5 ms·

I'm generally unimpressed with Packt. Bill Pollock said (so consider the source) that Packt is not really a publisher, but just a printer. They don't really hav

by jordigh 11y ago

I'm generally unimpressed with Packt. Bill Pollock said (so consider the source) that Packt is not really a publisher, but just a printer. They don't really have any (copy)editors. They make everyone else do the work and pay them with complimentary copies of their (in my opinion) low-quality books.

adam-a 11y ago
I almost became an author (of a video series) for them. I signed a contract and produced a couple of chapters. I found they had pretty reasonable copy editors, at least the one I worked with was helpful and thorough. My main problem, and the reason I didn't finish the series was their advance was very low and the royalty rate was too. After looking round it seemed the rate was probably reasonable for authors in other fields, but very bad compared to what I would earn actually programming. Plus they absolutely refused to give me any indication of how many sales I could expect. I couldn't justify spending the time to complete the series vs regular contracting. I think this low remuneration affects the quality of the authors they are able to attract, so you're right in that part.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The advance they offered me was less than a quarter of the advance I've seen quoted for other specialised tech books, and about a tenth of what an author would expect for a best-selling mainstream consumer-oriented title. They also spam people on mailing lists looking for authors. (Not spam the mailing lists - harvest addresses and contact people more or less at random.) >I think this low remuneration affects the quality of the authors they are able to attract, so you're right in that part. From what I've seen, not all the books are terrible. ;) But they're certainly not in the same league as No Starch, or most of the self-pubbed titles on LeanPub.
- erroneousfunk 11y ago
  I wrote a book for Packt and made less than $1000 from it, two years later. However, it is something to put on your resume (if you want to) and I managed to use it to leverage a book deal for a more reputable publisher later on. So it can be useful if you think you might want to write books in the future. However, yeah, the money isn't going to be worth your time by a long shot.
  - zwischenzug 11y ago
    I did a video for them, and got a book deal with another publisher off the back of it. I actually learned a lot through doing the video, and the guidance I got was pretty good over the technical aspects of putting a video together. The later script editing and review stage was dismal, though. I got the feeling the less experienced editors I worked with later were overworked.
evilduck 11y ago
They're the print equivalent of shovelware. I've been contacted by them before and declined because I don't want to be associated with their brand, and I've proofread a friend's book that was published through them because he didn't trust their actual editors. They do have a process that's more than just "submit anything and we'll print it", but they're not very good at what they do (books are submitted in MS Word format!?). I think they're mostly just riding the monetary coattails of fad tech topics, they don't care if their publishings are worthless because they just print so much volume that no single book will ever be popular enough that a bad one will gain much notice, and their topics are generally so niche or topic-of-the-month oriented that there will never be enough readers for an individual book to throw much of a fit over quality problems.
- mrbill 11y ago
  Other than O'Reilly, I think most publishers still insist on MSWord for submissions.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    The times I've worked with them, No Starch was quite happy with LibreOffice, if that's any better. O'Reilly's insistence on making everyone use git (including non-programmers) seems a bit nuts to me.
    - organsnyder 11y ago
      Having worked on the editorial/production side in a couple of publishing ventures, being able to insist on a git-based workflow would have been a godsend. Given O'Reilly's reputation and prominence, they can get away with requiring more from their authors. If they have any high-profile authors that refuse to use git, I'm sure that they could assign an assistant to manually translate between git and the author's preferred workflow.
      - jordigh 11y ago
        Not just the authors. The editors, the designers, the people who do layout, and people who just never wrote a single line of code or typed a single command into a Unix shell in their life... all of them use git, and last I heard, they all have to learn how to use the CLI version of git. It's nuts. Git is hard enough to learn for people who know the internals of how computers work. Making people who would rather be drawing artwork learn how to use git seems really crazy to me. Hearing the coping stories from non-technical people using git is very sad.

by jordigh 11y ago

adam-a 11y ago

I almost became an author (of a video series) for them. I signed a contract and produced a couple of chapters. I found they had pretty reasonable copy editors, at least the one I worked with was helpful and thorough. My main problem, and the reason I didn't finish the series was their advance was very low and the royalty rate was too. After looking round it seemed the rate was probably reasonable for authors in other fields, but very bad compared to what I would earn actually programming. Plus they absolutely refused to give me any indication of how many sales I could expect. I couldn't justify spending the time to complete the series vs regular contracting. I think this low remuneration affects the quality of the authors they are able to attract, so you're right in that part.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The advance they offered me was less than a quarter of the advance I've seen quoted for other specialised tech books, and about a tenth of what an author would expect for a best-selling mainstream consumer-oriented title. They also spam people on mailing lists looking for authors. (Not spam the mailing lists - harvest addresses and contact people more or less at random.) >I think this low remuneration affects the quality of the authors they are able to attract, so you're right in that part. From what I've seen, not all the books are terrible. ;) But they're certainly not in the same league as No Starch, or most of the self-pubbed titles on LeanPub.
erroneousfunk 11y ago
I wrote a book for Packt and made less than $1000 from it, two years later. However, it is something to put on your resume (if you want to) and I managed to use it to leverage a book deal for a more reputable publisher later on. So it can be useful if you think you might want to write books in the future. However, yeah, the money isn't going to be worth your time by a long shot.
- zwischenzug 11y ago
  I did a video for them, and got a book deal with another publisher off the back of it. I actually learned a lot through doing the video, and the guidance I got was pretty good over the technical aspects of putting a video together. The later script editing and review stage was dismal, though. I got the feeling the less experienced editors I worked with later were overworked.

evilduck 11y ago

They're the print equivalent of shovelware. I've been contacted by them before and declined because I don't want to be associated with their brand, and I've proofread a friend's book that was published through them because he didn't trust their actual editors. They do have a process that's more than just "submit anything and we'll print it", but they're not very good at what they do (books are submitted in MS Word format!?). I think they're mostly just riding the monetary coattails of fad tech topics, they don't care if their publishings are worthless because they just print so much volume that no single book will ever be popular enough that a bad one will gain much notice, and their topics are generally so niche or topic-of-the-month oriented that there will never be enough readers for an individual book to throw much of a fit over quality problems.

mrbill 11y ago
Other than O'Reilly, I think most publishers still insist on MSWord for submissions.
- jordigh 11y ago
  The times I've worked with them, No Starch was quite happy with LibreOffice, if that's any better. O'Reilly's insistence on making everyone use git (including non-programmers) seems a bit nuts to me.
  - organsnyder 11y ago
    Having worked on the editorial/production side in a couple of publishing ventures, being able to insist on a git-based workflow would have been a godsend. Given O'Reilly's reputation and prominence, they can get away with requiring more from their authors. If they have any high-profile authors that refuse to use git, I'm sure that they could assign an assistant to manually translate between git and the author's preferred workflow.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      Not just the authors. The editors, the designers, the people who do layout, and people who just never wrote a single line of code or typed a single command into a Unix shell in their life... all of them use git, and last I heard, they all have to learn how to use the CLI version of git. It's nuts. Git is hard enough to learn for people who know the internals of how computers work. Making people who would rather be drawing artwork learn how to use git seems really crazy to me. Hearing the coping stories from non-technical people using git is very sad.