shadowkat | (no subject)

1. The problem with having too many books on my Kindle, is it really hard to find books on the dang thing, unless you know the title. Also, a lot of these books have variations on the same title -- making me wonder about some ahem, writers, ability to come up with innovative titles. (I'm looking at you, romance novelists. It's not that hard. I've come up with three titles that very few people have used. Clue? The words: Duke, Earl, Marquess, Her, His, Raven, Tower, Highlander, Love, Heart, Wicked, Temptation, Desire, Secret, Bride, Wedding, Gift -- have all been OVERUSED!)

The book that I was looking for and finally found by hunting down Smartbitches Kindle Deals? Wake of Vultures by Lila Bowen.

Nettie Lonesome dreams of a greater life than toiling as a slave in the sandy desert. But when a stranger attacks her, Nettie wins more than the fight.

Now she's got friends, a good horse, and a better gun. But if she can't kill the thing haunting her nightmares and stealing children across the prairie, she'll lose it all -- and never find out what happened to her real family.

It's basically Buffy meets Winona Earp in the Old West.

I've decided I have burned out on romance finally. The last one? Midsummer Moon by Laura Kinsale -- did not work for me. I finished it, but I also skimmed over half of it. The sex scenes were atrocious. And the heroine was a self-absorbed infantile twit, with the annoying habit of touching her lip every fifteen minutes. Oh and she kept a hedgehog in her pocket. The hedgehog got on my nerves. I liked the hero, although he made no sense to me, nor did the plot. The set-up? A Duke is assigned to take an inventor under his protection by the War Department. The Inventor is female, and obsessed with creating a flying machine, while the Duke is terrified of heights. What makes no sense in the book is that no one appears to realize that the Duke is terrified of heights. Nor that the Inventor is an absent-minded twit who requires constant surveillance, or that holding her at the Duke's estate probably isn't the safest place for her. Actually the plot was grating and made no sense at all.

And well, I despised the heroine and by the end of the book -- I wished the Duke would just leave her.

I think I'm tired of flighty heroines who need men to rescue them. Why. Just Why. So off to read a book about a heroine who slays demons in the old west.

2. Hee, after much searching, I found a decent site that rates television sets in a logical manner without ads or subscription fees.

Consumer Reports -- while useful, is a subscription service and expensive, if you are planning on using it only once and just to buy a tv. In order to get any information -- you have to become a member. It has no ads, because it makes everyone who obtains information from it -- PAY FOR IT. It's just like HBO or Netflix.

Which is fine, if you don't just want to find a tv for one year and won't use it again for another say thirteen years. They do provide a useful buying guide -- which Amazon linked to. It's mostly a salespitch for their service. (Note, I refuse to subscribe to any website on the internet for information. I subscribe to the New York Times -- mainly in an attempt to support a free press. Also, I want to check out what I'm getting before I pay for it. They should provide free access a couple of times, then make you subscribe.)

I'm somewhat pissed off at them. I'd rather they had ads, then charged subscription fees. Even the NY Times allows you to try a few articles out first. It doesn't help that I licensed their content in the 1990s for evil reference company, and looked through their guide (when they were still free of charge online) to buy the last tv. Because they were the only game in town back in 2006. There was nothing else. Now, they have really stiff competition. Tee Hee.

Ratings.Com - No ads. And provide links to prices.

CNET.Com

Sometimes I love capitalism and the internet -- lots of choices.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Unless it has changed recently, it's the publisher who has the last say on the title of commercially published books, and yeah titles get reused, which is why titles generally have no legal protection, body of the work - yep, the title - nope.

I admit that I used to read Consumer Reports at the bookstore the time or two a year when I needed the info from an article, maybe bought an issue every few years so I could dig deeper. Can't blame them for charging.

I used to use a couple of newspaper websites fairly frequently. They all want you to subscribe anymore. I quit subscribing to the local print version of the newspaper when they made it a major hassle to do anything but hand them my credit card. Now I spend more time on the TV network news sites (which are still free), and don't bother to watch the evening news. There are still commercials on the videos at the news sites, but I've had a lifetime of practice tuning out commercials. ;o)

Edited 2019-04-26 04:44 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I feel about subscription web sites. I only subscribe to the times, because I can't stand broadcast news. With print, I can skim/scan and it doesn't cause blood pressure to rise. Also the Times is often more in-depth and weirdly less opinionated. That said, I will get news from NY1 - which is a local news channel that covers the commute and weather in depth, along with theater reviews, and what's happening in the five borroughs of NY. ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/11 - do not. They give you news from just Manhattan or New Jersey. The other reason I subscribe to the Times is to well, support free press and as a protest against the nitwit, who hates the NY Times. But it's also my local newspaper.

Other than that - I don't pay for them.

On CR? I don't know if they are the best any longer....there's a lot of competition out there by folks doing the same things. My co-workers didn't rec them and they buy things for a living. My job and theirs is basically to buy or procure various things for a large commuter railroad. About ten years back? Yeah, everyone said go to CR. Now? They say don't bother, go here instead. It's more current and up to date. Also free.

The fact that they don't provide a free trial for the service, is interesting. Ratings.com -- has no ads either, but they only ask for donations. They don't just rely on a "brand". And my past experiences with CR have been hit or miss. I used them in 2006 and got the Polaroid.

Consumer Reports -- while useful, is a subscription service and expensive, if you are planning on using it only once and just to buy a tv. In order to get any information -- you have to become a member. It has no ads, because it makes everyone who obtains information from it -- PAY FOR IT. It's just like HBO or Netflix.

( Caution-- mild contrariness followeth )

Consumer Reports is a non-profit operation, so in that regard they are very much not like HBO or Netflix. While it is true the magazine is on the pricey side if you buy it at a newsstand, a year's print subscription is a mere $30.00, and includes the annual Buyers Guide Booklet. You also gain access to a fair part of the website, and can get access to all of it for a modest additional charge if you are a print subscriber.

The magazine has much more than just product reviews. There are articles on health care, product recalls, foods, etc. For example, the current month's magazine has an article oriented at the increasing number of people who stream their TV, and details a number of services that people may not be aware of who offer free TV programming.

All for $2.50 a month? Cheeeeep!!

(Hmmm... now channeling Mad Magazine in days of yore, when the cover price, whatever it was any given year, was always accompanied by the word "CHEAP!"

Wait, are you a sales rep for Consumer Reports? Because if you aren't? You have definitely missed your calling! ;-)

Well, if I am, they sure aren't paying me anything for it! ;-)

No, just a very long-term subscriber. Their dogged persistence in not accepting advertising when it would clearly be more financially "sensible" to do so appeals to me, just like it does for other non-profit groups I try to support.

And, like I mentioned, 30 bucks a year is cheap, IMO even if one only uses their reviews and articles on occasion. I'm certainly not averse to other reviewers, but only if I don't detect any significant whiffs of bias towards a given company or manufacturer.

You bought your current set in 2006, and it was working up to now? That's actually extraordinary for a newer design. I wouldn't expect more than a few years out of anything you buy today. On the plus side, the visual performance and features are superb compared to older TVs, so there is that.

Sorry, I have no interest in subscribing too or spending time in a library looking through consumer reports. I got the information I needed elsewhere. And I bought the tv.

Nice try. Better luck next time.

Oh, and you might want to apply for a job as a salesrep for non-profit companies, particularly consumer reports and possibly Mad Magazine. It's sound like a job you'd love. Although you didn't convince me, so maybe not?
But then I'm hard to convince. Telling me that you like it and it's anti-advertising isn't going to work. Possibly because I know how to ignore advertising...it's not hard. You just ignore it.

Also the problem with your argument? Is you are making it from an "ideological" perspective not a logical one. You are assuming that the other person shares your ideology -- aka socialist, anti-corporate, anti-ads, pro-non-profit. If they don't, then they will just get annoyed.
No where in your argument did you show how reputable the agency was, you didn't go on consumer report's site and provide examples. By the way I was able to access one of their reviews -- it's not as good as CNET and Ratings.com in their analysis and depth. They stop short. They are asking for money but don't provide the level of service of firms that don't ask for subscription dollars up front, also they don't provide pricing or where to buy from the review I was able to access. If they do, it's at an additional price.

Pushing an ideology isn't going to work with me. I don't buy into it.

Edited 2019-04-28 22:09 (UTC)

When I do searches for titles on AO3, it's more often than not the case that there are multiple stories with the same title. I think part of this comes from using song lyrics for titles or chapters, etc. But either way, it can be difficult to be original with it!

I think it's particularly a problem with genre writers. Literary writers are a bit more adept. And fanfic writers suck at titles, generally speaking. The problem is hunting for something that will appeal to the broadest range of people.

And with kindles and e-books? Most people forget the title of the book they are reading anyhow.

Oh yes, it's a rare story whose title I remember (or author for that matter).