# Gaming the Amazon review system



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

Okay, here's the thing...

I know some authors game the reviews. I assumed it was a very tiny number out of the whole.

I have been watching one particular author. (Not naming names. You probably don't know them.) Their work is abysmal, unreadable, by any standard you care to name, to the point where I question if English is their native language.

Their books sell. Not many copies, but around 15 a day if the sales rank is any judge. All of their top reviews are five stars, despite the awful writing quality. I suspect a number of things, to whit: extreme sockpuppetry, paid-for Amazon reviews, and a network of authors actively working to keep negative reviews off each other's pages. And I think I can probably prove all of it through statistical analysis.

I thought this kind of thing was, shall we say, very heavily frowned upon. This author is getting their sales by trickery, in my opinion. It bothers me a lot and I'm not sure why.

I'm curious as to how y'all feel about it.


----------



## purplesmurf (Mar 20, 2012)

If they are selling as many as you think, they can't possibly be paying all of these people to give them good reviews, so I feel if their work is as terrible as you say it is then those bad reviews should equal out the good "paid" for reviews. 

Just my opinion though. 

Writing aside are they at least telling a good story? I know I often find it in me to look past somewhat shoddy writing if the story is good enough to hold my attention.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

It happens quite often. It's been discussed here before. Not surprisingly, people are generally against it.

Specific discussions of this probably violate Kindleboards' what-happens-on-Amazon-stays-on-Amazon guideline, FWIW.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

purplesmurf said:


> If they are selling as many as you think, they can't possibly be paying all of these people to give them good reviews, so I feel if their work is as terrible as you say it is then those bad reviews should equal out the good "paid" for reviews.
> 
> Just my opinion though.
> 
> Writing aside are they at least telling a good story? I know I often find it in me to look past somewhat shoddy writing if the story is good enough to hold my attention.


They're not. It's literally some of the worst prose I've ever come across, even compared to the garbage I've seen on Fanfiction.net.

Not sure if I can talk about it here but I think we all know how bad reviews vanish from Amazon.


----------



## PeggyI (Jan 9, 2011)

I am always surprised by the things that people absolutely love. I have edited books that I thought were only okay, only to see piles of 5 star reviews appear from people who I know can only be fans. Go figure.

The surefire fan reviews are the ones that show up in the week or two after a free-run.


----------



## Leah Locke (Jun 11, 2012)

Perhaps the average reader isn't a big stickler for grammar and spelling?  Perhaps they just want an enjoyable story with likable characters?  I don't know.  I do know that I've read stuff on fanfiction.net that is vastly superior to some of the stuff I've had the misfortune of buying bound copies of.  OTOH I'm a known freak so maybe you should take anything I say with a grain or two of salt.


----------



## eBooksHabit (Mar 5, 2012)

I thought of a book idea of a skill that I have that not many have.

I searched on Amazon to see the current competition for how-to books in this niche. I saw one with an ugly cover, i read whats inside, it was horrible. 5 stars? So I looked at the reviewers, and saw what else they reviewed. Oh, 50 other books with the same exact text-only, with same background color/text color scheme? The other reviewers all reviewed the same 50 books? Surely, Amazon must frown upon this.

I used the contact/report button just to see if Amazon cracked down on this blatant gaming of the system.

Nope, "those reviews do not break our review guidelines".

I was shocked.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I've seen similar situations. The only consolation I can offer is that typically, when readers are tricked into buying books this way, a flood of angry one-star reviews is the usual result, and eventually the books stop selling. So even if it works for a while, it won't work forever.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

Much as I'd like to give this author the benefit of the doubt, I can't. I can see a pattern of how negative and positive reviews are treated. I can see a pattern in the positive reviews - who leaves them, who else they've reviewed, numbers and quality and type.

I think Twilight is the greatest waste of paper and pixels ever offered for sale, but I can at least make sense of it when I read it. (For the record, I didn't make it past chapter 10.) This one, though... I still can't work out what redeeming qualities it has.

Trust me, there are reasons why this hasn't been flagged. I could write a thesis on it. It's a combination of several different things.

Like I said - dunno why it's bothering me so much.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

If it's that bad, they'll be getting lots of returns and their share of bad reviews. Over a certain amount of returns, Amazon will step in. If this isn't happening, then it sounds like it just not may be a "voice" you can relate to. It takes all kinds. 

Work on your own stuff, and realize you are not representative of all the reading population. Don't waste positive energy on something you find repulsive. And if it is fake reviews, you can pat yourself on the back that you don't have to resort to those techniques.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Trust me, there are reasons why this hasn't been flagged. I could write a thesis on it. It's a combination of several different things.


I reported a guy who's demonstrably responsible for a very large pay-for-fake-reviews ring on Amazon - including padding his own titles with dozens of fake reviews - to Amazon in September. They promised they'd look into it, and have done nothing. There's a former KB member who was caught red-handed writing scores of reviews of his books on Amazon (and to great effect; several are consistently in the top 10,000); there's a thread of more than eight-hundred posts about the situation on Amazon's own forums, and they've done absolutely nothing.

Complaining about it is pretty much a waste of time, sadly.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Trust me, there are reasons why this hasn't been flagged.


Just tell us the reasons.


----------



## Catana (Mar 27, 2012)

I probably shouldn't say this, but I think anyone who buys a book solely on the basis of Amazon ratings, or on any reviewer's say-so, without reading the sample, deserves what they get.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> If it's that bad, they'll be getting lots of returns and their share of bad reviews. Over a certain amount of returns, Amazon will step in. If this isn't happening, then it sounds like it just not maybe a "voice" you can relate to. It takes all kinds.
> 
> Work on your own stuff, and realize you are not representative of all the reading population. Don't waste positive energy on something you find repulsive.


This isn't a voice problem. The book in question has grammar and punctuation errors everywhere, for example - basic, glaring errors. And I actually think there's a combination of several factors that also cut down on returns. But look, I don't want to get banned, and I'm not risking pointing fingers at anyone unless I'm absolutely sure I'm right. I'm not going into details. Let's just say I think someone has figured out a very clever way of gaming the Amazon system on reviews - and I might be wrong, because the only way I'll know I'm right is if I do hours of statistical analysis.

So I don't know, really. It just bothers me. I can't switch off my sense of fairness. I guess let's talk about it a bit, share war stories if you've got them.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

I look at this type of thing two ways:

Does it hurt me? Yes.*

Does it hurt me? No.*

Granted, I HATE seeing someone "game the system" and get ahead through ill gotten gains, but if it doesn't "hurt" me (and it's very likely that this person's own false self promotion does not hurt me) then I don't worry about it.

However, if I became aware of it and it bothered me I would probably report it.**

*This applies to the digital world only.

**I would report it to the _proper_ authorities. There was a thread here a few weeks ago where someone was witness to a copyrighted piece of artwork being used for a cover. Rather than report it to the copyright holder (the right thing to do, in my opinion) they reported it to Amazon (who can do nothing) and left a negative review.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Gambling at Rick's!  Oh, Heavens!  Can't be.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

To be honest, I barely have time to read my own reviews, let alone examine anyone else's for authenticity. I guess if I stumbled across a case of a fake review that was incredibly blatant and impossible to miss and if it caused me to buy something truly terrible... Well then, I might report it to Amazon. But I'd basically have to see the author bragging that he'd written it himself or something before I'd feel comfortable taking that step. It's just way too easy to assume because a book seems terrible that nobody would like it when, in reality, people love many books I consider awful. Sometimes they even call them classics.    

ETA: After my above smug remark about not having "time", I fully expect someone to point out that I've been logged into KB for 29 days, 12 hours, and 18 minutes. To which I can only say touché.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I can't imagine that manipulating reviews accounts for much, considering that all a person has to do is download the sample or Look Inside and make their own decision.

I feel kind of sorry for the person who feels they have to go to so much trouble to game the system instead of working on their skills. You aren't going to fool anyone into liking your book, and I firmly believe that positive word of mouth is your best promotion.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

purplesmurf said:


> *If they are selling as many as you think, they can't possibly be paying all of these people to give them good reviews, so I feel if their work is as terrible as you say it is then those bad reviews should equal out the good "paid" for reviews. *
> 
> Just my opinion though.
> 
> Writing aside are they at least telling a good story? I know I often find it in me to look past somewhat shoddy writing if the story is good enough to hold my attention.


I have to agree here. If the books are _that _ bad then the negative reviews will follow. There is just no way they can buy enough good reviews to really cover the work. People love complaining about bad books, so have no fear, things even out in time.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

What other authors do is none of my business.


----------



## Ilyhana Kate Kennedy (Jun 3, 2012)

Hmmmm quite a topic and certainly a useful discussion, thankyou Claire. When I was looking for something else entirely, I stumbled upon several sites offering to write reviews for books on Amazon, one at $5 a pop. So it happens. My thoughts are that there will always be those who rort the system, whatever the system may be. 
I also think that an efficient system self-regulates. Any reader should be able to assess the literacy quality of a book from a sample, so on that note, I'd say it's an issue of buyer beware. 
From another viewpoint, I think it would be very unfortunate if Amazon developed a reputation for fake reviews. It would hurt everyone.
I found the sample of your book interesting and thought it could be helpful to my marketing project. So I bought it...and I'll probably review it.
Cheers, Ilyhana


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Claire Ryan said:


> ... because the only way I'll know I'm right is if I do hours of statistical analysis.


You say that like there's a better way to spend your tomorrow.


----------



## DB Boyer (Apr 17, 2012)

I think this is common as well.  

It leads me to do two things:

1.  Although I am promoting my work, I am taking a laissez-fare approach to certain aspects.  I'm not soliciting reviews, I'm not engaging in tit-for-tat tagging etc.  I want my book's discovery (if it should happen at all) to be somewhat organic and definitely authentic.

2.  When I buy a book which should have never been published (the kind you are describing, bad on multiple levels), I request a refund.  I don't care if its 99-cents, I cannot support work which is this poor.  And I've come across a good amount of it.  It brings down the whole independent community when work of such poor quality is put out there.  People will begin to assume it is reflective of all independent writers if we don't weed this kind of work out.  But the great thing about Amazon is it had democratized this process.  We all have the opportunity to cast our vote.  I do.  I don't write negative reviews personally, I choose to cast my vote with my money.  Request a refund if the work is poor, eventually there will no longer be an incentive for these writers to keep publishing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2012)

purplesmurf said:


> If they are selling as many as you think, they can't possibly be paying all of these people to give them good reviews, so I feel if their work is as terrible as you say it is then those bad reviews should equal out the good "paid" for reviews.


On a 99 cent book, it would be very easy to gift a lot of books to friends and family to simulate a good sales rate. There are also sites out there that "sell" Amazon reviews for as low as $5 each. There are a dozen threads in the Amazon forums that have called out these very things. Heck, there was a person IN THIS FORUM not long ago who specifically suggested doing this to boost his sales rank, and he wanted to know how much money it would cost to do it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2012)

Claire,

While I agree you don't want to name names in public (but really, always feel free to PM ME with the info and...well...you know...*insert evil laugh here*). But can you answer yes or no to the following?

1. Are the reviews mostly "verified purchases" or not verified purchases?
2. On average, how many reviews have the reviewers written on Amazon?
3. Randomly check some of the reviewers profiles. How many of them created accounts around the same time?
4. On the reviewer profiles, how many of them have empty profiles? 
5. Do the reviews repeat buzzwords from the blurb and tags?
6. Do the reviews use words and phrases like "I just discovered this new author" "I can't wait to read more from this author" and "I can't wait for the sequel!" when there is no indication that the author has other books in the pipeline or even a significant online presence?
7. If you Google a random line from a few reviews, do they appear on other sites that allow "anonymous" reviews of books?
8. Do the reviews repeat mistakes that are made in the book? (This is the single biggest sign, because bad writers are bad at "faking" the writing of other people. Writing patterns are relatively fixed. We tend to write the same way all the time.)


If more than half of the answers about are YES, we have a rat.


----------



## Alana Marlowe (May 21, 2012)

I'm with We Were Once on this one.  If I buy something that sucks, it gets returned.


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

TBH this sounds more like, you don't like the book so you can't understand why others do. Not saying that puppet reviews aren't possible, but it's rather impossible to avoid the negative reviews if it sells 15 copies a day and it would be as bad as you say it is.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

You can make yourself miserable worrying about things like this. The world is full of people who get ahead by nefarious means. It's also full of people who get ahead by keeping their heads down, working hard, and maintaining their personal integrity.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2012)

Katja said:


> TBH this sounds more like, you don't like the book so you can't understand why others do. Not saying that puppet reviews aren't possible, but it's rather impossible to avoid the negative reviews if it sells 15 copies a day and it would be as bad as you say it is.


Everyone may get negative reviews as you can't satisfy everyone. Actually I love negative reviews. That's the sign that my book truly lives; has lovers and haters alike. However, unfortunately there are plenty puppet reviews. I've seen many in the past, i.e.: book with 20 5-star reviews where most of the reviewer created the account on the very same day, or said "He did it again!", while it was the first book of the author, etc, etc... I've also just seen that an author is happily gave 5 stars to all her books on Goodreads, without even disguising it. So, from now on I won't be surprised on anything.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

It's your right to see this in whatever light you'd like.  But, I guess my question would be ... why?  Why would you take yourself away from writing, or whatever you do in marketing, to spend all that time statistically looking into another persons sales.  Because you dislike the book?  Because you find fault in it?  Because their reviews aren't what you'd suspect they should be?  That seems ... odd, almost vendetta like.  I mean, I can't imagine being so bothered I'd commit myself to really digging into anyones sales ... or reviews.  I care about my book and that's all I really, really have time for.


----------



## Nathalie Hamidi (Jul 9, 2011)

I liked Twilight, it was a nice book. I don't understand all the bashing.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Okay I know this has nothing to do with the price of fish, but I had a relative who worked for a newspaper as a typsetter in the days before computers. His job amongst other things was to compile the daily horroscope. This was done by blindly picking out preset muses from a shelf. Sorry to burst your bubble if you lived your life by them.

In the days of the old 45 record. Certain shops were used by the chart compilers to set that weeks hit charts. Record companies would send out buyers to come away from these shops with arms full of their own produced records to sway the results.

Long has been the tradition of newspapers reviewing trad printed books. Some of these newspapers were/are even owned or were part  of book publishers empires. I see these reviews as no different than the horroscopes my relative produced especially when you read enough of them and realize they are often repeated. 

I am looking at a book for a top international thriller writer. The jacket has one-line reviews from Harlen Coben, Lee Child, James Patterson, Michael Connoly, Dennis Lehane, Linwood Barclay. and Tess Gerritson.

Sorry... I have a short memory span. What was this thread about knocking indie reviews?


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

From a reader's perspective, there is an inordinate number of indie books that are brilliantly written with average ratings of 4.5 to 5 stars and glowing reviews - even first books are this brilliant.   I work from the assumption that much of it is gamed (right or wrong, that's where I start from).  When I  pick books, I exclude using the following list.  Once I get a No, I move on to the next book:

1.  Do I like the cover and blurb?  
2.  Is it priced well based on the file size and/or page count?
3.  Are there reviews?  (all 1 or 2 sentence 5-star reviews are ignored)
4.  Do the reviews read like real reviews?
5.  Have the reviewers reviewed other books?
6.  Do I like the first page or two from the sample?

Then, once I cross those bridges, the book is either bought or put on my wishlist .....  I read indie authors and small press authors because there are a lot of innovative stuff out there.  However, it has become increasing difficult to wade through the sludge to get to the good stuff.  

As an aside, I'm happier when I see a book with a range of stars as that feels more honest than all excellent ratings ....


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

I don't worry about it, because the people who do that, create ghost accounts or convince their friends to write glowing, 5 star reviews, those people live in a spcial hell of their own construction. They which of the reviews are bogus and they have to sit there watch as the real readers come along and leave reviews like "I can't believe all these 5 star reviews. I feel like I was duped." and they know that the reader knows what happened. They've been caught in a lie. They have no honor. They have no dignity left at that point. They don't get any joy from the sales because they've deceived the buyer. It's humiliating. Immediately they have to be full of self-loating. Looking at their writing, crying themselves to sleep at night because they know they don't have what it takes to make it on their own. Other writers are laughing at them, shaking their heads saying, "There's no way this person should get 5 star reviews with THAT writing." Talentless thieves full of envy, seething in jealousy over those who make it by putting their work out there honestly, and they even envy those who don't have many sales, who aren't any better of a writer than they are but who didn't manipulate the system, because at least those people have their dignity left. Yeah, go ahead and leave reviews that claim you're the next Grisham or Martin or Brown. Go ahead, see the ruin it brings. You want to hate yourself? 

Have a nice day.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Initially, I was in agreement with the folks advising the OP to focus their attention elsewhere. BUT, this may not simply be an 'oh, this book just isn't for you' situation. It would be bad taste (and maybe against forum rules??) to say what book is being referenced but I'm going to take the OP at face value. There are a number of ebooks that I've read that just have too many issues. But, they typically have poor ratings.



Italiahaircolor said:


> It's your right to see this in whatever light you'd like. But, I guess my question would be ... why? Why would you take yourself away from writing, or whatever you do in marketing, to spend all that time statistically looking into another persons sales. Because you dislike the book? Because you find fault in it? Because their reviews aren't what you'd suspect they should be? That seems ... odd, almost vendetta like. I mean, I can't imagine being so bothered I'd commit myself to really digging into anyones sales ... or reviews. I care about my book and that's all I really, really have time for.


And worrying about this particular book is very appropriate for this OP. If you look at their signature, their book is titled The Author's Marketing Handbook. I would think that analyzing and dissecting a scenario where someone may be gaming the review system would be very appropriate for someone writing books about author's marketing... Just as relevant as a writer of police procedurals researching proper investigation techniques, IMHO.


----------



## writingundertheinfluence (Apr 18, 2012)

Decon said:


> Okay I know this has nothing to do with the price of fish, but I had a relative who worked for a newspaper as a typsetter in the days before computers. His job amongst other things was to compile the daily horroscope. This was done by blindly picking out preset muses from a shelf. Sorry to burst your bubble if you lived your life by them.


Well, that just throws my whole life out of whack! 

I've seen books that I consider atrocious with lots of 5-star reviews. I assume that, despite the multiple grammar and spelling errors, people must like the book for some reason. Some readers are willing to overlook certain errors if the story is good. I can't, so I never make it past the sample to find out if it's a compelling plot. (I heard once that the average American reads on a 4th grade level. Not sure if this is true, but it certainly suggests that they'd be willing to overlook a couple of grammar issues.)

Do some authors game the review system? Probably. Do they make all self-pubbed authors look bad? Well, they don't make us look good. But in the long run, I figure I'm better off sweating over my next book instead of the behavior of other writers.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Claire, there are many games in the Amazon reviews and it is very simple to do and Amazon seems to let it slide. I have seen far too many and they are as easy to spot as they are to get. In the case you mention I have a problem though. 

If the book is selling 450 books per month and it is really that bad for the genre, then people who bought it would be posting 1 and 2 stars. 

It could be that people who bought it liked it? I have read a little of YA and I have found some to be barely readable and yet it sells. So there is a market for what I may find unreadable.

But there are plenty of authors who do game the reviews.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I've seen books that I consider atrocious with lots of 5-star reviews. I assume that, despite the multiple grammar and spelling errors, people must like the book for some reason.


True. But like the OP, I have seen books that I'm almost certain were gaming the system. When a genuinely atrocious book gets a ton of similar five-star reviews up front, and then a long string of angry one-star reviews complaining about major issues with the book, you can probably assume the later reviews are the real ones. It does happen, sadly.



> Do some authors game the review system? Probably. Do they make all self-pubbed authors look bad? Well, they don't make us look good. But in the long run, I figure I'm better off sweating over my next book instead of the behavior of other writers.


Exactly. As I've said before, I have no control over other writers, just over myself. Stuff like this makes my hackles lift, but I ignore it and go back to work. What else can you do?


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Just wanted to point out that I don't think I've ever filled in my Amazon profile & I'm a real person! (At least, I was last time I checked!) 

I don't approve of faked reviews. I think that most of the worst offenders are pretty obvious to anyone who compares the reviews to the blurb & sample, but I've never reported any. Fake high reviews will lead to one stars from unsatisfied customers - and really poorly done fake high reviews won't make sales anyway. Ultimately, the market will correct itself. I wish people wouldn't do it, it gives authors a bad name. However, it mostly just makes the culprit look silly.

I'm more concerned at people using sock-puppets to attack other authors than I am at people using them to boost their own ratings. If I saw signs of a sock-puppet attack on an author then I _would_ report that (and have done so in the past.)


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

What bothers me most is when I look at the debut novel of a new author, divide the review by the number of days since it was published, and see ratios like 2-4 new reviews per day, maintained month after month, despite a constant undercurrent of 1-stars complaining about poor editing. 

That sheer number of reviews bothers me a lot more than the fact that 80% of them are 5-star.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

John Blackport said:


> What bothers me most is when I look at the debut novel of a new author, divide the review by the number of days since it was published, and see ratios like 2-4 new reviews per day, maintained month after month, despite a constant undercurrent of 1-stars complaining about poor editing.


I like the ones that have 8 reviews 2 days after the thing is published, like a speed-reading group descended on the thing and knocked it out overnight.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

This makes for pretty interesting reading, all told  Just want to say again that I know when books just ain't to my taste, and I read just about anything. I mean, part of my business is cover design and blurb writing, and I always read the book before I do either (speed reader, FYI, so don't ask how I can do that and still get anything else done), so it's not like I get to be picky if someone is paying me. I can't put down the book if I don't like it and I have to understand its selling points, or I won't produce an effective cover or blurb.

So if my livelihood depends on me being objective, up to a point, then I think I can say this isn't just me not liking a particular title. Like I said - I hate Twilight, but I kinda get why it's popular.

So here's Julie's questions - which are pretty good, I think:

_1. Are the reviews mostly "verified purchases" or not verified purchases?_ About 50/50. The book is cheap.
_2. On average, how many reviews have the reviewers written on Amazon?_ Mostly just this one or this and the next in the series
_3. Randomly check some of the reviewers profiles. How many of them created accounts around the same time? _ Published last year, no activity for a couple of months, then a bunch of 5-stars happening together in the same month
_4. On the reviewer profiles, how many of them have empty profiles? _ Most of the 5-stars :/
_5. Do the reviews repeat buzzwords from the blurb and tags?_ Didn't look.
_6. Do the reviews use words and phrases like "I just discovered this new author" "I can't wait to read more from this author" and "I can't wait for the sequel!" when there is no indication that the author has other books in the pipeline or even a significant online presence?_ Yes, and a lot of them have the same breathlessly ecstatic tone >< but the author has an online presence and other books.
_7. If you Google a random line from a few reviews, do they appear on other sites that allow "anonymous" reviews of books?_ No but I've found reviews repeated on other sites
_8. Do the reviews repeat mistakes that are made in the book? (This is the single biggest sign, because bad writers are bad at "faking" the writing of other people. Writing patterns are relatively fixed. We tend to write the same way all the time.)_ Possibly but I'm not reading this dross again just to check.

Gavin's right, I do have to know this stuff because I write about marketing. I also need to know how to recognize it, because another part of my business is publishing other people's books. (Long story, not important.) I'm not going to consider working with an author who I believe is being unethical, and if I were going to work with this author, I'd be asking some very tough questions.

Again, I don't know. I suspect a lot. I see patterns. But I could be wrong.

There is no way in hell I'm naming any names, not even in private messages, so don't ask.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

GavinFletcher said:


> And worrying about this particular book is very appropriate for this OP. If you look at their signature, their book is titled The Author's Marketing Handbook. I would think that analyzing and dissecting a scenario where someone may be gaming the review system would be very appropriate for someone writing books about author's marketing... Just as relevant as a writer of police procedurals researching proper investigation techniques, IMHO.


In that case, she's going to be quite busy since there's an inexhaustible list of books (indie and trad) that are loaded with fake reviews. I don't know if I know the book in question, but there are a lot more books like it on the market.



vrabinec said:


> I don't worry about it, because the people who do that, create ghost accounts or convince their friends to write glowing, 5 star reviews, those people live in a spcial hell of their own construction. They...have to sit there watch as the real readers come along and leave reviews like "I can't believe all these 5 star reviews.


Or what could happen is that Amazon will eventually get tired of customers complaining about an author using fake reviews to sell his books and finally bring down the hammer as they did with the infamous king of sock puppetry Robert Stanek, who I am happy to say finally got his just desserts. Last week, Amazon removed every review from his books, effectively wiping out an almost decade long campaign to post several thousand fake 4 and 5 star reviews for his books. Chalk one up for the good guys.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

While I agree it sucks and I'd like to stop it... Is it really going to affect you? I mean, is Amazon ranking the book higher than your books because it has more reviews? I didn't think reviews were that important?


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Or what could happen is that Amazon will eventually get tired of customers complaining about an author using fake reviews to sell his books and finally bring down the hammer as they did with the infamous king of sock puppetry Robert Stanek, who I am happy to say finally got his just desserts. Last week, Amazon removed every review from his books, effectively wiping out an almost decade long campaign to post several thousand fake 4 and 5 star reviews for his books. Chalk one up for the good guys.


Wow, I looked up his books. He has NO reviews. How embarassing. Good luck showing your face at some authors convention with THAT on your resume.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

vrabinec said:


> Wow, I looked up his books. He has NO reviews. How embarassing. Good luck showing your face at some authors convention with THAT on your resume.


I've been watching this guy closely for years. He's the dirtiest author in the book. After his attempts to smear the names of his competition (including Patrick Rothfuss and some members of this board) with a slew of drive-by one star reviews and fake customer discussions, I have no shame in outing him. Everyone already knows who he is anyway (and if you don't just Google "Robert Stanek fake reviews" and get ready to laugh your butt off).

What happened was a long time in the making and Amazon gave him enough rope to hang himself. They would delete hundreds of his reviews at a single time. Then he'd create more sock puppet accounts and post hundreds more in response. It really is comical. Or at least it would be, if it wasn't so pathetic. But I think your previous post sums up what he must be feeling right now.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> In that case, she's going to be quite busy since there's an inexhaustible list of books (indie and trad) that are loaded with fake reviews. I don't know if I know the book in question, but there are a lot more books like it on the market.
> 
> Or what could happen is that Amazon will eventually get tired of customers complaining about an author using fake reviews to sell his books and finally bring down the hammer as they did with the infamous king of sock puppetry Robert Stanek, who I am happy to say finally got his just desserts. Last week, Amazon removed every review from his books, effectively wiping out an almost decade long campaign to post several thousand fake 4 and 5 star reviews for his books. Chalk one up for the good guys.


Ouch, that must have hurt a lot :/ Karma's a bitch... don't think it's going to happen in this case, but I live in hope.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Like I said - dunno why it's bothering me so much.


We watched one of those "human behavior" documentaries recently, and even babies with little socialization have a natural sense of "fairness." They watched a puppet show (fittingly enough to our thread!) and applauded when the "bad" puppet was punished.

Those of us who follow the rules are upset by cheaters. It ruins the reputation of self-pubbers on the whole, and, perhaps more importantly, it's simply a human trait to hate them.

I'm Canadian, so ... I can't even abide someone cutting in line!

The thing about people cheating or gaming is there's not much we can do about it. Focus on your work, don't compare, and produce great work. If you come across a book that stinks, say so in the review, and be specific.

Not sure about a book? Don't even bother reading the reviews. Download a sample and decide for yourself.

I've encountered some atrocious books, as we all have. And they have so many 5-star reviews that I can only conclude that genuine people really thought it merited 5 stars. Is it possible for so many people to have such bad taste? I open my eyes and look around me at the world. Ah, yes! It is possible!

ED HARDY TSHIRTS, PEOPLE.

Edited to add:
Points to vrabinek for the rant! I felt the spittle and it was inspiring.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> I'm Canadian, so ... I can't even abide someone cutting in line!


Have you ever tried to board the ferry to Toronto Islands on a Saturday morning in summer? Mob rules even hit Canada on occasion.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Have you ever tried to board the ferry to Toronto Islands on a Saturday morning in summer? Mob rules even hit Canada on occasion.


I refuse to believe this! They must be tourists.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> I like the ones that have 8 reviews 2 days after the thing is published, like a speed-reading group descended on the thing and knocked it out overnight.


I would think the same thing if I hadn't seen this for myself. The last book I published was 60,000+ words long. It went live at 4:00 A.M. The first five or six reviews were up by noon on the same day (not all of them were glowing, sadly).

I've been dying to write a series of blog posts on this problem, but I'm frankly terrified of the backlash. The people who do this must have dozens of sock-puppets with which to attack other authors. Like someone else said above, the other big problem with the review system is that people can write fake negative reviews as well.

I've spoken with Amazon about this, but they offer few solutions. I wish everyone had to have the "real name" designation. I understand not wanting to limit the review power to "verified purchasers," but I still think this would be a good solution. Another thing I recommend the OP to check is whether or not the book is being reviewed on blogs, Goodreads, B&N, and elsewhere.

And yeah, it's frustrating to do everything the correct way while you watch others get ahead via shenanigans. I understand those who are saying to "ignore this" and "what's it doing to hurt you," but I would counter that it hurts all of us. If the review system can't be trusted, what good are the reviews we worked long and hard to win? And will readers continue to take risks on indie authors if they get burned by cheats? This is an issue we should all be concerned about.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Claire Ryan said:


> Ouch, that must have hurt a lot :/ Karma's a bitch... don't think it's going to happen in this case, but I live in hope.


If the book is as bad as you say, Karma WILL have the last word.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't get why people are telling me to just ignore it and move on with my own work. Understanding this stuff is part of my business, yo. I'd be analysing it even if it didn't irk my sense of fairness.

The trained attack sock-puppets? Absolutely true (she says darkly, pulling the fedora down over her face). You walk into this at your peril, but I still think it's a conversation worth having.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Claire Ryan said:


> I don't get why people are telling me to just ignore it and move on with my own work. Understanding this stuff is part of my business, yo. I'd be analysing it even if it didn't irk my sense of fairness.
> 
> The trained attack sock-puppets? Absolutely true (she says darkly, pulling the fedora down over her face). You walk into this at your peril, but I still think it's a conversation worth having.


I'm with you on both accounts. This is serious. And while it's scary to bring up, it needs to be addressed.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

First, let me declare an interest (particularly appropriate for this thread) - I'm a fan of the OP, Claire Ryan who I 'met', on this forum in the past week. I've bought her book, checked her website and I like what she does. I'm happy that Claire has agreed to work with me in launching some books. That said, Claire and I have had no conversations about the subject of this thread.

I agree with those who say that if 'gaming' continues unchecked we will all be damaged. Anyone use Trip Advisor? If so, has your trust in the site been diluted any since the fake review furore blew up there?

Brands are built on trust, above all else. Amazon's is by far the biggest brand in the online book business. If the trust goes, everything new for sale becomes vulnerable. The trad guys are OK. If you're an indie, you should be worried.

'Gaming' is a nice soft euphemism; Amazon ought to be careful about being a party to fraud: unwitting, perhaps, but how long can you persist with that defence when what you should be doing is working very hard to prevent it?

Fraud is defined differently depending on where you live. Here's a definition from The Criminal Code of Canada:

_"Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service"_

"We offer refunds" Amazon will claim, but that is not preventing fraud.

It's a problem for authors and for Amazon in a booming market, and it should be taken much more seriously than "It happens, live with it".

Headline writers could have lots of fun rhyming Kindle with Swindle.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Steeplechasing said:


> I agree with those who say that *if 'gaming' continues unchecked we will all be damaged.*


Personally, I think this is a slight exaggeration (as is some of the sky is falling rhetoric in this thread). The gaming has been going on long before most of the authors in this forum joined the fray of vigilante authors (as our dear Mr. Bidinotto so appropriately calls us), and will continue regardless of how much bitching and moaning goes on about it. Amazon has made little effort to stop the abuse and yet our books continue to sell. Why? Because reviews are just one way of determining a book's quality and has never been the sole determinant in judging a book's merit. Smart readers peruse the sample feature. Others go by word of mouth. Besides, there are other sources where readers can find reviews for books they want to read other than on Amazon.

The review system has long been tainted (even if some of us are just figuring that out) and the abuse is widespread. Yet readers still figure out how to find the books they want to read. Give our readers credit. They're not as dumb as some of us think. If they haven't figured out how to see through shill reviews, they'll do so eventually, and our books will continue to sell, tainted review system or not.

And if all else fails, there is something called a customer refund.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I understand not wanting to limit the review power to "verified purchasers," but I still think this would be a good solution.


Doesn't work. Smashwords only lets purchasers review there, but yesterday I was looking at a book with numerous five-star reviews and I could barely struggle through the first two paragraphs; clearly the reviews were fakes, and someone had spent the $50 or so required to buy enough copies of the book to create them.

But that rather emphasises the downside; fake reviews only help if the book is at least competently written or the purchasers are dumb enough to buy it without reading the sample. No-one had reviewed that book for months since the original fake reviews were posted, so I doubt more than a handful of people were gullible enough to buy it.

Also, this isn't a recent phenomenon; indie movie-makers have been posting the same kind of fake reviews on Amazon for the best part of a decade.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> From a reader's perspective, there is an inordinate number of indie books that are brilliantly written with average ratings of 4.5 to 5 stars and glowing reviews - even first books are this brilliant. I work from the assumption that much of it is gamed (right or wrong, that's where I start from). When I pick books, I exclude using the following list. Once I get a No, I move on to the next book:
> 
> 1. Do I like the cover and blurb?
> 2. Is it priced well based on the file size and/or page count?
> ...


^^ This

On a whole, indy books have a higher average rating than other books. I browse a lot. I look at thousands of books I am sure. I am just a bookaholic and I read a lot so I see a lot. I do a lot of research and vetting before I read. But that is something I have really noticed.

When I have long term authors that are considered at the top of their games and are routinely reatured on reader polls, have lower average ratings routinely than new authors, I start to wonder. For me, going by goodreads ratings I guess a 3.8 is a fantastic rating. Some of my all time favorites get that. Yet, I go and browse books on Amazon in my favorite genre, and there are 4 stars and up as average.

I read a indy book recently that has been consistently on the top of the best seller in a genre I read, and it has 53 reviews with an average of 4.4 stars. I kept thinking, come on, really? So finally I got the book on prime lend as I was on the last day of that month and had to pick something quick. It was an average read at best. I gave it a 3, although it was more a 2.5. The best in the genre don't get 4.4 average stars. In this case the sample wouldn't have helped me as it started out very strong and interesting.

Now I think its a combination of fake reviews, friends and family plan and just the all around, must support the indy author movement niceties. I think being closer to authors though blog and boards, makes one more weary giving a critical review, so they are scewed more positive.
Of course there is also the issue of authors constantly posting back to their lower star reviewers and trying to belittle their opinion, some of that right on this thread. So it makes other more weary of posting critical in the first place. To me its like thinly veiled bullying.

As to the demanding of the real name on reviews? Are you kidding me? So we readers, customers, can have authors stalking us? Belittling the critical reviewers even more so by playing private P.I ? Why in the heck would I put myself out there like that. I am not the one selling something. I am consumer. Its not anyones business what my name is, where I live or how many cups of tea I drink a day.

Sometimes I think authors have mixed up the balance of seller and customer. The customer is not the one that is suppose to jump through hoops.

All in all I have come to trust goodreads reviews more than amazon. At least for now. I have already seen the the review circles and the friends and family plan creep in there more already.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't want to call it fraud. I think that's too strong a word. There's a difference between gaming the system and just hacking it outright.

So here's the thing, and part of the reason I'm so interested in this: reviews do matter, up to a point. If there's a correlation between reviews and sales, the reviews will be gamed.

This kind of thing happened already with Google and search engine results.

So Amazon wants to have the most useful reviews front and center, and it wants the rating to be accurate. If both of those can be influenced, then the review system becomes unreliable to a greater or lesser extent and readers will not trust it. This review system is one of Amazon's selling tools, so, if the lack of trust begins to impact sales, it'll make changes to minimize the influence and increase trust.

I'm wondering if they'll implement a system of relevance similar to the Google search algorithm, to be honest. That would make gaming the reviews a lot harder. But I don't think they have any incentive to do it just yet.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Just to play devil's advocate....

All of my low star reviews are reviewers with only one other review and they all appeared hours after a free run. But my own Amazon account was a 1 review leaver for a long time before I became and author and now basically live on the site. I had a product I didn't like, I realized I could review, was interested to leave one and then promptly forgot about the whole system. Most buyers don't care to leave reviews. They leave one when they realize there is a review system and then oh yeah, they have a life.  But sure, they COULD be mean authors trying to realitiate... LOL.

Seriously, I once worked with an author who was SO paranoid about her 1 star reviews, she actually told other authors in her Facebook groups to hurry go and vote them down as unhelpful. Then she started crap in the comments section. She has since removed her posts once she was outed that her "fake" name had a wishlist with the same name as the author. Oops! And this same author loves to use buzz words of pay it forward and share the love etc. but she's just as crooked as the others. I think there's more of an overkill about 1 star reviews and freaking out about them. Most books SHOULD average out to 3, that's pretty standard math.

Now, there is the completely ethical situation of giving advanced copies to readers with the expectation that they post an honest review when the book goes live. Amazon does this with their own releases. Also, I think in general indie books have a higher than average rating not because most of us are unethical, we aren't, but because we're more targeted in our marketing. We're limited in our reach, so the readers we DO reach generally have a social media connection to us, either through a friend of a friend, or participated in an event we ran etc. They feel connected, and they are reading the book because it's in their range of normal genre tastes.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

Claire, you can choose to ignore the fake review thing; you can choose to worry about it ... or you can choose to join in with the hustle.

Here's the how-to book that started a few authors on the road to hustling the general public: http://amzn.to/M4yNUf

The whole review gaming is very common. And, yep, I think you will find that there's quite a few KBers taking part in it. It's really not too hard to spot the hustlers.

Personally, the whole thing used to grate with me no end. But I know that was just envy on my part, especially when I saw the rankings of the breakout examples of those who, I'm assuming, gamed the system.

Nowadays I silently congratulate those authors. After all they implemented a great marketing strategy, one that is a very proactive way to push the limits in, what is currently, a gray area of ebook promotion. We're not talking criminal activities here ... we're talking 'Terms of Service' violations.

Would I do it?

Sure ... of course, I need to write a book first!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hugh Howey said:


> I've been dying to write a series of blog posts on this problem, but I'm frankly terrified of the backlash. The people who do this must have dozens of sock-puppets with which to attack other authors. Like someone else said above, the other big problem with the review system is that people can write fake negative reviews as well.
> 
> I've spoken with Amazon about this, but they offer few solutions. I wish everyone had to have the "real name" designation. I understand not wanting to limit the review power to "verified purchasers," but I still think this would be a good solution. Another thing I recommend the OP to check is whether or not the book is being reviewed on blogs, Goodreads, B&N, and elsewhere.


So you won't write a blog post or series because you're terrified of backlash? But think reviewers should have to post under their real names? Hugh, I respect you but....  What if honest reviewers post bad reviews of a book? In these days of the internet, it only takes one crackpot to start stalking you because he or she doesn't like what you said about their book. And I've read about it happening to reviewers on this board. And I say this as someone who does use my real name on my Amazon account. But I do worry about it, especially since I became a moderator here. I've gotten PMs from authors telling me I've ruined their lives because I asked them to follow the same rules the rest of you do. Just my opinion, I don't begrudge anyone privacy.

Betsy


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Atunah said:


> On a whole, indy books have a higher average rating than other books. I browse a lot. I look at thousands of books I am sure. I am just a bookaholic and I read a lot so I see a lot. I do a lot of research and vetting before I read. But that is something I have really noticed.


I've noticed the trend too, but also because I'm one of those authors whose average book ratings are skewed to the higher end of the ratings scale. In my case, I don't get many reviews anymore, because I rarely submit my books to reviewers or bloggers like I did when I first published a few years back. Nowadays getting bloggers (who I love btw) to review my books has become a contest of jumping through hoops that I'd much rather avoid so I can spend that time writing. But in my case, my marketing strategy (what little there is) tends to get my books in fewer, but conversely, the right hands. Hence, mostly 4 and 5 stars (I won't go into my rant to get more one star reviews here). But I suspect that for many indie authors, our volume of sales is so much smaller than mainstream books, that our marketing efforts tend to be focused on people who generally want to read what we write. Hence the higher ratings. Not true in all case, especially when one only has to glance at the first page of many book samples to see some indie books shouldn't have anything higher than zero stars when their pages are teeming with 5 stars.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So you won't write a blog post or series because you're terrified of backlash? But think reviewers should have to post under their real names? Hugh, I respect you but....  What if honest reviewers post bad reviews of a book? In these days of the internet, it only takes one crackpot to start stalking you because he or she doesn't like what you said about their book. And I've read about it happening to reviewers on this board. And I say this as someone who does use my real name on my Amazon account. But I do worry about it, especially since I became a moderator here. I've gotten PMs from authors telling me I've ruined their lives because I asked them to follow the same rules the rest of you do. Just my opinion, I don't begrudge anyone privacy.
> 
> Betsy


I don't think he's talking about his own books. I haven't seen a single writer who is more universally acclaimed. Even one of my own self-proclaimed fans sent me an email the other day saying I had to read this Wool book. 

I just looked again and wow, it's literally 200:1 his five stars versus one stars on Wool. Maybe a friend of Hugh's is getting targeted?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

MichaelWallace said:


> I don't think he's talking about his own books. I haven't seen a single writer who is more universally acclaimed. Even one of my own self-proclaimed fans sent me an email the other day saying I had to read this Wool book.
> 
> I just looked again and wow, it's literally 200:1 his five stars versus one stars on Wool. Maybe a friend of Hugh's is getting targeted?


Well to be perfectly honest, looking at his books and seeing how he responds to all the lower stars and the way he does, I wouldn't post anything critical either. But hey, whatever works I guess. *shrugs.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

x2far said:


> Nowadays I silently congratulate those authors. After all they implemented a great marketing strategy, one that is a very proactive way to push the limits in, what is currently, a gray area of ebook promotion. We're not talking criminal activities here ... we're talking 'Terms of Service' violations.


Violating a legal contract (i.e., terms of service) that you've signed of your own free will and pledged to abide by isn't a "grey area." But I find that people can convince themselves that most anything is right when it suits them. The galling part is that they so often have to rationalize it to others.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Not true in all case, especially when one only has to glance at the first page of many book samples to see some indie books shouldn't have anything higher than zero stars when their pages are teeming with 5 stars.


In cases like this, I have to remind myself that taste varies widely. Nothing, not even what I consider the best books ever written, please everyone. Look at Wool for example. People say it's absolutely brilliant, but a smattering of people don't get it. Maybe they're contrarian. Maybe their heads were in a wrong space when they picked up the book. Maybe they simply have unusual tastes. That doesn't make the book any less brilliant.

Similarly, there have been hugely, _hugely _popular books like Twilight and 50 Shades that leave me scratching my head because so many people love them. When I read a book I didn't like and see glowing reviews, my default assumption is that my tastes were out of synch with the book in this particular case.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2012)

You know, a simple way to deal with the reviews is to weigh the system. It could all be "behind the scenes." First, instead of including the star rating next to the review, just have an aggregated total review. The stars could then be weighed on a variety of factors. 

For example, the higher a reviewer's ranking, the more their reviews would weigh in the star rating. So someone with no verified purchase or real name would only count as a fraction of a rating, while someone with dozens of reviews and a real name tag would count maybe have a bonus toward their rating. Most of it could be automated, so once a "new" reviewer adds more reviews and maybe verifies themselves through Amazon's internal mechanisms, their review value would improve automatically.

So under the current system, if Jane Doe creates six sock puppet accounts and leaves 5 star ratings with them, and I leave a one star review, the book still has an average star rating of 4.4 stars. With a weighted system, since I have the real name badge, vine reviewer badge, and it is a verified purchase, maybe my rating would count for twice as much while the six sock puppet accounts only count as a half rating. Now the average star rating drops to around 2. And since the reviews themselves would NOT show the star rating for each individual review, the customers wouldn't see the weird discrepancy only the total star rating. This system would also negate the effects of trolling substantially because it would work in the reverse as well. If someone creates six sock puppet accounts and leaves one star reviews on my book, one real five star review from a weighted reviewer would counter them.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

MichaelWallace said:


> I don't think he's talking about his own books. I haven't seen a single writer who is more universally acclaimed. Even one of my own self-proclaimed fans sent me an email the other day saying I had to read this Wool book.
> 
> I just looked again and wow, it's literally 200:1 his five stars versus one stars on Wool. Maybe a friend of Hugh's is getting targeted?


No, I didn't think he was talking about his own books or even someone's specific books. I thought he was talking about posting about authors in general gaming the system... Unless I'm really misunderstanding what he said, I think my point still stands. But sometimes I do read things wrong. 

Betsy


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, a simple way to deal with the reviews is to weigh the system. It could all be "behind the scenes." First, instead of including the star rating next to the review, just have an aggregated total review. The stars could then be weighed on a variety of factors.


...or just get rid of the star system altogether on fiction books. Yours truly has made this unassailable argument on numerous occasions, but it seems too many authors see the downside without seeing the vastly larger upside. The stars alone would do away with drive-by one-stars reviews, for example, and completely eviscerate the five-star fakery.

Maybe your average stars is a solution more people could get behind.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

MichaelWallace said:


> In cases like this, I have to remind myself that taste varies widely. Nothing, not even what I consider the best books ever written, please everyone.


Very True. Taste is subjective. But you can't help but wonder sometimes if those reviews are on the up and up, can you?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> No, I didn't think he was talking about his own books or even someone's specific books. I thought he was talking about posting about authors in general gaming the system... Unless I'm really misunderstanding what he said, I think my point still stands. But sometimes I do read things wrong.
> 
> Betsy


In that case, clearly _I'm_ the one who read it wrong. I thought he must have received some false one star reviews, but when I went to see what had happened, if maybe he'd been targeted by a jealous sock puppeteer, I saw that no, his ranking was as stellar as it always is, so I thought maybe it was someone else he knew. I can see that I was just confused. Reading too fast.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

WHDean said:


> ...or just get rid of the star system altogether on fiction books.


As long as the star system moves books ($), you can forget that ever happening.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Very True. Taste is subjective. But you can't help but wonder sometimes if those reviews are on the up and up, can you?


Some of them clearly aren't. I notice, however, that they're frequently pumping books with abysmal rankings, so it doesn't seem to do much good. On the few cases I have seen big sock puppet success, the very increase in sales leads to angry one stars, which deflate the ranking in a hurry. It takes several five stars to erase the damage of a single one star. Hard for a scammer to stay on top of that.

As someone who has worked in the traditional publishing industry, I think the publishers are the most guilty of all, and more damaging. Blurb trading is a terrible problem and rarely acknowledged.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2012)

WHDean said:


> ...or just get rid of the star system altogether on fiction books. Yours truly has made this unassailable argument on numerous occasions, but it seems too many authors see the downside without seeing the vastly larger upside. The stars alone would do away with drive-by one-stars reviews, for example, and completely eviscerate the five-star fakery.
> 
> Maybe your average stars is a solution more people could get behind.


Believe me, I would LOVE to get rid of the star system. But I am also a realist, and I know that there is a huge demographic of customers that need those stars as a form of shorthand when buying.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Atunah said:


> As to the demanding of the real name on reviews? Are you kidding me? So we readers, customers, can have authors stalking us? Belittling the critical reviewers even more so by playing private P.I ? Why in the heck would I put myself out there like that.


With today's unemployment rates, I think a lot more people are worried about how nosy bosses (and hiring professionals) are getting about investigating everyone's online presence. If they want to see your Facebook account, they might want also try to look up your Amazon account (after all, most people have one, right?) --- if it's in your real name, it's distressingly likely they'll find it. What if they have an opinion about whether they want their employees to be reviewing (and therefore, reading) erotica? gay fiction? fantasy? horror? any sort of religious fiction?

Some people may not mind having their reading preferences public. But a large number --- I'd bet a majority! --- want no part of that.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

John Blackport said:


> With today's unemployment rates, I think a lot more people are worried about how nosy bosses (and hiring professionals) are getting about investigating everyone's online presence. If they want to see your Facebook account, they might want also try to look up your Amazon account (after all, most people have one, right?) --- if it's in your real name, it's distressingly likely they'll find it. What if they have an opinion about whether they want their employees to be reviewing (and therefore, reading) erotica? gay fiction? fantasy? horror? any sort of religious fiction?
> 
> Some people may not mind having their reading preferences public. But a large number --- I'd bet a majority! --- want no part of that.


Interesting. I never thought of that.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

MichaelWallace said:


> As someone who has worked in the traditional publishing industry, *I think the publishers are the most guilty of all*, and more damaging. Blurb trading is a terrible problem and rarely acknowledged.


I think in all the hoopla about the shady dealings of a minority of indie authors, people fail to notice that the trads wrote the primer on sock puppetry, as validated by your insider comment.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

WHDean said:


> Violating a legal contract (i.e., terms of service) that you've signed of your own free will and pledged to abide by isn't a "grey area." But I find that people can convince themselves that most anything is right when it suits them. The galling part is that they so often have to rationalize it to others.


Please, direct me to the document you "signed." Also, the Terms and Conditions of KDP are not a contract. A contract is legally binding and can be used in court if violated. The recourse available to Amazon if you violate their Terms and Conditions (i.e., not a contract) is to terminate your account and take the royalties earned while violating. This is bad but won't end up in court.

And there are a number of areas that are "grey" when looking at the Terms and Conditions. From "price matching" to the "exclusivity" clause. Just look at some of the questions being asked in the forum.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So you won't write a blog post or series because you're terrified of backlash? But think reviewers should have to post under their real names? Hugh, I respect you but....  What if honest reviewers post bad reviews of a book? In these days of the internet, it only takes one crackpot to start stalking you because he or she doesn't like what you said about their book. And I've read about it happening to reviewers on this board. And I say this as someone who does use my real name on my Amazon account. But I do worry about it, especially since I became a moderator here. I've gotten PMs from authors telling me I've ruined their lives because I asked them to follow the same rules the rest of you do. Just my opinion, I don't begrudge anyone privacy.
> Betsy


After a conversational thread I had on facebook this week, I tend to agree with Betsy about the privacy of not publishing reviews under your own name. A complete stranger can suddenly turn on you and hate you from afar for ridiculous reasons as simple as a misunderstanding about a few online words.

I recently read a book and reviewed it with 3-Stars. I gave constructive feedback that I thought with some expansion and character development, the book had great potential. I think I commented about the book being marketed towards younger girls but that it contained what I thought was over-the-top explicit sex and language inappropriate for that age. Overall the review was fairly friendly. Imagine my surprise when I got an email from the author! She searched me out and found my website, and used the Contact Me tab to email me. She very sarcastically posted a review from Publisher's Weekly and highlighted it in yellow and said, "THIS is what *they* thought about it." A few more words of sarcasm and signed off. I was shocked. I never answered her email but a few weeks later I deleted that review after a thread here that was talking about reviewing titles in our own genre. I was already feeling stalked by the author and don't need any additional stress. (Since then the book has only garnered worse reviews than I posted, mine would have really been one of the better ones.)

So though it would seem like a way to combat sock puppets, having to post reviews under real names could lead to a lot of trouble for some.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

GavinFletcher said:


> Also, the Terms and Conditions of KDP are not a contract. A contract is legally binding and can be used in court if violated. The recourse available to Amazon if you violate their Terms and Conditions (i.e., not a contract) is to terminate your account and take the royalties earned while violating. *This is bad but won't end up in court.*


Judging by this statement, I'm guessing you're either new to self-publishing or haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> I think in all the hoopla about the shady dealings of a minority of indie authors, people fail to notice that the trads wrote the primer on sock puppetry, as validated by your insider comment.


I don't think anyone is failing to notice it, it just has different meaning to people.

i.e. Trad Author gets tons of shill reviews: perception might be that the scummy publisher did it.
SP author gets shill reviews: perception = scummy author did it.

Put that in a mob mindset and you have people thinking that SP author = scum.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> In that case, she's going to be quite busy since there's an inexhaustible list of books (indie and trad) that are loaded with fake reviews. I don't know if I know the book in question, but there are a lot more books like it on the market.


So, because the issue is widespread it should be ignored? I don't have to look at every example of folks "gaming" the review system to see a pattern. Quite sure looking at a small sample would suffice and allow one to draw some conclusions on how it's being down and allow for some suggestions to stop it perhaps. Just like I don't have to test a drug on everyone with AIDS to see if it works. Just need a sample...


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> ... Overall the review was fairly friendly. Imagine my surprise when I got an email from the author! ...


WOW. JUST WOW.

And that was for a 3-star? Obv. I'd rather every 3-star were bumped up to a 4, but GOSH. If that's how someone reacts to a 3, how do they react to a 2 or a 1? Spontaneous human combustion?

I'd love to see a system with weighted reviews, where ... oh ... why bother dreaming. If you create something, someone will be along a day later with a hack. I guess I'm an Eeyore.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

GavinFletcher said:


> So, because the issue is widespread it should be ignored? I don't have to look at every example of folks "gaming" the review system to see a pattern. Quite sure looking at a small sample would suffice and allow one to draw some conclusions on how it's being down and allow for some suggestions to stop it perhaps. Just like I don't have to test a drug on everyone with AIDS to see if it works. Just need a sample...


Answer me this. Where did I say it should be ignored? I mentioned repeatedly in this thread that I've watched *and studied* authors who abused the review system. So wouldn't that make me a hypocrite? Maybe you need to slow down and pay attention to the actual words in my posts instead of flying off the handle and rephrasing what I actually said.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> WOW. JUST WOW.
> And that was for a 3-star? Obv. I'd rather every 3-star were bumped up to a 4, but GOSH. If that's how someone reacts to a 3, how do they react to a 2 or a 1? Spontaneous human combustion?


I read about this quite a bit on the Amazon forums. Sadly, the concept of professionalism apparently is an alien concept to some.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Judging by this statement, I'm guessing you're either new to self-publishing or haven't been paying attention.


Please enlighten me on what I am missing. And I would love an example of an indie author being taken to court for violating the Terms and Conditions.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> I recently read a book and reviewed it with 3-Stars. I gave constructive feedback that I thought with some expansion and character development, the book had great potential. I think I commented about the book being marketed towards younger girls but that it contained what I thought was over-the-top explicit sex and language inappropriate for that age. Overall the review was fairly friendly. Imagine my surprise when I got an email from the author! She searched me out and found my website, and used the Contact Me tab to email me. She very sarcastically posted a review from Publisher's Weekly and highlighted it in yellow and said, "THIS is what *they* thought about it." A few more words of sarcasm and signed off. I was shocked. I never answered her email but a few weeks later I deleted that review after a thread here that was talking about reviewing titles in our own genre. I was already feeling stalked by the author and don't need any additional stress. (Since then the book has only garnered worse reviews than I posted, mine would have really been one of the better ones.)
> 
> So though it would seem like a way to combat sock puppets, having to post reviews under real names could lead to a lot of trouble for some.


That's terrible. I can't imagine why an author would try to bully a reviewer like that. Nice to see that karma is coming around, at least in this particular case.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

KayBratt said:


> After a conversational thread I had on facebook this week, I tend to agree with Betsy about the privacy of not publishing reviews under your own name. A complete stranger can suddenly turn on you and hate you from afar for ridiculous reasons as simple as a misunderstanding about a few online words.


Ah! I never thought of that. Which is probably why my earlier post made me look like a dunce. 

I retract my horrible idea.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> That's terrible. I can't imagine why an author would try to bully a reviewer like that. Nice to see that karma is coming around, at least in this particular case.


Yeah, and my review didn't even mention the fact that she desperately needed a copy editor! Good thing or I might have found her camped out at the end of my driveway under the cloak of darkness.

/bites nails and looks around to see who is behind her chair


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

GavinFletcher said:


> Please, direct me to the document you "signed." Also, the Terms and Conditions of KDP are not a contract. A contract is legally binding and can be used in court if violated. The recourse available to Amazon if you violate their Terms and Conditions (i.e., not a contract) is to terminate your account and take the royalties earned while violating. This is bad but won't end up in court.
> 
> And there are a number of areas that are "grey" when looking at the Terms and Conditions. From "price matching" to the "exclusivity" clause. Just look at some of the questions being asked in the forum.


For the record, it was the poster I responded to who implied it violated the TOS, not me.

That aside, you don't have to physically sign a contract to enter into one. Did you sign your cable contract, your electricity supply contract, or anything before you joined KB? No. But you legally consented to contract when you ordered your cable and electricity and clicked "enter" at KB.

ETA: Almost forgot. The severity of the penalties for breaching a contract doesn't make it less wrong.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Huh.

After I left Writers' Cafe, I went to YouTube to do some "research" for my book and came across this video:





"Viewbotting is an extremely unethical method of artificially inflating a video's view count. It's obviously a very dishonest thing to do, and it's also a form of fraud. You try to fool YouTube and Google into making it look like you have more viewers, so that you can get more money for your monetized videos ..."

VIEWBOTTING! This is what's happening on the youtubes. I had no idea, being an author, with my head in all my author business. Of course, every avenue of money making is going to attract its own type of fraud.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

GavinFletcher said:


> Please enlighten me on what I am missing. And I would love an example of an indie author being taken to court for violating the Terms and Conditions.


Given my legendary track record of unintentionally derailing threads with spontaneous fits that will likely result in having Betsy bring out her dreaded cattle prod and deleting my posts, I'll play nice and give you a clue. I wasn't disagreeing with you when I quoted your post. I was actually AGREEING with you. Reading comprehension is a lost art, I know. But it does have its virtues.

As to your second point regarding the TOS, you're already convinced you're right, so what would be the point of debating with you?


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Ok, you know what? How is this any worse than an author who posts links to reviews he doesn't like on his FB page, directing his fans to, you know, yell at and mock the person who left the review? And then joins in the bullying? And then has the audacity to complain about sock puppets?
> 
> I want to provide a link, but I'm pretty sure it'll get modded. It's pretty easy to find if you care to look.


I hope you don't mean me, Genevieve, because I have no idea what you are talking about or where to find it.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Oh cripes. I hate it when threads get ugly. I usually steer clear of those. Can't we all just have a group hug?


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

WHDean said:


> Violating a legal contract (i.e., terms of service) that you've signed of your own free will and pledged to abide by isn't a "grey area." But I find that people can convince themselves that most anything is right when it suits them. The galling part is that they so often have to rationalize it to others.


WH, the link to the book I mentioned earlier is a fine example of how vanilla the enforcement of Amazon's TOS is. Thomas Hertog wrote that book about how to game Amazon rankings using fake reviews, constant self buys and the 'Helpful Comment' button. He even used the model he outlines to game his own titles.

Not only that, he then gained a heap of exposure throughout the blogosphere.

Of course, all this attention resulted in him being formally charged for fraud by Amazon and imprisoned for 18 months ... actually, it didn't. All that happened was Amazon decided to remove his books from their search results and then from sale altogether .... well, for a little while. Then they put them back up again ... but they stripped his reviews and ranking. But he got some new ones. And now I've linked to his title in my earlier reply on this thread, which means someone will probably buy it from KB so they can work out how to game the system .... and round it goes.

I'm not saying I agree with the use of fake reviews. Personally, I hate the fact that it happens. That said, I could be persuaded to use them if it meant selling my Boy Scout badge for a ranking in the Top 100.

In fact, I encourage every single author to game Amazon's ranking system.

That way the scam... er, marketing strategy will be rendered useless!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> No, I'm talking about Hugh Howey.


Hey, I've also applauded and made nice with negative reviewers. I like constructive criticism. The only ones I take umbrage to are the ones written by people who haven't read the book. And really, I've taken everyone's anger over this issue to heart and have tried to learn to better cope with the drive-by attacks. I think I'm making progress. My shrink says I am!


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

x2far said:


> I'm not saying I agree with the use of fake reviews. Personally, I hate the fact that it happens. That said, I could be persuaded to use them if it meant selling my Boy Scout badge for a ranking in the Top 100.
> 
> In fact, I encourage every single author to game Amazon's ranking system.
> 
> That way the scam... er, marketing strategy will be rendered useless!


This does nothing to elevate the status of professionalism regarding us as Indies. I wouldn't want in the Top 100 if it wasn't earned by good writing and appreciative readers. But I'm just like that. Call me simple.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

WHDean said:


> For the record, it was the poster I responded to who implied it violated the TOS, not me.
> 
> That aside, you don't have to physically sign a contract to enter into one. Did you sign your cable contract, your electricity supply contract, or anything before you joined KB? No. But you legally consented to contract when you ordered your cable and electricity and clicked "enter" at KB.


The point remains. My point was the violation. It was you calling it a contract. The Terms of Conditions with KDP is not a contract. It is an agreement that has no recourse besides termination of services and confiscation of royalties collected. If you don't like my interpretation ask a friend in the legal field what the difference is between a contract and a terms of conditions. They will tell you simply the ability enforce something in court. This is an important difference.

Cable, actually signed a contract. Electricity, no. But I'd be willing to bet if I went on their website and found the conditions of service they would use the word contract. And I don't think an electric company can initially deny you service. They can require a high deposit, but I think this is a federal legal issue.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Hey, I've also applauded and made nice with negative reviewers. I like constructive criticism. The only ones I take umbrage to are the ones written by people who haven't read the book. And really, I've taken everyone's anger over this issue to heart and have tried to learn to better cope with the drive-by attacks. I think I'm making progress. My shrink says I am!


Ok Hugh. I'm calling you out. *hands over dueling pistols*

You repeatedly have accused people of not reading your books when they say negative things against it. I have seen the reviews in question that have bothered you (especially the one you linked on your Facebook page that made the 50 Shades of Grey reference). I have read your work. And you know what? I agreed with some of it. Not all that's true, but some. I could see where the reviewer was coming from.

By linking that review - which you clearly did not like - to your facebook page, it was a passive call out to your fans to pummel the reviewer. I took this action quite personally, since you had said to me days before that you didn't want to do that anymore. Imagine my surprise when I saw it again when I came back from vacation.

Your mattress is already stuffed with millions, Hugh. You don't need to defend yourself against the tiny trickle of people who don't like your work. You don't need to call the horde on them. Use your power for good, man. Use it for good.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

I think we need some happy music to keep away the evil spirits.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hugh Howey said:


> Ah! I never thought of that. Which is probably why my earlier post made me look like a dunce.
> 
> I retract my horrible idea.


  Nicely done.

Betsy


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Hugh, 

Didn't you say you were moving? Do you have any mattresses you want to sell? Call me...


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

KayBratt said:


> This does nothing to elevate the status of professionalism regarding us as Indies. I wouldn't want in the Top 100 if it wasn't earned by good writing and appreciative readers. But I'm just like that. Call me simple.


Kay, I think this kind of manipulation needs to become so endemic that it threatens Amazon's asset base.

Then things will be altered.

The review system is a huge asset for Amazon. At present they know it is being gamed, but the general public doesn't. Once that happens you can be sure Amazon will focus some serious attention on plugging the holes in the system.

Imagine if you, as a Amazon customer, knew every product review posted couldn't be trusted? And remember, this algorithm probably works across all Amazon products ... not just ebooks.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> Hugh,
> 
> Didn't you say you were moving? Do you have any mattresses you want to sell? Call me...


We will, of course, not discuss how I know about Hugh's mattress. Just sayin'


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

x2far said:


> Kay, I think this kind of manipulation needs to become so endemic that it threatens Amazon's asset base.
> 
> Then things will be altered.
> 
> ...


I do agree with you that if there is manipulation it needs to be addressed. I just don't agree with getting my own hands dirty. Surely before long Amazon will catch on and in their awesome powerful-ness finally do something to straighten it out. Maybe I put too much confidence in them?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Begging here....

Please, folks, it's just me here tonight and I'd really like to work on a quilt.  *Checks to make sure the cattle prod is charged.*  Can't we all get along.  

Betsy


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Ok Hugh. I'm calling you out. *hands over dueling pistols*
> 
> You repeatedly have accused people of not reading your books when they say negative things against it. I have seen the reviews in question that have bothered you (especially the one you linked on your Facebook page that made the 50 Shades of Grey reference). I have read your work. And you know what? I agreed with some of it. Not all that's true, but some. I could see where the reviewer was coming from.
> 
> ...


Yay! Another one of these threads.

I've never asked for readers to defend my work or stick up for me. I use FB to express my feelings to friends and family. I really am that overly sensitive. It's a fault of mine (one that makes these comments from other KB'ers sting like heck). I've asked FB friends to leave reviewers alone. If you stalk me hard enough, you'll find the references. I have also stuck up for reviewers who left negative reviews, including one who called me to task for my curse words. I took the reviewers side over my readers' side. You have me pegged wrong. There is no nefarious intent, just a bewildered dude who wears his emotions on his sleeve. Also: I refuse to believe that the two 50 Shades 1-star reviews that came out the _very day_ that major media outlets compared WOOL to 50 Shades were from readers. Those were hit jobs. I have negative reviews from readers, and I agree with those reviews. I agree with you disliking my work. Seriously. I don't agree with the way you have consistently hounded me on these forums (this is the third or fourth thread that I know of. The second that I'll be leaving for good for fear of reading what else you all have to say about me).

Finally: I have yet to make a million dollars, much less "millions." Maybe you can dislike me less knowing that I'm not filthy rich?


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Given my legendary track record of unintentionally derailing threads with spontaneous fits that will likely result in having Betsy bring out her dreaded cattle prod and deleting my posts, I'll play nice and give you a clue. I wasn't disagreeing with you when I quoted your post. I was actually AGREEING with you. Reading comprehension is a lost art, I know. But it does have its virtues.
> 
> As to your second point regarding the TOS, you're already convinced you're right, so what would be the point of debating with you?


Wow, you were agreeing me in the first post with you "inexhaustible" comment? And here I just figured you were saying the task of looking at a book that's "gaming the system" was pointless because so many were doing it.

Then when I say that the Terms and Conditions is not a contract because it cannot be used in court, you say:

*Judging by this statement, I'm guessing you're either new to self-publishing or haven't been paying attention.*

You offer not explanation at all. One, I don't need to know anything about publishing to understand the difference between Terms and Conditions and a contract. Two, paying attention to what? The comment comes across as condescending fluff. Just offer information that refutes my claim. Simple. No drama. Because there are no examples of authors being dragged into court based on a violation of Terms and Conditions. Why? Because they can't.

Now you see debating with me as pointless. Fine. But you weren't debating. The topics are relevant to this thread. The TOC is directly relevant to the issue of gaming the system. It's the tool used to game the system.

But was it really necessary to say: *Reading comprehension is a lost art, I know. But it does have its virtues.*

Now, I don't want to assume... But this comes across as a jab. You're not giving me a clue or playing nice. You are being condescending and disrespectful. At no point did I question your intelligence or your ability to comprehend. You say I am wrong but offer nothing but these rude comments. So fine. Don't engage. You never really were anyways.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks, let's not refight old battles...still begging...

Betsy


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

KayBratt said:


> I do agree with you that if there is manipulation it needs to be addressed. I just don't agree with getting my own hands dirty. Surely before long Amazon will catch on and in their awesome powerful-ness finally do something to straighten it out. Maybe I put too much confidence in them?


I wish Amazon would hurry up and straighten it out.

Hertog's How-to book on gaming the review system was published 18 months ago!


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Begging here....
> 
> Please, folks, it's just me here tonight and I'd really like to work on a quilt. *Checks to make sure the cattle prod is charged.* Can't we all get along.
> 
> Betsy


That's why I pulled out the _Be Happy_ song. It beats having to face the cattle prod any day.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> From a reader's perspective, there is an inordinate number of indie books that are brilliantly written with average ratings of 4.5 to 5 stars and glowing reviews - even first books are this brilliant. *I work from the assumption that much of it is gamed (right or wrong, that's where I start from).* When I pick books, I exclude using the following list. Once I get a No, I move on to the next book:
> 
> 1. Do I like the cover and blurb?
> 2. Is it priced well based on the file size and/or page count?
> ...


I have 96 reviews of my books, all told, all pseudonyms. Of those, 2 of them are from people I personally know -- you can't stop anyone from writing a review. Both of those two gave me 5 stars (different books). Both were well-written reviews. Both of those people actually _did_ really like the book they reviewed.

Of the 96 reviews I have on 14 books:

61 - 5 star
23 - 4 star
7 - 3 star
4 - 2 star
1 - 1 star

Do my books deserve a 4.45 average rating? Probably not. I think I write fairly decent books, but I'm pretty sure they fall short of 'magnificent'. However, I'm pleased that most of those reporting back seemed to 'love' them.

So, I have 94 reviews from complete strangers -- though I may have had contact with a few of them on boards such as this. I did not solicit one of those reviews (not quite true, I sent a copy of Pelgraff to Red Adept Reviews and received a review -- from someone I'd never heard of before). Looking at those 94 reviews by people I don't actually know I find that about 8 of those 5-star reviews look like they were written by close friends or sock-puppets. Two of them actually made me cringe, 'cause even though I knew that the intentions of those reviewers were honourable -- they appear to have really liked the book -- I knew how others might view them.

My understanding from a short look at those reviews:

1. People tend to review books they like more than books they don't. Most of my books (when looked at in chronological order) received high-ratings early and only later did the lower star-ratings appear. 'Enemy of Korgan', for example, has 4 reviews: 3 - 5 star, 1 - 4 star. All these are by people who've read other books of mine -- and liked them. This is the 'fan' phenomenon. You buy books of writers you like in anticipation of another good read. Thus, any new book of mine will have a good chance of garnering some quick good reviews (as long as I don't disappoint). If Korgan ever takes off, I suspect 1, 2, & 3 star reviews will follow. But, until a book takes off, you're likely to find that it has a preponderance of higher rated reviews. People who don't like it are much less likely to take the trouble to review, than people who love it; people with a history with the author are more likely to buy it than those who've never heard of the author.

2. Reviewers aren't always the best of writers -- and they shouldn't have to be. Their opinion is valid whether or not they can express themselves with the eloquence of a Shakespeare. The lady who gave me my 1-star review: she has a valid opinion, too. And just because a review _looks_ like a sock-puppet wrote it, it may not be; one can't go by looks alone.

That said, I have to agree with what others have advised: READ THE SAMPLE. That's probably the best way to judge whether or not you'll like the book. Not always so, however. If I operated on that principle, I would have quit reading Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy too soon. Also, some books fail towards the end. Still, reading the sample is probably your best tool.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Also, as any of you can vouch who have enjoyed a brief run into much higher sales numbers than you're accustomed, quickly putting out a huge number of copies in front of people who are not your normal audience can result in some bad reviews coming in a hurry. Each of the three books in my series lost a half a star after Amazon did a big promo in March. They've clawed back some of the lost ground, but it was painful to watch for a few days. People snapped them up because they were 99 cents and heavily promoted, not because they would have spent three or four bucks on them if they'd stumbled across them in the course of regular browsing.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

GavinFletcher said:


> Wow, you were agreeing me in the first post with you "inexhaustible" comment? And here I just figured you were saying the task of looking at a book that's "gaming the system" was pointless because so many were doing it.


If you got that I was saying it was pointless to discuss this subject because I said there were tons of books in the system with shill reviews, after all the other posts I made in this thread on the subject, including the fact that the OP, who has more of a reason to misinterpret my post didn't, then you shouldn't have to wonder why I'm NOT bothering to engage you.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

MichaelWallace said:


> Also, as any of you can vouch who have enjoyed a brief run into much higher sales numbers than you're accustomed, quickly putting out a huge number of copies in front of people who are not your normal audience can result in some bad reviews coming in a hurry.


I read this a lot around here. Usually to explain low stars. But how in the world would you or anyone else out there know who is your audience. You cannot look inside their house into the bookshelfs. 
And unless you can do that and know all the books this person has read in their life, you cannot say they were not the audience for your book. Its really that simple. You don't know.

It just sounds dismissive, like when I hear the comment of, well they didn't "get" it, whater "it" is. Sometimes people just won't like your work. Simple as that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> then you shouldn't have to wonder why I'm NOT bothering to engage you.


*Looks sternly at Kevis.* All evidence to the contrary....

OK, so right now, there are three distinct conversations. 
1. One where Kevis isn't engaging with Gavin. 
2. One where Hugh isn't engaging with the people critical of him.
3. And then a couple of people trying to engage the original topic.

I'm not inclined to remove any posts so far, but I think, in the interest of keeping the thread open, I'm going to remove future posts that I deem part of conversations 1 and 2...

Let's move on, people...

Betsy


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

> Secondly, sockpuppets use the freebie books to pad out their accounts with more reviews. They toss a few low-stars at some books that'll show as "verified purchase" (usually without a single word that would indicate they actually read a chapter of the book) and then toss a nice 5-star onto their own or friends' books (a very thorough review). We've all seen this on our friends' books, if not also on our own.
> 
> OR ... maybe it's all just random chance and luck and SEEMS like malice, when really it's just this big, crazy, chaotic world.


LOL. And that brings me back to my original thinking that you can drive yourself crazy thinking about this stuff. When I get a bad review, my goal is to swallow hard, hang my head for a few minutes, and then walk away. Trying to burrow down into reviews to figure out if they're real or just drive-by attacks feels a lot like gnawing off my own arm.


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

Everyone always says the cream will rise to the top. Right? Well doesn't the crud also fall? I mean how long can these books actually stay up there with people buying them all under these fake reviews?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I read this a lot around here. Usually to explain low stars. But how in the world would you or anyone else out there know who is your audience. You cannot look inside their house into the bookshelfs.
> And unless you can do that and know all the books this person has read in their life, you cannot say they were not the audience for your book. Its really that simple. You don't know.
> 
> It just sounds dismissive, like when I hear the comment of, well they didn't "get" it, whater "it" is. Sometimes people just won't like your work. Simple as that.


Both of you are right actually 

It's not possible to know exactly who your audience would be, but it's actually not too hard sometimes to look at a person's reading habits and tell them to read someone else.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *Looks sternly at Kevis.*


I'm not sure this defanged berserker thing is going to work out. I'll behave, but I really miss the days when I used to be like this guy. Sigh...


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

During the fun arguments I see around here, sometimes I wonder if some of the fine people on this board look like this from time to time!


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Both of you are right actually
> 
> It's not possible to know exactly who your audience would be, but it's actually not too hard sometimes to look at a person's reading habits and tell them to read someone else.


Well if you actually know the person, but a seller on amazon would not know anything about that persons reading habits. The profile and reviews are not enough. I have very few reviews on Amazon, a few on Goodreads, but it does not tell the story of all books I have read in my life time. I never made lists. Some of it I have thankfully blocked out.

But hey, without reading some really bad stuff, how would be know when we finally read something good. 

eta: edited, because a habit is not a rabbit with an "h"


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Does anyone else feel glum when they get a good review, only to discover the reviewer also loves not-so-highly-esteemed books?  Or there's horrible grammar in the review?

It's really best not to look to deeply into the gift horse's mouth!

I wish I could work on my WIP, but DANG you guys in the WC are too excited today.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

Uh guys, just to point out the obvious, but the Amazon TOS isn't a contract and you can't be sued over it.

*HOWEVER.*

Amazon, as a private company, can just delete your listings and throw you headfirst off the site. You don't play by their rules, they don't need to let you into their playground. And if it gets really bad, I'm pretty sure they'll take steps along those lines and a whole lot of authors will find themselves out in the cold.

I think they'll implement a system like the Google algorithm first, though. It'd be a more elegant solution, and one that would probably result in less wailing and gnashing of teeth. I've a few ideas as to how I'd do it...


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

GavinFletcher said:


> The point remains. My point was the violation. It was you calling it a contract. The Terms of Conditions with KDP is not a contract. It is an agreement that has no recourse besides termination of services and confiscation of royalties collected. If you don't like my interpretation ask a friend in the legal field what the difference is between a contract and a terms of conditions. They will tell you simply the ability enforce something in court. This is an important difference.
> 
> Cable, actually signed a contract. Electricity, no. But I'd be willing to bet if I went on their website and found the conditions of service they would use the word contract. And I don't think an electric company can initially deny you service. They can require a high deposit, but I think this is a federal legal issue.


_Here's issue one:_

The comment I responded to implied that it was not unethical to game the system because gaming only entailed breaching terms of service. I replied that it was still unethical because he signed and therefore pledged to abide by those terms, regardless of the consequences of breaching them.
I don't know if you're disputing this or not.

_Here's issue two:_

I claimed that consenting to terms of service amounts to entering a contract. And I still say it does for several reasons. First, lawyers don't have a monopoly on the use of the word contract. To contract is to enter a formal agreement between parties. Second, there are different kinds of legal contracts, not all of which require a signature and not all of which have severe penalties. Some require only verbal assent to entail severe penalties: the babysitter who abandons her unsigned "terms of service" in the playground might well end up in jail.

Amazon's terms of service do have legal ramifications, namely, that you can't sue them for not distributing your books if you breach their terms. But my point is that it doesn't matter from ethical standpoint, because it's wrong whether you class TOSs as contracts or not.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CaedemMarquez said:


> During the fun arguments I see around here, sometimes I wonder if some of the fine people on this board look like this from time to time!


*snort*


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Uh guys, just to point out the obvious, but the Amazon TOS isn't a contract and you can't be sued over it.


No and maybe. Any formal agreement you consent to is a contract. You're getting hooked in legalese. Just because someone hasn't been sued over it, doesn't mean you can't be.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Sweetapple said:


> Everyone always says the cream will rise to the top. Right? Well doesn't the crud also fall? I mean how long can these books actually stay up there with people buying them all under these fake reviews?


Probably just long enough for the scammers to reap a quick buck and to make all indie authors look bad, sadly.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

*US v. Nosal en banc opinion*



> In April 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision that disloyal employees who access workplace computers in violation of corporate policy do not break federal anti-hacking law.
> 
> In United States v. Nosal, an ex-employee of an executive recruiting firm was prosecuted on the theory that he induced current company employees to use their legitimate credentials to access the company's proprietary database and provide him with information in violation of corporate computer-use policy. The government claimed that the violation of this private policy was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Following a decision issued in 2009 by the Ninth Circuit, the district court ruled that violations of corporate policy are not equivalent to violations of federal computer crime law.
> 
> The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where EFF argued in an amicus brief that turning mere violations of company policies into computer crimes could potentially create a massive expansion of the CFAA turning millions of law-abiding workers into criminals. In April 2011 a three-judge panel ruled that an employee violates the CFAA when she uses a computer in way that violates an employer's restrictions, but the Ninth Circuit later agreed to rehear the case. On April 10, 2012, the en banc court ruled 9-2 that running afoul of a corporate computer use restriction does not violate the CFAA.


http://www.eff.org/cases/u-s-v-nosal

Relevant section of the ruling:



> [W]e hold that the phrase "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA *does not extend to violations of use restrictions*. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly. The rule of lenity requires "penal laws . . . to be construed strictly." United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820). "[W]hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite." Jones, 529 U.S. at 858 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
> 
> The rule of lenity not only ensures that citizens will have fair notice of the criminal laws, but also that Congress will have fair notice of what conduct its laws criminalize. We construe criminal statutes narrowly so that Congress will not unintentionally turn ordinary citizens into criminals. "Because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures and not courts should define criminal activity." United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348 (1971). "If there is any doubt about whether Congress intended [the CFAA] to prohibit the conduct in which [Nosal] engaged, then 'we must choose the interpretation least likely to impose penalties unintended by Congress.'" United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622, 635 n.22 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Arzate-Nunez, 18 F.3d 730, 736 (9th Cir. 1994)).
> 
> This narrower interpretation is also a more sensible reading of the text and legislative history of a statute whose general purpose is to punish hacking-the circumvention of technological access barriers-not misappropriation of trade secrets-a subject Congress has dealt with elsewhere. Therefore, we hold that "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA is limited to violations of restrictions on access to information, and not restrictions on its use.


B.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

D a l y a said:


> I've encountered some atrocious books, as we all have. And they have so many 5-star reviews that I can only conclude that genuine people really thought it merited 5 stars. Is it possible for so many people to have such bad taste? I open my eyes and look around me at the world. Ah, yes! It is possible!...


It's just like those people on American Idol who couldn't carry a tune if you glued it to their foreheads, yet they invariably say people tell them all the time how great they are. You just know most of those people are either unobjective loved ones, friends or family who are just being nice, or people who are as tone deaf as the so-called singer.



WHDean said:


> No and maybe. Any formal agreement you consent to is a contract. You're getting hooked in legalese. Just because someone hasn't been sued over it, doesn't mean you can't be.


The reason the TOS is there is specifically to be considered as a binding contract that you agree to when using their services. What would be the point of telling you what you can and can't do if they couldn't actually enforce them?


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> LOL. And that brings me back to my original thinking that you can drive yourself crazy thinking about this stuff. When I get a bad review, my goal is to swallow hard, hang my head for a few minutes, and then walk away. Trying to burrow down into reviews to figure out if they're real or just drive-by attacks feels a lot like gnawing off my own arm.


Oh, definitely this. I pour a glass of pinot and complain to my husband when I get a bad review. That way, the reviewer doesn't feel as if I'm breathing down his/her neck, and I don't look like a jerk on the internet.

It's unfortunate that people are out there playing the system, but I'd drive myself crazy if I dwelt on any of this stuff.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> From a reader's perspective, there is an inordinate number of indie books that are brilliantly written with average ratings of 4.5 to 5 stars and glowing reviews - even first books are this brilliant. I work from the assumption that much of it is gamed (right or wrong, that's where I start from).:


That just totally saddens me. You truly assume most Indie authors have gamed their reviews? I hope that's not the case.



> 1. Do I like the cover and blurb?
> 2. Is it priced well based on the file size and/or page count?
> 3. Are there reviews? (all 1 or 2 sentence 5-star reviews are ignored)
> 4. Do the reviews read like real reviews?
> ...


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

CaedemMarquez said:


> During the fun arguments I see around here, sometimes I wonder if some of the fine people on this board look like this from time to time!


Ha!

I heard this in a Vincent Price voice. From The Fall of the House of Usher.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

x2far said:


> WH, the link to the book I mentioned earlier is a fine example of how vanilla the enforcement of Amazon's TOS is. Thomas Hertog wrote that book about how to game Amazon rankings using fake reviews, constant self buys and the 'Helpful Comment' button. He even used the model he outlines to game his own titles.
> 
> Not only that, he then gained a heap of exposure throughout the blogosphere.
> 
> ...


I read about the book when the whole thing happened, but I didn't buy the book. None of it surprised me and the book itself seemed like a big of gimmick. He didn't come off well.

I also realize that Amazon doesn't have much of an incentive to stop it. They're profiting from it-and they'll continue to until they lose all credibility.

But all this is neither here nor there for me. Spending one's time engaged in unseemly system gaming is not only fruitless, it also rots the soul-which, as Socrates said, is our most prized possession.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Different strokes for different folks.

I have a twin sister. We both devour a huge amount of books a year. But our tastes are totally different. Sometimes she will beg me to 'just try this one, it's soooo good' and gives me some of her stuff. I can't even get through the first few chapters! Stuff she is recommending and probably giving 5-Star reviews I wouldn't give 2. 

(Okay, I've learned my lesson and won't be writing any more reviews ever..but you get my point)


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> From a reader's perspective, there is an inordinate number of indie books that are brilliantly written with average ratings of 4.5 to 5 stars and glowing reviews - even first books are this brilliant. I work from the assumption that much of it is gamed (right or wrong, that's where I start from) ....


That's a fairly insulting way to look at it, whether you intend it to be or not.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Greg Banks said:


> The reason the TOS is there is specifically to be considered as a binding contract that you agree to when using their services. What would be the point of telling you what you can and can't do if they couldn't actually enforce them?


Ahh...I'm the one arguing that terms of service *are * contracts.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Atunah said:


> But hey, without reading some really bad stuff, how would be know when we finally read something good.


Very good point, Atunah.


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

Christina, 
So funny you posted. I was just gonna mention you. I got a 4 star from a woman who is some sort of super indie reviewer. I went through all her reviews she had well over 100 and half were 1 and 2 star. I literally thanked God I got a 4! I think one of her few or only 5 star was for one of your books! 
Cheers!


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

MaryMcDonald said:


> That just totally saddens me. You truly assume most Indie authors have gamed their reviews? I hope that's not the case.


It's hard to say he's wrong when you have stuff like this out there:

http://fiverr.com/gigs/search?query=reviews&x=0&y=0

Unfortunately, sometimes the good guys with the low review count or average star rating suffer for playing by the rules while the cheaters get ahead. But that's been true throughout human history.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

More information on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew

But user beware. This is NOT settled law. One of these cases is probably headed to the SCOTUS, and some senators are actively considering modifying the CFAA to explicitly exclude TOC agreements from criminal prosecution.

B.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

WHDean said:


> No and maybe. Any formal agreement you consent to is a contract. You're getting hooked in legalese. Just because someone hasn't been sued over it, doesn't mean you can't be.


Well, think about it this way - it's a civil matter, not a criminal one. So Amazon would have to shell out for lawyers to sue someone doing the gaming. Multiply that by thousands of authors who do it... it'd be completely cost ineffective, unless someone was making millions from that alone.

So, okay, you could be sued, but it's not really likely. It's a waste of their time and money, and could drop a whole load of bad PR on their heads unless their case was airtight. An automated system is better.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Well, think about it this way - it's a civil matter, not a criminal one. So Amazon would have to shell out for lawyers to sue someone doing the gaming. Multiply that by thousands of authors who do it... it'd be completely cost ineffective, unless someone was making millions from that alone.
> 
> So, okay, you could be sued, but it's not really likely. It's a waste of their time and money, and could drop a whole load of bad PR on their heads unless their case was airtight. An automated system is better.


On the other hand, you only have to sue one _pour encourager les autres_. People think twice when they think of lawyers.

But then Amazon has little incentive to do anything until their credibility takes a few more hits. That's why revalations like yours help, assuming _you _ can reveal it while avoiding being sued for defamation. 

Edit to add: Now that I think about it, I almost certain you *can * be charged with fraud if it can be shown that you had the _intent _ to breach the TOSs _before _ you signed them. This is obviously hard to prove. And it would take a legal expert to answer it, but I relatively certain I picked this up from a reputable source...for whatever that's worth.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> More information on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
> 
> ...


_When it's midnight on the meadow, and the cats are in the shed
The river tells a story, at the window by my bed
If you listen very closely, be as quiet as you can
In the yard you'll hear him
It is the Pony Man_

Good links, but it's not really a matter of using TOSs as proxies for criminal offences-at least, that's not what I'm on about. It's the ethical matter and the potential for lawsuits.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Greg Banks said:


> That's a fairly insulting way to look at it, whether you intend it to be or not.


Yeah, it's hard to feel warm and fuzzy about a statement like that...


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

WHDean said:


> On the other hand, you only have to sue one _pour encourager les autres_. People think twice when they think of lawyers.
> 
> But then Amazon has little incentive to do anything until their credibility takes a few more hits. That's why revalations like yours help, assuming _you _ can reveal it while avoiding being sued for defamation.
> 
> Edit to add: Now that I think about it, I almost certain you *can * be charged with fraud if it can be shown that you had the _intent _ to breach the TOSs _before _ you signed them. This is obviously hard to prove. And it would take a legal expert to answer it, but I relatively certain I picked this up from a reputable source...for whatever that's worth.


Your guess is as good as mine on the fraud thing, to be honest. Not a lawyer and all that.

But the lawsuit is no deterrent. It hasn't worked with piracy and it's not likely to work here. If enough people do it with the idea that there isn't really anything wrong with it (not hurting anyone etc etc, insert your own rationalization here) then the threat of being sued isn't going to stop it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Random blathering:

The basics of a contract are offer, acceptance, and consideration. The KDP agreement is a contract and can be enforced in court. For example, an author could enforce his right to receive payment for his enrolled books sold by Amazon. The TOS covering reviews is not a contract because the basic elements of a contract are not present. The anti-piracy act that was defeated in the US Congress in Nov 2011 did initially contain provisions making it a crime to violate TOS. It was stripped out before the bill was eventually defeated.

****

Everyone sees the star score for a book. Whenever Amazon lists a book, it included title, author, price, and star score. It is very reasonable to say that score has a conscious or subconscious effect on almost everyone who sees it. Consumers can't escape it.(I grant there are probably some people who are not affected.)

However, we have no idea how many people read reviews. Nobody knows. Are reviews read by purchasers representing 10% of sales? More? Less? Perhaps 90%? How would we know? Amazon has a much better idea because they know how many click on review links.

Perhaps reviews will become unreliable. So what? Look at all those books on bookstore shelves. Consumers do just fine picking and choosing without instant access to reviews.

***

The fact that one is an author/publisher does not make him a member of some community. Communities are voluntary associations with a common purpose. Clicking the KDP upload button does not rise to that level.

***

Prior to 2011, the Google TOS required all users be at least eighteen years old. Anyone violate it? Aid someone in violating it? Have any respect for it? Give an ethical hoot about it? Anyone read all the TOS statements for each service they use? Who?

***

The fact that someone can be sued tells us nothing. Anyone can sue anyone else for whatever they choose.

***

Ain't this a great country?

_edited to remove comment related to conversations that are off limits at this point, sorry. --Betsy_


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Your guess is as good as mine on the fraud thing, to be honest. Not a lawyer and all that.
> 
> But the lawsuit is no deterrent. It hasn't worked with piracy and it's not likely to work here. If enough people do it with the idea that there isn't really anything wrong with it (not hurting anyone etc etc, insert your own rationalization here) then the threat of being sued isn't going to stop it.


I'm not a lawyer either, so I defer to others on the fraud business.

But I beg to differ on the feasibility of a crackdown. The comparison with piracy is apples and oranges. In that case, millions of people were stealing millions of files over hundreds of systems run by third parties. In this case, we're talking hundreds of people gaming one system controled by the same party who'd carry out enforcement. Amazon wouldn't even need laws to fix this problem. Suspend a few accounts, make a public issue about it, and it's all but over.

Like I said, I can't see them doing it. They've got nothing to lose until they start losing something. That happens when people start returning books and complaining.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2012)

GavinFletcher said:


> Then when I say that the Terms and Conditions is not a contract because it cannot be used in court


Gavin, no offense my friend, but just because you want to draw this line between TOS and contract doesn't mean the line exist. You and Amazon have a business agreement. That business agreement is regulated by a few hundred state and federal statutes that are active whether you click an "I Agree" button for a TOS or ink a physical contract. Because Amazon PAYS YOU MONEY and you grant Amazon the right to sell your work. Those are real, legal agreements regardless of how you entered into them.

So yes, it CAN go to court, and blinking rapidly and crying "But I didn't sign a contract" will only get a judge to ask "Well, did you cash the checks?"

Under your theory, if Amazon decided to stop paying you and just kept your money, and refused to stop selling your books, you couldn't sue them in court because you don't have a signed contract. Is that honestly what you believe?

A written contract is the best protection, but it is not the ONLY protection. Verbal agreements still hold water in the civil court system. So do terms of service when money is involved.


----------



## Jill James (May 8, 2011)

Damn, I must be a Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses. When I see a book with a bunch of 4 and 5 stars and I can't imagine what they read that I missed I just assume I'm not their target audience, not that the fix was in.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Gavin, no offense my friend, but just because you want to draw this line between TOS and contract doesn't mean the line exist. You and Amazon have a business agreement. That business agreement is regulated by a few hundred state and federal statutes that are active whether you click an "I Agree" button for a TOS or ink a physical contract. Because Amazon PAYS YOU MONEY and you grant Amazon the right to sell your work. Those are real, legal agreements regardless of how you entered into them.
> 
> So yes, it CAN go to court, and blinking rapidly and crying "But I didn't sign a contract" will only get a judge to ask "Well, did you cash the checks?"


She's nailed it. The "Terms of Service" is not, strictly speaking, a contract.

However, it is _evidence_ of one, specifically that both parties had an understanding (or at least, should have known that one existed).

And as soon as anybody makes money --- well, you've got your "consideration".


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Can you folks point to some court cases? I'd really like to understand the law better / where you are coming from.

B.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> A written contract is the best protection, but it is not the ONLY protection. Verbal agreements still hold water in the civil court system. *So do terms of service when money is involved.*


Maybe the_ disbelievers _should have a chat with James Crawford about how non-contractually binding Amazon's TOS is.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Jill James said:


> d*mn, I must be a Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses. When I see a book with a bunch of 4 and 5 stars and I can't imagine what they read that I missed I just assume I'm not their target audience, not that the fix was in.


Me too. My close group of girlfriends are all heavy readers. We like to share what we've read and what we like. Many, many times there are books one of them recommends that I just don't get, but they loved it. And I know the same is true for what I recommend. We all connect to different stories and characters based on our own personal experiences.

For example, I really enjoyed the first Stephanie Plum novels (they lost me after number nine or ten) for what they are. Light, funny, easy entertainment. One of my best friends can't stand them and thinks they are the worst books ever written. We do read a lot of the same books and turn each other on to new authors all the time. Just because *I* can't get into certain books, it doesn't mean they are bad, just that they didn't work for me.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

WHDean said:


> _Here's issue one:_
> 
> The comment I responded to implied that it was not unethical to game the system because gaming only entailed breaching terms of service. I replied that it was still unethical because he signed and therefore pledged to abide by those terms, regardless of the consequences of breaching them.
> I don't know if you're disputing this or not.
> ...


Issue one I am not disputing. I only had issue with you using 'terms' and 'contract' interchangeably. And I'm not sure you're entirely correct about what the comment you quoted was implicating. Yes, they said "We're not talking criminal activities here ... we're talking 'Terms of Service' violations." I see how you would draw your conclusion. But they also say "grey areas" and "pushing the limits" prior to this statement. I would have assumed that they weren't co-signing blatantly breaking the rules but bending the rules. But yea, I can see your point on this one.

As to the second issue. I hate referencing definitions but by definition, a contract is enforceable by the law.

It's not about a lawyers having a monopoly on the word. Sure, not all contracts require a signature.

You said:

_Violating a legal contract (i.e., terms of service) that *you've signed of your own free will* and pledged to abide by isn't a "grey area." But I find that people can convince themselves that most anything is right when it suits them. The galling part is that they so often have to rationalize it to others._

No one "signed" anything to joined KDP. They agreed to the TOS. There is a difference. Even verbal contracts have to be proved in a court of law to be enforced.

As far as not being able to sue Amazon... They are a private company and don't receive public funds. They don't have to publish anyone. They can tell anyone that they are not going to publish their work and don't have to give a reason. This has nothing to do with the TOS. They are a private company.

Ethically, I would be inclined to agree that it is wrong to violate a TOS or breach a contract. But they are not the same.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

I don't look at reviews much. And when I do, I usually only read the 1 star reviews.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Okay, here's the thing...
> 
> I know some authors game the reviews. I assumed it was a very tiny number out of the whole.
> 
> ...


If someone is selling 15 copies a day, and if some of those buyers believe the book is as bad as you say, negative reviews will soon pile up.

I just have my doubts that the author is gaming the system if the book has been out for a while. Reviews happen--positive and negative.

Unless you give some specifics about exactly what has you so irked, I'm going to assume it's a matter of taste, not fraud.

As for typos, I recently read a book that was full of them, by someone who occasionally posts here. The book has tons of good reviews--I mean TONS--and deserves them, because it's entertaining despite serious flaws beyond the grammatical and spelling errors that I'd have flagged if I were acting as an agent or an editor.

Anita


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

It took forever to read through all the responses. One day away from the laptop and wow, I feel so disconnected.

I thought _Wool_ was wonderful and I see why Ridley Scott wants it for his next project. I don't get why people wouldn't like it, but I didn't care for the Pultizer Prize winner _Blindness_, so I understand not everyone likes what I do.

I still think those that go by reviews have the "flip it open" option and should use it. If they don't feel they received their money's worth, return it.

Before I go by a book's reviews I see where they come from. If it's vine reviewers and bloggers that regularly review the genre, I pretty much trust it.
If it's from the obvious paid for services like Kirkus, Mid-West Book Review, or Publisher's Weekly-I don't. (They charge $600 - $49 for reviews.)
I also think Goodreads reader reviews (not the author) can be more brutal. I, like many readers, have a list of reviewers whose judgement I trust. Most avid readers have favorite review blogs, it's not hard to find their opinions.
On bad grammar in a review: I write for teens I have reviews all over the internet that make me cringe. One on Amazon has the word "Angles" instead of Angels in the title line. But hey, that's teens. I'm happy the reader cared enough to leave a review.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

WHDean said:


> I'm not a lawyer either, so I defer to others on the fraud business.
> 
> But I beg to differ on the feasibility of a crackdown. The comparison with piracy is apples and oranges. In that case, millions of people were stealing millions of files over hundreds of systems run by third parties. In this case, we're talking hundreds of people gaming one system controled by the same party who'd carry out enforcement. Amazon wouldn't even need laws to fix this problem. Suspend a few accounts, make a public issue about it, and it's all but over.
> 
> Like I said, I can't see them doing it. They've got nothing to lose until they start losing something. That happens when people start returning books and complaining.


I have to disagree. I think it's a matter of perception vs. whether it's feasible to sue them all - and in that case it's very similar to piracy. If people believe they'll 'slip under the radar' as it where, and they don't really think there's anything wrong with what they're doing, then Amazon shutting down just one or two won't have any effect.


----------



## 39179 (Mar 16, 2011)

Summer's almost upon us. Can you feel it?


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

daveconifer said:


> Yeah, it's hard to feel warm and fuzzy about a statement like that...


My skin is growing thicker, because now when people slam all indies or paint us all with the same brush, I shrug it off. We have a terrible reputation; that's just how it is. In a way, that's cool, because if you're down, you've got nowhere to go but up. You start off as a lowly sludgely self-publisher and you crawl up from the drainspout of the slushpile and try to be an exception.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Gavin, no offense my friend, but just because you want to draw this line between TOS and contract doesn't mean the line exist. You and Amazon have a business agreement. That business agreement is regulated by a few hundred state and federal statutes that are active whether you click an "I Agree" button for a TOS or ink a physical contract. Because Amazon PAYS YOU MONEY and you grant Amazon the right to sell your work. Those are real, legal agreements regardless of how you entered into them.
> 
> So yes, it CAN go to court, and blinking rapidly and crying "But I didn't sign a contract" will only get a judge to ask "Well, did you cash the checks?"
> 
> ...


Well, I'd suggest this and I'm sure this argument is getting annoying but here goes. In my opinion the TOS is simply a courtesy given by Amazon. They are a private company telling potential clients how they want to interact. In fact, one of the provisions blatantly states that they can up and stop selling your books for no reason. They don't have to sell your books even if you agree to the TOS. Now, you are assuming, and it makes sense, that your right to sue for your money stems from the provisions of the TOS. I disagree with this. Your right to sue stems from laws that predate Amazon. As transactions evolved over the Internet so did the laws regulating them.

Amazon is a business that adheres to regulations regarding the services they provide. So, if there is a contract, it does not stem from the TOS, it is a contract rooted in the laws that Amazon must follow. A TOS is a document designed to limit the liability of a company. If anything, this document is an insurance policy for Amazon so some random author can't sue them for promising that all indie author will make millions by using their services. Not to guarantee its users any legal recourse.

Does anyone know a lawyer turned writer? Sheesh.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm filing this one under unitentional irony:



AnitaBartholomew said:


> If someone is selling 15 copies a day, and if some of those buyers believe the book is as bad as you say, negative reviews will soon pile up.
> 
> I just have my doubts that the author is gaming the system if the book has been out for a while. Reviews happen--positive and negative.
> 
> ...


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

The TOS vs Contract argument is probably redundant anyway.

I would assume that many of the authors that could be bothered to write fake reviews would choose to do so under some veil of anonymity ie, false accounts opened and reviews posted whilst using a proxy server (TOR software for instance).

Pretty hard to nail a TOS violator when you can't actually identify the user without a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

GavinFletcher said:


> In my opinion the TOS is simply a courtesy given by Amazon. They ... can up and stop selling your books for no reason. They don't have to sell your books even if you agree to the TOS.


I think this is the important part to understand when dealing with Amazon. It hardly matters what is in the TOS. If you want to be a self-published writer, you want to be in KDP. Then can drop you at will whether you follow the rules or not. The guiding principle is that you do not want to make them want to do that. They won't just do it on a whim. If they want to be the dominant player in ebook sales and to maximize their own profits, they don't want to chase away tons of authors, and they want to keep as much goodwill as possible. They, IMHO, try to be a reasonable company, often delivering more than promised and sometimes taking less than due. I think both sides have reasons to want to be friends. Amazon seems to be driven by a sense of reasonableness, remarkable for such a large company. In most cases where things go wrong, it looks to me like it tends to be due to the difficulty of scaling reasonableness up to the volume of business that they do. They seem to genuinely regret and attempt to prevent as many problems as possible. Usually wrongs that they appear to commit look to me like undertrained workers or just too much volume to handle accurately. I do not think that anything would get up to the level of legal action without the reasonableness thing being applied heavily.

I think as long as you view Amazon as your partner in doing business, all will be well in the long run. I actually was (correctly) accused of violating a KDP Select provision. (This was a commitment I had made and forgotten about due to unusual circumstances prior to joining Select) I replied politely explaining what I was doing and why, and when I would be able to stop. That was good enough for them.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Andrew Biss said:


> Summer's almost upon us. Can you feel it?


 I wish I could, but right now all I feel is sick to my stomach at the continued attacks on one of the nicest people here. It is relentless and for some reason is allowed to continue. And I've come up with a term for it:
Thread Chasing. Any issue he posts a comment on is apparently a call for open season on him. I'm sorry. I was happy today as I had an interview and was so excited and I come here tonight to see yet another personal attack, which he graciously tried to deflect. Sickening.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> I wish I could, but right now all I feel is sick to my stomach at the continued attacks on one of the nicest people here. It is relentless and for some reason is allowed to continue. And I've come up with a term for it:
> Thread Chasing. Any issue he posts a comment on is apparently a call for open season on him. I'm sorry. I was happy today as I had an interview and was so excited and I come here tonight to see yet another personal attack, which he graciously tried to deflect. Sickening.


I agree. And it seems like once there's a little blood in the water, everyone's on higher alert level (emotions activated), and things are being read in a less-rosy light.

Might be time for me to take a little detox for a day. Or at least a few hours. 

I recommended the site to someone today, and I felt the need to issue a warning along with the recommendation. But ... that's fairly standard for internet stuff. These places are tinderboxes, and I must give mad props to the tireless Betsy and Crew who sweep up the broken bottles when it gets outrageous.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, a simple way to deal with the reviews is to weigh the system. It could all be "behind the scenes." First, instead of including the star rating next to the review, just have an aggregated total review. The stars could then be weighed on a variety of factors.
> 
> For example, the higher a reviewer's ranking, the more their reviews would weigh in the star rating. So someone with no verified purchase or real name would only count as a fraction of a rating, while someone with dozens of reviews and a real name tag would count maybe have a bonus toward their rating. Most of it could be automated, so once a "new" reviewer adds more reviews and maybe verifies themselves through Amazon's internal mechanisms, their review value would improve automatically.
> 
> So under the current system, if Jane Doe creates six sock puppet accounts and leaves 5 star ratings with them, and I leave a one star review, the book still has an average star rating of 4.4 stars. With a weighted system, since I have the real name badge, vine reviewer badge, and it is a verified purchase, maybe my rating would count for twice as much while the six sock puppet accounts only count as a half rating. Now the average star rating drops to around 2. And since the reviews themselves would NOT show the star rating for each individual review, the customers wouldn't see the weird discrepancy only the total star rating. This system would also negate the effects of trolling substantially because it would work in the reverse as well. If someone creates six sock puppet accounts and leaves one star reviews on my book, one real five star review from a weighted reviewer would counter them.


Eminently sensible, easy to organise for a company with Amazon's resources - an excellent suggestion to solve the problem. If I could give it 6 stars I would.
*****

Joe from Scotland


----------



## ScottC (Mar 23, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> On a 99 cent book, it would be very easy to gift a lot of books to friends and family to simulate a good sales rate. There are also sites out there that "sell" Amazon reviews for as low as $5 each. There are a dozen threads in the Amazon forums that have called out these very things. Heck, there was a person IN THIS FORUM not long ago who specifically suggested doing this to boost his sales rank, and he wanted to know how much money it would cost to do it.


I wish it were that simple. I just gifted 50 ebooks in a LibraryThing giveaway (at $2.99 each) and I'm still sinking like a stone.


----------



## melissafmiller (Feb 17, 2011)

https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=APILE934L348N

This is the KDP Terms and Conditions. If you're an author published through KDP, you agreed to it and are bound o it I have no idea if Amazon"s Terms of Service rise to the level of a contract, but the Terms and Conditions do.

I don't know what if anything it says relevant to this discussion, but it may well include language that requires the author to abide by the TOS. It's been a while since I read it.

I am a lawyer. This is not legal advice. And it was typed on my phone, so please excuse typos.

Carry on.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Note: Several of us tested it with one of my shorts that don't sell many copies (like in the #600,000s ranking). 8 copies were gifted within a 1 hour period. There was no effect on ranking whatsoever. For scientific purposes, 3 different people purposes gift copies (none of them me) to see if non-author gifts purchase were treated differently. There was no change in ranking.

So please, if you are gifting thinking it will effect your ranking, remember that it was tested less than a month ago with no benefit to ranking whatsoever.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I'm filing this one under unitentional irony:


Call me dense (which you, apparently, already have) but I don't get your point.

1) The original poster gave no specifics about the problems that caused him/her to believe the reviews weren't posted by readers who believed the book was worthy of good reviews. Plenty of complaints, but no specifics. I had a reviewer complain about typos in my book, which was thoroughly copy-edited and proofed. Nobody else--not my former agent, several editors from top publishing houses (two of whom were interested in publishing it), a couple of developmental editors with whom I swap manuscripts occasionally--found typos. Not saying there aren't any. We can all miss stuff. But I don't immediately jump to conclusions based on one complaint and no specifics.

2) Reviews, with any number of stars, are subjective evaluations. I'm an editor and former literary agent. When I look at a book, I might see serious flaws that would prevent it from being picked up by most traditional publishers. That doesn't mean it isn't an enjoyable read and worth every star that readers give it.

I rarely show up here any more because, almost every time I check out the boards, someone is accusing other authors of bad behavior with little to no evidence. As I recall, someone posted something here perhaps six months ago or more, offering to sell reviews. Thousands of posts later, how many others have done so? Don't you think this would be the perfect place to entice authors who don't yet have reviews for their books? Yet, it doesn't happen.

Maybe, just maybe, there are enough readers out there to enjoy any number of books. And the fact that one person doesn't like a book or finds real or imaginary problems with it doesn't make it a bad book. And it doesn't make its author dishonest.

I tried reading Olive Kitteridge recently, which won the Pulitzer for fiction a few years back. From my perspective, a complete waste of time and paper. From the Pulitzer judges' view, great fiction. Go figure.

Anita


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> I like the ones that have 8 reviews 2 days after the thing is published, like a speed-reading group descended on the thing and knocked it out overnight.


FWIW, that doesn't always mean it's sock puppets. I had 5 reviews within a few days of my first book being published because I sent pre-release copies to book bloggers a couple of months before release. And they all knew the release date and agreed that they would blog their review on the release date. (And most of them put the review on Amazon as well.)

My second book just released on Amazon yesterday, and while it doesn't have any Amazon reviews yet, two bloggers emailed me the other day to say that their reviews will be on their blogs this week. So I expect that I'll see those reviews on Amazon soon, too. (I sent out ARCs of this book back in April.) Of course, I have no idea what the rating will be (good, I hope!), but just because the review will be there just two days after the date the book was published on Amazon doesn't mean it's a fake review.

But getting back to the topic at hand, if the book the OP is referring to really is that bad, eventually there will be scores of 1-star reviews complaining that they felt duped.


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

A simple search of the web reveals a number of sites offering fake reviews for sale for Amazon. They also offer negative reviews for those seen as 'competitors.'

Some of the more enthusiastic customers of those sites are even stupid enough to link to their products and books that have received 'good' reviews. 

The gaming of Amazon's review system is indeed big business.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Call me dense (which you, apparently, already have) but I don't get your point.
> 
> 1) The original poster gave no specifics about the problems that caused him/her to believe the reviews weren't posted by readers who believed the book was worthy of good reviews. Plenty of complaints, but no specifics. I had a reviewer complain about typos in my book, which was thoroughly copy-edited and proofed. Nobody else--not my former agent, several editors from top publishing houses (two of whom were interested in publishing it), a couple of developmental editors with whom I swap manuscripts occasionally--found typos. Not saying there aren't any. We can all miss stuff. But I don't immediately jump to conclusions based on one complaint and no specifics.
> 
> ...


The irony is this. You claimed the OP's case should be put down to her inability to distinguish between quality and taste because her case lacked specifics. Then you turn around and offer an equally vague assessment of someone's book and expect us to believe it-as if you're somehow exempt from providing specifics for _you're _ judgments. How does that work?

As for your lament about accusations against writers, you don't need evidence to accuse unnamed people of something unseemly because you can't "accuse" unnamed people of anything in the first place. If your problem is that you disagree with the criticisms of certain behaviours (what, paid reviews?), why not defend those behaviours instead of accusing people of levelling unsubstantiated accusations?

If it is paid reviews that you want to defend, no one is stopping you from starting a thread called In Defence of Paid Reviews. Of course, you shouldn't expect everyone to roll over and endorse the idea either.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The irony is this. You claimed the OP's case should be put down to her inability to distinguish between quality and taste because her case lacked specifics. Then you turn around and offer an equally vague assessment of someone's book and expect us to believe it-as if you're somehow exempt from providing specifics for _you're _ judgments. How does that work?
> 
> As for your lament about accusations against writers, you don't need evidence to accuse unnamed people of something unseemly because you can't "accuse" unnamed people of anything in the first place. If your problem is that you disagree with the criticisms of certain behaviours (what, paid reviews?), why not defend those behaviours instead of accusing people of levelling unsubstantiated accusations?
> 
> If it is paid reviews that you want to defend, no one is stopping you from starting a thread called In Defence of Paid Reviews. Of course, you shouldn't expect everyone to roll over and endorse the idea either.


Then there's no irony, because you misunderstood my posts. Both of them. I didn't say what you believe I said.

You're reading into what I wrote rather than simply reading.

[EDIT] Just to add that I'm completely floored that you could possibly read what I said and respond as you did. My whole point is that reader-reviews are subjective, not that one review is good or another is bad or my opinion counts more than yours (or vice-versa)

My point is that someone else's opinion is absolutely valid even when it disagrees with your opinion or my opinion, and every one, two, three, four or five-star review by a reader is earned (or should be assumed to be earned until proven otherwise), even if you don't agree with the review. People shouldn't assume that someone is "gaming the system" when they disagree with a review or numerous reviews.

If a book is truly unappealing to *any* segment of the ebook audience, that book will eventually garner negative reviews to indicate that. And a book that's selling 15 copies per day over a period of time is, by the law of averages, going to have more reviews posted eventually.

That's what I said. If that's not what you read, then my point is sort of made: different people read the same thing and see something entirely different from one another.

Anita


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> So, if there is a contract, it does not stem from the TOS, it is a contract rooted in the laws that Amazon must follow.


Contracts are enforced under existing law, and they must adhere to that law. However, the specific relationship between two parties acting under that law is defined by a contract.

For example, there is no law requiring Amazon to pay 35% or 70% royalties. That condition is created by the contract, and then enforced by laws. Another contract could specify 51% and 73%. The KDP agreement creates the relationship between the author and Amazon. Law then enforces that legal contract.

A court will look at the contract to determine the royalty rate I am owed. It will not find that rate in statute.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Then there's no irony, because you misunderstood my posts. Both of them. I didn't say what you believe I said.
> 
> You're reading into what I wrote rather than simply reading.
> 
> ...


You're still whacking a straw man with a red herring. The OP didn't _assume_-as you claim-that the reviews must be faked because she _disagreed _ with them. She said (1) that the quality of the books was too low to receive such glowing reviews, (2) that there were similarities between the books' PDs and the reviews, (3) that the praise for the books sounded contrived and (4) that most or all the reviewers had reviewed only those authors' books-all signs of chicanery.

You're disregarding 2-4 altogether, while claiming the OP came to the conclusion in 1 because she doesn't know the difference between the objective quality of a book and her own tastes. But where's the beef behind that claim? There isn't any. The fact that people's tastes in books differ doesn't prove that the OP can't tell the difference between matters of taste and matters of quality.

If you're going to come back at me with "It's all subjective! There's no difference between quality and taste!" save your breath. I don't buy it and neither do you.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

Jill James said:


> d*mn, I must be a Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses. When I see a book with a bunch of 4 and 5 stars and I can't imagine what they read that I missed I just assume I'm not their target audience, not that the fix was in.


This was my thought too.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

WHDean said:


> You're still whacking a straw man with a red herring. The OP didn't _assume_-as you claim-that the reviews must be faked because she _disagreed _ with them. She said (1) that the quality of the books was too low to receive such glowing reviews, (2) that there were similarities between the books' PDs and the reviews, (3) that the praise for the books sounded contrived and (4) that most or all the reviewers had reviewed only those authors' books-all signs of chicanery.
> 
> You're disregarding 2-4 altogether, while claiming the OP came to the conclusion in 1 because she doesn't know the difference between the objective quality of a book and her own tastes. But where's the beef behind that claim? There isn't any. The fact that people's tastes in books differ doesn't prove that the OP can't tell the difference between matters of taste and matters of quality.
> 
> If you're going to come back at me with "It's all subjective! There's no difference between quality and taste!" save your breath. I don't buy it and neither do you.


As I said before, where's the evidence? When another writer on this forum said that someone had paraphrased her text, she gave examples. It appeared that she was not only right that her book had been copied, but the copying appeared to rise to actionable copyright infringement. She complained to Amazon and, before a couple of us could post to tell her to check case law on substantial similarity, Amazon had removed the book.

That poster provided evidence. In this instance, I can sum up my unwillingness to assume anything with one phrase that should be familiar to all here: show, don't tell.

I didn't say that the original poster "can't tell the difference between matters of taste and matters of quality." I said, without evidence, I won't assume that the accusation of "gaming the system" is accurate.

As for the rest of your message, I don't understand what PD means here: "that there were similarities between the books' PDs and the reviews."

I have no way of assessing the validity of this statement: "that the praise for the books sounded contrived."

I often check to see what else people have reviewed when I read a review. Often, the answer is 0-2 other items. So, I fail to see how this as evidence of chicanery: "that most or all the reviewers had reviewed only those authors' books."

But if the original poster wants to send a private message, with a link to the book in question, I'll take a look, read the online sample, and see whether in my view, there appears to be evidence of "gaming the system."

Until then, nope. Not saying she's wrong. Not saying she's right. Just saying.

Anita


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> I tried reading Olive Kitteridge recently, which won the Pulitzer for fiction a few years back. From my perspective, a complete waste of time and paper. From the Pulitzer judges' view, great fiction. Go figure.


I thought that, as far as Literary (capital L) writing goes, Olive Kitteridge was decent. I've read much, much worse Literary Wonderfulness.

I read it over a year ago, and some of the short stories still stick with me.

As for the, uh, negativity on the boards ... uh ... if you keep your eyes open, you'll find some lemonade in here in between the p**ing matches.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> As for the, uh, negativity on the boards ... uh ... if you keep your eyes open, you'll find some lemonade in here in between the p**ing matches.


I'd stay out of it. this seems to be a duel between editors. Guess it's not just authors who go at it. Usually, i just figure the people who game the system gets theirs in the end and ignore it. it's a tempest in a tea cup. If you don't have alent, no amount of subterfuge will get you to the top.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

D a l y a said:


> As for the, uh, negativity on the boards ... uh ... if you keep your eyes open, you'll find some lemonade in here in between the p**ing matches.


And beach lovin' super singing smiley faces.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> As I said before, where's the evidence? ....I said, without evidence, I won't assume that the accusation of "gaming the system" is accurate.


You can't be serious. The OP asked what others thought she should do on the assumption that 1-4 were true. In other words, she presented a _hypothetical _ case against _hypothetical _ writers; ergo, empirical evidence of wrongdoing is irrelevant when no wrongdoing on behalf of any actual person is alleged. That raises the obvious question for your assertion: what possible grounds could you have for judging that the "accusation of 'gaming the system' is [not] accurate" when we're talking about a hypothetical case? You don't believe in hypothetical case, in principle?

Me: "What should I do if someone steals my identity Anita?"
Anita: "Until I see evidence that someone stole your identity, I'll assume it didn't happen."
Me: "Huh? I asked _what I should do_!"
Anita: "Where's the evidence?!"

Seriously, it's silly to be claiming that a hypothetical case didn't happen when, by definition, it doesn't matter if it happened.



> As for the rest of your message, I don't understand what PD means here: "that there were similarities between the books' PDs and the reviews."
> 
> I have no way of assessing the validity of this statement: "that the praise for the books sounded contrived."
> 
> ...


Yeah. What I meant is a real mystery.



> Until then, nope. Not saying she's wrong. Not saying she's right. Just saying.


Huh? You just said that you assume her hypothetical case didn't happen. If that's not saying she's wrong, I don't know what would be.

At any rate, it seems to me that you're intent on aspersing anyone who raises the possibility that some indie might be up to something unseemly, so much so that you'll tie yourself in knots by denying that even hypothetical cases of malfeasance happen in the indie world!


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

D a l y a said:


> I thought that, as far as Literary (capital L) writing goes, Olive Kitteridge was decent. I've read much, much worse Literary Wonderfulness.
> 
> I read it over a year ago, and some of the short stories still stick with me.
> 
> As for the, uh, negativity on the boards ... uh ... if you keep your eyes open, you'll find some lemonade in here in between the p**ing matches.


Re, Olive Kitteridge and other books, that's my point: none of us will have the same reaction to a book. I have an old _New Yorker_ cartoon pinned to the corkboard behind my desk. The scene is a cocktail party. One guy is introducing two others to each other. The caption reads:

"The editor who turned down the first Harry Potter book, say hello to the publisher who took a pass on Stephen King."

Given the wide range of reactions to books, I can't imagine how refusing to make negative assumptions about other authors' books without actually reading them (or even knowing which book we're discussing) could be a controversial position to take.

But I agree with you that there's value to be found here, which is why I keep coming back, despite feeling, on occasion, that I've walked in on the middle of an anger management session gone wrong.

I've learned more from these boards about how the Amazon system works than I could have otherwise, and am very grateful to those generous enough to share what they've discovered.

Anita


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> I think Twilight is the greatest waste of paper and pixels ever offered for sale, but I can at least make sense of it when I read it. (For the record, I didn't make it past chapter 10.) This one, though... I still can't work out what redeeming qualities it has.


Okay well that may be where the issue is then. I actually read all four of the Twilight books and loved them (bought them for my teenage daughter). I've seen great books speared with bad reviews and dog pile books given 5 stars... just depends on the readers point of view.

_fixed quotation. Betsy_


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

authormichellehughes said:


> Okay well that may be where the issue is then. I actually read all four of the Twilight books and loved them (bought them for my teenage daughter). I've seen great books speared with bad reviews and dog pile books given 5 stars... just depends on the readers point of view.


Guys, come on. Be fair. I'm not naming names - nor will I ever - and part of my business is being able to analyse a book's selling points. I am not approaching this as a reader looking at a book that isn't to their taste. I'm approaching it as a business professional faced with a defective product.

I have an instance where I suspect shenanigans. I describe as much as I can without getting into identifying detail. Here's what I asked, originally: "I thought this kind of thing was, shall we say, very heavily frowned upon. This author is getting their sales by trickery, *in my opinion*. It bothers me a lot and I'm not sure why.

*I'm curious as to how y'all feel about it*."

I'm not accusing anyone. I said straight up that this is my opinion and I wanted to know YOUR opinions on it. Most people here say it's a despicable practice to game the system to get ahead. So why the defensiveness? This ain't aimed at you personally. I don't know you from Adam.

Especially you, Anita. The way you're talking sounds a bit like you don't want to believe that an indie author can stoop this low. Seriously, people will do this. Don't be naive.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Claire Ryan said:


> Guys, come on. Be fair. I'm not naming names - nor will I ever - and part of my business is being able to analyse a book's selling points. I am not approaching this as a reader looking at a book that isn't to their taste. I'm approaching it as a business professional faced with a defective product.
> 
> I have an instance where I suspect shenanigans. I describe as much as I can without getting into identifying detail. Here's what I asked, originally: "I thought this kind of thing was, shall we say, very heavily frowned upon. This author is getting their sales by trickery, *in my opinion*. It bothers me a lot and I'm not sure why.
> 
> ...


This stuff does go on more than most people would like to admit. But it IS gratifying to see that if readers make enough noise that sites like Amazon will take action, even if it is delayed justice. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, a cheater can only get so far with his or her shenanigans. It's only a matter of time before word gets out about their deceptive practices and one star reviews start raining down like Zeus hurling thunderbolts.

One of the bizarre things I don't get about these unscrupulous authors is that they never seem to understand that everything they do on the internet is available for the world to see. I know you won't out the author who you suspect may be involved with this shady practice. But sometimes the best disinfectant for this kind of behavior is to expose the abusers of the system. Case in point, Mr. Robert Stanek. I mentioned earlier in this thread that last week Amazon deleted all several hundred of his fake reviews. But his fingerprints are still all over his Goodreads pages such as this book where he hides the profile of the reviewers giving his book 5 stars ratings to attempt to keep readers from knowing that they are fake accounts created by him (and the few that aren't hidden still show a bias toward his books). But readers aren't stupid (as all those angry one-star reviews will show). Sock puppet reviews can and DO sell lots of books for the cheaters. But it also creates an army of angry readers whose public outcry will eventually kill their sales.

As I said, I understand why you don't want to out the author. But since you are doing research on this, I thought I'd point you to the behavior of Stanek, since what he has been doing over the last decade is far from a guarded secret. You want to know how far an author would go to prop up his or her books? The conversation starts (and probably ends) with Stanek.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Stepping in here....

I appreciate that Claire is not getting specific and is not naming names or even providing enough information that diligent searches (and I know how good y'all are) can turn up the suspect. A general discussion of an issue is appropriate here on KindleBoards.  Naming names based on suspicions, even well-educated ones, is not.  

Thanks, Claire.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Guys, come on. Be fair. I'm not naming names - nor will I ever - and part of my business is being able to analyse a book's selling points. I am not approaching this as a reader looking at a book that isn't to their taste. I'm approaching it as a business professional faced with a defective product.
> 
> I have an instance where I suspect shenanigans. I describe as much as I can without getting into identifying detail. Here's what I asked, originally: "I thought this kind of thing was, shall we say, very heavily frowned upon. This author is getting their sales by trickery, *in my opinion*. It bothers me a lot and I'm not sure why.
> 
> ...


You've asked for opinions, but complain when you get some that don't agree with yours--yet you're the only one with sufficient information to form an opinion about this particular book.

*To repeat what you said to me, I don't know YOU from Adam. *

You're just some stranger who seems upset that I don't embrace your view of something I can't see and know nothing about beyond your opinion. No, I'm neither taking this personally nor being defensive. I'm skeptical. There's a difference.

There was an author who wrote an ebook about gaming the system. I believe he said he used numerous credit cards to purchase his own book in order to get it to rise in the ranks. So, of course, bad behavior occurs, and this fellow gave evidence of what he did.

How about you?

I've asked before, but perhaps you missed it so I'll ask again: send me a private message with the details--title, link, reviews you have doubts about. If you prefer, you can go to my website to send an email with a link to the book in question. With the evidence in hand, I'll post what I think of this particular situation, without going into the kinds of details our moderator has said to avoid.

In the meantime, you can post your own review of the book, warning other readers away from it -- unless the book is in the same category as yours, in which case, Amazon will prohibit it.

Anita


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> I've asked before, but perhaps you missed it so I'll ask again: send me a private message with the details--title, link, reviews you have doubts about. If you prefer, you can go to my website to send an email with a link to the book in question. With the evidence in hand, I'll post what I think of this particular situation, without going into the kinds of details our moderator has said to avoid.


Hmmm, is someone applying for the position of Sith Apprentice? Normally I'm the one folks sic on people to get to the bottom of something lol


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I'm not accusing anyone. I said straight up that this is my opinion and I wanted to know YOUR opinions on it. Most people here say it's a despicable practice to game the system to get ahead. So why the defensiveness? This ain't aimed at you personally. I don't know you from Adam.


I have no opinion because you haven't provided sufficient detail to form an opinion.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

If positive reviews are all it takes to sell a lot of books, then mine should be doing much better than it is. An average of 4.7 from 23 reviews, including editorial ones, should do the trick, but any indie author knows that the key is really marketing, marketing, marketing. Unless people know about your book — and reviews are only helpful once they find your Amazon page — it won't sell. The author who irks you must have a way to build all-important buzz also.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Given the wide range of reactions to books, I can't imagine how refusing to make negative assumptions about other authors' books without actually reading them (or even knowing which book we're discussing) could be a controversial position to take.


Puh-lease! It's not controversial-or rather, contentious-to disbelieve that someone, somewhere could be gaming Amazon's system? I find _that _ hard to believe. Do you also disbelieve that some people steal? That some people cheat on their taxes? Didn't think so. It seems that you only disbelieve that an indie could be engaged in shenanigans. But where's the basis for your belief that indies-unlike all other human beings everywhere and at all times-are incapable of wrongdoing? There's a word for that and it's not _naive_...


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Puh-lease! It's not controversial-or rather, contentious-to disbelieve that someone, somewhere could be gaming Amazon's system? I find _that _ hard to believe. Do you also disbelieve that some people steal? That some people cheat on their taxes? Didn't think so. It seems that you only disbelieve that an indie could be engaged in shenanigans. But where's the basis for your belief that indies-unlike all other human beings everywhere and at all times-are incapable of wrongdoing? There's a word for that and it's not _naive_...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> You've asked for opinions, but complain when you get some that don't agree with yours--yet you're the only one with sufficient information to form an opinion about this particular book.
> 
> *To repeat what you said to me, I don't know YOU from Adam. *
> 
> ...


Anita, I'm not asking anyone to judge this one instance where I have suspicions. And there is no way in all the hells I'm pointing fingers, not even in private emails. I'm not stupid enough to start that kind of fight. I'm asking for opinions on the practice in general. You don't need to know me to give your own opinion on it.

Look, you've got this backwards. I've straight up said that my opinion on this instance, the one that only I know about because I'm not naming names, is that the author is scamming the system. I'm not asking for opinions on that because I'm not bloody well giving you guys enough information to judge - of course you can't determine whether this author is legit or not, and of course you can be skeptical about it. But again, that's not the question - I asked for opinions in general on this practice, and they're overwhelmingly negative because of guys like Robert Stanek etc etc.

I'm not complaining because you don't agree with me. I'm not complaining at all. I'm just pointing out that you're answering the wrong question and it's making you look like you condone this kind of behaviour.

You want to judge this author for yourself? Too bad. I'm not going there. You're not getting any more details on this instance and it's irresponsible of you to keep asking when I've already said, several times, I'm not saying anything for good and obvious reasons. I'm not asking anyone to agree with my personal opinion of a random author, and I'm not willing to possibly ruin both my reputation and a complete stranger's reputation just to satisfy your sense of justice.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm getting dizzy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I'm asking for opinions on the practice in general. You don't need to know me to give your own opinion on it.


OK. I don't care.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. I don't care.


Thank you, Terrence, for your concise input.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


You should look up red herring. After that, explain why we should automatically assume that a person who raises a hypothetical case of indie malfeasance is mistaken or making it up. Because it never happens? The fact that some people mistake taste for quality doesn't mean the OP did, and you offered absolutely no reason to think that she did mistake the two. You just decided to assume she didn't know the difference until she proved that she did to you--as if such a demand wasn't completely unreasonable.

Look, you could've gone about this in two ways. You could've been sincere from the start and said that it's rare in your experience and that you wished people didn't raise the issue because it tarnishes indies. I would've made no reply to this because most people-indie or not-aren't up to bad things. But no. You decided to asperse the OP, claiming that without the particulars of the case we should all assume it didn't happen, because she likely didn't know what she was talking about.

In short, instead of urging people not to talk about such things, you attacked the credibility of the person talking about it. That's unreasonable and unfair, which is why I think you're dissimulating (look that one up too): I think you know as well as everyone else that it happens, you're just playing the naïf because your real intention is to get her and everyone else to shut up about it.

Not to worry, though, you'll get your way. The OP and everyone who read this thread will know that you or someone else will attack their credibility if they raise this issue again. Congratulations.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I'm getting dizzy


Yeah, me too. I thought the original question/set-up was pretty straightforward, but now I gather it's more something like this:

_I'm annoyed that a store I won't name claimed it was discounting clothes because I have my suspicions that they jacked up the list price before cutting it. I won't give you enough details to identify the store, the clothes, or the prices, but want your opinion:

Does this dress make me look fat?_


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

All human life is here


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

Hmmm


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2012)

Let's go back to the original question. Is there a reason authors in general should care if others are gaming the system. I would say the answer is yes. The reason for this is that there is a large portion of the Amazon consumer base that places enormous value on reviews (or rather, enormous value on star ratings). Amazon knows this. This is why they have the damn star rating in the first place. Part of the demographic that shops on Amazon IS swayed by review ratings. Any action that can cause the star rating to lose its worth should be of concern to authors who are dependent on Amazon for their sales. Because if the consumer base adopts the belief that all indie reviews are suspect, those reviews will no longer help sell books. It will only push buyers toward trad books, which they can "trust."

Keep in mind that we are talking about perception, not reality. We KNOW some trad authors also game the system. But the general bookbuying public has far less personal interaction with trad authors than they do indies. So they are less likely to actually see the behavior first hand. 

Now that said, you cannot control the actions of other people (without mind control anyway). You can only control your response to their actions. So now the question becomes "What is the appropriate response?"

1. Make sure your own house is clean. Don't create sock puppets. Don't try to scam the system. Don't engage in quid pro quo behavior or adopt an "everybody else is doing it" mentality. Be the standard-bearer of the type of behavior you want others to adopt.

2. Acknowledge the bad behavior. Don't bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen. When consumers bring up the subject, say "Yes, it does happen. Just like it unfortunately happens in every other industry." Acknowledge the concern. Some indies worry that admiting that it happens only reinforces the belief that we are all guilty. On the contrary, it stops the marginalization of concerned readers and allows them to trust you. You want readers to walk away saying "Here is an author who 'gets it' and recognizes the problem." not "Here's another apologist making excuses."

3. Focus on the individual behavior, not blanket generalizations. If Jane Doe and John Smith get caught swapping positive reviews, admonish Jane Doe and John Smith. Don't get into a "Oh, well, you know all the trads are always swapping book blurbs and how is what they did any different?" Because as soon as you do THAT, you make it an indies versus trad issue instead of an isolated incident of bad behavior.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Yeah, me too. I thought the original question/set-up was pretty straightforward, but now I gather it's more something like this:
> 
> _I'm annoyed that a store I won't name claimed it was discounting clothes because I have my suspicions that they jacked up the list price before cutting it. I won't give you enough details to identify the store, the clothes, or the prices, but want your opinion:
> 
> Does this dress make me look fat?_


Okay seriously, you're not even going to reply to me? If this analogy were in any way correct, then why the hell do you care enough to berate me for not being objective?

For the record, here's what I said on page one of this thread:



> I know some authors game the reviews. I assumed it was a very tiny number out of the whole.
> 
> I have been watching one particular author. (Not naming names. You probably don't know them.) Their work is abysmal, unreadable, by any standard you care to name, to the point where I question if English is their native language.
> 
> ...





> I don't want to get banned, and I'm not risking pointing fingers at anyone unless I'm absolutely sure I'm right. I'm not going into details. Let's just say I think someone has figured out a very clever way of gaming the Amazon system on reviews - and I might be wrong, because the only way I'll know I'm right is if I do hours of statistical analysis.
> 
> So I don't know, really. It just bothers me. I can't switch off my sense of fairness. I guess let's talk about it a bit, share war stories if you've got them.


I said I could be wrong. I said it was just my opinion._ I said this several bloody times._ I've tried to be reasonable and understanding. Most of this thread is talking about the problem in general or offtopic stuff. You brought a fight where I didn't ask for one, and now the best you've got is snide analogies?

Please.


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> I've been watching this guy closely for years. He's the dirtiest author in the book. After his attempts to smear the names of his competition (including Patrick Rothfuss and some members of this board) with a slew of drive-by one star reviews and fake customer discussions, I have no shame in outing him. Everyone already knows who he is anyway (and if you don't just Google "Robert Stanek fake reviews" and get ready to laugh your butt off).
> 
> What happened was a long time in the making and Amazon gave him enough rope to hang himself. They would delete hundreds of his reviews at a single time. Then he'd create more sock puppet accounts and post hundreds more in response. It really is comical. Or at least it would be, if it wasn't so pathetic. But I think your previous post sums up what he must be feeling right now.


LOL, I just saw a blog about this guy. He photo-shopped himself sitting next to a well-known author but forgot to include his legs beneath the table


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Okay seriously, you're not even going to reply to me? If this analogy were in any way correct, then why the hell do you care enough to berate me for not being objective?


I'm not berating you. I'm telling you that I thought you were asking opinions about the actions of one particular author engaged in some sort of practice that you deemed suspicious. I asked for specifics and you didn't give them. I said that, without specifics, I would not assume bad behavior on the part of the author you singled out. And I found it annoying that you appeared to be asking for support in condemning some unidentified author for behavior that might or might not have been what you thought it was.

And yeah, now I'm laughing about the whole thing. If I were to present a scenario where, say, I thought someone was plagiarizing, and I asked for opinions about it, that's what I'd be asking about--whether the person appeared to be plagiarizing, not about whether plagiarism is wrong. Or whether bank robbery is. Or sex with monkeys.

I'd say a large enough percentage of the people who responded took your meaning as I did that you ought to acknowledge that you weren't clear.

And, for the record, no -- that dress doesn't make you look fat.

Next question.

Anita


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> LOL, I just saw a blog about this guy. He photo-shopped himself sitting next to a well-known author but forgot to include his legs beneath the table


That's hilarious. You wouldn't happen to have a link, would you? Would love to share this with some friends on another listserv.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> I'm not berating you. I'm telling you that I thought you were asking opinions about the actions of one particular author engaged in some sort of practice that you deemed suspicious. I asked for specifics and you didn't give them. I said that, without specifics, I would not assume bad behavior on the part of the author you singled out. And I found it annoying that you appeared to be asking for support in condemning some unidentified author for behavior that might or might not have been what you thought it was.
> 
> And yeah, now I'm laughing about the whole thing. If I were to present a scenario where, say, I thought someone was plagiarizing, and I asked for opinions about it, that's what I'd be asking about--whether the person appeared to be plagiarizing, not about whether plagiarism is wrong. Or whether bank robbery is. Or sex with monkeys.
> 
> ...


Riiiight. Again, most of the thread was talking about the problem in general. Practically no one else thought I was singling out this author.

You kept asking for specifics when I said, _several times_, I wasn't going to give them because I wasn't willing to point fingers without being absolutely sure. I was careful to protect this author, even though I think they're being shady - and even the bloody moderator highlighted that. And, again, I kept saying I could be wrong.

I think everyone here can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Riiiight. Again, most of the thread was talking about the problem in general. Practically no one else thought I was singling out this author.
> 
> You kept asking for specifics when I said, _several times_, I wasn't going to give them because I wasn't willing to point fingers without being absolutely sure. I was careful to protect this author, even though I think they're being shady - and even the bloody moderator highlighted that. And, again, I kept saying I could be wrong.
> 
> I think everyone here can draw their own conclusions.


Seriously. You look great in that dress. Red is your color. (Or is that shade just splashed onto the fabric from that dead horse you're beating?)


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> That's hilarious. You wouldn't happen to have a link, would you? Would love to share this with some friends on another listserv.


 

http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2009/06/pathetic.html


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2009/06/pathetic.html


Love it!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2009/06/pathetic.html


What a complete clown. What is the argument here? Clowns like Stanek scam the reviews everyday and stink. Think he's alone? Amazon KDP is loaded with people with no scruples. Seen plenty of them.

Julie's post has it about right.


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> What a complete clown. What is the argument here? Clowns like Stanek scam the reviews everyday and stink. Think he's alone? Amazon KDP is loaded with people with no scruples. Seen plenty of them.


Can you elaborate as to how it relates to Amazon KDP?


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Seriously. You look great in that dress. Red is your color. (Or is that shade just splashed onto the fabric from that dead horse you're beating?)


More snide analogies? Alright then.

Back on topic - quoting Julie here for good input.



> Let's go back to the original question. Is there a reason authors in general should care if others are gaming the system. I would say the answer is yes. The reason for this is that there is a large portion of the Amazon consumer base that places enormous value on reviews (or rather, enormous value on star ratings). Amazon knows this. This is why they have the d*mn star rating in the first place. Part of the demographic that shops on Amazon IS swayed by review ratings. Any action that can cause the star rating to lose its worth should be of concern to authors who are dependent on Amazon for their sales. Because if the consumer base adopts the belief that all indie reviews are suspect, those reviews will no longer help sell books. It will only push buyers toward trad books, which they can "trust."
> 
> Keep in mind that we are talking about perception, not reality. We KNOW some trad authors also game the system. But the general bookbuying public has far less personal interaction with trad authors than they do indies. So they are less likely to actually see the behavior first hand.
> 
> ...


I still expect that Amazon will implement some kind of algorithm of relevance or authority in the review system if this gets out of hand. It'll probably devolve into the current cat and mouse game going on with between Google and the SEO experts, but at a smaller scale.

The problem with it is that, as Jack says above, the system is loaded with people who have no scruples. Up to a point, not even community censure will stop them if they're not a part of the community, so our response to them will likely have no effect. We could keep our own noses squeaky clean, but Amazon could still be faced with a major issue, and there ain't that many methods to solving it.

I suppose a good question to ask would be what an automated system would look like, if they were to implement one?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> Can you elaborate as to how it relates to Amazon KDP?


He makes all indie or self published authors look bad.

http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/gaming-the-amazon-system/

@ Claire, It's not just these clowns like Stanek that have been discovered, it's the one's that are unknown. I know that Wall St and the banks are all wonderful people, but you think any gaming might be going on there?


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

I gotcha.  I misunderstood your orginal comment


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> I gotcha. I misunderstood your orginal comment


Yeah, klutz's like him make it more difficult for legitimate authors on KDP. Readers will paint all with he same broad brush. So all authors get hurt by this ilk.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Jeff Menapace said:


> Can you elaborate as to how it relates to Amazon KDP?


Stanek has a history of going to the pages of authors (primarily indie) and starting fake discussions to smear their books. He uses his 600 or so fake accounts to have a fake conversation about how awful the author's book is. He did this a couple years back to Patrick Rothfuss and got caught because every one of the customers ripping Rothfuss book's either reviewed, tagged, or created a listmania list for Stanek's books (and only for his books!) Others got hit with the same drive by discussions and reviews. Sadly, most of those discussions and reviews are still up and possibly doing unintended damage to those poor authors.

Stanek is not the only one doing this. I could list several authors who are into the same shennanigans. But taking a cue from the OP, it's really best I don't do so in this thread.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> That's hilarious.


Almost as hilarious as him creating his own forum where everyday he pretends to be his own fans bragging about his work. He does the same thing on Amazon in the discussion threads he creates for his books. If only Stanek spent as much time with his writing as he does shilling his books...


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

jackz4000 said:


> He makes all indie or self published authors look bad.
> 
> http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/gaming-the-amazon-system/
> 
> @ Claire, It's not just these clowns like Stanek that have been discovered, it's the one's that are unknown. I know that Wall St and the banks are all wonderful people, but you think any gaming might be going on there?


No comment, I'm not an economist.  That's an incredibly good article, thanks.

@Kevin And here's the rub - the shady will attack the legit if it means boosting their sales. The more we know about how it works, the easier it is to develop some kind of countermeasure.

(And thanks for not mentioning anyone. It's much better for all concerned if you don't.)


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Almost as hilarious as him creating his own forum where everyday he pretends to be his own fans bragging about his work. He does the same thing on Amazon in the discussion threads he creates for his books. If only Stanek spent as much time with his writing as he does shilling his books...


I read a few of Stanek's paragraphs. Sloppy ugly stuff. Kids in grammar school write much better. Ranks with some of the worst I've ever read and he calls himself the American Tolkien etc.


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Stanek has a history of going to the pages of authors (primarily indie) and starting fake discussions to smear their books. He uses his 600 or so fake accounts to have a fake conversation about how awful the author's book is. He did this a couple years back to Patrick Rothfuss and got caught because every one of the customers ripping Rothfuss book's either reviewed, tagged, or created a listmania list for Stanek's books (and only for his books!) Others got hit with the same drive by discussions and reviews. Sadly, most of those discussions and reviews are still up and possibly doing unintended damage to those poor authors.
> 
> Stanek is not the only one doing this. I could list several authors who are into the same shennanigans. But taking a cue from the OP, it's really best I don't do so in this thread.


Geez, what a douche. Let's hope karma head butts his face.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> Geez, what a douche. Let's hope karma head butts his face.


I'd never heard of Stanek before, but the whole story is a hoot, and pretty remarkable in a train wreck kind of way (although, of course, I wouldn't want to be in his sights). Googled and found a bunch of stuff about the guy including what appears to be him defending himself using various screen names:
http://www.amazon.com/stanek-is-a-fraud/forum/Fx2P7DWR5OTK2HC/TxTYNSE81V0A4X/1?asin=1575450259

I see this as pathological behavior, and can't imagine how it could possibly do him any good, unless he's deluded himself into believing his alter egos are real people.

And Amazon could easily shut him down. Just limit the ability to post reviews to those who have actually purchased from Amazon. Needn't be the exact item one is reviewing because I've read some very helpful reviews by people who've said they bought elsewhere but posted their opinions to Amazon (for example, on some LED lights I just bought). But making sure that a real person with a real credit card in their real name is reviewing/commenting? How difficult can that be?

Anita


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> But making sure that a real person with a real credit card in their real name is reviewing/commenting? How difficult can that be?


Isn't that already a requirement to leave a review? Been a long time since I set up new account, though. Yeah, that's the ticket. *hastily shoves sock drawer closed*

To the original question--I think it's almost universally agreed that fake reviews are unethical and wrong. Still, they seem to be fairly common (if not as common as people frequently suspect), and easy enough to spot when a book's got more than two or three of them.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> And Amazon could easily shut him down. Just limit the ability to post reviews to those who have actually purchased from Amazon. Needn't be the exact item one is reviewing because I've read some very helpful reviews by people who've said they bought elsewhere but posted their opinions to Amazon (for example, on some LED lights I just bought). But making sure that a real person with a real credit card in their real name is reviewing/commenting? How difficult can that be?
> 
> Anita


Hm. That's the cbvious solution - only verified - but I get the feeling that Amazon don't do that because, in a very broad way, more reviews = more sales.

I think a system of weighting would be better. So people could leave unverified reviews, but those reviews would have less clout than verified ones - and they would need more upvotes to rise to the top.

In theory, that would produce a system whereby it takes much less for a verified review to be marked as the most helpful. You could also add in a few more tricks like recording the computer's IP address and length of time recorded between reviews to cut down on spamming.

Another option would be to test reviews for duplication, so that reviews that say 90% the same thing would receive less clout than reviews that are longer and more detailed.

None of this is new, of course. Google's been battling for relevant, unique content for years. It wouldn't take much to add a series of hidden factors to judge which reviews rise to the top and which don't. You're largely applying the same rules.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Isn't that already a requirement to leave a review? Been a long time since I set up new account, though. Yeah, that's the ticket. *hastily shoves sock drawer closed*
> 
> To the original question--I think it's almost universally agreed that fake reviews are unethical and wrong. Still, they seem to be fairly common (if not as common as people frequently suspect), and easy enough to spot when a book's got more than two or three of them.


I don't believe it is a requirement, not if you look at that thread. There are several "people" of both genders using similar language to defend Stanek--all calling him "Mr. Stanek" for example and extolling his talents. Those same "people" were probably the ones posting the reviews that have since disappeared from his books.

If each of those "people" needed an account with a credit card in his/her name to comment or review, none of this would be possible, would it?

Anita


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> I don't believe it is a requirement, not if you look at that thread. There are several "people" of both genders using similar language to defend Stanek--all calling him "Mr. Stanek" for example and extolling his talents. Those same "people" were probably the ones posting the reviews that have since disappeared from his books.
> 
> If each of those "people" needed an account with a credit card in his/her name to comment or review, none of this would be possible, would it?
> 
> Anita


Not true. The system you proposed, as Edward says, is in place. You can have as many Amazon accounts as you want so long as you have a different email address for each one. That's how Stanek has so many accounts. It doesn't require much work to create a new email address since you can get one (or multiples of them) for free at basically any email service provider. On top of that, you aren't required to use your real name which makes it even easier to hide behind a fake identity. Amazon allows you to add as few or many credit cards to each account as you like. You can even reuse the same ones. All you have to do is to make a single purchase of anything from Amazon to gain the ability to leave a review (even a .01 ebook will do the trick). Note: You don't have to purchase anything to post in the discussion forums. Hence, the stage is set for unscrupulous authors to create potentially a legion of sock puppets at the disposal.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Hm. That's the cbvious solution - only verified - but I get the feeling that Amazon don't do that because, in a very broad way, more reviews = more sales.
> 
> I think a system of weighting would be better. So people could leave unverified reviews, but those reviews would have less clout than verified ones - and they would need more upvotes to rise to the top.
> 
> ...


Amazon could implement many ways to end the sockpuppets and it would be easy. It's just not their main focus to qualify reviews when they want to sell books.

I think for the most part they wait for customers to ferret out the sockpuppets. If they got a lot of customer complaints they would fix the problem fast.

Some are so flagrant you can't believe they don't catch it? With Stanek they took down all his reviews, last I heard. But some authors he 1 starred are still there.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Not true. The system you proposed, as Edward says, is in place. You can have as many Amazon accounts as you want so long as you have a different email address for each one. That's how Stanek has so many accounts. It doesn't require much work to create a new email address since you can get one (or multiples of them) for free at basically any email service provider. On top of that, you aren't required to use your real name which makes it even easier to hide behind a fake identity. Amazon allows you to add as few or many credit cards to each account as you like. You can even reuse the same ones. All you have to do is to make a single purchase of anything from Amazon to gain the ability to leave a review (even a .01 ebook will do the trick). Note: You don't have to purchase anything to post in the discussion forums. Hence, the stage is set for unscrupulous authors to create potentially a legion of sock puppets at the disposal.


Interesting. I had no idea, but it explains something that happened to me, several months back.

It's apparent that Amazon could solve this in a heartbeat. I don't care about Stanek or anyone else giving themselves glowing reviews, fake awards, or anything else. Eventually, those will be countered by reviews by people who've actually read the book. I don't buy anything that doesn't have a good many reviews, book or otherwise, and for books, I read the sample before spending even 99 cents on an unknown author.

I suspect that's true of most of us.

But Amazon has an obligation to its other authors to keep them safe from retaliatory reviews. If it can do that simply by allowing only one user name to a credit card/account, and it doesn't, that's a serious failing.

Anita


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

jackz4000 said:


> Amazon could implement many ways to end the sockpuppets and it would be easy. It's just not their main focus to qualify reviews when they want to sell books.
> 
> I think for the most part they wait for customers to ferret out the sockpuppets. If they got a lot of customer complaints they would fix the problem fast.
> 
> Some are so flagrant you can't believe they don't catch it? With Stanek they took down all his reviews, last I heard. But some authors he 1 starred are still there.


Good point that. Unless this gets to be a big problem, it's likely there won't be anything done unless a lot of people start shouting. As long as more reviews = more sales and it's not heavily eroding customer trust, they've no incentive to do much other than respond when someone complains.

Stanek is one hell of a blatant case, though, and he made multiple mistakes. He got caught because he was very stupid. What can do you against the ones who know what they're doing...

@Anita - it's all about the sales, unfortunately. Yeah, Amazon could do that, but if it'll cut down on sales because of lack of convenience, they ain't going there.

Think about it this way - it's a colossal pain in the ass to ensure no duplicates. You have to tie the info to something. So if you assign one CC to an account and no dupes allowed, then what happens to accounts that pay by other methods? What about prepaid cards or debit cards? What about parents who want to buy for their kid's Kindle? Unless everyone has their own credit card to use, this isn't going to fly. But email addresses are unique and everyone needs to have one to get notifications and stuff, so it's not unreasonable to require an email address and ensure no duplicates based on that. Which is what they do now.

Anything above this could conceivably affect sales in some way, so I'm not surprised that they let people do whatever.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Claire Ryan said:


> Think about it this way - it's a colossal pain in the *ss to ensure no duplicates. You have to tie the info to something. So if you assign one CC to an account and no dupes allowed, then what happens to accounts that pay by other methods? What about prepaid cards or debit cards? What about parents who want to buy for their kid's Kindle? Unless everyone has their own credit card to use, this isn't going to fly. But email addresses are unique and everyone needs to have one to get notifications and stuff, so it's not unreasonable to require an email address and ensure no duplicates based on that. Which is what they do now.


I think it's a difficult question with no easy answer.

It would be a pain in the butt for me to have only one credit card assigned to my account; my husband's card is also linked to my account. When he wants to buy something, I order it for him using my account, as he's a total Luddite.  As for emails, I have about 6 email addresses that I use on a regular basis; they all come into the same inbox, so it's transparent for me. I do it for a variety of reasons; the ability to have a professional one for my quilting business, one that I can leave on websites and abandon if it starts getting spammed too much, one for my friends, my husband's email address, etc. So I could easily, if I wanted to, have multiple accounts even if a unique email address is required. It's pretty simple, really.

There will always be people willing to work very hard to game the system. It happens here, too.....

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I suggest two review paths. One is a written review, but it does not carry any star score. The reviewer would have to express his ideas without using stars. This isn't unusual or difficult. Star scores are a recent phenomenon. I don't see any star scores in professional journals. It seems to work out. Anyone with an Amazon account could leave this kind of review.

The second path is simply a star score. Just click on a button next to the number of stars. This would be open to verified purchasers only. Purchase means free downloaders don't get to participate. But they are free to write a review as outlined above.

So the written reviews allow thoughtful exposition by anyone, while the star scores allow any purchasers to rate the book regardless of her skill at writing.

[An interesting option would be to weight star scores by using the same algorithm used to develop sales rank. Just enter star score and date rather than sale and date.]


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So the written reviews allow thoughtful exposition by anyone, while the star scores allow any purchasers to rate the book regardless of her skill at writing.


You've read some of my reviews, haven't you, Terrence. 

Betsy


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I'd like to thank Betsy and the other mods for not locking this thread when names were named, because this sort of thing affects all of us authors and we need to be aware.  Kindleboards is an awesome, friendly place where authors help authors, and part of that is to warn each other of the bad things that happen, even if it happens on other websites.  When I see a thread like this die under lockdown, I always feel like it's a victory for the bad guys.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Actually, it's because names were not named, except for a past case, well established, that this thread was allowed to stay open.

Betsy


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I suggest two review paths. One is a written review, but it does not carry any star score. The reviewer would have to express his ideas without using stars. This isn't unusual or difficult. Star scores are a recent phenomenon. I don't see any star scores in professional journals. It seems to work out. Anyone with an Amazon account could leave this kind of review.
> 
> The second path is simply a star score. Just click on a button next to the number of stars. This would be open to verified purchasers only. Purchase means free downloaders don't get to participate. But they are free to write a review as outlined above.
> 
> ...


I actually like this idea. So you could still have reviews, and people could still vote them up or down, but the actual upfront star score is from verified purchases only.

This would go a long way towards stopping the gaming. It would cost money for authors to buy enough copies to leave reviews and boost the star rating, while still allowing all reviews to stay intact as is and be rated as normal. Best of worth worlds.

This some good thinking Terence, and I wish I could upvote it here


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

You know what Kevis? I'm glad you put this information out there. I had no idea who this author was until I read some of the links in this thread. Un-frickin-believable.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Victoria J said:


> You know what Kevis? I'm glad you put this information out there. I had no idea who this author was until I read some of the links in this thread. Un-frickin-believable.


Yeah. That guy's a black eye for the rest of us who try to play by the rules.


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

One thing I would like to see is for KDP Select titles to require a purchase for reviews. When it's Amazon exclusive there is nowhere else to buy it. There are a couple of logistical snags namely 'previously non Select, now select' isues whereby some users might have picked it up elsewhere before it went Select (and thus would not be able to review). Of course those customers can leave their views wherever they did buy the book.

The other issue is book blog reviews whereby review copies were sent out - the KDP Select 'You should gift a copy to reviewers' rule would suddenly gain in importance, and that could get expensive for authors when the return rate of reviews per copy sent rarely approaches 100%.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

90daysnovel said:


> One thing I would like to see is for KDP Select titles to require a purchase for reviews.


This wouldn't stop anything. 99 cent book plus "gifting" to 20 free gmail or yahoo accounts=20 "verified" purchases. Gifted copies or copies purchased with gift cards show up as verified purchases. Most of the really bad hacks already do this. They drop the price to 99 cents, buy a bunch of copies under different usernames, and leave reviews for themselves.

I also don't like the idea of Amazon forcing me to pay them to give a reviewer a review copy. I often send out review copies in PDF format (because a lot of my customers still prefer PDF because they don't own dedicated ereaders). Using Amazon forces me to send the review copy in a format the reviewer doesn't want. I can also send free copies (without paying for them) using coupon codes at Drivethrufiction.com. The coupon code can only be used to download the book. It can't be used as credit to buy something else. And I have visibility when the coupon is used so that I know the reviewer downloaded it.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

Just because an author has great reviews doesn't guarantee buys. I know authors with awful reviews who still get tons of sales, I mean a lot. I know authors with great reviews who sale minimally. Reviews don't really guarantee anything, it just adds flavor to the pot.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

Katie Salidas said:


> I have to agree here. If the books are _that _ bad then the negative reviews will follow. There is just no way they can buy enough good reviews to really cover the work. People love complaining about bad books, so have no fear, things even out in time.


Yes, people love complaining more than complimenting, so negatives are always easier to be found.


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This wouldn't stop anything. 99 cent book plus "gifting" to 20 free gmail or yahoo accounts=20 "verified" purchases. Gifted copies or copies purchased with gift cards show up as verified purchases. Most of the really bad hacks already do this. They drop the price to 99 cents, buy a bunch of copies under different usernames, and leave reviews for themselves.
> 
> I also don't like the idea of Amazon forcing me to pay them to give a reviewer a review copy. I often send out review copies in PDF format (because a lot of my customers still prefer PDF because they don't own dedicated ereaders). Using Amazon forces me to send the review copy in a format the reviewer doesn't want. I can also send free copies (without paying for them) using coupon codes at Drivethrufiction.com. The coupon code can only be used to download the book. It can't be used as credit to buy something else. And I have visibility when the coupon is used so that I know the reviewer downloaded it.


On the first point, surely if they are gifting to themselves it's going to be dead obvious, and really easy to track for Amazon?

On the second point, Amazon already contractually oblige KDP Select authors to gift titles to reviewers. It might not be done, nor acted upon but it is in their terms and conditions. Gifting copies through drivehtrufiction etc for Select titles would be a minor breach of the exclusivity term. Of course, Amazon should implement a review token system a la smashwords anyway, but the current state of play is authors are supposed to gift copies to reviewers if they are in Select.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

90daysnovel said:


> On the first point, surely if they are gifting to themselves it's going to be dead obvious, and really easy to track for Amazon?
> 
> On the second point, Amazon already contractually oblige KDP Select authors to gift titles to reviewers. It might not be done, nor acted upon but it is in their terms and conditions. Gifting copies through drivehtrufiction etc for Select titles would be a minor breach of the exclusivity term. Of course, Amazon should implement a review token system a la smashwords anyway, but the current state of play is authors are supposed to gift copies to reviewers if they are in Select.


On the first point, unless Amazon is going to specifically start hunting down people and asking for proof of identity, then it isn't as easy as you think. Millions of people use free email accounts. Many people have multiple email accounts that they use for different things. What is Amazon going to do, force people to scan a copy of their driver's license to prove who they are before they can post a review? Amazon isn't going to do anything to discourage people from posting reviews.

And the majority of authors are not in Select, so I'm not sure what the point is here. I'm not talking about Select. I was responding specifically to the idea that Amazon would attempt to require all authors to gift books through them in order to deliver them to reviewers.


----------



## 90daysnovel (Apr 30, 2012)

True, they can't track buyers but it's easy enough to spot outliers if one feeder account is sending credit to brand new accounts which then buy one authors book, and only that authors book. One or two wouldn't be incriminating but if someone went down the route of 20 as you suggest then it should be fairly easy to spot.

"I'm not talking about Select"
I was. I did preface my earlier point with 'One thing I would like to see is for KDP Select titles to require a purchase for reviews.' (which you quoted) - I realise not all titles are in Select, but if you are in Select then those unverified reviews stand out like a sore thumb, and the author should be able to spot which ones he or she did not supply with a free copy. Drive by bad reviews would thus require the wrongdoer to buy the book - which would cut down on some of the shenanigans. 


The point about gifting is that it only applies to Select authors, and while it is far from all of us, there are a lot of Select authors about.

I agree that for non Select titles it's a no-go logistically. There really isn't an easy answer to this one, but ferreting out the 'diss your competition' reviews should be more of a priority than the 'puff piece' reviews which should be countered by the 1* avalanche eventually anyway. That could be done, at least for Select authors, by limiting the reviews to those who bought it. It would also be an added selling point of the Select program for the authors in it. I personally wouldn't have a problem with gifting review copies to genuine bloggers. At $2.99 that's an effective cost of $1 per reviewer. If you submit to 100 (which I think is probably on the high side) that's a fairly small price to pay if it cuts down on the fake negative reviews.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

GavinFletcher said:


> _Violating a legal contract (i.e., terms of service) that *you've signed of your own free will* and pledged to abide by isn't a "grey area." But I find that people can convince themselves that most anything is right when it suits them. The galling part is that they so often have to rationalize it to others._
> 
> No one "signed" anything to joined KDP. They agreed to the TOS. There is a difference. Even verbal contracts have to be proved in a court of law to be enforced.


Actually that is not entirely accurate.

A signature can be electronic and valid in the court of law. Electronic Signatures Act (Public Law No: 106-229)

An e-signature is *ANY* electronic means that indicates either that a person adopts the contents of an electronic message.

Therefore you did electronically sign it by agreeing to the TOS.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

amiblackwelder said:


> Just because an author has great reviews doesn't guarantee buys. I know authors with awful reviews who still get tons of sales, I mean a lot. I know authors with great reviews who sale minimally. Reviews don't really guarantee anything, it just adds flavor to the pot.


I agree. My best-reviewed title is, by far, my worst-selling.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

90daysnovel said:


> "I'm not talking about Select"
> I was. I did preface my earlier point with 'One thing I would like to see is for KDP Select titles to require a purchase for reviews.' (which you quoted) - I realise not all titles are in Select, but if you are in Select then those unverified reviews stand out like a sore thumb, and the author should be able to spot which ones he or she did not supply with a free copy. Drive by bad reviews would thus require the wrongdoer to buy the book - which would cut down on some of the shenanigans.


By purchases are you meaning that someone pays money for the product? Because I've wondered before if someone downloads when a product is set free under Select or borrowed, does it count as Purchased for the purpose of Amazon's review policy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2012)

90daysnovel said:


> True, they can't track buyers but it's easy enough to spot outliers if one feeder account is sending credit to brand new accounts which then buy one authors book, and only that authors book. One or two wouldn't be incriminating but if someone went down the route of 20 as you suggest then it should be fairly easy to spot.


In order to spot something, you need to be actively looking for it. Heck, I could name drop five or six authors off the top of my head that I KNOW for a fact do this and have those reviews up on Amazon right now (but I won't because Betsy would shoot me). Herein is the problem. Amazon doesn't actively look for anything. Amazon is mostly a reactive company when it comes to adherence to its TOS, not a proactive company. That's why you have guys like the Slavek fellow who have been bilking the system for a decade. Because Amazon is always reacting to situations instead of taking proactive measures to stop them in the first place. That is why there is so much plagiarism on Amazon. That's why the review system is broken to begin with. That's why there are so many books available for sale with faulty formatting and PLR content. Because Amazon only moves when people complain, and then they go back and do something.

I agree with you. I can spot a scammer in 30 seconds. It SHOULD be easy. But it would require Amazon to be proactive. It would require actively looking at content and not just waiting around for someone to complain. It would require a human being, not just a computer code, getting involved. Look at how spastic the indie community gets when Amazon sends an email about someone finding a typo in a book or verifing they own their content or risk the content being removed. Now imagine what happens the day Amazon's computer starts sending out emails saying "Please confirm your identity or your reviews will be deleted and your account frozen."

The whole point is requiring a purchase doesn't fix the problem and creates a host of new ones.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Heck, I could name drop five or six authors off the top of my head that I KNOW for a fact do this and have those reviews up on Amazon right now (but I won't because Betsy would shoot me).


*strokes cattle prod*

Wise move, Julie.



Betsy


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> But Amazon has an obligation to its other authors to keep them safe from retaliatory reviews.


Why?

Amazon's a distributor. Indepedent authors are manufacturers (suppliers). If two suppliers can't play nice, that's their problem.

Suppose two milk companies started suing each other with baseless lawsuits --- tried to sabotage each other's facilities --- hired gangsters to hijack each other's delivery trucks. Why is that the supermarket's problem?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Amazon, being a for profit company, have no doubt analyzed what's the best way to spend their money.  Is it better to hire a bunch of folks to constantly watch for inappropriate reviews, etc. OR is it better to just wait until they're reported and risk losing a little money from people who become disgusted and stop buying?  The minute the first option is a better bet financially Amazon will be posting job openings.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> The minute the first option is a better bet financially Amazon will be posting job openings.


Good luck finding someone literate who's interested in wading through all those millions of words that have been typed on all those reviews. These aren't clever little stories we're talking about here. After the 50th "Wrst book evr wrttn. It suks. Don waste ur time!" whoever's reading them will want to blow their brains out. It would be even more mundane that being a mod on a....never mind.


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

amiblackwelder said:


> Yes, people love complaining more than complimenting, so negatives are always easier to be found.


This.

Sad but true.


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

One thing I don't get:

If people are using all of these multiple email accounts, wouldn't they need multiple computers too?  Otherwise they could all be traced back to the same IP address, yes?  

I am not too tech-savvy, so forgive my ignorance if the above is incorrect.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In order to spot something, you need to be actively looking for it. Heck, I could name drop five or six authors off the top of my head that I KNOW for a fact do this and have those reviews up on Amazon right now (but I won't because Betsy would shoot me). Herein is the problem. Amazon doesn't actively look for anything. Amazon is mostly a reactive company when it comes to adherence to its TOS, not a proactive company. That's why you have guys like the Slavek fellow who have been bilking the system for a decade. Because Amazon is always reacting to situations instead of taking proactive measures to stop them in the first place. That is why there is so much plagiarism on Amazon. That's why the review system is broken to begin with. That's why there are so many books available for sale with faulty formatting and PLR content. Because Amazon only moves when people complain, and then they go back and do something.
> 
> I agree with you. I can spot a scammer in 30 seconds. It SHOULD be easy. But it would require Amazon to be proactive. It would require actively looking at content and not just waiting around for someone to complain. It would require a human being, not just a computer code, getting involved. Look at how spastic the indie community gets when Amazon sends an email about someone finding a typo in a book or verifing they own their content or risk the content being removed. Now imagine what happens the day Amazon's computer starts sending out emails saying "Please confirm your identity or your reviews will be deleted and your account frozen."
> 
> The whole point is requiring a purchase doesn't fix the problem and creates a host of new ones.


I think your point about Amazon having to put a real human tech to ferret out scammers, is key. Amazon has their terms of service and their code of conduct for reviewers. And scammers know the terms and can work around them too. But I think some of their review terms are too general, like a review not being 'spiteful.' Hell, I've got about a half dozen of them. But Amazon is not going to spend the dollars to police all the gamesmanship and scamming that goes on. They can probably determine where these suspicious reviews originate. But I think it would cut into their profits too much. It's just the cost of business, this business.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Paul Clayton said:


> I think your point about Amazon having to put a real human tech to ferret out scammers, is key. Amazon has their terms of service and their code of conduct for reviewers. And scammers know the terms and can work around them too. But I think some of their review terms are too general, like a review not being 'spiteful.' Hell, I've got about a half dozen of them. But Amazon is not going to spend the dollars to police all the gamesmanship and scamming that goes on. They can probably determine where these suspicious reviews originate. But I think it would cut into their profits too much. It's just the cost of business, this business.


Way back when this thread was first started, I was disturbed that authors would accuse one another of review fraud, and said so.

Since then, I've seen firsthand evidence of review fraud.

Following the rules, I won't point to the two books I downloaded after reading glowing reviews, only to discover that there was NO WAY in hell that those reviews could have been sincere. Further, the warning signs people have mentioned haven't been relevant to these two instances. The reviewers were verified purchasers and had reviewed other items.

But here's the thing: one of those books now has about 10 1-star reviews from people who complained that they relied on the 5-star reviews and were either disappointed, annoyed, or confused.

Another of the books, by a different author, has more than 200 reviews, so the reviewers who are disappointed, annoyed, or confused are buried. But they're there. A dead giveaway, aside from the difference in quality from what the fake reviewers wrote to what the duped reviewers read was that, for the book with more than 200 reviews, the author not only started to argue with a 2-star reviewer but, somehow, several other 5-star "reviewers" magically appeared within hours to vociferously come to the author's defense.

Seriously? If someone doesn't like a product which I rated five stars, I'm not going to engage in the online equivalent of fisticuffs, and I doubt many real readers would.

Now that I'm attuned to the practice, I've also since spotted BS reviews on other products sold on Amazon.

My take: fake reviews appear, but not that often. When they do appear, they erode trust in all reviews, and that's a shame. But I doubt it stops people from buying on Amazon. It probably makes them, after getting burned once or twice, more discerning buyers. I know that I pay much more attention to the content of reviews than I had in the past, rather than simply looking at the average rating and reading one or two. I'll keep buying from Amazon--ebooks and other products. But I won't hit that "buy" button quite so quickly.

Anita


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Way back when this thread was first started, I was disturbed that authors would accuse one another of review fraud, and said so.
> 
> Since then, I've seen firsthand evidence of review fraud.
> 
> ...


You live and learn, I guess. You know not to buy anything from those authors now, if they can't get their reviews fairly. Thanks for posting this - it's good perspective to have.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> One thing I don't get:
> 
> If people are using all of these multiple email accounts, wouldn't they need multiple computers too? Otherwise they could all be traced back to the same IP address, yes?


Actually you're right, and I've heard a few folks mention in other forums asking Amazon to do an IP trace. Apparently they will do so if asked / there's reasonable doubt. Although, see Julie's post about being reactive.

Edit: this can be gamed through a proxy, but at some point you have to ask yourself is someone really going to do a Mission Impossible scheme just to fake a few reviews? My guess would be probably not.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Actually you're right, and I've heard a few folks mention in other forums asking Amazon to do an IP trace. Apparently they will do so if asked / there's reasonable doubt. Although, see Julie's post about being reactive.
> 
> Edit: this can be gamed through a proxy, but at some point you have to ask yourself is someone really going to do a Mission Impossible scheme just to fake a few reviews? My guess would be probably not.


I don't think you can underestimate what some people would be willing to do. And really, all one would need to do is go to the library and use the computer there for all his or her "gaming" work.

Betsy


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I don't think you can underestimate what some people would be willing to do. And really, all one would need to do is go to the library and use the computer there for all his or her "gaming" work.
> 
> Betsy


True enough, Betsy. That being said, I have long ago come to the conclusion that Dr. Dooms and Lex Luthors are fairly rare in the "criminal" world. The thing about not getting caught the first time is that it makes people lazy subsequent times around. All it takes is one lazy login from the home computer.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> True enough, Betsy. That being said, I have long ago come to the conclusion that Dr. Dooms and Lex Luthors are fairly rare in the "criminal" world. The thing about not getting caught the first time is that it makes people lazy subsequent times around. All it takes is one lazy login from the home computer.


True, they may eventually be caught, but that doesn't mean it won't work for awhile...

Betsy


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

The whole thing is nuts. This thread has been a serious eye-opener; when you know what to look for, the fake reviews are alarmingly evident.

One thing that has stood out for me as a red flag is the greed. I saw a debut, self-published novel with over 130 reviews and an average 5 star rating. I would estimate about 75% were 5 star reviews. 15% were 4 star. The rest? 3 star. Not a single one or even two. Oh and one needed only read the 'Peek Inside' to see what was what. If you're going to fake SO many reviews--and for the record, I'm not saying he or she 'did'--then make it a little realistic. 130 reviews with an average 5 star rating? _Please._


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jeff Menapace said:


> The whole thing is nuts. This thread has been a serious eye-opener; when you know what to look for, the fake reviews are alarmingly evident.
> 
> One thing that has stood out for me as a red flag is the greed. I saw a debut, self-published novel with over 130 reviews and an average 5 star rating. I would estimate about 75% were 5 star reviews. 15% were 4 star. The rest? 3 star. Not a single one or even two. Oh and one needed only read the 'Peek Inside' to see what was what. If you're going to fake SO many reviews--and for the record, I'm not saying he or she 'did'--then make it a little realistic. 130 reviews with an average 5 star rating? _Please._


But I've seen it here time and time again that people won't leave a bad review for a fellow author. And apparently, a lot of people think a three-star is a bad review (not for me--I read, enjoy and review a lot of three star books.) So I've come to expect heavily five-star-heavy ratings.

Betsy


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Jeff Menapace said:


> The whole thing is nuts. This thread has been a serious eye-opener; when you know what to look for, the fake reviews are alarmingly evident.
> 
> One thing that has stood out for me as a red flag is the greed. I saw a debut, self-published novel with over 130 reviews and an average 5 star rating. I would estimate about 75% were 5 star reviews. 15% were 4 star. The rest? 3 star. Not a single one or even two.


My guess is, if the book has a fairly decent ranking, and/or has gone free a few times, the reviews are for real, in this instance. If the book didn't merit at least 3, 4, and 5-star reviews, you'd see a number of 1 and 2 star reviews alongside the 4 and 5 stars. What would be missing would be the 3 star reviews.

Also, it's clear to me from the books and other products I've noticed that have reviews that don't fit the product, many are from actual third parties. It seems likely that pay-to-review sites, such as one mentioned in a separate thread on the board where good reviews are sold for $12, are involved in the cases so extreme that people notice something's off.

But if you're noticing, others are too, and that thwarts the worst offenders. People game every system there is, and this is one where they're doing the least harm (LIBOR manipulation, anyone?).

So, I'm just going to have a good laugh over the whole thing and move on.

Anita


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

All good points.  Love this place


----------



## Learnmegood (Jun 20, 2009)

I'm still stunned that you started this conversation by saying that the book is selling only decently, at 15 or so copies a day.  At this point, I'd be majorly happy with 15 copies a day!!


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Even worse are the double dippers -- authors who not only game their own reviews, but also leave destructive reviews for books within their categories.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> Even worse are the double dippers -- authors who not only game their own reviews, but also leave destructive reviews for books within their categories.


Those people are sh*tbags. But they have to live with themselves!

ETA: Most of the authors I know are supportive of others and really great. There's probably a much smaller % of bad ones than in any other industry, I'd bet.


----------



## chumlyb (Apr 1, 2011)

I missed this thread initially so have just read through all 12 pages of it.  I'm boggled at all the pushback re the existence of review scammers.  Doubters need to spend more time in nonfiction where the scamming is rampant. All doubts will be quickly squashed. 

It's very easy to spot the scam and follow the scammers to the other books and "nutritional" supplements with fake reviews. Admittedly, fiction is much more of a value judgement. Though sometimes a trail led to a book of fiction I gave up trying to discern if most of the reviews were scams when all I knew for sure was that some of the reviewers for a novel were active fakers. In nonfiction it's much more obvious.

Clearly Amazon doesn't care.  When I came across the problem back in January - February I sent Amazon a list of more than 150 books loaded with fake reviews. There was no doubt which reviewers were in on the game and also which publishers regularly made use of the bogus reviews. Seems like nothing's changed since. And I do think it should matter to all of us - it certainly can impact readers opinion of indies, of the review system, of the Kindle marketplace.


----------



## ChristinaGarner (Aug 31, 2011)

Learnmegood said:


> I'm still stunned that you started this conversation by saying that the book is selling only decently, at 15 or so copies a day. At this point, I'd be majorly happy with 15 copies a day!!


I had the same reaction, lol. Selling that many copies there's no way not to get some honest reviews.


----------



## Andrew Crevier (Apr 28, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> Even worse are the double dippers -- authors who not only game their own reviews, but also leave destructive reviews for books within their categories.


The, I'm going to leave a destructive review for the competition so my book will look like a better buy, people are more worrying to me than folks who pad their books with fake reviews. They're more troublesome, and many people think of all the possibilities if they were to engage in the act. 
For most, it's a flash of a thought that summarily gets squashed and ripped apart for the depravity that it is, for others, they take it out for a spin to see how things go.
Supporting, nurturing, and uplifting writers within your genre is far more powerful than becoming that person who spends more time plotting and scheming than working to improve craft.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> Even worse are the double dippers -- authors who not only game their own reviews, but also leave destructive reviews for books within their categories.





dalya said:


> Those people are sh*tbags. But they have to live with themselves!


But that's just it--they _can_ live with themselves. Plenty of sh*tbags sleep well at night.


----------



## Pamela (Oct 6, 2010)

If you go to the top 100 Amazon lists for a particular genre, then look to the left, it has a list of the books in that genre that came out in the last 30 days based on popularity.  I have a book there, in Romantic Suspense.  I found it odd that one book in that category already has 44 reviews.  Within thirty days of the release!  I feel lucky to have three reviews.

Maybe the author is just very popular and lots of people picked up the book immediately and were compelled to write a review.  Maybe the author sent the book to lots of reviewer blogs prior to the release.  I don't know.  I won't speculate.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

chumlyb said:


> I'm boggled at all the pushback re the existence of review scammers. Doubters need to spend more time in nonfiction where the scamming is rampant. All doubts will be quickly squashed.
> 
> It's very easy to spot the scam and follow the scammers to the other books and "nutritional" supplements with fake reviews.


Can you please expand on this? Most of my sales are in nonfiction, and I've noticed anonymous reviewers who will review only one book, but will post many other reviews of stuff like vitamins, scales, and other diet and nutrition products.


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> Even worse are the double dippers -- authors who not only game their own reviews, but also leave destructive reviews for books within their categories.


I may be naive, but I still can't believe all this is happening as much as people are suggesting. From some posts it sounds like people are suspicious of ANY book that has all good ratings. Multiple times in fact I've read people say they trust a book MUCH more if they have a couple of bad reviews in with the good. In which case, those evil nasty plotters leaving people bad reviews for their own gain (really? how would they gain!?) are actually doing them a favour, right? 

It all just feels like paranoia, or something worse.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Selina Fenech said:


> I may be naive, but I still can't believe all this is happening as much as people are suggesting. From some posts it sounds like people are suspicious of ANY book that has all good ratings. Multiple times in fact I've read people say they trust a book MUCH more if they have a couple of bad reviews in with the good. In which case, those evil nasty plotters leaving people bad reviews for their own gain (really? how would they gain!?) are actually doing them a favour, right?
> 
> It all just feels like paranoia, or something worse.


I had a quick peek at your books on Amazon and it would seen the troll fairies have not visited you personally.

Everyone's personal experience affects their outlook.

I've seen nutty authors who get it wrong, and I've seen wise authors who get it right (IMHO) when these things happen. Every case is different.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> But that's just it--they _can_ live with themselves. Plenty of sh*tbags sleep well at night.


Perhaps - but they are still sh*tbags and that attitude affects who they are as a person, which in turn affects the people who choose to be around them, which goes on to affect how they get treated by those close to them. So - ultimately - they still live with the consequences of their behaviour, even if they don't realise it.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

dalya said:


> Those people are sh*tbags. But they have to live with themselves!
> 
> ETA: Most of the authors I know are supportive of others and really great. There's probably a much smaller % of bad ones than in any other industry, I'd bet.


I have to disagree. Most authors are sh*tbags who envy one another. This is why you see so many instances of them giving 1 star reviews to books that made the free top 100, under different usernames of course. Its just the nature of the beast, gotta take the good with the bad.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

GlennGamble said:


> I have to disagree. Most authors are sh*tbags who envy one another. This is why you see so many instances of them giving 1 star reviews to books that made the free top 100, under different usernames of course. Its just the nature of the beast, gotta take the good with the bad.


Which is the good part again?

If 1/25 people are sociopaths, then 1/25 authors are, I suppose. Maybe round up to 2 and add on 3 people who are having bad judgement days and it's still only 20% of writers, so I wouldn't say "most" are sh*tbags. 

Perhaps we can talk percentages until we can lock up this thread too.


----------



## AnitaBartholomew (Jun 27, 2011)

Maybe I'm coming from a different vantage point because I've made my living as a writer-editor for most of my adult life. But, because of that history, most of my friends and acquaintances are writers, and other artistic types. And they're some of the most decent, ethical people you will ever meet. 

So, I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying into the notion that there are so many authors out there who feel such envy toward others that they would try to sabotage them.

Doing things others might not agree with to get good reviews for their own books? Maybe. And, in moderation, I'm not going to get all worked up about that.

Doing things to harm others? No. That's an aberrant response by aberrant human beings. I just don't believe that of the vast majority of creative people of any type, and never will. That's not the community of writers I know--and I know a hell of a lot of writers.

Anita


----------



## Senseidoji (Jul 12, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Claire,
> 
> While I agree you don't want to name names in public (but really, always feel free to PM ME with the info and...well...you know...*insert evil laugh here*). But can you answer yes or no to the following?
> 
> ...


I like this. I will put this list to good use. It has taken me 9 months to get 9 reviews. I did have to give some book bloggers copies to read to garner a reveiw or two, but most are random. This has been real work pushing my book alone. To know that people abuse the system to try and up their status is wrong.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

Selina Fenech said:


> I may be naive, but I still can't believe all this is happening as much as people are suggesting. From some posts it sounds like people are suspicious of ANY book that has all good ratings. Multiple times in fact I've read people say they trust a book MUCH more if they have a couple of bad reviews in with the good. In which case, those evil nasty plotters leaving people bad reviews for their own gain (really? how would they gain!?) are actually doing them a favour, right?
> 
> It all just feels like paranoia, or something worse.


I'm afraid that it's not. And it's not limited to our little corner of Amazon. I remember in the early days of the Kindle it had tons of reviews by people who didn't even own one. And the other day I came across a movie or book (I forget which) that hadn't even come out yet with several reviews. To doubt that authors aren't gaming reviews, directly or indirectly, is just closing a blind eye to the truth, unfortunately.


----------



## Tessa Apa (Apr 8, 2011)

wow! Just read a few pages - I am very new to this and hadn't even considered it! To me, a 5star means "I really enjoyed this book"  - so if a book has lots of 5 stars I usually take a second look. I ALWAYS download a sample though - I figure that is the best way to get a feel of the writing and whether its worth buying.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Selina Fenech said:


> I may be naive, but I still can't believe all this is happening as much as people are suggesting. From some posts it sounds like people are suspicious of ANY book that has all good ratings.


I'm with you, Selina. I know it happens, but the overwhelming cynicism about good reviews gets old. I got so sick of it at one point I took a couple of my books that have lots of good reviews and went through them one by one. I eliminated every review that fell into one of the cynics' must-be-friends-or-family category, re-averaged without them and came out with basically the same review average. GR with its allowed drive-by reviews is supposed to be so much tougher than Amazon, but my averages there aren't much different either.

For the record, I've never asked anyone to review any of my books, never swapped reviews and have none from family. A few people I know have reviewed my dog mystery. I didn't ask them to. They read the book on their own and posted a review. That makes I think 3 out of 73 as of this date.

Also for the record, I do believe a lot of readers are kinder to indies than they would be to a traditional author - more inclined to review because they know it helps us, more inclined to post a generous review because getting a good book from an indie on the cheap excites them more than getting another good book from a familiar traditional author.


----------



## Senseidoji (Jul 12, 2012)

Greg Banks said:


> I'm afraid that it's not. And it's not limited to our little corner of Amazon. I remember in the early days of the Kindle it had tons of reviews by people who didn't even own one. And the other day I came across a movie or book (I forget which) that hadn't even come out yet with several reviews. To doubt that authors aren't gaming reviews, directly or indirectly, is just closing a blind eye to the truth, unfortunately.


I used to work in the movie industry. Let me tell you something. Movies buy reviews. It is not illegal, it is not against any rules, it is a perfectly acceptable practice. When you see a review of a movie like " Best movie of 2012" and the source is some randomly named movie review company, they were paid to say that. When you see a bunch of " Best action movie of the summer" " Best Comedy of 2012" plastered across a movie that isn't due to be out for months, understand that it is paid advertising, not real reviews. So, if this is a common (and I mean since the dawn of Hollywood common) practice that is acceptable, expect it to filter down to this level quickly and easily.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2012)

Selina Fenech said:


> I may be naive, but I still can't believe all this is happening as much as people are suggesting.


The entire thing is a complex dynamic. Unfortunately, it happens a great deal and will continue to do so until such time as it becomes a financial liability to Amazon and they decide to take steps to rein it in.

I'll start with a little of my background. I studied marketing and PR in college. My first jobs were in PR and market research. One of the first things you learn about human nature is that praise is hard to come by. It really is not in our nature to offer praise. When we get bad service, we complain. But when we get good service, we take it for granted. So the idea of customer reviews is actually a rare phenomenon to begin with. Most people will not leave reviews at all.

So you need to consider the motivations of people who leave reviews. Book reviewers for the most part fall into categories:

Avid readers: On the surface, this is obvious, right? But what is it about avid readers that makes them review books? Because avid book readers love to talk about books. They don't just want to tell you that they liked or didn't like a book. They want to share why and have a conversation about it (even if the conversation is limited to people clicking the helpful icon on the review. These people don't leave one sentence, incoherent reviews. Because they want to share their experience with the book. While their grammar may not be perfect, they will make the effort to convey their thoughts in an articulate manner.

Professional reviewers: Not just people who make a living from reviewing, but individuals who establish themselves as "authorities" of sorts. For these people, reviewing fills a personal need. Either it is a source of income/reward (either as part of their actual job or through affiliate sales or through getting free stuff like from the Vine program), or it feeds a psychological need to be respected or admired or valued, or if feeds an emotional need to be part of the writing community as a whole. Many of these reviews have strong "brands" and are verifiable personalities (even if they are using a pen name and not their real names, people still "know" who they are).

Writers: Not just indie writers or published writers, but people who write but have never (or will never) publish or people who dabble but have never completed a full story. We would also include editors and people nominally involving in publishing in this group as well. Writers review books because they have an agenda. The agenda isn't always bad. Some writers review books in order to improve their own skills. Some writers review books to "pay it forward" and show support for other writers whose work they like. Some writers review books to establish themselves within a genre. Some writers review books so that they have content for their blogs to draw in readers.

Fanboys/fangirls: Does Twilight really need five hundred reviews? Of course not. A lot of those reviewers never review anything else. But they are diehard fans of the franchise and that is how they show their support and love. You'll see reviews for books/movies that aren't even out yet that say things like "I can't wait until this comes out!" because the fans are anticipating it so strongly. A lot of these reviews will be short, often incoherent.

Casual reviewers: Casual reviewers are those who never really thought about leaving a review, but once in a while they see the little reminder email from Amazon and have a few minutes of free time and think "Sure, why not?" They may only review one or two items ever and their reviews will tend to be short. They may see reviewing as an obligation of sorts so they only do it when they get a reminder from Amazon or have nothing else to do.

Once you understand what motivates someone to review, it becomes easier to spot the problems. Unfortunately, once you see the problem, you can't "unsee" it.

So now let's say we come across a book that was released Friday from an author nobody has ever heard of. On Saturday, it has five one or two sentence reviews from people who never reviewed a book before. These people don't qualify as avid reviewers (who would have a review history), or professional reviewers (who would have known personas and/or review histories. The probability that these are other writers is low, because writers who review will tend to have review histories as well. Insofar as fanboys, well, the author doesn't have any. The author barely registered when you perform a Google search of his or her name. So there is no fan base. And they can't all be casual reviewers, because they tend to review much later after the purchase. This group is not inclined to read a book in less than a day then rush to Amazon to review it.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I agree with everything Julie says and I would add that, imo, some people will review on an 'early adopter'  basis. If they spot something they think is likely to be big, they take pride in making a public statement of it.

I suspect that regular reviewers are people who have a general enthusiasm for life, which they never lose. Curiosity will feature large in their character and their book reviewing will almost certainly cross over to other purchases.

Joe


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> Okay, here's the thing...
> 
> I know some authors game the reviews. I assumed it was a very tiny number out of the whole.
> 
> ...


One man's poison is another's delight, as the cliche says. If the poor writers are selling despite their heavy flaws, more power to them. And the reason you're hot and bothered about it is the "green eye monster." My advice, don't look at what others are doing or selling and concentrate on your own craft. Your time will come.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

"Clearly Amazon doesn't care. "  This from one of the posters above.  I agree, 110%.  And this is the problem.  It's the wild wild west and we need a sherif or two.  There are wonderful books that have been kneecapped, and crap books with dozens of five star reviews.  We all know it.  But Amazon won't look into it and relies instead on their generic rules which seem easily gotten around.  Until then, everyone will pay a price.  (not just a monetary price, obviously).  It pisses me off.  Might there come a day when writers will take their books off and set up their own ships, selling from the web pages only?  Yes, initially they'd suffer a big loss of sales, but hopefully in time they could recover.  Anyway, it could happen.


----------



## Jeff Menapace (Mar 5, 2011)

Good post, Julie.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Beatriz said:


> One man's poison is another's delight, as the cliche says. If the poor writers are selling despite their heavy flaws, more power to them. And the reason you're hot and bothered about it is the "green eye monster." My advice, don't look at what others are doing or selling and concentrate on your own craft. Your time will come.


Nice of you to reduce the OP's post to a case of repressed jealousy and then slap on a little condescension for good measure.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

AnitaBartholomew said:


> Maybe I'm coming from a different vantage point because I've made my living as a writer-editor for most of my adult life. But, because of that history, most of my friends and acquaintances are writers, and other artistic types. And they're some of the most decent, ethical people you will ever meet.
> 
> So, I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying into the notion that there are so many authors out there who feel such envy toward others that they would try to sabotage them.
> 
> ...


Fast forward to the John Locke review controvesy where several authors have decided to plaster his book with one-star reviews without have read his work. This dispels the notion of that author utopia that you speak of in which no envy exists between authors. Of course it does, and with indie authors, its really bad because this is the first time many of these authors have gone into business for themselves, and many of them do not know how to engage in business without tearing one another down --under anonymous usernames of course.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I read Locke's book. I gave it a 1 star before I knew about the reviews. Now? I'd ask for my money back because the book was nothing more than fraud and lies.

I found the book way too simplistic and spammy; I could not believe that this method worked. It made no sense. Oh, right, it didn't because he left out the most important part: the use of paid reviews who purchased his books en masse to bump up the rankings.


----------



## GlennGamble (Sep 15, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I read Locke's book. I gave it a 1 star before I knew about the reviews. Now? I'd ask for my money back because the book was nothing more than fraud and lies.
> 
> I found the book way too simplistic and spammy; I could not believe that this method worked. It made no sense. Oh, right, it didn't because he left out the most important part: the use of paid reviews who purchased his books en masse to bump up the rankings.


As did I. I thought it was a load of bullshit given the nature of people who engage in social media. I was totally suprised by the number of 5-star reviews that the book garnered until I read the NYT article long after my 1-star review. Anyone who has utilized social media for 6 months would know that his advice was a steaming truckload of bullshit.

But the people who are unloading 1-star reviews on him without having read the book have become muck-raking slimeballs themselves.


----------

