One item I forgot to mention in the previous post: The Times Book Review section today features an article on backlist books and the so-called "Long Tail" exploited by on-line sales. It has some interesting stuff on the business of publishing and the sales of backlist books.
As with the medical story referenced in the previous post, I'd be interested to hear what any of the publishing types out there think of this. As an outsider, it sounds interesting enough, but it could be horribly inaccurate, and I'd never be able to tell.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
During my summer blogging break, I thought I'd repost of few of my "greatest hits" from my old blog, just so you all wouldn't miss me so much. This one is from January 13, 2009. It ended up being pretty popular and was the reason that ALA Editions initially contacted me about doing a book.
=====…
Angel Rivera was kind enough, in commenting on my previous post, to say "Yes, what you do is information science."
I wonder sometimes--both about the field called "information science" and about whether what I do fits within it.
A snarky way to put this might be:
Can you do information science if…
I have been thinking about a book review that I published yesterday about David Attenborough's Life in Cold Blood. In short, my review of that particular book was positive, but not effusive. Because I focused on errors/ambiguous wordings and on what I think that book lacked, it is possible that I…
I promised you some updates on the Google Books Settlement, so here you go. Things are definitely getting interesting.
First, I mentioned earlier that I was going to attend a panel on the Google Book Search Settlement here in DC, featuring representatives of Google, the publishers, and the…