Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
Amazon's Proposed Per-Page Payout for eBooks
date
newest »
newest »
Whatever Amazon's motives, I write non-fiction and I am interested to know how far into my book readers are going before they decide it is not for them.
@Margaret,This would be great information to have and very valuable for our writing. However, Amazon isn't providing this data. Our sales reports will only include the total number of pages read. For example, if 10,000 pages are read, we won't know if the 10,000 pages came from 10 people reading the entire book to completion or if 100 people read 10 pages. Hopefully, in the future, they will provide us with it.
Ive got two sales and no borrow for this month.So far borrows only form less than 40 percent.So I might pull out in the future.
I agree w/ Margaret. Verification is impossible. Another commentator said someone could download a book & not read it for a year which leads me to believe that KUKOLL downloads don't always translate into earnings. Since the introduction of the new program my KUKOLL downloads have increasd by a factor of 10. More money? We'll see, obviously fingers crossed. Change a 300-page book into 2 150-page books? Tempting.J.M. Garlock
"The Centurion Chronicles"
Because my books are targeted to college students struggling to pass their medical science courses, my sales and borrows tend to coincide with the school calendar. My online followers come from around the world so I like to have something useful for everyone that can be borrowed. Yet, without some sort of page-read count I have no idea whether my books are being read at all. Feedback with accepted flaws is better in my case than no feedback at all.
I'm interested in the Big Brother comments. The old KU system was just as intrusive. The main question is: how does Amazon know what portion of a book you've read?This invasion of privacy reminds me of another phenomenon: I query something, about cars, say, and I start having ads on FB or any other social media site showing cars. It's a bit daunting.
I also find it entertaining that people don't complain about this much, but they're all over NSA for monitoring calls, said monitoring to stop terrorist attacks. It's all the same to me, but corporations can get away with it, I guess--The Guardian doesn't care about that.
It's a strange internet world we live in, to say the least.
r/Steve
PS. Those who think they've figured out where I stand on these issues can tell me...because I haven't! :-)
Steven wrote: "I'm interested in the Big Brother comments. The old KU system was just as intrusive. The main question is: how does Amazon know what portion of a book you've read?This invasion of privacy remind..."
Steven,
The days of privacy and secure information are gone forever. We may not like it, but we have no choice but to accept it. The days before the internet and high-tech surveillance are now just a pleasant memory.
Steven wrote: "I also find it entertaining that people don't complain about this much, but they're all over NSA for monitoring calls, said monitoring to stop terrorist attacks. It's all the same to me, but corporations can get away with it, I guess--The Guardian doesn't care about that.
It's a strange internet world we live in, to say the least...."
The difference between the two is that the government has the most guns, and the legal authority to use them--against us.
It's a strange internet world we live in, to say the least...."
The difference between the two is that the government has the most guns, and the legal authority to use them--against us.
@ Ken,There are weapons more dangerous than guns (ID theft, sex-tortion, child porno and snuff videos, etc), but if you think they're dangerous, should the public have such easy access to them? Just this morning in the news (NYC) there was a family feud going on between women in the family, this jerk hears about it, comes out of the bedroom, and settles the feud with his gun. Find a person in a rage (in this case, for being awakened by the feud?), put a gun in her/his hand, and s/he'll use it.
@ Ken and Jim,
Having said the above, why is this a black-and-white issue? I think it's maybe fifty shades of gray at least and boils down to: How much do we allow anyone, government, advertisers, or miscreants, to invade our private lives? Maybe how much depends on the purpose (the government protecting us from terrorism compared to corporations trying to sell us more stuff we don't want)? There has to be Goldilocks solution somehow--maybe many, depending on circumstances. Complex social problems never have simple solutions (Steve Moore's meta-theorem-about-life #1).
@ Jim, it doesn't have to be that way, no matter who wants to do the spying. Good people can step in and say, "Let's change the rules." We already do it with bullying and porn, for example, although perhaps not enough.
r/Steve
PS. Don't expect me to solve this one. Debating it in general might lead to consensus. It's clear that certain sectors (DHS and other government agencies, Madison Avenue, etc) will lobby against any reasonable solution that curtails their invasion of our privacy.
Steven wrote: "@ Ken,
There are weapons more dangerous than guns (ID theft, sex-tortion, child porno and snuff videos, etc), but if you think they're dangerous, should the public have such easy access to them? J..."
I think we'll have to disagree on that one. To me there is nothing more dangerous than a big, oppressive government willing to use its guns for ever increasing reasons. Have you ever had the government confiscate you from your home and your life, without provcation, and then abuse you and set you up to be killed? The follow-through on that happened to 58,000 young men during the Viet Nam era. It happened in even greater numbers during WWII, and again during the Korean "conflict." The government can raise a slave army (ours has shown that it is willing to do it) and can use it to enslave you. What can a corporation do in violation of the law without a corrupt government sanctioning it? Charge too much for coffee?
But we probably shouldn't talk politics here. It arouses too much passion, too much anger, and goes nowhere.
There are weapons more dangerous than guns (ID theft, sex-tortion, child porno and snuff videos, etc), but if you think they're dangerous, should the public have such easy access to them? J..."
I think we'll have to disagree on that one. To me there is nothing more dangerous than a big, oppressive government willing to use its guns for ever increasing reasons. Have you ever had the government confiscate you from your home and your life, without provcation, and then abuse you and set you up to be killed? The follow-through on that happened to 58,000 young men during the Viet Nam era. It happened in even greater numbers during WWII, and again during the Korean "conflict." The government can raise a slave army (ours has shown that it is willing to do it) and can use it to enslave you. What can a corporation do in violation of the law without a corrupt government sanctioning it? Charge too much for coffee?
But we probably shouldn't talk politics here. It arouses too much passion, too much anger, and goes nowhere.
@ Ken,I'm currently reviewing a non-fiction book about the Cambodian genocide, have had plenty of Armenian and Jewish friends tell me about what happened to them, and have read extensively about what happened in the original Yugoslavia and in Iraq and Syria. My brother spent time in Viet Nam and heard a lot of horror stories. I once tutored a man in Spanish who was legally blind from a mortar shell in Viet Nam and needed to meet the language req in order to get his degree in psychology to help his fellow vets (that was before they called it PTSD). Many uncles fought in WWII, also before they called it PTSD, and some had horror stories about what Japan did in SE Asia.
We're probably more in agreement than you think. I just misunderstood your comment. I apologize. I still think we have a long way to go before we reach those extremes. Good people and the media will step in and raise hell before it happens.
Your last sentence is key. I migrated from FB to spend more time here for exactly the reasons you mention--at FB everyone seemed to be on a soapbox if they weren't showing cutesy pics of family and friends. Moreover, here at GR, everyone seems interested in reading.
Take care.
r/Steve
Steven wrote: "I still think we have a long way to go before we reach those extremes. Good people and the media will step in and raise hell before it happens...."
To clarify my position, I don't have a problem with the NSA monitoring who calls who; they still need a warrant to get into actual conversations. And, to add just one more area of disagreement, I disagree with the above. The media will be (is) in bed with the government, and the people will (already) accept more and more oppression if it's applied gradually—like the old frog in the frying pan—and "justified" emotionally. Note how readily the public accepts demagoguery as "truth."
To clarify my position, I don't have a problem with the NSA monitoring who calls who; they still need a warrant to get into actual conversations. And, to add just one more area of disagreement, I disagree with the above. The media will be (is) in bed with the government, and the people will (already) accept more and more oppression if it's applied gradually—like the old frog in the frying pan—and "justified" emotionally. Note how readily the public accepts demagoguery as "truth."
@ Ken,I'd really like to get off this government conspiracy stuff for the reasons I mentioned in my last comment, but let me just say that nothing is binary--you can read all sorts of media in this country, from The Guardian to Rupert Murdoch's conglomerate. I'm saying that range is what keeps us safe along with good people who are forever vigilant.
Let's return to the KU discussion. Is it good for authors? Is it good for readers? Or, is it only good for Amazon? As an indie writer, I couldn't exist without Amazon, and to a lesser extent, Smashwords. Those three questions for KU are still valid. I'm not sure I know the answers. I just know I'd much rather have my full royalties, and I can justify that for readers by arguing the prices of my ebooks are generally less than a fast food meal. I'm inclined to gamble with an ebook at those prices, so I don't understand why readers need to borrow my ebooks. In other words, is Amazon, offering itself up as the ebook library for the nation, only being self-serving? I guess the jury's still out.
r/Steve
Steven wrote: "@ Ken,
I'd really like to get off this government conspiracy stuff for the reasons I mentioned in my last comment, but let me just say that nothing is binary--you can read all sorts of media in thi..."
Again, Steven, I'm not talking about government conspiracies, just the behavior governments tend toward, so I'm not going to follow you into that area. I don't believe that conspiracies can hold together for long, but corruption can last for generations and spread like wildfire.
I'd really like to get off this government conspiracy stuff for the reasons I mentioned in my last comment, but let me just say that nothing is binary--you can read all sorts of media in thi..."
Again, Steven, I'm not talking about government conspiracies, just the behavior governments tend toward, so I'm not going to follow you into that area. I don't believe that conspiracies can hold together for long, but corruption can last for generations and spread like wildfire.
The truth of this is that it only hurts those who participate in KU program, but not really because as swarms of erotic authors leave, it cuts down on my competition.
Very astute observations, Ken.
The proverb "You should't put all your eggs in one basket" is wise indeed. Every legitimate publisher and distributor follows it, which is why readers can find any book they promote available for sale by at least a half-dozen vendors.