Archive for the 'Books and publishing' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Page »

The Big Deal and the Damage Done: If it’s worthwhile, spread the word

Posted in Books and publishing, C&I Books on May 16th, 2013

The second half of this post’s title really applies equally well to Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four (2012-13) and specific issues of Cites & Insights (or C&I in general), although in this case I’m posting about The Big Deal and the Damage Done:

If you think it’s worthwhile, spread the word.

Tell other people about it on your blog. Spread the word on appropriate lists (whether the lists use Listserv software or an alternative). Tweet about it. Comment at Facebook. Whatever.

I’m pretty good at analysis, synthesis, writing and layout. I’m pretty lousy at self-promotion, entrepreneurial activity, and drumbeating. I don’t feel it’s appropriate to keep touting my stuff more than once (per publication) on any given list, especially not one like PUBLIB. I really don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to join lists where I have no natural nexus just so that I can post ads for publications.

If you think it’s worthwhile, spread the word.

I’ve done my part. The books are priced very modestly by library-book standards and by most standards–$9.99 in both cases for the PDF ebook; under $20 for each paperback (the difference in price is based on length of the book and, thus, production costs).

As for C&I, it’s free–but if you think it’s worthwhile and find it valuable, you could join the half-dozen or so (this year) who’ve actually contributed to it. The Paypal donation link’s right there on the home page.

Of course, if you think the books are worthless trash or seriously flawed, you should probably say so–and maybe say what’s wrong, if it’s something fixable in a future edition.

If the flaw is that they’re not free, there’s not a lot I can do about that; if they need to be free to be “worthwhile,” then they’re not really worthwhile, are they?

Oh, and if you want one of my books to be available to students and others? The PDF versions never have DRM. They never did. (Lulu doesn’t even allow it any more, for which they deserve kudos.)

Want to put an e-copy on reserve? Be my guest.

Want to make it available on a one-at-a-time basis on your own ebook server? Be my guest.

Want to make it available on an unlimited basis within your own institution? I’ll ask you to behave fairly and ethically–and if that means buying four e-copies as an appropriate “price,” well, I’m not litigious in this area–not even close.

(One non-US institution asked about that; I provided an explicit permission to mount the ebook on an unlimited basis if they purchased four copies. I ask for a fair shake; obviously, if each major U.S. academic library purchased four e-copies, I’d be more than happy… On the other hand, if one person buys an e-copy, mounts it and says “Go ahead! Free for all!” that’s flat-out unethical. I’ll certainly object, even if I probably wouldn’t sue. You’re saying that my labor is explicitly worthless; I don’t appreciate that.)

I believe the new book raises important issues and provides important information in a way that hasn’t been done before. If you agree…well, you know the refrain.

Leave A Comment »

Important, useful, used, interesting: Part 4 (and last, I think)

Posted in Books and publishing, C&I Books on May 13th, 2013

I believe this is the final post–at least for the moment–in this brief series.

It’s probably not obvious, but those last three words have three separate links, not one long link. And, realistically, there’s a fourth post in that series, just without the name.

This is a project–or maybe it’s two projects–that I’ve been thinking about for a while, that I’ve even posted about once or twice. Or maybe even three times, indirectly.

It’s a project that could be published by a traditional publisher, which would make it slower, but would provide cachet–and provide the marketing and publicity that I’m so woefully bad at providing.

And, if done as two books, it’s actually a project that could be useful far outside of librarianship. If, that is, I had any plausible way of reaching people outside librarianship.

Here’s the new working title, for the general part if it’s two parts:

Mostly Numbers: Coping with Everyday Statistics

Here’s the current very rough outline of the project (both parts)–to be written in my most straightforward style with lots of examples and absolutely no equations.

Mostly Numbers: Coping with Everyday Statistics

1.       Introduction

Part 1. Tricky Numbers, Trickier Statistics

2.       Coping with Averages: The Four-Apple Approach

3.       Why Everyday Statistics are Mostly Numbers

Part 2. Problems with Statistics and Graphs

4         Misleading Graphs

5         Misleading Samples: When 30 is Not Enough

6         Exaggerated Exactness

7         When Normal Distribution Doesn’t Work

8         Doing it Right: Transparency and Ethics

9         Fair Presentations and Coping with Outliers

Part 3. The Basics of Real-World Number-Handling

10     The Terms You Need to Know

11     The Other Terms You’ll Encounter

12     The Tests You Can Probably Ignore

13     The Tools I’m Using for This Book

14     Mostly Numbers, Not Really Statistics

15     Beyond Numbers: When You Really Need Statistics

[Librarian’s Extension: Part 4. The Real Complexity of Library Numbers]

16     Public Libraries

17     Academic Libraries

[Librarian’s Extension: Part 5. How-To: Getting the Most out of Public Datasets]

18     Using Excel to Expand Your Public Library Awareness

19     Using Excel to Expand Your Academic Library Awareness

Backmatter

Intended length: <200 pages. If done as two parts, <150 pages for general part, <100 pages for librarian supplement.

To be made available as an ebook (at least PDF, probably Kindle, maybe EPUB) and print book; prices set at $8 above costs.

Important, useful, used, interesting?

I suppose I’m asking for more feedback. Now that I’m learning more about crowdsourcing models, I don’t know that I’m likely to make such a suggestion (and I’ll probably have “on the other hand” posts related to some previous ones soon).

I think the book would be (mildly) important.

I’m 100% certain it would be useful.

I’m 99% certain I can make it interesting.

And I have not an idea in the world whether the potential market–that is, whether it would be used–is:

  • Half a dozen (basically those who’ve already said “what a great idea!”)
  • Sixty (assuming those who’ve already responded are about 10% of the market.
  • Six hundred (see above but 1%)
  • Six thousand (yeah, right).

I suspect the right number–for me, as a self-publisher using Lulu and with my so-called network of professional acquaintances, is somewhere between the second and third bullets. If it’s closer to the second bullet, it’s not worth doing–to do it right will involve a fair amount of effort. If it’s very close to (or below) the third bullet, it may be worth self-publishing (but probably wouldn’t be worthwhile for a “real” publisher).

So: I haven’t entirely given up on the idea. I also haven’t actually started writing it.

Meanwhile, I’m pondering those other situations. And coming to some tentative conclusions. Maybe.

Comments, as always, welcome.

 

 

2 Comments »

Important, useful, used, interesting: Part 2

Posted in Books and publishing, Cites & Insights on May 7th, 2013

Before getting on to the challenging items, here are a few cases where there wasn’t much question as to an item’s importance or usefulness:

  • Old movie reviews (what used to be Offtopic Perspectives): Purely for fun, and no, I don’t plan to gather them all together, add an index and publish them. Not a chance. Nor do I plan to stop doing them until the movies run out (and unless something happens I’m down to the last…hmmm…240 or so, so that could happen in 2-3 years).
  • The Back in Cites & Insights–I hope it’s interesting, I know it’s fun, it’s rarely of any importance.

Mildly tricky cases

Then there are cases where I thought something was either important or usefully interesting, but couldn’t see it being either long enough or used enough to be anything but a Cites & Insights essay. With those, I’m always interested in tracking apparent readership. For example:

  • The pieces demolishing the myth that public libraries are closing down all over the place. I thought that work was important, but it’s only useful if someone’s raising that particular nonsense. So it belonged in C&I (I think–it was too long for one of the trade journals). Readership of those issues has been solid (2,400 to 2,500 between articles and issues, through the end of last year). Was the point made? Damned if I know.
  • Academic library circulation: I thought this was interesting, and it turned out that the common knowledge was offbase. Still…not really book material (I don’t think), especially because it wouldn’t be directly useful and it’s probably more interesting than important. The odd thing here is that the March 2013 readership, so far, has been considerably lower than either of the two OA issues before it–but also considerably below the “mostly random pieces” issue after it. (As in: through the weekend, 990 downloads for 13:1, 1149 for 13:2, 914 for 13:4–but only 573 for 13:3, the one on academic library circulation). Still–573 readers isn’t bad, and the readership will continue to grow.
  • The Mythical Average Public Library: This was fun for me and interesting. Important? Useful? Dunno. So far–and it’s really early yet–it’s doing OK.

Were all of those worth doing? Were any of them important enough to deserve something more prominent than publication in an odd venue such as Cites & Insights? I don’t have ready answers.

And those are the relatively easy cases. Maybe more about tough cases–and one potential case in particular–in another installment.

Oh, meanwhile and slightly off-topic: Thanks to whoever picked up not only The Big Deal and the Damage Done but also Graphing Public Library Benefits, Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four (2012-13)…and Library 2.0: A Cites & Insights Reader and Open Access and Libraries. Hope you find them all worthwhile. (I’m assuming that was a single order, although I really don’t know that.) If you’re considering me for some possible work that I might be suitable for…well, the email address is waltcrawford@gmail.com

 

 

Leave A Comment »

Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing: On sale through June 10

Posted in Books and publishing on May 6th, 2013

If your library doesn’t already have a copy of The Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing, you’re missing out on a new service your library can provide–one that every public library (and most academic libraries) will have community need for and that won’t cost you anything other than the price of the book.

Which is now substantially lower: ITI’s offering it for $34.65 from now through June 10–and you can get free standard shipping.

Just follow the link above (or here, if you prefer); no coupon code required.

You’ll save enough to buy a PDF version of Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four or The Big Deal and the Damage Done and still have a few bucks left over…

 

Leave A Comment »

Speaking up for Edwin Mellen Press

Posted in Books and publishing on April 1st, 2013

There’s been a certain amount of uproar of late regarding the innovative publicity and reputation-building practices of Edwin Mellen Press. (I’ve included a few examples. It’s really not difficult to find others.)

Digression: Apparently DuckDuckGo doesn’t build a URL when you search it from a Firefox search box: You get DuckDuckGo with the search box filled in, which I can’t really link to.

I believe there’s a misunderstanding here. So I’m not going to suggest anything as craven as boycotting Edwin Mellen Press, or signing petitions, or removing its titles from library approval plans (if they’re already there) or applying some scrutiny to acquisitions from Edwin Mellen Press.

Not at all.

I think innovative work should be rewarded.

If you’re an academic librarian–heck, if you’re a public librarian–I think you should explore Edwin Mellen Press’s innovative, forward-looking actions. If you find them remarkable, innovative and worth rewarding, you should do so.

Please do read this post carefully.

 

8 Comments »

Coping with the Numbers: Worth Doing? (Part 2)

Posted in Books and publishing, C&I Books on March 18th, 2013

A few weeks ago, I had “One quick question for librarians” and received a couple of positive responses.

This is the next step–offering a basic outline of the proposed book, in the hopes of getting more feedback, either positive or negative.

I anticipate a down-to-earth book, not intended to make readers statistical whizzes but intended to make them better able to recognize bullshit misleading statistics when they see them, maybe more familiar with the basics of “statistics” (really numbers more than anything fancy enough to be called statistics), and definitely able to gather their own comparative information from the big national databases without investing in new tools or needing to become statistical gurus.

[Part 4 would, for each of the two library categories, take a possible example of something your library might want as background and show, step by step, how to do it with the tools you probably already have.]

Worth doing? I’d like to think so, but unless I have reason to believe that at least one hundred and preferably a few hundred library folks also think so, it’s not economically feasible.

Feedback?

The Mythical Average Library: Coping with the Numbers–Outline

Part 1. Problems with Statistics and Graphs

  1. Misleading Graphs
  2. Misleading Samples: When 30 is Not Enough
  3. Exaggerated Exactness
  4. When Normal Distribution Doesn’t Work
  5. Doing it Right: Transparency and Ethics
  6. Fair Presentations and Coping with Outliers

Part 2. The Basics of Real-World Number-Handling

  1. The Terms You Need to Know
  2. The Other Terms You’ll Encounter
  3. The Tests You Can Probably Ignore
  4. The Tools I’m Using for This Book
  5. Mostly Numbers, Not Really Statistics

Part 3. The Real Complexity of Library Numbers

  1. Public Libraries
  2. Academic Libraries

Part 4. How-To: Getting the Most out of Public Datasets

  1. Using Excel to Expand Your Public Library Awareness (using IMLS)
  2. Using Excel to Expand Your Academic Library Awareness (using NCES)

Part 5. Beyond Numbers

  1. When You Need Actual Statistics

Backmatter

Notes

Intended length: <200 pages.

To be made available as an ebook (at least PDF, probably Kindle, maybe EPUB) and print book; prices set at $8 above costs. (Which would suggest $9.99 for ebooks, probably around $18 for trade paperback, $28 for hardback–but since the length and outline are both subject to change, so are the prices.)

Feedback of any sort, either as comments here or as email to waltcrawford@gmail.com, would be greatly appreciated.

2 Comments »

Oregon and Washington: Special Give us a Dollar edition now available

Posted in Books and publishing, Libraries on February 28th, 2013

Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four: Oregon and Washington Libraries, a special edition prepared as part of my speaking engagements at this April’s joint annual conference, is now available.

The 6×9 PDF ebook version, linked to above, is free. That’s $0.00, including $0.00 shipping & handling (always true for Lulu ebooks). No DRM–and it carries a Creative Commons BY license, meaning you’re free to pass it along, derive other material from it, even sell it, as long as you include the attribution that I wrote it.

Printing It Out

If you’d like to have a printed book(let), assuming that you have a duplexing color printer (laser or inkjet), here’s what to do:

  • Download the PDF
  • In Adobe Reader, click on Print (either the icon or in the File menu).
  • In “Page Sizing & Handling,” click on Booklet.
  • Print it. It will require 19 sheets of paper. Since the original page size is 6×9, the resulting pages (each half of an 8.5×11″ page) will be roughly 92% of original size–still plenty large enough for easy reading.
  • Fold the book(let) in half. There you have it: a nice little book with its own bright cover.
  • If you have access to a stapler with a 5.5″ throat (or longer), which your library may very well have, you can center-staple it to make it more useful as a book.
  • Or, if you’re feeling flush and want a more permanent version, you can buy a hardcover printed copy–see below. I offer these instructions because any printed color book from Lulu is expensive (even though only some pages have color, and very little of it except the cover page, all pages have to be printed in color, at $0.20/page instead of $0.02/page. I figure that, if your color printer costs $0.03/page for all black ink and, say, $0.12 for color pages with 5% coverage, and the paper you use costs $5/ream, you’ll spend less than $4 to print it yourself).

The Audience

The primary audience is public librarians and library consultants in Oregon and Washington and also library schools in those states or elsewhere. Think of this freebie as part of your conference registration, although you’re also welcome to it if you’re unable to attend the conference (or my session on the book).

The second audience is public librarians or library agencies in other states or regions who might want to commission a similar project. This is one example of what I could do for you.

The Hardback Book

If you want a permanent version of the book, there’s a hardback (casewrap) version for $34.99. I get about $5 of that. If you buy a copy and would like me to sign it at the conference, I would (of course) be utterly delighted. (Heck, I’d sign “saddle-stitched” printouts as well.)

Why a hardback version? Because a paperback version would still cost at least $19 or more, even if I didn’t take a piece of it. I figure that, if you’re willing to spend five times as much as it costs to print your own copy, you might as well get a sturdy version. The casewrap has one little value-added feature: The color mosaic strips on the cover wrap all the way around the cover. The cover looks something like the image below, although I cleaned up the bottom strip somewhat before finally uploading the book.

cvrsamp

 

 

Comments Off

Smaller libraries: Desired but perhaps implausible audience

Posted in Books and publishing, Libraries on February 19th, 2013

I’ve come to the conclusion that several of my intermittent efforts are really aimed at smaller libraries–but I’m also aware that such an aim is probably quixotic.

The aim? Give Us a Dollar... is, I believe, most likely to be useful in a public library that doesn’t already have a statistics maven or standing arrangements with a consultant. But, at least in its current form, I wonder whether it’s usable by the many-hatted librarians in such libraries (that is, librarians who of necessity wear many hats).

The Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing should have a home in public libraries of all sizes (and in many academic libraries). But its approach–establishing a “makerspace for the mind” without the need for the library to invest significant sums of money, space or library-employee time–is especially relevant for smaller libraries, where the likelihood of establishing a true makerspace (with the likely need to monitor its use) is extremely low.

The book idea I’m toying with–a down-to-earth, plain-English, no-fancy-equations discussion of basic statistical number-handling concepts that apply to libraries, how to spot chartjunk and avoid doing it, and (step by step) how to use the national library statistical repositories without becoming a statistician or database expert–is, I believe, primarily useful for librarians at smaller libraries. Again, libraries unlikely to have statistical mavens or standing arrangements with a consultant, but who could benefit (as I believe every library could) from the ability to spot craptastic statistical claims and to develop appropriate results from IMLS/NCES data.

What’s a smaller library?

I’ll suggest a simple cutoff: Academic and public libraries with fewer than three librarians.

Based on the 2010 IMLS and NCES databases–the most recent available–that includes something like 1,750 academic libraries and 6,000 public libraries (not branches). (If I cut the public-library figure to fewer than two FTE of librarians, that still yields around 5,000 public libraries.)

The problem…

The big problem, I suspect, is that libraries that small have very little spare money for professional literature.

An even bigger problem: My ability to reach those librarians is extremely limited.

And maybe another big problem: I may be the wrong writer to reach them. Even if I set out to write a clear, down-to-earth, “you’re intelligent but you probably don’t love numbers” book. (I know I didn’t hit that tone, or even come close, in Give Us a Dollar…)

I think the possible book–which, if self-published, would be priced at $9.99 as a PDF and certainly less than $20 as a paperback–might strike the right tone to be useful to librarians who are a little nervous about advanced statistics. But I wonder whether enough of them would give it a try to make it worth doing.

If my guess is right, 90% of the sales of professional literature–my self-published stuff or ALA Editions, ITI, etc.–comes from bigger libraries (and a few non-library sales, e.g. consultants). But 90% of the need may be in the smaller libraries.

‘Tis a quandary.

2 Comments »

Reading: Is more efficient always better?

Posted in Books and publishing on February 18th, 2013

I became aware of a recent PLoS ONE article, “Subjective Impressions Do Not Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-Eyetracking Evidence from the Reading of Books and Digital Media,” thanks to a LISNews item entitled “Reading e-books easier than printed versions for older people” and consisting of one sentence and a link to–well, not to the PLoS ONE article but to a news story about the article. (The link above goes directly to the actual article, by the way).

The sentence:

Older people may find e-books much faster and easier to read than their paper editions, a new study has claimed.

That’s a direct copy of the first sentence of the news article, so I can’t fault it as such.

I responded to the news article in a comment:

Twenty-one people. And their preferences were dismissed as “cultural bias.” And, lessee, books were better than ereaders but tablets were better than books. Among twenty-one people. And based not on the people’s own reactions but on external measurement.

That drew an anonymous response (seems like very few commenters at LISNews choose to identify themselves), titled “External measurement = objectivity” and reading:

So if we wanted to gauge how much faster certain shoes make people run, we should just ask them which ones feel faster, and not time them?

Regarding sampling, the older adults reading faster on tablets still has p-value of < 0.0001. What number would be sufficient to outweigh one’s a priori incredulity?

To which I responded, a bit later and after skimming the article (my response entitled “Objectivity is a tricky thing”:

I may be objecting more to the post’s headline than to the study itself. I regard “easier” as a combination of subjective and objective, so, yes, I’d place considerable weight on actual responses from people being asked that question.

Telling people “Oh, you don’t really like reading print books or ereaders as much as you like reading tablets; that’s just cultural preconditioning” is a bit Orwellian.

I am fully aware that, in fact, I read the San Francisco Chronicle more rapidly (that is, I move through the text faster) on my Kindle Fire HD 8.9 than I did in its broadsheet form. But if you ask me which I prefer, and remove the $530/year reason we switched (the difference between the Kindle subscription price and the print delivery price), I’d say “the broadsheet, any day.” Is that cultural preconditioning? Maybe. But it’s also the truth for me.

This matters because some agencies–schools, some libraries–seem bent on insisting that everybody move to ebooks (which, by the way, would have meant eInk readers when this started) regardless of preference. Telling me “but you’ll read faster” doesn’t cut it. Telling me “you’ll enjoy reading more”–well, you know, that’s not an objective measure.

If I wanted to determine whether people prefer certain shoes and, indeed, whether they found running in them more pleasant/easier, I’d ask them. And I’d pay attention to the answers.

The next response, also from Anonymous, basically says that because you can enlarge the type on ereaders they have to be better for old folk (after all, none of us actually wear glasses that actually work)–and that one, specifically favoring eInk readers over tablets, is interesting because the study found eInk readers inferior to printed paper (not books–books weren’t part of the study) on objective measures.

Enough prologue

Maybe my second response is all I really need to say. Fact is, I have moved 100% from reading the daily newspaper in physical (broadsheet) form to reading it on a Kindle Fire HD 8.9. Fact is, I pretty clearly do read it considerably faster (and probably read more of it), so I’m guessing that the tablet is more “efficient” than, well, the most degraded form of print available to most of us.

And, all else being equal–that is, if the Kindle subscription to the Chronicle wasn’t one-eighth the price of the print subscription, and if the print version was consistently on my driveway when I got up–I’d still be reading the print version. I enjoyed it more. I’m not about to go back to it, but I miss it.

That’s called preference. It’s one big reason I believe print books will be with us for many decades to come.

And for literary reading, long-form reading, immersive reading, it has damn little to do with efficiency. Claiming that X is “better” because it is more efficient is a remarkably narrow way to think. By that standard, all of your restaurant dining should be at fast food joints: They unquestionably offer faster and much more cost-effective ways to get calories into your system than, say, even the cheapest table-service restaurants. If I say I prefer a hamburger with fries at the First Street Alehouse (for $8.49) to one at Burger King (for, what, $1?), that preference is real, and I’ll argue that the Alehouse burger is a better meal, even though the Burger King meal clearly wins on every measure of efficiency.

Beyond that…well, read the study and see whether you find it convincing or in any way conclusive. For example:

  • All of the text was in Courier New, which “equalizes” issues but is one of the least reading-friendly typefaces around.
  • Where the ebook reader and iPad 2 were offered in their usual form, the print–not book–was sheets of paper on a music stand.
  • The actual observed error rate (measure of comprehension) for text read on tablets was higher for both tablets and ereaders among older readers, but the researchers managed to massage that increase (which looked to me like more than a 10% difference) into oblivion.
  • The actual observed reading speed was not “much faster”–it was less than 10% faster, on samples averaging less than 250 words (this was strictly a test of quick reading)
  • I see a number of statements suggesting that data that didn’t fit the hypothesis was removed–one text sample was ignored, several results were removed.
  • I’m not a social scientist and will never be one, but the concept that a sample of 21 people is in any way a conclusive study strikes me as…well, never mind, that’s not really important. (None of the subjects wore progressive bifocals because it would interfere with the objective measures. Many and perhaps most of the readers my age and older who I know–and I’m an “old folk” for this study–wear progressive bifocals. Never mind…)
  • The researchers seem to spend a lot of time explaining away the overwhelming preference of the subjects for the print versions as being “cultural rather than cognitive”–and, as I read it, seemingly not even worth discussing.

I’ll assume that the study shows what it claims to show (despite my doubts). If that’s true, by the way, it says that the Kindle (not the Fire) and Nook are terrible devices–the ereader failed on all measures. I don’t believe that to be true either, in the sense that I really do believe that millions of people find eInk-based devices to be pleasurable ways to read.

And that’s probably more than enough for this discussion. More efficient isn’t always better, and for long-form reading, preferences matter. Which doesn’t mean “everybody should read print books” (although I’ll assert that it does mean you probably won’t read many long texts in Courier!); it means people should be able to read books–or long texts–in the form they prefer. Tell me that the preference is “cultural rather than cognitive,” and I’ll probably respond: So?

Comments Off

One quick question for librarians

Posted in Books and publishing, Libraries on February 7th, 2013

Would you buy (or do you believe others would buy) The Mythical Average Library: Dealing with Numbers?

Quick description: Looking at problems with statistics, misleading graphs, and so on; exposing the real complexity of public and academic libraries and how it’s masked in aggregate reporting; making sense of library numbers–and presenting them fairly.

Comments here or email to waltcrawford@gmail.com.

If you want to add more than just “Yes” or “No”–e.g., “Not if it’s more than $15″ or “Only if it’s an ebook”–please do.

[There are really three questions, if you want to get detailed:

1. Is this a book that one of the major library publishers would find worth publishing?

2. Is this a book that could be sold via self-publishing?

3. Am I an appropriate person to consider doing this, which may influence 1 & 2?]

Thanks!

4 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Page »
This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 91328 Spams eaten and counting...