download, say, "Oliver Twist" (#38.) The prologue states: "This etext was created by Peggy Gaugy. Edition 11 editing by Leigh Little." I bet somebody here can tell me what that means. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, don kretz wrote:
Here's a list of "best-sellers". (It turns out that Amazon appears to use the same list for Kindle and Amazon itself, but the point is the same.)
They're almost exclusively free books, and largely our bread and butter.
If I download, say, "Oliver Twist" (#38.)
The prologue states:
"This etext was created by Peggy Gaugy. Edition 11 editing by Leigh Little."
I bet somebody here can tell me what that means.
Peggy Gaugy is the name of one of our volunteers, for whom we did some copyright research. mh
The perhaps naive conclusion I draw is that PG probably provides by a large margin more downloaded Kindle books than anyone else. Possibly over 50%. Also, that Amazon has a shot at being PG's largest distributor.
Well, I have found that PG texts are often used in most of the large free ebook collections you can find all over the internet. --Andrew On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, don kretz wrote:
The perhaps naive conclusion I draw is that PG probably provides by a large margin more downloaded Kindle books than anyone else. Possibly over 50%.
Also, that Amazon has a shot at being PG's largest distributor.
I might argue that using the work "competition" is not accurate. Here is an excerpt from: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Mission_Statement_...
The mission of Project Gutenberg is simple:
To encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks.
This mission is, as much as possible, to encourage all those who are interested in making eBooks and helping to give them away.
And I recall reading further elaboration before, on the idea that PG should help to encourage anyone, anywhere to give away more texts. So if Amazon has become just one more of the many redistributors of PG texts, I do not think I would call it competition. --Andrew On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote:
If anyone want to "check out the competition" Amazon has just released "Kindle for the PC"
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Sly <sly@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
I might argue that using the work "competition" is not accurate.
Here is an excerpt from: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Project_Gutenberg_Mission_Statement_...
The mission of Project Gutenberg is simple:
To encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks.
This mission is, as much as possible, to encourage all those who are interested in making eBooks and helping to give them away.
And I recall reading further elaboration before, on the idea that PG should help to encourage anyone, anywhere to give away more texts. So if Amazon has become just one more of the many redistributors of PG texts, I do not think I would call it competition.
"Success" is the word that comes to mind. This is not very different from e-texts being used to reprint works that would otherwise not be economically viable to put back on the shelves. -- John Vandenberg
Well, I am a "customer" for both PG and for Amazon. I used the word "competitor" for Amazon, in the same sense that one might use the word "competitor" when describing Microsoft from the perspective of the Free Software community. Amazon, B&N, Google, etc, all do some things that "we" PG might like, and some things that "we" PG don't like. For that matter I do some things that "PG" likes and which "PG" doesn't like. Amazon distributes free books, many of which derive from PG. Some of which include the PG legalize, some of which don't. Some "PG" books are distributed NOT for free on Amazon. Whether PG ever sees their cut of the action on these books or not I do not know -- but I have my own pet theories on that matter! Amazon also distributes electronic books for fee which besides copyright protection also contain what I think PG would consider onerous DRM restrictions which make that text of little use "forever" to the free books community. Amazon builds readers, namely Kindle, which prohibit the "normal" "fair use" policies of having public libraries lending those electronic books for an exclusive and limited period of time. Further, Amazon restricts forever the sale of those books to a different owner for use on a different Kindle reader. Amazon also distributes books in their own proprietary file format, AWZ, which includes the DRM. The new B&N reader appears that it will be somewhat less onerous in many of these areas. Etc. But B&N sticks a lot of silly copyrights on things where many of us think there ought not to be a copyright claim. Is Google a "friend" or an "enemy?" Well, the also distribute free books. But they slap IMHO silly legalese-like messages on those "free books" that has the practical effect of claiming that Google is the owner of those books, whereas some of us believe that Google ISN'T in fact the owner of those books -- rather the public is the owner of those books by nature of having paid for them over and over again during the duration of their legal copyright -- which is now expired. So personally I consider all these businesses to be frenemies -- and I take what positive I can from them, while trying to stay away from those parts of their actions I consider most onerous! But, I am a pragmatist, and an omnivore when it comes to my reading habits. I am happy to pay for books still in copyright, but I would rather not continue to pay for books that are no longer under copyright [that have risen to the public domain] and I am personally happy to steer clear completely of those works that the millennium copyright bill put back into copyright that ought to have damned well have risen to the public domain by now!
Below find an updated discussion of Google behavior relating to the issue of "Free Books" that many find troubling: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534670350244040.ht ml
This may be only available to subscribers. . .I got strange results. mh On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote:
Below find an updated discussion of Google behavior relating to the issue of "Free Books" that many find troubling:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534670350244040.ht ml
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Yes. I've seen that referred to as "Rupert Murdoch's Wall". There's some irony in the way it illustrates another aspect of the same point. On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com> wrote:
This may be only available to subscribers. . .I got strange results.
mh
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote:
Below find an updated discussion of Google behavior relating to the issue of "Free Books" that many find troubling:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534670350244040.ht
ml
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Sorry [re the Murdoch Iron Curtain], try Googling on: Google, Authors, Publishers Offer Revised Book Pact And pick the first hit that Google returns to "Wall Street Journal" and I think Murdock will give you "free" access to the full article.
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
People will pay the same whether you invest up front or not.
but people will only pay once for a book. so if h.p. has to print and ship _two_ books to make that customer happy, they've lost money on that sale. that's why they'd "invest", up-front, to ensure they won't have to face that prospect.
I think we differ in our assumptions about the economics. My thinking is that having a huge back-catalogue of titles is mostly a marketing gimmick. I anticipate that perhaps 1% of the available titles would ever get ordered by anyone. That means that 99% would not have to have any investment put into them at all in order to fill a slot in the back-catalogue. In my vision, time spent on doing *anything* non-mechanical to a book is, on average, 99% wasted. Better to let the market help identify the 1% of valuable titles and concentrate your scarce fixup attentions on those. Assuming that even without manual review 99% of your titles are actually fine as far as scan quality and completeness goes, you are actually quite likely to get away with a 1 part in 10,000 return rate. And customers might not actually *read* the whole book either. If 50% wind up on shelves unread, or have problems that are annoying, but that don't result in returns, the return rate drops to 1 in 20,000. And if, in the end, they have to ship two copies to a customer, they only have to do *that* once. After a return they can go and fix up that exact book, and never have to double-ship that one again. ============================================================ Gardner Buchanan <gbuchana@teksavvy.com> Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.
I anticipate that perhaps 1% of the available titles would ever get ordered by anyone.
I think we can see that this *isn't* true from the PG catalog. Perhaps 90% of the downloads *are* concentrated in a small amount of well known books from well known authors, but the other 10% represents a "fat tail" distribution where lots of people want to read lots of different weird stuff. I do agree that I think too much time gets spent on books that don't get read much -- but that is part and parcel of the self-selection process.
I anticipate that perhaps 1% of the available titles would ever get ordered by anyone.
I think we can see that this *isn't* true from the PG catalog. Perhaps 90% of the downloads *are* concentrated in a small amount of well known books from well known authors, but the other 10% represents a "fat tail" distribution where lots of people want to read lots of different weird stuff. I do agree that I think too much time gets spent on books that don't get read much -- but that is part and parcel of the self-selection process. -- Paul Maas
Could it be that a lot of PG's books are rarely read, and the traffic seen for these books is due to people downloading the whole collection simply to have it? On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:43:42 -0700, "Jim Adcock" <jimad@msn.com> said: paulmaas@airpost.net -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow
Actually, the number of people who download each and every PG book is fairly contant and not very large. mh On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Paul Maas wrote:
Could it be that a lot of PG's books are rarely read, and the traffic seen for these books is due to people downloading the whole collection simply to have it?
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:43:42 -0700, "Jim Adcock" <jimad@msn.com> said:
I anticipate that perhaps 1% of the available titles would ever get ordered by anyone.
I think we can see that this *isn't* true from the PG catalog. Perhaps 90% of the downloads *are* concentrated in a small amount of well known books from well known authors, but the other 10% represents a "fat tail" distribution where lots of people want to read lots of different weird stuff. I do agree that I think too much time gets spent on books that don't get read much -- but that is part and parcel of the self-selection process.
participants (10)
-
Al Haines (shaw) -
Andrew Sly -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
don kretz -
Gardner Buchanan -
James Adcock -
Jim Adcock
-
John Vandenberg -
Michael S. Hart -
Paul Maas