2 ms·

As someone who was in the query trenches not too long ago, I feel like this website paints an overly rosy picture of what a typical agent website looks like. T

As someone who was in the query trenches not too long ago, I feel like this website paints an overly rosy picture of what a typical agent website looks like. The fact is that a shocking number of agent websites are awful. These are legitimate agents. Some of them have surprising numbers of best-sellers behind their names. Their websites still suck. Why? Because they're agents, not programmers. They don't have the time or the inclination to do this kind of thing, and frankly the incentives don't require them to get better. While we're here, let me also point out that there are no qualifications and no certification associated with being an agent. None whatsoever. Any of us here could put up a website and start taking submissions. That doesn't mean we'd be good at it, but the line between "agent" and "not agent" is shockingly thin. Don't believe me? Here's an alphabetically sorted list of (probably? mostly?) real agents. You can go check out their websites yourself: https://www.manuscriptwishlist.com/find-agentseditors/agent-list/ https://www.manuscriptwishlist.com/find-agentseditors/agent-... I was upset enough about this situation at one point that I wrote a whole essay about it, along with a website template to show them how to do better. But then I thought better of it and decided it would be better not to burn my reputation in the industry, even if their web design skills leave me wanting to put my eyes out. Bottom line: I absolutely agree that an agent should never cold email you (unless you are already very successful, in which case hopefully you have better sources of advice than an HN thread). They should absolutely never charge you money. And you should be very careful with referrals they give you if you're not very confident they're legit (or frankly, even if they are). But if their websites suck: well, sorry, that's sort of how the industry goes. (Unless you never want to work with a boutique agent, ever.)

imoreno 2y ago
>Because they're agents, not programmers. This really shouldn't be an excuse in 2025. Tools like webflow and wix exist now. If you said "designer" it might have some truth, but you can find plenty of freelance web designers who will do it so cheaply that probably even a single book deal could cover it.
- eslaught 2y ago
  I should probably clarify. Yes, the websites objectively suck. They suck in usability and also in design. But they also suck in content. When you're an author looking for agents, you're basically looking for three things: 1. What genres/ages/categories are they interested in? (Or just as importantly, not interested in.) 2. What is their experience and track record? 3. What are their submission guidelines? For many agent websites it's shockingly difficult to find this information. Even something as basic as whether an agent is open to submissions can be difficult to find. (Agents often close to online submissions, so whether or not you can submit is an important question!) So we're really talking about a failure to think through, in a step-by-step way, what authors experience when they visit your website, what they want, and how to make that information actionable. It's "design" in the broader sense of that word, not so much the narrow sense. The mechanical aspects of how to get content onto a page probably also interfere, to some extent, with making this all happen, but I think those are likely secondary issues to the issues of basic functionality and content. But again, like I said: the incentives don't really align to make this a priority. That's the bottom line. If you get enough submissions then you have what you need, and you don't need to improve your submission experience at all. And the ratio of aspiring authors to available agents will always put this in agents' favor.

imoreno 2y ago

>Because they're agents, not programmers. This really shouldn't be an excuse in 2025. Tools like webflow and wix exist now. If you said "designer" it might have some truth, but you can find plenty of freelance web designers who will do it so cheaply that probably even a single book deal could cover it.

eslaught 2y ago
I should probably clarify. Yes, the websites objectively suck. They suck in usability and also in design. But they also suck in content. When you're an author looking for agents, you're basically looking for three things: 1. What genres/ages/categories are they interested in? (Or just as importantly, not interested in.) 2. What is their experience and track record? 3. What are their submission guidelines? For many agent websites it's shockingly difficult to find this information. Even something as basic as whether an agent is open to submissions can be difficult to find. (Agents often close to online submissions, so whether or not you can submit is an important question!) So we're really talking about a failure to think through, in a step-by-step way, what authors experience when they visit your website, what they want, and how to make that information actionable. It's "design" in the broader sense of that word, not so much the narrow sense. The mechanical aspects of how to get content onto a page probably also interfere, to some extent, with making this all happen, but I think those are likely secondary issues to the issues of basic functionality and content. But again, like I said: the incentives don't really align to make this a priority. That's the bottom line. If you get enough submissions then you have what you need, and you don't need to improve your submission experience at all. And the ratio of aspiring authors to available agents will always put this in agents' favor.