Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on publishing http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic publishing Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb This post is part of the liveTopics demo. Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:30:38 +0100 Radio is a really cool application.  You can do lots of interesting things with it.  Like publishing information in RSS format. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000084.html So what is klogging anyway... Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:24:36 +0100 You know, I don't like the term klogging very much.  It has meaning to us "in the know" but I think it's rather an opaque term. I would prefer a term like Personal Knowledge Publishing which actually says a little bit about what it means, and, harkens back to the DTP revolution. I think PKP will hail the same revolution for Knowledge Management by emphasizing that it is people that matter.  Process should follow people.  Let people do what they are good at (thinking, scheming, designing, creating) and help them get it down "on paper" and let process and automation do the rest for them. The technology should support the individual, not binding them. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000323.html Personal or Professional..? Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:43:07 +0100 Like me, <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001275/2002/08/11.html#a332">Gary Secondino</A> thinks that klogging is problematic as a term for 'weblogging as knowledge management.' I'm actually wavering over my own suggestion of 'Personal Knowledge Publishing.'  Although I want to make it clear that this is KM for people, I also want to be sure that it's clear that what is being published is useful. Mike O'Reilly's suggestion was 'Professional Knowledge Publishing,' or even 'Personal Professionl Knowledge Publishing.'  I think the last one is a bit of a mouthful. So, should it be Personal Knowledge Publishing or Professional Knowledge Publishing...? http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000340.html PKP is to blogging, as TKP is to klogging Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:43:29 +0100 I've was speaking with <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0112134/">Mike O'Reilly</A> about liveTopics, Radio, open source and what to call klogging.   He very kindly reminded me that I am old enough to be considered an anachronism by some people.  My love of "Personal Knowledge Publishing" comes from it's link to the DTP revolution.  But Mike made it clear that most people today didn't go through that.  To them DTP means Word and it's not exciting, it doesn't harken back to a revolution.  Oh well, drop that idea then. We then went through collaborative, professional, business, and didn't like any of them enough to agree on it. Then it occurred to me to cut to the chase: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> klogging = Tacit Knowledge Publishing</BLOCKQUOTE> This captures both the personal element that I think is so important, and the collaborative element. It also supports the storytelling metaphor which I am coming around to in a big way. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000417.html Copyright expiry can work Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:01:14 +0100 <A href="http://scriptingnews.userland.com/moresSource">Dave Winer on releasing MORE's source</A>. (SOURCE:<A href="http://www.scripting.com/">Scripting News</A>)-OK, this makes sense now. I agree the system wouldn't work. Thanks Dave! <QUOTE> Maybe this simplified story will shed some light on the realities of software development. Had we been forced to release the source, I don't think we could have sold our investors on taking a chance on us, or realized the great return we got from the Symantec deal, and gone on to develop more software. The system you describe just wouldn't work, you wouldn't get any of it. Basically, I would love it if the source for MORE were released. I think it would be a humantarian contribution of the first order, but it's not mine to make. </QUOTE>[<A href="http://www.rolandTanglao.com/">Roland Tanglao's Weblog</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Okay I wasn't going to jump in on this but I think Dave may have misunderstood Lessig's proposal.  I think 10 year copyright expiry could work. This is what I understand from <A href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/cooper.html">Larry Lessig's</A> proposal about copyright expiry after 10 years: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> The source code would be de-escrowed after 10 years.  But only the source code whose copyright has expired.  By publishing a new version (e.g. Version 2) of the software you establish a new copyright checkpoint.  Your version 2 doesn't get de-escrowed for 10 more years after it is released.</BLOCKQUOTE> So here are my reasons: <OL dir=ltr> <LI> <DIV>I do not think that the possession of a 10 year old version of the software is going to put you in a competitve position against the holder of the latest & greatest source code.  It would be like trying to market Windows 3.0 against Windows XP.</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV>If investors had the choice between a company who kept the source code proprietary forever and one who had to publish after 10 years then I agree, they would pick the former.  But this will be a level playing field.  Everyone will have to publish their source code after 10 years.  It won't be an issue.</DIV></LI></OL> Of course maybe I've misunderstood Lessig..?</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000479.html A solution to big media Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:45:12 +0000 What happens when you blog a Fox executive? Blox <A href="http://www.way.nu/archives/000493.html#000493">Jonathan Peterson deconstructs the comments of Fox CEO Peter Chernin</A> in a Comdex keynote. Great stuff. Thanks for the link to <A href="http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/">David Weinberger</A>, who <A href="http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/000891.html">adds his own astute comments</A>. It all comes down to the notion that programming is scarce or, at least, needs to retain the appearance of scarcity to sustain its value. In fact, if you make connections and let value flow, the investment in programming made today can be much more profitable than it is in the broadcast model. [<A href="http://www.ratcliffe.com/bizblog/">RatcliffeBlog: Business, Technology & Investing</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Folks the solution is simple: <UL> <LI>Stop watching TV.</LI> <LI>Stop going to the Movies.</LI> <LI>Don't buy Music, Videos, Games, Books or Magazines.</LI> <LI>Don't by a Tivo, DVD player, stereo, WEGA tv, PlayStation</LI></UL> In a couple of years all the media-related companies (and their dependents) will be bankrupt.  It might teach these guys that they need to treat us with a little respect if they want to survive. We won't do it of course...</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000857.html Writing computer books not recommended... Sun, 01 Dec 2002 12:54:06 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/2002/12/01.html#a988">Why Computer Books Suck</A>. Thanks to <A href="http://simon.incutio.com/">Simon</A> I ran across <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/2002/12/01.html#a988">Why Computer Books Suck</A> <A href="http://www.ramblingrose.com/ComputerBooks.htm">[ Go ]</A>.  I'd have to agree with her points 100%.  Having been a co-author this year on a computer book for today's leading publisher, I'd just comment that not only is the whole book process messed up but I'd also rather have all my fingernails pulled, eat glass and drink acid before writing another computer book.  I absolutely loved this section: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <H2 align=left>There's no money in it</H2> Let's say you pour three months' worth of blood, sweat, and tears into your 500-page computer book. After taking three more months to reformat it, the publisher sends you galley proofs so you can review them and create an index. Of course, you get only a week or two for that. You mark a few minor, last-minute corrections on the proofs. You must then use the hard copy (that's right, hard copy) to create an index manually (that's right, manually). Of course, you can have the publisher do it for an outrageous fee, but most authors choose to index their own books. And most authors do a lousy job of it. By that time the author is too burnt out to do it justice, even though everyone knows the index is the single most important section of any computer book. Finally, you're finished. The publisher dawdles for another month or so, occasionally sending you messages asking for files you've already sent them twice, and that sort of thing. Finally the book goes to print. If you're lucky, you see a couple of copies on the shelf at Border's. Now suppose the book's list price is $40. Typically, the writer's cut is a percentage of the "net" which is a fancy way of saying half the list price. Supposedly this is to cover the cost of publishing the book. (Why does it cost that much? I'm not sure, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that three months' labor is required to reformat a book.) What this means is that if your royalty is 15%, you get 15% of $20, or $3. But that's only for domestic retail sales. Chances are, your contract contains lots of loopholes for things like international sales, book clubs, and anything else you can dream up, so on average you might get $2. That's 5% of the revenue from the sale of the book. The publisher gets the remaining 95%. Think about these two facts for a momont: <LI> <DIV align=left>You researched, wrote, reviewed, revised, and indexed this 500-page book. You developed and tested the examples. </DIV> <LI> <DIV align=left>The publisher's cut is 95%. </DIV> Are you now suffering from severe cognitive dissonance? </LI></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup.  Right on the money.  When I emailed my editor asking about sales of the book -- AFTER he emailed me about it first he never even responded.  As near as I can tell, royalties for a computer book might cover sales tax on a decent dinner out but not necessarily the dinner itself.  And, finally, when I asked a professional literary agent about writing computer books, his response was "The game is rigged by publishers against the authors.  If you can write ANY OTHER type of book than a computer book that's what I recommend".  Writing Computer Books?  Not Recommended. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/">The FuzzyBlog!</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Well that's as disappointing as it is instructive.  Thank Scott. I've always harboured a desire to author a good computer book, now I think I've got better things to do with my time.  Unless... I wonder if a way could be found to get Amazon, Barnes & Noble et al. to sell PDF books on their website from independent publishers.  That is, you and I get together and write our book.  We hire an editor on a percentage basis (would that work? Is that a better deal than most editors get now?) and supply the finished PDF for distribution directly to the on-line stores. After all do computer books get marketed in the way that, say, a Grisham novel does?  What does the publisher do other than supply a, seemingly incompetent, management and paper distribution function? I know some people have tried selling e-books themselves via their own websites.  But has anyone made a serious attempt to get the likes of Amazon to distribute independent efforts? If that doesn't work is there a way to make money via a super-efficient publishing system.  Same as above, the publisher is soley responsible for taking the finished PDF, printing and distribution on a percentage basis.  Would anybody do it? I'm probably showing my naivety again... http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000932.html Dynamic publishing, dynamic pricing Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:40:15 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109827/2002/12/02.html#a1196">Ack foo</A>. <BLOCKQUOTE><A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/2002/12/01.html#a599">Writing computer books not recommended...</A>. [Chomped the wonderfully depressing quote from <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/">The FuzzyBlog!</A> ...] I know some people have tried selling e-books themselves via their own websites.  But has anyone made a serious attempt to get the likes of Amazon to distribute independent efforts? If that doesn't work is there a way to make money via a super-efficient publishing system.  Same as above, the publisher is soley responsible for taking the finished PDF, printing and distribution on a percentage basis.  Would anybody do it? I'm probably showing my naivety again...[<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/">Curiouser and curiouser!</A>] </BLOCKQUOTE> I honestly must admit I have entertained thoughts of being an author, but by the looks of it, maybe not. Which is a tad scary in it's own right, I grew up in this industry reading everything I could lay my hands on. I have thousands of books. If this is how badly the publishing industry treats authors, we are going to run out of computer books RSN. Well, the last six months of bookstore browsing has only tempted me to buy about three computer books, so maybe the drought is already upon us. Not happy, Jan. As to whether people can publish eBooks, as say PDFs, and get make a living out of it. I don't know. I hope it can be done, but I also know I am more likely to part with $90 for a book I can read on the train than $10 for a PDF that I have to print myself. Perverse, but true. [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0109827/">Brett Morgan's <STRIKE>Insanity Weblog</STRIKE> Zilla</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Me too.  My printer is an HP DeskJet 940c.  It's not slow and it's not terribly expensive to run.  I'm happy to print lots of 8-12 page articles in draft mode.  But the idea of printing a 400 page book, nah.  A book tends, if done right, to be just right in your hands.  200 pages of A4 inkjet paper doesn't have quite the same Wu. Which is why I think there is an opportunity for a new streamlined publishing company.  Well more of a loosely coupled distributor really. Here's how I think it should work. <UL> <LI>You order the book via Amazon.</LI> <LI>Amazon take their sales cut, then pass the order on to the distributor.</LI> <LI>Distributor "prints" the book & ships it.  Recharges Amazon for their cut.</LI> <LI>Whatever is left goes to the authors + editor on a monthly basis.</LI></UL> The distribution company needs to have the capability of printing in small quantities to begin with maybe <100 copies.  When they have some idea of how sales are going they can shift up production run size appropriately.  I think this would be best done by the distributor outsourcing printing to a number of different printing companies themselves.  The distributor then acts as a hub and amortizes it's own costs.  Obviously this means printing will start out very expensive and (hopefully) get cheaper as sales rise. This is why it is essential to use Amazon (or one of its contemporaries): Dynamic pricing. Just as outfits like <A href="http://www.letsbuyit.com/">LetsBuyIt</A> leverage more customers to lower the price, Amazon could use feedback to dynamically alter the book price & percentages based upon total sales.  This means that the book might start out at $60 with a %20 cut to the authors ($12), but when sales improve it could come down to $40 with a %50 ($20) cut to the authors.  If authors currently make $2-$3 a pop then this could work. I'll put my crack pipe away now and try to drift back to reality...   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000942.html Medscape RSS Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:28:01 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE> <A href="http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/2003/02/19.html#a3683">Medscape Makes RSS Feeds Available!</A>. <A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0112683/2003/02/18.html#a118">Medscape Jumps into RSS</A> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "I am really happy to announce that <A href="http://www.medscape.com/">Medscape</A>, the leading news, information, research and CME site for Physicians on the Internet has joined the RSS revolution. We are now publishing <A href="http://www.medscape.com/rss">RSS feeds of our headlines</A> in each specialty for which we have a home page. And if you really want the full picture of what's going on in medicine, you can subscribe to a full site feed that syndicates just about every article, news story and CME program that is published. This is a direct result of my experiments here in weblogs, as well as interactions I've had with the 'Doc Bloggers' in the column to the right. Admittedly, we are one of the few sites that rely on getting people to look at our content on our site launching this feature (and outside of technology-oriented sites, you can probably count the major media participants on one hand), and are certainly the first serious medical resource to do so. So why aren't we afraid that publishing an RSS feed will actually lead to less traffic on our site? It comes down to this...we believe in the quality of our content. We know there is nowhere else on the Internet where you can get the same timeliness, focus and professional quality of medical information. If you are a doctor (or you are interested in medical information), our RSS feed is the best way to stay up to date on what we are publishing, and you will invariably want to visit our site to see the whole story." [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0112683/">Tales of Hoffman</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Add Mescape to the "ClueTrained-In" column! Remember - RSS doesn't have to be a supplement for site visitors; it can easily be a complementary channel. Congratulations to Steve and Medscape for taking the long view! I truly believe this will benefit them in the long run, and I hope Steve will be able to provide us with periodic updates. [<A href="http://www.theshiftedlibrarian.com/">The Shifted Librarian</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> This is important for a number of reasons not least of which, from my perspective, is that in the medical professional we have a group of people for whom the classification of knowledge feeds isn't going to be a nice-to-have but a must-have. These people are going to have so much information pushed at them that it is going to be essential that they can intelligently organise the streams into useful knowledge bases. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001182.html