4 ms·
I suppose your own interpretation of it had the same content - maybe you're familiar enough with wccrawford and can guess what he's thinking - but objectively t
by stephth 15y ago
I suppose your own interpretation of it had the same content - maybe you're familiar enough with wccrawford and can guess what he's thinking - but objectively they don't. HORRIBLE and UGH were dropped without an actual explanation, and you comment doesn't just sound nicer: you explained how to improve the sample.
- scott_s 15y agoLet me put it this way: I was able to read his comment and recognize that he and I agreed, despite the fact that I don't know him.
- stephth 15y agoGreat, maybe then you can also enlighten me on what's so deeply wrong with the title and dedication page? It can't be about it being the only content of the sample, the main content in there is the introduction to the book.
- scott_s 15y agoI missed that entirely - I saw the top of the dedication page and assumed it was all dedication page, like most books. I think most people will do the same. That intro, though, is a tell, not a show. I want to sample some pages further into the book to see if the promises made in the intro are fulfilled.
- stephth 15y agoLooks like we were talking about two different things. wccrawford was talking about the preview, while we were referring to the "sample"... <sigh>.
- wccrawford 15y agoYou're right. I didn't bother with the downloadable sample because I assumed it would be the same as the 'look inside!' preview on Amazon.
- scott_s 15y agoI have been talking about the "look inside" preview on Amazon.