Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
71
Formatter's Forge [Public] / Re: Paperback Sizes
« Last post by TimothyEllis on November 18, 2023, 12:05:18 PM »
Why are you looking into mass market size books? Typically I've just done 5 by 8, 5.5 by 8.5 and 6 by 9. I haven't heard of many Indies who do mass market size.

The mass market size is the best imo, but no-one offers it in PoD. So 5 x 8 is the closest.
72
Formatter's Forge [Public] / Re: Paperback Sizes
« Last post by alhawke on November 18, 2023, 11:37:44 AM »
Why are you looking into mass market size books? Typically I've just done 5 by 8, 5.5 by 8.5 and 6 by 9. I haven't heard of many Indies who do mass market size.
73
Formatter's Forge [Public] / Re: Paperback Sizes
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on November 18, 2023, 08:46:44 AM »
It seems the general consensus is 4.25" x 6.875".

Of course, what makes the most sense is 4.25" x 6.75" because that would allow for 8 pages on a single Double Foolscap sheet of paper, which is 27" x 17".
74
Formatter's Forge [Public] / Paperback Sizes
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on November 18, 2023, 04:05:08 AM »
I thought I had a list of paperback sizes but either I don't or I don't have it on my computer as a spreadsheet as I have been unable to find it.

Does anyone know of an accurate and reputable source for paperback sizes?  I'm not looking for a list of the sizes that POD printers offer, but rather a definitive list of common sizes.

Specifically, I am looking for the typical size(s) of a mass-market paperback book (U.S.).  I measured a couple of the ones I have that were handy and come up with 4-3/16" x 6-7/8".

When I search online, I'm getting measurements ranging from 4-1/8" to 4-1/4" wide and 6-1/2" to 7" tall.

A news story on Publishers Weekly indicates that 4-1/8" x 6-3/4" is the standard mass-market paperback size, but 6-7/8" seems to be more frequently mentioned as a size and I tend to think those saying 7" may be rounding but who knows?

Another site suggests the size is 4-1/8" to 4-1/4" wide by 7" tall.  But in the 1950s, the common size was 4-3/16" x 6-3/8".

I guess there could be a range, but there must have been some kind of optimal or target size, especially when these were sort of designed to both fit in a pocket and also fit on displays.  I remember they used to be near checkout counters at stores so I imagine there must have been some kind of industry standard.  Or, at the very least, a range.  And, yes, I'm seeing a range, but whether they represent the actual range or if some people are just rounding, I don't know.  I'd just like to know an accurate size or an accurate range or something.

Last resort will be to just measure a bunch of books and come up with my own numbers.
75
Bot Discussion Public / Re: SFWAs Comments
« Last post by Bill Hiatt on November 18, 2023, 02:04:35 AM »
Quote
I keep hearing anecdotes about this, but no examples.
I've given examples myself. You've just chosen to ignore them.

Fundamentally, though, the larger problem is not that AI from time to time spits out infringing content but that the labor and IP of other people was appropriated, without consent or compensation, to make it possible. No one denies AI was trained on a great deal of material without permission. No one even denies that some of the content wasn't just scraped (in violation of state and local laws) but was flat-out stolen. (Most writers don't post the full text of their novels online, so how were such novels included in the training? I've yet to hear a company say it purchased all of those novels to use for training.)

Keeping in mind that Google has its own AI projects, I'm not sure how much credence to attach to what it says. I have no doubt there are some bad actors, and sometimes, AI is jailbroken. But if prompts can circumvent its safeguards, there's something wrong with those safeguards. In any case, if we want to blame bad actors, the developers seem to qualify for that category, at least in some cases.

As far as SWFA is concerned, they might well not like indies, but that doesn't mean they're wrong about AI.
Quote
Human writers and musicians and artists and photographers and sculptors and painters and illustrators and filmographers and crafters will always have a market because other humans recognize their talent. We don't need protection from AI to do what we do, nor to share it with our audiences. It's similar to the precision cobbler, they're still out there, making shoes and serving their market, but the vast majority of shoes are mass-produced under fairly questionable conditions, and yet - no warnings. And it's not a secret. Everyone knows. Nobody cares.
Maybe we'll always have a market, but it seems as if we'll have a much smaller one, one that will support far fewer of us. And yes, there are still cobblers, but how many?

One might question how much the average person on the street really knows. Companies aren't exactly happy when some labor scandal breaks out and usually at least pretend to take steps. Would they do that if in fact no one really cared? Also, would companies really resist GMO labeling so hard if nobody really cared? Would cigarette companies have resisted health warnings so hard if nobody really cared? People care. They just don't think about it that often unless it's forced to their attention--with labeling, for example. A better test of your thesis would be situations in which products were clearly labeled, and it made no difference. And before you say cigarettes, keep in mind that there's addiction involved there.

 





76
Bot Discussion Public / Re: SFWAs Comments
« Last post by APP on November 17, 2023, 05:38:56 AM »
Here's another interesting article on this general subject.

Silicon Valleys Big A.I. Dreams Are Headed for a Copyright Crash
https://newrepublic.com/article/176932/silicon-valley-ai-copyright-law
77
Bar & Grill [Public] / Re: Silly Spammers
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on November 17, 2023, 05:18:12 AM »
So far, so good.  We'll see how it holds up long term.

Almost two weeks now and no spam comments.  :banana:

Almost three weeks and still no spam comments.  :banana:

About two and a half months now and still no spam comments.  :banana:

Two days shy of eight months and still no spam comments.  :banana:
78
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Well, this is proving a waste of time.
« Last post by Jan Hurst-Nicholson on November 17, 2023, 04:43:34 AM »
I think I had worse luck with Goodreads ads than with any other form of advertising. Now I know why.

Don't think I'll be wasting any money there.

Just Googled Amazon. Got a figure of 32.8 million books for sale. I think the odds for winning the lotto are better than finding a reader for your books without serious advertising.  :icon_rolleyes:
79
Bot Discussion Public / Re: SFWAs Comments
« Last post by PJ Post on November 17, 2023, 03:57:18 AM »
And every single freaking time anyone shows an example of AI spitting out matches to copyrighted text or images, we get excuses on how that's not "copying" or whatever.

My understanding is that it's more like the infinite number of monkeys typing Shakespeare thing. Fundamentally, LLMs are predictive text generators.

I keep hearing anecdotes about this, but no examples.

Maybe we need some specific examples to discuss to see what's really going on, including the prompts that generated the offending text. AI can be tricked by bad actors. They call it a jailbreak.

From Google:

Quote
In simple terms, jailbreaks take advantage of weaknesses in the chatbot's prompting system. Users issue specific commands that trigger an unrestricted mode, causing the AI to disregard its built-in safety measures and guidelines. This enables the chatbot to respond without the usual restrictions on its output.
80
Bot Discussion Public / Re: SFWAs Comments
« Last post by Post-Crisis D on November 17, 2023, 03:42:52 AM »
AI still doesn't copy IPs. There is no theft. That's not how it works.

And every single freaking time anyone shows an example of AI spitting out matches to copyrighted text or images, we get excuses on how that's not "copying" or whatever.

:icon_rolleyes:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »