Archive for the ‘Books and publishing’ Category

One-third of the way there!

Sunday, November 22nd, 2015

With today’s French purchase of a PDF copy of The Gold OA Landscape 2011-2014, and including Cites & Insights Annual purchases, we’re now one-third of the way to the first milestone, at which I’ll upload an anonymized version of the master spreadsheet to figshare. (As with a previous German purchase, I can only assume the country based on Lulu country codes…)

Now an even dozen copies sold.

Reading the way you prefer

Monday, September 28th, 2015

I ran into an odd blog post (on a ALA divisional blog) this morning–and didn’t comment directly for two reasons:

  1. I’m not a member of the division
  2. I’m hoping that I simply misread or misunderstood the post.

The post seemed to be saying that libraries/library groups should be helping to persuade younger people to do all their book reading in ebook form. (I believe it springs from the New York Times piece regarding a slowdown in ebook sales.)

Again, I’m probably misunderstanding what was being said–but I have certainly seen in the past discussions that seemed to say that the “digital shift” was not only inevitable but desirable, and that good librarians should be backing it.

And I just don’t get it.

I’ve suggested for some time that there is no such thing as an inevitable digital shift when it comes to books: that there’s no reason to believe, based on precedent or history, that ebooks would sweep away print books entirely–or that this was even a desirable thing.

I’ve tried to be consistent in saying what the title of this post suggests. Expanding:

  • It seems likely that some people will prefer to do all or most of their extended-narrative reading on digital devices, either because they like them better, they’re more convenient, they believe they should do so…or for whatever reasons.
  • It seems likely that some people will prefer to do all or most of their extended-narrative (that is, “book”) reading from print books, either because they like them better or for whatever reasons.
  • It seems likely that some people will prefer to read some books in print form, some in digital form–and that the variety and distribution of preference will be different for different people.
  • Public libraries should not be “out ahead of the users” on such matters unless there’s a clear and consistent shift in preferences–and even then, maybe not. (Which is not to say public libraries shouldn’t provide ebook services, but maybe that they shouldn’t screw up their budgets or priorities to emphasize ebook services.)

I’ve said for some time that I expect book publishing and print book publishing to be a healthy business throughout my lifetime, with total print book revenues certainly in the billions and probably in the tens of billions of dollars per year. But I’ve tried to avoid nonsensical prophecies about the long-term balance between print and e.

Maybe ebooks will stabilize at 20% of the total book market. Maybe they’ll wind up being 25%, or 30%, or even 80% (although achieving a majority is beginning to seem less likely, but I’m no prophet). Maybe there is no equilibrium level, with percentages shifting back and forth.

In any case, books should be available in the form readers prefer, public libraries should support those preferences to the best of their abilities, and it should never be a matter of shoving one medium down people’s throats preferring one medium at the expense of another despite apparent use patterns.*

Of course, I’m ancient enough to go back to all those predictions that all books would become movies (although never stated that way), because of course everybody really wants their books to be singing and dancing. It always struck me that those making such predictions weren’t really book readers, and it turns out most book readers aren’t especially interested in “enhanced books.”

Those of you who read my stuff in another area may note that I also don’t foresee OA sweeping away traditional journal publishing in any great hurry, or even in my lifetime. I’m just not much of a triumphalist or a single-path advocate. Such is life.

*I do believe a case can be made that public libraries should resist aggressively bad ebook contracts, to the extent that they effectively privilege ebooks over print books if there’s not clear evidence of similar patron preferences–but that’s part of what I’m saying.

Personalized ads: An odd incident

Sunday, September 20th, 2015

Yes, I know most sidebar ads on websites are affected somehow by what you’ve searched or what sites you’ve gone to before. No big surprise, that, although it’s always amusing to see all the ads for competitors to something you just purchased.


I don’t remember ever seeing Lulu running these sidebar ads; since Lulu’s a service company for self-publishers more than it’s really an online bookstore, that was OK with me.

Somehow, though, for the past three or four days, I’ve been getting loads of Lulu sidebar ads, usually scrolling through three to six different items on order.

One of which is almost always the paperback version of The Gold OA Landscape 2011-2014.

Which is odd on a couple of counts:

  • I’ve already purchased a copy–not surprisingly, since it’s my book, and especially since I can’t approve it for global distribution (Ingram, Amazon, B&N) until I receive my copy and “approve” it.
  • For that matter, if I do order a copy, it won’t cost the $60 shown in the ads: as the author, I pay only production costs, with no real profit for Lulu.
  • At least the last time I checked, searching for “the gold OA landscape” at Lulu yields the PDF ebook but not the paperback (Lulu’s book search is sometimes a little strange). But, of course, the ad takes me right to the product page that should show up on a search.

Is anybody else seeing this book advertised in sidebars? I’d love to think so, but I’m not going to assume it’s true.

By the way, another book that seems to show up for me all the time is Ann Dodds Costello’s Smart Women: The Search for America’s Historic All-Women Study Clubs. Which actually looks pretty interesting; I might yet buy a copy. (The link here is for the currently-$32 hardback; there’s also a $24 paperback and $8.99 ebook. It’s a 426-page book.)

Hmm. If I do buy that book, then Lulu’s ads are working…even if they’re also advertising my own stuff to me.

Stretching irony

Friday, August 28th, 2015

You’re writing a guide to local trails. Those trails are free. Your guide must therefore be free. Right?

You’re doing (unfunded) research on the nature of contemporary radio. Radio is free to the listener. Therefore, you won’t charge anybody for the book based on your research. Right?

I could provide many more such absurd, well, let’s call them sillygisms, since to call them syllogisms would be silly.

But then there’s:

You’re writing a guide to/doing unfunded research on/publishing about open access. Therefore, it’s ironic if you charge for it.


Yep, here it comes again, just as it did in the first review when ALA Editions published Open Access: What You Need to Know Now (which was my writing, not an ALA official proceedings). This time, it’s the Library Technology Reports issue, which is apparently finally out. And an almost immediate tweet calling it ironic that the OA-related report requires a subscription.

(In fact, unless I’m mistaken, the first chapter–which includes the key facts–is free online; the key facts were in my freely-available American Libraries excerpt; and the spreadsheet used for the report is freely available. But never mind.)

And here I am plugging away on a much broader report…which, to date, I can only be sure four people will ever see. Because, you know, I’m going to charge for it. Not enough to make, say, minimum wage for the time involved, but I’m going to charge for it. And no, it’s not ironic. (Somebody’s paying for pretty much every OA journal, by the way…)

It does get tiresome at times.

The books of 2014

Wednesday, December 31st, 2014

I could recount blog activity for 2014, but that would be really brief and boring. I would promise to do better in 2015, but don’t know that I will…

As for the year in general: I certainly didn’t plan to spend much of it visiting some 16,000 journal and publisher websites some 23,000+ times in all–but Beall’s fast-growing list concerned me enough to try to want to add some, y’know, facts to the discussion. As a result of spending hundreds (I’m not even thinking about how many hundreds) of hours on the single project that turned into four projects, I really didn’t make much headway on watching old movies–instead of the usual one or two per week, I think I managed one a month, maybe less.

But I did do OK on book-reading, mostly library books. My annual goal continues to be 39: three books each time I go to the library–one genre fiction alternating between mystery and science fiction/fantasy, one “non-genre” fiction, one nonfiction–and going to the library at least once every four weeks (that’s the circulation period in Livermore). Anything more than that is gravy.

This year, it looks like I read 58 books, or, rather, I started 58 books and finished 55 of them. (I gave up on three books, two of them to my considerable surprise because they’re by authors I like in general: to wit, Connie Willis’ All Clear and Gene Wolfe’s The Urth of the New Sun. The third was John Barth’s Once Upon A Time–and, you know, I’ve liked Barth a lot as well.)

The pleasant surprise is just how many books I liked enough to give A or A- grades–although that includes starting to read Robert Parker again and reading some of the Discworld books (in mass-market editions) that have been sitting on my shelf before the pages yellow completely.

Here’s the list, including an astonishing 30 books in all, in no particular order:

The Long War Terry Pratchett & S. Baxter
Robert B. Parker’s Lullaby Ace Atkins
James and the Giant Peach Roald Dahl
Jingo Terry Pratchett
Back Story: a Spenser novel Robert B. Parker
Bad Business Robert B. Parker
Chance Robert B. Parker
Telegraph Avenue Michael Chabon
The Christmas Train David Baldacci
The Science of Discworld Terry Pratchett & others
Fatal Voyage Kathy Reichs
How the Beatles Destroyed Rock ‘n’ Roll Elijah Wald
Mary Ann in Autumn Armistead Maupin
Cross Bones Kathy Reichs
Bones to Ashes Kathy Reichs
The Know-It-All A.J. Jacobs
The Last Continent Terry Pratchett
I’m Feeling Lucky Douglas Edwards
Hush Money Robert B. Parker
Fire and Rain David Browne
The History of a Hoax…Old Librarian’s Almanack Wayne A. Wiegand
Raising Steam Terry Pratchett
The Monuments Men Robert M. Edsel
Double Deuce Robert B. Parker
The Camel Club David Baldacci
Sudden Mischief Robert B. Parker
Inherent Vice Thomas Pynchon
The Human Division John Scalzi
Hundred Dollar Baby Robert B. Parker
The Fifth Elephant Terry Pratchett

Of those 30, 27 came from the library; three of the Pratchett books were among the seven on my bookshelf as the year began; and some Beta Phi Mu members (I’m not one–I don’t have an MLS–but my wife is or was) may have spotted the odd book out, Wiegand’s charming little chapbook.

Also fair to note that I’m either an easy grader (probably true for books) or I’m good at selecting library books–normally by browsing–that I’ll like. Another 18 books got B or B+ and two more got a middling B-. Only seven books that I finished got C+ or lower, most of them badly-written or seriously ahistoric nonfiction, and only one book earned a D even though I read the whole thing.

Here’s to 2015 being at least as good in books. (Looking at this list, I’m surprised I gave The Last Continent an A-; at the time, I noted that it was the least satisfying Discworld novel I’ve ever read.)

Oh, and Inherent Vice was a pleasant surprise, given that I’d basically given up on Thomas Pynchon after having been an early fan.

One note there: “Robert B. Parker’s Lullaby” is a Spenser mystery written by the writer Parker’s estate chose to continue the series. It’s very good…and is what started me reading Parker again after an absence of 20 or 30 years. I’m sure I’ll wind up rereading some books I’ve previously read. That’s fine with me. I will surely read Atkins’ other Parker books.

Those of you who look at this list and say “Sheesh. He sure doesn’t read much Serious Literature or Truly Worthwhile Nonfiction” are entirely welcome to your own opinion. You may be right.

liberation management: a non-review

Sunday, July 6th, 2014

I tried, Really, I did! Apparently once some years ago, three or four times in the last couple of weeks.

But I just couldn’t! Right around page 225 of 834, I decided I don’t need a soporific and no longer care why Tom Peters is/was so important.

The book title’s in the post title (the first two words, with “necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties” as a subtitle), all-lower-case and all, It’s by TOM PETERS, all upper case (with the T and M in yellow, the O in red, and “PETERS” in green with a red shadow–all very impressive).

Inside the book, oddly enough, the orthography is more normal!

Oh, sorry, reading Peters, I got in the habit of thinking every second or third sentence should end in an exclamation point–possibly as a way to enliven some seriously plodding prose.

The copy I have is a $15 mass-market paperback published by Ballantine (it’s a Fawcett Columbine book) in 1994, two years after Knopf published the hardcover. Both are divisions of Random House. The book’s copyright is held by “Excel/, A California Partnership” (I assume the slash is part of the corporate name but the comma isn’t). “A Note About the Author” at the end tells us that Peters is founder and chief of The Tom Peters Group (which, he tells us in the book, is really five different corporations or something like that), which is in Palo Alto even though “he and his family spend much of their time on a farm in Vermont, thanks to the information technology revolution (the Fax machine).”

Really. In 1992, the Fax machine (capital-F) was an “information technology revolution.” Maybe so; while the commercialization of the internet and the first ISPs go back to 1989, by 1992 it probably wasn’t very widespread.

Oh yes: there’s a doorstop of a book that I should say something about.

The first thing to say is that, if Knopf is/was supposed to have high editorial standards, they sure seem to be missing on this book. The proofreading is fine, but a good editor should have sat down with Peters and said something like “Drop 90% of the exclamation points, try saying things five or ten times instead of thirty or forty times, cut this by 75% and we might have a decent book–with a lot of editorial work.”

But, of course, Tom Peters was already hot stuff by this time, based on a book (with a coauthor) that may or may not have had falsified data (the link is to Wikipedia’s article; on one hand, I can believe Fast Company sensationalized a headline, since the magazine tends toward sensationalism–but on the other, based on too many other business books to count, I certainly believe that Peters cherry-picked at the very least).

This quote from an LJ review of this book is cogent: “Peters doesn’t have the benefit of an official coauthor, and it shows” (In Search of Excellence and his second book did have coauthors).

What I learned from the 200 pages I did read:

  • Tom Peters is 100% certain that every company in America must transform itself (long before now) into small self-selecting project teams that work closely with customers to meet their needs–pretty much “we’re all consultants of one sort or another,” although he doesn’t put it that way. (Somehow, I don’t see that working in ordinary retail at all, but I lack Peters’ vision.) It is, of course, true, as every student of Steve Jobs and Apple knows, that its successes in the iStuff category came about strictly because Jobs and small groups met with potential customers to see how Apple could best meet their needs…oh, wait…
  • Peters is Very Sure of Everything He Says! Hey, he’s a multimillionaire at this point so who am I to quibble? (One of the links from the Wikipedia article has him dismissing the fact that 98% of internet startups–companies done the way he thought everybody should do things–had failed. In essence, he said “So what? Some succeeded.”)
  • Peters is upfront in saying that everybody has to be a businessperson and, at least implicitly, that everybody must create and keep building Their Own Brand.
  • What comes through loud and as clear as the turgid prose allows is this: Peters’ future is 100% for extroverts. There’s no room for introverts in the “nanosecond nineties.” If you’re not out pushing yourself into project teams, creating your own new projects, and being assertive about everything…well, you’re toast.

Some of that may be unfair. In any case, I gave up. I’m sure others read this brick all the way through, were enlightened by it, and went on to found the only companies that could possibly survive the nineties and beyond. No, I don’t intend to read Peters’ more recent books. I’ll give some other absolutist guru a try.





Big Blues: a book review (of sorts)

Saturday, June 21st, 2014

My nonfiction book from the most recent library trip was Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM, by Paul Carroll (New York: Crown, 1993, ISBN 0-517-59197-9).

Partway through reading it, I posted something mildly snarky on Friendfeed about enjoying this sort of book now and then: the “doomed business” book for a business that later turned out to be not quite so doomed as all that. (I read a similar book about Apple, written during the period when it was most plausible to suggest that Apple was a goner.)

I’ve finished it now. This isn’t really a review, but a few comments on this book–and, I think, the problems with this sort of book in general.

Not a bad book

It’s not a bad book. In some ways, it’s a good book, although I would have expected Crown to do a better job of editing–a few items are repeated to the point of annoyance (e.g., the overhead projectors built into rosewood desks). On the other hand, the book was clearly done in somewhat of a hurry: it appeared in 1993 and covers events through April 1993.

Carroll covered IBM for the Wall Street Journal for seven years. That gave him a wealth of contacts. IBM didn’t cooperate on the book (company policy), but he quotes lots of people by name and a few anonymously.

I think the first sentence in the previous paragraph may also point up a possible flaw in the book: To some extent, if you’re covering one company for quite a long period, it’s hard not to become a homer–hard not to start seeing things from the company’s perspective.

Thus, it strikes me that Carroll hammers pretty hard on the notion that Intel and Microsoft were pretty much nothing companies made into giants because IBM didn’t maintain enough control over them. He seems to take it personally that, by 1993, both companies were showing profits of one or two $billion…while IBM took an $8 billion loss in 1993.

The perils of prediction

The biggest problem with the book is that Carroll seemed to think he could predict the future, at least enough to tag IBM post-1993 as a relatively minor company. He also seems not to have regarded the new CEO (Lou Gerstner, an “outsider”) as having much chance of turning things around in any major way.

In 1993, almost certainly IBM”s worst year, it lost $8 billion. It went from over 400,000 employees in 1985 to 225,000 in 1995–although it had started to regain revenues at that point, up to around $72 billion gross.

Here’s the thing: In 2013, IBM had just about $100 billion gross revenue and $16.4 billion profit–and 431,000 employees.

Fact is, Gerstner and his successors did turn IBM around. They got rid of commodity divisions, things where they never could turn a big profit. Mainframes–seemingly irrelevant by 1993, as I read Carroll–never really went away. And IBM put together a package of higher-value services and products that seem to have served it in good stead.

Not that Intel and Microsoft have done too badly either. I keep hearing how Microsoft is irrelevant and doomed, but in 2013 it had roughly $78 billion in gross sales (about 3/4 of IBM) and $21.9 billion in profits (about 4/3 of IBM!), with around 127,000 employees. Intel’s a smaller company, with $52.7 billion in gross sales in 2013 and $9.6 billion in profit (with 107,000 employees), but it’s not exactly in its last throes either.

The final chapter makes much of the devastation caused by IBM’s drop in stock prices and by firing people. I can’t speak to the latter, but the former is interesting. To wit, looking at stock prices for late July, adjusted for splits:

  • In 1980, IBM was at 16
  • In 1985, it was at 33
  • In 1990, it had declined to 28
  • In 1993–at bottom–it was down to 11
  • By 1994, it was already back to around 16
  • By 1995, it was back to nearly 28: in other words, people who held IBM stock in 1990 and didn’t give up on it were whole.
  • In 2000, it was roughly 112
  • In 2005, it was down to roughly 84
  • In 2010, it was up to 128
  • In 2013, it was up to 197

If you bought IBM in 1985 and sold in 1993, you got shafted.

If you bought IBM in 1985 and hung on to it until 2000, you did pretty well…

General lesson?

I’m not sure there is one, other than “prediction is hard.”

As I remember, one key element of the Apple book’s negativity was that it seemed clear that Apple would never gain a substantial share of the PC market. That turned out to be right: Apple doesn’t have a substantial share of the PC market. But it does have some other little products that seem to be doing OK–OK enough so it had $170.9 billion in gross revenue and $37 billion in profits in 2013, with 80,000 employees. Just as IBM is no longer primarily a mainframe computer company, Apple isn’t primarily a personal computer company.

Times change. So do companies–even big, old, apparently-sclerotic ones like IBM.

Thanks, a reminder and a clarification

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014


Somebody purchased a campus-license/site-license copy of The Big Deal and the Damage Done yesterday or this morning.

That’s the fifth such sale. I count each such sale as the equivalent of four copy sales. The book might yet reach 100 copy-equivalents before it goes out of print.

In any case, it’s appreciated and I trust the campus/consortium/whatever will find it useful.


As noted in this post, The Big Deal and the Damage Done will go out of print on or about May 14, 2014.


Since some of you dealing with ebooks may read “out of print” as “will disappear,” I should clarify–as I did in the earlier post:

Cites & Insights Books do not have DRM. Ever.

Once you’ve downloaded a Cites & Insights Book, it’s yours. To keep, sell, give away, lend, backup as often as you want, transfer to multiple PDF-reading devices, whatever.

Of course, you won’t be able to download a new copy from Lulu after it goes off sale, but the copy or copies you’ve purchased–including ones with explicit permission for multiple simultaneous downloads/reading–will not be affected in any way.

[Worth noting again that, in fact, Lulu no longer supports or allows DRM on the PDFs that it sells. But it was always an option and I never chose the option.]

Making Book S16: The Big Deal and the Damage Done

Monday, January 20th, 2014

First, I got irritated by both pundits and academic librarians asserting that circulation was dropping—and continuing to drop—in all academic libraries. Not some, not most, not ARL, but all. After getting enough counterexamples to demonstrate the falsity of that generalization (which in no way kept people from continuing to make it), I decided to look into it in more detail, since I’d figured out how to use Access databases (one of the forms in which NCES makes the biennial academic library surveys available) in Excel.

The result was a two-part article in the March 2013 Cites & Insights: “Academic Library Circulation: Surprise!” (comparing 2008 and 2010) and “Academic Library Circulation, Part 2: 2006-2010.” (The link is to the online-oriented one-column version, because the graphs and tables are easier to read in that version. I’d like to say those articles changed the discussion, or at least that people who were aware of the articles stopped claiming that circulation was falling everywhere. That’s not the case, more’s the pity. (Some people are unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good story.)

Around the same time, I was seeing claims that the Big Deals in serials subscriptions had solved the serials crisis. I was also seeing lots of reports, formal and informal, about the extent to which monographic and other budgets were being destroyed because of continuing rises in serials costs. I should also mention this (from the acknowledgments):

Thanks to the Oregon and Washington Library Associations; without their invitation for me to do a preconference on open access for their joint 2013 conference, I might never have been inspired to do this study. Thanks also to Wayne Bivens-Tatum, whose January 18, 2013 Academic Librarian post “Politics, Economics, and Screwing the Humanities” also encouraged me to do some quantitative analysis.

The rest of the story, from the book’s introduction:

I believe that Big Deals did some good—but they also did some damage, damage that gets worse as the amount spent on serials (in Big Deals and otherwise) continues to ratchet up faster than inflation.

Damage is done to scholars and students in the humanities and social sciences, where books continue to be key, as money continues to be shifted to serials (most of it for STEM—science, technology, engineering and medicine) at least in many libraries.

Damage is done to libraries as serials take an ever-bigger chunk of the total budget, leaving less for not only books but also staff, preservation, computers, archives, programming and new initiatives.

I began looking at actual numbers while preparing a preconference on open access. One of the sillier arguments against open access (and especially against gold OA) is that there’s really no serials problem—that Big Deals solved it.

That’s only true if “solved” takes on a fairly unusual meaning. In 1996, before Big Deals had become common, taking U.S. academic libraries as a whole, serials took 17% of all spending. Books (including back runs of serials and other materials) took 10.4%.

In 2002, at which point Big Deals were well established, serials were up to 22.5% of all library spending—but books were up a little too, taking 11.9% of library spending.

In 2010, serials were up to 26.1% of all library spending—nearly as much as books and serials combined in 1996. Books? Down to 10.6%–frequently of reduced budgets.

Meanwhile, the remainder budget—that is, everything except current serials and other acquisitions—fell from 72.6% to 63.3% of library budgets overall. That’s a serious drop.

How much of serials spending is for electronic access? At a minimum, it’s grown from 15% in 1998 (the first time it’s broken out) to 70% in 2010, doubling its market share since 2004 (when it was 35%).

Curiously enough, those simple numbers understate the real damages—because the damage is in the details, and a number of very large academic libraries managed to do a reasonable job of maintaining decent budgets across the board, somewhat masking what was happening elsewhere.

The book goes into some detail. It’s sold reasonably well (more than 50 copies, fewer than 100). It’s still available, as a $16.50 paperback, a $9.99 PDF ebook (no DRM), or a special $40.00 PDF ebook with an explicit campus/site/consortium license for multiple simultaneous download or use.

The book will continue to be available until shortly before a newer & better version (not self-published) appears; at or after that point, there may also be a complementary self-published book exploring some other quantitative aspects of academic libraries in the current millennium.

Crawford, Walt. The Big Deal and the Damage Done. 2013

And that’s it…

For now. Other than the complementary book mentioned above, I have no plans for future self-published books. Doesn’t mean they won’t happen, just that I have no current plans.

Making Book S15: The inCompleat Give Us a Dollar…

Friday, January 17th, 2014

I’ll keep it short this time—and I’m leaving out The Compleat Give Us a Dollar…, v. 1 and v.2,, um, compleatly. Those two—which combine all the commentary, graphs and tables that were in Give Us a Dollar… and its complements and extensions, are certainly available, but only as ebooks (vol. 1: libraries by size; vol. 2: libraries by state) or site-license ebook (vol. 1 only). They’re not available as print books because they have lots of multicolor graphs and would be very expensive as print books. Well, not as expensive as the traditional books I’m seeing that analyze library expenditures—not by a long shot—but that’s a different story. So far, nobody’s purchased either book at all, so they don’t really exist as books yet.

The inCompleat Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four: Public Library Funding and Benefits in 2010 removes the multicolor graphs from the other two books and combines them into a single volume—increasing page size to 8.5″ x 11″ and making the graphs and tables correspondingly bigger (also using a larger set of fonts for the text and tables).

It’s a handsome big book—425 pages, 8.5″ x 11″. It’s not available as an ebook (buy the two Compleat… volumes instead). The cover is, you guessed it, big top and bottom wraparound strips consisting of a mosaic of larger images from library websites. Actually, the two strips are the original strips from which $4 to $1‘s two strips were trimmed and reduced in size. It is, if I may say so, snazzy. The type is big and easy to read. The charts and graphs are big and easy to read.

And so far, I’m the only one who has read them. Sort of a shame, that. It will continue to be available for some time to come at a mere $26.99.

Crawford, Walt. The inCompleat Give Us a Dollar and We’ll Give You Back Four: Public Library Funding and Benefits in 2010. 2013.

You know, I was just about to sign off with “And that’s it for now…”—but it’s not. I missed one, possibly because I’m working (or will be soon) on an update, and that one may be—depending on how you measure it—the second most successful Cites & Insights Book I’ve done. We’ll get to that.