Have you ever literally judged a book by its cover?

Of course

>>9893171
/thread

File: 51Z8O5XFrsL.jpg (30KB, 321x501px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 321x501px

Yes.
I saw this book from Wordsworth and said to myself if no same person even bothered to check the cover of this book then it must be a book already validated to be a must read which doesn't need to deal with additional creativity.
I was right.

>>9893169
SHIT FUCK

>>9893169
I tend not to judge the contents of the book but, if the cover is shit then I won't buy it.

Things that I can't handle
>Fake coffee stains
>Stuff that looks like web design
>Overuse of embossing
>Any attempt to make it look old or mysterious
>Any attempt to activate crude symbolic triggers (e.g. Making the book look like a notebook in order to signify it's relation to school or study)
>Photographs where the main subject is human (especially portraits)

>>9893457
>>Photographs where the main subject is human (especially portraits)
wtf are you want dood?

>>9893532
Landscapes, graphic design, nothing, paintings.

Anything but being forced to stare into the eyes of some rando who has nothing to do with the book.

File: agirlsbestfriend.jpg (152KB, 739x1200px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 739x1200px

Yep

>>9894997
Dude...