Archive for November, 2009

Liblogger subtypes and countries: There for a price

Monday, November 30th, 2009

The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008 includes a table showing bloggers by affiliation (22 of them) and another showing non-U.S. bloggers by nation (18). There’s also a table categorizing blog authorship: Full name, partial name, pseudonym, unsigned, or group blog.

Chapter 9 of that book includes discussions of 12 subcategories with at least 10 blogs (hmm: the chapter says 15, but in fact there are 12 discussions), showing how the subgroups differ from the universe of blogs in the book.

This time around, for But Still They Blog: The Liblog Landscape 2007-2009, I didn’t categorize blogs and bloggers by authorship, country or affiliation–partly because I didn’t really find the subgroups particularly informative, partly because “affiliation” is a tricky, multifaceted, overlapping thing.

But if there’s a demand…

One correspondent has suggested that it would be useful to have subgroup data. And where there’s a need, there’s a way…

Namely: If you want a comparison of a subgroup of blogs with the universe of blogs in But Still They Blog: The Liblog Landscape 2007-2009, I’d be happy to oblige.

For a price.

It takes time to do such comparisons, and I don’t expect that sales of this book will be enormously larger than for the earlier one.

Here’s the deal…

If you desire a subgroup comparison against the universe of 521 liblogs in the book:

  • You send me the list of liblogs and the name you want for the subgroup.
  • You send me a phrase from the book that tells me you’ve purchased a copy–I’ll respond to your initial email with a page, paragraph and sentence number.
  • You pay, in advance, a sum for the work I do in preparing the comparison and sending you a PDF (or, if you prefer, a Word .docx file or, without narrative, an Excel .xslx file) of the results, as follows:
  1. $250 for up to 10 blogs that are already in the book.
  2. $20 per additional blog that’s already in the book.
  3. $50 per blog that is not already in the book (that is, $70 per additional blog), since I’ll need to develop the metrics for those blogs.
  • So if you had a group of 15 blogs, 13 of which were already in the universe of 521, the price would be $250 + $60 + $140, or $450 total.

Not holding my breath

Do I expect to get lots of takers? No, but it’s a fair price for the work involved.

Do I expect to get any takers? See the subhead immediately above.

Re comments: A few of you may have seen a critical comment here–albeit one that doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s gone now, not because it was critical but because it was spam, with a link leading to a commercial site.

I’m not sure why a spammer would go out of their way to be hostile to the blogger they’re trying to spam, but I can see the possibility of claiming “Look! He’s censoring negative comments!” Not so.

But Still They Blog: Now available

Sunday, November 29th, 2009
But Still They Blog

But Still They Blog

But Still They Blog: The Liblog Landscape 2007-2009 is now available–at a special early-bird price through the end of the ALA 2010 Midwinter Meeting (January 19, 2010 or thereabouts).

This 319-page trade paperback provides a sweeping look at liblogs (blogs created by library people but, generally, not blogs that are official library publications), with trends, facts, figures, graphs, and profiles for each of 521 liblogs.

What’s Here

The liblogs included here (you’ll find the whole list in the sidebar) appear because:

  • They’re in English.
  • They began in December 2008 or earlier.
  • They have at least some relevance to libraries and librarianship, although that point gets stretched in a few cases.
  • They had at least three posts during March-May 2007, March-May 2008, or March-May 2009.
  • They were available on the web in the summer of 2009 (even if they’d ceased).
  • They were known to me–either because they were listed in the LISWiki list of blogs or the LISZen list of blogs or because they showed up in one of a hundred or so blogrolls that I checked.
  • They were “visible”–in this case, having a Google Page Rank of at least 4 in either early fall 2008 or early summer 2009.

That final criterion was used deliberately to narrow this study’s focus slightly from the 2007-2008 study (which continues to be available, The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008: A Lateral Look.). I’d hoped to get down to 400-450 blogs, making analysis easier and the book shorter. I didn’t manage to do quite that well, although the list of 607 blogs from the earlier study did come down to 480 (there are 41 new blogs).

If you’re wondering: Only 50 liblogs were eliminated because of their low visibility. The others were either non-English [19], defunct (that is, no longer viewable in August 2009 and with no clear trail to a new URL or blogname) [15, plus three that now require passwords], or didn’t have at least three posts in March-May 2007 or March-May 2008 [37]…or, in three cases, really didn’t have any posts that had anything at all to do with libraries.

What’s Discussed

I’ll be doing a series of posts and articles over the next few (many?) months noting some of the metrics and offering some of the content, but here’s the gist:

  • The first chapter discusses the age of liblogs, blogging platform used, and currency as of September 30, 2009 (how long it had been since the most recent post).
  • The second and third chapters discuss posting frequency and changes in frequency.
  • Chapter 4 considers the length of blogs–and, more interesting, the average length of posts in blogs (and the changes in both of those metrics).
  • Chapter 5 deals with conversations: Number of comments per blog and per post and changes in conversational intensity (number of comments per post).
  • Chapter 6 considers standouts and standards–blogs that score consistently across multiple metrics or multiple years.
  • Chapters 7 and 8 consider patterns of change across three key metrics (frequency, average post length, average comments per post) for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 respectively.
  • Chapter 9 considers correlations and averages, including averages for a very large subset of the liblog universe that might be considered “typical.”
  • Chapter 10 considers why people blog and how blogs change.
  • Chapter 11 discusses stopping and pausing.
  • Unlike last year’s study, this book distributes blog profiles throughout the chapters, typically including a profile when the blog shows up as noteworthy in one particular dimension. The final chapter includes profiles for “the rest of the liblogs”–50-odd blogs, some of which are indeed noteworthy for content but don’t happen to stand out in metrics.
  • There’s an index of blogs (with all mentions) and bloggers (only when they’re actually named). The page on which the blog is profiled appears in boldface in the index.

Special Pricing

From now until the end of the ALA 2010 Midwinter Meeting (roughly January 19, 2010), But Still They Blog: The Liblog Landscape 2007-2009 will be available for a special introductory price:

  • The 6×9 trade paperback costs $29.50. (Lulu Media Mail shipping is now a flat $3.99 for all paperbacks, at least in the U.S.)
  • The book is also available as a downloadable PDF for $20.00

Those prices will go up $5.50 and $5 respectively after Midwinter.

Reduced Prices on C&I Books

Prices on all other Cites & Insights Books have also been reduced, effective immediately:

Technology signposts

Friday, November 27th, 2009

A few quick items worth noting, not necessarily all connected:

  • Last month, Toshiba introduced its first Blu-ray Disc player…and some months ago stopped pretending that its upscaling DVD player was “almost as good as” BD. This is a signpost comparable to Sony’s first VHS recorder…
  • On Black Friday, you can buy a Blu-ray player for less than $80 (from Target or another chain that shall go unmentioned)–or a name-brand Blu-ray player for less than $100 (LG, from Amazon). And Blu-ray movies are showing up for $10 or less…
  • Also on Black Friday, you can get flash drives for $2 a gigabyte (in 16gb and 32gb sizes, sometimes in 8gb sizes)…
  • But, just to keep making life difficult, you can also buy hard disks for less than seven cents a gigabyte: $60 for a 1Terabyte USB-powered external drive (Western Digital, but admittedly 5,400RPM, again at Target) or $90-$100 for 1.5TB internal drives, $130 for 2TB internal drives (also name brand, 7200RPM).

What you can’t do, as usual: Buy a seven cent/1GB or $7/100GB hard drive (except as some kind of fluke old-hardware closeout) or a $2/1GB flash drive.

Admission: This is a postdated post. We host our family on Friday this year–16 in all–so I’m highly unlikely to be on the computer “today” as this appears.

Mystery Collection Disc 5

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Four more Sherlock Holmes! And in keeping with the occasion, the first one is rather a turkey–certainly the worst Holmes I’ve seen to date.

A Study in Scarlet, 1933, b&w. Edwin L. Marin (dir.), Reginald Owen, Anna May Wong, June Clyde, Alan Dinehart, John Warburton, Alan Mowbray, Warburton Gamble. 1:12.

This one has plenty of plot (pretty much unrelated to the story), including coded newspaper ads, mysterious rhyming messages with corpses and an odd group that turns into a tontine, with the survivor(s) collecting what’s left. There’s also a foreclosed mansion with secret passages and a plucky heroine.

Unfortunately, Reginald Owens is by far the least interesting and plausible Sherlock Holmes I’ve ever seen—if anything, he’s blander than Lestrade (or Lastrade in this movie’s credits). Additonally, the print has awful sound quality and a mediocre-to-worse picture. All in all, I can’t give this more than $0.50.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, 1943, b&w. Roy William Neill (dir.), Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey, William Post Jr., Kaaren Verne. 1:20 [1:08].

This one’s wildly anachronistic, since it begins with a disguised Holmes off in Europe bringing a scientist back to England with his newfangled bombsight, to protect the sight from falling into the hands of Nazis and so that British bombers will have it.

Anachronistic, yes. A WWII propaganda film of sorts, absolutely (Holmes’ final speech is classic war propaganda). But also a good Holmes flick, with a fair amount of plot, Lestrade, Holmes and Watson in the thick of things, two showdowns between Holmes and Moriarty (with Moriarty apparently plunging to his death this time around), a coded message (the only link to the Doyle source) and more. Nigel Bruce is still a somewhat fatuous Watson, but it works better this time around—and Rathbone is just fine as Holmes. It’s also an excellent print (one of the best b&w prints I’ve seen in a public domain collection) with fine sound quality as well.

As it happens, I’d seen this movie five years ago, in the set of free DVDs I got from a long-since-departed DVD magazine. The difference: That version was a very poor print, difficult to watch. Sometimes, a good print makes a difference. I’ll give this one $1.25.

Terror by Night, 1946, b&w. Roy William Neill (dir.), Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Alan Mowbray, Dennis Hoey, Renee Godfrey, Frederick Worlock. 1:00.

Mysteries on trains: A stock setting that always adds several elements. This time, we begin with the fabulous Star of Rhodesia, a 400+-carat diamond that’s brought doom to its owners. Currently, the owner is a dowager who bought it to London and is going back to Edinburgh; her son hires Holmes to make sure the gem gets there safely.

We know it’s going to be fun even before the train moves. Another familiar face also gets on the added day compartment that the dowager and Holmes are both on—Inspector Lestrade, supposedly off on a fishing vacation (a month before the season). Watson almost misses the train, and jumps on with a long-time acquaintance who…well, that would be telling. Moriarty’s still dead at this point—but there’s his sidekick Moran to deal with.

We get swapped jewels, several guilty parties (guilty of various things, including swiping a hotel coffeepot), death on the train, discussions of curry, and a remarkable (if contrived) set of scenes in the long climax. There are enough red herrings to stock a Communist fishmarket and an irascible mathematics professor who really should be the villain. It’s all high Holmesian drama…although this time Watson is, if anything, even more of a bumbling idiot than in other movies. The sound’s not perfect, but it’s still a great romp and a fun watch. Noting that, as with the others, this is a one-hour flick, I’ll give it $1.25.

Dressed to Kill, 1946, b&w. Roy William Neill (dir.), Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Patricia Morison, Frederick Worlock. 1:16 [1:08].

We begin in a prison where one convict, working on music boxes, is approached by another who suggests that the first can get a shorter sentence if he’ll just talk—which he won’t. Then to an auction house where three identical (and dull) music boxes are auctioned off to three different people—and, later in the day, a man frantically calls at the now-closed auctioneer to buy the music boxes (and pays to see who did buy them).

And we’re off. We have murder, mayhem and music boxes—and Holmes proves to be an expert whistler with an eidetic memory for tunes, along with his violin playing (on display in this flick). The music boxes turn out to be clues toward finding a set of engraving plates for five-pound notes—that is, real engraving plates. There’s a female villain. Watson is even more stupefyingly incompetent than usual even for Nigel Bruce’s version.

Not as satisfying as some of the others; the print’s not as good, there are slight sound problems and somehow this one just didn’t come off as well. Still, not bad. (Note that the 1:08 running time on the actual disc somehow shows up as 108 minutes—that is, full feature length—on the sleeve!) $1.00.

On Learning: A Reprint

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

This appeared in the June 2008 Cites & Insights, as part of an omnibus Perspective “On Semantics, Reality, Learning and Rockstars.” I’m republishing it because I think it’s still relevant (maybe more so), although I’m not linking it to anything specific…

One unfortunate undercurrent in the various discussions surrounding change and continuity has to do with lifelong learning for library people. Why “unfortunate”? I’ll get to that shortly…

On one hand, you get people saying every librarian needs to learn A and B and C and…well, you know, into the dozens. The answer to that is generally Nonsense, for several reasons:

  • While each library above a certain size may need to have someone familiar with each item in a list, that doesn’t mean every person or every professional in the library needs to be familiar with every item. Very few cataloging gurus assert that every reference librarian and every rural/small library director needs intimate familiarity with RDA. It’s equally reasonable to suggest that some technical services librarians don’t need to be able to install wikis.
  • For many of us, detailed learning substantially before the point of use is mostly wasted. We forget details and maybe even broad strokes. How’s your calculus these days? We need to be able to find out what we need to know when (or ideally, shortly before) we need to know it. Nothing new here either. One new thing, maybe: Some things that we’re told everybody needs to learn almost certainly will disappear or become irrelevant before many of us have the chance to put that learning to use. (How’s your understanding of Gopher navigation techniques? Updated your Orkut and Friendster profiles lately?)
  • Most of us don’t have time to learn everything that might be useful for us, just as most of us don’t have time to keep up with as much formal and informal literature as might serve us well.

But there’s a huge caveat here. A huge caveat:

You don’t have to learn everything—but you do need to keep learning something.

Dorothea Salo objects to the comment “I don’t have time to learn all this!” She’s been writing about difficulties getting librarians to pay attention to issues that do affect them and notes this as one response. (The post is also about different learning styles—the notion that some people learn better in a “steady stream” of daily reading while others prefer the “single spray” method, attending a conference or workshop to pick up a lot of stuff at one point. I think she makes an excellent point—people needing to spread the word in some important areas may need to make more effort to reach those who primarily learn at conferences. All I have to say about the post as a whole is “I agree.” I’m expanding on one comment here.)

I can think of a way to hear that comment charitably, although I suspect it’s being a little too charitable. If a person is saying, “I don’t have time to learn all this,” that may sometimes be right: The person simply may not have room (time, focus, concentration) for a big learning agenda at the moment. But I don’t believe that’s what Salo’s objecting to, and I don’t think that’s what’s usually being said. What I hear, a bit less charitably, is “I don’t have time to learn any of this,” which translates to “I don’t think I need to keep learning.”

And that is simply not acceptable for anyone who calls themselves professional.

You don’t have to learn everything—but you do need to keep learning something.

So why did I say unfortunate? Because it’s easy to conflate two “don’t have time to learn” situations:

  • This is too much for me to take in all at once, and some of it doesn’t apply right now or soon enough for me to retain the learning. That’s frequently valid and leaves room to find a comfort level, where learning appears more directly useful and doesn’t require loads of energy.
  • I’ve learned enough. I don’t want to learn any more. Not acceptable. Not acceptable for professional librarians—and, I believe, not acceptable for anyone working long-term in the library field, professional or otherwise. That attitude wouldn’t be acceptable for doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers or accountants. Why should it be acceptable for library people?

Maybe this does loop back to the first discussion, which was (of course) about “Library 2.0.” Consider the very first paragraph of the very first page of Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change:

A library system that stands still is unbalanced and headed for trouble. A library staff obsessed with Hot New Things and aiming for new users at the expense of familiar services and existing patrons is unbalanced and headed for trouble. Very few libraries fall into either extreme, but sometimes it seems as though we’re urged toward one extreme.

Maybe I’m naïve here as well. I doubt that there are any significant numbers of libraries that look like the second strawman—but I wonder how many libraries (that is, library staffs) really do, to all intents and purposes, appear to be standing still? Let’s set this out as an opposition as well:

  • I don’t want to sign up for the whole set of stuff called Library 2.0. You get no argument from me. Maybe your library shouldn’t be gaming. Maybe your patrons wouldn’t respond to social networking initiatives. Maybe you don’t have the staff to maintain a blog and don’t have any problem for which a wiki is a solution.
  • I don’t want any of this Library 2.0 stuff. Our library’s fine, just fine. We don’t need to examine our operations, find better ways to stay in touch with our community or consider new technologies to support our routines. Now you get a big argument from me. I’m all for continuity, but continuity without awareness and change isn’t continuity: It’s rigidity—easily confused with rigor mortis. Even the smallest library staff needs to step back from time to time to look at how things are going, whether the library’s serving and effectively involving its community, and whether new tools could improve situations. Think you’re too small? The Wetmore Public Library (Kansas) and Seldovia Public Library (Alaska) serve communities of 362 people and 286 people respectively. Both libraries use blogs to good effect—to create an online presence they almost certainly couldn’t provide otherwise.

You don’t have to do it all (just as you may not be able to have it all). But you do have to do something—or at least make sure that you’re doing the best you can. That involves lifelong learning. That’s one of many things good public libraries support, and it’s an essential aspect of being a good library person.

I’m preaching to the choir—but maybe you can pass this particular sermon along to those who might think that old traditionalist Crawford is saying it’s OK for them to do nothing at all. They’re wrong.

Vanity presses, self publishing and PoD

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Just a quick note, because it came up in the long comment thread attached to this post at Whatever, John Scalzi’s blog:

Self publishing and vanity publishing via vanity presses are not the same thing. Lulu and CreateSpace might (or might not) be a third thing.

I’m pleased to say that most commenters who chose to address the issue do make a distinction, unlike a number of people I’ve seen in the past (who regard anything other than traditional “New York publisher” publishing as vanity publishing).

The basic difference:

  • Vanity Publisher: The author pays a fairly substantial sum, based on the idea that the book will then be “published”–that is, edited, printed, promoted, sold in bookstores–as part of the imprint of the vanity publisher. Typically, that sum is in the thousands of dollars. The author “gets royalties”–if anybody other than the author ever buys anything.
  • Self Publishing: The author is the publisher–and uses other agencies to handle some of the chores involved with publishing. Generally, the author understands that nobody else is going to edit, promote, place in bookstores, whatever, unless the author pays them for those specific tasks. The author controls the book, sets prices, gets all net proceeds, etc.

Traditionally–and self publishing has been around for centuries–a self-publisher has a run of books printed and bound, then sets about selling them. There’s still a considerable up-front cost, but the author goes in with eyes wide open, not some questionable promises.

Here’s where Lulu and, to some extent, similar services are a little different: The service agency only prints and binds books when they’re ordered, but the service agency can also act as the “bookstore”–taking and fulfilling the orders. In Lulu’s case, that can mean $0 upfront investment. (Of course, if you want to peddle your books to local bookstores or sell them yourself, there is an upfront investment: You have to pay Lulu’s production charges, which are considerably higher per copy than traditional publishing–but considerably less than the minimum price for a traditional print run, when you only need a few dozen copies.)

(It gets muddled. Lulu also has all sorts of optional services, which they pointedly do not push at you, in which you pay for things like cover design, manuscript editing, ISBN and Amazon distribution, Ingram distribution and Books in Print listing, publicity packages… I’ve never used any of those services, so I can’t speak to them.)

Interestingly, Scalzi–a successful science fiction writer–uses Lulu to process his manuscripts, for his own use, so he has nice printed-and-bound versions of what he’s working on, at very low cost. To some extent, that’s what I’m doing with the annual volumes of Cites & Insights: If nobody else buys a copy, I’ve acquired the bound copy I need, with better quality than I could do locally, for a very reasonable price. (My wife’s doing two genealogical volumes for her family; she decided to do the first “published” copy so she could do a final editing pass more easily than on screen…and we’ll upload a revised version later, before acquiring the copies she’s giving away and making it available to others.)

I don’t think most Lulu projects (over a million to date, I believe) are traditional self-publishing, because I don’t think the creators have any expectation of selling more than a handful of copies. They’re family calendars, photo collections done as gifts, very short-run publications, what have you. I believe some open access journals are using Lulu to make an annual hardcopy version available for the libraries that might wish to purchase one–and, to be sure, the price is likely to be reasonable. Some Lulu authors have probably done quite well, and a few Lulu titles have gone on to become traditional books (the author always owns the copyright and maintains total control; the Lulu edition is not exclusive)…but that’s not usually the point.

Every liblog is a star?

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

A few years back, I had a breakfast conversation about possible distributed publicity campaigns for American public libraries. I had the notion that, if properly defined, every library was a star: That every public library does something unusually well, something worth publicizing.

(No, this actually isn’t a comment on one particular magazine’s “star library” listings. I don’t want to get into that, lacking enough background to comment knowledgeably.)

When I decided to do a followup to The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008, one of the changes was to avoid having one huge, somewhat indigestible, chapter with all the blog profiles (that’s pages 122-268 of the book–as I say, it’s a huge chapter). Having them all in one alphabetical order is great for quick lookups, but doesn’t really encourage reading the profiles–there are just too many.

So, for But Still They Blog: The Liblog Landscape 2007-2009 (on its way soon–I need to choose a cover photo, prepare the cover, upload it and check over a trial copy, but first there’s a little matter of Thanksgiving, where we’ll host twice as many people as ever before), I decided to distribute the profiles:

Several chapters include lists of blogs that are noteworthy in one dimension or another. For most of those lists, if the blog hasn’t already been profiled, the profile appears at the end of that chapter.

So, for example, chapter one ends with 87 profiles, chapter two 56, chapter three 41, chapter four 105…

Did every blog wind up profiled in one of the main chapters? Not quite. Some liblogs, including a few that I consider particularly important, just didn’t stand out in terms of quantifiable metrics–which aren’t, to be sure, the most important things about blogs.

But most did. The final chapter includes the rest of the profiles, and it only has 55 profiles out of 521 liblogs in the book: 10.6% of the total. Even using a relatively small set of metrics, 89.4% of blogs had some noteworthy (positive) characteristic. If I’d included lists of standouts for 2007 or 2008, which I generally didn’t, I’m sure I would have picked up even more. (Quick inspection says that’s definitely true for 22 of the 55.)

As for libraries? I still think it’s an interesting idea, but not one I’m in any position to pursue.

Grumpy notes on a groovy? movie

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

We put Across the Universe on our Netflix list when it came out–I’m not quite sure why. When it arrived and we read over the blurb, my wife said “This is probably one you’ll want to watch on your own–unless you think I’d like it.”

So I started in, using headphones as I usually would if I’m the only one watching. Using headphones: That’s a significant point, and in this case a Really. Bad. Idea. Because you can hear the musical arrangements extremely well…and that was unfortunate. Within ten minutes, I reassured my wife, “No, you probably don’t want to watch this.” I did watch it all the way through…a bad habit acquired when watching the old public-domain flicks.

Backing up a bit

Understand: We both like (most) musicals. We both enjoyed Mamma Mia!, which in some ways is a similar idea (build a movie around one group’s songs, with actors doing all the singing). (I know what people have said, but we thought Pierce Brosnan’s singing was perfectly acceptable for the situation.) We both like (some) Beatles music.

And, in fact, I don’t fault the actors singing the Beatles songs in Across the Universe. I thought Evan Rachel Wood did a credible job, Jim Sturgess was thin but OK, Martin Luther was good, and Dana Fuchs didn’t actually make my ears bleed very much (in any case, I think she was supposed to be channeling Janis Joplin at her most abrasive).

Set aside the “story”

I’m not going to concern myself with the so-called plot, the so-called acting and all that. It was what it was–pretty sad, but it was what it was. I’d certainly never sit through it again.

What really got to me were the arrangements.

[Section deleted because I really don’t know much about the people in charge, and so shouldn’t ascribe motives. What I do know is what I heard–which was particularly uninteresting, leaden electric bass and drum parts in the arrangements that use the instruments.]

OK, I get that McCartney was somewhat of a revolutionary in making the electric bass something other than a percussion instrument. I’ll admit that I never thought of Starr as a world-class drummer, but compared to what goes on in these arrangements, he’s a master of subtlety and technique.

There were a couple of real singers in the performance. Bono should be ashamed. Let’s let it go at that. Still, going to IMDB, I see dozens (hundreds!) of enthusiastic reviews, along with some bad ones (apparently, 186 reviewers out of 441 gave it less than 7.5 stars out of 10–and 52 of those gave it the lowest possible rating. I’m with that group, thanks).

Cites & Insights 9 now available as trade paperback

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Cites & Insights 9 (2009) is now available as a 434-page, 8.5×11, trade paperback, exclusively from Lulu.

The volume includes all 13 issues, exactly as published (typos and all), except that the two book covers in the January issue are in grayscale, not color.

It also includes a contents list showing the articles and pages in each issue, and a volume index.

The price is $50, for either the paperback or a PDF download; a portion of that price goes to support the ongoing publication of Cites & Insights.

The book is printed on bright-white 50lb. paper (my copy looks great!).

As to the cover (a wraparound color photo–you’re only seeing the front part here):

Taken by my wife on Molokai, years ago, on the Kaluakakoi golf course running alongside our room at what was then, I believe, a Sheraton at the Ke Nani Kai resort on Molokai’s isolated west coast. (The hotel’s been closed for some time…tourism on Molokai is an iffy thing.) The only manipulation done to the picture (scanned from a 3×4 print) was to flip it horizontally, so most of the tree would be on the front cover rather than the back. Crappy type position is entirely my responsibility.

Early announcement: Book version of C&I 9 available

Monday, November 16th, 2009

I’ll do a proper post with a cover shot tomorrow, but in case you’re interested:

The trade paperback version of Cites & Insights 9: 2009 is now available.

It costs $50, and represents direct support (to the tune of about $27) for C&I–and if you don’t want the print book and want to support C&I even more (around $38), you can buy the downloadable PDF for the same $50.

Naturally, all individual issues of C&I continue to be freely available. (But you can only get the wraparound cover shot, taken on Molokai, with the book…)

A longer version tomorrow, if all goes well.