3 ms·

Outside of the standard literature, those are some of the worst book covers I've ever seen. I refuse to look into this any further, as I don't trust reddit's ta

by setr 9y ago

Outside of the standard literature, those are some of the worst book covers I've ever seen. I refuse to look into this any further, as I don't trust reddit's taste anyways.

mberning 9y ago
“Reddit’s favorite books that very few have actually read”
ryandrake 9y ago
Literally judging books by their covers?
- setr 9y ago
  I now go out of my way to do so, in most shopping. I figure if their marketing team is tasteless, there's not much hope for the rest of the business's operations. (In the sense that bad marketing implies bad product; good marketing can go either way) I mean just compare SICP and TAOCP covers to.. head first *; the latter look like self-help trash in b&n. Now O'Reilly, they've got covers you can really believe in
  - dna_polymerase 9y ago
    > I figure if their marketing team is tasteless, there's not much hope for the rest of the business's operations. This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. I can't even think of a comparison to further illustrate the stupidness of this sentence.
    - setr 9y ago
      Its the primary public facing function of a consumer-facing business. Its really a lot more difficult to argue that they shouldn't be judged on for it, when its specifically the main thing a business is trying to be judged on. The only immediate argument I can think of is that A) mass marketing is, and should be, frowned upon as a field, due to their use of extremely abusive strategies But that doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate those who advertise well, and that all of marketing should be frowned upon B) marketing doesn't imply anything about the business But in a lot of cases, it does, because they're either in a market where they should (most consumer products), or they're in a market where there's no need to (free software, extremely cheap retailers. business to business, non-finalized products, middlemen like amazon, monoprice, etc). And if they're in the former, and they pull off a shitshow, I don't see how its reasonable to not judge them for it. There's a reason a large chunk of silicon valley puts such a massive strain on look&feel, UX, and all the shitty css frameworks, despite tech having the history of not giving the slightest shit. They've moved into a market where marketing does play a major role, and their success at it should be indicative of other successes. The backend stuff might not have to care (but, it turns out, they still do; just a different fashion), but any final product landing on your phone as an "app" certainly does care, and they should be judged for trying, and failing.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    I try to imagine what kind of a marketing team came up with the cover of SICP. How did they plan the reaction of the target audience, A/B tested the cover art on focus groups, etc. Entertaining!
    - setr 9y ago
      I like to imagine they didn't; Sussman had an idea about the book he liked, someone drew up a decent image (or even found it somewhere), and they slapped it on. My favorite kind of marketing is the ones where they don't have to do much work to get it good; or at least don't show it.
      - nine_k 9y ago
        Indeed. I couldn't imagine it being otherwise. What I wrote was ironic, of course.
  - spraak 9y ago
    > Now O'Reilly, they've got covers you can really believe in I agree that the Head First books look gross, but there are a lot of bad O'Reilly books (on the inside) even if the animal looks cool.
    - setr 9y ago
      Sure, but the relationship I'm claiming is one way: bad marketing implies bad product Good marketing implies nothing Its just a first-level filter
      - mcphage 9y ago
        > Sure, but the relationship I'm claiming is one way: > bad marketing implies bad product That definitely doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny.
  - 50CNT 9y ago
    Looking at the Author, Reviews and the Table of Contents is probably a better heuristic. That said, for things that aren't books, a marketing department that is complete dogshit might point to an opportunity. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't have great marketing. It doesn't need to. If you go on Alibaba and find a merchant that has a great prospectus and a broad range of products, that's most likely a reseller. That means they take their share of the pie, and if you try to get something manufactured, you'll be working through a proxy. Better to find their manufacturer instead.
    - setr 9y ago
      Non-comsumer facing, retailers, middlemen, manufacturers etc don't follow the same rules of marketing; they still have to do it, but in a different fashion. IE alibaba and amazon are "advertising" based on how cheap they are; it would be a bad show for them to put out extremely nice, expensive ads for their e-shop. Its absurd to see ads for a car parts supplier. Marketing exists in the context of its market, and must be judged in that light. Sometimes cheap, shitty marketing is the best thing to do. And to be clear, books to programmers is one of those fields where marketing matters; it just be because I'm more involved here than any other community, but its one of the heaviest trend-following communities I'm aware of, and seems to have been that way since the 80's. Also toc and reviews is a second level filter; author may be first-level, mostly dependent on whether you actually know who he is; cover is almost always the first point of contact; physical or e-store, you're most likely looking at a list of covers. It would be absurd not to realize this, and not to try taking advantage of it. And you should be judged for both, if you don't do it well. And it would be absurd if you, as a consumer, are not aware, and do not take advantage of this situation (by acknowledging, and applying, a filter on covers!)
mitchdoogle 9y ago
Many of these covers are from the 90s, so they obviously do not use the latest cover design trends. I've seen lots of lists recommending books for programmers and many of the ones listed here are routinely among them. They are classics in the field.
- setr 9y ago
  Most of the ones from the 90's are the ones I was referring to as the standard fare (recommended every, single, time: TAOCP, SICP, intro to alg, js good parts, etc), and their covers are a hell of a lot better than the newer books..

by setr 9y ago

Outside of the standard literature, those are some of the worst book covers I've ever seen. I refuse to look into this any further, as I don't trust reddit's taste anyways.

mberning 9y ago

“Reddit’s favorite books that very few have actually read”

ryandrake 9y ago

Literally judging books by their covers?

setr 9y ago
I now go out of my way to do so, in most shopping. I figure if their marketing team is tasteless, there's not much hope for the rest of the business's operations. (In the sense that bad marketing implies bad product; good marketing can go either way) I mean just compare SICP and TAOCP covers to.. head first *; the latter look like self-help trash in b&n. Now O'Reilly, they've got covers you can really believe in
- dna_polymerase 9y ago
  > I figure if their marketing team is tasteless, there's not much hope for the rest of the business's operations. This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. I can't even think of a comparison to further illustrate the stupidness of this sentence.
  - setr 9y ago
    Its the primary public facing function of a consumer-facing business. Its really a lot more difficult to argue that they shouldn't be judged on for it, when its specifically the main thing a business is trying to be judged on. The only immediate argument I can think of is that A) mass marketing is, and should be, frowned upon as a field, due to their use of extremely abusive strategies But that doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate those who advertise well, and that all of marketing should be frowned upon B) marketing doesn't imply anything about the business But in a lot of cases, it does, because they're either in a market where they should (most consumer products), or they're in a market where there's no need to (free software, extremely cheap retailers. business to business, non-finalized products, middlemen like amazon, monoprice, etc). And if they're in the former, and they pull off a shitshow, I don't see how its reasonable to not judge them for it. There's a reason a large chunk of silicon valley puts such a massive strain on look&feel, UX, and all the shitty css frameworks, despite tech having the history of not giving the slightest shit. They've moved into a market where marketing does play a major role, and their success at it should be indicative of other successes. The backend stuff might not have to care (but, it turns out, they still do; just a different fashion), but any final product landing on your phone as an "app" certainly does care, and they should be judged for trying, and failing.
- nine_k 9y ago
  I try to imagine what kind of a marketing team came up with the cover of SICP. How did they plan the reaction of the target audience, A/B tested the cover art on focus groups, etc. Entertaining!
  - setr 9y ago
    I like to imagine they didn't; Sussman had an idea about the book he liked, someone drew up a decent image (or even found it somewhere), and they slapped it on. My favorite kind of marketing is the ones where they don't have to do much work to get it good; or at least don't show it.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      Indeed. I couldn't imagine it being otherwise. What I wrote was ironic, of course.
- spraak 9y ago
  > Now O'Reilly, they've got covers you can really believe in I agree that the Head First books look gross, but there are a lot of bad O'Reilly books (on the inside) even if the animal looks cool.
  - setr 9y ago
    Sure, but the relationship I'm claiming is one way: bad marketing implies bad product Good marketing implies nothing Its just a first-level filter
    - mcphage 9y ago
      > Sure, but the relationship I'm claiming is one way: > bad marketing implies bad product That definitely doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny.
- 50CNT 9y ago
  Looking at the Author, Reviews and the Table of Contents is probably a better heuristic. That said, for things that aren't books, a marketing department that is complete dogshit might point to an opportunity. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't have great marketing. It doesn't need to. If you go on Alibaba and find a merchant that has a great prospectus and a broad range of products, that's most likely a reseller. That means they take their share of the pie, and if you try to get something manufactured, you'll be working through a proxy. Better to find their manufacturer instead.
  - setr 9y ago
    Non-comsumer facing, retailers, middlemen, manufacturers etc don't follow the same rules of marketing; they still have to do it, but in a different fashion. IE alibaba and amazon are "advertising" based on how cheap they are; it would be a bad show for them to put out extremely nice, expensive ads for their e-shop. Its absurd to see ads for a car parts supplier. Marketing exists in the context of its market, and must be judged in that light. Sometimes cheap, shitty marketing is the best thing to do. And to be clear, books to programmers is one of those fields where marketing matters; it just be because I'm more involved here than any other community, but its one of the heaviest trend-following communities I'm aware of, and seems to have been that way since the 80's. Also toc and reviews is a second level filter; author may be first-level, mostly dependent on whether you actually know who he is; cover is almost always the first point of contact; physical or e-store, you're most likely looking at a list of covers. It would be absurd not to realize this, and not to try taking advantage of it. And you should be judged for both, if you don't do it well. And it would be absurd if you, as a consumer, are not aware, and do not take advantage of this situation (by acknowledging, and applying, a filter on covers!)

mitchdoogle 9y ago

Many of these covers are from the 90s, so they obviously do not use the latest cover design trends. I've seen lots of lists recommending books for programmers and many of the ones listed here are routinely among them. They are classics in the field.

setr 9y ago
Most of the ones from the 90's are the ones I was referring to as the standard fare (recommended every, single, time: TAOCP, SICP, intro to alg, js good parts, etc), and their covers are a hell of a lot better than the newer books..