Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

quality

A Publishing Seal of Approval, a step toward standarization

A Publishing Seal of Approval, a step toward standarization

qed-emblemA couple of days ago, I received an email with a press release announcing a joint venture of sorts to bring a Publishing Seal of Approval to digital books.   The seal will be called QED and it is owned by Digital Book World, a division of F&W Media.  Barnes & Noble, Sony, and Kobo have signed on to support the seal which I assume that means that they will be applying/featuring it in some way in their stores.

From the press release:

The QED is the first-ever independent, third-party assessment of an ebook’s basic production standards. QED stands for “Quality, Excellence, Design” in ebooks. To earn the QED standard for excellence, ebooks must pass muster in a multi-format, multi-platform 13-step quality assurance (QA) process. Ebook entries will be thoroughly and independently vetted on devices from mobile to eInk to tablet. The QED is a reader-centric award that lets ebook consumers know that their purchase will render correctly, no matter where or how they choose to read. For more on the QED, please visit http://publishinginnovationawards.com/the-qed

The idea is that a publisher, whether it is a corporation or individual author, will pay for the book to be checked against this service and then, if it passes, the book will be awarded this seal.  I have no idea how much this costs. (I probably should have asked but did not).   If a publisher pays for this service, the book will be entered into the publishing innovation awards.

The fact that we actually need a QED, which simply ensures that a product is viewable on all devices, is a crime.  The QED is checking that font display is consistent throughout the book, that the book doesn’t open on a blank page, that the hyperlinks work, that the section breaks start and stop in the appropriate places.  These checks are all rudimentary. So rudimentary that every publisher, regardless of whether it is a corporation or an author, should be checking for these things before the book is released for purchase.  We shouldn’t need this seal, but we do.

The QED is a great idea but it’s only the start.  For one thing, the QED seal only measures the mechanical function of the ebook.  It does not address content, even on the most basic of levels.

For instance, while it checks to make sure that the metadata is appropriate, there is no consistency required in the metadata.  Consistency in metadata is important because most ereading platforms, whether they be dedicated reading devices, mobile apps, or desktop programs, sort by author and title.  Even amongst the major publishers, there is no consistent use of the author and the title fields.  For instance, some use ALL CAPS WHICH I HATE.  Others will have the author first name, author last name whereas others will put it author last name, author first name.  This wreaks havoc with the sorting.

The QED will check to ensure that the table of contents is correct, but it does not require a table of contents.  I have heard some authors of fiction wonder why a table of contents is even necessary in fiction books.  Table of contents are vital, in my opinion, for aiding in navigation.  A reader cannot digitally flip through pages as quickly as a reader can page through a physical book.

The QED does not check for typos or formatting irregularities.  While I am thrilled that so many of the backlist titles are being digitized and sold through legitimate channels, the typos are rife.  Harlequin Treasury books have at least one typo, OCR error per chapter. Some readers have reported them on every page.  These OCRing errors are leading to some hilarious but embarrassing results. Witness Susan Andersen who was forced to post on her Facebook and send out a newsletter alert about the error in her book “Baby, I’m Yours.”

Hey, all.

I wanted to give you all a head’s up on a killer typo in my digital edition of Baby, I’m Yours and apologize for page 293, where it says:

He stiffened for a moment but then she felt his muscles loosen as he shitted on the ground.

Shifted–he SHIFTED! God, I am so appalled, not to mention horrified that anyone would think that’s what I wrote.

That is a very accommodating heroine, holding the hero whilst he defecates on the ground.  I have chortled over OCRing errors in the old Amanda Quick books released by Random House.  My favorite error, prior to Baby, I’m Yours, was in David Plouffe’s book The Audacity to Win which had the word “Funfortunately” in it.

FUnfortunately, you can’t just say you’re running and have everything fall into place.

There are some standards that are already in place. OSIS, for example, has four levels of OCR quality.  The fourth level, Trusted Quality, requires that  “Random spot-checks of at least 3% of the text must come up with no instances of more than 1 error per 5 pages (or 10,000 characters of content).”  That’s really low.  Think about it. 1 error per 5 pages is permitted.  However, there are many digitized versions of books that do not even meet this standard.

Distributed Proofreaders has an excellent set of documents that it has compiled from the proofreaders to spot “scannos”, the OCR’ed version of typos.   Readers may have come across words like Diere which should have been There.  Some of these errors can be corrected by a script.  Over at the BN Nook board, a reader reported that a YA author of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt would be using a computer script to combat the most common scannos.

Author Diane Duane reported today that her publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, will be working to remove the OCR scan bugs in her “Young Wizards” e-books. What strikes me, though, is that they’re not going to use proofreaders. Instead, they’re going to create a computer script to look for the most common scan errors.

They figure this should only take them two months.

There are scripts that exist already to combat scannos and publishers (authors or companies) who want to put out a cleaner formatted version of their book can use the free program called HTML Tidy.  Problematically, publishers aren’t tech companies. I have no idea how the books go from print to digital at these corporations. I think (although this could be totally incorrect) that they are often outsourced.  (I.e., another company is hired to scan and produce an OCRed version).  Whatever the case may be, the quality control of digital books is very low.

Publishers and authors are bemoaning the $.99 and the $9.99 price points, but readers bemoan the quality. Perhaps if those that are putting out the work would put quality control at a higher priority, readers would be willing to pay higher prices but the more that low quality books are produced, the lower readers expectations will be about the value of a digital book. A QED is a start but the publishers goal (regardless of who the publisher is) should be to eliminate the need for the QED seal.

Tuesday Midday Links: Crowd Based Patronage

Tuesday Midday Links: Crowd Based Patronage

This is a quite hilarious ad by Verizon mocking AT&T’s pathetic coverage (I am an AT&T customer via my move to the iPhone). Watch until the end.


Guardian asks whether crowdsourcing author advances is legitimate. Deanna Zandt wanted to write a book on using social networking for social change and action, specializing in often marginalised subsets such as women, people of color and queer folk. She wanted to write full time and not work and asked for “investors” who would send her money that she could use to support herself while she was writing books. She raised about half of the money that she had targeted.

The article calls this asking for the crowd to source an advance but because investors don’t get anything back, I see it more as a modified patronage system. It was one of the experiments that Cory Doctorow wrote about. I don’t think it’s chutzpah, necessarily, as the Guardian author suggested. I wouldn’t donate to Deanna, but I did donate money to Ann Marie Cox when she was laid off in the midst of covering the presidential election. The note I sent was that I hoped she used my donation expressly for something frivolous. I had received a lot of enjoyment from following Cox during the election period and wanted to give back.

There are definitely some authors that I would donate money to simply for the pleasure of keeping them writing. Whether there are enough of us to do that, I can’t rightly say.


Another article in the Guardian notes that George RR Martin has completed over 1200 pages in his next installment of the Song of Fire and Ice series. I some concern that this series will never be completed so I am not going to reinvest time to revisit this series until is actually finished.


Media publishers (not book publishers…yet) are upset with Apple over Apple’s refusal at this time to give up any consumer data information.

Media executives fear Apple will have unprecedented control over their readers’ information, one of their most valuable treasures to attract advertising, and will take almost a third of their subscription revenues “forever,” according to the Financial Times.


Keishon writes about how ebook quality control is important to her.

Lack of covers -’ most annoying. But the argument always circles back to well, you're not even reading on a device that sports color anyway so what's the big deal. It's a big deal. In color or not, I would like to look at the original cover versus looking at a mock-up with book title, author name and publisher name. Its an eye-sore and it looks tacky. Besides, Stanza and eReader apps for iPhone sports color covers.


Kassia Krozser admits to having entitlement issues.

A recent meme in publishing is that some readers are exhibiting a sense of "entitlement" about buying ebooks. I'd like to humbly offer myself as Exhibit A. It is true: I feel entitled to buy books. I insist upon it, actually*.

Seriously, is it ever a good idea to disparage your customers? To treat them like they are annoyances? To suggest that they simply don't understand how things work, when, really, why should they? Especially when, in at least one instance, the publishers were the ones who changed (or attempted to change) the rules?

So, as a person who happily pays for books, this is what I feel entitled to: the book in the format I prefer at the time my awareness in said book is sufficient that I go to make the purchase at the price I deem reasonable based on my extensive experience as a book consumer.


Jessica takes on the scholarly article on romance and feminism by Rochelle Hurst in Australian Feminist Studies, Vol. 24, No. 62, December 2009. Hurst apparently posits that BJD is more feminist than the Mills & Boon books:

I am not going to comment on Hurst's points about Bridget Jones' Diary, except to note that her argument for BJD's feminist superiority to romance, depends largely on her faulty take on the romance genre. I want to focus instead on Hurst's portrayal and dismissal of romance, and her "scholarship".


James Grimmelman, a professor at New York Law School, found this interesting tidbit in the Google Book Settlement filing. It comes from the statement of Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors’ Guild, and suggests that the contracts that were submitted by the Author Subclass cover digital editions:

Counsel also advised me from their review of such contracts that in the late 1980s many of the major publishing houses' form contracts began to include electronic rights grants to the publisher.

From the Authors’ Guild website, however, is this statement:

The misunderstandings reside entirely with Random House. Random House quite famously changed its standard contract to include e-book rights in 1994. (We remember it well — Random House tried to secure these rights for royalties of 5% of net proceeds, a pittance. We called it a “Land Grab on the Electronic Frontier” in our press release headline.) Random House felt the need to change its contract, quite plainly, because its authors did not grant those rights to it under Random House’s standard contracts prior to 1994.

A fundamental principle of book contracts is that the grant of rights is limited. Publishers acquire only the rights that they bargain for; authors retain rights they have not expressly granted to publishers. E-book rights, under older book contracts, were retained by the authors.