Skip to main content

The guilty shop

Like many others, I use Amazon, but feel a bit guilty about it.

I know I'm not alone in this, as I regularly get asked why my www.popularscience.co.uk popular science/science fiction book review site has links to buy books from Amazon.

The reason is simple - I get paid a small affiliate fee if someone uses one of the links at no cost to the purchaser, and it's the bookselling site with such an affiliate system that has the widest reach.

However, as some people really didn't seem to like me using Amazon, I thought I'd add a second option and now am providing a link to UK bookseller Foyles as well. And here's the thing. Quite a lot of people have clicked through to Foyles... but no one has bought a book from them.

The fact is that no one else offers the same combination of low prices and rapid delivery as does Amazon. So, while it gives you a nice warm glow to order from an independent bookshop (and I certainly try to buy from them whenever I'm in bricks-and-mortar shopping mode), it's hard to resist the practical benefits of visiting the Amazon site.

Quick example - up to now I've managed to resist reading Wolf Hall and its sequels, for reasons that will require another blog post. But I was so impressed with a review of the third book in the trilogy, that I thought I ought to give the books a try. I decided this at 10pm on Wednesday evening. By lunchtime on Thursday, Amazon had delivered my copy.

I'll probably continue to feel guilty... but it's not going to stop me using them.

I also get affiliate fees if you click through to Amazon simply by using these links to Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more