# Should Amazon offer a 'quality' logo for Indie books?



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

It is commendable that authors can now offer their books directly to readers via ebooks without having agents and publishers as gatekeepers.  However, the downside seems to be that anyone can upload a book, even if it is full of typos, spelling mistakes and dubious grammar. 
Perhaps Amazon could offer an OPTIONAL ‘quality’ logo by paying their editors or vine reviewers (or similar) to check through the manuscripts for typos, spelling, grammar and formatting, (or even story-telling ability). 
Writers who wished to have a ‘quality’ logo would pay a small fee for this service. Readers would then at least be assured of a readable book. Books not passing the ‘quality’ test would still be available for sale, they just wouldn’t have the ‘quality’ logo. 
Just a thought. 
I now await the flames that will shoot down this idea.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I think it would have the opposite of the intended effect.

I think we should aspire to have our books be indistinguishable from trad titles.

The "quality seal" would brand the book as self-published in a highly noticeable way.  It would be a sort of scarlet letter: "Here's a self-published book - but this author paid us $50 to spell-check".


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

I've actually started a blog for doing this, but haven't started posting to it yet. There are several "cheap reads" sites that list inexpensive books, but I haven't found one that lists quality reads -- that is, self-published books that are well-edited. I wanted to stay away from judging a book's entertainment value (there are plenty of review sites for that) and just list books that are clean and free of poor grammar, spelling and formatting snafus.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2010)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> It is commendable that authors can now offer their books directly to readers via ebooks without having agents and publishers as gatekeepers. However, the downside seems to be that anyone can upload a book, even if it is full of typos, spelling mistakes and dubious grammar.


The problem with "pay to play" is just that. Only those willing to spend the money will get the logo. I for one already spend money on editing and proofreading. I feel no need to pay Amazon for a stupid little logo alerting people to the fact that I paid for an editor or proofreader. But the people most likely to pay are the ones least likely to actually use editors and proofreaders. And if Amazon starts collecting money and doesn't give out enough of the logos, people stop buying the service. So Amazon gets "lax" so to speak and gives the logo to anything that passes a spellchecker. As soon as revenue is generated, it becomes more important to protect the revenue stream than to protect the original intent of the program. Thus is the way of business.


----------



## Gerald (Dec 11, 2010)

Personally, I never pay for a book from an unknown indie author until I've seen a sample of their work. I know it doesn't guarantee the quality of a complete work, but it helps me weed out some of those who are unreadable.

As someone who spends time proofreading and editing and using beta readers, I prefer to rely on word of mouth and some of my free works to convey the quality of my paid-for novels.

(Says he having checked this post _very_ carefully).


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

They already do -- it's called a "review."

There's nothing they can do that will have any more weight than that. If you want a stamp of approval that means something, go through the traditional publishing system.

(And no, any approval you pay for is not worth anything - you have to earn it.)

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I think we already have that seal of approval. It's called Crown, Ballantine, McGraw Hill, Simon & Schuster, etc. Anyone who wants to ensure they don't encounter typos or grammatical errors has a huge offering available.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The problem with "pay to play" is just that. Only those willing to spend the money will get the logo. I for one already spend money on editing and proofreading. I feel no need to pay Amazon for a stupid little logo alerting people to the fact that I paid for an editor or proofreader. But the people most likely to pay are the ones least likely to actually use editors and proofreaders. And if Amazon starts collecting money and doesn't give out enough of the logos, people stop buying the service. So Amazon gets "lax" so to speak and gives the logo to anything that passes a spellchecker. As soon as revenue is generated, it becomes more important to protect the revenue stream than to protect the original intent of the program. Thus is the way of business.


Agreed. I pay for editing already and all these questions that pop up are just a way for authors to set themselves apart--quickly rather than build a reputation. I also agree with the poster who said it would mark books as self-published. I'd rather compete (for better or worse) with the trad publishers. Yes, I've had typos--but not for lack of trying and not for lack of trying to reach the highest quality possible--just like trads. There are no shortcuts or quality seals or organizations that can Rank books or give them some special designation. We're all in this together, one big pool of words.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> And if Amazon starts collecting money and doesn't give out enough of the logos, people stop buying the service. So Amazon gets "lax" so to speak and gives the logo to anything that passes a spellchecker.


Julie makes an excellent point here.

As soon as the "logo" becomes a profit center, Amazon would face extraordinary pressure to have it disseminated as widely as possible. This would incentivize them to award it to marginal books.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I take no position on the issue, but observe we already have a model for this. Underwriter's Laboratories is independent and its continuing success depends on its reputation. If you have a product, and want the UL seal, you give them the product for testing. They don't give the seal unless it passes. You pay for the test. (Look on the back of your electrical appliances. See that UL? That's the seal.)


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I take no position on the issue, but observe we already have a model for this. Underwriter's Laboratories is independent and its continuing success depends on its reputation. If you have a product, and want the UL seal, you give them the product for testing. They don't give the seal unless it passes. You pay for the test. (Look on the back of your electrical appliances. See that UL? That's the seal.)


World of difference there. UL is involved in more than just telling people a book passed a spellchecker. Much of its work deals with making sure things meet legal requirements. If something doesn't meet the grade, the responsibility is on the manufacturer to go back and correct it because there are significant legal penalties for non-compliance. UL has no pressure to just give people a pass to generate revenue. Manufacturers don't really have a choice in the matter. They HAVE to get the testing done and failure is not an option.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I think we already have that seal of approval. It's called Crown, Ballantine, McGraw Hill, Simon & Schuster, etc. Anyone who wants to ensure they don't encounter typos or grammatical errors has a huge offering available.


I've found plenty of errors in books from those publishers, typos, grammatical, factual and often even formatting. Doesn't ensure anything, except some publisher thought they could make money of of a book.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I take no position on the issue, but observe we already have a model for this. Underwriter's Laboratories is independent and its continuing success depends on its reputation. If you have a product, and want the UL seal, you give them the product for testing. They don't give the seal unless it passes. You pay for the test. (Look on the back of your electrical appliances. See that UL? That's the seal.)


I was just thinking of something like that. Perhaps this could be a service offered by a third party instead of Amazon? And instead of a 'seal', the author could provide a link to the third-party's website proving that their book has been 'certified'.

That way, the outside company would have a vested interest in only certifying books that met their criteria, otherwise their reputation would be shot.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"World of difference there. UL is involved in more than just telling people a book passed a spellchecker."_

Sure there is a difference. I highlighted the model of an independent evaluator that must rely on its reputation, and that reputation is what stands behind the seal. And I agree manufacturers need the UL seal as a practical matter. But isn't that exactly what the initial comment wanted? I'm not endorsing the idea, but if I were hired to implement such a system, that's the model I would follow. If you were hired to implement such a system, what would you suggest? Anyone else want a job?


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"World of difference there. UL is involved in more than just telling people a book passed a spellchecker."_
> 
> Sure there is a difference. I highlighted the model of an independent evaluator that must rely on its reputation, and that reputation is what stands behind the seal. And I agree manufacturers need the UL seal as a practical matter. But isn't that exactly what the initial comment wanted? I'm not endorsing the idea, but if I were hired to implement such a system, that's the model I would follow. If you were hired to implement such a system, what would you suggest? Anyone else want a job?


The point is that while many independent rating services exist, the credible ones exist in industries where there are quantifiable standards in place, and everyone in the industry uses the same standards. Before you could remotely have any sort of evaluator for books, you would need to establish quantifiable standards that the books would be judged on. And you would need to get everyone to agree that those are in fact the standards by which to judge a book.

I work in contract packaging. I've done QA work. If a display has to be able to hold X amount of weight and withstand a X foot drop, then it has to meet those standards and that is that. But what are the quantifiable standards by which to judge books? Number of typos? Is there a specific number that would trigger an evaluation failure? Formatting? Do we all agree to a standard size for margins and fonts, or for that matter which fonts should and should not be used? How do you quantify things like plot and character development and voice in a way that will be universal for all genres and the majority of the industry would accept? Because in order for it to become a standard, it has to be standard.

Now I have my own standards, and I use them to determine what I will and won't publish. But my standards won't apply to a romance novel or a young adult novel or even some other speculative fiction publishers that serve different niche markets. The problem with the logo is defining what it represents, and then determining who gets to make those decisions.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

We do have that seal... it's call a Red Adept Review.



Vicki


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Anyone who wanted to get into the business could set up and publish whatever standards they choose. Remember, it's a model. Models then get customized to the task at hand. That's where the detailed work comes in.

Consider the old Catholic Legion of Decency. They held enormous power over the movie industry, and they set whatever standards they wanted. Producers recut movies just to avoid a bad mark from the Legion. Way before that we had the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books. A bit severe, and undoubtedly hard on authors, but still a working model.

The initial proposal may be agood idea. It may be a bad idea. But we do have a history where similar ideas have worked.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"World of difference there. UL is involved in more than just telling people a book passed a spellchecker."_
> 
> Sure there is a difference. I highlighted the model of an independent evaluator that must rely on its reputation, and that reputation is what stands behind the seal. And I agree manufacturers need the UL seal as a practical matter. But isn't that exactly what the initial comment wanted? I'm not endorsing the idea, but if I were hired to implement such a system, that's the model I would follow. If you were hired to implement such a system, what would you suggest? Anyone else want a job?


Gotta say this: the third party already exists - reviewers. Especially those who work for already established and trusted publications. And, of course, traditional publishers.

There is no way for a standards organization to simply have a black and white seal of approval, because the judgment is subjective.

And besides, for all the complaints about indies who can't spell or put a decent sentence together, readers can check that themselves with a quick sample. The real question for readers is whether the story is any good and to their taste. MOST books, indie or not, do not meet that test, so a generic seal of approval doesn't help.

IMHO, if you want a seal of approval, then get thee to a traditional publisher.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"We do have that seal... it's call a Red Adept Review."_

Excellent point. In any new industry, and this eBook business is certainly one, the institutions that evolve will all start out small and attract a following. The network effect kicks in, the small become big, and the big become standard. Looking back on it, everyone will say how obvious it all was.

Case in point: Drudge Report. He started out giving earthquake warnings. Now he is arguably one of the most powerful media forces in the world.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

I can feel the flames licking my feet.

I guess that idea bites the dust.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I don't see this service performing the same role as reviewer.  This 'certification' wouldn't claim "this is a good book", but instead, "this book has been professionally edited for grammar, punctuation, typos, etc."

As for a standard, that would be created by the reputation of the third-party service.  After a time, readers would know what to expect when a book received this approval.

Think of it this way: If a traditional publisher offered to edit your book for a price, and then allowed you to advertise that they had edited it (for grammar, etc), that would attract readers, right?  It would be the same situation, except the third-party entity would have to become as credible as a traditional publisher.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2010)

swolf said:


> Think of it this way: If a traditional publisher offered to edit your book for a price, and then allowed you to advertise that they had edited it (for grammar, etc), that would attract readers, right?


If a "traditional publisher" offered to edit my book for a price and then "allow" me to advertise such, I would be screaming SCAM to the rooftops that they were bilking indies. There are already enough...eh hem...services out there more than happy to take your money in exchange for the implied credibility they offer.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If a "traditional publisher" offered to edit my book for a price and then "allow" me to advertise such, I would be screaming SCAM to the rooftops that they were bilking indies.


I disagree. Indies now have people who will charge to edit for them, which it is good, but telling readers that John Doe edited you book means nothing to them. However, if you could claim that Random House edited your e-book, readers would pay attention.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There are already enough...eh hem...services out there more than happy to take your money in exchange for the implied credibility they offer.


Nope. None that would be familiar with readers like a large publisher would.


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

swolf said:


> I disagree. Indies now have people who will charge to edit for them, which it is good, but telling readers that John Doe edited you book means nothing to them. However, if you could claim that Random House edited your e-book, readers would pay attention.


As a reader, I certainly couldn't care less. There are too many 'big publisher' books that come out with horrible editing for me to think that really means anything.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Steph H said:


> As a reader, I certainly couldn't care less. There are too many 'big publisher' books that come out with horrible editing for me to think that really means anything.


Even what we call 'horrible editing' from a big publisher is still above the average editing of the self-published books out there.

What I'm talking about is a third-party company that builds a reputation by certifying books that are well edited, so that eventually, their certification would mean something to readers. Something that would narrow that reader expectancy gap between traditional and self published.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

The thing is, even though people complain about spelling and grammar, etc., the readers don't need anyone else to tell them about that. They can look at a sample to see that for themselves. It's not a problem for the readers, and so if that's all the seal of approval assures, then they're going to say "oh, another insecure indie writer, Run!" whenever they see the seal.

There are only two problems to be solved:

For the Reader: the problem is finding books they LIKE. It doesn't matter if the reason is bad spelling or horrible plotting or just the wrong genre, or it's too sexy or not sexy enough.  A seal of approval will not solve that problem, so it won't help the readers at all.

For the Writer: the problem is the anxiety we get when we hear people saying nasty things about indies.  The solution to that is really super simple.  It's got two steps:

1.) Set your standards, live up to them, and
2.) Live with the consequences, and stop listening to whiners.

(Or you can just skip to that last bit.)

I'll just repeat my main point in case anybody missed it.  Readers complain about all sorts of things, but there really is only one thing that matters: do they like the book.  If a solution doesn't solve THAT problem, it won't resolve anything.

Camille


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I think we already have that seal of approval. It's called Crown, Ballantine, McGraw Hill, Simon & Schuster, etc. Anyone who wants to ensure they don't encounter typos or grammatical errors has a huge offering available.


That's a bit misleading, Terry.

There are many indie authors whose works are tightly edited.

And, conversely, I've encountered glaring errors in many traditionally-published books ... eBook or otherwise.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

swolf said:


> I don't see this service performing the same role as reviewer. This 'certification' wouldn't claim "this is a good book", but instead, "this book has been professionally edited for grammar, punctuation, typos, etc."
> 
> As for a standard, that would be created by the reputation of the third-party service. After a time, readers would know what to expect when a book received this approval.
> 
> Think of it this way: If a traditional publisher offered to edit your book for a price, and then allowed you to advertise that they had edited it (for grammar, etc), that would attract readers, right? It would be the same situation, except the third-party entity would have to become as credible as a traditional publisher.


Harlequin essentially tried to offer this service to writers (For about 3k.) The writer's guild had a fit. These "vanity" published books with a seal of "harlequin" was almost what you're asking for. But the guilds rightfully had issues with it. One: ANY organization that has the option of making money for pushing something out there is going to eventually opt to make money. Two: They presented it as : If the book does well we might even publish it traditionally and Three: There was concerned that a vanity arm would bring down the reputation of trad books in the company.

Harlequin still has the vanity branch, but because of protests, they renamed it something else and supposedly set it off as a separate business--and took away the dangling carrot that "you might be trad published."

ANY rating agency that stand to make money from a seal of approval can be corrupted.

And look, like someone else said, if you're unhappy with self-published status and you want the seal, you pretty much need to go traditional. It's no guarantee, but it is already the "bar" or "seal of approval." Otherwise, we all just have to work to build an audience, one reader at a time and gain their trust one book, or one sentence--at a time.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

I've been on both sides of this issue.  But it just struck me that if this went through, you could have books that get that little seal of approval, and are as exciting to read and as watching paint dry, and as memorable as a trip to the dentist.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Victorine said:


> We do have that seal... it's call a Red Adept Review.
> 
> 
> 
> Vicki


Ahh, someone I often agree with. 

Not just Red Adept, but I truly believe reviews are the best indicator of what books are "quality" and what books are not.

Besides, the whole point of the OP misses a much larger issue: quality consists of far more than just proper spelling and grammar.

For example, we don't talk about it a lot, but Amazon has an awful lot of ... for lack of a better word, porno titles, available on Kindle.

So let's say Author X posts a book called... I don't know... HEATHER DOES HER TWO MOMMIES.

And let's say HEATHER is tightly edited... not a spelling error in sight. It's grammar is spotless. And Author X is willing to pay Amazon for the so-called "Quality Seal."

Suddenly, HEATHER is marked as an Amazon Quality Seal of Approval title.

But then, let's say that Victorine comes along as a new author and posts her first novel, NOT WHAT SHE SEEMS. She's workshopped it, sent it to beta readers, but as a brand new author with not a lot to invest yet, let's say there's a very small handful of spelling and grammar errors in it. So even though she applies for the Amazon Quality Seal of Approval, she's turned down; it doesn't receive the seal because of a small handful of spelling and grammar errors.

So NOT WHAT SHE SEEMS is now sitting there in Amazon without the Quality SOA on it, but HEATHER has it.

Does anyone really believe HEATHER is a better read than NOT WHAT SHE SEEMS, just because of a slight difference in the number of spelling errors and a couple grammar miscues?

Sorry, but "quality" conveys a LOT more to me than just whether something is correctly spelled throughout, and obeys the rules of grammar consistently.

That's why I prefer reviews.

One could make the argument, sure, that at least HEATHER is not misspelled porn, so it's a good porn title, maybe... but it's still porn, and how hard is it to not misspell "Oh yeah... just like that... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" 

Personally, I get far more satisfaction out of a novel like Vickie's than I ever could out of HEATHER.

And the point here is not to diss on porn, necessarily... I used this illustration to portray as stark a contrast as possible, to clarify the issue that it's more than just spelling and grammar that constitute "quality."

NOTE TO VICKIE: Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on your novel here; my review tells you what I think of it. I used NWSS because it's one of the best reads I've enjoyed in a long time. 

NOTE TO ALL: The book HEATHER DOES HER TWO MOMMIES is a title I made up for illustration purposes. It's a tribute to the controversial elementary school children's book, HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES. Beyond that, I have no idea if such a book exists and if one does, its existence is purely coincidental.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"That's a bit misleading, Terry.
There are many indie authors whose works are tightly edited.
And, conversely, I've encountered glaring errors in many traditionally-published books ... eBook or otherwise."_

If I left the impresion that independent authors who are not affiliated with a big publisher put out substandard work, I sure didn't mean that.

My advice was to someone who was searching for an imprimatur attesting to the spelling, grammar, and lack of typos. If they think independents need that, and it is important to them, using the publisher as a filter is their best option.

_"Besides, the whole point of the OP misses a much larger issue: quality consists of far more than just proper spelling and grammar."_

Remember, the specification the poster defined was limited to spelling, grammar, and typos. Quality was not included in the spec.

_"Suddenly, HEATHER is marked as an Amazon Quality Seal of Approval title."_

There is no reason to call it a Quality Seal. Just call it a correct spelling, grammar, and typo seal. That's the most accurate description. It's the SGT Seal granted by ERETA. (ERETA: Eagle-Eyed Retired English Teachers of America.)


----------



## Dana Taylor (Jan 8, 2010)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I can feel the flames licking my feet.
> 
> I guess that idea bites the dust.


It's pitching ideas that shows the creative mind. But, basically, the answer to your question is "no."

Dana Taylor


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I think we already have that seal of approval. It's called Crown, Ballantine, McGraw Hill, Simon & Schuster, etc. Anyone who wants to ensure they don't encounter typos or grammatical errors has a huge offering available.





swolf said:


> Even what we call 'horrible editing' from a big publisher is still above the average editing of the self-published books out there.


Actually, I've seen as many typos and problems in trad publisher books as in indie books. And formatting issues happen in both "types" of books. And as for quality? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder, and I'm more looking forward to delving into the indie book I downloaded yesterday than the trad published one I bought today....

As to the original question, I doubt amazon wants to get into the review and seal of approval game. I think it behooves all authors to carefully proof their work and have it proofed by someone else also.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Scarlet,

I note reviewers of independents often comment on the format, spelling, grammar, and typos of independent books. Has anyone noticed similar attention by reviewers of publishing house books? What might be the plausible explanations for this?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Scarlet,
> 
> I note reviewers of independents often comment on the format, spelling, grammar, and typos of independent books. Has anyone noticed similar attention by reviewers of publishing house books? What might be the plausible explanations for this?


I rarely post reviews and even more rarely read them. And as to the reason for typos, part of it may be due to conversion of print to electronic files and part due to cutbacks in editing staff at the trads and part due to a flucuation in quality of editing staff.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Scarlet,
> 
> I note reviewers of independents often comment on the format, spelling, grammar, and typos of independent books. Has anyone noticed similar attention by reviewers of publishing house books? What might be the plausible explanations for this?


It's might be because most people who read and review a lot of independent books are aware of potential problems, and feel the need to bring attention to those problems, or the absence of them. Sort of a, "Yeah, this was self-published and it had a LOT of errors" or "Holy cow! This was self-published, yet there were hardly any errors!" People who read and review mostly traditionally published books don't think about it a whole lot. People who read a great deal of both types usually bring out editing problems in all of their reviews.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> NOTE TO VICKIE: Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on your novel here; my review tells you what I think of it. I used NWSS because it's one of the best reads I've enjoyed in a long time.


No worries! I didn't take it as picking on my book at all. 

And I often agree with you too, Craig. I can't wait to read your book when it's done.

Vicki


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Scarlet,
> 
> I note reviewers of independents often comment on the format, spelling, grammar, and typos of independent books. Has anyone noticed similar attention by reviewers of publishing house books? What might be the plausible explanations for this?


If you follow the discussions on the Amazon boards, the "reviewer culture" believes that you should comment on spelling and grammar on indies - and a number of people seem to think that's the only reason to review indies, to indicate which ones can spell and format. Many of those who talk about this a lot don't seem to read mainstream books any more. They only review indies.

It's something a few of us have been trying to dissuade them from doing - to only mention spelling and formatting if it's BAD, but don't bring it up if it's good. It's SUPPOSED to be good. Some listen, but there is a core group who just keep on proclaiming about what great spellers their favorite Indies are....

I suspect this prejudice is what people are reacting to here.

Camille


----------



## CIBond (Aug 28, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Scarlet,
> 
> I note reviewers of independents often comment on the format, spelling, grammar, and typos of independent books. Has anyone noticed similar attention by reviewers of publishing house books? What might be the plausible explanations for this?


In a nut shell the format, spelling, grammar, and typos while not nill in standard publishing is it much, much less that what can be found in most indie work. Sorry but there it is. The number of typos in a single page of indie work, generally, are more than in an entire standard-publishing book. I did comment in one of my reviews about the weird formatting in Dead Already, they didn't use quotes and instead used a dash to represent speech&#8230; it was odd. The solution, hire a copy editor, mine only charges $100 for 20,000 words and I think, given the results it was money well spent.

Then again do you read a story looking specifically for grammar or for content, we all have different thresholds on the grammar issue. It's a slippery slope; if the grammar is bad enough it will distract from the story or make it unreadable but if there is no story then what's the point to begin with?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Actually, I've seen as many typos and problems in trad publisher books as in indie books.


Are you being intentionally vague?

Ok, give me an example of 10 trad published books that have as many typos and problems as an average indie book.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

swolf said:


> Are you being intentionally vague?
> 
> Ok, give me an example of 10 trad published books that have as many typos and problems as an average indie book.


I'm being vague for a few reasons....
1) I don't keep track of every typo/formatting issue in every book I read.
2) I don't really find all that many typos in either type of book, but they are averaging out to pretty equal in the over 500 books I've read on my kindle.
3) There is no such thing as an "average indie book". Some are good, some are bad, some are awful. And guess what, in my years of reading paperbacks and hard covers, I've found the same problems I'm finding in ebooks, whatever the source.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

CIBond said:


> In a nut shell the format, spelling, grammar, and typos while not nill in standard publishing is it much, much less that what can be found in most indie work. Sorry but there it is. The number of typos in a single page of indie work, generally, are more than in an entire standard-publishing book. I did comment in one of my reviews about the weird formatting in Dead Already, they didn't use quotes and instead used a dash to represent speech&#8230; it was odd. The solution, hire a copy editor, mine only charges $100 for 20,000 words and I think, given the results it was money well spent.
> 
> Then again do you read a story looking specifically for grammar or for content, we all have different thresholds on the grammar issue. It's a slippery slope; if the grammar is bad enough it will distract from the story or make it unreadable but if there is no story then what's the point to begin with?


Already Dead is formatted like that whether in paperback or Kindle. It's a weird thing that the author does with that whole series. It made it hard for me to read, but I was in a discussion about it--lots of people adjusted and thought it really worked even though it wasn't conventional. I found it to be plain weird and annoying to not have the "convention" there that I was used to.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

There have been a lot of complaints about some of the later Jean Auel books.  Readers were reporting that it looked like uncorrected OCR work.  When they were talking about it on the Amazon Kindle Community, a lot of readers chimed in that they were running across that on a lot of backlist books with similar problems. Some of them seemed to be uncorrected OCR, some just really poor ebook formatting (bad line breaks, etc.)

I'm not saying this to defend badly spelled Indie books - but just like poor spelling, these are things that could be seen at a glance with a sample.  (And with the indie books - the bad spelling and poor grammar is likely to show up in the book description too.)  In some ways such books could use that quality seal MORE than indies, because people are less likely to check a sample before buying a former bestselling book that they know they want.

Camille


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

scarlet said:


> I'm being vague for a few reasons....
> 1) I don't keep track of every typo/formatting issue in every book I read.
> 2) I don't really find all that many typos in either type of book, but they are averaging out to pretty equal in the over 500 books I've read on my kindle.
> 3) There is no such thing as an "average indie book". Some are good, some are bad, some are awful. And guess what, in my years of reading paperbacks and hard covers, I've found the same problems I'm finding in ebooks, whatever the source.


So the answer is 'no'.

Ok.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Remember, the specification the poster defined was limited to spelling, grammar, and typos. Quality was not included in the spec.


Misleading again, my friend. Look at the subject header for this thread. The topic up for discussion is "Should Amazon offer a 'quality' logo for indie books?"

If the word "quality" is in the subject header, I'd argue it is very much "in the spec."

Just sayin'....


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Another point:

Somewhere in the thread here, "formatting" got tossed into the "quality" mix as well.

This is interesting, and I'll tell you why.

Do I enjoy a well-formatted book as much as the next reader? Do I appreciate clean chapter-breaks and a working TOC and so forth, as much as the next reader?

Absolutely. Sure I do. Anyone would.

But as we're fretting over this issue, the fact of the matter is, some of the best-selling "indies" have books that simply are not formatted all that well... No TOC, chapters that start a couple carriage returns below a chapter-ending rather than on a fresh page, no cover image inserted into the file, etc.

And the absolute bottom-line truth of the matter is, if the story is great, no one cares. It doesn't affect their sales at all.

Case in point: Amanda, who writes terrific stories, has books that have some of these so-called "formatting flaws."

Yet with six or seven books out so far, in about eight months, she's already blown past 50,000 copies sold.

And no wonder! She's a great storyteller!

So here again we have an example of an author whose books wouldn't get this proposed "quality seal" because of a few formatting issues... But if it's slowed her sales down at all, it's darn hard to tell because 50,000-plus copies in about eight months is a darn sight better than most of us are doing.

Am I saying we should all ignore good formatting? No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, if you have a great story, well-told, that lots of people want to read, the artfulness of the layout is apparently something most readers aren't going to be bothered by.

Might readers enjoy the book a bit more if some of these issues were fixed? Sure, I guess so. But her books sell scads and scads anyway! In the end, story matters more than formatting.

So who is all the fuss about formatting for, who does it impress? Each other, as fellow authors? That's like writing in a college level course to please a literature professor, rather than the mass market. In the end, sales and reviews are my preferred barometer.

I just think we can get hung up on the wrong things sometimes. Fuss over the details and lose sight of the bigger issue.

And I'm ONLY saying this about formatting.

Yes, let's do our best to make sure our eBooks are tightly edited and as mistake-free as possible. Yes, let's even try to spit-shine our shoes, so to speak, by getting the formatting as good as it can be. Absolutely.

But let's all remember that in the end, it's the story that sells us.

We can be tightly-edited, wonderfully formatted and if we tell a clunky, cliche-ridden, poorly-plotted, boring story... it ain't gonna matter a hill o' beans, kid.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"If the word "quality" is in the subject header, I'd argue it is very much "in the spec."_

OK. You win.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. You win.


Not a big deal. You make very valid observations 99 percent of the time. I'm just annoying on details at times... have patience with me... I'm not as unlikeable as I sometimes seem, LOL...


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

swolf- I'm not going to argue with you.  You seem to have some issue with the quality of indie books as opposed to trad published and that's your right.  However, I don't feel that lumping all indie books into one basket and saying they are badly formatted as opposed to non-indie is fair.  As I've said, I've read well formated trad, and badly formatted trad and don't need to cite chapter and verse.  If you want to investigate, be my guest.  But remember one important thing about statistics.  You can prove anything if you look at a big enough sample.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

scarlet said:


> ...But remember one important thing about statistics. You can prove anything if you look at a big enough sample.


Or, as Mark Twain put it, "There are three degrees of falsehood: Lies, damn lies, and statistics."


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

While I agree that traditionally published books contain typos, as most any book will, I don't think it's accurate to say that traditionally published books are often or even semi-frequently "full" of typos. I've read indie samples in which the author clearly has little or no grasp of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling, but I've never seen that in a traditionally published book. Yes, I may run across a few misspelled words, omissions, or errors in a traditionally published book, but I've never personally seen a complete lack of craft skill in a traditionally published book like I have in certain indie books. Which makes perfect sense--publishers pay copy editors (at the very least) with a basic knowledge of writing to double-check their books before they go to print. Many indie books are only run by the husband/wife, or perhaps just the author, then sent out into the world.

I'm talking worst of the worst, as far as indies go, and most indies are not like that, but I've certainly never seen a traditionally published book that looks like it was written by a child in serious need of further schooling. I've definitely seen indie books that fall into that category.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Somewhere in the thread here, "formatting" got tossed into the "quality" mix as well.
> 
> This is interesting, and I'll tell you why.
> 
> Do I enjoy a well-formatted book as much as the next reader? Do I appreciate clean chapter-breaks and a working TOC and so forth, as much as the next reader?


I don't think that's what people meant when they mentioned formatting in the "quality" mix. What we meant was unreadable messes where every line breaks wrong and some words are 72 point tall and others tiny, and sudden inexplicable page breaks - that leave you with several blank pages in the middle of a sentence, and strings of ascii gibberish.

At least, that's what I meant, and what people usually mean when they complain about formatting problems on the Amazon Communities. It is also the one basic quality problem that seem to plague traditionally published books as well as indies. It's a conversion/publishing problem, not a writing/editing problem.

Camille


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> Many indie books are only run by the husband/wife, or perhaps just the author, then sent out into the world.
> 
> I'm talking worst of the worst, as far as indies go, and most indies are not like that, but I've certainly never seen a traditionally published book that looks like it was written by a child in serious need of further schooling. I've definitely seen indie books that fall into that category.


I'm starting to wonder if we're not relying on a dated image of indie writers.

Sure, there are some that fit this description. A lot of one-offs can be like this. And it was more common in the early days of Kindle.

But the serious writers... folks who come to KB, for example... I'd say we're all semi-pro to pro, and there are not many who come here regularly whose books I've bought that fit this description.

So the question becomes, do we paint everyone who is indie with the same brush? I certainly hope not!

That'd be like saying, "You know, those MACK BOLAN novels by Don Pendleton were traditionally-published dreck... so stay away from Stephen King, Robert B. Parker and Ian Fleming, too.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I'm starting to wonder if we're not relying on a dated image of indie writers.


That's exactly it.

I mean, it isn't dated in that there are lots of indie writers out there who exactly fit the stereotype - but they don't matter. There are too many books out there for any one person to read, too many really good books, so the only books that matter are the ones that a reader wants to read.

And luckily for all of us - even those writers of really awful books - what people want to read varies widely. What they care about varies widely. Write the book YOU want to read, write it really well, and make sure you fill it with "Wow" (whatever "wow" means for your tastes and genre - be it literary relevance, poetry, or big explosions and sex) and the dross will be invisible around you. And for your prime audience, even better works will also be invisible.

It just takes a lot of time and slog to get in front of the right audience. IMHO, the key to doing that is not in differentiating yourself from stuff that's obviously bad. Nobody is even looking at that stuff. The key is looking like the good stuff - but in your own unique way.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2010)

I would be against Amazon charging for a test to give a seal of approval. Many writers are already paying for editing and proof reading in any case. Also, such a system would have to (based on my recent experience with a number of mainstream books) be extended to the big publishers! 

I'd prefer quality issues to be picked up through sampling (you can tell a lot from skimming a few pages) and from reviews. Unfortunately, as we all know, there can be problems with reviews. It helps no one in the long run if 5 star gushing reviews are handed out for mediocre books that are rife with errors. This problem isn't just limited to friends, families and backscratching writers. I've seen plenty of reviews from established reviewers talking about professional standard editing and virtually error-free texts, but upon reading them myself I've given up due to the sheer number of typos.

Quality is a huge issue and it's down to the writers to fix it. It's not a simple matter of spell-checking and then giving the manuscript a quick readthrough as you rush to publish. If you self-edit you need space from the work so that you can go through it with fresh eyes. You need to be prepared to redraft; you need more space so that you can go through it again. You then need beta readers; maybe more revision, and another readthrough. How many indies are doing this? Some definitely are, and it shows. A few indies have raised the standard so high they are giving the traditionals a run for their money. It doesn't have to cost much (or anything) to do this, but it does take a hell of a lot of hard work. Writing the story (the first draft) is barely the start of the process, and yet that's what many people are putting out there.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Quality is a huge issue and it's down to the writers to fix it. It's not a simple matter of spell-checking and then giving the manuscript a quick readthrough as you rush to publish. If you self-edit you need space from the work so that you can go through it with fresh eyes. You need to be prepared to redraft; you need more space so that you can go through it again. You then need beta readers; maybe more revision, and another readthrough. How many indies are doing this? Some definitely are, and it shows. A few indies have raised the standard so high they are giving the traditionals a run for their money. It doesn't have to cost much (or anything) to do this, but it does take a hell of a lot of hard work. Writing the story (the first draft) is barely the start of the process, and yet that's what many people are putting out there.
[/quote]

I agree that writing is hard work, but there are some writers who are not prepared to spend the time. They expect an editor to fix their carelessness.
I personally couldn't read a book that was full of errors as they would jump out at me and take me out of the story. I would want to whip out the red editing pen. 
The intention of my OP was to encourage the Indie writers who are beginner writers to at least use a spell check before uploading.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

scarlet said:


> swolf- I'm not going to argue with you. You seem to have some issue with the quality of indie books as opposed to trad published and that's your right. However, I don't feel that lumping all indie books into one basket and saying they are badly formatted as opposed to non-indie is fair.


Please read what I'm actually typing, instead of making up things I've said.



scarlet said:


> As I've said, I've read well formated trad, and badly formatted trad and don't need to cite chapter and verse. If you want to investigate, be my guest. But remember one important thing about statistics. You can prove anything if you look at a big enough sample.


Actually, no, you can't prove anything with a 'big enough sample.' You can 'prove anything' by cherry-picking data that's convenient. Which is exactly what you're doing. You're trying to claim that the few badly formatted/edited trad published books you've run into prove that traditional published books are just as bady formatted/edited as the average self-published book. But when I asked you for examples you couldn't provide any. I can give you plenty of examples of badly formatted/edited self-published books.

The bottom line it, most readers perceive trad published books to be better formatted/edited than self published books, and, in general, they are correct in feeling that way because it's the truth.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

There's a problem with this notion, but I'm having trouble defining it.

_One point I would like to make concerns the misuse of the term 'typo'. A typo is a typographical error, not a grammatical error. 
It's a mis-typed letter, a word repetition, a missing quotation mark. It's not a homophone (their, they're, there), comma splice, or dangling participle (in PUBLIC, even!). Let's stop calling these things typos, ok? 'Typo' implies a minor 'human error' in an otherwise literate manuscript._

When we choose to publish, we all have equal space in the pool...at first. What should sort us out is the quality of our work, and that quality is discovered by readers and reviewers. If we foolishly choose to publish a work that is poorly edited, we must be prepared for the consequences. Feedback and lack of sales will tell the tale. Some indies are in denial--they refuse to acknowledge their lack of editorial finesse and blame their bad reviews on the reviewers. They continually point out the lack of proper editing in mainstream publishing, which can in no way compete with their own cringeworthy, error-riddled prose. As a reader, I can tell when a writer has the mastery of English that I require; a sample is all I need. Typos (real ones) don't concern me as much as simple inability to use the language effectively and correctly. I can state that I've not yet come across a 'cringeworthy' traditionally-published book.

I'm an anal-retentive-neurotic proofreader. I know there are very few errors in my work--I don't need Amazon to stamp my books as such. The reviewers have noted it. The sample will reveal it. And I have the same chance as every other indie--that's the way it should be.

One of the WORST books I've read lately was a national best-seller. BAD! I mean, so bad I couldn't finish it. But there weren't many typos. If it were an indie book, it would've received the stamp 'Writer-can-writey-Engie' or whatever--it still would have been the worst book I've read lately. We take a chance every time we purchase a book--we might not like it. Reviewers may rave, awards may be bestowed, and it still stinks! Oh, WELL!

We all throw our hats into the ring. Let the readers decide who prevails. To attempt to elevate some above others in the indie fraternity in any other way just seems 'wrong' somehow. The cream will rise on its own merit, as the lead will sink.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Archer (the Bard) said:


> *We all throw our hats into the ring. Let the readers decide who prevails. To attempt to elevate some above others in the indie fraternity in any other way just seems 'wrong' somehow. The cream will rise on its own merit, as the lead will sink.*


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Archer (the Bard) said:


> To attempt to elevate some above others in the indie fraternity in any other way just seems 'wrong' somehow.


So wait, we have self-pubbed authors begging reviewers to review their book, and then crowing about glowing reviews, paying hundreds of dollars on covers, paying for editors, and having give-aways and contests - all in an effort to elevate their book above others in the indie fraternity, but somehow having some kind of stamp that says "this is well-edited" is wrong?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> So wait, we have self-pubbed authors begging reviewers to review their book, and then crowing about glowing reviews, paying hundreds of dollars on covers, paying for editors, and having give-aways and contests - all in an effort to elevate their book above others in the indie fraternity, but somehow having some kind of stamp that says "this is well-edited" is wrong?


In a way, yes, SWolf, for this reason: It is a reasonable reader expectation for any book they pay money for to be well-edited.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

"Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> In a way, yes, SWolf, for this reason: It is a reasonable reader expectation for any book they pay money for to be well-edited.


So it's somehow wrong to provide a reader with assurance your book has met their expectations?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."


I've seen this before but I always find it fascinating.

This is probably why we miss a lot of typos in our work.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

Again, I don't need Amazon to tell me whether books are well-edited, nor would I necessarily trust it to do so. I doubt that they will read every book from beginning to end to judge the quality of copy-editing--they will sample it. I can do that myself, thanks. I can preview any book I want to buy and I can tell whether it's been copy-edited or not. *This is an unnecessary step, and it amounts to a 'badge of shame' for any indie not willing to pay the fee. Readers may assume that the lack of such 'approval' means the book doesn't merit the stamp. THAT would be wrong. *

I wouldn't pay for it because I don't need it. The quality of my copy-editing speaks for itself.

Readers who fail to sample before they buy assume the risk.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Archer (the Bard) said:


> Again, I don't need Amazon to tell me whether books are well-edited, nor would I necessarily trust it to do so. I doubt that they will read every book from beginning to end to judge the quality of copy-editing--they will sample it. I can do that myself, thanks. I can preview any book I want to buy and I can tell whether it's been copy-edited or not. *This is an unnecessary step, and it amounts to a 'badge of shame' for any indie not willing to pay the fee. Readers may assume that the lack of such 'approval' means the book doesn't merit the stamp. THAT would be wrong. *
> 
> I wouldn't pay for it because I don't need it. The quality of my copy-editing speaks for itself.
> 
> Readers who fail to sample before they buy assume the risk.


The same then could be said for reviews and ratings. According to your logic, readers don't need reviews and ratings because they can just sample the book themselves.

But the fact is, reviews draw in potential readers, and lead them to sample. And some kind of stamp of well-edited content would be just another flag that the reader would see that could cause them to be interested enough to sample. And properly executed, it could raise the level of how readers compare self published books to trad published books.

And for the record, I'm not pushing the stamp of approval coming from Amazon. I think it would work better as a third party, who would be motivated by profits to only approve books that are worthy of their standard.

As for you badge of shame logic, the same can be said for a professionally done cover vs an amateur one. Someone willing to pay the money puts a better face on their book. It would be no different for someone willing to pay for this service.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

swolf:

I don't think any of us are saying is wrong so much as explaining why most people - writers and readers - wouldn't use it.

You can always go try it, and see if it flies - sometimes a big debate like this gives you the info you need to make it work.  And, imho, if something like this really is needed, it will arise.  If it's not needed, we'll all just talk endlessly about how it ought to be, with nobody really right and nobody really wrong.

Camille


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I don't think any of us are saying is wrong so much as explaining why most people - writers and readers - wouldn't use it.


This is why I'm using the word 'wrong':



Archer (the Bard) said:


> To attempt to elevate some above others in the indie fraternity in any other way just seems 'wrong' somehow.





daringnovelist said:


> You can always go try it, and see if it flies - sometimes a big debate like this gives you the info you need to make it work. And, imho, if something like this really is needed, it will arise. If it's not needed, we'll all just talk endlessly about how it ought to be, with nobody really right and nobody really wrong.


If I was a trained editor, I would actually consider it. I think there's a market out there.

This topic relates directly to the topic that Lee Goldberg occassionally stops by and stirs up the pot with - the comparison of trad pub and self pub authors and ebooks. If something like this existed, we could point to it and say, 'We're officially approved, now bugger off Lee." (In a polite way, of course, because Lee seems like a nice guy.)


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."


And isn't it amazing that the the human mind does not process the the fact that I used "the" twice each time in this sentence? 
For some reason, although I can make out what the words are supposed to be if I try, that makes my head hurt.



> Should Amazon offer a 'quality' logo for Indie books?


No. I agree with others that said reviews and samples are sufficient to allow people to find the "quality" books. Also, what standard of "quality" would this be judged by? Some people think it is fine to use improper grammar in thoughts, some don't. Some people think the rules of British English should be used at all times, while some think the rules of American English are fine. And what if there was subject matter that the assigned quality checker disagreed with? 


> As for you badge of shame logic, the same can be said for a professionally done cover vs an amateur one.


While that is true, I personally pay little/no attention to covers, and sometimes an amateur can make a cover that looks professional. However I think I would be more likely to pay attention to a "quality" logo.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."


That's total


Spoiler



horseshit


, too, and in my opinion an excuse for people to be lazy about their grammar and spelling - after all, it doesn't matter, right? Yes, I can read the above text, but no, it's not enjoyable, and it's hardly proof that spelling doesn't matter.



s0nicfreak said:


> For some reason, although I can make out what the words are supposed to be if I try, that makes my head hurt.


And that, right there, is why the assumption is


Spoiler



horseshit


. Having to work to decode what you're reading can be done, but it is certainly not enjoyable nor relaxing. So, yeah, spelling matters.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

swolf said:


> This topic relates directly to the topic that Lee Goldberg occassionally stops by and stirs up the pot with - the comparison of trad pub and self pub authors and ebooks. If something like this existed, we could point to it and say, 'We're officially approved, now bugger off Lee." (In a polite way, of course, because Lee seems like a nice guy.)


Except that wouldn't fly. People will still accuse it of being a rubber-stamp thing. There's too much subjective about all this. And I think you're confusing a few things, in constant reference to editors and covers...

I want to put out the best product that I can for my readers. That means having it well edited. I could release my fifth book and have it full of spelling errors, and it wouldn't affect its sales in the slightest (I have an invested readership by that point, they might skip out on book 6 if I go slacking, but it won't stop sales of that initial book). But I do it because I want to release a good product. I want people to associate well-written, well-told stories to my name. Same thing goes for covers. I want the best possible product that I can. Same for product descriptions. Do you really think some little "quality assurance" sticker will help the sales of someone with a terrible cover? The cover will make the same initial impression as before, and once you get it into someone's head that a work isn't professional, it's freaking hard to change it. First impressions last.

As for ads, banners, reviews, bragging threads...we want the widest possible audience. These all help with that. People who write generally want to be read. That's kind of how it works. Sometimes we spend money to do this, but if viewing self-publishing as a business, it is only natural to invest in a product you are proud of, confident in, and feel can do well. This is not some hierarchy where I'm trying to plant a flag atop other indie writers and go "They can't afford an editor or good cover, but I can, so buy me instead because I'm the man!!" I want all indies to do well, because the better we do, the weaker and weaker the stigma against us gets. But if someone chooses not to pay 100-200 dollars on a cover...is that my fault? Should I feel bad about this? Am I cheating? Of course not.

So we want the best product for the largest audience possible...where does this little seal of approval help? All it says is "you don't have to be scared of this one, group A doesn't think it has very many spelling errors." Do you REALLY think that's what annoys people about self-published books? No, the problem is when they take forever to get into the story, or have inconsistent characters, or the story itself is boring. There are good writers and there are bad writers, both are self-publishing, and the difference between them is NOT a handful of typos. Plenty of books would pass this test, still suck, and then readers would turn on this badge. Why? Because they'll expect it to be some sort of quality control, which it -isn't-. It'd just be a glorified spellchecker.

And if it did try to become more? A plot-testing, writing-ability tester? Congratz. Welcome to just a new gateway system that we have to pay for and hope some unknown person on the other side thinks our stuff is good enough to get a seal. F*** that. I'll let sample, cover, description, and reviews convince readers that my work is professional. I don't need outside approval. I have reader approval, and that is ten billion times more useful.

David Dalglish


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> No. I agree with others that said reviews and samples are sufficient to allow people to find the "quality" books. Also, what standard of "quality" would this be judged by? Some people think it is fine to use improper grammar in thoughts, some don't. Some people think the rules of British English should be used at all times, while some think the rules of American English are fine. And what if there was subject matter that the assigned quality checker disagreed with?


Trad publishers overcome these obstacles and produce a product that most readers think is of acceptable quality. I don't see why someone else couldn't do the same.



s0nicfreak said:


> While that is true, I personally pay little/no attention to covers, and sometimes an amateur can make a cover that looks professional. However I think I would be more likely to pay attention to a "quality" logo.


So, are you saying that you admit a quality logo would be effective in attracting readers, but we shouldn't use it because some could afford it and some couldn't? If so, do you feel the same way about writers buying ads on these forums?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Except that wouldn't fly. People will still accuse it of being a rubber-stamp thing. There's too much subjective about all this. And I think you're confusing a few things, in constant reference to editors and covers...
> 
> I want to put out the best product that I can for my readers. That means having it well edited. I could release my fifth book and have it full of spelling errors, and it wouldn't affect its sales in the slightest (I have an invested readership by that point, they might skip out on book 6 if I go slacking, but it won't stop sales of that initial book). But I do it because I want to release a good product. I want people to associate well-written, well-told stories to my name. Same thing goes for covers. I want the best possible product that I can. Same for product descriptions. Do you really think some little "quality assurance" sticker will help the sales of someone with a terrible cover? The cover will make the same initial impression as before, and once you get it into someone's head that a work isn't professional, it's freaking hard to change it. First impressions last.
> 
> ...


The quality of editing is one aspect of comparison between trad and self pub that readers notice, and they do complain about it. (Again, I'm talking in generalies, not specific authors. Some specific authors have their fans who know what the editing is going to be like going in.)

And just like specific authors gain the trust of readers, so could an outside agency who works hard to maintain a high standard of quality. Just like a reader can see your name on a book and know it will be well-edited, the same thing can work for an outside resource. If company ABC consistently marks books that meet the readers' standards, the readers will come to recognize their mark as a symbol of qualilty.

And this is would not be a gateway. It would be a selling tool, just like hiring a professional artist for a cover.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> So, are you saying that you admit a quality logo would be effective in attracting readers, but we shouldn't use it because some could afford it and some couldn't? If so, do you feel the same way about writers buying ads on these forums?


Are you comparing a "quality seal" to an advertisement?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> That's total
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Holy Overreaction Batman!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Are you comparing a "quality seal" to an advertisement?


Yes. They would both be ways a writer could spend their money in order to attract readers.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2010)

Why is everyone even arguing about this? What a waste of time.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

swolf said:


> This topic relates directly to the topic that Lee Goldberg occassionally stops by and stirs up the pot with - the comparison of trad pub and self pub authors and ebooks. If something like this existed, we could point to it and say, 'We're officially approved, now bugger off Lee." (In a polite way, of course, because Lee seems like a nice guy.)


Or you can just tell Lee to bugger off anyway. (In a polite way, of course, because he IS a nice guy.)

Camille


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> So it's somehow wrong to provide a reader with assurance your book has met their expectations?


No, the point is that it shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Readers who fail to sample before they buy assume the risk."_

Many of our markets are based on passing off and reducing risk. Futures markets, insurance, and title search all revolve around one person passing risk to another. So, for the subset of readers who do not sample, they have a choice of assuming the risk themselves, or passing it off to someone else. If a sufficient number of non-samplers don't want the risk, some enterprising soul might tap that market by offering the grammar, typo, and spelling seal. Non-samplers who choose could then buy books with the seal.

This doesn't mean it's a good thing, and it doesn't man it's a bad thing. It simply means sufficient demand for a service often results in a supply of that service if a supplier can figure a way to make a buck. We might not be potential customers, and we might think nobody should patronoze or provide the service, but that doesn't matter in the market.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> Holy Overreaction Batman!


How is that an overreaction? I see that little tidbit ALL the time, and I think it's BS. It's not like I said "Let's go burn down Cambridge." That would be an overreaction. I'm not even saying "Let's email them!" That, too, would be overreaction. But stating my opinion is overreaction? Ooookay, then.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

swolf said:


> If I was a trained editor, I would actually consider it. I think there's a market out there.


Have you considered contracting out? If you do believe there is a market, you could be a clearing house for a couple of editors - taking a percentage in return for drumming up business.

(Not just you, of course - anybody here who feels this is a good idea might want to give it a go.)

Camille


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> No, the point is that it shouldn't be necessary.


In a perfect world maybe. But in the world we live in, readers have a lower opinion of the editing of self published books than they do of traditional published books. And with good reason.

Something like this could narrow that gap.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."


I get your point... but my wife, who suffers from mild-to-moderate dyslexia, would be quite offended.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

swolf said:


> And just like specific authors gain the trust of readers, so could an outside agency who works hard to maintain a high standard of quality. Just like a reader can see your name on a book and know it will be well-edited, the same thing can work for an outside resource. If company ABC consistently marks books that meet the readers' standards, the readers will come to recognize their mark as a symbol of qualilty.


What standards? Whose? You're just skipping over what I wrote. Let me try again.



> There are good writers and there are bad writers, both are self-publishing, and the difference between them is NOT a handful of typos. _Plenty of books would pass this test, still suck, and then readers would turn on this badge_. Why? Because they'll expect it to be some sort of quality control, which it -isn't-. It'd just be a glorified spellchecker.
> 
> And if it did try to become more? A plot-testing, writing-ability tester? Congratz. Welcome to just a new gateway system that we have to pay for and hope some unknown person on the other side thinks our stuff is good enough to get a seal.


They check for something simple like editing and typos, then readers will turn on the badge because they'll still buy bad books with the seal. And if the people giving the badge try to go further, to make it reflect things like story, characters, dialog...now it is a gatekeeper. Only books approved by vague, unquantifiable standards get the badge.

Think this through. If the badge does nothing, we're wasting money. It won't affect sales, or persuade readers. If it DOES start carrying weight, the gatekeeper thing becomes more prevalent, because readers will believe books WITHOUT the seal are terrible. This is all just lose-lose, and no matter what, writers are handing over money. And don't forget, this is just approval. This company wouldn't do the editing itself, right? I mean, they can't possibly do that, otherwise it is a massive conflict of interest and a stupidly obvious scam (send us your book, we edit it, approve it, your book rocks now go tell readers yay!). So you'd send a book, get a decline with maybe a few vague reasons why, then have to go back and fix it so you can submit again (and pay again) to get a second shot at approval. Wow, let me think what this reminds me of...



> And this is would not be a gateway. It would be a selling tool, just like hiring a professional artist for a cover.


Yup. Some amazing selling tool it'd be, too.

"Buy my book! It doesn't have any typos! That means it MUST be worth your time, but please, ignore my amateur cover and my poorly written product description. Those won't matter if I never confuse there and their, right?"

Ooh, ooh, or how about this one?

"Company ABC said that my book was worthy for purchase, along with the 5,000 other books they approved this month! I stand out!"

Seriously, sometimes I think the only people who really want this sort of thing (because it has come up before; this certainly isn't the first time) is by people who want to indie publish but don't want to be associated with indie publishing in any way. It's like they want some badge that says "I'm indie, but I'm not REALLY an indie, and this company confirms that!" It's an ego boost, a scam, a waste of money, and never, ever, ever going to work.

David Dalglish


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

I was always under the impression the Cafe is here for writers to discuss issues related to publishing... not tear into one another senselessly.

Just my two pennies.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"We employ full-time professional inspectors who anonymously visit restaurants and hotels, and evaluate them on a range of criteria. Our evaluation process has been honed over time to identify consistently high-quality establishments to suit a range of budgets and across a range of styles and cuisines."_
Michelin Guide

http://www.michelinguide.com/us/guide.html


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> I was always under the impression the Cafe is here for writers to discuss issues related to publishing... not tear into one another senselessly.
> 
> Just my two pennies.


Wait - people are tearing into each other? Where? 
:looks around:

Conversation is still pretty civil, even if passionate, IMO.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> Trad publishers overcome these obstacles and produce a product that most readers think is of acceptable quality. I don't see why someone else couldn't do the same.
> 
> So, are you saying that you admit a quality logo would be effective in attracting readers, but we shouldn't use it because some could afford it and some couldn't? If so, do you feel the same way about writers buying ads on these forums?


Except that plenty of trad-pubbed stuff is junk, too. Although admittedly, in the past 10 years, some of the junk is thinning out by its very nature.

I read on Wikipedia the other night that Don Pendleton's Mack Bolan/Executioner series and its spinoffs comprise something like 600 titles or more. It's not exactly Ian Fleming. There are entire chapters of backstory that get repeated and reused in nearly every volume, for example. Even a writer I admire ... Max Allen Collins .... pulls that sort of crap with his QUARRY series.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"We employ full-time professional inspectors who anonymously visit restaurants and hotels, and evaluate them on a range of criteria. Our evaluation process has been honed over time to identify consistently high-quality establishments to suit a range of budgets and across a range of styles and cuisines."_
> Michelin Guide
> 
> http://www.michelinguide.com/us/guide.html


Apples and oranges. Their inspectors are anonymous, and revenue is generated by people buying the guide, not by restaurants paying an application fee.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> The quality of editing is one aspect of comparison between trad and self pub that readers notice, and they do complain about it. (Again, I'm talking in generalies, not specific authors. Some specific authors have their fans who know what the editing is going to be like going in.)
> 
> And just like specific authors gain the trust of readers, so could an outside agency who works hard to maintain a high standard of quality. Just like a reader can see your name on a book and know it will be well-edited, the same thing can work for an outside resource. If company ABC consistently marks books that meet the readers' standards, the readers will come to recognize their mark as a symbol of qualilty.
> 
> And this is would not be a gateway. It would be a selling tool, just like hiring a professional artist for a cover.


Again, equating "quality" with good spelling and grammar is too narrow a definition, and actually NOT a selling point. It's a reasonable expectation readers bring to the table with any book or story they pay money for... and even stories they read for free.

Furthermore, having some artificial quality seal that says "this book is well-edited" subjects indies to a standard trad-pubbed books are not subjected to, which separates us rather than allows us to blend in with other authors... which I think is our goal, in terms of quality, right?

So I suggest that, as Camille put it, we stop worrying about the authors who don't measure up. Let's put our energy into being authors of works that are not recognizable as "indie" due to perceived flaws said to be endemic of indie writers... We can only ensure our own works are works of quality... let's do that. It's what we have control over.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

swolf said:


> So, are you saying that you admit a quality logo would be effective in attracting readers, but we shouldn't use it because some could afford it and some couldn't? If so, do you feel the same way about writers buying ads on these forums?


Well it is not about some being able to afford it, as I would feel the same way even if this was a free service. I think it shouldn't be done because it is not something one can do on their own, which is part of the point of being indie (imo). I can make a professional looking cover myself, I can advertise myself (even if I can't afford buying ads, there are plenty of free ways to do it), I can sell an ebook myself (even without Amazon), etc. However if this seal of quality existed the only possible way to get it would be with the assistance of the people giving out the seals.

One of the great things about indie books is that there are no rules about the content. If there was a seal of quality, I am sure there would be rules put in place (aside from proper grammar) that a book must follow to achieve that seal. Books with this content may sell less, and therefore would be written less and less.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Suppose: 

1) the seal is a free service, 
2) the seal covers spelling, grammar, and typos only,
3) the seal boldly states it covers spelling, grammar, and typos,
4) the seal has an excellent record in identifying books without spelling, grammar, or typos

Given that it is free, how does this change the evaluations?


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Suppose:
> 
> 1) the seal is a free service,
> 2) the seal covers spelling, grammar, and typos only,
> ...


It treats us like second-class citizens. No professionally published book would carry this logo. In fact, they'd be insulted by the very notion of it. And again, it wouldn't matter. People complain about typos because typos are easy to complain about. Readers don't buy an indie book because they think it would be a BAD book. Bad books may often have typos, but seriously, does anyone here think the difference between a mediocre story and a big 6 deal is a handful of typos?

I'd rather have readers EXPECT my book to be well-edited by how I present my work and myself, not have Amazon or some other agency automatically imply that my quality is suspect by the sheer fact I am self-publishing, and then set up a list of requirements, logos, a charged fee, and a room full of people all devoted to tell me and my readers what they already know.

David Dalglish


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

> Suppose:
> 
> 1) the seal is a free service,
> 2) the seal covers spelling, grammar, and typos only,
> ...


Well if all of those things are followed, I would be a little more okay with it. However, there is still the question of what standards will be followed; Is improper grammar in thought okay? Is slang in speech okay? British English or American English? Osaka dialect or standard dialect in Japanese books? What about books set in times when grammar and spelling rules were different? Etc. I just think that no matter what is done, the whole thing has such a likelihood for stifling rules that it isn't a good idea.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> It treats us like second-class citizens. No professionally published book would carry this logo. In fact, they'd be insulted by the very notion of it. And again, it wouldn't matter. People complain about typos because typos are easy to complain about. Readers don't buy an indie book because they think it would be a BAD book. Bad books may often have typos, but seriously, does anyone here think the difference between a mediocre story and a big 6 deal is a handful of typos?


My personal opinion:
A book can be perfectly edited with not a single typo, misspelled word or grammatical error and still suck. However, a book can have a great plot, engaging characters, and otherwise be great, but if it has SUFFICIENT errors (ie. enough to pull you from the story), then it's lesser quality.

Of note: Let's say there's a new line of cars that got released tomorrow. Do you think they should advertise that their car's engine won't fall out in the middle of the road? No, because that is expected. How 'bout a new restaurant - should they advertise that their meat is salmonella-free? No. If there is a minimum standard, then everyone is expected to meet that. Failing to meet it, or advertising that you do meet it immediately says, in my opinion, that an operation is fly-by-night. It should never be in question that a car engine is securely attached to the vehicle's chassis, or that a restaurant serves clean food, or that a book is edited and proofed. Yes, there are safety standards in the auto and restaurant industries, but there's also a safety standard in place for eBooks - it's called the sample feature.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> It treats us like second-class citizens. No professionally published book would carry this logo. In fact, they'd be insulted by the very notion of it. And again, it wouldn't matter. People complain about typos because typos are easy to complain about. Readers don't buy an indie book because they think it would be a BAD book. Bad books may often have typos, but seriously, does anyone here think the difference between a mediocre story and a big 6 deal is a handful of typos?
> 
> I'd rather have readers EXPECT my book to be well-edited by how I present my work and myself, not have Amazon or some other agency automatically imply that my quality is suspect by the sheer fact I am self-publishing, and then set up a list of requirements, logos, a charged fee, and a room full of people all devoted to tell me and my readers what they already know.


I have to agree with this. It's true that there are plenty of indie books with poor or mediocre editing. Unfortunately, it's also true that if readers are burned by spending their money on enough of those books, they may become gun-shy about the concept of reading indie books. But there are already tools in place for readers to verify that an author has basic spelling/grammar/punctuation skills, primarily the free sample. In some cases, reviews may also help (though certainly not always--I know a particular indie book with horrific editing and a few 5-star reviews, obviously generously donated by friends and family). But the point is, readers who are nervous about whether an indie author has a basic grasp of grammar, punctuation, and spelling can easily download a sample. Those kinds of issues will be revealed within the first few pages, most likely. Obviously a sample cannot tell you whether the book as a whole will be skillfully written, but neither would this proposed seal.

But...paying to get a seal that says "this book doesn't contain rampant misspellings, grammatical or punctuation errors"? Well, of course my books don't. I take writing very seriously, I'm extremely competent with the basic mechanics of it, and the idea that I would put a seal on my book stating as much--_implying that as an indie, there's an expectation that I wouldn't be_--does nothing to elevate the status of indie publishing in the eyes of readers. As others have stated, readers have an expectation that an author who is selling their book has a basic command of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, and further, readers expect that an author will have _someone_ editing or beta-reading their work before it's released into the wild. I don't think that patting ourselves on the back or getting a special seal when our books fulfill basic expectations would do us any favors.

As others have said, authors who suck will sink to the bottom, authors who don't will rise to the top (assuming they can market their book effectively). And "sucking" covers so much more than editing issues...a book can be perfectly edited and still be terrible. What good is a "quality" seal for those books?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Arkali said:


> My personal opinion:
> A book can be perfectly edited with not a single typo, misspelled word or grammatical error and still suck. However, a book can have a great plot, engaging characters, and otherwise be great, but if it has SUFFICIENT errors (ie. enough to pull you from the story), then it's lesser quality.
> 
> Of note: Let's say there's a new line of cars that got released tomorrow. Do you think they should advertise that their car's engine won't fall out in the middle of the road? No, because that is expected. How 'bout a new restaurant - should they advertise that their meat is salmonella-free? No. If there is a minimum standard, then everyone is expected to meet that. Failing to meet it, or advertising that you do meet it immediately says, in my opinion, that an operation is fly-by-night. It should never be in question that a car engine is securely attached to the vehicle's chassis, or that a restaurant serves clean food, or that a book is edited and proofed. Yes, there are safety standards in the auto and restaurant industries, but there's also a safety standard in place for eBooks - it's called the sample feature.


Well said. In about 150 words, you summed up what I tried to convey in about 150 posts... (not really, but it's funnier if I exaggerate...)


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> It treats us like second-class citizens. No professionally published book would carry this logo. .... They check for something simple like editing and typos, then readers will turn on the badge because they'll still buy bad books with the seal.


Exactly. I have nothing against people doing this.... but I would run the other way and keep my books away from it. It feels like a self-conscious reaction.

As for the Michelin guide - that's just a version of a review publication. It's not really a standards organization. I keep thinking about Calvin Trillin's thesis about food writing:

"The best restaurants in America are in Kansas City. Not all of them, but the top four or five...." He goes on to make it clear that he's not talking about the sort of restaurants that appear in the Michelin guide. He's talking about truly great BBQ joints and mom-and-pop pizza parlors. Amazingly wonderful Thai noodle houses with only two seats, no atmosphere, and a rude counterman. And taco trucks (before the gentrification of the food truck).

The Michelin Guide is not really about standards. I mean, yes, that's their goal, but in terms of the market, they're about pleasing people who don't like to eat at that little Thai place, and who worry that perhaps the authentic little taco truck is serving cat meat, and that the BBQ place may have felons and cockroaches in the kitchen.

And there are Go-To guides and reviewers for those who are desperately searching for the Thai place, the taco truck and the BBQ joint.

So even though I'd run screaming from the room if someone approached me with this - I DO encourage anyone who thinks it's a good idea to take action. No good idea is for everybody. Often great ideas are only great for a certain number of people.

So do it. Find your audience and serve them.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"It treats us like second-class citizens. No professionally published book would carry this logo. In fact, they'd be insulted by the very notion of it."_

OK. How about citing reviews that say spelling, grammar, and typos are absent?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"It treats us like second-class citizens. No professionally published book would carry this logo. In fact, they'd be insulted by the very notion of it."_
> 
> OK. How about citing reviews that say spelling, grammar, and typos are absent?


Sure, you can do that.

I guess the question is, again, whether you really want to. "Certified typo-free?" Does that really sound appealing? There was a guy on the Amazon Kindle Communities who started a thread that was titled something like "Newbie writer - money back guarantee!"

And actually, a very successful local politician ran his political campaigns with the slogan "No worse than the rest!" for 30 years. (It was a college town and he was an old hippie.) When you reach full saturation on cynicism, that kind of approach can work well.

Camille


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

Perhaps, to be safe, we should say 'Ninety-eight percent flub-free!'  (In case one or two varmints slipped the noose!)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I like the old Stan Lee approach; whenever anyone finds a flub, thank them... laud them... praise them to the heavens... and tell them, "Your nice, shiny, 100-percent genuine Marvel No-Prize is on its way to you now, with my eternal gratitude. Excelsior!"


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> What standards? Whose? You're just skipping over what I wrote. Let me try again.


You're not quite grasping this. What standards do publishers use? Why aren't you concerned about their standards?



Half-Orc said:


> They check for something simple like editing and typos, then readers will turn on the badge because they'll still buy bad books with the seal. And if the people giving the badge try to go further, to make it reflect things like story, characters, dialog...now it is a gatekeeper. Only books approved by vague, unquantifiable standards get the badge.


"Bad books" is subjective. And the seal wouldn't be used to say "this is a good book." It will be used to say "this book has been professionally edited for grammar, typos, formatting, etc. That would remove ONE of the problems that readers have with self-published books.



Half-Orc said:


> Think this through.


I have, and I've stated my case quite clearly.



Half-Orc said:


> If the badge does nothing, we're wasting money. It won't affect sales, or persuade readers. If it DOES start carrying weight, the gatekeeper thing becomes more prevalent, because readers will believe books WITHOUT the seal are terrible.


B.S. You could make the same claim that readers think books without professional looking covers are terrible.



Half-Orc said:


> This is all just lose-lose, and no matter what, writers are handing over money. And don't forget, this is just approval. This company wouldn't do the editing itself, right? I mean, they can't possibly do that, otherwise it is a massive conflict of interest and a stupidly obvious scam (send us your book, we edit it, approve it, your book rocks now go tell readers yay!). So you'd send a book, get a decline with maybe a few vague reasons why, then have to go back and fix it so you can submit again (and pay again) to get a second shot at approval. Wow, let me think what this reminds me of...


Yes, they could do the editing. And just like any other editor, they would be judged on their work. For some weird reason, you people think all businesses are basically dishonest and out to rip people off. I've worked with a lot of businesses, and sat in many strategy meetings, and the emphasis has ALWAYS been to put out a quality product. People who run businesses are intelligent, and understand that in the long run, producing quality work is what creates profits.



Half-Orc said:


> Yup. Some amazing selling tool it'd be, too.
> 
> "Buy my book! It doesn't have any typos! That means it MUST be worth your time, but please, ignore my amateur cover and my poorly written product description. Those won't matter if I never confuse there and their, right?"
> 
> ...


I've said none of those things. I'm simply saying that being able to inform your readers that your book has been professionally edited by someone they're familiar with, could make your potential readers more likely to give your book a closer look.



Half-Orc said:


> Seriously, sometimes I think the only people who really want this sort of thing (because it has come up before; this certainly isn't the first time) is by people who want to indie publish but don't want to be associated with indie publishing in any way. It's like they want some badge that says "I'm indie, but I'm not REALLY an indie, and this company confirms that!" It's an ego boost, a scam, a waste of money, and never, ever, ever going to work.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> How is that an overreaction?


Because someone just posted a quirky fact, and you're jumping on him like he's advocating misspelling is ok.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Again, equating "quality" with good spelling and grammar is too narrow a definition, and actually NOT a selling point. It's a reasonable expectation readers bring to the table with any book or story they pay money for... and even stories they read for free.


Not sure why you're having trouble grasping this. The mindset among most readers is that self-pubbed books are not as well edited as trad pubbed books. That's a fact. And yes, readers expect books they pay for to be well-edited. That's why self-pubbed authors should be looking for ways to reassure their readers that their books meet those expectations. This would be one way to do that.



CraigInTwinCities said:


> Furthermore, having some artificial quality seal that says "this book is well-edited" subjects indies to a standard trad-pubbed books are not subjected to, which separates us rather than allows us to blend in with other authors... which I think is our goal, in terms of quality, right?


Huh? Trad-pubbed authors aren't subject to the standard of being well-edited? What do you think editors are doing?



CraigInTwinCities said:


> So I suggest that, as Camille put it, we stop worrying about the authors who don't measure up. Let's put our energy into being authors of works that are not recognizable as "indie" due to perceived flaws said to be endemic of indie writers... We can only ensure our own works are works of quality... let's do that. It's what we have control over.


This isn't about worrying about authors who don't measure up. It's about providing a tool to self-published authors that will allow them to inform their readers their work has been edited to a standard.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> Well it is not about some being able to afford it, as I would feel the same way even if this was a free service. I think it shouldn't be done because it is not something one can do on their own, which is part of the point of being indie (imo). I can make a professional looking cover myself, I can advertise myself (even if I can't afford buying ads, there are plenty of free ways to do it), I can sell an ebook myself (even without Amazon), etc. However if this seal of quality existed the only possible way to get it would be with the assistance of the people giving out the seals.


Just about every book about writing states that it's almost impossible to edit your own work. You're just too close to it. So it's not something you should be doing yourself. And your problem with this idea is that you can't do it yourself?

Makes no sense at all.



s0nicfreak said:


> One of the great things about indie books is that there are no rules about the content. If there was a seal of quality, I am sure there would be rules put in place (aside from proper grammar) that a book must follow to achieve that seal. Books with this content may sell less, and therefore would be written less and less.


Not sure what you mean by 'rules about content'. This would be about grammar, punctuation, spelling, and formatting, not about whether you're writing about crack whores.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> swolf, double post much?


A double post is when you post the same post twice. Did I do that?


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

SWolf - you do realize that this doesn't actually exist, right? This is all hypothetical. You're fighting vehemently. For a hypothetical. With hypothetical rules that you make up. And if/when such a thing does exist, nobody would prohibit you from using it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2010)

swolf said:


> A double post is when you post the same post twice. Did I do that?


Yes, you did. Posting nonsense twice counts as a double post.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite movies, _Amadeus_.

'You are passionate, Mozart. But...you do not _persuade_.'


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> SWolf - you do realize that this doesn't actually exist, right? This is all hypothetical. You're fighting vehemently. For a hypothetical. With hypothetical rules that you make up. And if/when such a thing does exist, nobody would prohibit you from using it.


Why are you addressing me? Why aren't you addressing those who are convinced this hypothetical won't work?

And others are using profanity to respond to me, and I'M the one fighting vehemently?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Yes, you did. Posting nonsense twice counts as a double post.


Why is it nonsense?

There are a few editors who frequent these boards. Let's say one of them became well-known among readers, and was known for doing quality work.

Given that, wouldn't it make sense that if you used the services of that editor, you would want to inform your potential readers of that fact?


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

swolf said:


> Why are you addressing me? Why aren't you addressing those who are convinced this hypothetical won't work?
> 
> And others are using profanity to respond to me, and I'M the one fighting vehemently?


If you have to ask, then you just don't get it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> If you have to ask, then you just don't get it.


Then explain it to me.


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

Sorry... couldn't resist. Well... I could've, but didn't want to.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

swolf said:


> You're not quite grasping this. What standards do publishers use? Why aren't you concerned about their standards?


Each publisher has their own standard. So a company starts up their own little logo of certification. What standards do they use? An error every twenty pages? An error every fifty? What constitutes an error? You seem quite convinced that this magical quality logo would use the 'right' standards, but what the heck would they be? Hell, what if they decide in their standards that they won't approve of erotica because it worsens their brand? We're already on track for censorship. That wouldn't bother you at all, right?



> "Bad books" is subjective. And the seal wouldn't be used to say "this is a good book." It will be used to say "this book has been professionally edited for grammar, typos, formatting, etc. That would remove ONE of the problems that readers have with self-published books.


Readers. I'm talking about the normal, casual Amazon browsing reader. They will see this seal and think it means the book is good. Do you think they won't? Unless the badge is just huge and says everything you said: "This book has been professionally edited for grammar, typos, formatting, etc." That's a big badge. Love to have that on the cover...because it'd be so easily visible on the Kindle's tiny screen. And you want to know what would happen? Readers who buy a terrible but well edited book (are you denying they're out there?) would then go and post in their reviews "Professionally edited? Hah! This book is terrible! It's pacing is horrible, the characters dumb..who edited this again?"



> B.S. You could make the same claim that readers think books without professional looking covers are terrible.


THEY DO! Go ask Lee Goldberg or Konrath if they think a cover is important.



> Yes, they could do the editing. And just like any other editor, they would be judged on their work. For some weird reason, you people think all businesses are basically dishonest and out to rip people off. I've worked with a lot of businesses, and sat in many strategy meetings, and the emphasis has ALWAYS been to put out a quality product. People who run businesses are intelligent, and understand that in the long run, producing quality work is what creates profits.


Love how irrelevant ALL of this is. You started off arguing this would simply be a logo saying it has been professionally edited. Now it has become an actual editing service? Heck, we could all do this ALREADY. It'd take five seconds to add to my product description "Was professionally edited by XYZ editing services."

How can you possibly not see how an editing service that also gives a logo (that would hypothetically be respected, if your logo idea worked) would have conflicting interests? I decide not to use them. I send them my manuscript. They take my money, fail me, and tell me to edit it again...or I could simply pay them and they'll edit it for me, with the obvious assumption that I'll pass next time. They could even use your "good product" argument AGAINST ME. "This wasn't good enough to put our name on it."



> I've said none of those things. I'm simply saying that being able to inform your readers that your book has been professionally edited by someone they're familiar with, could make your potential readers more likely to give your book a closer look.


What I'm doing there is showing just how stupid it'd be to try and use this logo to advertise. I'll be paying a professional editing service to edit my next book. Do you think I'll be putting that in my product description? Saying so on my cover? Let me go check Amanda Hocking or Konrath or any professionally published book to see if they're blatantly saying who edited their book. Readers will care far, far more about what my story is about, how cleanly I write the product description, and yes, how good the cover looks.

David Dalglish


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Wow. Some mighty testy comments. I shoulda grabbed my popcorn.

I agree with Dalglish on this one. I don't see how it would help. If you look at the indie books that are doing well right now, how many of them have some editor's stamp of approval on them? None. You're talking about building up a brand name for a quality service that can pump up your books and make them look professional to readers.

You know what? The author's name should do all that. You see Stephen King's name on a book and BAM! Just like that you know what you're getting. You see Stephenie Meyer's name on a book and WHAMMO! same thing. Stop worrying so much about establishing quality measures that won't mean much to most readers and instead try focusing your energies on making YOUR name a brand that people recognize instantly as something that will be entertaining, well edited, and enjoyable.

The author's name on the cover should say everything there is to say about the book's quality. I want readers to look at my books, read my name, and know that they are getting something that has been worked and worked and reworked within an inch of its life, and then worked again. If I need some middleman company's seal of approval to tell readers that, then I'm not doing my job as an author.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Every one eat some popcorn for a minute or two.  I've given this a cursory glance, and it appears that some personal comments may have crept into the discourse.  Remember, strong opinions are allowed, but be respectful.  Use your inside voices and emoticons....

I'm going to read more thoroughly.  Some of you may have a few stray words removed.


Betsy


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> Because someone just posted a quirky fact, and you're jumping on him like he's advocating misspelling is ok.


Pretty sure I didn't jump on anybody, thanks.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

If I went to the product page for _33 AD_ and saw your cover, description, and # of reviews, it would never cross my mind to think that it was a self-published book.

(Assuming I could be in some sort of "original position" where I didn't know you from various boards, of course.)

For you, using such a service would actually be a negative. Not only wouldn't it add value, it would take it away. If you did use it, I would see the badge and go, "Oho, wait a second. This is one of those self-published books!"

You have already overcome the "indie sales obstacle" by putting out a quality product and doing your homework on presentation. (Doing it a lot better than I have done it, frankly.) A badge of some sort would undo that work.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm going to read more thoroughly. Some of you may have a few stray words removed.
> 
> Betsy


Is that kinda like saying "Smoke 'em if ya got 'em"? 'cuz if it's a free pass, I have some lovely wordsd I'd like to share with KB.  (NOTE: I may have made a few of them up, but they should still be pretty entertaining. )


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> For you, using such a service would actually be a negative. Not only wouldn't it add value, it would take it away. If you did use it, *I would see the badge and go, "Oho, wait a second. This is one of those self-published books!"*
> 
> You have already overcome the "indie sales obstacle" by putting out a quality product and doing your homework on presentation. (Doing it a lot better than I have done it, frankly.) *A badge of some sort would undo that work.*


That's exactly my point. A badge denoting a book's indie status would turn more readers off. That would be the same for any indie author, I think. Because you don't see Random House putting badges on their book covers that say "Hey, we edited this, it's good!"

And thank you very much for the compliment.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Each publisher has their own standard. So a company starts up their own little logo of certification. What standards do they use? An error every twenty pages? An error every fifty? What constitutes an error? You seem quite convinced that this magical quality logo would use the 'right' standards, but what the heck would they be?


Well, if they were any kind of editor, the standard would be that any error that was caught, would be fixed. Not sure what kind of editors you have who would allow known errors to be published.



Half-Orc said:


> Hell, what if they decide in their standards that they won't approve of erotica because it worsens their brand? We're already on track for censorship. That wouldn't bother you at all, right?


As a private company, they would get to decide for themselves what kind of content they were comfortable with. Editors on these boards do it all the time, and if you think that's censorship, you don't know the definition of the word.



Half-Orc said:


> Readers. I'm talking about the normal, casual Amazon browsing reader. They will see this seal and think it means the book is good. Do you think they won't? Unless the badge is just huge and says everything you said: "This book has been professionally edited for grammar, typos, formatting, etc." That's a big badge. Love to have that on the cover...because it'd be so easily visible on the Kindle's tiny screen. And you want to know what would happen? Readers who buy a terrible but well edited book (are you denying they're out there?) would then go and post in their reviews "Professionally edited? Hah! This book is terrible! It's pacing is horrible, the characters dumb..who edited this again?"


Again, I'm not sure why you're having problems understanding this. The attribute wouldn't mean anything unless the readers understood what it meant. That would take time and a reputation to build.

And I never mentioned anything about a 'seal'.



Half-Orc said:


> THEY DO! Go ask Lee Goldberg or Konrath if they think a cover is important. To quote you: It's not my fault if you can't comprehend it.


So wait, if you think that readers believe books without professional covers are terrible, then why aren't you against professional covers for the same reason you claim to be against this idea? I mean, if this idea is so bad because it will cause readers to think books are horrible without it, then you MUST be against professional covers.

Oh wait, didn't you pay for your covers? So it's ok for you to pay for a service that delineates self-pubbed books into 'horrible' and 'not horrible' categories?



Half-Orc said:


> Love how irrelevant ALL of this is. You started off arguing this would simply be a logo saying it has been professionally edited. Now it has become an actual editing service? Heck, we could all do this ALREADY. It'd take five seconds to add to my product description "Was professionally edited by XYZ editing services."


But that means nothing unless the readers are aware of XYZ editing service, and have confidence in what they produce.



Half-Orc said:


> How can you possibly not see how an editing service that also gives a logo (that would hypothetically be respected, if your logo idea worked) would have conflicting interests? I decide not to use them. I send them my manuscript. They take my money, fail me, and tell me to edit it again...or I could simply pay them and they'll edit it for me, with the obvious assumption that I'll pass next time. They could even use your "good product" argument AGAINST ME. "This wasn't good enough to put our name on it."


How could you possibly not see that if they did business in that manner, they wouldn't be in business very long?



Half-Orc said:


> What I'm doing there is showing just how stupid it'd be to try and use this logo to advertise.


No, you're attempting to ridicule my arguments instead of debating against them.



Half-Orc said:


> I'll be paying a professional editing service to edit my next book. Do you think I'll be putting that in my product description? Saying so on my cover? Let me go check Amanda Hocking or Konrath or any professionally published book to see if they're blatantly saying who edited their book. Readers will care far, far more about what my story is about, how cleanly I write the product description, and yes, how good the cover looks.


You're cherry-picking the few authors who already have a following. They have less of a need to overcome the potential readers' perception that self-pubbed books are more poorly edited than trad pubbed books.

Having a way to inform readers that your book meets professional editing standards will narrow that percieved gap.


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

I really agree with McAfee about when you see an author's name, then you know if you should check out the book or not.  Does that mean we have to get ourselves out there so our names are recognized?  Absolutely.  Just remember... Stephen King had to start at the beginning like all of us.  Because of his quality writing, he has an insane fanbase.

And so do our fellow indie authors.  There's no secret as to why the Davids and a whole lot of others sell an insane amount of books... other than they're dang good writers!  If I see the name Dalglish or McAfee, then I know I'm getting a quality book no matter what.  It's because they've made a name for themselves.

(I didn't mean to exclude anybody... I'm using the Davids because they've recently posted and their success pretty much says it all.  They didn't pay me to say that.  Nope.  Not 1 dollar... not a penny... *whistles*)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I've locked this topic while I finish as y'all are unloading faster than I can shovel.  

Hanging out the "Back in 5 minutes sign."

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK









I'm throwing the yellow card here. I'm trying to keep this thread open, but y'all are making it difficult for me...any more posts in which comments are addressed to individuals instread of debating the issue will simply be removed.

Don't make me come in here again <she said sternly>. Thread re-opened.

Betsy
Moderator


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Betsy, does that mean I can't call anyone a Super Ninny Poopy Pants?


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

It should be remembered that writers are not the only ones reading this thread, and those members are forming opinions about the participants, including whether to ever read any books by those authors, based on their arguments in this thread.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

True story.  A few years ago, I went to the grocery store searching for some gefilte fish.  I picked up a jar of the stuff.  There was a label on it (I'm not making this up):  "NOW WITHOUT WORMS".  I put the jar back down.  I really didn't want to know they EVER had that problem.  If you're worried about worms and typos, even if you get rid of them all, don't call attention to it.  Just make great gefilte fish (and great books).


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> True story. A few years ago, I went to the grocery store searching for some gefilte fish. I picked up a jar of the stuff. There was a label on it (I'm not making this up): "NOW WITHOUT WORMS". I put the jar back down. I really didn't want to know they EVER had that problem. If you're worried about worms and typos, even if you get rid of them all, don't call attention to it. Just make great gefilte fish (and great books).


So THAT'S how you spell gefilte fish! I've always wondered.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

swolf said:


> As a private company, they would get to decide for themselves what kind of content they were comfortable with. Editors on these boards do it all the time, and if you think that's censorship, you don't know the definition of the word.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring?show=0&t=1289647993

_Quote
Definition of CENSOR

transitive verb

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

Examples of CENSOR

The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.

His report was heavily censored._

So does that mean that in order to obtain a logo or a badge, content had to removed because it the editors found in poor taste, that would be censorhip?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> As a private company, they would get to decide for themselves what kind of content they were comfortable with. Editors on these boards do it all the time, and if you think that's censorship, you don't know the definition of the word.


No, it's not censorship, per se, but it IS reinstating the gate-keeper, and isn't the gate-keeper's absence one of the pluses of indie-publishing?



swolf said:


> Again, I'm not sure why you're having problems understanding this. The attribute wouldn't mean anything unless the readers understood what it meant. That would take time and a reputation to build.
> 
> And I never mentioned anything about a 'seal'.


Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand it.

If you don't have a seal, badge, or some similar device, how would you make it known that Jane's Trip To Town has met editing standards?



swolf said:


> So wait, if you think that readers believe books without professional covers are terrible, then why aren't you against professional covers for the same reason you claim to be against this idea? I mean, if this idea is so bad because it will cause readers to think books are horrible without it, then you MUST be against professional covers.
> 
> Oh wait, didn't you pay for your covers? So it's ok for you to pay for a service that delineates self-pubbed books into 'horrible' and 'not horrible' categories?


If you have traditional publishing quality as being the standard that everyone's shooting for, then trying to blend in is the goal, not trying to stand out. An apples to apples comparison would be if you wanted to have a "quality logo" for covers. It's not needed. The proof is in the pudding. Nobody is saying editing is unnecessary, it's VERY necessary. What's unnecessary is a service that will announce that your book is edited. They should ALL be edited. Such a seal would only call attention to the fact that you aren't trad-pubbed, and the idea is to be as close to traditionally pubbed as possibly, quality-wise, so close, in fact as to be indistinguishable to the average reader.



swolf said:


> Having a way to inform readers that your book meets professional editing standards will narrow that percieved gap.


Again, you shouldn't have to advertise / inform that your product meets a reasonable quality standard - see my earlier post re: cars and restaurants.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Well said, Arkali. On all counts. Especially this one:



> Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand it.


I have to say, I LOVE that line. Bravo!


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Betsy, does that mean I can't call anyone a Super Ninny Poopy Pants?


David, I give you permission to call me that, but you have to do it in a fun color and interesting font....


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

scarlet said:


> David, I give you permission to call me that, but you have to do it in a fun color and interesting font....


I could never call you that, scarlet. There's nothing poopy about you.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> I could never call you that, scarlet. There's nothing poopy about you.


Well, if you ever feel the need to say it and don't want to say it to anyone who might misunderstand, my offer stands.

Back on the topic of trad published versus indie in regard to typos....

The last two indie books I've read had no typo/formatting issues. The trad published book I just start had 3 typo/puncuation errors in the first 3 chapters.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> That's exactly my point. A badge denoting a book's indie status would turn more readers off. That would be the same for any indie author, I think. Because you don't see Random House putting badges on their book covers that say "Hey, we edited this, it's good!"
> 
> And thank you very much for the compliment.


No problem. I'm reminded of the sales success of _33 AD_ every time I go to the product page for _De Bello Lemures_ and it informs me that 7% of the people who visit the page buy your book instead.

Just so you know, I'm just biding my time until I get all that money _back_.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

David McAfee said:


> Betsy, does that mean I can't call anyone a Super Ninny Poopy Pants?


Yes, it does. Plus, the next time I have to come in here, I'll be armed with a pic of Zardoz....

Betsy


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yes, it does. Plus, the next time I have to come in here, I'll be armed with a pic of Zardoz....
> 
> Betsy


Okay, if she's gonna haul THAT out, I rescind my offer David


Spoiler



at least in public. what you call me in a PM is between us!


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> No problem. I'm reminded of the sales success of _33 AD_ every time I go to the product page for _De Bello Lemures_ and it informs me that 7% of the people who visit the page buy your book instead.
> 
> Just so you know, I'm just biding my time until I get all that money _back_.


Lots of people buy other books after viewing 33 AD's page, too.  Right now my highest buy percentage is for Lake. Not sure why. Pound is just as good as Lake, imo.



Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yes, it does. Plus, the next time I have to come in here, I'll be armed with a pic of Zardoz....
> 
> Betsy


GYAAAAH! Not that! I'll be good...


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring?show=0&t=1289647993
> 
> _Quote
> Definition of CENSOR
> ...


I have never mentioned a logo or badge. I'm talking about informing potential readers that an editor they know has either approved a book, or helped to edit it.

And if that editor refuses to edit a book, that comes nowhere near the definition of censorship.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

swolf said:


> As a private company, they would get to decide for themselves what kind of content they were comfortable with. Editors on these boards do it all the time, and if you think that's censorship, you don't know the definition of the word.


But Amazon deciding not to sell a book does count as censorship?



swolf said:


> I have never mentioned a logo or badge. I'm talking about informing potential readers that an editor they know has either approved a book, or helped to edit it.
> 
> And if that editor refuses to edit a book, that comes nowhere near the definition of censorship.


 And what if Amazon, to avoid the pedophile flack, decides to ONLY sell books with the logo? Meaning the would not sell them without it to ensure that they checked for pedophilia and incest.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

There have been some comments which revolved around identifying a book as independent. So, I wondered, how does the consumer know an author is independent? What flags tip him off? Time for a test.

I found three flags on the Amazon page.

1. Price
2. Only available as Kindle edition
3. Lack of "Publisher" identification down page

#1 and #2 are easy to spot. They are right up top when the consumer lands on ther page. #3 is an absence, which will only be noticed if a consumer searches.

Suppose one simply wanted to be seen as an author, without the label of independent or the imprint of a publisher?  Suppose they thought there were stigmas to independents in some folks minds, and they wanted to avoid those. What could they do?

1. Price the book at $7.99
2. Use one of the services (I don't know their names - on demand printing?) to get both a hardback and paperback available.

These two steps would remove the label of independent when a consumer landed on a page. Hence any preconceptions a consumer had about independents wouldn't be triggered. The consumer would probably figure the grammar, spelling, and typos were just like any other garden variety American book.

Disclaimers:
1. This is not a recommendation, simply an observation triggered by the discussion
2. See #1 above.
3. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to be identified as independent. I am speculating on those who would.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Arkali said:


> No, it's not censorship, per se, but it IS reinstating the gate-keeper, and isn't the gate-keeper's absence one of the pluses of indie-publishing?


No, it's not a gatekeeper. No one is being prevented from publishing books.



Arkali said:


> Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand it.


But arguing against something other than what I'm talking about is. See your claim above for an example.



Arkali said:


> If you don't have a seal, badge, or some similar device, how would you make it known that Jane's Trip To Town has met editing standards?


It could be done with a weblink, or even assigning the editor to your book. So that when the reader clicks on the editor's name, it brings up a list of all the books that they've edited.



Arkali said:


> If you have traditional publishing quality as being the standard that everyone's shooting for, then trying to blend in is the goal, not trying to stand out.


Yes, I'm trying to have my editing 'blend in' with trad published authors. I don't want my editing to stand out from them.



Arkali said:


> An apples to apples comparison would be if you wanted to have a "quality logo" for covers. It's not needed. The proof is in the pudding. Nobody is saying editing is unnecessary, it's VERY necessary. What's unnecessary is a service that will announce that your book is edited. They should ALL be edited. Such a seal would only call attention to the fact that you aren't trad-pubbed, and the idea is to be as close to traditionally pubbed as possibly, quality-wise, so close, in fact as to be indistinguishable to the average reader.


Once again, I never mentioned a seal. Try to let that sink in.

And yes, they all SHOULD be edited. But they aren't.

And I'm not trying to hide the fact I'm self published. What I'm trying to do is think of a way to narrow the gap of how readers perceive self-published books vs trad published books. I can hire the best editor in the world, but if readers have a prejudice against self-published books, they may never even sample my book because they think it will be poorly edited. I'm just looking for a way to let them know that, at least when it comes to editing, my book is on par with trad-published books. Now, they're still taking the risk that it sucks for other reasons, but at least I've removed one of the obstacles.



Arkali said:


> Again, you shouldn't have to advertise / inform that your product meets a reasonable quality standard - see my earlier post re: cars and restaurants.


Sure you should. That's why self-pubbed authors hire professionals to do their covers - so we can be just like the 'big boys' and present an aura of professionalism. Right now, we have no drawing card for readers who aren't familiar with our work, to inform them that our book meets professional editing standards so they should take a look at it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> But Amazon deciding not to sell a book does count as censorship?


Of course. And Amazon themselves agree.



amanda_hocking said:


> And what if Amazon, to avoid the pedophile flack, decides to ONLY sell books with the logo? Meaning the would not sell them without it to ensure that they checked for pedophilia and incest.


Then yes, that would be censorship. It would be the same as Amazon saying they're only selling books that had been edited by Joe Smith, because they know Joe Smith only edits Christian books.

But it wouldn't be Joe Smith doing the censoring. And the act of choosing Joe Smith to edit your books wouldn't be censorship.

It's also the same as Amazon refusing to sell books with nudity on their covers. That is censorship on Amazon's part. But the act of me putting a nude cover on my book isn't censorship.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2010)

intinst said:


> It should be remembered that writers are not the only ones reading this thread, and those members are forming opinions about the participants, including whether to ever read any books by those authors, based on their arguments in this thread.


I recommend that anyone reading this thread return it and ask for a refund.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> True story. A few years ago, I went to the grocery store searching for some gefilte fish. I picked up a jar of the stuff. There was a label on it (I'm not making this up): "NOW WITHOUT WORMS". I put the jar back down. I really didn't want to know they EVER had that problem. If you're worried about worms and typos, even if you get rid of them all, don't call attention to it. Just make great gefilte fish (and great books).


However, if there was a public perception that the type of gefilte fish you sold was commonly sold with worms, you certainly would want to inform your potential customers that yours don't contain any.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Each publisher has their own standard. So a company starts up their own little logo of certification. What standards do they use? An error every twenty pages? An error every fifty? What constitutes an error? You seem quite convinced that this magical quality logo would use the 'right' standards, but what the heck would they be? Hell, what if they decide in their standards that they won't approve of erotica because it worsens their brand? We're already on track for censorship. That wouldn't bother you at all, right?





swolf said:


> Well, if they were any kind of editor, the standard would be that any error that was caught, would be fixed. Not sure what kind of editors you have who would allow known errors to be published.


All publishers (well, decent ones, anyway) strive to produce error-free books, though obviously errors slip through the cracks all the time. But it's a good point that different publishers have different standards--not regarding the "number of errors" they allow, but rather what constitutes an "error" at all. I've worked with two different publishers now and can say with confidence that the style guide for a particular publisher is definitely distinct, and often comes down to the personal preference of whomever defines that style guide for a particular publisher.

Obviously a misspelled word is a misspelled word, and certain grammatical rules will always apply in certain situations, but there are plenty of subtle style issues on which different publishing houses might disagree. Things like the use of the serial comma, or whether commas should set off names in direct address. There are often variations on the preferred use of ellipses, em dashes, and hyphens. Believe it or not, I've run into differences regarding blond/blonde. "Web site" vs. "website". The list goes on and on.

The point is, certain standards are subjective and come down to a publisher's preference. But that doesn't mean doing things another way isn't also perfectly acceptable.

I'm just talking about variations between U.S. publishers (since that's where my experience lies), but obviously standards and style guides will be even more wildly different when you're comparing a British work to a U.S. work to an Australian work. Which one is right? What standards would an overarching "approval" agency use?

I think there are plenty of problems with this idea, mostly the way it sets indies apart and also subtly implies that bad editing in indies is somehow the expectation, rather than the exception. But this "different standards" issue is definitely something to consider. If you're paying for every time this editing service takes a pass at approving your book, and you're being rejected for stuff that would fly in a particular region or with a particular publisher, but doesn't happen to meet this place's expectations, that could get expensive and frustrating...fast.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, the idea of the "logo" was put forth by the OP, not swolf, who offered the alternative of a link to a website....let's stop beating that particular dead horse and deal with the larger ideas here. 

My opinion as a reader--of the Indie books I've read, the good ones had no great number of typos than the trad pubbed books I've read.  And the bad ones usually had far greater problems than the copious editing errors that were also there.  

I'm not sure it would do me much good to have the link, however.  I'm not familiar with editors and with the volume of works out there, the likelihood of me reading any of the other books by any particular editor would be pretty small. 

So some kind of quality editing assurance wouldn't help me--I still need to know if the story is worth reading. I think I'd most likely continue to do what I do now:  look for other books by authors I've read, check out the reviews on Amazon and on here, and take recommendations from friends.

Betsy


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

swolf said:


> Once again, I never mentioned a seal. Try to let that sink in.


So, just out of curiosity, how would you propose to let the readers know that your book passed the editing company's quality check? You may not be talking about a badge or a seal, but you'd have to put that somewhere, wouldn't you?

Therein lies the dilemma. By advertising that your book has been professionally edited, you would proclaim your indie status to the world, thus singling your book out as self-published. If the idea is to blend in, or to put out a book that is just as good as a trady-pub, then you would only be hurting yourself by giving potential readers a reason not to read your work.

"Oh, this guy says he had his book professionally edited. Must be a self published book. Oh, look, here's the new King..."

Sorry, man, but I just don't agree. I think it would do more harm than good. JMO.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Wow. Some mighty testy comments. I shoulda grabbed my popcorn.
> 
> I agree with Dalglish on this one. I don't see how it would help. If you look at the indie books that are doing well right now, how many of them have some editor's stamp of approval on them? None. You're talking about building up a brand name for a quality service that can pump up your books and make them look professional to readers.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of that. Each of us should work hard to ensure that our name is our most important selling point.

But one of the hurdles we face is the perception of readers who write off self-published books because they percieve a lack of quality in the editing in those books. You may be doing very well sales-wise, but I'd be willing to bet there's still a whole lot of people out there who won't even sample your book if they find out it's self-published.

All I'm doing is proposing a hypothetical way to overcome that. If readers became familiar with independent editors, and came to trust their work, then they would be more likely to look at self-pubbed ebooks edited by those editors.

And yeah, we'd still have to write good stories if we want those reader to buy after sampling.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

I'm in agreeance with the Davids on this issue.  

I'm also against the concept of "dumbing down" anything for consumers.  Seriously, a reader can preview a book and decide for themselves whether it's "quality" or not.  

Anyone who can't distinguish good writing from bad...is probably not an avid reader anyways.  

Just my two cents. *shrug*


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

swolf said:


> All I'm doing is proposing a hypothetical way to overcome that. If readers became familiar with independent editors, and came to trust their work, then they would be more likely to look at self-pubbed ebooks edited by those editors.


OK, but you have a lot of IFs in there. How would you make readers familiar? Whose job would it be? How could you ensure that they did? How could you ensure that the readers would come to trust the editing service? How could you make it a brand name in and of itself? And then, honestly, why would you expend so much energy doing all that for the editing service when you could be doing it all for yourself and your books?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> So, just out of curiosity, how would you propose to let the readers know that your book passed the editing company's quality check? You may not be talking about a badge or a seal, but you'd have to put that somewhere, wouldn't you?


You can either add the editor to your book, or add a link to the editor's website in your description, which will verify that the editor had actually edited/reviewed it. I'm assuming that if an editing company went to the trouble of building a reputation among readers, they would find a mechanism to inform readers which books are the ones they've edited. It may even be something Amazon would participate in, allowing readers to search on this criteria, since it would lead to more sales.



David McAfee said:


> Therein lies the dilemma. By advertising that your book has been professionally edited, you would proclaim your indie status to the world, thus singling your book out as self-published. If the idea is to blend in, or to put out a book that is just as good as a trady-pub, then you would only be hurting yourself by giving potential readers a reason not to read your work.
> 
> "Oh, this guy says he had his book professionally edited. Must be a self published book. Oh, look, here's the new King..."
> 
> Sorry, man, but I just don't agree. I think it would do more harm than good. JMO.


I have no desire to hide my self-published status, and I don't think any of us should. What I desire is a way to change it so the self-publishing label isn't the incrimination it is in so many readers' minds.

Edit: changed typo of 'self-edited' to 'self-published'


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

swolf said:


> I've made my point quite clear in my earlier posts. Are you saying you're responding to me without reading everything I've written in this thread? If so, you're wasting my time.
> 
> Unless someone is preventing you from publishing, there is no gatekeeper. Period.
> 
> Ok, my discussion is over with you until you actually comprehend what I'm proposing. It's obvious you don't.


Actually, originally you were talking about having a business - as in, a single entity, give a book approval. It's only been in the last 3 or 4 posts that you've switched to saying "Oh, I just want to list the editor's name / provide a link". Don't lay the blame on me for not reading when it's you that either didn't make your position clear or have changed your stance.

Again, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't comprehend what you're saying.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> There have been some comments which revolved around identifying a book as independent. So, I wondered, how does the consumer know an author is independent? What flags tip him off? Time for a test.
> 
> I found three flags on the Amazon page.
> 
> ...


Some writers are putting 'Indie author' on their tags. 
Some readers are making a point of searching for Indie books.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> OK, but you have a lot of IFs in there. How would you make readers familiar? Whose job would it be? How could you ensure that they did? How could you ensure that the readers would come to trust the editing service? How could you make it a brand name in and of itself? And then, honestly, why would you expend so much energy doing all that for the editing service when you could be doing it all for yourself and your books?


I'm saying I think there's a niche out there for an editing company to step up and provide these kinds of editing services for self-pubbed authors, build a reputation, and then make a lot of money, both for themselves and for authors.

And I'm saying it would be beneficial for all of us if something like this did exist. I think more readers would be accepting of us (group-wise, not just the fans we've won over as individual authors.)


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Some writers are putting 'Indie author' on their tags.
> Some readers are making a point of searching for Indie books.


I do.  I'm dang proud of being one. Not afraid to admit it at all.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, as promised, I've removed a couple of posts where the discussion was personal. Next stop, locking the thread....

Betsy


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

swolf said:


> And I'm saying it would be beneficial for all of us if something like this did exist. I think more readers would be accepting of us (group-wise, not just the fans we've won over as individual authors.)


I disagree. For reasons mentioned in my own posts and those of others. And in order to keep things as clean as possible, I will leave it at that.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I think the real problem with this discussion is that we have underlying assumptions about whether there is a problem or not.

Those who want a seal or a service or whatever are reacting to the prejudice among some that indies suck. When people express that prejudice, they feel the need to prove it wrong.

Those who don't want a seal or service or whatever feel that a prejudice is a prejudice, and any attempts to prove it wrong are a waste of time. The best thing to do is to not suck, and ignore the bigots.

I fall into the second group because I have noticed that people believe what they _want_ to believe, and no evidence will change that. I remember Mad Magazine ran a great segment titled "You can't win with a bigot" in which they illustrated this point. In one strip, at a baseball park, the bases were loaded, two outs, and an African American is coming up to bad, and the bigot says "He'll strike out! Those (racist epithet) can't handle stress." Then the guy hits it out of the park and the same bigot says "Of course, those (other racist epithet) are strong as gorillas."

Some people you can't win over no matter what. Others you win over by living the truth day after day, not by being defensive - which raises that whole "protests too much" spectre. Just IMHO.

As I said, though, I think that if you really think something like this is valuable, the people to pay attention to are those who would use it. Those who wouldn't use it are irrelevant.

Has anyone proposed this idea in a reader area?

Camille


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Those who want a seal or a service or whatever are reacting to the prejudice among some that indies suck. When people express that prejudice, they feel the need to prove it wrong.


I don't feel a need to prove it wrong. I think the prejudice is perfectly justfied by the fact that a large percentage of self-published books are edited poorly.

I'm proposing that we fix the problem, and realizing it will never be fixed 100%, provide a way for the readers to easily determine which self-pubbed books are well-edited.


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

Because I can.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Thread locked.  Let's move on and have some holiday spirit.  Egg nog, anyone?

Betsy
Moderator


----------

