# For readers: Would you like Amazon to "flag" indie books?



## S.A. Reid (Oct 3, 2011)

Today I came across an Amazon forum thread about indie books.  The poster said something to the effect that he would like independently published books to be flagged so when shopping, he could know them at a glance and avoid them.

That thread quickly became emotional; many of the "yes, flag them" responses evolved into a discussion of why indie authors are self-indulgent timewasters.  At the same time, many of the "no, never!" responses came from indie authors (like me, I am an indie author) who felt compelled to defend themselves, explain how hard it is to get a trad pub contract these days, etc.

Putting all that emotion aside, as Kindle lovers and avid readers, would anyone here like the indie books flagged for easy avoidance?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

If you mean self-published books, sure. If you mean indie books (small press, boutique press, independent press, and self-published), sure.

I avoid a lot of self-published works* unless I know the author or know of their work. Once I know I'll like an author's work, I don't care how they publish after that point. Until then, I admit I have had so many bad experiences with unknown self-published works that I tend to avoid them - again, unless I know or know of.

However, there are also plenty of people who only buy self-published work. There are plenty of people who only buy small press work. There are plenty of people who will only buy free/99 cent books. There are plenty of people who rarely go below $8.00.

With that said, labeling would be nigh impossible. It would require the honour system and, well, let's face it...that's not going to work.

*I say this as someone who _does_ self-publish. I can totally understand why people avoid self-published stuff.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Nope, couldn't care less. Who actually published a book is pretty much at the bottom of my list of criteria for picking a book to read. I will not willingly limit myself to either just indie or just non-indie, I'm too picky to place any unnecessary limits on what books I'll look at.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

NogDog said:


> I'm *too picky* to place any unnecessary limits on what books I'll look at.


You know, I think my rule of "met, know online, or recommended by someone I've met or know online" has pretty much narrowed down my reading list to a very manageable level


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

Flagging bpos cpuld be seen as a good thing or bad thing. I think it would be good for authors since a lot of people out there are looking for them. Then there is the vast majority that could care less who published it. What I want Amazon to do is an indie I guess as-good-as list. For example, looking at Harry Potter and it gives me some options for other big names. Then an indie list of unknowns but cheaper. Guess I am thinking it would be like the Wal-Mart model where I can buy Pop-Tarts or knock off tarts. Sure it is cheaper but it tastes just as good. Sometimes even better. There are always failures (Walmart buffalo style pizza) but then there are also great gems (Walmart cereal) and even the just as goods (Walmart rice). I may need to go shop after this.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

As a reader, and I do buy hundreds of books a year, I probably prefer indie-published novels, but I don't judge them on that. I judge them on whether I enjoy them or not. As an author, I would hope that readers judge my work on whether they enjoy it, rather than who did or didn't publish it.

I think that "Flagging" indie published novels would be interpreted as labeling them as inferior whether it is fact or whether it is intended that way. As far as what Amazon will do, they'll do what will profit them most and I rather doubt that would.


----------



## S.A. Reid (Oct 3, 2011)

Interesting responses so far...


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

NogDog said:


> Nope, couldn't care less. Who actually published a book is pretty much at the bottom of my list of criteria for picking a book to read. I will not willingly limit myself to either just indie or just non-indie, I'm too picky to place any unnecessary limits on what books I'll look at.


My sentiment exactly. Since I'm huge on covers, that's got to grab me first. After that, if the description and genre (and sometimes reviews/ratings) get me, I'll download a sample. Once the sample grabs me, I really don't care - I'm buying. It's pretty rare that I ever look at the publisher.


----------



## S.A. Reid (Oct 3, 2011)

davidhburton said:


> Once the sample grabs me, I really don't care - I'm buying. It's pretty rare that I ever look at the publisher.


I'll admit that's me, too. I don't think I've ever heard a person I identified as a "pure reader" (not a reader stainless like the driven snow, but simply a reader who is not a writer and does not aspire to be) mention publishers and gatekeepers and save me from the indies. I have heard them complain about prices, boring stories and offensive content. But never "I need to know this was vetted by an agent, an intern, an editor, a senior editor, and a marketing department."

I did see such comments on Writer Beware before I gave up on the site. "There needs to be standards, this isn't right, I hate wading through all that crap." Quite often when you drill down, the person is a mid-list author or associated with the traditional business in some other way. Not always, I am sure. But that was the case with every single one I came across.

But my reason for posting this was to see if any Kindle readers/customers without books in the signature line -- like me -- would chime in with absolutely, please! I learn something new every day.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

I can't accurately judge a book by its publisher. Not even close. Speaking exclusively as a reader, I have to check out a sample before I make my decision. The book can be listed through the world's biggest publisher and still bore me. It simply all depends on the book and whether or not it's my type of fiction--and to know if it is, I have to read some of it. There is no other way.


----------



## HeyDrew (Sep 12, 2011)

As a reader I think it's a silly idea.  Something a bunch of snitty elitists think up, like the kids in high school who divide people into lists.  When I browse a book store I base my judgment on a host of factors, publisher rarely being one of them.  When I go to the iTunes app store, or the music store, I don't factor that in either.  Why would I care when I browse Amazon?  If the assumption is that independent = unvetted, uninteresting, full of errors, etc., well I've found the same thing in bestsellers, some of which look like their ebook conversion was done by someone missing the E key.  Basically, it's lazy, and it forces a categorization whose definition is highly pliable in favor of a large publisher.  It's another wall, and with the publishing business changing not only in favor of the author, but the readers most of all, why would I want to erect another wall (real or perceived) around books?  (that's my unemotional response  )

As a self published author I'm actually indifferent.  I could see it helping, I could see it hurting.  Most of all I could see it as a terribly implemented system by which the definition of "indie" was determined by Amazon, and poorly determined at that.  Where does their definition of "independent" begin and end?  Even in the film industry the definition "indie" has changed considerably since the days of Reservoir Dogs and Sex, Lies, and Videotape.  Years ago I remember taking a meeting with Summit Entertainment and they described themselves as indie.  They did "Twilight" and "The Dark Knight."

I'd rather sort my literature by genre than publishing status.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

S.A. Reid said:


> But my reason for posting this was to see if any Kindle readers/customers without books in the signature line -- like me -- would chime in with absolutely, please! I learn something new every day.


I doubt many would. It's like asking for a fight.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

S.A. Reid said:


> I'll admit that's me, too. I don't think I've ever heard a person I identified as a "pure reader" (not a reader stainless like the driven snow, but simply a reader who is not a writer and does not aspire to be) mention publishers and gatekeepers and save me from the indies. I have heard them complain about prices, boring stories and offensive content. But never "I need to know this was vetted by an agent, an intern, an editor, a senior editor, and a marketing department."


I had to teach family members how to avoid self-published books (generally in romance and thriller genres). They were appalled at the quality and asked me why the books on kobo/smashwords/amazon weren't nearly as good as the books in the store. So, I had to explain to them the entire self-publishing vs traditional world. The conversations ended with "I don't sample when I'm at the bookstore, why should I do it online" and "how do I just get the stuff that's in the bookstore."

But, again, most people aren't going to say this stuff on Kindleboards. Again, it's like asking for a fight.


----------



## Pinworms (Oct 20, 2010)

It would be nice if they did.  For those who don't care if a book is indie or not, then they can ignore the label.  For those of us who do care (like me), I'll make sure to watch out for it so I know to avoid them.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Pinworms said:


> It would be nice if they did. For those who don't care if a book is indie or not, then they can ignore the label. For those of us who do care (like me), I'll make sure to watch out for it so I know to avoid them.


I *love* your signature.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Well let me chine in as a pure as driven snow reader  . I don't write and don't have any aspirations of every doing so. 
I actually do pay attention to publishers. This wasn't an issue at the bookstore as pretty much all books at the store have a publisher, even if its a small one. With ebooks everyone can publish. I mean I can't write and I could put some drivel on my netbook and upload it and charge money. Doesn't mean I would sell any, but its still in the system and it would clog up the listings so to speak. 

I do a lot of vetting before I ever get to a sample as my time is valuable and I only want to read samples that have a high chance of becoming purchases. That is just how I do it. 

I think sometimes authors here forget a large amount of books are put out by people that do not put as much effort into it than most of you guys do here. Many do not care and just want to make a quick buck. Its just a side effect of making it so easy to put stuff up for sale. So a site like Kindleboards, where I can get to know authors as people helps me in the vetting. I am more likely to try a self published author if I see them around here. 

Say what you will, but with traditional published works, and I include small presses here, there is just a higher chance I will find something that has been vetted, looked over, edited etc. 

I don't know if its practical to have any flags, but I have noticed a huge influx of books coming on the marked in the Amazon store that look iffy, sound iffy and probably are iffy. It does make looking for something to read a little more difficult if browsing through the store. 

They did give some indy's their own section on amazon for those that specifically look for that. I guess that is a small flag? I don't know. I don't have any answers. 

But I just wanted to put in a readers voice. I for one do not think of gatekeepers as always a bad thing, not for this reader. I just want to read a good book. For now the majority of books I read are still from trad published and small publishers. Maybe that will change in the future if I can be more sure, I don't know. Someone mentioned romance of being a genre to be careful off with self published and I do have to agree. Its one of the largest selling genres so there is bound to me more stuff being put out there than others. It does make me careful and weary. If I want to try some, I check here first. But I have been burned when I didn't do enough vetting. 

So there are my ramblings.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Pinworms said:


> It would be nice if they did. For those who don't care if a book is indie or not, then they can ignore the label. For those of us who do care (like me), I'll make sure to watch out for it so I know to avoid them.


One possible problem, however, is that some big-name authors are publishing as indies. How would Amazon distinguish between who deserves the indie label and who doesn't? I've been professionally published (in short fiction), so if I took a professionally published story and published it (as my own publisher) should it still be marked as indie even though it received a professional edit? It's a large gray area, and I don't see how it could be clearly sorted out. Otherwise, users like you could simply set your preferences so indie books would be marked--but then you might skip over books you are actually looking for.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Robert E. Keller said:


> One possible problem, however, is that some big-name authors are publishing as indies. How would Amazon distinguish between who deserves the indie label and who doesn't? I've been professionally published (in short fiction), so if I took a professionally published story and published it (as my own publisher) should it still be marked as indie even though it received a professional edit? It's a large gray area, and I don't see how it could be clearly sorted out. Otherwise, users like you could simply set your preferences so indie books would be marked--but then you might skip over books you are actually looking for.


You make a good point! Let's say, for arguments sake, that we want to label everything self published. What do they do for previously traditionally published authors uploading their backlist to Kindle? Technically, they are now "self-publishing."

I'm not personally a fan of labeling and segregating indie from traditional. Not all self/indie-published books are created equally. I realize there is a flood of other self-published books available in varying degrees of quality. The only thing I can do is make my book the best it can be and hope it stands up in the crowd. To label and put a big huge sign over head saying "this is a self published work" will just make things that much harder because people buy into the stigma.

As a reader, I don't really need to be told whether or not a book is a big 6 or indie published work. I browse around, read reviews, download a sample, and base my decision from there whether or not I like it.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

I'd say for myself, a flag wouldn't mean much except make it easy for me to keep track of how indie books are doing. Looking at other sites that aren't as indie friendly, I would say that there are enough readers who would be interested. Unfortunately self pub has a stigma with some people and I think this will be broken as time goes on. Recognition with NY Times Best Sellers List would really make some headway on this. In general I think amazon is going to do what they have to in order to keep their readers happy.


----------



## N S Cooke (Sep 27, 2011)

I guess the question we need to ask ourselves is: Would you throw a skip of rubble out if you knew there was a huge gem in there? Same principle applies here. And I'd always recommend a reader downloads the free sample first, see if the book grabs them before buying. I don't think any Indie author wants anyone to read there book and not enjoy it.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

To me, there's a big difference between "indie" and "self published". I wouldn't mind flagging self published books but that doesn't mean I would avoid them like the plague. I do give self published books a chance if they are well reviewed. That said, I can't see Amazon ever doing this. It's not their responsibility to categorize books - I think it's the publisher/author who chooses the genre categorizes.



Katie Salidas said:


> You make a good point! Let's say, for arguments sake, that we want to label everything self published. What do they do for previously traditionally published authors uploading their backlist to Kindle? Technically, they are now "self-publishing."


That's a good point, one of my favorite series falls under this category. I don't consider them self published since they were originally backed by a major publisher - the system could avoid them by looking at the publisher field of the original paper version rather than the ebook - unless, of course, there is no paper version in which case it would revert to the ebook version (which is likely self published if there's no paper version).

Even so, I'm not sure how realistic it is. I've seen self published books which do have a company name in the "publisher" field so it doesn't look self published... but if you search the publisher's name, you find out it's just a name or website owned by the author who only uses it for their own work (it's not like they own an actual indie publishing company which puts out work from other authors too). To me, that's still self published, they're just trying to make it look like it's not. These might slip through the cracks.

Marking all indie books would probably be easier because it should be pretty easy to simply exclude "the big 6" including imprints (of which there are many but there are lists to be found on wikipedia).


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

I think the bigger question here is who's actually going to do all this 'flagging'?  Amazon?  Publishers?  Do you distinguish between small press and individuals?  How big does a small press have to be before it's considered non-indie?  I can understand people only wanting traditionally published books and I don't have a problem with it at all, but the logistics of this would make it a hassle to implement, I could so easily see it ending up as a half-measure that just served to confuse and irritate people--then there's the issue of what the 'flagging' would actually do, just act as a filter in searches?  Or would each reader have to check boxes, "Display traditionally published books", "Display independently published books" and so on.

But if (and it's a big 'if') the system worked I don't think it'd be a bad idea.  After all, there are people out there who only want tradpubbed books, just as there are people out there who are specifically looking for indie books.  Making it easier for everyone to find what they want could only be a good thing.  With that in mind, I think I'd like Amazon to fix their category/genre system before anything else, right now it's pretty atrocious


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Ben White said:


> Do you distinguish between small press and individuals? How big does a small press have to be before it's considered non-indie?


I think traditionally, any publisher that's not one of the "big 6" (Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin, MacMillan, Random House, Simon & Schuster) or an imprint of the big 6 is "indie". Sourcebooks has grown pretty big but they are still considered indie as far as I know.

Which is why I suggested it may actually be pretty easy to automate some kind of indicator on anything which doesn't have a "big 6/imprint" publisher. Not that I expect this to happen or really want it, just thinking logistically.



> With that in mind, I think I'd like Amazon to fix their category/genre system before anything else, right now it's pretty atrocious


Like I said before, I think the genres are selected by the publisher, not Amazon. Which is why I can't see them making the effort to flag indies/self pubbed. Publishers/authors certainly wouldn't want to do it and may even object if Amazon did implement something like it.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I have to say that as a reader, I just want to find a good read. I don't care about the publisher. And if I was only interested in books from the big six, then that's easy enough to see when you look at the book's details.

I see no value (and many downsides) to Amazon trying to categorize books. I mean, what are they going to do? Some insane scheme like:
Big Six Publishers (now stumbling around and with the number of collapses lately, will soon be fewer)
Sort of big & still based in NY Publishers
Small Publishers, but still based in NY (with a few in other states)
Tiny Publishers that rent office space in the USA
Very Tiny Publishers that have more than 2 permanent staff members
Excrutiatingly Tiny Publishers - 1 permanent staff member who works part time for a Big Publisher
Self-Published/Indie

LOL
I just don't see the value at all in this.
People who only want to read a specific publisher's line, e.g. Berkley Prime Crime, probably know how to get the newsletters from that publisher and develop their "want to buy" list from that.

I really don't want to see any more categorization than there already is. And I've bought enough books from the "Big Six" that had HUGE numbers of mistakes/poor editing/etc to know that this isn't limited to just smaller publishers or indies. I don't care if a book is indie or Big Six. If it's good, it's good.

So no. Please.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

I've been a mid-list author for a decade, and now publish my own catalogue on Kindle and Nook. I can see both sides of this clearly. Wouldn't mind more QC on Amazon's side for the basic protections of editing, proofing and properly presenting decent material. I come down on the other side when it comes to a set category for independent publishing, there is no need for that. The trend will burn out when people stop filling up their Kindles with "bargain" material they later have to delete unread. Serious authors will continue to improve and hone their craft and eventually get noticed. Everyone is in too much of a hurry, just IMHO. Of course, I was too. We all are.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

I think it is very important to identify indie published books. We should put a band over the cover with a star on it to signify indies. They are clearly an inferior book so maybe we should think about rounding them up and putting them away somewhere or perhaps burning them.

Quite honestly I don't get this indie hate. One of my favourite authors started out as an indie. One of my least favourite authors was lauded with publishing dollars from the heavens. Good books are subjective, always have been.

What would be really cool is if all the Twilight books came with a special discount on lobotomies, and every Simon&Schuster book sold has a small donation to make sure that they never publish another Glenn Beck book.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Harry Shannon said:


> The trend will burn out when people stop filling up their Kindles with "bargain" material they later have to delete unread. Serious authors will continue to improve and hone their craft and eventually get noticed. Everyone is in too much of a hurry, just IMHO.


I so agree with this, Harry. I don't even borrow a library book without reading the jacket flap and the first few pages, simply because I don't want to lug it home and back if there's a chance I'm not going to read it.

I'm one of those who likes the hunt - whether that's searching for the perfect $5 blouse on the clearance rack at Kohl's or sifting through several samples to find a new author who can tell an engaging story. I think as more talented authors, whether new or previously traditionally published, go the way of direct digital publishing - and put in the time and effort to put out a good product - attitudes overall are going to shift, but it will take time. It's not uncommon for recording artists to have an independent label, yet when it comes to music, all people really care about is whether or not they like it, not who the record label company is.

I can certainly respect other readers' wishes to be able to identify self-published books. Is it necessary, though? Hmm, not so sure about that.


----------



## ciscokid (Oct 10, 2010)

I never look at the publisher.  If the book cover and/or title grabs me, I check to see how many stars it has been rated by readers....and how many people have written reviews.  A really good, new book, with few reviews may only have a low rating because one person didn't like the genre, the book cover....I've seen a lot of dumb reasons people have given for rating a book low.  I read the reviews and then, if the book sounds like something I would enjoy, I either....buy it if its free or .99.... or download a sample.  

On the other hand, I would like to support indie authors, so I would like to know if the author is indie or not. I've read several really good books lately by indie authors...and some of the books were freebies, which I love.  What a great way to attract new readers.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

tim290280 said:


> Quite honestly I don't get this indie hate. One of my favourite authors started out as an indie. One of my least favourite authors was lauded with publishing dollars from the heavens. Good books are subjective, always have been.


I'm not seeing any "indie hate" in this thread. . .so far it's a very reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of labeling. Let's keep it that way, eh? 

My opinion on labels in general: those who want them want them for either altruistic reasons or segregatory reasons. Maybe they want to be able to promote a specific thing -- the way to do that is to label it and talk about all the great things that apply. OR, maybe they want to denigrate a specific thing -- the way to do that is to label it and talk about all the bad stuff. Neither works for me.

In 7th grade we had a whole week or two of social studies on propaganda and how people try to make you agree with them on things. We were taught how to read between the lines and see what the message was while ignoring the hype. I've been an independent thinker ever since. I can nearly always see both sides of any argument.

Someone earlier suggested "most people don't care, but some do, so why not do it for those that do." But I think one has to go further and figure out why some do. Do they want to find indie books to buy them? Or do they want to find indie books to ignore them? My gut feeling -- no empirical data -- is that it's probably about half and half.

Denizens of these boards are probably much more likely than average to try indie authors -- well, we get to know them in conversation and if we like them we might want to try their books. But I don't know that is the feeling with the book buying public in general.

Of my kindle-owning-but-not-kindleboards-members friends, they haven't got a *clue* about indies or small press or trade pubs or Big 6 or what. . . .they browse and see a book they might like and buy it. Or they go looking for specific genres or authors. Some are sensitive to price: both willing to try a cheaper book as they're on a budget, but leery if they've done that before and gotten burned with a book that was not up to par for some reason. But, I've never heard any of them mention the publisher or the fact that it's indie as a reason they did or didn't purchase something.

Anyway, for me, I don't _really_ care. I don't think it's a particularly good idea. But it's certainly not something I'm going to get worked up about one way or the other.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm against creating a indie ghetto.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

There are great traditionally published books and terrible ones. There are great indie books and terrible ones. If something catches my eye, whatever it is, I read a sample and determine from there. If someone buys a book without sampling it first, it's their own fault. Even in a traditional bookstore setting, I'd think most people would read the description and thumb through a few pages first.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm against most labels unless they tell me the ingredients list of the product I'm buying.


Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm against most labels unless they tell me the ingredients list of the product I'm buying.
> 
> 
> Betsy


Well, there is that.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I'm not seeing any "indie hate" in this thread. . .so far it's a very reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of labeling. Let's keep it that way, eh?


I was referring to the original idea and the implied inferiority of indie works. The TS said as much in citing the Amazon discussion forum.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm against most labels unless they tell me the ingredients list of the product I'm buying.


I'm against these, too, because I had to give up all my favourite foods once I knew what was in them.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm against most labels unless they tell me the ingredients list of the product I'm buying.
> 
> 
> Betsy


Ditto that!

As long as there is no High Fructose Corn Syrup in your book , I'm willing to give it the same shot as any other.


----------



## sal79parody (Apr 7, 2011)

I'd rather keep it as is. I've always been one to sample books and read jacket copy before I buy them, so separating indies from traditionally published authors won't do anything to help me. It might, however, make me miss out on a recommended (also bought list) indie author whom I wouldn't have found otherwise.


----------



## ArtMayo (Sep 13, 2011)

No. This would be ridiculous and a major black mark against Amazon in my view. Let readers decide. Why should a professionally written, edited, formatted and proofread book, with a professional cover, be treated any different depending on whether a publisher is or isn't taking 50% of the profits?


----------



## S.A. Reid (Oct 3, 2011)

Many thoughtful and interesting replies.  I read them all and appreciate everyone who took the time to answer.  This topic is being debated in lots of places right now, but I think this thread has the best responses.


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

There is also another huge gray area that is growing ever larger--agents as publishers. Many agents have already jumped into the game of publishing clients' work that doesn't get a trad deal. That will happen more and more as advances shrink and publishers choose not to take on any project deemed risky (i.e. original). Technically--despite pro covers and editing--those books would fall under the self-published category. 

I agree that there are books that could make a reader cringe and wonder why the author self-published, but I also think they don't quite understand what has been happening in the industry the last ten years to make authors like the ones here go that route. I had an agent and a publisher and I can honestly say, odd as it sounds, my covers, editing and formatting are better than what was originally published via my small press. 

I think too, readers will be pretty surprised at the limited choices from traditional houses over the next several years. It's definitely a shrinking marketplace. 

Wanted to add that this made me curious: "I had to teach family members how to avoid self-published books (generally in romance and thriller genres). They were appalled at the quality and asked me why the books on kobo/smashwords/amazon weren't nearly as good as the books in the store. So, I had to explain to them the entire self-publishing vs traditional world. The conversations ended with "I don't sample when I'm at the bookstore, why should I do it online" and "how do I just get the stuff that's in the bookstore."

I have never bought or checked out a book without reading the first page. Not even at Target or Walmart!

Good discussion. I saw that thread on Amazon, but I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It gets nasty over there sometimes.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

I can think of no good reason to flag indie books. I much prefer the present situation.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I can see a small benefit. I read lots of indie/self pubbed books, but it is true that this category is an unfiltered slushpile. I consider a traditionally published book to have had at least one filter through the slush pile. It may still not be for me and may still suck.....but I know I don't have to look quite as carefully for quality markers. 

Like I said I read and enjoy many indie books, but I have to be a little more selective and careful. Right now I do that on price...if its 2.99 or less I assume its indie and do my normal "decision algorithm" which is a little more intensive than my traditionally published "decision algorithm"

Does that make sense? It's not bigotry or hate, but its just a very large slush pile that has not been pre-filtered.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Nope. I don't make a distinction between authors on my Kindle.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I'm against creating a indie ghetto.


This.

While I dislike extreme comparisons since they're not talking execution, you don't make someone wear a star or use a separate water fountain because you wish them well. You really just don't. And this is of some importance, because we're talking about making a living here.

So... I am realistic that Amazon will do what they consider best for their bottom line, but I dislike the idea pretty strongly.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I can see a small benefit. I read lots of indie/self pubbed books, but it is true that this category is an unfiltered slushpile. I consider a traditionally published book to have had at least one filter through the slush pile. It may still not be for me and may still suck.....but I know I don't have to look quite as carefully for quality markers.
> 
> Like I said I read and enjoy many indie books, but I have to be a little more selective and careful. Right now I do that on price...if its 2.99 or less I assume its indie and do my normal "decision algorithm" which is a little more intensive than my traditionally published "decision algorithm"
> 
> Does that make sense? It's not bigotry or hate, but its just a very large slush pile that has not been pre-filtered.


I've said this several times. I completely understand.

That doesn't mean I didn't pick up JR Tomlin's historical novel when it came out. Lord knows the two of us fought enough online about Scottish history to qualify as me "knowing" her  It just means I'm less likely to trust a self-published book. There are also giant publishers whose work I never buy because I never like what they put out. likewise, there are presses who I try to buy as much of what they put out as possible because I always love what they do.


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

Why put the onus on Amazon to flag any book as indie for avoidance? If anyone wants to avoid reading a particular book because it may be indie, he or she could:

-Google the author to find out if he / she is an indie
-For those that list a publisher on the book, Google that name

As for the crap:
-Read reviews; if others say it's crap, could be crap
-Download a sample of the book; if the sample hints it's crap, could be...
-Ask someone, "Have you heard of / read...?

The idea of avoiding indie books doesn't bug me - if you feel the need to paint all indie books as crap best avoided, your choice. As for me, I don't download free books just because they're free nor do I check publisher names or assume that if book 1 by same author was really good, book 15 will be as well. I do keep an open mind, SAMPLE and read reviews, which has led to great finds, both indie and trad.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

lyarde11751 said:


> Why put the onus on Amazon to flag any book as indie for avoidance? If anyone wants to avoid reading a particular book because it may be indie, he or she could:
> 
> -Google the author to find out if he / she is an indie
> -For those that list a publisher on the book, Google that name
> ...


Honestly...I don't want to do three hours of internet research, interviews and dissection of Amazon reviews to see which ones are real and which are family/friends/sock puppets etc. for every book.

When I see your option vs the flag option I'm more inclined to go with the flag option. It won't work well either but I will always lean towards less work for me and more time to actually read.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Honestly...I don't want to do three hours of internet research, interviews and dissection of Amazon reviews to see which ones are real and which are family/friends/sock puppets etc. for every book.
> 
> When I see your option vs the flag option I'm more inclined to go with the flag option. It won't work well either but I will always lean towards less work for me and more time to actually read.


Three hours is a bit excessive an exaggeration here. When you walk into a bookstore you have no "star rating" or review sheets. You see a book cover you like, you pick it up and you read the back. If it intrigues you, you open it up and sample it by reading chapter one.

That's the same principle as online shopping, only, beyond sampling, you *can *have a look at what its "star rating is." Filter them by one star reviews if you want. Look at only the 2 or 3 stars. They make them pretty darn easy to browse through. To complain about sampling books and reading reviews that are there seems a little childish. What did you do before you had an ereader? How did you select books in the bookstore?

No one is twisting your arm to read any book. If it looks good, try it out. You'll know within a few pages if the writing is up to your standards and if the subject matter is what you want to read.

The idea of having to further label books as Indie or Traditional is just excessive and unnecessary in my opinion.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As someone already mentioned, there actually already is an indie flag, or a kind of reverse indie flag, already on product pages.  It is the "Published by:"

Scroll down to the product details and see who the book is published by, or if a publisher is listed at all.  I notice that many indie books do not have a publisher, it simply says "Sold by Amazon Digital Services" where other books say "sold by Amazon Digital Services" AND "Published by."

Betsy


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Honestly...I don't want to do three hours of internet research, interviews and dissection of Amazon reviews to see which ones are real and which are family/friends/sock puppets etc. for every book.
> 
> When I see your option vs the flag option I'm more inclined to go with the flag option. It won't work well either but I will always lean towards less work for me and more time to actually read.


Okay, a Google search taking hours? Unless you're someone on a spending spree out to download every book you can get your hands on and you live in dial-up land, I can't see how checking something out before you buy it takes valuable time away from reading. It's your hard-earned money you'll be spending after all.

At the outset of viewing this thread, I thought, "Who cares, it would be just one more classification? So mine would be indie historical instead of just plain historical and that might help more people find them...blah blah blah." I'm all for helping readers find what they want, but not at the expense of segregating certain books from the general population. Especially based on a perception of their value that has nothing to do with individual books themselves, but indies as a whole. Is that enough reason for Amazon to care that we wish to avoid certain books?


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

Sometimes just reading the description on the page is enough to determine if the author is serious about the craft and the care that went into publication to determine if you want to take a chance. Those things are not easy to write and if it looks like it was carefully constructed, then you probably have a good buy.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> Three hours is a bit excessive an exaggeration here. When you walk into a bookstore you have no "star rating" or review sheets. You see a book cover you like, you pick it up and you read the back. If it intrigues you, you open it up and sample it by reading chapter one.


Ah, but you are guaranteed a basic level of quality when a book in the bookstore. You are not so guaranteed when purchasing off Amazon from a self-published author. Sad, but true.

Barbra - That's very true in a lot more cases these days. Last year, the largest problem I was finding that chapters 1-3 were spotless and the book went significantly downhill from there. Mostly because chapter 1-3 are what a lot of agent and publisher submission guidelines ask for and, thus, people worked very hard on their first three chapters...less so on the rest. In some cases, _significantly_ less so on the rest. I found that reading samples wasn't always a guarantee of quality.

So, I went back to not reading stuff unless I knew the author, knew of their work, or read reviews/recommendations of their work from people I trusted.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Ah, but you are guaranteed a basic level of quality when a book in the bookstore. You are not so guaranteed when purchasing off Amazon from a self-published author. Sad, but true.
> 
> Barbra - That's very true in a lot more cases these days. Last year, the largest problem I was finding that chapters 1-3 were spotless and the book went significantly downhill from there. Mostly because chapter 1-3 are what a lot of agent and publisher submission guidelines ask for and, thus, people worked very hard on their first three chapters...less so on the rest. In some cases, _significantly_ less so on the rest. I found that reading samples wasn't always a guarantee of quality.
> 
> So, I went back to not reading stuff unless I knew the author, knew of their work, or read reviews/recommendations of their work from people I trusted.


A basic level of quality--true enough. Certainly, you won't see the books with hideously poor sentence structure and errors on every page. But that's not enough to satisfy me. A basic level of quality doesn't make me feel any better about spending the money. I need a great story and solid characters, and there is really no way to guarantee that without taking a chance on the book. Countless books from well-known publishers are carbon-copy swill with little or no real character development--books that were picked up simply because they might seem to have an element or two that could lead to sales (vampire romance, for example). So flagging indie books, or not flagging indie books, wouldn't help at all in my case.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Ah, but you are guaranteed a basic level of quality when a book in the bookstore. You are not so guaranteed when purchasing off Amazon from a self-published author. Sad, but true.


The only "guarantee" you have in a bookstore is that someone somewhere in a publishing house thought a book would sell. That is not a guarantee of quality and it is definitely not a guarantee that I will enjoy the book.

I have read great indie books, mediocore indie books and awful indie books. I have also read great trad published book, mediocore trad books and AWFUL trad books.

To the original question, I don't look at who publishes a book, I don't care. If the "indie" tag is seen as a bad thing by most people, then I don't think amazon should do it. But if having an indie tag will get independent authors more exposure, then I'm all for it.

But as I've said before, no matter what gets done, some people will love the idea, some will hate it, and some will just ignore it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

scarlet said:


> I have read great indie books, mediocore indie books and awful indie books. I have also read great trad published book, mediocore trad books and AWFUL trad books.


I'm not talking about liking a book. I'm talking about quality. Are you saying that NY books have come out with as bad of quality as some self-published books? If so, please share these titles. I'd like to see them.

Robert - I agree that basic quality isn't a good enough reason to purchase a book. However, I believe it's the first stepping stone to it being something worth purchasing.

As for labeling, I actually don't care. Amazon will do what Amazon thinks its readers want and what will make Amazon the most money in the long run. If changing all covers to be purple elephants will achieve that, I suspect Amazon will be implementing the Purple Elephant Marketing Tool soon...


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> As for labeling, I actually don't care. Amazon will do what Amazon thinks its readers want and what will make Amazon the most money in the long run. If changing all covers to be purple elephants will achieve that, I suspect Amazon will be implementing the Purple Elephant Marketing Tool soon...


Do they have to be purple? I like green better.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Robert E. Keller said:


> Do they have to be purple? I like green better.


If they can make more money off purple, it will be purple. You, my friend, will have to deal with it


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> If they can make more money off purple, it will be purple. You, my friend, will have to deal with it


LOL. Purple beats pink. Pink elephants, and I quit. Okay, I'm getting off track here.


----------



## HarryK (Oct 20, 2011)

I haven't written anything yet (nothing fit for public consumption anyway), but as someone who thinks MAYBE some day I will want to write/publish something...I don't mind if Amazon or whoever adds the ability to filter "indie" books. The way I see it, someone who desperately wants that feature isn't someone that WANTS to buy my (or any other self published author's) book anyway, so it's not like it really matters.

Anybody who is vehemently against the idea of indie books is not going to buy my book no matter how well written it is, so in theory it won't affect sales. There will also be people who are more open minded but for whatever reason might want to add specific filters on any given day or search. Let 'em filter indie stuff out as far as I'm concerned. No need to inconvenience them, and presumably they'll search through indies again later when they're in the mood.


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> As a reader, and I do buy hundreds of books a year, I probably prefer indie-published novels, but I don't judge them on that. I judge them on whether I enjoy them or not. As an author, I would hope that readers judge my work on whether they enjoy it, rather than who did or didn't publish it.
> 
> I think that "Flagging" indie published novels would be interpreted as labeling them as inferior whether it is fact or whether it is intended that way. As far as what Amazon will do, they'll do what will profit them most and I rather doubt that would.


It sounds to me that that other post we're discussing - about creating a flagging system - is coming from someone whose probably come a across some bad Indie books. But this proposed flagging system would surely be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

a) It would definitely paint "Indies" with a broad brush that says "inferior. This is certainly not true. Indies are all over the map with quality, yes. But then again, so are traditionally published books. Amazon offers free samples. Why doesn't everyone take advantage of that? I've never bought an ebook I thought was junk, because I can read plenty of it for free to know if I want it or not.

b) The publishing industry is changing fast due to the situation Amazon has created. Publishers are less and less necessary, and being looked upon by more and more authors as an obstacle rather than an aid. Many established authors are already eschewing traditional publishing as unnecessary. Isn't Pottermore technically Indie? 
That kind of thing is the wave of the future.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

This is what confuses me. On one hand, you have a core group that are RAWR RAWR INDIE *pompoms* Indie is so much better! Traditional publishing is dead! We rule! Read us because we deserve it! Hell, someone in the Writer's Cafe a few weeks ago said she only reads indies because publishers make too much money.

And yet, when it comes to this discussion, it's creating an indie ghetto. Booo booo we want to be like everyone else! Booo treat us fairly! Booo 

So, we're supposed to not notice that books are indies, and yet we're supposed to support books that are indies. We're not supposed to label books as indie yet the entire book bazaar and writer's cafe is filled with "We are indie, support us."


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> This is what confuses me. On one hand, you have a core group that are RAWR RAWR INDIE *pompoms* Indie is so much better! Traditional publishing is dead! We rule! Read us because we deserve it! Hell, someone in the Writer's Cafe a few weeks ago said she only reads indies because publishers make too much money.
> 
> And yet, when it comes to this discussion, it's creating an indie ghetto. Booo booo we want to be like everyone else! Booo treat us fairly! Booo
> 
> So, we're supposed to not notice that books are indies, and yet we're supposed to support books that are indies. We're not supposed to label books as indie yet the entire book bazaar and writer's cafe is filled with "We are indie, support us."


This is one of the most logical posts I have read. There are people who only want to read Indie books, this would make it easier to find. There are people who stay away from Indie books, it would make it easier to avoid.. Then there are the people that just don't care, a (book is a book), it would be easy for them to ignore.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

My only point is that it's really a dead issue because it could not be fairly, or accurately, implemented. "Indie" is way too general of a word these days and becoming more so by the hour. So why am I still talking about it, right?  Okay, I'll stop now.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Nope. Couldn't care less about flags and tags. I have my very own arbitrary filtering system.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I'm not talking about liking a book. I'm talking about quality. Are you saying that NY books have come out with as bad of quality as some self-published books? If so, please share these titles. I'd like to see them.
> 
> Robert - I agree that basic quality isn't a good enough reason to purchase a book. However, I believe it's the first stepping stone to it being something worth purchasing.
> 
> As for labeling, I actually don't care. Amazon will do what Amazon thinks its readers want and what will make Amazon the most money in the long run. If changing all covers to be purple elephants will achieve that, I suspect Amazon will be implementing the Purple Elephant Marketing Tool soon...


define "quality" for me. it's all subjective. i've bought trad published books for my kindle that had just as many typos as some indie books i've bought. and please note, right now, all i care about is e-books, i'm not going to get into the fact that trad books go through a printing process that has more QC than some indies perform.

but this is one of those subjects on which people have strong opinions and i have little desire to try and change anyone's mind about the quality of indie books. there's enough stuff out there that i can find something i like, you can find something you like and we can both be happy. and if you don't want to read indies because you've had some bad experiences, that's your choice.

and amazon is going to do whatever it is going to do no matter what you and i think, so i'm not really going to worry about it. i'll support indies that interest me and ignore indies that don't.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> This is what confuses me. On one hand, you have a core group that are RAWR RAWR INDIE *pompoms* Indie is so much better! Traditional publishing is dead! We rule! Read us because we deserve it! Hell, someone in the Writer's Cafe a few weeks ago said she only reads indies because publishers make too much money.
> 
> And yet, when it comes to this discussion, it's creating an indie ghetto. Booo booo we want to be like everyone else! Booo treat us fairly! Booo
> 
> So, we're supposed to not notice that books are indies, and yet we're supposed to support books that are indies. We're not supposed to label books as indie yet the entire book bazaar and writer's cafe is filled with "We are indie, support us."


Good point Krista.

I personally don't care about the author being indie or not, I see them as an author. The only place I discriminate is on Twitter, were I became sick of the thousands of tweets per day saying "look at my book" (Tweetdeck columns cleaned that up nicely). So the author and their book get the same chance to be read no matter what. So if someone has a good cover, an interesting blurb (i.e. a professional product), in a genre that interests me, I'll either sample or buy it.

So I don't support indie authors. I support authors, some of whom are indies.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

tim290280 said:


> I support authors


There. Issue resolved.

I support authors I enjoy. What more can anyone ask of me?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

S.A. Reid said:


> I'll admit that's me, too. I don't think I've ever heard a person I identified as a "pure reader" (not a reader stainless like the driven snow, but simply a reader who is not a writer and does not aspire to be) mention publishers and gatekeepers and save me from the indies. I have heard them complain about prices, boring stories and offensive content. But never "I need to know this was vetted by an agent, an intern, an editor, a senior editor, and a marketing department."


I fit that description pretty much and I am 'interested' in knowing indie, self-pubbed, etc. That said, it doesnt mean I would bypass a 'flagged' book....Not at all.

I didnt download 370 books on my K3 in 4 months by ignoring the non-mainstream published books. I'd be in the poorhouse!

But my criteria for consideration are a bit different....and then that risk is balanced by price. It's complicated! And self-indulgent! And individual!....so I would support flagging and yet not discount such books.

OTOH, I completely understand why some authors would be concerned.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Robert E. Keller said:


> One possible problem, however, is that some big-name authors are publishing as indies. How would Amazon distinguish between who deserves the indie label and who doesn't? I've been professionally published (in short fiction), so if I took a professionally published story and published it (as my own publisher) should it still be marked as indie even though it received a professional edit? It's a large gray area, and I don't see how it could be clearly sorted out. Otherwise, users like you could simply set your preferences so indie books would be marked--but then you might skip over books you are actually looking for.


Why is that a problem? Is the expectation that people will just reject flagged books out of hand? In that case, it seems like a poor strategy for Amazon _and _ authors.And readers.

And I'm not aware of the criteria that an indie or self-pubbed book isnt professionally edited. Is that true? I dont think so.

I definitely expect and find better quality among the professionally edited...but am pretty sure it's not excluded from the non-mainstream published books.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Harry Shannon said:


> I've been a mid-list author for a decade, and now publish my own catalogue on Kindle and Nook. I can see both sides of this clearly. Wouldn't mind more QC on Amazon's side for the basic protections of editing, proofing and properly presenting decent material. I come down on the other side when it comes to a set category for independent publishing, there is no need for that. The trend will burn out when people stop filling up their Kindles with "bargain" material they later have to delete unread. Serious authors will continue to improve and hone their craft and eventually get noticed. Everyone is in too much of a hurry, just IMHO. Of course, I was too. We all are.


Good post. Oooo, and a little painful ('bargain material that will end up deleted unread')


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> There. Issue resolved.
> 
> I support authors I enjoy. What more can anyone ask of me?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Putting a big warning label on books indicating that they are indies would hamper sales. People would look at that label, and even if they hadn't previously had any preference between traditionally published books and indies, just that warning will make people reluctant to buy the indie books. After all, you only warn people if something is bad, right? "Warning! This book was not approved by any publisher!"

I guess I would be OK with making it easier for identify traditionally published books, but I would want that to be something that people have to go out of their way to look for, rather than something put right in people's faces.


----------



## BarbraAnnino (Jan 27, 2011)

In a way, the Kindle Indie store does already flag books. That seems like enough.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Nope, glad they don't separate us out in any way and leave it up to the reader to decide.  I value that and appreciate it.


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

I guess I still don't understand the issue.  Besides the confusion about what is "Indie" and what isn't, and all the accompanying issues, why would it even be useful?  Unless you already know the author and are a fan... who buys books without looking into them first?  If you are in a bookstore and see a cool cover or a catchy title, don't you open the book and read a little bit before buying?  Amazon offers the first 30 or so pages of every book for free.  Instantly delivered.  I always get the sample first.  I usually know after the first couple of pages if I want to buy or not.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> I guess I still don't understand the issue. Besides the confusion about what is "Indie" and what isn't, and all the accompanying issues, why would it even be useful? Unless you already know the author and are a fan... who buys books without looking into them first? If you are in a bookstore and see a cool cover or a catchy title, don't you open the book and read a little bit before buying? Amazon offers the first 30 or so pages of every book for free. Instantly delivered. I always get the sample first. I usually know after the first couple of pages if I want to buy or not.


I think the issue is volume. With the explosion of indie publishing (yea!), its more like walking into a bookstore piled floor to ceiling with mounds of disordered books. Many are excellent by indie and trad pubs but they are covered and camouflaged by notepads, Big Chief tablets written in Crayon, etc.

The average American reader wants to be able to easily browse the same limited selection they get when they walk in to B&N. A limited selection of pre-selected books by the bookstore and traditional publishers. That's why this issue comes up.

It is exactly the same as if you and thousands of other authors could self-print your books and stick them on the shelves of B&N yourself. B&N customers would want them separated so they could find the "regular" books. I understand why indie pubs don't want this, but I think it is silly to say you don't understand why it is an issue at all

----
Don't get me wrong, it's not a great system, I don't think the NY houses do a good job "vetting" or filtering anyway and they pass over most of the books I like. I'm not a proponent, just giving my "Reader's opinion" as the title suggested. I think finding a reviewer you trust is much better. But then volume becomes a problem again, no reviewer or set of reviewers can keep up. Amazon reviews are sometimes helpful and are probably the best current option, but I'm just scratching the surface of finding what I might like.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Oct 17, 2011)

tkkenyon said:


> And, it must be noted that Amazon already does flag ebooks that are _not _indie.
> 
> The price is exorbitant, and under the price is the note:
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter. Logic doesn't apply here, and the debate will rage on thanks to a few very vocal people (and their sock puppets) who are determined to fool Amazon into believing they represent a large number of readers. It's another desperate attempt to save the big 6 and put indies in their place. I think the best thing would be for indies to ignore these threads. With no one to argue with, the "G" man and his socks will eventually wither into obscurity.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I just don't think that offering a customer a better shopping experience needs to be met by so much defensiveness by indy authors. People aren't asking about a "Ghetto"  , I mean really? No stars or anything else. A simple sort checkbox on the left, like the one to sort results by Prime eligible only.

How does that even effect those that don't want to use it. It doesn't. Default would show everything, a checkmark will just be one more filter Amazon already has. Nothing would even show up on the product page at all. 

That is all some have asked for. Nobody asked for denying self publishers to do what they want to do. Nobody. 

I am not saying that they will or should do it, but I can totally understand some wanting this. There have been moments in my searching I would have liked to have such filters. Again, an option to use or not. 

And to clarify, for me backlist re-releases do not fall under self published in this case. Most of them get linked to their former paperback on Amazon with their former published info. 

And those that actively search out indy's do have such a section now. Right on the top left bar easy to see. 
Those that don't want to search out Indy's do not as of now. So really Indy's are one up there. So that would be a positive to look at for indy authors. 

And nobody is missing out on anything not reading self published. I read this all the time. I have currently about 2000 on my to read list. My life span as a human is limited. There will be thousands and thousands of books I will miss out off, just based on my measly life span. So that argument is just silly.
There are many trad books I will miss out on. I just don't have enough hours in the day and days in my life to read all those darn good books and those darn authors won't stop writing so I have to keep adding to my bucket list and stare mortality in the face every day. You know how many series I won't be able to finish before I die? It will make me really mad  

Again, this isn't against any self publishers, but to give customers options. I think for most in this thread, seeing that they are authors themselves, it is very very difficult to put yourself into the mind of a reader only. You are not just a reader anymore, it is just different. And again, you guys here forget you are a small fraction of self publishers out there. 

And no, I don't want to spend days and days reading samples. I hate reading parts of books and never getting a satisfaction. By the time I read a sample, I have already done a lot of vetting and in 99 percent of cases, I go on and buy the book after reading that sample. And for some people, sticking with publishers is one way of vetting. Doesn't make them wrong, or missing out on anything, or wanting bad books. As I keep reading just how horrible those trad published books are  

One other thing I keep noticing is the pointing out of the evil big six as an argument of how horrible all that is coming out from them. I would assume people are aware there are many many more publishers outside of the big six and most of them do not charge 12.99 for an ebook. Most of the ones I been buying are between $3-6. And those are publishers. Just to throw that out there. For the other, more expensive ones I still want to read,  I am now happily filling my wishlist at my ebook libraries.  

Again, choices for customers.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

MasterBlaster said:


> It doesn't matter. Logic doesn't apply here, and the debate will rage on thanks to a few very vocal people (and their sock puppets) who are determined to fool Amazon into believing they represent a large number of readers. It's another desperate attempt to save the big 6 and put indies in their place. I think the best thing would be for indies to ignore these threads. With no one to argue with, the "G" man and his socks will eventually wither into obscurity.


Huh?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Oct 17, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Huh?


Just what I said. This started as a campaign to fool Amazon into believing a vast number of readers wanted indie books either flagged (a mark of shame, no matter how you spin it) or moved to a place no one would buy them. These jolly campaigners knew indies would take the bait and keep the arguments running hot--indies, who often use their real names and thus are easy to spot. Meanwhile, the "socks" mostly claim to be readers (though their posts often clearly mark them as having a solid writing background). And so, in the delusional world of the campaigners, it would appear to be widespread debate of desperate indies versus disgruntled readers. How could Amazon not afford to side with the disgruntled readers? Only problem is that Amazon is not stupid. They likely saw through it right from the start.

Oh, and to the indies on here, feel free to spread the word about what's really going on. Time to let them know we see through them and that the game is up.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Stephen T. Harper said:


> I guess I still don't understand the issue. Besides the confusion about what is "Indie" and what isn't, and all the accompanying issues, why would it even be useful? Unless you already know the author and are a fan... who buys books without looking into them first? If you are in a bookstore and see a cool cover or a catchy title, don't you open the book and read a little bit before buying? Amazon offers the first 30 or so pages of every book for free. Instantly delivered. I always get the sample first. I usually know after the first couple of pages if I want to buy or not.


Of course... but people who feel indie books are more likely to be lower quality don't want to have to get to that stage with every book. They want a quicker way to rule out indies. On the other hand, there are people who are mostly only interested in indie books and would like a way to spot them more quickly. I recall it's been asked here once or twice whether there was a way to search among only indie books. I think I'd rather see that than a flagging system. I wouldn't be surprised if a field for this showed up on advanced searches for Kindle like www.ereaderiq.com/search/ - it should be pretty simple to take the "publisher" field one step further and have a drop down box similar to the public domain field - "Include Indie, Exclude Indie, Only Indie". As I said before, it should be pretty easy to just have the "big 6" plus their known imprints as the distinguisher.

There's a similar advanced search on these boards too: http://www.kboards.com/search/ - maybe if we ask nicely, someone will add a field like this.

Basically, people just want more ways to narrow down their search results to something closer to what they're looking for. Nothing wrong with that. It's why these advanced search exist to begin with... this would just be one more search field.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

eta: forgot the quote, to MasterBlaster:


I have no clue what you are talking about. The only baiting I see here is coming from you. Are you trying to start a fight or something? I have no clue. There is no "campaign". Its a discussion. 

There is no game to be up  .


----------



## MasterBlaster (Oct 17, 2011)

Atunah said:


> eta: forgot the quote, to MasterBlaster:
> 
> I have no clue what you are talking about. The only baiting I see here is coming from you. Are you trying to start a fight or something? I have no clue. There is no "campaign". Its a discussion.
> 
> There is no game to be up .


I would never dream of starting a fight, and I mean that with all sincerity. I am merely stating my opinion of how this debate--which rages on other forums that I won't mention--came about. What's the point of baiting anyone? I apologize if I offended you in some way, but my opinion remains set in stone that this was a calculated effort upon the part of a few individuals with an agenda.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

MasterBlaster said:


> Just what I said. This started as a campaign to fool Amazon into believing a vast number of readers wanted indie books either flagged (a mark of shame, no matter how you spin it) or moved to a place no one would buy them. These jolly campaigners knew indies would take the bait and keep the arguments running hot--indies, who often use their real names and thus are easy to spot. Meanwhile, the "socks" mostly claim to be readers (though their posts often clearly mark them as having a solid writing background). And so, in the delusional world of the campaigners, it would appear to be widespread debate of desperate indies versus disgruntled readers. How could Amazon not afford to side with the disgruntled readers? Only problem is that Amazon is not stupid. They likely saw through it right from the start.
> 
> Oh, and to the indies on here, feel free to spread the word about what's really going on. Time to let them know we see through them and that the game is up.


Right....Tinfoil Hat Deficiency Syndrome much?

This is not a conspiracy. I am positive that most regular Kindle owners (the ones that don't post on Kindleboards or Amazon boards or any other....they just bought a Kindle to read books on) are interested in knowing which books are the kind you can also get in a Brick and Mortar store and which are part of the new indie/epub "revolution".


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Atunah said:


> I just don't think that offering a customer a better shopping experience needs to be met by so much defensiveness by indy authors. People aren't asking about a "Ghetto" , I mean really? No stars or anything else. A simple sort checkbox on the left, like the one to sort results by Prime eligible only.
> 
> How does that even effect those that don't want to use it. It doesn't. Default would show everything, a checkmark will just be one more filter Amazon already has. Nothing would even show up on the product page at all.
> 
> ...


Hey stop saying what I said only better!! 
I agree 100% and ever since I got my kindle and my TBR list exploded I always feel like I'm way to close to dying. 
Life is too short when you have 2000 books to read


----------



## MasterBlaster (Oct 17, 2011)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> Right....Tinfoil Hat Deficiency Syndrome much?
> 
> This is not a conspiracy.


I disagree. However, I will note that (likely) not everyone who posts in favor of flagging/moving indie books are in on it. And to the sincere readers who are simply giving an opinion, my words concerning an "agenda" are not aimed at you.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

Amazon makes money on indie books, so they probably aren't going to do anything to flag them.

I know how to search _for_ something (YA humor, for example), but not sure if there's a way to "search" while eliminating something except by not searching for that category (not listing horror in a search, for example). I mean, if Indie was a category, you could find it, and maybe then you could emiminate it by not including it in the search.

I enjoy looking at all the books that come up in a search, but then, while not an indie, I am published by small epublishers as well as traditional publishers, so...


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

Not really. I can find all the information I need about books and authors now. Pat Conroy started publsihing by vanity press because the established publishers ignored him. On the other hand, there are writers whose work I consider horrible and they keep getting published year after year.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

davidhburton said:


> My sentiment exactly. Since I'm huge on covers, that's got to grab me first. After that, if the description and genre (and sometimes reviews/ratings) get me, I'll download a sample. Once the sample grabs me, I really don't care - I'm buying. It's pretty rare that I ever look at the publisher.


Good for you. You sound intelligent and open minded and that's the way it should be. A book should be judged on its own merits, never mind if it's self published or not.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I just don't think that offering a customer a better shopping experience needs to be met by so much defensiveness by indy authors.


I agree. If any specific person is certain to feel cheated shortly after buying my book (without even reading it) because of their preconceived opinions, why should I want them to buy it?

If such a person considers indie books to be inferior --- well, then it doesn't truly matter whether or not their opinion is _correct_. Correct or incorrect, they're someone who didn't want my book.

I want the highest possible percentage of people who buy my work to be satisfied with it . . . whether I sell ten copies, or ten million.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Ah, but you are guaranteed a basic level of quality when a book in the bookstore. You are not so guaranteed when purchasing off Amazon from a self-published author. Sad, but true.


It's not impossible to get your self published book into Barnes and Noble. As long as your book is in print and you work with a distributor like Lightning or Createspace you can submit to their small press department.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

tkkenyon said:


> And, it must be noted that Amazon already does flag ebooks that are _not _indie.
> 
> The price is exorbitant, and under the price is the note:
> 
> ...


This too! That's a pretty easy indicator of a big 6 book when it says "Price set by publisher." There is no need for additional flagging.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> It's not impossible to get your self published book into Barnes and Noble. As long as your book is in print and you work with a distributor like Lightning or Createspace you can submit to their small press department.


True, but let's face it. What percentage of books at the local bookstore is self-published? It's pretty low. And I highly doubt one riddled with errors on every page would stay stocked for long.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Beatrice Brusic said:


> Good for you. You sound *intelligent and open minded* and that's the way it should be. A book should be judged on its own merits, never mind if it's self published or not.


So those of us who disagree are stupid and narrow-minded?


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

No, definitely not. I don't think giving Indie written books a "scarlet letter" is going to do anyone any good, and it's easy enough for buyers to dl a sample or use Look inside to determine if the book they are thinking about buying is worth it. I do. There's no guarantee from any Indie OR legacy publisher a book will be worth (or for that matter the movie you spend 9 bucks on won't suck) reading. And frankly, there big conglom publishers are pretty well known, so most readers can tell an Indie publishers just by the name. Don't need no stinking labels. 
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

This idea seems silly since it takes absolutely nothing to create a "publisher". Amazon doesn't verify if a book was published under a contract or uploaded by a single person. Besides, what standards would Amazon use to differentiate "real" publishers from people who just made up a name?


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> True, but let's face it. What percentage of books at the local bookstore is self-published? It's pretty low. And I highly doubt one riddled with errors on every page would stay stocked for long.


I do have to concede that point to you. I just wanted to show that indie books can show up among the traditionally published, whether they be electronic or in print.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

I saw that thread on Amazon, and felt sad that indie books were being viewed that way.    I love searching for indie and self-published books on Amazon, and have found many incredible books that way.  I've discovered that there are many self-published books on Amazon Kindle that have won major awards and received fantastic reviews from major sources, but didn't happen to get picked up by an agent or one of the bigger publishing houses.  These books are usually bargain-priced, so I've been loading up my Kindle with them.


----------



## Math (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't really care if they are 'flagged' - as long as they get the same treatment in other respects.

In a bookshop, there will be good books and bad books (and I'm not talking about spelling and format, etc). But each is sat next to each other in the same sections.

As long as, on Amazon, people can browse and peruse each one - regardless - then there should be no problem with highlighting the fact that it is an 'indie' (God, I hate that expression) publisher. Let's face it, the fact there won't be a publisher name anywhere on the cover will be a bit of a clue anyway 

I think the problem is - would this be the thin edge of the wedge?
Flagging or highlighting a type of publishing is one thing, but excluding it from reviews, sections, charts etc. is discriminatory - and would put the whole concept of Kindle and ebooks in a VERY bad light - I would even go so far as to say it would be like biting the hand that feeds it (where would the choice of ebooks (and kindle sales) be _today _ without the initial self-publishing catalogue - and (even) would it have been virtually still-born with just the free classics when in the early days the main publishers didn't want to be involved?)

Phew.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

here's a "flag" that easily convinces me not to buy a book on Kindle. I KNOW the book came out more than 10 years ago, and yet it costs $6.99-$12.99 RIGHT NOW ON THE KINDLE. This flags it as a Penguin Book to me, and yep, I look down the page, and 95% or more of the time I am right.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I am a reader and I NEVER look to see who the publisher is.  I don't initially need to know if it was self, small or big publisher published.  I want to know the story and the quality of the story and I want to know a little about the author and that's it.  Pretty simple.

Now years ago I used to think that some publishers were better than others and that probably was true back when individuals and families owned the big NYC publishing houses and nurtured their authors, but now they are all multi-national corp-o-rations with their eye only on the quarterly report and not quality novels.  They just want BIG sellers.  That gives the reader less variety to peruse.  I've read some by the big 6 that were so bad that I had to quit reading.  I've also sampled some self-pubbed works that were as bad and worse.

I don't think who the publishers are separates the wheat from the chaff.  Like anything else, buyer beware and check out the book well BEFORE you buy it.  If anything, I do like the immense variety self-pubbed novels have to offer--no I sure don't like all of them--but I can say the same about big pubbed books too.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> Now years ago I used to think that some publishers were better than others and that probably was true back when individuals and families owned the big NYC publishing houses and nurtured their authors, but now they are all multi-national corp-o-rations with their eye only on the quarterly report and not quality novels.


At the risk of repeating myself, there are still lots of publishing houses who do this and lots that are giant businesses.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, there are still lots of publishing houses who do this and lots that are giant businesses.


It is fine with me if you repeat yourself, you are entitled to your opinion and others are entitled to theirs.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> It is fine with me if you repeat yourself, you are entitled to your opinion and others are entitled to theirs.


Um, it's not an opinion. It is a fact. Many publishing houses are not run or owned by giant corporations.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> So those of us who disagree are stupid and narrow-minded?


What's there to disagree about? And why would self published writers themselves have so many preconceived notions? Books riddled with errors? I'm sorry but you must be reading the wrong books or not bothering to sample them first. And who told you that traditional books are PERFECT? I've seen plenty of books in my lifetime that had plenty of errors and they went throught many, many eyes. So why crucify an Indie because there are a few errors there? Everybody strives for perfection but very few ever achieve it. If a book is darn good, the narrative flows and the reader is entertained and satisfied, he's not going to throw up if he finds a typo once in a while. On the other hand a book may be perfectly edited and BORING as hell, so what's better? We need to support each other because we're all in the same boat here and not attack and judge each other.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

O.K. I think this topic has run it's course.  It's gone around at least 3 times now, I think, and I'm getting dizzy. 

Head on down to NQK and talk about tea or puppies or how you spent the recent 'day of rapture.'


----------

