16 of 49 people found the following review helpful
NEED TO LOOK INSIDE,
This review is from: Ukulele Aerobics: For All Levels, from Beginner to Advanced (Paperback)
I never buy a instruction book that does not allow you to "look inside". It makes me suspect--and why not.
So open up the book!
Tracked by 5 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 27 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 16, 2014 11:39:49 AM PST
William W. Miller says:
Thanks for your comment but this was not a review. Therefore not helpful.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 16, 2014 12:17:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 16, 2014 1:52:28 PM PST
Disagree. It is a very valid comment. The publisher needs to acknowledge the need to look inside. And this was a way to convey the need. But I suspect the publishers know that to be a valid point. When they allow a look-see, I will review again, and delete the first one. I'd like to buy the book; but won't until I am able to judge the contents and the layout first. Thank you for your interest.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 17, 2014 8:01:16 AM PST
mary wacker says:
I agree. It could be a great book, I won't know though because I won't buy a book with at least looking inside, whether it's online or on a shelf in a bookstore....go figure.
Posted on Feb 19, 2014 6:39:29 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2014 6:40:16 PM PST
Jon B says:
Whether or not you feel it is justified, this review violates Amazon's review guidelines. You're supposed to review the actual product, not the listing or catalog page. As they say:
"What's Not Allowed: Feedback about typos or inaccuracies in our catalog or product description (instead, use the feedback form at the bottom of the product page)."
The average "star" rating from the reviews shows up in many different places for a product, and it may not be obvious that your low rating has nothing to do with the actual content of the book, so you're doing other potential customers a great disservice.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2014 10:15:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2014 10:17:34 AM PST
I agree Jon. I'm the author of this book, and I had (have) no say as to whether or not the publisher decides to include an inside look. Most people look to the star rating as a review of the product --- not a review of the publisher's policies.
I don't really appreciate the fact that my book shows a 2.5 star rating with 3 "reviews." In truth, the only person who actually read it gave it five stars.
I had one book that received a 1 star rating that hadn't even been released yet. The customer's "review" said "Where is it?"
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2014 7:21:07 PM PST
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2014 8:22:30 PM PST
Because he bought the book.
Posted on Feb 20, 2014 10:53:16 PM PST
Frank J. Boccio says:
This is not a review and thus absolutely unhelpful! Such bull____ should not be allowed on Amazon.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2014 11:49:34 AM PST
You buy a book without knowing if its content is to your liking?? Many more people would possibly buy the book (including myself) if they could review it. It is quite obvious I'm not commenting on the content of the book--but on the fact that the publisher doesn't allow a look-see. So author don't fret. If publisher allows a look-see, you could possibly get many many customers. It is not a reflection on the content of your book. That is obvious.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2014 12:00:49 PM PST
True, that's obvious once you read your "review" of the book. But what if everyone acted the way you do? What if everyone decides to give 1-star ratings to the book because it doesn't have a look-see? I don't know about you, but I know that many people will not even bother looking at a book, much less reading the reviews, if it's rated at a 1 or 2 star rating. And if everyone followed your line of thinking, that's what would end up happening.
That's my whole point. This is supposed to be a review of this book --- not a review of the publisher. What you're doing is the latter.