News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by stephth on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @04:44PM (#2870100)
* HORRIBLE * * UGH * * Also, both un-DRMd formats are separate? *

I don't see what's wrong with the title page and the dedication page... It does its job. I admit that the Kindle sample could use some actual meat, but the samples on the website look good to me. I mean, you sound like it attacked you with a knife. Also, it's a 3 dollar book. If you like it so much that you'll want to re-read it in your next generation ebook, would $3 extra bucks be that unacceptable?

I'm curious. Was there really nothing positive worth noting to you? And if so, why bother commenting? Isn't it more beneficial to focus our energies on things that we enjoy and are excited about?

Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by scott_s on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @04:58PM (#2870159)
The title page and dedication page do not give me a taste of the book - which is what I want from a sample. I want the table of contents and a few pages of one of the chapters to get a feel for what the book is like. That's what I look at when I pick up a book in the store.

Note that only looking at positive comments is harmful. wccrawford's criticism about the sample is important, and changing it should help sell more copies.

Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by stephth on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @05:08PM (#2870201)
Your comment on the sample is constructive and I agree with it ("the Kindle sample could use some actual meat"), but I don't find "The free preview on Amazon is HORRIBLE. The title page and the dedication page? UGH." to be conveying what you said or to be constructive.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by scott_s on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @05:17PM (#2870242)
What I said and the sentence you quoted have the same content. Mine was just a nicer way of saying it.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by stephth on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @05:32PM (#2870299)
I suppose your own interpretation of it had the same content - maybe you're familiar enough with wccrawford and can guess what he's thinking - but objectively they don't. HORRIBLE and UGH were dropped without an actual explanation, and you comment doesn't just sound nicer: you explained how to improve the sample.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by scott_s on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @05:49PM (#2870370)
Let me put it this way: I was able to read his comment and recognize that he and I agreed, despite the fact that I don't know him.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by stephth on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @06:16PM (#2870451)
Great, maybe then you can also enlighten me on what's so deeply wrong with the title and dedication page? It can't be about it being the only content of the sample, the main content in there is the introduction to the book.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by scott_s on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @06:25PM (#2870486)
I missed that entirely - I saw the top of the dedication page and assumed it was all dedication page, like most books. I think most people will do the same. That intro, though, is a tell, not a show. I want to sample some pages further into the book to see if the promises made in the intro are fulfilled.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by stephth on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @06:28PM (#2870493)
Looks like we were talking about two different things. wccrawford was talking about the preview, while we were referring to the "sample"... <sigh>.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by wccrawford on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @08:18PM (#2870804)
You're right. I didn't bother with the downloadable sample because I assumed it would be the same as the 'look inside!' preview on Amazon.
Re:Programming for Mere Mortals by scott_s on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @10:14PM (#2871050)
I have been talking about the "look inside" preview on Amazon.