# NYT article on paid reviews



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

I was just coming here to see if anyone else had seen this. Wonder if Mr Locke is going to update "How I Sold One Million Ebooks."


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

This is shocking.


----------



## folly (Apr 1, 2012)

so many things to say about this.  i don't think i can though.  just wow.  

however, I'm happy for every 5 star i have- all unsolicited.  but i guess they don't mean much with all this going on.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

It was a shocking article, but had a happy ending. He's out of business now.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2012)

I was very tempted to post this. 

Getting reviews has been so hard, and I know it's (part of) what has held me back a lot. And often it seems that the people who dislike a book are more likely to write a review. If I'd been a better writer that might not've been a problem, but then again articles like this force you to question how much merit and talent really matter.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

> Potential reviewers were told that if they felt they could not give a book a five-star review, they should say so and would still be paid half their fee, Mr. Rutherford said. As you might guess, this hardly ever happened.


 

Basically: I pay you double if you pad that review.

And $28,000 a month?! Why are we writing books for a living?


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

WOW - I missed the boat on those, too.

I guess I'll just have to do it the hard way.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> And $28,000 a month?! Why are we writing books for a living?


I NO RITE?! He's out of business. I sense an opportunity...


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Wow. Just...wow.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

folly said:


> so many things to say about this. i don't think i can though. just wow.
> 
> however, I'm happy for every 5 star i have- all unsolicited. but i guess they don't mean much with all this going on.


I can totally relate. It sucks that when you do things ethically and play by the rules, others who bend the rules with no shame come out ahead.  I bought Locke's book on how to sell a million books. If I had known a big part of his secret was that he bought fake reviews, I wouldn't have bought his book. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do that.

In his book, he also advises asking readers who email to post a review. I tried that three times and felt icky each time. One person reviewed, the other two didn't respond. I've never asked again even though I have a file full of emails from readers who enjoyed the books but chose to write to me instead of leaving a review. I love getting those emails.

Oh well. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing. It's not all about the money--that comes and goes--it's about making that connection with readers.


----------



## folly (Apr 1, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Basically: I pay you double if you pad that review.
> 
> And $28,000 a month?! Why are we writing books for a living?


no kidding. i started to get excited until i read further. darn ethics.


----------



## folly (Apr 1, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I can totally relate. It sucks that when you do things ethically and play by the rules, others who bend the rules with no shame come out ahead.  I bought Locke's book on how to sell a million books. If I had known a big part of his secret was that he bought fake reviews, I wouldn't have bought his book. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do that.
> 
> In his book, he also advises asking readers who email to post a review. I tried that three times and felt icky each time. One person reviewed, the other two didn't respond. I've never asked again even though I have a file full of emails from readers who enjoyed the books but chose to write to me instead of leaving a review. I love getting those emails.
> 
> Oh well. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing. It's not all about the money--that comes and goes--it's about making that connection with readers.


I bet a lot of people who bought his book would feel that way or will if this becomes widespread knowledge.

I agree that it is hard to ask for reviews. I think i have put it on my fb page once. i don't even put it in the back of the book, though i have debated that before. i,too, do love getting emails and fb posts from people who love the book. and that connection is so important. we will keep on doing our best. that's all we can do.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

goes to show there's always a backstory, something going on in the background that's not appearant on the surface or even from someone's "how I did it" admissions or advice.


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

Wow, I didn't think I was naive enough to be surprised anymore, but that surprised me. I busted my butt getting fans to leave honest reviews on my books. Silly me.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I can totally relate. It sucks that when you do things ethically and play by the rules, others who bend the rules with no shame come out ahead.  I bought Locke's book on how to sell a million books. If I had known a big part of his secret was that he bought fake reviews, I wouldn't have bought his book. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do that.
> 
> In his book, he also advises asking readers who email to post a review. I tried that three times and felt icky each time. One person reviewed, the other two didn't respond. I've never asked again even though I have a file full of emails from readers who enjoyed the books but chose to write to me instead of leaving a review. I love getting those emails.
> 
> Oh well. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing. It's not all about the money--that comes and goes--it's about making that connection with readers.


I totally know what you mean. I asked one or two people who emailed me to leave a review, and I don't remember if they did or not, I just remember feeling icky about asking. I stopped asking right away.

But, I do feel okay about thanking them for the email, and asking them if they would like me to email them when my next book comes out. Most often I get a response back saying yes, they would love an email when my next one comes out. I add them to my email list then. (I *only* use it for new book announcements.) This actually has been a positive thing for me.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

This is exactly what I was talking about on that other thread...I went over to Fiverr to find someone to sign Happy Birthday to my 15 YO son for 5 bucks, and what did I see?  Tons of people offering to BUY your book at Amazon so it comes out as verified, then give you a review.  One girl giving reviews, who is quite popular, was trying to explain to her not-so-happy customer, that Amazon already shut down her account once, so now she has to put "Not a paid review" at the bottom of all her fake reviews.

I was dumbfounded. 

I can only shake my head.  

Then, as if I wasn't already disturbed enough I tracked down one girl (she had her book in her profile and she was offering paid reviews) and it was a book I've seen MANY times on Amazon and she had like 100 reviews or something like that.

I dunno...it seems like if you play by the rules you often get stomped on.


----------



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

phil1861 said:


> goes to show there's always a backstory, something going on in the background that's not appearant on the surface or even from someone's "how I did it" admissions or advice.


You're right. And I always felt there was something going on that no one was talking about.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I totally know what you mean. I asked one or two people who emailed me to leave a review, and I don't remember if they did or not, I just remember feeling icky about asking. I stopped asking right away.
> 
> But, I do feel okay about thanking them for the email, and asking them if they would like me to email them when my next book comes out. Most often I get a response back saying yes, they would love an email when my next one comes out. I add them to my email list then. (I *only* use it for new book announcements.) This actually has been a positive thing for me.


I think that's totally different. I have emailed readers to notify them of my last book. I don't send random updates or anything. Just the one email and so far, I haven't had to do a mass email. I did them individually and made them personal.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Victorine said:


> I totally know what you mean. I asked one or two people who emailed me to leave a review, and I don't remember if they did or not, I just remember feeling icky about asking. I stopped asking right away.


Now, I wouldn't go that far - I have no issue with asking for an honest review. That's basic marketing. But paying people for _fake _reviews is quite another thing.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

On the topic of John Locke - This does prove to me one thing, and that's how important it is to have integrity. Do what is right, even when no one is looking. Because some day, people might be looking, and if they find that you didn't have integrity, you just lost all credibility.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

Wow. I practically have no words for this, just when I thought the shady side of business could no longer shock me. I thought the indie and self-publishing world hadn't yet gone to the dark side. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Victorine said:


> On the topic of John Locke - This does prove to me one thing, and that's how important it is to have integrity. Do what is right, even when no one is looking. Because some day, people might be looking, and if they find that you didn't have integrity, you just lost all credibility.


That's true. Of course, Locke sees nothing wrong with buying reviews and would happily do it again.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Monique said:


> That's true. Of course, Locke sees nothing wrong with buying reviews and would happily do it again.


That might be true at this second, but if he gets loads of backlash, he might regret it. At least I don't have to worry about the public finding out about all my paid reviews, because I don't have any. The worst thing I have is my sister left me a review. (But she didn't even give me five stars. Ha!)


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2012)

Victorine said:


> That might be true at this second, but if he gets loads of backlash, he might regret it. At least I don't have to worry about the public finding out about all my paid reviews, because I don't have any. The worst thing I have is my sister left me a review. (But she didn't even give me five stars. Ha!)


The checks when he was at the top have cleared, and didn't he start some new publishing house or something? It's hard to say he hasn't made off with the loot while the getting was good. My aunt is actually a big fan of his. I'm not sure I could tell her about this.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Victorine said:


> That might be true at this second, but if he gets loads of backlash, he might regret it. At least I don't have to worry about the public finding out about all my paid reviews, because I don't have any. The worst thing I have is my sister left me a review. (But she didn't even give me five stars. Ha!)


*You* would because you have ethics. Not everyone is so endowed.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> That might be true at this second, but if he gets loads of backlash, he might regret it. At least I don't have to worry about the public finding out about all my paid reviews, because I don't have any. The worst thing I have is my sister left me a review. (But she didn't even give me five stars. Ha!)


lol! I have seven siblings, and I think only one has even read my books and she didn't leave a review.  My bff did leave a review but I didn't know it for over a year--until she left a review on the third book too and happened to mention it to me. When I went to look, the name seemed familiar so I looked at the first book and found the match. I didn't ask her to review, and my first book was out for over a year when she finally left the review. It is buried far down in the reviews now so I'm not going to worry about it.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Victorine said:


> This does prove to me one thing, and that's how important it is to have integrity. Do what is right, even when no one is looking.


Yes! After all, we have to live with ourselves.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Monique said:


> That's true. Of course, Locke sees nothing wrong with buying reviews and would happily do it again.


Well, technically I don't see anything wrong with buying reviews - but I'm thinking Kirkus and places like that. And even they are questionable to many people here.

BUT - in the quantity Locke was buying them in, that was the part that made it cross the line for me. It is not illegal in any way to purchase someone's opinion. Businesses do it all the time. Which I think is another point of this article. This is how ALL big companies do it as well. Focus groups, for example, often pay their participants.

But back to Locke - he came from the corporate world - this is how they did things. He took his knowledge and applied it to an industry that frowns on this sort of thing, yet in his mind he did nothing wrong. And technically, he didn't. If he told the guy he wanted honest reviews then probably his conscious is clean.

I dunno - I base many purchases off reviews so when I start to think about how easily people can be led by the star rating of a product, it becomes depressing.

Check this out: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/amazon-merchant-caught-bribing-customers-for-five-star-reviews/

And this: http://www.passiveincomeauthor.com/how-thousands-of-authors-are-cheating-amazons-review-system/

More: http://mikecooperbooks.com/2012/04/why-amazon-reviews-are-not-helpful/

More: http://www.learnvest.com/2012/02/is-it-ethical-to-charge-5-to-post-a-5-star-review-on-amazon-123/

As if that's not bad enough there are also companies that will get you thousands of "Likes" on Facebook and "Follows" on Twitter - hell, even Barack Obama is being accused of this right now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/fashion/twitter-followers-for-sale.html

I spent like a whole evening a few weeks ago tracking all this crap down and it was really depressing. But the only thing you can do is stick to your guns and do things the right way.

John Locke might not care that he bought his way up the Top 100, and he might be able to sleep at night. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Yes! After all, we have to live with ourselves.





JanneCO said:


> John Locke might not care that he bought his way up the Top 100, and he might be able to sleep at night. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself.


Yes. And this is my own personal take-away from all this. I can do what is right, even when others are choosing to do things I don't feel appropriate.

And it actually makes me feel better to know that one person buying up reviews does not hurt sales on my book. It just makes them look bad in the end.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Damn. Another marketing opportunity that I missed!  

Whenever I hear advice from anybody at the top of their game, I wonder just what the game really is. I guess that makes me a cynic.


----------



## akshhat94 (Feb 2, 2012)

While i am myself into this business of providing reviews, i would say what Rutherford did was bad and completely against ethics.

Yes, i am in the same business but my reviewers have produced 1 star review as well along with 5 stars. They are common readers with full freedom to write what they really felt about a book.

A reviewing service should always help an author but before that it should always be honest with the general readers.

Akshat


----------



## Alan Ryker (Feb 18, 2011)

akshhat94 said:


> While i am myself into this business of providing reviews, i would say what Rutherford did was bad and completely against ethics.
> 
> Yes, i am in the same business but my reviewers have produced 1 star review as well along with 5 stars. They are common readers with full freedom to write what they really felt about a book.
> 
> ...


That's interesting. Why do people pay for reviews if they aren't getting some level of guarantee of good reviews?

If you wrote something good enough to get good reviews, all you have to do is give away e-copies at librarything, for free. If like Locke you wrote books that needed some help, then you'd pay for good reviews, as he did.

I guess if I had a hard time getting 4s and 5s I'd be miffed, but Locke used cash to get what I get with talent. That happens in every area of life.


----------



## Alan Simon (Jul 2, 2010)

2 random thoughts...and if they seem disjoint I'll just pay for a good review of my reply  

1) On a related topic, does anybody know the backstory behind name authors doing blurb endorsements of new novelists' books? You know, something like:

"Holy $#%@!!!! I was so scared by the end of the book even I couldn't sleep that night!!!" - Stephen King

This hasn't made its way into indie writing yet (right?) but as indie and traditional continue to converge, I can see it happening to some extent. Are these blurbs paid-for endorsements and for sale much like what was described the NYT article? Or done without exchange of $ as a matter of professional courtesy, brokered by publishers and agents? Or something else? I've always wondered...especially when I find myself wondering if I was reading the same book the blurb writer endorsed.

2) I think what was discussed in the NYT article is just another aspect of us being in the Wild West days of a new frontier of publishing. The tide seems to be turning now: NYT and other media doing investigative reporting-type articles; self-policing "posses" of reviewers saying that they've had enough of the current system and want a fair game from now on, and specifically seek out books that seem to have stacked the deck on their reviews; etc. So whereas it looks like the past couple of years have enabled some to game the system, those specific tactics will likely not have the payback they once did and indeed become riskier to try.

I'm sure new ways of gaming the reviewing system will pop up but this short-term era described in the NYT article that most of us haven't "embraced" seems to be ending.

Alan


----------



## akshhat94 (Feb 2, 2012)

Alan Ryker said:


> That's interesting. Why do people pay for reviews if they aren't getting some level of guarantee of good reviews?
> 
> If you wrote something good enough to get good reviews, all you have to do is give away e-copies at librarything, for free. If like Locke you wrote books that needed some help, then you'd pay for good reviews, as he did.
> 
> I guess if I had a hard time getting 4s and 5s I'd be miffed, but Locke used cash to get what I get with talent. That happens in every area of life.


I guess authors pay in my case without any guarantee for positive reviews is because i charge comparatively lesser than what Rutherford did.

At times i do get requests from authors not to post the negative reviews(some even offering a higher amount to get only positive reviews), but i guess since i have stuck to my principles of getting only honest and unbiased reviews, TheBookplex has done decently well.

I may never carry $28000 home but TheBookplex gets me enough to stick to my principles.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

akshhat94 said:


> While i am myself into this business of providing reviews, i would say what Rutherford did was bad and completely against ethics.
> 
> Yes, i am in the same business but my reviewers have produced 1 star review as well along with 5 stars. They are common readers with full freedom to write what they really felt about a book.
> 
> ...


Reviews for any compensation other than the book being reviewed are against Amazon policy.


----------



## akshhat94 (Feb 2, 2012)

Monique said:


> Reviews for any compensation other than the book being reviewed are against Amazon policy.


When i give my book worth $5 for free, its a compensation in a way. Since there is no hard cash involved, people consider it "ethical", but whether hard cash or something in a kind, they both will have the same effect on a reviewer.

What is important is to have reviewers who abide by ethics and are honest and unbiased. My firm has such reviewers only.

Akshat


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

You charge $100 for 10 reviews. THIS IS AGAINST AMAZON POLICY.

Knowingly doing that is not ethical.


----------



## Bone Bard (Aug 1, 2012)

Monique said:


> You charge $100 for 10 reviews. THIS IS AGAINST AMAZON POLICY.
> 
> Knowingly doing that is not ethical.


Amazon is not the moral authority, as such, this has nothing
to do with ethics.

Personally though, as much as I dislike the idea, I don't find
it ethically wrong. Most of us are giving our books away for
free in one way or another for reviews, hopefully positive
ones. This is just a more direct approach.

With 80%+ of reviews generally being 4 stars or better on
Amazon, I don't pay much attention to them at all.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I never said Amazon was the moral authority. I believe doing something you know is against policy is not kosher.

I think selling reviews is not cool. Some people, obviously, have no problem with it. Me? I think it stinks on ice.


----------



## Alan Ryker (Feb 18, 2011)

Agreeing to abide by terms and then not doing so is actually immoral. You can argue the degree and offer justifications, but the base issue is a moral one according to most systems of morality.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

You know how bad this makes the rest of our reviews look. I have never and will never pay for a review. That's true of by far most of us, but how many people who looks at my reviews believe that? Darn few, I am afraid.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

I think it best not to let this kind of stuff bother us. The best thing we can do is the draw attention to it. I am sure a hundred angry one star reviews from authors will have an affect on the algorithm in amazon...


----------



## R. Garcia (Apr 9, 2011)

The reason Locke broke into the big time was that his post about Joe Paterno went viral, and the people who read it checked out his books. The positive reviews he "bought" may have helped but would have never achieved the same result.

If a reader writes an e-mail saying they loved my book, I have no qualms asking them for a review. In my opinion the review is just an extension of the e-mail.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Never trust anyone named after a character from Lost!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I dunno...it seems like if you play by the rules you often get stomped on.


I think observation would indicate there are no rules. There certainly are people who want rules, advocate for them, and claim they exist, but a simple analysis of what is happening reveals there are no rules.

We have 1) a free market economy, 2) a demand for reviews, 3) willing suppliers, and 4) opportunity. Both suppliers and demanders will step up to exploit the opportunity. That's what we see happening. It happens all the time all around us. This isn't surprising.

Looking at the situation, I suspect Amazon reviews will come to have the same credibility as TV commercials or the endorsements on the back of paper books. Anyone wanting more will have to consult some other source, much like we use Consumers Reports rather than TV commercials to evaluate products.

And regarding Amazon's TOS that paid reviews are not allowed? I have to question Amazon's standing to control the relationship between two other parties. They may not like the paid reviews, but defining the motivation of someone else is questionable. But they are obviously free to delete what they want. It's their site.

We might not like what is happening, but I don't think it's realistic to expect anything different.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Personally, I'd rather wait and get genuine reviews if people want to leave them.  I've put a note in the back of my book thanking anyone who takes the time to leave a review, regardless of the length or rating.

Even if nobody else knows that I'm doing the right thing - I know, and that's what counts.


----------



## AKMartin (Jul 21, 2012)

I think this goes on a lot , and in a lot more things than just book reviews. Fiver has become a den of get what you want
and because its cheap its the perfect place for marketeers

Anthony


----------



## righterman (Jul 27, 2012)

What do you mean by "John Locke is out of business?" -- his books still appear in an Amazon search...


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

I agree with most of your thoughts, except:



Terrence OBrien said:


> ... I have to question Amazon's standing to control the relationship between two other parties...


The TOS that applies is between Amazon & the reviewer.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Monique said:


> That's true. Of course, Locke sees nothing wrong with buying reviews and would happily do it again.


He knew it was wrong, though, or he'd have proudly trumpeted the fact in his how-to book.

Seems like some very simple algorithms on Amazon's part would track this down and eliminate it. Add a single employee whose job it was to hunt down these review sites online and the problem would resolve itself in a hurry. Given how much of the store's business model is built on the integrity of the review system, it baffles me that they don't.


----------



## DB Boyer (Apr 17, 2012)

I've recently changed my personal position on writing reviews.

At first I thought I wouldn't.  Seemed to me that as a would-be author, being a reviewer as well would put me in an awkward spot.

Now I say - eff it.  There is such a need for honest, well-written, quality reviews for indies.  If I come across and indie which I enjoyed, I am going to review it.  I've reviewed two so far and plan on doing more.  

For now, I am only going to give honest reviews, albeit with my criticisms, to books which I enjoyed.  Not sure if I will give "bad" reviews to books I did not.  For now, I am holding off on this, but eventually I think I may need to to give my reviews more weight.  

But I think as writers we should help each other out.  Not quid pro quo, that's not at all what I'm saying.  But of you read an indie, and you liked it, take a moment to share your thoughts with others.  It helps potential readers and certainly helps your fellow author.

My 0.02.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

It is pretty easy to tell when someone is doing this. A book just came through on my Twitter feed that looked cute, someone said they just bought it and I clicked over and it's mostly 5 star reviews and a single 1 star. I clicked the one star first and that person said he was disgusted that this author had obviously bought the good reviews. He pointed out that if you clicked on the link to see their other reviews, they were all reviewing the same items and all had 5 stars. Plus the reviews were poorly worded and very vague, so pretty obvious the book was never read.

I'm just not sure this fools many people. Especially if they are like me and always read the sample first.

If a book really is lousy, fake reviews won't save it. The returns will pile up along with the one star reviews.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

All you really have to do is click the reviewers name - often they have only one review (and that does not tell you much really) but other times they have MANY reviews, with several being posted in one day or in a slew of consecutive days, then a gap, then another slew of reviews.  (Almost as if they're reviewing only when they get a job from Fiverr!!)  

Or they might have several reviews, but only by one author. Now that alone doesn't tell you much either.  I have 27 total reviews to my name over eight years and I've reviewed my favorite author for all the books of his that I enjoyed.  But I also have reviews for things other than books - an electric paint roller, for example. Or some software.

Anyway, it's pointless to obsess over this stuff and this is my last post on the matter.  (But now I'm jaded and I have found myself clicking on reviewers to see if they fit the pattern!)


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

I only pay for one-star reviews. Is that acceptable?


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

First thought: I'm morally offended.

Second thought: Where the hell can I buy some?


----------



## MacMill (Jun 6, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> He knew it was wrong, though, or he'd have proudly trumpeted the fact in his how-to book.
> 
> Seems like some very simple algorithms on Amazon's part would track this down and eliminate it. Add a single employee whose job it was to hunt down these review sites online and the problem would resolve itself in a hurry. Given how much of the store's business model is built on the integrity of the review system, it baffles me that they don't.


Even if Amazon had people hunting down those review sites, they can't do anything to shut them down. And they wouldn't have ways to identify what reviews come from those sites.

I don't find it viable.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think book reviews have always been gamed to some extent. You'll see a glowing review in the NYT by one of their reviewers about a certain book and author and 3 months later that glowing author endorses the reviewers book--tit-for-tat. But that was the old traditional way--now one just buys reviews on the open market.

If you dig deeper on the Amazon reviewers you'll find people who leave reviews for 30 books a week...every week. Hundreds and hundreds of book reviews all with 4 or 5 stars and very brief. All genres. The oldest review is from a year ago and they have 500 book reviews. How is that really possible? 

To compare: I have 390 Amazon product reviews in 11 years. 

You have a system where books can't get much visibility and thereby sales without enough reviews. Authors here complain they can't get reviews. You even need a 4 average stars and a minimum number of reviews to get reviewed by some legitimate reviewers or for Amazon and others to feature your book.

Tripadvisor and yelp have the same problem and other products do too. In time people will realize the peer/customer reviews are gamed and are worthless indicators of quality. To put so much emphasis on reviews makes it the problem. Locke, he just looks at it as a marketeer. Funny he didn't put it in his book.


----------



## MacMill (Jun 6, 2012)

Monique said:


> That's true. Of course, Locke sees nothing wrong with buying reviews and would happily do it again.


Actually, if he saw nothing wrong with buying reviews, why didn't he include that in his book? 
IMHO, he knew it was wrong and that's why he omitted this tactic in his book.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

jackz4000 said:


> Locke, he just looks at it as a marketeer. Funny he didn't put it in his book.


If you ask him, I'll bet he says,

"That was a business decision I made."


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Amazon doesn't give a crap about the legitimacy of the reviews--they just want people on their site.

That is why the only time they address problems like this is when it gets big publicity (Look for a bunch of random reviews to vanish in the next few weeks, no matter the source, just to give the illusion of "addressing it.") I've long wished they'd limit all reviews to verified purchasers who used their own names--it could still be gamed or bought, but at least it would be plain and much easier to police. Again, I don't think Amazon cares if it's policed or not, because it doesn't really hurt them at all. They don't care which books sell or don't sell, only that books are sold, and that fake reviewers have an Amazon account to buy music, tires, and razor blades.

The far bigger problem is my suspicion that the number of reviews, and perhaps the ratings, play a role in Amazon's algorithmic functions. Remember the "best-rated" bestseller list they used to have? So there is a direct economic incentive to game the system. And it gets even worse when it is extrapolated out to all these book-feature sites that have a bar of 4.0 or even higher before they will feature your book.  Laughable in a world where the average Stephen King book is a 3.7.

It also works at the other end, too--the solo one-stars probably done by other writers who believe their work will do better if they can torpedo others. And actually, it just might--again, economic incentive.

But hopefully we can finally put the John Locke myth to rest, because he is the one who created, packaged, and sold his own myth (Sure, it was "blogging"--he blogged about once every three months. Sure, it was "great writing"- typos in the product description. Sure, it was "great covers"--nearly naked women. Sure, it was "word of mouth"--mouths bought with money.) Heck, I admire him. I just don't buy the myth.


----------



## MacMill (Jun 6, 2012)

JanneCO said:


> Well, technically I don't see anything wrong with buying reviews - but I'm thinking Kirkus and places like that. And even they are questionable to many people here.
> 
> BUT - in the quantity Locke was buying them in, that was the part that made it cross the line for me. It is not illegal in any way to purchase someone's opinion. Businesses do it all the time. Which I think is another point of this article. This is how ALL big companies do it as well. Focus groups, for example, often pay their participants.


You are mixing two different things: reviews and focus groups. 
Focus groups are used internally to make marketing decisions. Opinions expressed in a focus group are not used as testimonials or reviews about the product.

Reviews are different. They are like testimonials. And there are rules in the USA -enforced by the FTC- that set limits. Testimonials have to be honest and when paid -or when there's a relationship between the reviewer and the product owner- it has to be disclosed.

Also, the fact that big companies buy testimonials/reviews all the time doesn't make it more ethical.


----------



## MacMill (Jun 6, 2012)

scottnicholson said:


> Amazon doesn't give a crap about the legitimacy of the reviews--they just want people on their site.
> 
> That is why the only time they address problems like this is when it gets big publicity (Look for a bunch of random reviews to vanish in the next few weeks, no matter the source, just to give the illusion of "addressing it.") I've long wished they'd limit all reviews to verified purchasers who used their own names--it could still be gamed or bought, but at least it would be plain and much easier to police. Again, I don't think Amazon cares if it's policed or not, because it doesn't really hurt them at all. They don't care which books sell or don't sell, only that books are sold, and that fake reviewers have an Amazon account to buy music, tires, and razor blades.
> 
> ...


Agreed!


----------



## KaraKing (May 25, 2012)

There is a new book in my catagory that had 395 five star reviews in a week and went straight to #1. It has a few ones, twos, threes and fours. Well, one of the reviewers said, "If you are wondering why there are so many five star reviews it is because the author held a drawing. Everyone that went and wrote reviews was entered into a contest to win an I-Pad."

Well, of course they are all going to put 5 star reviews! This is so unethical to me. It is scamming the review system. It is not fair to the readers that think, "Omg, this must be an awesome book, look at all the praise!" 

They will think of anything and everything to game the system, I guess.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

MacMill said:


> You are mixing two different things: reviews and focus groups.
> Focus groups are used internally to make marketing decisions. Opinions expressed in a focus group are not used as testimonials or reviews about the product.
> 
> Reviews are different. They are like testimonials. And there are rules in the USA -enforced by the FTC- that set limits. Testimonials have to be honest and when paid -or when there's a relationship between the reviewer and the product owner- it has to be disclosed.
> ...


All true.

Now really, this is my last post on reviews!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> *Amazon doesn't give a crap about the legitimacy of the reviews--they just want people on their site.*
> 
> That is why the only time they address problems like this is when it gets big publicity (Look for a bunch of random reviews to vanish in the next few weeks, no matter the source, just to give the illusion of "addressing it.") I've long wished they'd limit all reviews to verified purchasers who used their own names--it could still be gamed or bought, but at least it would be plain and much easier to police. Again, I don't think Amazon cares if it's policed or not, because it doesn't really hurt them at all. They don't care which books sell or don't sell, only that books are sold, and that fake reviewers have an Amazon account to buy music, tires, and razor blades.
> 
> The far bigger problem is my suspicion that the number of reviews, and perhaps the ratings, play a role in Amazon's algorithmic functions. Remember the "best-rated" bestseller list they used to have? So there is a direct economic incentive to game the system. And it gets even worse when it is extrapolated out to all these book-feature sites that have a bar of 4.0 or even higher before they will feature your book. Laughable in a world where the average Stephen King book is a 3.7.


*Amazon doesn't give a crap about the legitimacy of the reviews--they just want people on their site.*

Precisely. The same for B&N etc. They want all these reviews. They want to sell books, not police reviews. If I can find a couple of these questionable reviewers in 10 minutes--Amazon with all their info and data can spot them in seconds and purge them on a regular basis. Amazon just wants to sell books, whose book doesn't really matter to them.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Simple solution? Amazon removes all books where there is strong evidence of gaming either through purchased reviews, sock puppetry, or an author sabotaging others.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Basically: I pay you double if you pad that review.
> 
> And $28,000 a month?! Why are we writing books for a living?


Is this your back up plan? Reviews by Hugh Howey. It's sure to be a hit!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

KaraKing said:


> There is a new book in my catagory that had 395 five star reviews in a week and went straight to #1. It has a few ones, twos, threes and fours. Well, one of the reviewers said, "If you are wondering why there are so many five star reviews it is because the author held a drawing. Everyone that went and wrote reviews was entered into a contest to win an I-Pad."
> 
> Well, of course they are all going to put 5 star reviews! This is so unethical to me. It is scamming the review system. It is not fair to the readers that think, "Omg, this must be an awesome book, look at all the praise!"
> 
> They will think of anything and everything to game the system, I guess.


OK, I lied...THIS is my last post!

I have two giant promotions each year for my non-fiction business. In December I run a 12 days of freebies thing and I get thousands of people coming for the free stuff. Ad the end of the promotion - so on the 13 day - I give another freebie away if they leave a testimonial. I have more than 500 testimonials on the site because I do this. ( http://www.thesimplehomeschool.com/community-network/testimonials/read-testimonials.html )

However, I do not police the reviews nor do I check the reviews before they get their freebie. They get the download on the thank you page. It's not a contest, but there is an incentive to leave a review. I don't always get positive reviews and some reviews are stupid, or the spelling is terrible, or whatever. Not all of them get published as I do control what gets published. Some of them are even blank (Those moms are on to me! They know they get the freebie even if it's blank! Which means they've been coming back for years now)

But everyone has to leave a name and an e-mail so they are all verifiable (per rules regarding testimonials)

But if they take thirteen freebies from me and they don't like the product, they why the eff are they taking thirteen freebies from me? That's how I see it. Believe me, not everyone takes the freebie - 

So maybe people see this as gaming the system, but I see it as giving those who like what I provide an incentive to tell others about it.

Now, I also sell stuff on another online marketplace where I have a solid 4.8 review across hundreds of products. Those I don't have any say in at all - that's not my website. So I feel like the testimonials on my site are valid because it matches the ones at a non-affiliated site. ( http://www.currclick.com/product_reviews.php?manufacturers_id=374 )

*I would have ABSOLUTELY no problem with asking people who want a free sample of the next book in my fiction series to leave a review of one of the other books. ASKING for reviews is NOT unethical.* And BTW - this is exactly why you should have a newsletter list...

But see the difference here is - I only ask those who are already interested in my products. I don't want fake reviews from people just so they can have a chance to win something. Although in the 12 Days of freebies I typically give out Amazon gift cards if people make a comment on the Facebook page. But that's not a review, I ask them to state why they love homeschooling and they are often more than happy to proclaim their reason to the world.

Anyway - there is a fine line and maybe I dance across it on occasion, but I'd never pay for reviews as described in this NYT article or run a contest to get reviews even though John Locke's way of doing is probably not illegal.


----------



## ShaunaG (Jun 16, 2011)

I just want to point out, I didn't know about this because I found the article on my own or because I came here and saw this post. I found out because it hit my Twitter feed. And how did it hit it? "[Link to post with the blurb about John Locke]...I have no doubts many huge self pubs use this service"

Yeah, that's why I want to punch him in the neck. When someone as successful in the self-pub world does this, it reflects badly on the rest of us and we're all scrambling to reassure people we're legit.

And I agree that Locke knew what he was doing was wrong or would be taken poorly because he would've at least mentioned it in his how-to book. So glad I never bought that.


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Quoted for truth.


Same here, I worked so damn hard for my measly handful of reviews - despite hundreds of genuine purchases from readers - and to read about some cheat simply buying good reviews so brazenly, well, it does bring out anger in me.

I wish Amazon would pull the plug on this process and start suing the fake reviewers for fraud and misrepresentation of products. They'd only have to sue a small handful to empty out Fiverr and other places rapidly... It'd be like ticks and fleas leaving a dog when the disinfection begins.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

I read the whole thread to see if anyone else pointed this out...

But six-eight months ago--you guys have to remember this--Amazon DID shut down TONS of reviewers. If they fit a certain pattern--too many in too short a time primarily, ALL the account's reviews were deleted. We had threads here about it at the time.

Several big bloggers were hit by it -- Rebecca Reads was one. And that Midwest Book Review place.

I'm willing to bet that this was an attempt to shut down the biggest paid reviewer accounts.

Anyone else remember this?

I think Amazon does care about working the review system.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

CB Edwards said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


This was fascinating.


----------



## Alan Simon (Jul 2, 2010)

Chiming in (and also so I can do my 100th post    )

Maybe this is tangential, but any writer who builds his/her inventory of 4- and 5-star reviews by purchasing them also doesn't get that immense feeling of self-satisfaction and validation for what has been published when you go to amazon, Goodreads, or wherever and see that there is a brand new, very favorable, *genuine* review...and especially a review that indicates your book has brought real enjoyment to that reader.

I wouldn't trade that feeling for anything. It's a marathon, not a sprint; I'd rather build up genuine reviews slowly over months or years, they aren't going anywhere, right? (Presuming nothing happens to a book's listing and they wind up getting lost...)

(Also, I guess that someone who has gamed the system could still get some genuine positive reviews down the road but there's also a fairly high risk nowadays of more than one person pointing out in a one-star review that the positive ones were probably purchased or done by friends of the author, which I would think negates that feeling of satisfaction and validation.)


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Ian Fraser said:


> Same here, I worked so d*mn hard for my measly handful of reviews - despite hundreds of genuine purchases from readers - and to read about some cheat simply buying good reviews so brazenly, well, it does bring out anger in me.
> 
> I wish Amazon would pull the plug on this process and start suing the fake reviewers for fraud and misrepresentation of products. They'd only have to sue a small handful to empty out Fiverr and other places rapidly... It'd be like ticks and fleas leaving a dog when the disinfection begins.


I think that all they need to do (notice how easy I make it sound!) is to bump the offenders off KDP for violation of the terms of service. That would be a much more immediate and effective deterrent than threat of a lawsuit, IMHO.

Even this would be fraught with peril, as Amazon would have to make a darned good case.

As JanneCO says, there are signs that make one suspicious, but they aren't perfect. I went through a real dry spell with my reviews, then over one month I got half a dozen. They were brief and complimentary, and I know none of the reviewers, and the reviewers didn't seem to have reviewed much but my book. I have no idea where they came from. Somebody did Something...mention on a blog? Book group? Fan mail from some flounder? (Points if you get that last reference!) These things happen. I'd hate to get banned from KDP because of it.



> When i give my book worth $5 for free, its a compensation in a way. Since there is no hard cash involved, people consider it "ethical", but whether hard cash or something in a kind, they both will have the same effect on a reviewer.


I am here today to testify...yes to TESTIFY...that as God is my witness, giving away a free book for review does not, I say, does NOT guarantee a positive review!


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

> It's a marathon, not a sprint


I hear this a lot. Frankly, I'm not up for either. For me, the most it can be is a moderately stressful hike on a day that's not too hot or too cold, preferably with a few clouds but not raining.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

How many readers are going to plow through a bunch of reviews over a $2.99 book? I suspect very few.

However, 150 reviews with a 4.8 rating looks...legit.

Authors probably see it differently, because we are the only ones with our egos wrapped around all this crap. I don't care one bit about validation. I just want readers. <Off to buy my own myth...>>>>


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Does anyone know what part of Amazon's Conditions of Use (it's actually "Conditions of Use" that covers reviews, not "Terms of Service") can be cited to say that reviewers who are paid for reviews violate the CoU? Obviously it's shady. I'm just not sure where the fine print is on that and I'd like to know in case I ever need to cite that fact.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Regarding Locke, it's definitely a disheartening story. I hope it motivates Amazon to cut down on these schemes. I've been seeing this sort of thing a lot more recently. There's a new top-rated book on Amazon in fantasy that has shot up on many of the lists there. I noticed at one point that the book had about 100 Amazon reviews (all posted over a short period of time) and 6 GoodReads reviews; that's a ratio that does not happen organically. The author must've been gaming the Amazon reviews in some way. The author had also mentioned a modest number of sales on his/her blog, a number that didn't fit 100+ reviews. That book is now selling like crazy, though. 

In the meantime, I'll be traveling the slow road. But then I value self-respect and integrity more than money.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Why would an author risk this? Frankly, it seems really dumb to me. All it would take would be for a few people to connect the dots and notice the fake reviews and then the author's credibility is completely shot.

I have to believe that eventually Karma will catch up to these people.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Nah, this is America, The price of having your credibility very publicly shot is to become a reality star....

So it STILL pays off.

(Moses, I am too lazy to look at terms but it's clear reviewers have to mention if they have received compensation for their reviews--technically, even if they received a free book. Technically, you also can't review anything that might be seen as a competing product--meaning, technically, no authors can write book reviews. 

I found this out because I used to write funny, self-deprecating reviews of my own books under my own name--obviously a joke, but also I admit I wanted that first five-star. Someone reported me--worse, they reported my wife, who has a different last name and was making funny stories about "my husband made me do this." Amazon sent a note worded with a tone of "We could care less, but since someone bothered to report it, we better do something about it..." And it led me to realize some smarmy little jerk had nothing better to do than follow me around and torpedo me, because who else on earth could possibly care? And I'd bet a million bucks it was an indie writer. The system rewards you for being anonymous, so everyone is better off hiding behind smokescreens. That's one sucky system.

Since then I pretty much rarely review anything, from tennis shoes to tent poles. Although, hell, it looks like buying reviews is legit. I can't get my relatives to do it for free, so maybe if I PAID them...)

P.S. When it comes down to losing a potential customer over losing yet another author, I know where Amazon is going to put its chips...every...single...time.


----------



## Dee Ernst (Jan 10, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> I am here today to testify...yes to TESTIFY...that as God is my witness, giving away a free book for review does not, I say, does NOT guarantee a positive review!


Giving away a free book does not guarantee a review period! I've even given copies to bloggers and review sites and never heard back a word.

Sigh.

It's sad to hear that one of our 'made-it-big stories' is not what we hoped. Do I want the kind of success Locke has had? You bet. But first, I want to be a writer. I want people to read my stuff and love it and tell me they love it and ask for a sequel. I want to know that, even though my books may be fluff, I made a difference in a persons' day. That I made someone laugh or smile or escape. That comes first.

For Locke, being successful came first. He made business decisions that worked very well for him, and got him exactly what he wanted.


----------



## Karl Fields (Jan 24, 2011)

KaraKing said:


> There is a new book in my catagory that had 395 five star reviews in a week and went straight to #1. It has a few ones, twos, threes and fours. Well, one of the reviewers said, "If you are wondering why there are so many five star reviews it is because the author held a drawing. Everyone that went and wrote reviews was entered into a contest to win an I-Pad."
> 
> Well, of course they are all going to put 5 star reviews! This is so unethical to me. It is scamming the review system. It is not fair to the readers that think, "Omg, this must be an awesome book, look at all the praise!"
> 
> They will think of anything and everything to game the system, I guess.


Whoever this author is, he/she might want to be careful. Not only is it gaming the system, it sounds dangerously close to an illegal lottery.


----------



## Hilary Thomson (Nov 20, 2011)

The first time you read a book, it may be because the reviews sold you on it.  But the second time you encounter that same author, it's the quality of author's writing that determines whether you'll buy book number two.  Fake reviews only go so far.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

His books was "meh" anyway. You could sum it up in two points.

1. Build a platform (duh)
2. Get lucky

But now we find out part of that was cheat the system. Not surprising.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Kind of amusing in light of recent revelations that John Locke's main protagonist, Donovan Creed, is often described as a sociopath.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

You need an average of 4+ stars on Amazon to get mentioned on a number of the big book sites. Should they be using Amazon stars to set the line like that when the system can get gamed so easily? If your competitors are doing this and you at a massive disadvantage. Not only will readers be less likely to buy your book when they compare your legitimate 3.8 as against all these fake 4.5s, but readers will likely never even see your book because the big sites won't mention it.

As for writers losing credibility when they get found out, will they really? I'm sure indie authors will be less inclined to buy John Locke books but how much will it really affect his sales. And he's the only one we know about. All the rest aren't getting named and shamed. It's easy to spot the guys with a 1 star book who are gaming the system, but what about those with 3star or 3.5star books? They are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The TOS that applies is between Amazon & the reviewer.


True. But it is aimed at a relationship to which Amazon is not a party. So I would still question Amazon dictating motivation for reviews.



> I'm just not sure this fools many people. Especially if they are like me and always read the sample first.


It probably doesn't fool people who care enough to do the research. But there are lots of consumer behaviors in the market. Anyone know what percentage of Amazon book revenue comes from consumers who care about reviews? I don't know and don't know how we could know.

Among the many behaviors in the market, consumers like me can be found. We never read samples or reviews, and recoil at the idea of tracking down the provenance of reviews. We treat samples and reviews with benign neglect.

However, all Amazon book consumers read the star scores. They can't be missed. Those stars sit right next to the title and price everywhere the book is listed. I can't say what effect they have, but they are seen by everyone. My attitude toward stars is also benign neglect, but I doubt that shield can keep them out of either my conscious or subconscious mind.


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

I can't say I'm surprised that there are people out there selling reviews. Sometimes the reviews just don't match the book. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a legit site where authors could connect with reviewers?


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

I've been trying to imagine this topic in the context of restaurant reviews. What would happen if a chef hired a restaurant critic to come review his food?

"I will pay you $200 to come review my restaurant..."

I imagine any self-respecting critic would toss the chef out on his ear. The exchange of money carries an obligation, regardless of the amount. Reviewers are like judges sitting up on the bench, aren't they? The judge has to keep his hand out of the till. Even if Amazon relaxed their terms, for whatever crazy reason, and allowed authors to hire reviewers, it still would be immoral.



MosesSiregarIII said:


> In the meantime, I'll be traveling the slow road. But then I value self-respect and integrity more than money.


Like Solomon said, "a good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."


----------



## Rachel Schurig (Apr 9, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> I hear this a lot. Frankly, I'm not up for either. For me, the most it can be is a moderately stressful hike on a day that's not too hot or too cold, preferably with a few clouds but not raining.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

It seems like we really just need to get personal recommendations. I know I'm suspicious of too many positive reviews--especially for a book I sample filled with grammatical errors.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I imagine any self-respecting critic would toss the chef out on his ear.


He probably would. But in this case, some guy hangs out a sign that says, "Self-respecting reviewer will give you 5-stars for five dollars."


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Off topic, Sara, love the covers for your mysteries. Really wonderful.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

scottnicholson said:


> How many readers are going to plow through a bunch of reviews over a $2.99 book? I suspect very few.
> 
> However, 150 reviews with a 4.8 rating looks...legit.
> 
> Authors probably see it differently, because we are the only ones with our egos wrapped around all this crap. I don't care one bit about validation. I just want readers. <Off to buy my own myth...>>>>


Here is the thing, and this is me just a reader. When I see a book with a 4.8 average rating with 150 reviews and its a new or otherwise not well known author, I do not really take them serious. I roll my eyes. 
And here is why. Lets say I love romance. So I know the genre and I know the big names, the good writers in the genre. I know what books and authors are consistently in the top 100 polls of romance readers. When I look at the reviews on those books, almost none have a 4.8 average. If I see a 3.8 its a fantastic rating. If you see 4.0 its OMG holy carbonara that's great.

I just don't see 4.8 with any of the golden standards in the genre I read. So to me a indy author with 4.8 does look most of the time suspicious to me. Not really legit. It could be fivver paid reviews, it could be thinly veiled author review circles, it could be the "lets be nice" reviews, I don't know. I just know, I put myself in reverse when I see that. It just doesn't make sense.

Its this obsession with average ratings and the demands put on by certain sites featuring indy's that drive this review mess. As a reader, when a site requires of an indy author to have at least a 4.0 to be featured, I will not even look at that site or the ads on there. Because this fuels a need to push the ratings up. I just can't trust that. I have cancelled a lot of the emails I used to get from such sites.

I am at the point where I pretty much always take Goodreads reviews over amazon. Now the review tampering has started on Goodreads too, still not as bad, yet. At least on Goodreads I can see right away how the friends and people I follow rating the same book, I can't do that on Amazon.

I have learned to pay very very close attention to reviews in the past few months. I have read books where they have almost nothing but 5 stars and I read the book and its a solid 3 star for me. So I start looking closer at the reviews and I noticed a lot of naming the author by name and other authors knowing that author and its just the bestest book they have ever read. Or its so detailed with technical terms only other authors would use.

Unfortunately, lots of readers still go strictly by the reviews and click buy. Then once they get to reading the book they wonder what the heck. But many won't bother leaving a review and just move on to the next book. So it works for the likes of Locke. At least for now.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Christopher Bunn said:


> I've been trying to imagine this topic in the context of restaurant reviews. What would happen if a chef hired a restaurant critic to come review his food?
> 
> "I will pay you $200 to come review my restaurant..."
> 
> ...


You have too high an opinion of the restaurant/foodie world. Stuff like that goes on all the time at the highest levels. Books are genteel comparatively.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

jackz4000 said:


> You have too high an opinion of the restaurant/foodie world. Stuff like that goes on all the time at the highest levels. Books are genteel comparatively.


I don't doubt you. I'm just too much of a naive idealist.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Does anyone know what part of Amazon's Conditions of Use (it's actually "Conditions of Use" that covers reviews, not "Terms of Service") can be cited to say that reviewers who are paid for reviews violate the CoU? Obviously it's shady. I'm just not sure where the fine print is on that and I'd like to know in case I ever need to cite that fact.


Here it is, Moses:



> What's not allowed
> Amazon is pleased to provide this forum for you to share your opinions on products. While we appreciate your time and comments, we limit customer participation to one review per product and reserve the right to remove reviews that include any of the following:
> 
> Objectionable material:
> ...


If you google "Amazon Review Policy" you will find this page, this is only part of it.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

I think it's like movies. I tend to like three star movies from big well-known reviewers, more than the movies they give five stars to. You go to reviewers you trust. Some of the reviewers didn't star _Prometheus_ and _Snow White and the Huntsman_, and the _Avengers_ very high, but those are exactly what I want to see when I go to a movie.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Atunah said:


> ...Its this obsession with average ratings and the demands put on by certain sites featuring indy's that drive this review mess. As a reader, when a site requires of an indy author to have at least a 4.0 to be featured, I will not even look at that site or the ads on there. Because this fuels a need to push the ratings up. I just can't trust that. I have cancelled a lot of the emails I used to get from such sites.
> ...


ABSOSMURFINGLUTELY!

I have a 4.0 on one book, and I have to just cross my fingers and hope for the best when I do a free promotion.

Atunah, I love hearing sensible stuff from you, but you're so much more up-to-speed on things than the typical reader who might buy a book a month.

People outside the publishing world and the message boards have no idea! I talk to friends, and I've yet to encounter one who has even heard of Goodreads, let alone used it.

As always, the answer is to keep on writing!


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

Thanks, RomanceAuthor! I like your covers, too. Very distinctive and eye-catching. 

I agree with LisaGraceBooks re: the comparison to movie reviews. If certain reviewers pan a movie, then it makes me think I'll love it!


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

You should also beware of fake competition winners. Employees at a local magazine arranged for their friends to win the monthly crossword prizes (even if they didn't enter!)
I also knew of a company that offered a food hamper in a lucky draw. The first name drawn was a couple who lived in a wealthy neighbourhood. With all good intents other names were drawn until they found someone from a poorer neighbourhood and the hamper was given to some grateful pensioners. While I admired the sentiments, it has now made me wary of entering any of these competitions unless the draw is made public.


----------



## Iain Rowan (Mar 5, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> True. But it is aimed at a relationship to which Amazon is not a party. So I would still question Amazon dictating motivation for reviews.


They're not dictating terms for reviews as such though. They _are_ dictating terms for reviews where the reviewer chooses to use an Amazon account (with specific t&cs) to publish those reviews on Amazon's online shop, hosted on Amazon's servers. Which I think is fair enough.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> You should also beware of fake competition winners. ...


I was probably 7 or 8 when I realized that EVERYTHING IS BOGUS!! I always drew magnificent works of art for the Easter bunny coloring contests at Shoppers Drug Mart. Did I win? OH NO, NO I did not! But one year, my little sister won.

I saw those winning drawings. They were crap! Crap, I tell you!

The whole thing was just a sham to get parents to visit Shopper's Drug Mart! I think!

Oh, but I spent time analyzing those "winning" colored pages. Were people cheating? Did the skill seem unreasonable given the winner's age? Often, yes!!

harumph


----------



## KOwrites (May 23, 2011)

Victorine said:


> Wow. Just...wow.


I'm late to this party update because yesterday we were running our kids all over the place. Just got to the NYT article. Now, I just feel sick to my stomach. Wow. Just wow is right. I bought John Locke's book for $4.99 last year. It seems to me, as others have said, that leaving out that he paid for reviews was a key part of his strategy/ultimate success. Geez, I bought into his marketing hook, line, and sinker (as they say)! Wow. Just wow.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

I always assume some level of sleaze and dishonesty because that's what it takes to succeed in business, but this is over the top.


----------



## FH (Jul 30, 2012)

Catcher in the Rye has a 4.0 rating and is something like 120 in the kindle store.

Based on that one of the literary masterpieces of our age wouldn't qualify to be promoted on a free run by certain websites.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

Katherine Owen said:


> I'm late to this party update because yesterday we were running our kids all over the place. Just got to the NYT article. Now, I just feel sick to my stomach. Wow. Just wow is right. I bought John Locke's book for $4.99 last year. It seems to me, as others have said, that leaving out that he paid for reviews was a key part of his strategy/ultimate success. Geez, I bought into his marketing hook, line, and sinker (as they say)! Wow. Just wow.


I bought Locke's book shortly before I published _Yseult_ in January, and I did try to do some of the things he suggests. I came to the conclusion fairly early on, however, that I didn't have a clue how he made his system work.

Now I know. And that's actually something of a relief to me.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

The sites who have a qualifying star rating for reviews will eventually fade and fail because they take the easy way out in filtering content and so encourage gaming of the system. The tipping point will be reached when users realise the vast majority of their 'recommendations' are 1 or 2 star offerings dressed up by fraudsters. These sites will then dash around saying 'Mercy me! How can we save the business?'  Too late. Too late.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

The huge flaw is when you set up a system that only rewards books with a 4.0 and above review rating, the system rewards those who cheat. Like sports and Wall Street and everywhere else. A few get caught. 

Personally I pay little attention to most reviews on Amazon, although a very lucid review will get my attention and may sway me either way--most are not very well written. "Best book I'eva readed." 5 Stars*****


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

> Mr. Locke was secure enough in his talents to say that he did not care what the reviews said. "If someone doesn't like my book," he instructed, "they should feel free to say so." He also asked that the reviewers make their book purchases directly from Amazon, which would then show up as an "Amazon verified purchase" and increase the review's credibility.
> 
> In a phone interview from his office in Louisville, Ky., Mr. Locke confirmed the transaction.


Regarding Mr. Locke:

Okay, so he purchased reviews and admits it. But don't overlook this: he wasn't asking for a particular rating or a positive review. And when asked about the purchase, readily admitted it.

I'm not someone who'd ever pay for a review. I'm disappointed Locke did so.

But dang it, above and beyond this particular issue:

Locke's an indie, too, and there's an atmosphere here on KB WC... supposedly home to a lot of us indies... to kick the guy in the 'nads at every opportunity, just because he's found success.

I've read every book Locke's written, and you know what? It wasn't because of the reviews... it's because I read one of his books, enjoyed it, and wanted to read more. I've read all of them and I'll keep buying each new one as they become available, because he's an effective writer and storyteller.

Also, while he may have gotten initial momentum this way, it's pretty clear to me that Locke is beyond needing anything like that now, so it's unlikely that it's an ongoing issue.

Unethical method? We can all probably agree on that. But more than a few indies, in trying to find a way to garner attention, have tried things out (many of them less successful) that they'd likely not do today.

But hey, Locke's successful, let's just call him scum because he admitted to doing something, rather than denying it. Honesty, even about mistakes... such a terrible quality.

I'd hate to consider how this community would respond to Amanda's success, had she not started out here and made friends with a lot of the regulars in her first year of actively publishing.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Here it is, Moses:
> 
> If you google "Amazon Review Policy" you will find this page, this is only part of it.


A good catch, Victorine, but here's what's unclear to me:

Was Locke paying the reviewers?

Or was he paying that guy's company to find reviewers for him?

If the company was paid for finding reviewers, but the reviewers themselves never received compensation other than the review copy, I wonder how that would fall in terms of Amazon's terms.

I've always stayed clear of either sort of service... as my glacial pace of accumulated reviews for my books show, LOL... but I am wondering out loud because it seems like that is a distinction that could be made.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> A good catch, Victorine, but here's what's unclear to me:
> 
> Was Locke paying the reviewers?
> 
> ...


It says in the article that the reviewers were paid per review - full payment if they rated it high, and half if they felt they couldn't. So it wasn't just a matchmaker service.

I'm not sure solidarity over publishing method should discourage people from discussing the ethics of this situation. "Supporting" doesn't have to mean blindly cheering everything other authors do, does it?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

anne_holly said:


> It says in the article that the reviewers were paid per review - full payment if they rated it high, and half if they felt they couldn't. So it wasn't just a matchmaker service.
> 
> I'm not sure solidarity over publishing method should discourage people from discussing the ethics of this situation. "Supporting" doesn't have to mean blindly cheering everything other authors do, does it?


Okay, so that answers my question, and thanks, Anne.

If the reviewers were paid, then it violates Amazon's TOS. Settled. And sad.

And I'm not blindly cheering on, though... I'm just pointing out that because of his success, a lot of indies are only too eager to play "kick the successful author" instead of remembering he's a person just like any of us who post here, and maybe deserves the benefit of doubt.

I mean, yes, it's absolutely unethical.

But as I've said above, a lot of us over the past couple years have tried things that we no longer do today, hoping to gain attention to our work. Some of those things help, most didn't. But in a lot of ways, many of us were in learning mode. We hadn't figured every little thing out yet.

And our indie community sometimes calls foul on things trad-publishers do all the time. (Not in this case, but there are examples that I won't cite here because I don't want to pull the topic off-track.)

Maybe that means we have better ethics than trad-pubs. Or maybe we're just picky, LOL.

I doubt Locke used that company for long, nor that he needed it after that initial burst of success.

It's sad that he went that route in the first place, but I do give him props for at least being honest about it and not trying to conceal it at all, when asked.

But we all experiment. I got the sense this is something Locke did early on, back when he felt he needed to.

Right now, I'm dipping a toe in the waters of 15-second promo videos (Tout.com) to see if that helps me gather an audience.

I don't anticipate that Tout-ing about your own writing will ever be considered unethical... but if it were somehow, later on, I hope I'd have the courage to say, "Yeah, I tried Touting about my books for a while..."


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

I have suspected that people do this. I read some books out there that are selling like crazy, and I just can't understand why. Unfortunately when someone does this it hurts everyone. All reviews become suspect.

I couldn't figure out how John Locke's system worked. I expect these ploys work because not too many people are going to bother returning a book that is under $5.00.

Many of us fall into the trap of hoping there's an easy way to sell thousands of books, so we buy non fiction books from those who have sold huge numbers. I think many of the folks who sell large numbers don't know why or how they did, even though they may think they do. There are no special secrets except to write a good story, get it edited, try to get a really catchy cover and blurb. If you don't succeed try again and again. Also keep working on improving your technique.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Okay, so that answers my question, and thanks, Anne.
> 
> If the reviewers were paid, then it violates Amazon's TOS. Settled. And sad.
> 
> ...


The article also said he was one of their best customers, which indicates he did it more than just experimentally, and he certainly didn't sound like this was something he'd never do again. Though, he did downplay how important it was in his success.

I happen to agree that excessive criticism of someone successful is rather unfair, and I have seen this with John Locke, and others. So, in general, I take your point there. However, Locke is not just like all of us, insofar as he has become an idol in this business and a lot of authors look up to him, mimic him, quote him on every issue, etc. One could say that this is not his fault, but I'd say the infomercial handbook he published rather places this reliance on his shoulders. He clearly wanted to become a model for self-publishers, and makes money on it.

So, while excessive criticism of someone high profile might be unjust, I also feel it is important for writers to discuss what the gurus preach, and practice, because people are basing a lot of business decisions on what this fellow has to say. In essence, discussing his strategy, and the ethical dimensions of his practices, makes as much sense as weighing the business practices of an author of a finance book, or the athletic record of someone writing a manual on winning a medal. It's part of his cred, since he set out to sell people his book on being indie, so I'd say he invites the criticism.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

anne_holly said:


> The article also said he was one of their best customers, which indicates he did it more than just experimentally, and he certainly didn't sound like this was something he'd never do again. Though, he did downplay how important it was in his success.
> 
> I happen to agree that excessive criticism of someone successful is rather unfair, and I have seen this with John Locke, and others. So, in general, I take your point there. However, Locke is not just like all of us, insofar as he has become an idol in this business and a lot of authors look up to him, mimic him, quote him on every issue, etc. One could say that this is not his fault, but I'd say the infomercial handbook he published rather places this reliance on his shoulders. He clearly wanted to become a model for self-publishers, and makes money on it.
> 
> So, while excessive criticism of someone high profile might be unjust, I also feel it is important for writers to discuss what the gurus preach, and practice, because people are basing a lot of business decisions on what this fellow has to say. In essence, discussing his strategy, and the ethical dimensions of his practices, makes as much sense as weighing the business practices of an author of a finance book, or the athletic record of someone writing a manual on winning a medal. It's part of his cred, since he set out to sell people his book on being indie, so I'd say he invites the criticism.


Points well and fairly made, Anne.

And certainly easier to discuss than the more knee-jerk anti-Locke criticisms that have been made. 

I'll happily admit that leaving that element of his method out of his "how-to" book is problematic at the least, and more likely deceptive.

But is he a novelist I'll still read and enjoy? Yup.

A big role-model for me is Stephen King. And I've always admired that he'll give strong prop-quotes to lesser-exposed novelists, especially in the horror field.

Then he went and ripped Stephanie Meyer to shreds. (And yeah, she is "just not very good.")

But I didn't stop reading King when he started being nastier toward other writers.

I don't know... I'm conflicted, I guess. I really enjoy Locke's novels and think he doesn't get enough credit for THAT. A couple of NYT BR reviewers cast his work as "pedestrian" and "tawdry" and that's all anyone parrots about him anymore.

But hey, I'll defend James Patterson, too, when people charge that he's 100-percent ghost-written. If I never again have to post, "Umm, so far all but one of his Alex Cross books were him writing by himself, and on his other books, where he has co-authors, they are ALWAYS credited on the cover," well... that'd be a happy day.

Some folks just like to be critical and repeat the same old schtick, whether it's true or not.

Sometimes I might be a bit too much of a defender of those under attack... ehh, whatever... time to go back to work on my own writing, I guess.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

There's a difference between criticism and attack.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> They're not dictating terms for reviews as such though. They are dictating terms for reviews where the reviewer chooses to use an Amazon account (with specific t&cs) to publish those reviews on Amazon's online shop, hosted on Amazon's servers. Which I think is fair enough.


Sure. I agree that's what they are doing, and I agree it is fair. I question how many choose to give Amazon and its TOS the standing to decide what's fair.

During the congressional SOPA hearings last year, we learned the bill intended to criminalize violation of a TOS. Witnesses pointed out that until recently the Google TOS had limited use to those over age 18. Rationality prevailed and the provision was dropped from the bill.

In that case, nobody cared what Google wanted or said in its TOS. There was mass violation as kids Googled at will while parents and teachers abetted their violation. Social media is a funny animal. It's run by owners of sites, but we see general social attitudes arising as to how it should be used.

I think the observed reality is people have chosen to ignore the TOS. Amazon reviews appear to be an example. That doesn't mean it's right or wrong, it's just what's happening. People are voting with their clicks.



> I always assume some level of sleaze and dishonesty because that's what it takes to succeed in business, but this is over the top.


Can we then conclude the independent authors who are enjoying success are dishonest and sleazy? Show of sleazy hands?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Locke's an indie, too, and there's an atmosphere here on KB WC... supposedly home to a lot of us indies... to kick the guy in the 'nads at every opportunity, just because he's found success.


Just caught up on this thread, and I honestly don't see this as a "kick the guy in the 'nads" thread. The issue here is that when stuff like this is done by a big seller, then any time someone makes it big, people start wondering if s/he cheated his or her way to the top somehow. If someone has a lot of positive reviews, people wonder the same thing. It makes it harder for all of us, because readers may think, "Oh, yeah, she's an indie, so her reviews are probably all fake."

It just makes things harder for everyone, and it's not surprising people would be indignant. It's especially annoying because a lot of us bought Locke's book, which left this little detail out. Makes me feel rather foolish for buying it, frankly.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Wrong! (apply where necessary)


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Monique said:


> Wrong! (apply where necessary)


LMAO


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm not kicking Locke in the 'nads, I'm p-o'ed that I gave him good money for his book (and I'm relieved to hear I'm not the only one who had trouble with the advice) only to find out he left out his most "successful" tactic--gaming the review system. I have really strong reviews for my books both at Amazon and at Goodreads; I fight the family/friends perception already, and this makes it that much harder. I'm just lucky that a lot of my reviews are loooong--obviously not paid-for.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Can we then conclude the independent authors who are enjoying success are dishonest and sleazy? Show of sleazy hands?


Absolutely not. My assumption of sleaze and dishonesty is directed at business _in general_. When there's a lot of money to be made, some individuals/corporations will resort to unethical business practices to gain an advantage, regardless of industry. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised that it's finally happened to the indie publishing world.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

Very interesting take from Russel Blake:
http://russellblake.com/rigged-reviews/


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Absolutely not. My assumption of sleaze and dishonesty is directed at business in general. When there's a lot of money too be made, some individuals/corporations will resort to unethical business practices to gain an advantage, regardless of industry. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised that it's finally happened to the indie publishing world.


Good. I don't think successful people have to be dishonest or sleazy either. But I disagree with the general proposition. General is far to encompassing and smears everyone with the accusation of sleaze. I would agree that dishonesty and sleaze are found in business, including the business of independent publishing, reviewing, and widget making.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Thanks, Vicki. It's good to see that Amazon has spelled out this rule.


----------



## JGreen20 (Jul 10, 2012)

KaraKing said:


> There is a new book in my catagory that had 395 five star reviews in a week and went straight to #1. It has a few ones, twos, threes and fours. Well, one of the reviewers said, "If you are wondering why there are so many five star reviews it is because the author held a drawing. Everyone that went and wrote reviews was entered into a contest to win an I-Pad."
> 
> Well, of course they are all going to put 5 star reviews! This is so unethical to me. It is scamming the review system. It is not fair to the readers that think, "Omg, this must be an awesome book, look at all the praise!"
> 
> They will think of anything and everything to game the system, I guess.


Not only it is unethical, it is against Amazon ToS.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> We should find a way to embed that with the sad trombone noise, or like a klaxon or something.


No way. That would be WRONG.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> I'm not kicking Locke in the 'nads, I'm p-o'ed that I gave him good money for his book (and I'm relieved to hear I'm not the only one who had trouble with the advice) only to find out he left out his most "successful" tactic--gaming the review system. I have really strong reviews for my books both at Amazon and at Goodreads; I fight the family/friends perception already, and this makes it that much harder. I'm just lucky that a lot of my reviews are loooong--obviously not paid-for.


This. I never kicked Locke anywhere. In fact, I wrote a couple of long blog posts analyzing his system and what I thought writers might be able to get out of it, only to find out he cheated me out of an essential part of the strategy.

But I'm not mad. Yes, he has 4.99 from me I'll never get back, and I spent lots of time doing ineffective promotion, but I learned a lot while I was making my mistakes too.

Mostly I'm just relieved knowing that the reason his system didn't work for me isn't because I'm a doofus -- it's because I skipped the part about paying $1,000+ for reviews. And since I have absolutely no interest in going there, that's the way it will stay. I hope this doesn't make any of us with several five star reviews look like we're spreading the money around, but hopefully readers will look at dates and figure out when reviews grow organically and when they're bought.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm really, really glad I didn't pay for his book. Frankly, I didn't do it because I figured that it would be the same as 'common wisdom' here.

Yeah, except for the part about reviews...

KB has more wisdom (and integrity) than Locke - not a surprise, is it?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I'm really, really glad I didn't pay for his book. Frankly, I didn't do it because I figured that it would be the same as 'common wisdom' here.


I bought the book mostly because I try to support indies where possible, especially when they seem to have done a lot for our public image. Hence my annoyance.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

I honestly do not give these books like Locke's a seconds thought. It's hard to lay out what worked for you and not end up preaching a system that is fraught with holes that no one could possibly fill ... unless they are you, write like you, write what you write, have your audience, have your voice. After that, it's just a catalogue of a lead to b lead to c. 

I do buy books like Bob Mayer's 101 mistakes writers make because it is wisdom that can easily be fit into any paradigm shift without being so subjective to the individual so as to be practically useless. 

And yeah, the "oh, did I forget to mention that I bought 100,000 copies of my book" as part of the strategy I'm peddling? Sorry." is pretty lame to leave that out if it was at any part of the "how I did it" process but I can certainly see why he left it out, it's the skeleton in the closet for all the reasons mentioned already.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

phil1861 said:


> And yeah, the "oh, did I forget to mention that I bought 100,000 copies of my book" as part of the strategy I'm peddling? Sorry." is pretty lame to leave that out if it was at any part of the "how I did it" process but I can certainly see why he left it out, it's the skeleton in the closet for all the reasons mentioned already.


I'm confused. Where was this mentioned?


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> I'm confused. Where was this mentioned?


Locke specifically, nowhere; being facetious based on another obvious strategy for cooking your ranking.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2012)

> Many of the 300 reviews he bought through GettingBookReviews were highly favorable, although it's impossible to say whether this was because the reviewers genuinely liked the books, or because of their well-developed tendency toward approval, or some combination of the two.





> Mr. Locke is unwilling to say that paying for reviews made a big difference. "Reviews are the smallest piece of being successful," he said. "But it's a lot easier to buy them than cultivating an audience."


The Sith in me feels like gloating right now. Can I? Because when Locke started to peddle his "How I Sold a Million Copies" the same day Amazon released its press release regarding his achievement*, I recall saying something didn't smell right. I've never been a Locke cheerleader and I've made no secret of it. But whenever I have offered any criticism or mentioned that something smelled wrong, it would boil down to ***** just being witchy.

The guy is a con artist who scammed the entire indie community. He lied about how he achieved his success*, and then had such low esteem for indie authors that he sold you a fake how-to book. Don't make excuses for him. _He is not an indie_. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing that took advantage of the community's desire to see someone succeed and then got so greedy he had to make more money by selling a lie to you.



Spoiler



*Like A-Rod, I think his achievements should forever have an asterisk after them


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Just curious, how many people base their decision to buy a book based on the reviews?

When I choose to buy a fiction book, I read the sample. If the sample doesn't convince me of the books quality, then a hundred thousand five star reviews sure aren't going to. Lord knows I've seen enough books with raving reviews where the sample has left me shaking my head. Non-fiction is different though, because I'm looking for what the book can teach as opposed to being entertained.

I am surprised that so many on this forum were shocked that this stuff was going on. There have been threads about services such as Book Rooster, comments about people being able to spot fake reviews, quid pro quo requests, and some suggestions that some one star reviews are from other writers who are in competition with the book being reviewed.

Do people buying fake reviews surprise me? Nope, not in the slightest.

Do I agree with it? No.

But I also don't agree with how traditional publishing chooses its "Best Sellers".

Basically, are you going to believe what people say or your own lying eyes?


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2012)

All of this makes Amanda Hocking even more awesome.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

phil1861 said:


> Locke specifically, nowhere; being facetious based on another obvious strategy for cooking your ranking.


So there's no proof? Just assumption?

ETA:

Alright, I found it.



> One thing that made a difference is not mentioned in "How I Sold One Million E-Books." That October, Mr. Locke commissioned Mr. Rutherford to order reviews for him, becoming one of the fledging service's best customers. "I will start with 50 for $1,000, and if it works and if you feel you have enough readers available, I would be glad to order many more," he wrote in an Oct. 13 e-mail to Mr. Rutherford. "I'm ready to roll."


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

What makes this really insulting IMO is that Locke's book was largely about being so active on twitter that you'd generate an army of people who genuinely want to support everything you do. It was largely about being the ultimate nice guy to generate lots of goodwill. How many indies decided to spend half their days on twitter after reading his book, thinking that was the secret? He not only took those people's money, he deceived them about how to succeed at their dream.

He made a point about saying that you need to write everyone back who contacts you so you can build that army of supporters. I sent him a nice email after I read his how-to book--I figured even if I could take one helpful thing out of the book, it would be worth it--and never got a response from him. I think maybe I wrote him to let him know about some typos in his book, or something like that. When I didn't hear back from him, that told me he didn't even follow his own advice.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2012)

foreverjuly said:


> All of this makes Amanda Hocking even more awesome.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> I wonder how customer service would respond if people called and asked if, given the extraordinary circumstances -- deception, selling a system he knew to be false, and doing it with Amazon's "a million books" endorsement -- they could return his marketing book no matter when they purchased it.
> 
> (ETA: I don't really wonder. I imagine the poor dude who answers the phone will just...not have a good answer beyond "it's after the grace period." But man, do I wish he could get hit with a wave of returns.)


Honestly, I'm not a John Locke fan, but I did buy that book months ago and there's a ton of good information in it. He didn't mention the reviews, but I don't think they were solely responsible for him selling the way he did. There's still a LOT of value in that book. Another really good one I've read is by Carolyn McCray called Dollars and Sense. That's worth looking into.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> I wonder how customer service would respond if people called and asked if, given the extraordinary circumstances -- deception, selling a system he knew to be false, and doing it with Amazon's "a million books" endorsement -- they could return his marketing book no matter when they purchased it.
> 
> (ETA: I don't really wonder. I imagine the poor dude who answers the phone will just...not have a good answer beyond "it's after the grace period." But man, do I wish he could get hit with a wave of returns.)


I think everyone who got scammed should demand a refund on the grounds that the book was fraudulent and that the author paid for reviews in violation of the TOS. At this point, for Amazon to salvage the credibility of the reviews system, they need to come down on Locke...HARD. I think if enough people complain Amazon would be forced to do something.


----------



## JGreen20 (Jul 10, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think if enough people complain Amazon would be forced to do something.


I don't think so. Unless you bought your book in the last 7 days -when you can refund it- don't expect anything.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

FYI---for those on Twitter that may be interested, todays #LITCHAT is on this topic. At 4pm ET today.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

For the record, I have never asked for nor paid for a review. I have never even solicited reviews from bloggers or other reviewers. I also don't believe in the whole social marketing thing to sell a million books. I still believe that if you write a good book, sooner or later it will sell.

To me the problem is that even after he scammed the system, he used that success to sell a book telling others how to "make it" in self-publishing using an incomplete formula. Not only was that an out-right lie, it also is responsible for the mad rush of self-publishers that are currently watering down the system and making it more difficult for those of us who are really doing this because we love it. I had never heard of Mr. Locke until long after I found this board. Thankfully, everything I needed to know was here. My inspiration for giving this a go was Randolph Lalonde, (okay, that and poverty) not any of the other "look at me, you can do this too" types.

To my dying day I will believe that cream rises and #&%* sinks. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I'm happier that way.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

This makes me feel the same way as when I hear that a medal-winning athlete has been caught taking drugs - horribly disappointed


----------



## SallyWGrotta (Jan 27, 2012)

My husband Daniel Grotta (a professional book critic) has been so annoyed with biased, unprofessional reviews, and now, after reading the Times article, he's decided to do something about it. He is launching a new column, "The 99-Cent Critic" -- in which he will honestly review eBooks that sell for 99 cents or less. For now, we're hosting it on our blog, but he may arrange to publish it later. Here's his introductory column:

http://www.grotta.net/blog.htm?post=871314


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

A.R. Williams said:


> Just curious, how many people base their decision to buy a book based on the reviews?


Based only on the reviews? I consider the reviews. I don't sample often. My indie book buying stream-of-consciousness process goes like this:

"Oh, what that author just posted on KindleBoards sounds interesting...what has he or she written? Oh, that looks good, great cover...let me just click on that....blurb sounds interesting and I like the genre....how are the reviews? Hmmm, I always read the worst review first to see what that person didn't like. Oh, gee, there are no "worst" reviews. But the book looked really interesting...add to wish list to consider again later OR send sample to my Kindle which will languish until I delete it because I don't read samples.... OR, I can live with what that person didn't like, I'll try the book."

Betsy


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> However, 150 reviews with a 4.8 rating looks...legit.


Not to me. That would make it just about the best book ever written, and it probably isn't.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> FYI---for those on Twitter that may be interested, todays #LITCHAT is on this topic. At 4pm ET today.


And this may be a good opportunity for some of us to speak up in the #LITCHAT and let people know that most self-published authors do NOT behave this way.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> All of this makes Amanda Hocking even more awesome.


No surprise then that her physical books remained for sale on store bookshelves when Lockes fared less well.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

dalya said:


> I don't have the book, but I think we can assume that if he left out one detail, he left out other details as well.


I didn't think of that. You're probably right!


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

tkkenyon said:


> I just read the article.
> 
> He was making *$28,000 a MONTH* with this scam!
> 
> TK Kenyon


Do we have more than his word that this is true?


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

SallyWGrotta said:


> My husband Daniel Grotta (a professional book critic) has been so annoyed with biased, unprofessional reviews, and now, after reading the Times article, he's decided to do something about it. He is launching a new column, "The 99-Cent Critic" -- in which he will honestly review eBooks that sell for 99 cents or less. For now, we're hosting it on our blog, but he may arrange to publish it later. Here's his introductory column:
> 
> http://www.grotta.net/blog.htm?post=871314


I hope your blog gets lots of hits. Let us know how we can help to spread the word.


----------



## Rose Archer (Aug 27, 2012)

I hate to say this, but publishing is a lot like investment banking. There are those of us struggling along, keeping our noses clean. However, there is no question that if you have a lot of money, you know the right people, you're willing to bend rules, etc., you can get to the head of line faster, or get into lines the rest of us don't have access to.

I am not surprised about this at all. I'm just upset with John Locke that he conned me into buying his book.

I write because I love to write. BUT, as soon as I put something up for sale, I start feeling the same way I feel about trying to save/invest money. What's the system? What am I able to do? What can I do and still live with myself?

I have never bought a review, but I think it's a mistake to pretend this is an even playing field.


----------



## R M Rowan (Jul 13, 2011)

In my moment of boredom, I happened upon yahoo where I found this article about paid reviews. I never
realized just how big the business is, and even more so, how many people actually pay for reviews. 
There's four pages to wade through, but basically, this fellow was raking in up to $28,000 a month doing
reviews for books before he was shut down. I apologize if this has already been posted.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-book-reviews-money-buy-131408538.html?page=1


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Thanks, but there's already a long thread on it here:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,124295.0.html


----------



## R M Rowan (Jul 13, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Thanks, but there's already a long thread on it here:
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,124295.0.html


Thanks! Off to check it out. If everyone would just let this thread die, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

merged two threads on same topic. . . .sorry for any confusion.


----------



## KVWitten (Apr 11, 2011)

Don't get me wrong - I think paying for positive reviews is totally wrong.  But I can't help but wonder how often 'traditional' publishing does the same thing.

I'm speaking specifically of 'blurbs' on 'traditionally-published' book covers.

Personally, I tend to ignore them.  I always figured they were a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type of arrangement.  (In fact, there's an author whose books I will no longer buy because one of the worst books I never finished had a glowing blurb from her on the cover.)

But in all honesty, are these any different?  Maybe no actual money changes hands but it's obviously rigged.  I still think it's wrong but I'd hate to see indie authors getting blamed for this when (IMHO) it's been going on for years.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

BarbaraKE said:


> I'm speaking specifically of 'blurbs' on 'traditionally-published' book covers.


I've seen a number of trade-published authors say that Big Name Author X wrote a glowing blurb for them, or signed off the glowing blurb the publisher wrote, without reading the book. But I do think that's a little different to supposed 'customer reviews' which aren't from actual customers.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I see Bookplex is still offering their paid review service. Not cool.

http://www.thebookplex.com/authors.html


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> 'm speaking specifically of 'blurbs' on 'traditionally-published' book covers... I always figured they were a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type of arrangement.


I think cover blurbs are more of a please-your-publisher sort of thing. When my first book was published by Bantam, I got a lovely blurb from Elizabeth Thornton, who was a well-known romance author at the time and who surely wasn't looking for any sort of reciprocity from me-- she was a major author, and I was a nobody. I don't know for sure if she read my book or not, but I do know she was asked to do it by the publisher. I imagine major authors are asked to do this by their editors as a matter of course, and agree to it because they feel a sense of obligation to their publishing house.

But that's only ONE quote. That seems different to me than purchasing a boatload of reviews which purport to be from readers, but which are actually being generated by a company that's turning a profit by churning out reviews. The first is at least somewhat straightforward-- the person whose name is on the blurb is (presumably) actually the person who wrote it. The other is blatantly fraudulent, it seems to me-- the reviews are supposedly from ordinary reviewers, but in fact they've been purchased. I don't really see these two things as even remotely equivalent.


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

Rykymus said:


> To my dying day I will believe that cream rises and #&%* sinks. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I'm happier that way.


We all want to believe that... and it's easy for those doing well to believe it. 
But I've read wonderful indie books that languish, and I've read awful indie books that sell consistently. 
So I don't believe it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2012)

BarbaraKE said:


> Don't get me wrong - I think paying for positive reviews is totally wrong. But I can't help but wonder how often 'traditional' publishing does the same thing.


Let's not convolute the issue by comparing ad copy to "let's pretend I am an actual Amazon customer and take money for a review."

A blurb is ad copy, not a review. Customers are smart. They recognize a book blurb for what it is. It is no different than when you see a celebrity in a commercial. It is a product endorsement. It is an ad tool. Book blurbs are part of branding efforts. If you want to "brand" your author as being similar to Stephen King, then you try to get a blurb from King himself. Whether or not the blurb has credibility depends on whether or not readers value that author's opinion. Further, there is rarely a question of the relationship between the parties involved and WHO the people are involved. There is a level of transparency because we know who these people are, and often their relationships (either as friends or fellow authors in the same publisher's stable) is known.

What we are talking about are customer reviews specifically. Specifically, customer reviews are supposed to be just that: reviews from customers. Locke specifically requested that his paid reviewers buy copies of the book just to get that "verified purchase" badge in a deliberate effort to trick readers into thinking that these reviews were from genuine book buyers. In this case, the reader is being led to believe that the reviewer is a normal customer, just like the reader, who spontaneously chose to leave a review. This is a lie. There is no transparency. The entire set-up is a lie designed to deceive.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Traditional publishing does do this all the time. I've noticed that authors that share the same publisher, editor or often the same agent will write blurbs for each other. I used to pay attention to them thinking they were real endorsements and if I liked an author, I might like the book she blurbed....until I got burned. I bought a book based on an author blurb that led to believe the book was a cozy, foodie type of story...Maeve Binchy like and it was nothing of the sort. Then I noticed the author that blurbed shared either same editor or agent, I forget which. I haven't paid any attention since to blurbs, they all seem fake now.


----------



## RedGolum (Nov 2, 2011)

Very sad, but not surprising.  As many have seen on the news, and some family members in the business have told me, much of the online review/clicks are "gamed".  So much that one family member will not trust any review on a for pay site (like Amazon).

It makes some sense.  Will you buy a one star product? Would you pay to have it all appear as five star? I wouldn't do the latter, but many would.


----------



## 13500 (Apr 22, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Let's not convolute the issue by comparing ad copy to "let's pretend I am an actual Amazon customer and take money for a review."
> 
> A blurb is ad copy, not a review. Customers are smart. They recognize a book blurb for what it is. It is no different than when you see a celebrity in a commercial. It is a product endorsement. It is an ad tool. Book blurbs are part of branding efforts. If you want to "brand" your author as being similar to Stephen King, then you try to get a blurb from King himself. Whether or not the blurb has credibility depends on whether or not readers value that author's opinion. Further, there is rarely a question of the relationship between the parties involved and WHO the people are involved. There is a level of transparency because we know who these people are, and often their relationships (either as friends or fellow authors in the same publisher's stable) is known.
> 
> What we are talking about are customer reviews specifically. Specifically, customer reviews are supposed to be just that: reviews from customers. Locke specifically requested that his paid reviewers buy copies of the book just to get that "verified purchase" badge in a deliberate effort to trick readers into thinking that these reviews were from genuine book buyers. In this case, the reader is being led to believe that the reviewer is a normal customer, just like the reader, who spontaneously chose to leave a review. This is a lie. There is no transparency. The entire set-up is a lie designed to deceive.


Yes! That is what makes this thing so infuriating.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Heading over to #LITCHAT now.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Let's not convolute the issue by comparing ad copy to "let's pretend I am an actual Amazon customer and take money for a review."
> 
> A blurb is ad copy, not a review. Customers are smart. They recognize a book blurb for what it is. It is no different than when you see a celebrity in a commercial. It is a product endorsement. It is an ad tool. Book blurbs are part of branding efforts. If you want to "brand" your author as being similar to Stephen King, then you try to get a blurb from King himself. Whether or not the blurb has credibility depends on whether or not readers value that author's opinion. Further, there is rarely a question of the relationship between the parties involved and WHO the people are involved. There is a level of transparency because we know who these people are, and often their relationships (either as friends or fellow authors in the same publisher's stable) is known.
> 
> What we are talking about are customer reviews specifically. Specifically, customer reviews are supposed to be just that: reviews from customers. Locke specifically requested that his paid reviewers buy copies of the book just to get that "verified purchase" badge in a deliberate effort to trick readers into thinking that these reviews were from genuine book buyers. In this case, the reader is being led to believe that the reviewer is a normal customer, just like the reader, who spontaneously chose to leave a review. This is a lie. There is no transparency. The entire set-up is a lie designed to deceive.


Yes. A blurb is not a review. I do blurbs all the time for writer friends, and vice versa. But I don't pay them to write reviews. Big difference.


----------



## Rose Archer (Aug 27, 2012)

Looks like this thread is more informative than the #LITCHAT discussion. FYI. (We're good, aren't we?)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> All of this makes Amanda Hocking even more awesome.


After having finally met her in person last week at a reading here in Portland at Powell's... I can confirm Amanda's awesomeness.

After the reading, she even went out for ice cream with our local writer's group that showed up to support her.  We have pictures on Facebook to prove it.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

BarbaraKE said:


> Don't get me wrong - I think paying for positive reviews is totally wrong. But I can't help but wonder how often 'traditional' publishing does the same thing.
> 
> I'm speaking specifically of 'blurbs' on 'traditionally-published' book covers.
> 
> ...


I read an article about a year ago (can't remember where now) specifically about the practice of trad publishers not only purchasing reviews (Amazon reviews) for their authors' books, but also purchasing BAD reviews for competitors' books. It does happen VERY often, according to that article.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

phil1861 said:


> And yeah, the "oh, did I forget to mention that I bought 100,000 copies of my book" as part of the strategy I'm peddling? Sorry."
> 
> Locke specifically, nowhere; being facetious based on another obvious strategy for cooking your ranking.


Yeah, this is the kind of "kick a guy" stuff I reference that everyone says they never do.

Bad enough what Locke actually did. Making up extra stuff just to be facetious? Not cool.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

I'm personally very suspicious of this article. The only author cited who has purchased from this man is John Locke.  Look at the numbers of authors here who have posted that they would never do such a thing (okay, I'm really trusting you folks now!).  I KNOW that I have never done this and never would.  Any of the Indie authors I know have never done this, and I know a fair number.  So WHO is doing this?

How can we trust that this man is telling the truth about how much money he has made?

It feels very much like a veiled attack on Indie authors to me.  

While I'm sickened that Locke did this, I think we really need to step back and wonder how truly LARGE this problem is.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> What makes this really insulting IMO is that Locke's book was largely about being so active on twitter that you'd generate an army of people who genuinely want to support everything you do. It was largely about being the ultimate nice guy to generate lots of goodwill. How many indies decided to spend half their days on twitter after reading his book, thinking that was the secret? He not only took those people's money, he deceived them about how to succeed at their dream.
> 
> He made a point about saying that you need to write everyone back who contacts you so you can build that army of supporters. I sent him a nice email after I read his how-to book--I figured even if I could take one helpful thing out of the book, it would be worth it--and never got a response from him. I think maybe I wrote him to let him know about some typos in his book, or something like that. When I didn't hear back from him, that told me he didn't even follow his own advice.


Moses,

In total agreement with you on this point.

I, too, followed the Locke model for a while, as outlined in that book. It didn't do much for me, so I reinvested my time back into writing.

I can understand people who feel that his "how to" book was fraudulent.

What I don't like is when people then go on to say, "And he can't write to save his life!"

Because that's a step too far.

What's sad about what he did is, it takes the focus off his actual books. Again, I've read every one of them, and I find them highly entertaining reads. He's someone I buy on Day 1 of availability and he always goes to the top of my TBR pile.

I'll still give him credit, too, for not denying the purchase of the reviews.

One would hope, though, that he now sees it as wrong and would rely on the people who actually buy his stuff of their own volition, because they like his books... rather than just looking for a new source of paid reviews...

His best bet would be to issue a _mea culpa_ on his blog... admit he messed up, commit to not making the same mistake again, and ask for forgiveness.

A little genuine humility goes a long way.

Will he? Who knows....


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

karencantwell said:


> It feels very much like a veiled attack on Indie authors to me.
> 
> While I'm sickened that Locke did this, I think we really need to step back and wonder how truly LARGE this problem is.


I think you have a point, Karen.

At the minimum, it's an attack against any indie who manages to be successful, even if to a far lesser degree. Use Locke as the "example" and then by that example, imply that anyone with success as an indie has probably done the same thing.

Good catch; I think you're onto something.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Myself, I just really don't trust the article because it has no balance and seems fixated on Locke and indies. At making $28,000 per month Locke is just a drop in the bucket and this character comes off as pretty shifty and the reporter never addresses that or many other points about his credibility.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Mr Locke's book had 312 reviews 48 hours ago; it now has 310, the latest one pointing out the NYT article (174 of 177 people found that review helpful)


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

karencantwell said:


> It feels very much like a veiled attack on Indie authors to me.


I posted a link to Russell Blake's blog post earlier in this thread. It's worth a look.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> For all the self-pubbed writers on Kindleboards, there are probably ten or twenty times that many out there who do not take the time to become professionals, who do slap whatever together and publish it. I'd hazard a guess that a good number of those people find out about the paid review sites and take advantage of them. Also, some people don't see anything wrong with paying for reviews, either because they don't know any better or they just flat believe it's okay. And as much as I hate to say it, I'd say there are some KB authors who do, as well. I know there are some who've been here in the past who've done it. They're not part of the community anymore, and haven't been for a long, long time, but part of the reason they were asked to leave was because they were caught gaming the system. There are tons of great, honest, do-it-right authors here - but there are some who are not. It's part of life.


I'm sure you are correct since I've seem plenty of them without spending much time looking.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2012)

No, no, no, no, no. The article is NOT AN ATTACK ON INDIES. Let's not play the "OMG WE ARE ALL VICTIMS!!!!!!!!!!!" card. That is B.S.

Reviews for sale is a huge problem. There is a reason Amazon has an actual policy against it. There is a reason why Amazon deleted THOUSANDS of paid reviews last year. This is a real problem, and pretending that discussing the problem is an attack on indies only perpetuates the problem by giving the scum who pull these stunts cover.

We SHOULD be angry. Not at the article. But at Locke and others like him. The article is not attacking indie authors. It is a very real problem that we have discussed here on KB over and over again. In this thread, people have cited places that sell book reviews on a regular basis. Go read the Amazon customer forums and you will find countless threads where the customers have called out authors who bought reviews. There is some serious detective work that goes on over there if you are brave enough to read it.

We do not fight the stigma by defending scumbags that make us look bad. 
We do not fight the stigma by putting our head in the sand and pretending it isn't as bad as we think it is.
We do not fight the stigma by blaming the people who reveal this sort of stuff.
We do not fight the stigma by hiding behind "Oh, well I heard from some source I don't remember/can't recall that publishers do it all the time" nonsense.

We fight it by acknowledging it, *condemning it without qualifications,* and then working our asses off to make sure the really talented among us get the attention they deserve. Stuff like the eFestival of Words that we did earlier this month that highlights great books through peer nomination and getting authors together to discuss books for readers. Or when authors get together and put out charity anthologies. Or when we rally around a worthy cause like when Elle shared with us the information about Read for the Future and authors stepped up to donate books. We have to condemn the negative while working to do good.

There will always be scum looking to milk the system, but if we condemn it strongly enough while working to promote the best of us, we can mitigate it and negate the negative's influence on the community.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

cdvsmx5 said:


> I posted a link to Russell Blake's blog post earlier in this thread. It's worth a look.


Thank you for directing me to that post. He echoed my thoughts precisely. Especially loved this: "I smell rat all over this. Not because some shifty wanker started a pay for review business, nor because some name authors used it. But because it is a "when did you stop beating your wife" article. It has all the signs of a hatchet job."

Here's the link again for anyone who may have missed it: http://russellblake.com/rigged-reviews/


----------



## Jerri Kay Lincoln (Jun 18, 2011)

Aside from the problem and annoyance of paid reviews, I think the really interesting thing about this article is that ONE woman brought him down.  Think of that!  He's supposedly making $28k a month, and one woman ends it all.  To me, that is what really stands out in this article.  Fight injustice!  You can do it!


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> ...Remember that the NYTimes Bestseller list is still actively gamed so that it doesn't reflect actual sales -- and somehow this is never to the benefit of self-published authors.


Speaking of Best Seller Lists, I'm puzzled that no one here is concerned by Digital Book World's recently announced ebook lists. They are co-published by a Trad. Pub. insider that hid his ties. Further, the first manipulation they do is to exclude 'one hit wonders'. That used to be a historical reference, not a prophecy.

Attacks on multiple fronts. Looks to me Trad. Pub. is starting to take Self Pub. as a threat.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

cdvsmx5 said:


> Attacks on multiple fronts. Looks to me Trad. Pub. is starting to take Self Pub. as a threat.


*sigh* Really? What, did some evil cabal of trad publishers trick poor wittle ole John Locke into thinking it was acceptable to buy all of those reviews? Was it some evil corporate minion that whispered in his ear the idea of requesting that those paid reviewers buy their copies on Amazon to get the "verified purchase" badge? Was he under some sort of mind control?

Do not defend the indefensible by pretending there is a conspiracy. *Locke buried himself.* He paid for reviews. He admits to it. Period. Anything else about conspiracies is providing cover for his bad behavior.

Talk about bad behavior regarding gaming anything is legitimate, but it should be discussed separately and identified for what it is on its own terms. Not thrown out as a smoke screen to provide cover for "one of our own."

Come on, gang. Throwing out the "OMG THEY DID IT FIRST" line that I am seeing in some of these posts doesn't make any of us look good.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> *sigh* Really? ...


B.S. Nobody. No body tried to defend his actions. Certainly not me. Paint some other fool with that brush.

Tell me, who owns the NY Times? Why this? Why now?


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

cdvsmx5 said:


> B.S. Nobody. No body tried to defend his actions. Certainly not me. Paint some other fool with that brush.
> 
> Tell me, who owns the NY Times? Why this? Why now?


In life, sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. It may well just be as simple as Rutherford decided to come clean and the reporter decided to research the story. Frankly, it is probably just that simple. There has been talk about paid reviews in other industries (the hotel industry has been blasted multiple times on the subject, for example, but it has also hit the restaurant industry). So I'm not seeing an anti-indie article. I'm seeing the natural extension of the media's reporting into various different paid review scams. If nobody had ever reported on paid reviews in other industries, then maybe the conspiracy theory would have some weight. But there have been dozens of stories over the last year or so on review farms in other industries. This is just one more on the same vein.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

So this finally answers the question of how a lot of writers attained huge sales and success without doing any promotion (their usual answer is, "Just lucky, I guess.").


----------



## herocious (May 20, 2011)

I'm going to write something relevant about this.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I've always enjoyed seeing publishers' paid display ads in the newspaper book sections that reviewed their books. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I've always enjoyed seeing publishers' paid display ads in the newspaper book sections that reviewed their books. Ain't this a great country?


You know why I like you Terrence? I always think I'm on your side when I read your posts, but when I click away I'm never quite sure...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Do not defend the indefensible by pretending there is a conspiracy. *Locke buried himself.* He paid for reviews. He admits to it. Period. Anything else about conspiracies is providing cover for his bad behavior.
> 
> Talk about bad behavior regarding gaming anything is legitimate, but it should be discussed separately and identified for what it is on its own terms. Not thrown out as a smoke screen to provide cover for "one of our own."
> 
> Come on, gang. Throwing out the "OMG THEY DID IT FIRST" line that I am seeing in some of these posts doesn't make any of us look good.


Julie,

My defense of Locke has been that he IS an entertaining novelist, not a defense of his actions. That's the sad bit about the choice he made; it takes the attention away from a set of funny, clever crime stories he wrote.

As for what you write above, "Locke buried himself" is overstating it a bit, don't you think?

I mean, yes, absolutely, he did pay for reviews. But he told the truth about it when asked. How is telling the truth "burying himself?"

I suppose he could be like so many these days and have issued a denial. "It depends on what the meaning of is is." "I did not have paid reviews with that woman." "Hi. My name's Anthony Weiner, and, I know what you're thinking, with a name like mine, but really, I did not Tweet...."

Is fabrication, denial and outright lying now considered more virtuous than an admission of the truth?

I know, I know, it'll be easy to read this as a defense of Locke's review-buying. It's not.

I'm focusing on your overstatement at the moment.

Locke admitted the truth of what he did, when asked. What a terrible, terrible guy.

(In truth, the terrible part was in waiting UNTIL he was asked. Yes, I get that he either 1) never should have bought reviews to begin with, or 2) admitted it from the beginning as part of his "strategy" so that people could judge the ethics of his strategy as a whole. No one's questioning that.)

The real consequence he's suffering is that he is really an entertaining, clever writer in the vein of an Elmore Leonard or Chuck Palahniuk or at the very least, a Max Allan Collins... and by choosing these wrong paths, no one's talking about his work anymore. Just about his bad marketing choices and his decision to game the system to get noticed.

That said, I do think this article serves a larger "New York media" agenda to discredit successful indies. Does that mean the report's untrue? Not at all. Things can be true, and choices can be wrong, and reporting on it can still serve an agenda at the same time. 

That turns Locke's tale into a cautionary one, and the lesson is this:

Think through the ETHICS of all your marketing decisions BEFORE you make it big. Because if you DO make it big and you shortcut your way to the top... it'll come back to bite you.

I like to think by being part of this community, we're all educating ourselves on the ethics of self-publishing so that fewer of us will make these kinds of mistakes. In doing so, that's part of the public good KB and all of us who take part serve.

No one who comes here regularly and reads threads like this will ever be able to say, "Oh, gosh, I paid for some reviews back when I was getting started in August 2012. I didn't realize it wasn't right."

To the contrary, we should all know that by now. 

P.S. If anyone still thinks the Twitter portion of Locke's strategy is a path to success... think again. In the last 48 hours, I've read where a TON of celebrities and politicians have inflated numbers of Twitter followers.

Just two examples I saw in headlines today:

71 percent of Lady Gaga's followers are "fake" accounts.

70 percent of Barak Obama's followers are also "fake."

I'm guessing that's just the tip of the iceberg...


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I've always enjoyed seeing publishers' paid display ads in the newspaper book sections that reviewed their books. Ain't this a great country?


Good point, Terence. (Sorry, I've read the original NYT article, but almost none of the other posts in this thread--went straight to Page 9, the last page--now, back to writing.)


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

The Amazon rating system has been gamed for a long time. There are several stories about publicists, publishers, authors, and companies getting busted.

Belkin (the Belkin, maker of routers, ipod covers, and more) was busted in 2009 for buying fake positive reviews and paying to trash talk any real bad reviews:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/17/belkin-paying-65-cents-for-good-reviews-on-newegg-and-amazon/

They were paying .65 cents per review, so looks like the cost of a fake review has gone way up since 2009, so Amazon is on top of it.


----------



## MSTHRILLER (Jan 20, 2011)

After reading this thread, I was curious about all these paid reviews. So I started to read some of the 5 star reviews that Locke received then starting noticing some startling things. A lot of these same "reviewers" (using the term lightly) have reviewed other books by authors that I never would've thought would use paid reviewers. Some of these authors I *know* on FB or other author forums and have always wondered how they reached the best seller list so fast and have a steady stream of glowing reviews.  Now that I'm reading the reviews, it is so obvious.

If you are going to pay reviewers, here are some things you should tell your reviewers NOT to do:
1. Write multiple five star reviews on all your books on the SAME day. 
2. Copy and paste the SAME review on each of your books. 
3. Write a one or two sentence review with the words "couldn't put it down", "twists and turns", and "page turner" with no other details.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, I know this. My reviews and likes may not be plentiful, but they were hard-won, each and every one of 'em.

Most Likely has 11 reviews and 17 likes, including a 3-star by KindleObsessed that earned me about 80 sales or something like that, in the space of a few hours. (Peaks the book hasn't achieved since.) 4.0 average because there are 9 four-stars, and one each on the five-star and three-star.

Shada, around since last fall, has 6 reviews and 11 likes, with two each in the five-star, four-star, and three-star ratings, so also a 4.0-star average as well.

Under Contract, my newborn, has 2 reviews and 8 likes, and has a 5.0-star average... but two reviews are not enough to judge by.

Even so, I love and appreciate every reviewer who bothered, whether as part of a blog tour or because I emailed them (book bloggers) begging them for a place in line on their TBR pile, or of their own volition.

It's not garnered me tons of sales, and about the only book I'm qualified to write is "How to Lose Money and Sell About 100 to 150 eBooks In 15 Months."

But what I do have, I accumulated the hard way.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

http://seansweeneyauthor.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-depraved-indifference-of-dishonest.html


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> As for what you write above, "Locke buried himself" is overstating it a bit, don't you think?


Is it? Locke bought the reviews. OK, lots of folks get desperate and think "Hey, so long as the reviews are honest it is OK." And we can argue that as a separate issue back and forth. If it was just a matter of paying to get access to reviewers, we could argue that as a separate issue. Kirkus charges for reviews. Foreword charges for reviews. What's the difference, right?

But he specifically asked for the reviewers to buy the books from Amazon in order to obtain the "verified purchase" badge. That action shows intent to defraud. He went to efforts to mask the fact that the reviews were not reviews, buy paid endorsements. There was a willful attempt to trick readers into thinking the paid endorsements were grassroots support.

He then fabricated a myth around himself regarding how he sold all of those book, and then packaged that myth into book form to sell to other authors while failing to disclose the fact that over three hundred of his reviews were not reviews, but paid endorsements.

He only admitted it when a New York Times reporter interviewed him on the subject with evidence in hand. He hasn't, as far as I am aware, even acknowledged the story publicly. He hasn't come clean. He's ignoring it. Either he is ignoring it and hoping it will just fade away or just has so little respect for indie authors that he doesn't care.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

I just want to clarify my concern, because I am seeing this all over the web in discussions of the subject. And it is something we see a lot whenever someone in a position of celebrity or power gets caught: creeping validation. 

The cycle starts with the revelation that Locke bought reviews in order to game the system.

The initial reaction is disbelief and anger. 

Then someone tries to mitigate the anger by saying someone else on the other side (in this case, trad publishing) does the same thing or similar. 

Then someone tries to deflect the anger onto the person who revealed the information, making the perpetrator of the bad behavior a "victim" of a conspiracy from the other side.

Over time, people start to rally around the perpetrator who is being "persecuted" by some fill-in-the-blank conspiracy that is trying to hurt everyone like the perpetrator (in this case, indie authors).

I've already seen elsewhere people vigorously defending Locke's actions as trying to "help indies" by "evening the playing field" because "trads do it all the time!!!!!!!" and "the ends justify the means." Meanwhile, customers sit back scratching their heads trying to understand why so many indies are mad at evryone except Locke.

My concern is creeping validation of Locke's behavior.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> My concern is creeping validation of Locke's behavior.


I haven't read this entire thread, but I would hope no one's validating him.


----------



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

This could turn into another Operacion Puerto. A little bit of tracing out from some of the bogus reviews reveals quite a few big name authors. Some of those names are already being bandied about on my Twitter stream. Looks to be a sad, pathetic, but largely profitable ring. Glad I'm on vacation. I want nothing to do with this mess.

B.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MSTHRILLER said:


> After reading this thread, I was curious about all these paid reviews. So I started to read some of the 5 star reviews that Locke received then starting noticing some startling things. A lot of these same "reviewers" (using the term lightly) have reviewed other books by authors that I never would've thought would use paid reviewers. Some of these authors I *know* on FB or other author forums and have always wondered how they reached the best seller list so fast and have a steady stream of glowing reviews. Now that I'm reading the reviews, it is so obvious.
> 
> If you are going to pay reviewers, here are some things you should tell your reviewers NOT to do:
> 1. Write multiple five star reviews on all your books on the SAME day.
> ...


It's the same problem if you simply *ask* readers to review your books after they've read them. You often end up getting readers who've never reviewed anything before, and they don't know what to say. So you get a bunch of: "This is the first review I've ever written, and all I can say is that I loved this book."

The shame about these scams is that they cast doubts on all the real reviews. Now, if someone reads a book and doesn't like it, and they see a ton of glowing reviews, the first assumption is those reviews are fake. Suddenly, our subjective opinions of taste can be objective realities because dissenting opinions aren't real!

This happened to me with the latest Batman film. I'm a huge fan of the franchise, and I absolutely loathed the film. I would have walked out were it not so damn crowded in there. Meanwhile, the vast majority of reviews hail it as the next best thing. Everyone loves it. And my impulse is to assume something is wrong with these other viewers rather than the more likely explanation: It just wasn't the right film for me. Or I was in the wrong mood when I saw it. Or my expectations were too high because of seeing the review averages before I went.

The most depressing thing I've gone through as a writer is seeing negative reviews pop up that accuse all my positive reviews of being fake. Getting a review is the hardest thing in the world. Knowing that scumbags are cheating this system while the rest of us agonize over our writing and our relationships with readers in an attempt to win some feedback, any feedback, is demoralizing. And then we're lumped in with the people we wish we could strangle. To top it off, these people have made a lot of money screwing up the system for readers, authors, and distributors. Grrr.

And what's the answer? The best I can come up with is if everyone rated everything they read. Drown out the fake reviews with legitimate ones. But I'm not sure even that would solve the problem.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am not a writer, indy or otherwise. I have no connections to the publishing world or any other connections to books other than I buy them and I read them. So I can't be accused of trying to "attack" the poor dear Locke. 

I think Julie is spot on. 

He was treating selling books like selling a Slap and Chop, with all the crummy marketing ways to go with it. And fraud. Yes, I call it fraud. 

Someone pointed out the work some do on the Amazon forums about other "writers" that do similar things. It has been eye opening to say the least. 

And please no more of the blurb on the jackets the big bad trads have been using for years. Really now. I think we all know what the difference is. 

Unfortunately all of this and the success that Locke had with his fraudulent methods, will make more of the self publishers give it a go. There already are a lot. I said it before, for every one of you here, there are 20 more out there doing whatever. 

It's folks like Locke that have perpetuated that rush to the top at all costs.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hugh Howey said:


> It's the same problem if you simply *ask* readers to review your books after they've read them. You often end up getting readers who've never reviewed anything before, and they don't know what to say. So you get a bunch of: "This is the first review I've ever written, and all I can say is that I loved this book.


This^. I can write long detailed tech reviews...but my book reviews suck. And I've written more than one, but they still suck. I have a really hard time putting in words why I like a book, and consequently, based on what I read in the WC, my reviews would be considered suspect. But I push on.... 

Betsy


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I agree with Hugh that one of the most frustrating things is seeing a bad review that starts, "All these other reviews must be friends of the author" or "All these other reviews must be fake..." when you know your reviews are genuine. This situation has only exacerbated that, which is the real problem here.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> This^. I can write long detailed tech reviews...but my book reviews suck. And I've written more than one, but they still suck. I have a really hard time putting in words why I like a book, and consequently, based on what I read in the WC, my reviews would be considered suspect. But I push on....
> 
> Betsy


Here's another problem: Those of us who know how important reviews are aren't allowed to review other works in our genres. I just had my mind blown by READY PLAYER ONE. I'm left recommending it to others, but unable to write a review.

Again, the legitimate uses of the system are stymied by the handful of bad eggs. It stinks.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

There is no doubt that Locke has made us all look bad by his behavior.  So many of us have worked so hard for so long, following an ethical credo, that it's infuriating now to feel lumped into this group of short-cut takers.


----------



## Romi (Apr 4, 2011)

In other news, the string of 1 star "fraud" reviews that "How I sold a Million ebooks in Five Months" received after this story came out, was quickly followed by 3 super-enthusiastic 5-star reviews in a row written by...first-time reviewers. Hey, maybe they're real reviews, but thanks to what he did, credibility is lost, right?

But that IS a great way to push the "fraud" reviews down the page until they eventually fall off. Sweet.

(is there a raised eyebrow emoticon?)


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

MSTHRILLER said:


> After reading this thread, I was curious about all these paid reviews. So I started to read some of the 5 star reviews that Locke received then starting noticing some startling things. A lot of these same "reviewers" (using the term lightly) have reviewed other books by authors that I never would've thought would use paid reviewers. Some of these authors I *know* on FB or other author forums and have always wondered how they reached the best seller list so fast and have a steady stream of glowing reviews. Now that I'm reading the reviews, it is so obvious.


I was chatting to someone in trad. publishing about this very thing just the other week. It's kinda obvious which titles have benefited from dubious reviews 'guerilla marketing'!

For me, well I'm in two minds about this whole 'paid reviews as clever marketing' process. On one side, it allows indies to compete with big publishing in the marketplace for little outlay. On the other hand, it destroys any credibility in Amazon's review system (which is actually a valuable part of Amazon's business model).

It's got to the point now that I expect the majority of book reviews to be either written by: the author; their friends; their family; a paid reviewer; or a disgruntled author/enemy/lover!

Of course, I' not entirely innocent here... although I haven't paid for reviews, I have certainly written one under a different account for my own work. Plus I have hounded my wife and her friends to post reviews in an effort (a pointless one, sadly!) to gain traction.

Personally I think enlisting your entire network of friends and family to write glowing reviews is just as ethically unsound as paying for positive reviews.

Unfortunately none of this is going to stop. And like some other KBer said earlier ... the mainstream press has been selling ad space for reviews for decades.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

My problems with reviewing are many fold. I will never be able to write a review like a book report, just can't do it. Books are emotional and personal to me, so that is what I think about them. I don't know anything about the technical terms you writers know. I can't put my finger on why something was off for me. You guys probably would look at it and go, oh yes they used this and that and didn't follow that rule, etc. 

But to be perfectly honest, what has turned me off reviewing the most is the attitude I have seen again and again towards reviewers. Its usually towards the "lower" stars. Suddenly they have to be so detailed with exactly what plot worked where and what phrasing (no clue what that is), or this and that. Or else they are just haters. 
So of course to me the same rules would have to be applied to a 4 and 5 star. So writing any of them gets so complicated and intimidating to someone like me. Why the heck would I put myself out there like that. Then if its not detailed enough it gets the down votes as the authors want their bestest and brightest looking book report on the top of the page. 
So the reviewers ranking plummets. 

I also see a lot, that reviews from bloggers and those than can write long and very very detailed reports are more appreciated. When I as a reader do the opposite, I discount most unknown bloggers and other writers reviews. 

And don't even get me started on the dismissal of lower stars, how dare they didn't just love love someone's master piece like all the other 500 5 stars. Then those get rude and annoying comments from the author, usually thinly veiled. Most 5 stars don't get comments. 

And I am suppose to go through all that why?  . 

So now you have people like me that just stop and more and more questionable reviews popping up. More and more shifting away from regular reader reviews. 

Its a mess.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I remember reading about Locke first on Konrath's blog:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-john-locke.html

Konrath had written, "You're getting great reviews, so people are obviously enjoying your work." There are so many other comments there, congratulating Locke and cheering him on, and in retrospect it makes one's teeth grind together. Another annoying thing about this situation is that anyone who's defended someone like this probably feels more than a bit foolish when they find out the truth.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> I remember reading about Locke first on Konrath's blog:
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-john-locke.html
> 
> Konrath had written, "You're getting great reviews, so people are obviously enjoying your work." There are so many other comments there, congratulating Locke and cheering him on, and in retrospect it makes one's teeth grind together. Another annoying thing about this situation is that anyone who's defended someone like this probably feels more than a bit foolish when they find out the truth.


But, Ellen, many of us have also been goaded into action over at that blog for not entirely honest purposes. We've pushed various titles up the bestseller list in the hope that they will attract reader/buyer attention thus helping our self-pubbed friends. All this stuff just seems so disingenuous. It's almost as if we have zero respect for the average purchaser of books.

I certainly know I am guilty of this.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Here's another problem: Those of us who know how important reviews are aren't allowed to review other works in our genres. I just had my mind blown by READY PLAYER ONE. I'm left recommending it to others, but unable to write a review.
> 
> Again, the legitimate uses of the system are stymied by the handful of bad eggs. It stinks.


Now that's just dumb. I get it, why they have that rule,. But it's dumb. I wrote a review for RPO but I'm not officially an Amazon author yet, so no matter.

(But even if I was, I'd still write that review.)


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Atunah said:


> Suddenly they have to be so detailed with exactly what plot worked where and what phrasing (no clue what that is), or this and that. Or else they are just haters.


I don't write long reviews either Atuna. Rarely. I'm all about "yup, liked it." And that's pretty much it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

Atunah said:


> Suddenly they have to be so detailed with exactly what plot worked where and what phrasing (no clue what that is), or this and that. Or else they are just haters.


If someone wants to discount what you have to say, it won't matter how much or little you write. I think a lot of authors mistakenly feel like the only justification for a poor star rating has to be some kind of "flaw" in the construction of the story, when really the only basis a review needs to have is how much the reader enjoyed it or not.


----------



## MSTHRILLER (Jan 20, 2011)

Trust me, you can tell the fake reviews from the real ones pretty easily once you start looking at all of them. Like I said, a couple of reviewers just copied and pasted the same review for all his books. Quite a few reviewed all of his books on the same date. Then you take a look at that reviewers account and see what else they've reviewed. Then it goes from there. You see other authors (traditional, indie, etc) and all the five stars they've received with the same type of questionable reviews. There is also quite a few non-fiction (educational how-to-pass-this-test) books that have the same type of reviews.
Here's an example of a copy and paste reviewer: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A25FXC7WKS1YVD?ie=UTF8&display=public&page=1&sort_by=MostRecentReview
I was one of the people who was very complimentary of John and ordered his book about How I Sold A Million eBooks. Now I feel ripped off.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Here's another problem: Those of us who know how important reviews are aren't allowed to review other works in our genres. I just had my mind blown by READY PLAYER ONE. I'm left recommending it to others, but unable to write a review.
> 
> Again, the legitimate uses of the system are stymied by the handful of bad eggs. It stinks.


You can't leave a good review for a book in your genre? Can you review a book in a different genre?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

And this is what it leads to, all self-publishers being tarred with the same brush: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/27/can_self_publishing_win_respect/

Which makes me very sad.

I went through the same process as MSTHRILLER above. There's no doubt in my mind that Locke is guilty. Clicking through to see what the other reviewers had reviewed, you see the same books over and over. It will surprise no-one that books from companies like Author House, Xlibris, and iUniverse are prominent (along with BookSurge and CreateSpace), but I saw some books from traditional publishers too (obviously, there is no way of knowing if the publisher or author (or someone else) was responsible).

I'm not saying this to lessen any of the charges being laid at Locke's door, but it's clear he wasn't the only one using this service (and that it wasn't exclusively self-publishers either).

For the record, I find this behavior pretty reprehensible.


----------



## MSTHRILLER (Jan 20, 2011)

The more digging you do, the more you find. I quit looking after an hour.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

The exact same 2 sentence review for all of Locke's books is amazing in that "reviewers collection." On the same day? Lazy.

So all the time Locke was doing those hokey humble interviews he already had "the fix" working for him?


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> That's my biggest fear in this job - that someday, somewhere, one reader will start a firestorm that burns me and my career up and turns it into ashes, because someone left a review such as what Betsy described, and it's construed as being corrupt. And it only takes one. I can think of several authors who've had issues throughout the years, whether deserved or not, and their careers never recovered. The ones who were truly guilty of what they were accused of, screw 'em. They made their own beds. But the ones who were just innocent bystanders? That's tragedy right there.


I know what you mean. I'm not generally a big worrier or the-sky-is-falling kind of person, so I will keep my nose to the grindstone and move forward as I have been without much tension, but this really is a concern.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

MSTHRILLER said:


> The more digging you do, the more you find. I quit looking after an hour.


This is me too - after I did all that research a few weeks ago I started looking at all kinds of very "popular" books and it doesn't take a rocket scientists to read the little "Not a paid review" disclaimer at the bottom of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of reviews over at Amazon.

Totally wiped away all my faith in people...


----------



## Savannah_Page (Feb 16, 2012)

It definitely made for an interesting convo piece with the husband during dinner. Goodness! Locke: so that's the missing piece to the shady "How To" puzzle, eh? 
What can I say? Looks like I'll just keep on writing, as planned, and hope that readers will come, enjoy, and positively (and honestly) review.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Savannah_Page said:


> Looks like I'll just keep on writing, as planned, and hope that readers will come, enjoy, and positively (and honestly) review.


That's all you can do.


----------



## MSTHRILLER (Jan 20, 2011)

A quick venture into Craigslist shows that this practice is still alive. http://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/wet/3233435438.html


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

MSTHRILLER said:


> A quick venture into Craigslist shows that this practice is still alive. http://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/wet/3233435438.html


Oh no! I never even thought of CL...this is not good.

Not good.

We might have to start public shaming...


----------



## Jenmills (Feb 22, 2012)

JanneCO said:


> We might have to start public shaming...


I'm almost always against internet pile ons and shamings, but in this case it seems quite reasonable.

The only other thing that could work is if many readers and customers (tens of thousands!) contact amazon and demand they take the issue seriously. I'm sure they do take the issue seriously already, because as someone pointed out the reviews are important to their business. But they really could use a couple of employees _just_ to deal with this problem. I know facebook hires people whose entire job is just to review photos which have been reported as inappropriate.

As soon as an internet business gets big enough, they have to have a dedicated team just to deal with people who violate the TOS. I really hope amazon cracks down on this.

Also, kudos to all the people who have left one-stars on Locke's million ebooks title! Man, does he ever deserve it.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> I remember reading about Locke first on Konrath's blog:
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-john-locke.html


Heh. I remember posting to that thread. But I didn't remember what I said in the comments until I checked again. Here's the question I put to John Locke there:



> You must be reluctant to give up your secrets to a bunch of schmucks, but can you say any more about how you actually got your books to where they are? When Christopher Smith cracked the top 10, you could see how he did it, with some of his viral giveaways. What sort of promotions did you create?


And his response:



> Hi Moses - Early on, more than a year ago, I offered a free book to the first 40 people who requested one on Twitter. Some were nice enough to give me reviews, though I didn't ask for them. One thing I've learned since those days is to ask for reviews, though I haven't given any freebies out.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Moderator just stepping in here. . . . .this thread has been remarkably civilized, even when people's positions are not exactly the same.  I applaud you.

But ---- There will be NO PUBLIC SHAMING (checking I spelled that word right, yes, moving on) on Kindle Boards.  We won't permit it.  Because one author was mentioned in the topic article, discussion of what he's done is allowed -- without personal attacks -- but please do not name other names.  Completely falls under WHOA.  Such posts will be edited or deleted.

Thanks.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm not going to mention any names, but following the breadcrumbs is pretty depressing...


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

dgaughran said:


> I'm not going to mention any names, but following the breadcrumbs is pretty depressing...


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Okay, so here's a question that comes to mind. In that link to the reviewer who posted identical reviews on the same day for John Locke, she also posted similar rave reviews for a mega-bestselling traditionally published author. So, what does that mean? Coincidence? Could it just be this person does lame reviews and cut and pastes? 

Or are traditionally published authors and/or publishers doing this too?


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> Okay, so here's a question that comes to mind. In that link to the reviewer who posted identical reviews on the same day for John Locke, she also posted similar rave reviews for a mega-bestselling traditionally published author. So, what does that mean? Coincidence? Could it just be this person does lame reviews and cut and pastes?
> 
> Or are traditionally published authors and/or publishers doing this too?


I would urge caution here. You can't build a theory on one example. You would need multiple examples before you could even begin to _suspect _someone, let alone point fingers.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Nice iceberg.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Nice iceberg.


Exactly. It will be interesting to see what is beneath the surface once the top layer melts off and the whole thing rolls over.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

I just liked the iceberg.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Well, but from that link you can see that the one review for a big author was done 2 years before the cut and paste jobs for Locke and then the other review for the same big author was done almost a year later. None of those were cut and paste. 

The sad thing is that some of those "reviewers" just see a quick way of making a little bit of money. Like I do surveys online and such, I get paid for that. Its not much, but I can get easy about $50 each month and I use that for gift cards to buy Kindle books. Some of the things done are doing surveys, some of it is looking at ads, some of it is doing "tasks", some of it is searching for stuff, etc. 

So here some get offered to make a little extra, even if its just $20 and so they do it for a while. Looks like that is what that particular reviewer from that link did. If someone spends a lot of time on that and ends up having 100's and 100's of paid reviews like that, they can make some more extra money each month. 

That is what is depressing. How can it stop if its so easy for folks to do. Unless Amazon really gets down and dirty on it, I don't see how this can go away.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Monique said:


>


Mmmm iceburg.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> I would urge caution here. You can't build a theory on one example. You would need multiple examples before you could even begin to _suspect _someone, let alone point fingers.


Not pointing any fingers. Just raising the question in general. I don't think this is limited to self-pubs.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

From now on, I'm tuning out advice from this fellow and his followers. Here on in, if anyone quotes John Locke at me, they better be trying to make a point relating to classical liberalism or some aspect Enlightenment philosophy, because that's the only one I care to hear from.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Atunah said:


> That is what is depressing. How can it stop if its so easy for folks to do. Unless Amazon really gets down and dirty on it, I don't see how this can go away.


I disagree. It would only take one programmer to dig up suspicious database connections and one dedicated employee, plus the death penalty for people who engage in this sort of thing, or at the very least, some serious royalty/rankings dings for a first offense and the entire problem would go away.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Here's another problem: Those of us who know how important reviews are aren't allowed to review other works in our genres. I just had my mind blown by READY PLAYER ONE. I'm left recommending it to others, but unable to write a review.
> 
> Again, the legitimate uses of the system are stymied by the handful of bad eggs. It stinks.


Why can't you leave a review in your own genre? Is that some sort of unwritten rule? If I want to leave a review of a book I like, I will. If people think it's fake, so be it. Does it hurt your reputation/author name brand, doing that? I'm curious, because I leave reviews for books in my genre, because I read books in the genre I write, because I like it.

That's another thing, I'm not a professional NY Times book critic or Kirkus reviewer charging $425. If I leave a customer review, it's basic. _Great book. Awesome characters. Liked it_. But now, that's not good enough.

If it's too short, it's not helpful or it's viewed suspiciously as a fake review. I'm to the point of not even bothering to leave reviews anymore on Amazon. They're not appreciated by those looking at the reveiw or the author.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

anne_holly said:


> From now on, I'm tuning out advice from this fellow and his followers. Here on in, if anyone quotes John Locke at me, they better be trying to make a point relating to classical liberalism or some aspect Enlightenment philosophy, because that's the only one I care to hear from.


Is there a thumbs up button?


----------



## Jenmills (Feb 22, 2012)

anne_holly said:


> Here on in, if anyone quotes John Locke at me, they better be trying to make a point relating to classical liberalism or some aspect Enlightenment philosophy, because that's the only one I care to hear from.


Ha. I've long thought it's a shame that when you search for John Locke on amazon, the original is way down the list. Though who knows? Perhaps the original was a hack too, and paid for his reviews back in the day.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Here's another problem: Those of us who know how important reviews are aren't allowed to review other works in our genres. I just had my mind blown by READY PLAYER ONE. I'm left recommending it to others, but unable to write a review.


Remember, while you aren't supposed to review each other's books as customer reviewers, there is nothing to stop you from reviewing the book on your own blog. If there is a book you love, blog about it. Tweet it. Post about it on FB. +1 on Google. I would suspect the author would be more thrilled to have you rave about his book on your blog (which he can then link to on his own cite or quote from in his product description on Amazon (which is allowed), than just have the single Amazon review which only Amazon customers will see (assuming they ever visit the product page).


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

The backlash for him is all the 1-star reviews he's getting on Amazon for his self-pubbed book and the "reviewers" make reference to the NY article link even though they haven't read his book.


----------



## A.R. Williams (Jan 9, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Based only on the reviews? I consider the reviews. I don't sample often. My indie book buying stream-of-consciousness process goes like this:
> 
> "Oh, what that author just posted on KindleBoards sounds interesting...what has he or she written? Oh, that looks good, great cover...let me just click on that....blurb sounds interesting and I like the genre....how are the reviews? Hmmm, I always read the worst review first to see what that person didn't like. Oh, gee, there are no "worst" reviews. But the book looked really interesting...add to wish list to consider again later OR send sample to my Kindle which will languish until I delete it because I don't read samples.... OR, I can live with what that person didn't like, I'll try the book."
> 
> Betsy


Thanks for the response. I made the mistake of thinking that people would use the samples the way I do.

As for the discussion about who has cheated and who hasn't, I think _witch hunts are dangerous_. People read something and then (based on whether they liked it or not) proclaim with 100% certainty--"It's easy to tell the fake reviews."

This refrain has been going on for quite some time. People _knowing_ that a review is fake because A = B. Just as I made the mistake of thinking people would use the sample as I do, people are making the mistake that people review the same as _they_ do. There could be a whole lot of reasons people review in the manner they do--some of which might not make sense to _you_.

A few people mentioned how their reviewing practices differed from the norm. Should their reviews be called into question based on intuition / gut feeling / amateur sleuthing?

Someone pointed out that one way they could tell the review was fake was because the reviewer posted a lot of reviews on the same day. What does that have to do with the integrity of the review? It doesn't mean the reviewer _read_ all of the books on the same day.

I think it's very dishonest to use fake reviews. But I think it's more dangerous to start witch hunts or to act in concert with a mob. If people start running off at the mouth about who they _think_ cheated they could harm a perfectly innocent persons reputation. And one day it may be you on the receiving end of their wrath.

Life has its disappointments. So calm down and put away your pitch forks.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

A.R. Williams said:


> I think it's very dishonest to use fake reviews. But I think it's more dangerous to start witch hunts or to act in concert with a mob. If people start running off at the mouth about who they _think_ cheated they could harm a perfectly innocent persons reputation. And one day it may be you on the receiving end of their wrath.
> 
> Life has its disappointments. So calm down and put away your pitch forks.


Wait a minute, you would only say that if..._OMG!_ A WITCH!! BURN HIM!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

dgaughran said:


> I went through the same process as MSTHRILLER above. There's no doubt in my mind that Locke is guilty. Clicking through to see what the other reviewers had reviewed, you see the same books over and over. It will surprise no-one that books from companies like Author House, Xlibris, and iUniverse are prominent (along with BookSurge and CreateSpace), but I saw some books from traditional publishers too (obviously, there is no way of knowing if the publisher or author (or someone else) was responsible).


Actually, what you are describing is a common 'tactic' for some of these scam reviewers. Identify one or two popular trad books in the same genre and leave reviews of them to increase the reviewer's legitimacy. It's a type of piggybacking on the popularity of a book. You might remember a while back when I went on a rampage regarding How to Sell More Books on Amazon? One of the tactics the "author" promotes was to make sure to leave reviews on trade books as a way of boosting your reviewer rank.

How it works: leave a positive review of a popular book. Fans will "like" your positive review, which increases your Amazon reviewer ranking and gives the appearance of credibility. This also provides "cover" in case someone thinks you are just reviewing self pub books.

I am NOT saying trad authors and publishers don't do shady things. There is plenty of shadiness to go around. But I'm pointing out that you don't want to read too much into seeing a few trad books on those review lists.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> But I think it's more dangerous to start witch hunts or to act in concert with a mob. If people start running off at the mouth about who they think cheated they could harm a perfectly innocent persons reputation. And one day it may be you on the receiving end of their wrath.
> 
> Life has its disappointments. So calm down and put away your pitch forks.


I completely agree. I am very annoyed about this myself, but I don't want to see innocent authors get hurt. I suggest we all stop and think about what happened to LendInk. Mobs can be dangerous, even mobs with good intentions.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I am NOT saying trad authors and publishers don't do shady things. There is plenty of shadiness to go around. But I'm pointing out that you don't want to read too much into seeing a few trad books on those review lists.


Or other indies, for that matter. The question is whether the same half dozen books appear again and again. That's a pretty darn suspicious pattern.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> Wait a minute, you would only say that if..._OMG!_ A WITCH!! BURN HIM!!!


I would not want to barbeque John Locke.

A.R. Williams, however


Spoiler



, looks delicious.


 Let's get him!


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Wait a minute, you would only say that if..._OMG!_ A WITCH!! BURN HIM!!!


"Witch hunt" gets used a lot these days. I think it must be some sort of internet law, no. whatever, that such things always get called a witch hunt.

But, the thing is, accused witches didn't actually do anything to get burned.

Yet, I agree mob outrage, even over real offenses, is likely never a good idea. Discussion, however, is fine by me.

ETA: Does John Locke weigh as much as a duck? That's the material question, here.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Remember, while you aren't supposed to review each other's books as customer reviewers, there is nothing to stop you from reviewing the book on your own blog. If there is a book you love, blog about it. Tweet it. Post about it on FB. +1 on Google. I would suspect the author would be more thrilled to have you rave about his book on your blog (which he can then link to on his own cite or quote from in his product description on Amazon (which is allowed), than just have the single Amazon review which only Amazon customers will see (assuming they ever visit the product page).


Is there an official rule somewhere that authors shouldn't review other author's books? If so, why? Or is it more of an etiquette thing? I see authors reviewing other authors books on Amazon all the time, so find this confusing.


----------



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

PamelaKelley said:


> Is there an official rule somewhere that authors shouldn't review other author's books? If so, why? Or is it more of an etiquette thing? I see authors reviewing other authors books on Amazon all the time, so find this confusing.


It's a "rule" that's being thrown around because some authors lack common sense. Some authors bash other books in their genre, thereby you know, it looks bad. Also, some authors rave about books as part of a review exchange. All I have to say it blah blah blah. Use common sense.

I love telling people about books I love. Heck, there is my Amazon reviews: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1EQC8QUQE74CZ/ref=ya_26?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

No one has accused me of being a shill or a bad author. In fact, I've done a lot for many of the authors on that list by tweeting about their books and promoting them. I liked the books...why shouldn't I share that?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> Is there an official rule somewhere that authors shouldn't review other author's books? If so, why? Or is it more of an etiquette thing? I see authors reviewing other authors books on Amazon all the time, so find this confusing.


This is what people are referring to:

• Sentiments by or on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product (including reviews by publishers, manufacturers, or third-party merchants selling the product)


----------



## Kwalker (Aug 23, 2012)

Something just occurred to me. 

We don't know how many reviews John Locke bought, I believe it was implied to be a large quantity. If that is the case, taking into account the statement that he really wanted to have them PURCHASE the book through amazon so it would display as a verified review, he was buying more than reviews, he was buying sales ranking too.

EDITING to add - it says he bought 300 from the guy in the article, but he also says he experimented with buying reviews before using this guys service. 

Bought reviews, bought ranking, more books sold due to the increased visibility.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Monique said:


> This is what people are referring to:
> 
> • Sentiments by or on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product (including reviews by publishers, manufacturers, or third-party merchants selling the product)


Hmmm. Okay, I can see this being an issue if I write suspense say and go on and trash another suspense writer. But what if I love Dennis Lehane's latest (which is usually the case), and go on and give a 4 or 5 star review. I should think that would be fine? Can't imagine Amazon having an issue?


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

It's just another example of how you can choose to do business - you can play by the rules and probably make a pittance, or you can break the rules and increase your chances of making a lot of money.  Which raises the objection "But so-and-so played by the rules and made a million!", to which the reply is "The exception proves the rule."

Very disheartening, especially in this disastrous economy.  But not at all surprising.  I did find NYT's extremely light touch on Kirkus interesting though.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Kwalker said:


> Something just occurred to me.
> 
> We don't know how many reviews John Locke bought, I believe it was implied to be a large quantity. If that is the case, taking into account the statement that he really wanted to have them PURCHASE the book through amazon so it would display as a verified review, he was buying more than reviews, he was buying sales ranking too.
> 
> ...


This is part of my issue, as well. From what I gather, he was already quite wealthy before he made his Kindle fortune, so he used part of that to give him an edge. Not only through fake reviews, but fake sales. We've had threads before where people said gifting via Kindle doesn't affect ranking, and some suggested this was to keep richer authors from giving their books a boost by gifting 500 books right away to crank up the ranking. It seems that these review services do more than than star ratings, but also allow people with money to overcome the gifting restriction at the same time as they are lending credibility to the fake review with "verified purchase" tag.

For me, this negates any honour there might be in him telling the review service he didn't care whether it was a good review or not. Not only is that a silly thing to say to a service who wants more business from you, it is also pretty hollow when one takes into account he was also paying them to make phony purchases. Regardless of the stars, he was benefiting from more than the review through higher visibility.

This whole thing reeks. I wish I didn't care, and I'm trying not to, but good golly.

ETA: Okay, I'm going to stop caring now. What others choose to do is on them, and my opinions mean nothing in the long run to anyone but myself. Head down; work to do.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I've made up two new words from this thread:

Niceberg

Lockepick


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Here's a Forbes followup piece, mentioning another author by name who admits to doing this. I've never heard of the author, but he explains his devious sockpuppetry plan, even engaging in conversation with his 'fans'.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/08/28/fake-reviews-amazons-rotten-core/


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I think it's very disheartening that people stoop to this sort of thing.

However, I'm going to take heart from the knowledge that 99.9% of fake reviewers aren't going around and telling their friends about "the great book" they just read.  Someone who genuinely loves your work is far more valuable than any hired reviewer.  Not only do they appreciate your work on its own merits, they also frequently share that love with other people they meet.  People who know that person and trust their opinion.  As more and more people start to question the validity of reviews, personal recommendation becomes more valuable.

Of course, getting discovered in the first place is still tricky, but I prefer the idea of continuing to add more books until it happens organically.  Besides, to be honest if my stuff took off now, then I'd struggle to find enough time in the day to properly capitalise on it!  It actually suits me better if my stuff doesn't get discovered for another two or three years & I spend that time slowly adding to it so there's more for people to buy when it does (hopefully) take off.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> Here's a Forbes followup piece, mentioning another author by name who admits to doing this. I've never heard of the author, but he explains his devious sockpuppetry plan, even engaging in conversation with his 'fans'.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/08/28/fake-reviews-amazons-rotten-core/


Interesting article. Here's a quote from it:



> Unfortunately, there is also no motivation for Amazon, or other online booksellers, to clean up their own acts. Amazon exists to sell stuff. They will only begin to care about this if it starts to threaten sales, despite the fact that they could, if they wanted to, make it much harder for people to fake reviews.


I seriously doubt that Amazon's boss Jeff Bezos doesn't care about these or needs to be forced to act. That just does not chime with the way he has driven the business so far. I think Amazon will find a solution in time - the trouble is that it's probably the fastest growing market in the world, far from mature, and Amazon will be on a steep and always rising learning curve.

They won't want to put a solution in place unless it has a strong chance of remaining a long-term barrier to fakers. Not much point in producing a 'patch' which is quickly hacked.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a simple solution would be to ban all authors and their products if there is strong evidence they are gaming the system, positively or negatively. Draconian, perhaps, but when Usain Bolt was disqualified for a false start at the World Championships, I suspect the number of such incidents decreased to almost zero. Okay, it's not as easy as that to prove gaming but if the balance of probability tips strongly enough then a ban should kick in and the onus must then be on the author to prove he/she did not game.

Can you imagine the effect on cheats and prospective cheats if all of Mister Locke's books were removed from Amazon permanently?

Joe


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

The emotional and ethical side of me wants to see something happen to Locke's book, like see it banned from sale on Amazon. However, we all know that's not going to happen. He gamed the system. He won't be the last.

One thing we all have to learn is that in every business you will have the cheaters. No, it's not fair that most of them get away with it. Yeah, it sucks that they have success and wealth because of it. But remember, they are not you. Really ask yourself, would you be happy with success from cheating? Really? You might be quick to answer yes, but really?

I could never do it. And that's just learning to be your authentic self. You can't be someone you're not. You're either someone who has no problem with cheating like Locke, or you're not.

If you're not, quit worrying about those people. It does you no good. Be thankful you're not one of them. Go back to writing and be happy you're not a douchebag.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> I disagree. It would only take one programmer to dig up suspicious database connections and one dedicated employee, plus the death penalty for people who engage in this sort of thing, or at the very least, some serious royalty/rankings dings for a first offense and the entire problem would go away.


Or ... perhaps Rutherford (or any number of his employees/reviewers) will out their past clients.

He's already done it to Locke.


----------



## CosmicHerb (Sep 29, 2011)

It was interesting to read the stuff about fake BAD reviews in the Forbes article. I've seen this happening, where a bad review is the only review by that person. It's annoying.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Kwalker said:


> Something just occurred to me.
> 
> ...he was buying sales ranking too.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to point out, even if all 300 reviewers "bought" a copy at the exact same moment (unlikely), 300 purchases doesn't buy a person much in terms of sales ranking... at least, not for long.

Those books that crack the Top 100 (and his seem to reside there for long stretches at a time) are typically selling 500-1000 PER DAY.

(At least, that's what I gather from reading the ranking and sales results of many people over the past couple years... and from an experiment in making one of my own books free for a day.)

Accumulating 300 sales is nice for authors like me who haven't even sold 300 copies total yet (probably) over three titles, but yeah... even of they all were bought the same day, it wouldn't be enough to crack the Top 100, and if other sales didn't follow soon thereafter, his books would sink back down to previous levels.

So if that was an experiment in "buying sales rank," it's one I suspect would be wildly inefficient.

P.S. Ahh, but here I go using logic and all that... which means I'm not as eagerly burning effigies of Locke as SOME would have us be doing. Now I'm "part of the conspiracy to legitimize," I guess. Because crowd-mentality and group-think are SO reliable...


----------



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

PamelaKelley said:


> Here's a Forbes followup piece, mentioning another author by name who admits to doing this. I've never heard of the author, but he explains his devious sockpuppetry plan, even engaging in conversation with his 'fans'.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/08/28/fake-reviews-amazons-rotten-core/


Well, that Forbes article should answer your previous question. Yes, Amazon published and trade published authors are doing this crud too. It's a wonderful world. I'm going to go drown my sorrows in a fine Czech beer. 

B.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Might have been a lot easier to break into the top 100 back when John Locke was growing his brand.


----------



## MSTHRILLER (Jan 20, 2011)

As I person who supports other authors (participating in anthologies, promoting, buying books, etc), I want to know who is engaging in fraudulent practices. I would never name names in a public forum or encourage a twitter blast or letter writing campaign about those people. I do think everyone should be aware of this practice and those types of reviews should raise a red flag.  As the saying goes - fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

David J Normoyle said:


> Might have been a lot easier to break into the top 100 back when John Locke was growing his brand.


I was around back then. (We're ONLY talking 2010, folks.)

I saw the numbers KB folks (including Amanda) had to maintain back then to get there.

No, it wasn't easier.


----------



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

Started going through the John Locke reviews that were clearly the fake ones. Followed the chain. Found some indie writers who I respected clearly using the same review services. Vomited a little in my throat. 

Not going to share names, since I'm not interested in leading the witch hunt. But, for those of you who did it and are reading this, it's easy to trace it back to you now that this is out. You might want to start purging reviews.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Accumulating 300 sales is nice for authors like me who haven't even sold 300 copies total yet (probably) over three titles, but yeah... even of they all were bought the same day, it wouldn't be enough to crack the Top 100, and if other sales didn't follow soon thereafter, his books would sink back down to previous levels.


That is true _today,_ but we are talking about almost two years ago at this point. The environment was very different then and it took less sales to break into most of the lists because there were not as many titles and not as much overall volume. 300 sales over a couple of days (minimum, that's just what we know from one service) two years ago would have been a big boost and would have gotten Locke a lot of traction. Because you only need to hit that list for a day or two to start plugging your success and having your fellow indies jump on board to help push you along.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Started going through the John Locke reviews that were clearly the fake ones. Followed the chain. Found some indie writers who I respected clearly using the same review services. Vomited a little in my throat.
> 
> Not going to share names, since I'm not interested in leading the witch hunt. But, for those of you who did it and are reading this, it's easy to trace it back to you now that this is out. You might want to start purging reviews.


This is what I was saying...I almost posted about this when I figured it out a few weeks ago...but I didn't. It's not hard to figure out at all. Are you allowed to purge reviews at Amazon? I didn't even know that was allowed.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> This is what I was saying...I almost posted about this when I figured it out a few weeks ago...but I didn't. It's not hard to figure out at all. Are you allowed to purge reviews at Amazon? I didn't even know that was allowed.


I suspect if an author wrote Amazon saying "the following reviews were all paid for by me" they'd remove them, since that's against the terms. Alternatively, they might be able to email the review service and ask them to do it, but that might be a bit more effort.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

Huh, that's interesting. I tried it, too, and not only indie authors, but at least two NYT bestsellers showed up on multiple lists. One I'm not terribly surprised by.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

It is a stinky onion, and as you peel, more recognizable names fall out.

If you have shenaniganed, now might be the time come clean.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

I find it more interesting that the reporter involved was careful to target indie authors, when the service is obviously used by Big 6 authors, as well. Obviously such a stain couldn't be allowed to tarnish 'reputable' companies.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

Wow...

Go search some of those reviewers reviews.

Take note of multiple reviews done by the same reviewers on the same date... for the same authors.

Then cross check some author promo/guest blog dates!


Okay ... so many of us guessed this was happening during the last few years but we had no firm data. But now we know for sure that gaming Amazon's review algorithm enabled titles to hit bestseller status.

With that said, how many of you would buy reviews right now if you knew you could increase your sales 100 fold and knew Amazon was going to make little effort in fixing the system? (The pay-for-review industry isn't going to die)


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

x2far said:


> Wow...
> 
> Go search some of those reviewers reviews.
> 
> ...


What do you mean by the bolded part?


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

I'm gonna practice my fake review writing... because, you know, I need to learn how to be believable with my new guerilla marketing campaign.

_OMG... I can't believe this book! Despite posting 10 other reviews today for 10 equally brilliant books that I may or may not have read, I just can't help but write another.

I couldn't put this book down. It was gritty, dark and action packed. With tons of romance and hot erotic scenes. And then there were the funny bits. My God, this book is hilarious. I've never laughed out loud in a crowded bus whilst riding my skateboard ... but this book made me do just that. Brilliant!

So, if you are going to read just one book this year (or if you are going to read the back copy on 100 books and post vacuous reviews) then this is the book for you. I laughed, I cried, I even screamed when I looked in the mirror ... simply because I have so many different online personas these days that I think I'm becoming bi/tri/omni-polar.

BUY THIS BOOK.

I had to._


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> What do you mean by the bolded part?


Michael, I don't really think I can elaborate on that any more than what I wrote.

Sorry.


----------



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

Holy. Cow.

Following those tainted reviewers is.. shocking.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I'd imagine a lot less of us than you apparently think.
> 
> To everyone else - how are you tracking the reviews? Can someone point me in the direction so I can see the dam*ing trend? I'd like to know who else is doing it, but I'm lost on how you're finding things so easily. PM me if you're not comfy answering here.


I'd suggest it's actually a *lot more* than I originally thought.

Personally, I'm not judging those authors who bought reviews on the fact that they bought reviews ... it's the subsequent deception within our author community that rubs me up the wrong way.


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm... I don't know what I feel. Sad?


----------



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

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Holy. Cow.
> 
> Following those tainted reviewers is.. shocking.


I had to stop.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I want kick someone in the virtual nads.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

genevieveaclark said:


> Paying for reviews that don't state that they're paid for reviews is inherently deceptive. That's the problem.


I agree, Genevieve, but this stuff has been going on for decades in some form or other. Every magazine/newspaper in the world has a long history of garnering ad dollars this same way.

@David: It is sad. But the practice has - rightly or wrongly - obviously changed the fortunes of quite a few struggling authors.

I only wish I was one of them!!


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

x2far said:


> Michael, I don't really think I can elaborate on that any more than what I wrote.
> 
> Sorry.


Do you mean they had a bunch of suspicious reviews come up on the same day they posted on their blogs? That indicates review trading, but I thought we were talking about bulk review purchases.

Sorry if I'm being thick.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

x2far said:


> I agree, Genevieve, but this stuff has been going on for decades in some form or other. Every magazine/newspaper in the world has a long history of garnering ad dollars this same way.
> 
> @David: It is sad. But the practice has - rightly or wrongly - obviously changed the fortunes of quite a few struggling authors.
> 
> I only wish I was one of them!!


I suppose nothing is stopping you from abandoning your ethics at any time. Except this.


----------



## Jenmills (Feb 22, 2012)

Oh wow. I already thought the whole thing was sleazy, but when you actually read the fake reviews and follow the chain it really brings it home. Shocking to see a Big 6 bestseller there too. And how ironic that Locke's _million ebooks_ title also got paid reviews.

I _really_ hope Amazon decides to do something about this.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> I suppose nothing is stopping you from abandoning your ethics at any time. Except this.


I'm doomed, Michael, because I'm one of those people who is forever insecure about my writing ability. If I paid for 5 star reviews I'd pretty much have to stop writing.

I write for other reasons.

Mostly insecure ones!!


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Wow. It's amazing when you click on a few reviewers' histories how the same names and books keep popping up. All connected. All using the same service.

Disheartening. But then Book Rooster was doing this is in plain sight. Is there a difference between the services? Some more unethical? How is the paid indie Kirkus review better, since they don't post a bad review if you don't want them to?

This is difficult to navigate.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

What's really fun? Googling a key phrase in a suspicious-sounding review, like so:


```
site:amazon.com "key phrase goes in quotation marks"
```
Turns up some surprises.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> That is true _today,_ but we are talking about almost two years ago at this point. The environment was very different then and it took less sales to break into most of the lists because there were not as many titles and not as much overall volume. 300 sales over a couple of days (minimum, that's just what we know from one service) two years ago would have been a big boost and would have gotten Locke a lot of traction. Because you only need to hit that list for a day or two to start plugging your success and having your fellow indies jump on board to help push you along.


Two years ago when I uploaded my first book, I remember there were over 900,000 books in the Kindle store. Now there are about 1.6 million. While that is a big increase, 900,000 is still a lot of books to wade through to the top. Not to mention, there was no KDP Select to help get some notice. In June of 2011, it took about from 700-1000 books a day to get into the top 100.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

TexasGirl said:


> Wow. It's amazing when you click on a few reviewers' histories how the same names and books keep popping up. All connected. All using the same service.
> 
> Disheartening. But then Book Rooster was doing this is in plain sight. Is there a difference between the services? Some more unethical? How is the paid indie Kirkus review better, since they don't post a bad review if you don't want them to?
> 
> This is difficult to navigate.


Kirkus is so prohibitively expensive that this type of mass fraud and tampering is not even in the realm of possibility to most people. Sure, they might pay for one review and then opt to hide it if it's bad, but that's not the same (at least in my mind) as buying off thousands of people to give you five stars.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

And Locke didn't need to game the "How I made..." book for a second. It was gobbled up by indies immediately and there are discussion threads here. He had tons of 5 star reviews from KB alone.

Nothing new really--he just bought reviews like Big 6 publishers do and have done for years. Want a review? Buy advertising space first. Notice the reporter never takes the story further looking at the Big 6 authors doing the same thing. Why didn't he dig just a little deeper--that's where the real story is. Is the NYT saying their reviews have no collusion or tit-4-tat?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> That is true _today,_ but we are talking about almost two years ago at this point. The environment was very different then and it took less sales to break into most of the lists because there were not as many titles and not as much overall volume. 300 sales over a couple of days (minimum, that's just what we know from one service) two years ago would have been a big boost and would have gotten Locke a lot of traction. Because you only need to hit that list for a day or two to start plugging your success and having your fellow indies jump on board to help push you along.


Two years ago is the same time Amanda started and took off. I know what her numbers were (and she got off to an earlier successful start than Locke) because she publicly blogged about them, and I interviewed her around two years ago.

Even in 2010, 300 sales still would not keep you in the Top 100 back then for very long, if you cracked it at all. And that's assuming all 300 sales hit the same day, in a few hours of each other. (Unlikely.)

Heck, fall 2010 was when Victorine had a great run on NWSS, if I recall correctly.... She ranked well during that period and I seem to recall that it was 10s of thousands per month when she was ranking high, because she sold over 100,000 copies of that novel. (Which I loved, and I'm not normally a romantic suspense reader.)

Let's not OVER-estimate the impact of 300 sales for long-term results. The installed base and Amazon's algorithms have changed, but not by THAT much.

We're only talking two years ago, not the 1980s.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

TexasGirl said:


> Wow. It's amazing when you click on a few reviewers' histories how the same names and books keep popping up. All connected. All using the same service.
> 
> Disheartening. But then Book Rooster was doing this is in plain sight. Is there a difference between the services? Some more unethical? How is the paid indie Kirkus review better, since they don't post a bad review if you don't want them to?
> 
> This is difficult to navigate.


My understanding is that you pay for the review with the understanding that it will be whatever they see it as. If you don't like it, you have the option to not have it published. So it's only a good review if they think the book is good. They get your money either way. This seems somewhat fair in that you are not paying for only a good review. But, since you are paying, you also have the option to not have the review public if you don't like it. Kirkus is not known for being easy.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I review books I read.

Not professionally, just as a consumer, like anyone else.

Sometimes I post on Amazon, but mostly I stick to my blog and Goodreads.

On occasion, I don't always review a book the same day I finish.

As a result, I've sometimes posted 2 or maybe even 3 reviews in a single day, as I might be playing catch-up on books I've finished.

And then it'll be ages, maybe, before I finish something again and decide to jot down my thoughts on a book.

So I could buy 2-3 reviews in a single day as non-suspicious, unless it's 2-3 reviews a day, every day.

But north of that volume? That would seem odd to me.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Two years ago when I uploaded my first book, I remember there were over 900,000 books in the Kindle store. Now there are about 1.6 million. While that is a big increase, 900,000 is still a lot of books to wade through to the top. Not to mention, there was no KDP Select to help get some notice. In June of 2011, it took about from 700-1000 books a day to get into the top 100.


Don't confuse people with facts, Mary.

They'll just suggest you're a John Locke apologist.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

I've noticed it's easier to spot the paid reviews because they will repeat the title in the review. Just a hint...


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

It would be fascinating to see someone visualize this data in an associative network graph (something like this). I can't imagine it would be too hard to build a little script to crawl through the suspect reviews and generate a cross-indexed map of of linkages throughout the Amazon review dataset, weighted by # of reviews per day, # of similar associations, etc.

http://www.graphviz.org/ is a nice toolkit for doing this.

NOTE: Updated to change the URL to a TouchGraph.com visualization that already scrapes Amazon.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

WilliamEsmont said:


> It would be fascinating to see someone visualize this data in an associative network graph (something like this). I can't imagine it would be too hard to build a little script to crawl through the suspect reviews and generate a cross-indexed map of of linkages throughout the Amazon review dataset, weighted by # of reviews per day, # of similar associations, etc.
> 
> http://www.graphviz.org/ is a nice toolkit for doing this.


That would be awesome plus one!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Holy. Cow.
> 
> Following those tainted reviewers is.. shocking.


My mix of laziness and curiosity is dying for a list of names. Maybe Betsy will post a list of names? Betsy?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

This is depressing, 
http://fiverr.com/gigs/search?query=book+review&x=17&y=18


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

T.L. Haddix said:


> See, I don't agree with this. I have reviews that do this. I think it comes more from the reviewer wanting to sound professional than anything. Not saying all reviews with the title repeated are fake, but I know for a danged fact that some are not.


I only looked in Locke's reviews to find these reviewers. Somebody asked earlier how to spot them. I noticed they tended to put titles in their reviews. Once you find them, it's easy to tell they are from the same company because they review all the same books.

What I was looking for was evidence that Big 6 authors used the same service, and I found that evidence. Indies are being painted with a brush that is not exclusive to them, and the journalists who've been 'investigating' this have carefully left that out. Also, as someone else pointed out, the New York Times only does reviews for books whose publishers have purchased advertising. It's pretty bad journalism to call out indies for something they encourage.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

Here a much better example of the kind of graph I'm talking about. It already scours amazon,but doesn't deal with reviews.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> My mix of laziness and curiosity is dying for a list of names. Maybe Betsy will post a list of names? Betsy?


me too!

Anywho - The first image is from a few weeks ago when I first found out this was going on, the second is a gig advertised right now.



















Go ahead, cry...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

LynnBlackmar said:


> I've noticed it's easier to spot the paid reviews because they will repeat the title in the review. Just a hint...


Huh?

I'm not a paid reviewer, I just review what I've actually read.

And I refer to the title of the work in my reviews all the time. Sometimes, 2-3 times per review!

http://www.scriptsuperhero.com/2012/04/30/review-alexander-death-by-j-l-bryan/

http://www.scriptsuperhero.com/2012/04/22/review-bad-doctor-by-john-locke/

http://www.scriptsuperhero.com/2011/06/10/review-the-haunted-ebook-by-j-l-bryan/

http://www.scriptsuperhero.com/2011/03/20/review-33-a-d-by-david-mcafee/

http://www.scriptsuperhero.com/2010/10/16/review-not-what-she-seems-by-victorine-leiske/


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Yeah, the fiverr stuff is truly disheartening. I would love to part of an Amazon Bunko Squad/Undercover Book Lover!


----------



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

Hugh Howey said:


> My mix of laziness and curiosity is dying for a list of names. Maybe Betsy will post a list of names? Betsy?


It would be totally WHOA. :/

There are soooooo many different rabbit trails, it's just.. yeah. Depressing is the word. Some people are obviously guilty, but there's so much dirt it's hard to tell where it ends.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Monique said:


> Yeah, the fiverr stuff is truly disheartening. I would love to part of an Amazon Bunko Squad/Undercover Book Lover!


Agreed. Stuff like that is wrong.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

I have an overwhelming urge to watch _Quiz Show_ tonight.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Marty!


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> There are soooooo many different rabbit trails, it's just.. yeah. Depressing is the word. Some people are obviously guilty, but there's so much dirt it's hard to tell where it ends.


I think I'm done searching for and following the connections. It is depressing.

And I keep getting this kind of gut-wrenching feeling when I spot a fellow KB author's books.

All that cheer-leading I've been doing when reading certain threads ... I feel like an absolute sucker.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Monique said:


> Marty!


Don't make me lose on Marty!

Depressing thought: I'm not even Herb Stempel in this situation. I have a lot of his style and flair, perhaps, but not his success.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hugh Howey said:


> My mix of laziness and curiosity is dying for a list of names. Maybe Betsy will post a list of names? Betsy?


OK.

List of names:*
Ralph
Tom
Mary
Sally
Beelzebub
Willard
Ebeneezer...

Want more?


Betsy

*no actual names were used in the execution of this quip.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

My fear is that I have several 4 and 5 star reviews from people who have never reviewed anything before. That's got to look fishy!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

LynnBlackmar said:


> I only looked in Locke's reviews to find these reviewers. Somebody asked earlier how to spot them. I noticed they tended to put titles in their reviews. Once you find them, it's easy to tell they are from the same company because they review all the same books.
> 
> *What I was looking for was evidence that Big 6 authors used the same service, and I found that evidence*. Indies are being painted with a brush that is not exclusive to them, and the journalists who've been 'investigating' this have carefully left that out. Also, as someone else pointed out, the New York Times only does reviews for books whose publishers have purchased advertising. It's pretty bad journalism to call out indies for something they encourage.


Blog post! Please!


----------



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

Rykymus said:


> My fear is that I have several 4 and 5 star reviews from people who have never reviewed anything before. That's got to look fishy!


Not really. What looks fishy is 20 5 verified purchase star reviews in 24 hours, followed by a spam of 1 star verified purchase review, followed by another spam of 5 star ones...


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> OK.
> 
> List of names:
> Ralph
> ...


Not Willard!!!! I thought he was clean!!!


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

TexasGirl said:


> Wow. It's amazing when you click on a few reviewers' histories how the same names and books keep popping up. All connected. All using the same service.
> 
> Disheartening. But then Book Rooster was doing this is in plain sight. Is there a difference between the services? Some more unethical? How is the paid indie Kirkus review better, since they don't post a bad review if you don't want them to?
> 
> This is difficult to navigate.


Speaking of Book Rooster, I sent them 70 bucks about 8 months ago. Not sure whether I should head for the public square and put my paws in the stocks or not.  I saw them recommended on Konrath's blog as a service that would put my book (I was still learning the ropes back then) into the hands of appropriate reviewers. I was told by BR that I had no guarantee that the reviews would be good. So I thought, Okay, I'll go for it.

I didn't get any reviews until the last month or so. (Yes, it took that long.) I think I can identify 3 that might have come from them. Not sure. I did this thinking it would be a time saver and because I had no frickin' idea who would review self-pubbed books and who wouldn't. Book Rooster was my one and only effort to use a service to garner reviews. I didn't think it was a bad idea at the time, just an efficiency. Truthfully I'm still not sure it was bad idea. But now I let the reviews come or not come. We'll see how that works.  I agree that the whole promo/review thing is "difficult to navigate."

But I have to add--for what it's worth--that a friend of mine also used Book Rooster and all she got was 2-3 star reviews.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> OK.
> 
> List of names:
> Willard
> ...


The Willard Scott Anti-Defamation League hereby issues you a cease and desist order, Betsy!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Let's take it a step further, Betsy. Warning - not safe for work, or while eating/drinking.


LOL, TL! Thanks for that!

Betsy


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> OK.
> 
> List of names:
> Ralph
> ...


Thank heavens you didn't grab a generic "Anne" out of the ether.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Blog post! Please!


Says the guy with 1,468 5-star Amazon.com reviews on one book.

I'm just


Spoiler



effing


 with you, man.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> The Willard Scott Anti-Defamation League hereby issues you a cease and desist order, Betsy!


Actually, I was thinking of:


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I thought you meant


----------



## 60911 (Jun 13, 2012)

EC Sheedy said:


> Speaking of Book Rooster, I sent them 70 bucks about 8 months ago. Not sure whether I should head for the public square and put my paws in the stocks or not.  I saw them recommended on Konrath's blog as a service that would put my book (I was still learning the ropes back then) into the hands of appropriate reviewers. I was told by BR that I had no guarantee that the reviews would be good. So I thought, Okay, I'll go for it.
> 
> I didn't get any reviews until the last month or so. (Yes, it took that long.) I think I can identify 3 that might have come from them. Not sure. I did this thinking it would be a time saver and because I had no frickin' idea who would review self-pubbed books and who wouldn't. Book Rooster was my one and only effort to use a service to garner reviews. I didn't think it was a bad idea at the time, just an efficiency. Truthfully I'm still not sure it was bad idea. But now I let the reviews come or not come. We'll see how that works.  I agree that the whole promo/review thing is "difficult to navigate."
> 
> But I have to add--for what it's worth--that a friend of mine also used Book Rooster and all she got was 2-3 star reviews.


I used them for much the same reasons, when my first book came out, over a year ago. It took them six months longer than promised to deliver, and I ended up with my first and only (thus far) 1-star review courtesy of them. On the plus side, I was able to end-run around them and make contact with some of the reviewers who really enjoyed my book, and they've continued to review for me when I send out my ARCs. I can actually trace new fans and additional sales to them through the people they recommended my books to, so it wasn't a total loss.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

LynnBlackmar said:


> Also, as someone else pointed out, the New York Times only does reviews for books whose publishers have purchased advertising. It's pretty bad journalism to call out indies for something they encourage.


Umm, do you have evidence for this? Because the New York Times book review does have guidelines, and they state that the book has to come from a publisher, and I can guarantee you that there are many more publishers receiving reviews than just those that advertise in the Times. So while you accused people of generalizing and painting indies with a bad brush, you've gone ahead and slandered an entire journalistic institution based on a comment you were unable to tell was uninformed. Pretty weak.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Umm, do you have evidence for this? Because the New York Times book review does have guidelines, and they state that the book has to come from a publisher, and I can guarantee you that there are many more publishers receiving reviews than just those that advertise in the Times. So while you accused people of generalizing and painting indies with a bad brush, you've gone ahead and slandered an entire journalistic institution based on a comment you were unable to tell was uninformed. Pretty weak.


Well pointed-out, Jason.

Yes, NYTBR does accept advertising ... shocker ... but it's not a prerequisite for a review.

As for the book having to come from the publisher, that's murkier... it excludes indies is more the purpose of that, it seems. After all, a publisher who advertises is likely a different department of the same entity whose authors are being reviewed.

But to suggest they only review books by their advertisers? Untrue.

(And I'm not a big defender of the NYT... so if I'm calling foul on that, it carries some weight.)


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Says the guy with 1,468 5-star Amazon.com reviews on one book.


Can you imagine how broke I'd be?


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

It's in their book advertising media kit.

They might review more that who advertises, but you can buy reviews from them. The media kit lists the cutoff review dates and includes subtext such as:



> Combination rate for Book Review and ROP*
> Combination ads must be submitted on one insertion order. $650 (nationwide distribution)
> *Applies to a Sunday Book Review ad which is also repeated in the weekday section. Contact your account manager for further details.
> Discount for multiple pages in one issue of Book Review: 5% off earned rates for 2-5 pages in the same issue. Discount is on space only.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

I guess that wording IS confusing. But Book Review refers to the section of the paper, not the fact that you're getting a review. There are many other advertising opportunities other than the Sunday Book Review.

ROP is for "run of paper" which mean they choose placement and your ad could go anywhere, even outside the Book Review section. The special rate is to request a specific page or section, which costs more.

If they are running a review of your book, and you want to capitalize on it by running an ad, which is SUPER COMMON and WISE, then they will negotiate a rate to get your ad beside your review or at least in the same section. But you have to specify this to the rep.

The combo is to run both in the Sunday review edition and any other day as well, which gets you a discount. NOT a combo review and ad.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I have great confidence consumers will continue to find good books regardless of the direction of Amazon book reviews. Consumers aren't stupid. They are going to find what works and use it. The market will barely notice this stuff.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

I find it difficult to even ASK my friends for reviews. Or anyone. (Though, rarely, I do ask.) Of my 13 books (including 3-4 on pen names),  six have not a SINGLE review. Does this hurt them? I am sure it does. 

Around 3-4 others have one or 2 reviews. Only 4 have from 4 to 13 reviews, and a few of them include the reviews for the paperbacks, which have been around for quite some time.

So how does someone like me attempt to level the playing field? 

All I can do is refer to my first novel, which had a review from Kurt Vonnegut, and 40+ other reviews, some of which are published on the Net (clippings photocopied and put up at flickr.com)

But do readers believe me? I don't know. Do they think the reviews, few as they are, matter and are real, or do they simply count the number of stars and reviews and hop on to the next listing?

What is the solution for someone like me who can neither pay nor feel right about paying for a review?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

anne_holly said:


> Thank heavens you didn't grab a generic "Anne" out of the ether.


But she did use a Mary


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Of my 13 books (including 3-4 on pen names), six have not a SINGLE review. Does this hurt them? I am sure it does.


It seems to me that it used to be easier to get reviews... my older books seem to have garnered more reviews fairly rapidly. It's possible that as readers grow more cynical about the efficacy of the review system, the less likely they are to leave reviews. Then again, it's possible they're paying less attention to reviews, too. I was glancing through my titles today, and my two best sellers this month (both erotic romance) have zero reviews, despite the fact that they've both been up for a couple of months now. They're both selling fairly well despite the lack of reviews.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

MaryMcDonald said:


> But she did use a Mary


You must have missed the small print in my original post:

*no actual names were used in the execution of this quip.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It's possible that as readers grow more cynical about the efficacy of the review system, the less likely they are to leave reviews.


I sure don't know, but can offer another possibility. There may be a relatively fixed number of consumers who write reviews, and each may write a relatively fixed number of reviews/year. That would say the same number of reviews are now spread over a larger number of books.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> But she did use a Mary


It's like the Magic Mirror in reverse.

"Romper stomper, bomper boo, tell me, tell me, tell me do, who's been up to no good?"

Instead of wishing with all my might she'd finally see me, now all I can think is, "Please don't call my name!"


----------



## MSTHRILLER (Jan 20, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> My mix of laziness and curiosity is dying for a list of names. Maybe Betsy will post a list of names? Betsy?


I'll give you a list of 50 names for $499.

Seriously, if this guy made 28,000 _a month_ for shilling out reviews, can you imagine his list of clientele? And he's not the only one who was (or still is) doing it?

I see a book/movie deal in the making.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

VERY interesting when you dig around a little.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> You must have missed the small print i n my original post:
> 
> *no actual names were used in the execution of this quip.


I did miss it but I suspected it was a joke. But seeing my name there (even generically) almost gave me a heart attack! This whole situation is like a throw back to McCarthyism or something. It's scary!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Richardcrasta said:


> I find it difficult to even ASK my friends for reviews.


If it makes you feel any better I'm not above asking my kids for reviews. They both turned me down. I even told them I'd write it out and everything...    All they had to do was make an account on Amazon and post it up there. (Boo. They are absolutely not helping when it comes to my review padding marketing plan...)

And for the record I'd NEVER ask a friend for a review...no. That's not good. I'm quite happy with anonymous book bloggers.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Here's a related question. What should our attitude be toward the book sites that put weight on the number of reviews, and the number of stars? I first became aware of that issue, a couple of months ago, as I read this site, and I've already gone on record to say that I was startled. I had not realized that any fairly sophisticated person or institution would take the number of stars seriously.

If we want to create conspiracy theories, 28k a month would create a nice little slush fund to pay someone to create a _need_ for good reviews, wouldn't it? I don't really believe that, but shouldn't these book sites be ashamed of helping to feed a corrupt system?


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

National Lampoon threatened a dog to sell magazines. 










I have three cute dogs, post a review or the dogs get it!

Kidding, no need to call the ASPCA.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Alan Petersen said:


> National Lampoon threatened a dog to sell magazines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Believe it or not, I once owned a copy of that issue.

I was about seven when it came out back in 1973, but I acquired the copy from a thrift store in my small town just 3-4 years later, when I was 10-11. (I was a very advanced reader, although admittedly Mad Magazine was more my speed back then.)


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Believe it or not, I once owned a copy of that issue.
> 
> I was about seven when it came out back in 1973, but I acquired the copy from a thrift store in my small town just 3-4 years later, when I was 10-11. (I was a very advanced reader, although admittedly Mad Magazine was more my speed back then.)


Too bad you didn't keep it! That cover is one of the most sought after by collectors. I was Mad magazine fan as well back in the day. I don't know what happened to all my Mad Magazines. My Mom won't fess up, but I'm sure she threw them in the trash when I went off to college.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> See, I don't agree with this. I have reviews that do this. I think it comes more from the reviewer wanting to sound professional than anything. Not saying all reviews with the title repeated are fake, but I know for a danged fact that some are not.
> 
> And that leads me to the other side of this coin - how many of you who have more than ten reviews on a book don't have at least a couple that sound 'fishy'? Because I do. And they aren't. And this scares me to death. Literally, I'm sick to my stomach right now.


I haven't read this whole thread, but I laughed at this one.^^ I have several of these reviews that sound fake but I know for a fact they're not since (1) I've never paid for a review in my life and (2) the reviewers have come over to my Facebook and talked to me there, so I know they really read the book and that I don't personally know them. Sometimes they just get so excited and have never written a review before, they throw up their thoughts and are done with it. Here's an example of one:

I definatly got no sleep! I had a very hard time putting this book down! An amazing read! It held both my attention and my imagination! I look forward to book 4! 

When you know it's a real reader, a real fan, it's awesome to read it; you feel the excitement and the enthusiasm. But when you worry someone is reading it with a critical eye to figure out whether it's a fake, it makes you feel sick inside. And that's just terrible, that people on a witch hunt would do that to such a cute review/reviewer.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> ...What should our attitude be toward the book sites that put weight on the number of reviews, and the number of stars? I first became aware of that issue, a couple of months ago, as I read this site, and I've already gone on record to say that I was startled. I had not realized that any fairly sophisticated person or institution would take the number of stars seriously...


I've never liked it, but it is how some book bloggers/review sites that are legit operate.

I think the Catch-22 is this: If you have no prequalifications for reviewing something, everyone will flood you... and there's just way too much stuff out there.

So, the busy review site will put up some prerequisites, like, "You must have a 4-star average and a minimum of 5 reviews for us to even consider you."

This slows down the flow of requests quite a bit. But it also creates an unhealthy obsession in some with being well-reviewed, rather than just reviewed.

By the way: going by those standards, one of my fave Stephen King novels of the past few years, Under the Dome, would not qualify for a review: it's Amazon average is 3.7 stars.

In the words of (if I recall correctly) Groucho Marx, "I refuse to be part of any organization that would accept me as a member." Or words very close to that effect.

If your standards are so high, Under the Dome would be turned down... your standards are too high.

As for the "number of reviews" requirement, it's like that old high school student/college grad dilemma.

"Yes, I'd like a job, please."

"We can't give you a job. We only hire people who have experience."

"How the #(*$ am I supposed to get experience if you won't #*$*ing give me a job?"

So, if you play ethically... you basically either wait several months after release, hoping a few people decide to review your book... assuming they can find it to buy it in the first place, since no one's reviewed it.... and then further hope you reach that "better than Under the Dome" standard of 4.0 stars in the process, so that maybe... just maybe... some big review site will deign to consider your book for a review.

Others, less patient, like Locke... make other choices. Less ethical choices.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

ellecasey said:


> But when you worry someone is reading it with a critical eye to figure out whether it's a fake, it makes you feel sick inside. And that's just terrible, that people on a witch hunt would do that to such a cute review/reviewer.


Elle, it isn't just book reviews that consumers look at with a critical eye. I think everyone assesses anything online with a bit of cynicism. Our email inboxes get spammed every hour by nefarious marketers, our Twitter feeds get targeted, our Facebook profiles analysed. And lets not even start on the smart ads that follow us around the web logging our browsing history.

No one trusts any one on the internet. And the fact that we're both commenting on this thread is just another good reason why.

But like I've said previously, sometimes this is the game people have to play to stay competitive in a business sense. It's a very grey area. One that is regulated largely by personal ethics. I certainly don't condone the actions of many of the authors, but I don't think they have been wrong to pursue this strategy either. It worked and it isn't illegal.

I think it's just another turning point in the way we use the web. And, frankly, there are far more evil things happening on the internet than people buying fake reviews and scamming some middle-class moron like me out of five bucks for a self-help publishing book!

Things will change... and then someone will game the system again. Same old, same old.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

LynnBlackmar said:


> It's in their book advertising media kit.
> 
> They might review more that who advertises, but you can buy reviews from them. The media kit lists the cutoff review dates and includes subtext such as:


That's not what that means. It's talking about the SECTION of the newspaper. At no point there does it have rates for getting a review. It's all about advertising in the Book Reviews Section, which may be a good place to find people who are interested in, you know, books.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, but I laughed at this one.^^ I have several of these reviews that sound fake but I know for a fact they're not since (1) I've never paid for a review in my life and (2) the reviewers have come over to my Facebook and talked to me there, so I know they really read the book and that I don't personally know them. Sometimes they just get so excited and have never written a review before, they throw up their thoughts and are done with it. Here's an example of one:
> 
> I definatly got no sleep! I had a very hard time putting this book down! An amazing read! It held both my attention and my imagination! I look forward to book 4!
> 
> When you know it's a real reader, a real fan, it's awesome to read it; you feel the excitement and the enthusiasm. But when you worry someone is reading it with a critical eye to figure out whether it's a fake, it makes you feel sick inside. And that's just terrible, that people on a witch hunt would do that to such a cute review/reviewer.


Elle, do look back over the rest of the thread. No one is wanting to catch up the innocent reviewer who truly loves a work and gushes about it using some of the same language suspect reviews use. That language, in fact, is used by suspect reviewers precisely because so many casual reviewers use it.

There's an easy methodology for ferreting out the suspect reviews and reviewers. Patterns to the reviews, to the dates, to the same diverse groups of books being reviewed at the same time. No one that I know of is starting with an author who hasn't been clearly identified as a "cheat." The patterns of the reviewers supplying purchased reviews spiderweb out, and authors who've purchased reviews are being identified through those reviewers' profiles.

So long as your (generic you) reviews don't show up in the suspect reviewers' profiles, no one is going to look askance at your reviews. At least no one trying to identify authors guilty of purchasing reviews. We know there's a whole slew of readers out there who believe most 5-star reviews of indie works are bought/sockpuppeted/come from friends/family. That's nothing new and, unfortunately, many readers will simply see this newest scandal as proof they've been right all along .


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

LynnBlackmar said:


> It's in their book advertising media kit.
> 
> They might review more that who advertises, but you can buy reviews from them. The media kit lists the cutoff review dates and includes subtext such as:


Lynn,

Sunday Book Review is the name of the section of the paper. Like the Sports Section or the Business section.


----------



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

And, really, a lot of us have already figured out who is on that list (of using paid reviews). Personally, I cut a lot of slack for someone who used it once or twice. Perhaps a weak moment and went to fiverr and paid for a couple 5 star reviews after having a bottle of gin. Things happen (I made a bet with Debora Geary that I'm going to lose, but I'd had 2 glasses of wine and was depressed and wasn't thinking clearly). 

That isn't the problem, however. It's a) people who did it again and again and again b) people who used the "verified purchase" as a means of uplifting their books like crazy a la Locke c) lying about it after the fact.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

I spent a little time following through some of his reviews, and it is quite easy to figure out which are the bought reviews, but what I found is that most others purchasing reviews are companies for products or Big 6 publishers. Not finding a lot of other Indies in there, I have to say. I have books to write, so I'm quitting on this research now.  I feel better.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

To clarify one point:

The issue is not paying for reviews per se. If you pay Kirkus or Foreword or some other service for a review, I would say that you are wasting your money because the review doesn't have the value that these places lead you to believe they have. The person being screwed by Kirkus and their ilk is the author, because the author is spending money on something given to trad publishers for free. But while you are wasting your money, you aren't doing anything unethical. Because the entire thing is transparent. Everyone knows the review is paid for. Everyone can readily identify the source of the review. They reviews are not presented in a way that would cause the reader to think that they were something else. Therefore, the person reading the review can make an honest assessment insofar as whether or not to give the review any weight.

But when you buy reviews to be posted as *customer reviews* on Amazon, you are being unethical because you are engaging in a practice that is deliberately designed to create a false impression in the mind of the reader. Particularly if the service requests that the reviewer buy the book in order to get the verified purchase badge. In this case, the author is in collusion with the service to trick the customer into thinking that the reviews were generated by actual customers who spontaneously chose to review the book. Often, these reviewers are unknown so we don't even know the original source of the review. There is no transparency. It is a willful manipulation of the system specifically done to trick consumers.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I agree with Julie and Krista. It's not paid reviews, or even a couple of paid reviews, that are the problem here. I wouldn't doubt that plenty of authors have had a weak moment and gotten a paid review or two to offset a really bad review, or bought one or two reviews to get them to the threshold needed to be featured on one of the major sites. When temptation comes knocking, many of us open the door a crack. But there's a big difference between buying a couple of reviews, and buying hundreds of them. Even worse is asking the reviewers to get the "verified purchaser" tag so they look like real reviews. And worst of all is writing a book you market to your fellow authors telling them how they, too, can sell books... while leaving out the fact that paid reviews helped get you to bestseller status.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

karencantwell said:


> I spent a little time following through some of his reviews, and it is quite easy to figure out which are the bought reviews, but what I found is that most others purchasing reviews are companies for products or Big 6 publishers. Not finding a lot of other Indies in there, I have to say. I have books to write, so I'm quitting on this research now. I feel better.


I wouldn't assume that. I referenced in a previous post the one book I found "teaching' people how to sell on Amazon. One of the tactics is to leave fake reviews on popular books in order to increase your reviewer rank.

The way it works:
Let's say you have a book you want to promote that is in the same category as 50 Shades of Grey. You go to that books page and leave a glowing review. The fans of the book will vote up your review as "helpful" because, that's what the fans do. The more helpful votes you get, the higher your reviewer rank. You do this with a few major books in your category. This provides some "credible cover" for when you post your fake reviews to your own book or the book that paid for your review.

Further, because many people will click on the reviewer's name to see what other books they reviewed, it is a way of driving interest to the books they want to promote.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

karencantwell said:


> I spent a little time following through some of his reviews, and it is quite easy to figure out which are the bought reviews, but what I found is that most others purchasing reviews are companies for products or Big 6 publishers. Not finding a lot of other Indies in there, I have to say. I have books to write, so I'm quitting on this research now. I feel better.


Yeah, I have too much going on right now, but I looked at a few yesterday. I noticed a lot of books about various test preparations. Unless all of those reviewers are just really intent on taking tests.


----------



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

EllenFisher said:


> I agree with Julie and Krista. It's not paid reviews, or even a couple of paid reviews, that are the problem here. I wouldn't doubt that plenty of authors have had a weak moment and gotten a paid review or two to offset a really bad review, or bought one or two reviews to get them to the threshold needed to be featured on one of the major sites. When temptation comes knocking, many of us open the door a crack. But there's a big difference between buying a couple of reviews, and buying hundreds of them. Even worse is asking the reviewers to get the "verified purchaser" tag so they look like real reviews. And worst of all is writing a book you market to your fellow authors telling them how they, too, can sell books... while leaving out the fact that paid reviews helped get you to bestseller status.


Exactly. I am not going to fault someone with a 3.9 review average for buying 2 5 star ones to try to push the average to 4.0 so that I could buy ads. Hell, I had a few weak moments where I considered it. I didn't do it, but I admit I considered it. I sure as hell won't condemn someone for that.

But that is more out of impatience. Eventually, my book will get a 4.0 rating, I just have to wait (to use my example). Eventually, I'll be able to have my ads. I decided to wait  However, people like Locke and G, K, M, D, and R all used the verified purchases to a) game the system b) use the reviews to cover up the stint of low real reviews that they got c) push up their rankings d) deceive readers e) make a profit off of deceiving people.

Locke is even more filthy in this because he wrote a book at $4.99 on how he became a success. I read that book. It had nothing useful in it. This is how he sold 1,000,000 ebook copies. He'd only sold a few thousand before he went after the sales rankings. He got pushed well through the ranks. Whenever a rash of 1 stars came in, he just pushed through more paid reviews (it's easy to see on his page -- it comes in waves of 1 stars and 5 stars).


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> I agree with Julie and Krista. It's not paid reviews, or even a couple of paid reviews, that are the problem here. I wouldn't doubt that plenty of authors have had a weak moment and gotten a paid review or two to offset a really bad review, or bought one or two reviews to get them to the threshold needed to be featured on one of the major sites. When temptation comes knocking, many of us open the door a crack. But there's a big difference between buying a couple of reviews, and buying hundreds of them. Even worse is asking the reviewers to get the "verified purchaser" tag so they look like real reviews. And worst of all is writing a book you market to your fellow authors telling them how they, too, can sell books... while leaving out the fact that paid reviews helped get you to bestseller status.


Ahhh, the great mitigating factor. As many times as this hair has been split, I'm not sure you can have it both ways. If it's wrong, it's wrong. So, the author, in a bout of fermented grape temptation, buys a couple of reviews so he can buy ads, and that's substantially better than what Locke did? Locke just went full bore with it. If you're going to cheat, you might as well go all in and make no small plans. The one-off purchaser and Locke were both trying to achieve the same result and both played dirty. They both tried to get the edge (Locke just did it better).

The verified purchase thing doesn't bother me. If your going to cheat, you'll want to make your scam look real. Isn't that the point? I do agree about writing a book about your success.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Yeah, I have too much going on right now, but I looked at a few yesterday. I noticed a lot of books about various test preparations. Unless all of those reviewers are just really intent on taking tests.


I know -- that was funny, wasn't it?


----------



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

CB Edwards said:


> Ahhh, the great mitigating factor. As many times as this hair has been split, I'm not sure you can have it both ways. If it's wrong, it's wrong. So, the author, in a bout of fermented grape temptation, buys a couple of reviews so he can buy ads, and that's substantially better than what Locke did? Locke just went full bore with it. If you're going to cheat, you might as well go all in and make no small plans. The one-off purchaser and Locke were both trying to achieve the same result and both played dirty. They both tried to get the edge (Locke just did it better).
> 
> The verified purchase thing doesn't bother me. If your going to cheat, you'll want to make your scam look real. Isn't that the point? I do agree about writing a book about your success.


I dunno, I _would_ split that hair. I would consider it a much lesser offense to buy a review with the intention of qualifying for a blog posting or whatever than it is to buy dozens or hundreds of reviews in order to deceive readers into thinking a book is a smash success that's been vetted by thousands of other readers and is thus a pretty safe buy.

Both are wrong. But one is "bad judgment" wrong while the other is "supervillain" wrong. I can forgive bad judgment pretty easily, so long as it isn't repeated, but when it comes to supervillains, I prefer them to get Batmanned.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Both are wrong. But one is "bad judgment" wrong while the other is "supervillain" wrong.


Fair point.

For the most part, when the thread started we wanted tar and feather everyone. Now it seems that we are mitigating the offense based on scope. Maybe after we dug around a little bit and saw who else was lumped in there? Maybe that's a coincidence.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

It always rubbed me the wrong way that Locke charged 99 cents for his fiction, but $4.99 for his how to book. Like he was taking advantage of fellow writers and wannabes.  Now it turns out the content was knowningly inaccurate as well.  He really should be ashamed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

CB Edwards said:


> Ahhh, the great mitigating factor.


Nothing I said was about mitigating anything. But there is a difference between double parking and vehicular homicide. Both are technically traffic violations. One is a momentary lapse of common sense. The other is a felony.


----------



## DB Boyer (Apr 17, 2012)

I've been playing with a thought. This seems like a good spot to post it. I'm not sure about it, so let's hear some feedback.

As a would-be writer, I inititially thought that writing reviews for other works would be innapropriate. I've reconsidered after Dalya's blog which mentioned writing reviews for "good karma" and in the spirit of helping out fellow authors. Not quid pro quo, but just helping the indie cause in general just by being an active reviewer as well as a writer. So, I've written two honest reviews (with some criticisms) for indie authors whose works I earnestly enjoyed. Helping the cause...

So here is the thought I've been playing with. It might seem too close to close to quid pro quo, but that's not my intent at all. I don't believe at all in _I'll-review-your-book-if-you-review mine_. I do believe in helping support the indie movement though.

So here's my thought. We all want reviewers badly and I am no exception.

What if we were to create a "KB Indie Author Review Thread"?

Here is how it would work- if you are interested in getting reviews, you add _one_ of your works to the thread. Give the genre, a brief description, and provide the amazon link.

Other writers here would do the same until there are several options to choose from.

Now- if you've added a work for consideration you also committ yourself to purchasing and reviewing one of the other works listed in the thread. Find something which you would genuinely wish to read. Then write an honest review and post it on Amazon. You could use your real name, or an Amazon "handle" if you wish to remain anonymous.

Now, there is no gaurantee with this method that any _one particular book_ would recieve a review. People may just not find your particular title appealing and wouldn't choose it. But it would certainly generate reviews for indie authors. And thereby support the indie writing movement as a whole. Perhaps you'll even be turned on to some new writing which you enjoy.

If this were to be implemented I would suggest the following rules:

1. You may initially only submit one book for review consideration. Doing so obligates you to write one review for another work in the thread within a reasonable amount of time.

2. You must buy the book through Amazon. I would suggest we keep the offerings to thing priced five dollars and below. No freebies - that is its own deal.

3. You cannot respond to the reviews, leave comments on them, or contact the person who submitted a review for your work. These are to be honest reviews and by agreeing to participate you subject yourself to criticism as well as praise.

4. Once you have written three reviews for books listed in the thread you may submit a second title to the thread. That will be the ratio throughout: 3 reviews = a second submission, 6 reviews = a third and so on.

I think that's it. I think this could be done with integrity. But I'm just throwing out something and seeing how you guys feel about. Give me some feedback - is this a good idea to help support your fellow writers? Or is it just a bad idea? Let me know.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Actually, CB, if you look back you'll see I was specifically arguing against the "tar and feather" impulse earlier. But Julie and Edward have elaborated on my comment better than I could.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

In a perfect work, DB, you are suggesting peer review. Peer review is a longstanding tradition in the arts.

But we don't live in a perfect work. Your idea has been done in various forms as review swaps. And they don't work. Because this is what happens:

You write a review of my book and give me a glowing review. I decide to review your book, but think that it sucks (this is hypothetical!). Now I feel guilty because you gave me a 5 star review and I feel bad if I give you a low review.

or

I review your book and give it two stars. You get mad at me and decide to leave a one star review on my book in retaliation.

or

One or two popular members get all of the reviews, while the majority of participants get no reviews at all. People start to get mad because it looks like favoritism and decide to drive-by negative reviews.

or

Nobody dares to leave less than a four star review out of fear of retaliation, not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, or being afraid they will hurt a fellow indie's sales. Then someone who hates indies finds the thread where you all agreed to write reviews for each other and posts the link on the Amazon forum as "evidence" that we're gaming the system.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

It's never right to pay for a review knowing that you're buying a fake, positive review. It's a deception and it's wrong both in terms of Amazon's rules and common sense and decency. Mistakes can be forgiven when someone comes clean, but there's nothing "okay" about the act.

If you want to get more good reviews, contact more book reviewers. Work for it, or hire an assistant to find more book reviewers for you. Don't take the cheap and easy $5 route that is flat out unethical. Whatever you do, find real people who are actually going to read your book and write real reviews. Anything less is shameful. If you can't find real people who will give your book positive reviews, then go back to the drawing board and write better books.

My opinion.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> It's never right to pay for a review knowing that you're buying a fake, positive review. It's a deception and it's wrong both in terms of Amazon's rules and common sense and decency. Mistakes can be forgiven when someone comes clean, but there's nothing "okay" about the act.
> 
> If you want to get more good reviews, contact more book reviewers. Work for it, or hire an assistant to find more book reviewers for you. Don't take the cheap and easy $5 route that is flat out unethical. Whatever you do, find real people who are actually going to read your book and write a real review. Anything less is shameful. If you can't find real people who will give your book positive reviews, then go back to the drawing board and write better books.
> 
> My opinion.


What he said.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

You know what I hate?  I've already seen it on another forum on another site.  Because Locke did this, now it is fair game to accuse to all "selfpub superstars" as cheaters.  That gets in my craw.  Really, really bad.  But it is because most people who dislike self-publishing want to assume the worst about those who succeed at it.  That gets in my craw too.

Jodi


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Nothing I said was about mitigating anything.


Yeah, no, I didn't have any of your posts in mind.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Jodi said:


> You know what I hate? I've already seen it on another forum on another site. Because Locke did this, now it is fair game to accuse to all "selfpub superstars" as cheaters. That gets in my craw. Really, really bad. But it is because most people who dislike self-publishing want to assume the worst about those who succeed at it. That gets in my craw too.
> 
> Jodi


People always generalize when it suits their position. I like to think the general public is more savvy than that, especially when it's been shown that Traditionally pubbed people are gaming the system as well.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> Actually, CB, if you look back you'll see I was specifically arguing against the "tar and feather" impulse earlier. But Julie and Edward have elaborated on my comment better than I could.


Sorry, Ellen, I used your post as a representative sample of a few others. I should have noted that.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> But there is a difference between double parking and vehicular homicide. Both are technically traffic violations.


Apples and oranges. If you cheat on your spouse, does it matter if you do it once or a dozen times (maybe it does to him/her!)? You're still a cheater.


----------



## TwillyJune (May 25, 2012)

Frankly, what I have found to be true, is that many readers don't actually read, or care about Amazon reviews for books they're interested in buying. (They also don't look at an author's ranking. My friends and family get this blank look when I tell them what my ranking is. Yes, it could be one of pity, but I'm reading, "wth are you talking about?") They look at cover, then sample, and decide from that. Any readers I know who do look at reviews(or write them) are friends and family of the authors, or, caring readers who love books, and hang out on writing message boards. These valuable readers have a great deal of appreciation for the amount of work it takes to author a book. So, they are probably more than willing to sit down and write reviews even if they aren't comfortable with their writing skills. But that's a small percentage of readers when you look at the wide pool of readers.

I guess that's why I haven't worried, (or flat-out don't care) whether I'm getting a review or not. But, I cannot help but feel for other authors who need those reviews to put up ads for their books. Frankly, I place the blame on ereader companies and not authors who, in a weak moment, paid for the necessary amount of reviews so they could advertise their book. I think it's appalling to put an author in this situation. And I won't support ENT, POI, KFD, KDD, or any other outfit that requires reviews in order to place an ad. It's ridiculous. I know why they did it, but that doesn't make it right in my humble opinion.

Paying for reviews to game the system is a whole 'nother ballgame. But these are poor choices _other_ authors have made, and all I can do is shake my head in pity, knowing down the line it may well come back to haunt them. But that's the extent of my involvement even though I realize, that, in the short-term, it adversely affects all other authors who play by the rules. However, I truly believe that down the line, if my book is good, it's going to sell no matter what!

I also believe patience is a virtue, and the rewards will come if an author works hard, and exercises good judgment in the choices they make.


----------



## T.K. (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, I just wrote a blog post on this and now I'm second guessing myself. Maybe I'm way off base...

http://eveningfades.blogspot.com/2012/08/much-ado-about-paid-reviews.html


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> It's never right to pay for a review knowing that you're buying a fake, positive review. It's a deception and it's wrong both in terms of Amazon's rules and common sense and decency. Mistakes can be forgiven when someone comes clean, but there's nothing "okay" about the act.


Si.


----------



## DB Boyer (Apr 17, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In a perfect work, DB, you are suggesting peer review. Peer review is a longstanding tradition in the arts.
> 
> But we don't live in a perfect work. Your idea has been done in various forms as review swaps. And they don't work. Because this is what happens:
> 
> ...


Yeah, I had these concerns too which is why I suggested some "rules".

I think that by having a "selection" to choose from we would negate the tit-for-tat reviews. It could also be negated by using amazon handles, so know one knows who it was that reviewed their work, or which book they should in turn give a favorable review to or conversely, "target".

Also, it would require some integrity among on the part of participants to avoid such thoughs anyhow. There would have to be an explicit agreement that their would be no retalliation whatsover. Participants would also have to be tick-skinned enough to acknowledge that they may indeed be opening themselves up to "hurt feelings".

People choosing one or two books to review is a concern, like I said there would be no guarantee for any one person that their work would get selected by their peers. It would behoove one to write an engaging and appealing book, I suppose!

The pointing to the thread by outsiders is probably the biggest concern, and one I am not sure how to overcome. Although it would be designed to be-just as you stated so well-a group of peers reviewing peers, there could certainly be a negative perception, no matter what safeguards are put into place. We can't control what others think.

But I really don't think this would be "gaming" the review system. It would just be a place for writers to critique each others work. We are entitled to be reviewers just as much as any other customer/reader is.

But your concrns are valid, and shared, Julie.

It's just a shame. I think some kind of peer reviewing syestem for KB'ers would be really helpful and beneficial, and _could _ be done with honesty and integrity. Of course, that assumes that we are collectively honest and have integrity.

If there is a way to modify my system to make it better, I am open to it. Other than that, I'll just keep writing reviews and hoping that some of that "good karma" come back my way!

Thanks for your thoughts Julie.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> It's never right to pay for a review knowing that you're buying a fake, positive review. It's a deception and it's wrong both in terms of Amazon's rules and common sense and decency. Mistakes can be forgiven when someone comes clean, but there's nothing "okay" about the act.
> 
> If you want to get more good reviews, contact more book reviewers. Work for it, or hire an assistant to find more book reviewers for you. Don't take the cheap and easy $5 route that is flat out unethical. Whatever you do, find real people who are actually going to read your book and write real reviews. Anything less is shameful. If you can't find real people who will give your book positive reviews, then go back to the drawing board and write better books.
> 
> My opinion.


*applause*

Agreed. And like someone else said a few pages ago, what really sucks about this is that those of us who would rather have zero reviews than pay for a single one are left with ours caught in the same maelstrom of doubt whipped up by this craziness. I used to think it was questionable to have family members who read and loved my works write a review. Of course they enjoyed the stories, right? They were biased. Now I beg them to refrain from writing reviews. And when I had my wife take down her reviews -- even though she's a fan (or claims to be, in order to protect the health of our marriage ) -- I thought I was going overboard to toe the line.

Now I find out there is no line. It stinks.


----------



## ToniD (May 3, 2011)

Paid-for fake reviews. Never realized the extent of it.

Sometimes I'm just so freaking naive that I blow my own mind. 

We need a   icon without the irony.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

@DB Here's Amazon:
• Reviews written for any form of compensation other than a free copy of the product. This includes reviews that are a part of a paid publicity package 

What part of No are you having trouble with?


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

ToniD said:


> Paid-for fake reviews. Never realized the extent of it.
> 
> Sometimes I'm just so freaking naive that I blow my own mind.
> 
> We need a  icon without the irony.


Hop on the tortoise bus, baby! We're taking the slow train!


----------



## DB Boyer (Apr 17, 2012)

cdvsmx5 said:


> @DB Here's Amazon:
> • Reviews written for any form of compensation other than a free copy of the product. This includes reviews that are a part of a paid publicity package
> 
> What part of No are you having trouble with?


First off, chill out. It was just an idea, and I said I wasn't sure about it, and I wanted feedback on it.

Secondly (maybe I'm just not big-time enough to comprehend), but I don't really know what the definition of a "paid publicity package" is? What does that mean, and would my idea be considered a "paid publicity package"? If that's the case then yeah, scrap it. I'm so anal about KDP's terms that I won't even send out mobi's or other files of my stuff that I want to give to friends. I'm in select so I send gift copies to people I want to have it to honor the terms of agreement.

Thirdly, chill out. If my proposal is indeed a violation of Amazon's terms, you could have simply stated as much without coming across so adversarially.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

DB Boyer said:


> First off, chill out...
> Thirdly, chill out...


You, sir, are your own worst enemy. You don't read the rules and then get huffy when they're pointed out to you. But, I'm not going to tell you to chill out. I would only do that for a friend.


----------



## DB Boyer (Apr 17, 2012)

cdvsmx5 said:


> You, sir, are your own worst enemy. You don't read the rules and then get huffy when they're pointed out to you. But, I'm not going to tell you to chill out. I would only do that for a friend.


I did read the rules, thank you. I didn't believe that what I was suggesting was a "paid publicity package". Frankly I would assume that meant like some kind of collection of promotional gifts, which would be nothing at all like I suggested.

And you didn't just simply point out the rules. If you had said, "hey - that's actually not allowed, here's why..." I would have said, "Oh! hank you for telling me that!"

Instead you asked me what part of "no" I didn't understand. If you don't see the difference between a helpful and belittling approach.. then yes, I am all set with your assistance.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Eeek! Don't blow our good thread, friends! We're going to get locked! And I'm learning lots!

So it sounds like if I do a blog tour set up by a paid guide, and get reviews from the tour, they violate ToS? Or since I didn't expect reviews, just a guest post, the unexpected reviews are okay? The guide always sends a copy of the book out to the bloggers to make sure it fits their blog, and some review...

Hairs are splitting infinitely small now!


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

TexasGirl said:


> Eeek! Don't blow our good thread, friends! We're going to get locked! And I'm learning lots!
> 
> So it sounds like if I do a blog tour set up by a paid guide, and get reviews from the tour, they violate ToS? Or since I didn't expect reviews, just a guest post, the unexpected reviews are okay? The guide always sends a copy of the book out to the bloggers to make sure it fits their blog, and some review...
> 
> Hairs are splitting infinitely small now!


I guess the difference would be the bloggers are often not hiding behind a validated purchase badge or recieving direct compensation for that review as in this other outfit who was paying someone to buy the book and review it. If they get the book for free and then review it I don't see that it violates the ToS. You're paying the organizer of the tour for their contacts and leg work, really, not the reviewers.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

TwillyJune said:


> I guess that's why I haven't worried, (or flat-out don't care) whether I'm getting a review or not.


May I ask how you came by your Kirkus review?

Note: Kirkus reviews - those that are paid for by self-pubbers - are NOT a part of the supervillainy act. I am in *no way * suggesting that they are. Just asking why it "appears" you bought a review when you acknowledge you don't care/worry about them. Or are you distinguishing between customer reviews and professional reviews? I say "appears" as the front matter of your book does not indicate the book is a backlist title, previously published by a traditional publisher who would have solicited a Kirkus review on your behalf, hence my assumption that you purchased it. Please correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

DB Boyer said:


> Yeah, I had these concerns too which is why I suggested some "rules".


The biggest issue is that, for any sort of peer recognition program, someone has to be in charge...and that someone has to be _willing_ to be in charge. I just went through this with the eFestival awards program, which was peer-nomination. The majority of the people who voted followed the spirit of the awards and the end result was a wonderful experience for everyone involved. But there were a lot of people who tried to game the system. There were people who tried to nominate themselves by using pen names. There were people who tried to do nomination exchanges with their friends. And were it not for myself and volunteers reviewing the nominations to check for discrepencies, they might have gotten away with it. And those few bad apples, if they had gotten through, would have hurt all of the honest folks who did everything right.

Most people will do the right thing whether or not someone is watching. Unfortunately, if nobody is watching it only takes one or two people to ruin the whole thing.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

So… have we all (I mean us-non-cheaters) been very naive?
Does anybody think (or know) this is going to end any time soon? At all?


----------



## ToniD (May 3, 2011)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Hop on the tortoise bus, baby! We're taking the slow train!


I'm there, Moses!


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Tortoises for the win!


----------



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

Hugh Howey said:


> *applause*
> 
> Agreed. And like someone else said a few pages ago, what really sucks about this is that those of us who would rather have zero reviews than pay for a single one are left with ours caught in the same maelstrom of doubt whipped up by this craziness. *I used to think it was questionable to have family members who read and loved my works write a review. Of course they enjoyed the stories, right? *They were biased. Now I beg them to refrain from writing reviews. And when I had my wife take down her reviews -- even though she's a fan (or claims to be, in order to protect the health of our marriage ) -- I thought I was going overboard to toe the line.
> 
> Now I find out there is no line. It stinks.


See, those are (at best) well-meaning family members and (at worst) sock puppets. And there's usually only a couple of them in any case. There's a giant freaking gulf between (universal) your SIL writing a 5 star review and (universal) you going to Fiverr et al and paying someone to write fake reviews of your work...or maybe hiring out to some company with the understanding that they will buy your story and also give it a fake review (paid for by your own pocket).

There's wrong but understandable, and then there's wrong, and then there's really, really, freaking really wrong.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Now I find out there is no line. It stinks.


There really is no line except for the one you draw yourself.

****

Compared to most of you guys, I'm probably an aggressive marketer. I'm OK with every technique I've used though, and I'm not embarrassed to admit to any of them. But this Fiverr stuff is so far over my line I don't even know what to think about it. It's 100% dishonest and it disheartens people just starting out, makes them jaded, because then they start to think this is how the game is played. And if they want to "win" they have to play as well.

I've always said that I look at negative reviews first if a book catches my eye and I might be interested in it. I want to see why people didn't like it. Maybe those things are what attracts me to it. You never know. And I've learned to discount bad reviews that don't give a solid reason. I mean, to go out of your way to write a bad review, you must feel pretty strongly about the book.

But positive reviews are harder. I write short reviews, sometimes I just want to give the author credit and give them stars and I write a few sentences because I have to. So, it's a lot harder to figure out the positive one. So I guess we should really start a campaign for basing interest in a book on the samples.

Push samples. The sample can't lie.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

I like going to fiverr for a good laugh. My current favorite is this guy, who dresses up like Bruce Lee and karate chops through a sign with your logo/message, and then screams a lot. I mean, really? Does anyone think that will help sell anything? I'm tempted to hire him and give it a try. Maybe it'll go viral on Youtube. Or maybe I'll just look like a desperate idiot and be out $5.


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> So&#8230; have we all (I mean us-non-cheaters) been very naive?
> Does anybody think (or know) this is going to end any time soon? At all?


Well, I've been very naive, myself. I didn't know these operations existed, much less in such large number apparently.

As for this ending, I'm not so sure. We were talking iceberg earlier in the thread, and I do believe this could be the tip. Some of my research yesterday lead me to online articles about the FTC cracking down on this practice because it's become so extreme in the products and services arena. And there have been many online articles on the fake review issue (again, not just books, but products and services) for over a year now. As far as I can tell (I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me), this practice is illegal in the US.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

I suspect there are some monetary thresholds that would trigger FTC involvement. Being conservative, 1,000,000 books at 99c comes to $346,500 (1000000 * .99 * .35) in Locke's pocket after Amazon took their cut. If the FTC determines this money was gained as a result of deceptive business practices fraud, and can prove intent to deceive...who knows?


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> That is my understanding, as well: if the review doesn't disclose a financial interest or arrangement, it runs afoul of the FTC regulations (or something).


For those interested, the specific statute is 16 CFR Part 255. And the summary can be found at here:



> The issue is - and always has been - whether the audience understands the reviewer's relationship to the company whose products are being reviewed. If the audience gets the relationship, a disclosure isn't needed. For a review in a newspaper, on TV, or on a website with similar content, it's usually clear to the audience that the reviewer didn't buy the product being reviewed. It's the reviewer's job to write his or her opinion and no one thinks they bought the product - for example, a book or movie ticket - themselves. But on a personal blog, a social networking page, or in similar media, the reader may not expect the reviewer to have a relationship with the company whose products are mentioned. Disclosure of that relationship helps readers decide how much weight to give the review


So yeah, technically, buying reviews to be posted on Amazon as customer reviewers without disclosure qualifies as fraud, not just bad behavior.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

WilliamEsmont said:


> I suspect there are some monetary thresholds that would trigger FTC involvement. Being conservative, 1,000,000 books at 99c comes to $346,500 (1000000 * .99 * .35) in Locke's pocket after Amazon took their cut. If the FTC determines this money was gained as a result of deceptive business practices and can prove intent to deceive...who knows?


Well, anyone that bought Locke's book on how to sell and feels defrauded can file a formal complaint here. If enough people filed formal complaints, it would probably trigger an investigation.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Well, anyone that bought Locke's book on how to sell and feels defrauded can file a formal complaint here. If enough people filed formal complaints, it would probably trigger an investigation.


I can't help but feel dismay at all the hours wasted by authors trying to write clever 'affinity blogs' and trying to respond to every single tweet in their Twitter streams based on JL's bogus advice. Just think of all the stories that could have been written with that energy...


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> It always rubbed me the wrong way that Locke charged 99 cents for his fiction, but $4.99 for his how to book. Like he was taking advantage of fellow writers and wannabes. Now it turns out the content was knowningly inaccurate as well. He really should be ashamed.


I was tempted to see if I could get a refund. It's been a year since I bought it so I'm sure I won't. It's not the money, it's the principal. It's like he was saying that he was such a hard worker, fighting for every single Twitter follower and that his diligence finally paid off. It made me feel like I must just be way too lazy or something because I tried to do his twitter/blog post thing last summer (after already having some success without doing it) and his methods didn't do a thing for me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

My never humble opinion is this: if you bought one of Locke's books, particularly the "how to" book, based on his reviews either in part or in full and feel that you were defrauded because you would not have bought the book if you had known the reviews were paid for, you have a valid FTC complaint and should file one. 

It isn't a matter of "fighting back." A clear case can be made that the law was broken. If enough people file a complaint, then the FTC will get involved. and if the FTC gets involved, I'd bet money on Amazon very, VERY quickly putting safeguards in place to mitigate it's own liability moving forward. 

The important issue, for me, is to not allow this to become an "us versus them." The issue is specifically about one person who broke the law. Keep the focus on the person who engaged in the bad behavior without allowing the conversation to degenerate (see my earlier comments). We don't want this to turn into a "Well, so-and-so trad does it so why is everyone looking at us?" That is a distraction. The focus should be on making sure that their are consequences for bad actions. Without consequences, everything else is just talk. 

I never bought any of Locke's books. So I don't have a valid claim to file a complaint. I'm not one of his victims. But I think people who did buy his books because of his lies and reviews do have valid complaints and should file. Ultimately, the people victimized need to decide to no longer be victims.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> My never humble opinion is this: if you bought one of Locke's books, particularly the "how to" book, based on his reviews either in part or in full and feel that you were defrauded because you would not have bought the book if you had known the reviews were paid for, you have a valid FTC complaint and should file one.


I have known about Locke, but never bought any of his books. Then I read this thread. Then I bought a Locke book. This thread is what made me want to read him. Didn't some sage say something about all publicity being good publicity?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I have known about Locke, but never bought any of his books. Then I read this thread. Then I bought a Locke book. This thread is what made me want to read him. Didn't some sage say something about all publicity being good publicity?


Not as far as I'm concerned. He's brought down a storm of bad publicity on indies in general, and I personally don't intend to reward him for it.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

No one out there cares.

Look who indignantly RT's this--indie writers RTing to indie writers, many of whom were the same ones who proclaimed Locke's success as some sort of validation of their own choice. Out there in the real world, none of the lazy-assed reporters who painted the John Locke lottery-winner indie-poster-child stories will write retractions. Amazon will feign lip service by randomly yanking a few reviews over the next few weeks to give the illusion they are "addressing" the problem. The man behind "John Locke" sits at home with his multiple millions of dollars. The people who follow all his "advice" still won't sell a million books.

And this indie era is nothing but a blip on publishing history anyway--it is not some libertarian, egalitarian road to human enlightenment. It was a mere happenstance of opportunity where some online entities used a bunch of frustrated writers as cannon fodder in the war against traditional publishers and price control. As casualties go, being the victim of a fake review pales compared to what awaits.

Life goes on. And the next sentence types itself.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> To clarify one point:
> 
> The issue is not paying for reviews per se. If you pay Kirkus or Foreword or some other service for a review, I would say that you are wasting your money because the review doesn't have the value that these places lead you to believe they have. The person being screwed by Kirkus and their ilk is the author, because the author is spending money on something given to trad publishers for free. But while you are wasting your money, you aren't doing anything unethical. Because the entire thing is transparent. Everyone knows the review is paid for. Everyone can readily identify the source of the review. They reviews are not presented in a way that would cause the reader to think that they were something else. Therefore, the person reading the review can make an honest assessment insofar as whether or not to give the review any weight.
> 
> But when you buy reviews to be posted as *customer reviews* on Amazon, you are being unethical because you are engaging in a practice that is deliberately designed to create a false impression in the mind of the reader. Particularly if the service requests that the reviewer buy the book in order to get the verified purchase badge. In this case, the author is in collusion with the service to trick the customer into thinking that the reviews were generated by actual customers who spontaneously chose to review the book. Often, these reviewers are unknown so we don't even know the original source of the review. There is no transparency. It is a willful manipulation of the system specifically done to trick consumers.


Personally, Julie, I don't think one should pay for reviews, no matter WHAT the brand name is behind it.

All you're arguing now are elements of scale, the number of paid reviews involved.

Whether it's Kirkus or Foreword or Billy-Bob's Big Bad Book Reviews.... it's just a bad idea.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> My never humble opinion is this: if you bought one of Locke's books, particularly the "how to" book, based on his reviews either in part or in full and feel that you were defrauded because you would not have bought the book if you had known the reviews were paid for, you have a valid FTC complaint and should file one.
> 
> It isn't a matter of "fighting back." A clear case can be made that the law was broken. If enough people file a complaint, then the FTC will get involved. and if the FTC gets involved, I'd bet money on Amazon very, VERY quickly putting safeguards in place to mitigate it's own liability moving forward.


Julie,

You know I respect you.

But you've absolutely gone off the rails with this suggestion.

Filing an FTC complaint? Seriously?

Yeah, no lynch mob here...

There's plenty of consequences he's suffering already. Conflating this into an FTC issue is ... off the rails. And unlike you.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> No one out there cares.
> 
> Look who indignantly RT's this--indie writers RTing to indie writers, many of whom were the same ones who proclaimed Locke's success as some sort of validation of their own choice. Out there in the real world, none of the lazy-assed reporters who painted the John Locke lottery-winner indie-poster-child stories will write retractions. Amazon will feign lip service by randomly yanking a few reviews over the next few weeks to give the illusion they are "addressing" the problem. The man behind "John Locke" sits at home with his multiple millions of dollars. The people who follow all his "advice" still won't sell a million books.
> 
> ...


You speak the truth, Mr Nicholson!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Sorry, but the hysteria over this flies right over my head. How long have people been paying for Kirkus reviews? I don't see this as that different.

It's annoying to have my reviews called into question since I have never even considered paying for one, but people already said that any indie who had a 5-star review probably had it done by a relative. Anyone who reads my reviews will see that they look pretty darn honest, and that's what I'm going to have to depend on which ever accusation is being thrown our way today or next week or next month or next year.

And you can bet some accusation is going to be for quite some time because the industry ain't going back to 2006. It simply isn't possible to undo the past 5 years.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Well, yeah.
> 
> GO ON.


The Big 6 are going to take us all prisoner, stick us in an attic and feed us gruel while we type out stories on Selectric typewriters while they send the publishing police to force Amazon, B&N, Apple, Kobo, Smashwords, Sony and anyone else they can find to stop publishing indie authors.

Sucks to be us, right?


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm on vacation and haven't been able to really follow this discussion, but did want to post about how hurt I felt when I first learned about Locke's purchase of reviews and not mentioning it in his book on "how he did it." I felt cheated and naive.

Read later in this thread about following the reviewers and tried to do that. Got to the most recent on one of his books and saw a user name that one of my friends uses on FB! Immediately my stomach dropped, so I clicked on that name's reviews and, whew, not the same person.

I so get it about worrying this could turn into a witch hunt.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> ...There's plenty of consequences he's suffering already..


Really? It wouldn't surprise me if next year when his sales are once again flagging, the WSJ gets a tip that this year he bought an RV from a fellow that used to sell him reviews with the provision that he tip the NYT to the review purchase.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WilliamEsmont said:


> I can't help but feel dismay at all the hours wasted by authors trying to write clever 'affinity blogs' and trying to respond to every single tweet in their Twitter streams based on JL's bogus advice. Just think of all the stories that could have been written with that energy...


I read his book, saw that his advice was not going to work for me and dismissed the matter. Over the years I have bought dozens of books on the craft and the industry, some by bigger authors than Locke ever thought of being. We really do need to at least try to keep this stuff in proportion. He gave rather poor and frankly somewhat dishonest advice. Lots of authors have at one time or another. Meyers puts out that she never wrote anything before Twilight when she studied writing--an outright lie. Maybe we didn't pay for her statement, but a lot of people buy it.

Is this really worth the energy put in here? It's not the exactly the first time someone has paid for reviews. It's done every day of the week over at Kirkus. So what?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I was going to guess "Cthulu," but that works, too.
> 
> More seriously, though, I don't doubt that things will change, and that they will get more difficult for indie / self-pubs / whatever. But I don't think "publishing your work for money" will go away completely.


Sure. Things have changed drastically in the last 5 years. We can expect more changes. Some will be good for indie authors. Some will suck. But going back to the state of publishing pre-Kindle ain't gonna happen. There are too many major players who have put money into giving access to indie authors and make money from our having that access.

Things will, of course, be a bed of roses if you include that the bed has some mighty sharp thorns to stab you.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

cdvsmx5 said:


> Really? It wouldn't surprise me if next year when his sales are once again flagging, the WSJ gets a tip that this year he bought an RV from a fellow that used to sell him reviews with the provision that he tip the NYT to the review purchase.


You have evidence that this whole thing was a subversive plot to boost his PR and sales?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> No one out there cares.
> 
> Look who indignantly RT's this--indie writers RTing to indie writers, many of whom were the same ones who proclaimed Locke's success as some sort of validation of their own choice. Out there in the real world, none of the lazy-assed reporters who painted the John Locke lottery-winner indie-poster-child stories will write retractions. Amazon will feign lip service by randomly yanking a few reviews over the next few weeks to give the illusion they are "addressing" the problem. The man behind "John Locke" sits at home with his multiple millions of dollars. The people who follow all his "advice" still won't sell a million books.


Most people don't care about the Locke Affair. ^^^This is more like reality.


----------



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

It sure is amazing what John Locke is revealing about his fellow authors. 

*Returns to regularly scheduled vacation action. All that Hungarian folk art isn't going to see itself.*

B.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm disappointed in him for doing it, but I'm not going to be following him around with a pitchfork. It worked for him. He does have a lot of fans who are real people, but I'm far less likely to buy his how-to book now than I once might have been. That's probably the only effect of this on me--other than making me facepalm really hard


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> He gave rather poor and frankly somewhat dishonest advice. Lots of authors have at one time or another. Meyers puts out that she never wrote anything before Twilight when she studied writing--an outright lie. Maybe we didn't pay for her statement, but a lot of people buy it.


Actually, his Twitter advice was pretty insightful. I was one of the first people to get in on the Twitter marketing craze and I'd never heard that one before. Twitter is not my thing, so I never put it into practice to see if it would work, but I can see how it _might _work.

****

I'm not looking for my money back or nothing. I enjoyed the How I sold book and used it the same way I use ever piece of information I get on marketing. I take what works for me and forget the rest. I'm not even that mad about how he snowballed his claim to fame - at least he admitted to it! I'm more angry about the people who are scamming the system, then pretending they aren't.

And maybe blog tours are "buying" reviews, since you're paying the promoter to get you hooked up with blogs. But good God, there are very few marketing avenues for Indies out there, let's not chop the heads off the bloggers and blog tours. I'm signed up for three of them right now and no one promised me a good review.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Or are you just being catty?


My scope was clear. Cynical? Perhaps. Catty is dismissive, like telling you to practice walking in those heels.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

cdvsmx5 said:


> My scope was clear. Cynical? Perhaps. Catty is dismissive, like telling you to practice walking in those heels.


So... no evidence, then. Just piling made-up stuff on top of what he ACTUALLY did and admitted to.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> It sure is amazing what John Locke is revealing about his fellow authors.
> 
> *Returns to regularly scheduled vacation action. All that Hungarian folk art isn't going to see itself.*
> 
> B.


Watching threads twist and writhe like this one is both awesome and entertaining. I don't believe in paying for reviews (this from one who tried Book Rooster), but I have no stomach for trolling independent publishers to put a scarlet letter on them. I've only bark and growl enough to be my own watch dog, and I even mess up at that sometimes when confronted with new situations and new decisions. 

Maybe there's some Hungarian folk art around here somewhere...


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

genevieveaclark said:


> Continued references to "witch hunts" are somewhat confusing, as nobody has actually published any names, nor do I think anyone has a plan to do so.
> 
> Personally I've found following the trail of villainy to be instructive. It puts the success of some people in a new light, and for the most part...things make more sense now.


This. And, it's helped me realize there are some people (more than I'd hoped) I don't want to do business with.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Buying review on Kirkus: good.

Buying reviews on gettingbookreviews.com: bad.

The difference? Kirkus doesn't guarantee a good review.

Is that all it would have required? Just an asterisk somewhere and some fine print?*

I actually really enjoyed Locke's work. They were precisely what they said they were: fast, funny, silly 99 cent stories that zipped along. I don't care he bought reviews. I don't see any difference between Kirkus and anyone else selling a review.


----------



## JonathanH (Aug 14, 2012)

Ed Robertson blogged about this earlier today, and has done the gruntwork to find other very-probably-fake reviews: http://www.edwardwrobertson.com/2012/08/a-few-notes-on-john-locke-paid-reviews.html

He's purposely not naming names, but apparently the signs aren't good: 


> It very quickly becomes clear that there is startling proof that dozens and dozens of authors have paid for fake reviews. And by following the rabbit-trails--if a reviewer has several obviously fake reviews, then every review they've left falls under suspicion--some shocking names pop up. Big, big people in the indie world. It's also shocking just how many there are. There's evidence that hundreds of different authors have paid for fake Amazon reviews. And this is just from the stuff linked back to John Locke.


I trust Ed's work - if you've seen any of his previous blog posts analyzing other aspects of the ebook market, you'll know why - and the analysis here should be something that anyone can do. To paraphrase:

Start from a book by John Locke (known to have done this)
Find a cluster of 5-star reviews that all showed up in a day or two (_possibly_ fake)
Look at the history of those reviewers to see what else they've reviewed
See if the same pattern, and the same names of reviewers, show up on those other books
Repeat until you start gagging from disgust

I recommend reading the full post: he goes on to point out that some of the authors aren't self-published, and that there's currently really no way to prove you *didn't* pay for fake reviews. Thought-provoking stuff.

Edited to add something that my too-sneaky-for-my-own-good mind just came up with. The way to *really* backstab another author in the current climate would be to pay for a bunch of fake 5-star reviews on their books. And then "out" them. Ugh. Happy paranoid Wednesday!


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

I wish this site would grow a pair and let those of you with the evidence out more of the cheats. This is a watershed moment, and this busy forum is standing on the sidelines.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I wish this site would grow a pair and let those of you with the evidence out more of the cheats.


And what if the evidence is wrong? Couldn't writers conceivably sue for libel over that sort of thing? I don't see why KB should have to take that chance. If people want to out people on their own sites, they can do so.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Holy smokes, people. Grab a hold of the reins before it's too late. You are going way over the top on this. Maybe he made a mistake and regrets it. You don't know. But, if this is the reaction from fellow authors, I hope to God, I never make a mistake.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Heck, I wish someone would put it on their site somewhere. As a reader I do not want under any circumstances support an author that did this. I might have already done so, I can't help that, but going forward, I can mentally mark them off. But I guess I am clueless. 
There are just so many reviews to sift through and I keep reading how easy it is to find and I am getting carpel tunnel clicking.  

Anyone want to pm me, please do. This is just for me not wanting to put my money in those directions, but rather supporting those of you that don't resort to these "tactics". But how the heck would I know.  

Its the "I know something but I can't tell you". Hmpf.

eta: I have to say though, the way this thread is slowly turning into operation defend Locke is really creepy and sad to me. Next thing you know there will be a fundraiser for the poor dear.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Mike McIntyre said:


> I wish this site would grow a pair and let those of you with the evidence out more of the cheats. This is a watershed moment, and this busy forum is standing on the sidelines.


Evidence is needed. Finding five-star reviewers who review in a splurge and then never again isn't evidence. Even finding reviewers who only review two or three things and then disappear isn't evidence.

If an accusation is made it is up the to accuser to provide evidence. It is not up to the accused to defend themself.

I have a pseudonym and someone bought two fake five-star reviews on two of the titles. I found the reviewer name and then tracked it back to Fiverr. I then reported them to Amazon and the reviews disappeared. I have no idea who did it apart from saying that the pseudonym is active in a very competitive category. I think that if I hadn't tracked it back and had them removed that I would have found a post somewhere on the web accusing the pseudonym of buying fake reviews. If that had ever come up, I'd have literally no way to claim that I didn't buy those reviews.

So ... relax is what I'm saying. This "evidence" that people claim they have isn't really evidence at all.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

I keep seeing references to Kirkus and I thought they were legit? I do know one thing, there are some honest and hard-working authors who used Kirkus and didn't knowingly engage in anything illegal or unsavory. If Kirkus is still legit (??), we need to stop using their name in order to avoid slinging mud on innocent parties, unless I've missed something or have read things incorrectly. But if that is so, I know if I'm confused, others reading this thread will be too.

(and I have not used Kirkus or any site like that, btw.)

And I'll add that I know I have good reviews from readers who had never reviewed anything before my book, and haven't since. These are usually from readers who contacted me about my book and work in China, and on the end of my reply I ask if they truly enjoyed the book, will they kindly leave a review. Does that fall under bad practices? Should I be looking for shelter from an impending storm? Not being sarcastic, I am really concerned if that would be looked upon as wrong.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Atunah said:


> Heck, I wish someone would put it on their site somewhere. As a reader I do not want under any circumstances support an author that did this. I might have already done so, I can't help that, but going forward, I can mentally mark them off. But I guess I am clueless.
> There are just so many reviews to sift through and I keep reading how easy it is to find and I am getting carpel tunnel clicking.
> 
> Anyone want to pm me, please do. This is just for me not wanting to put my money in those directions, but rather supporting those of you that don't resort to these "tactics". But how the heck would I know.
> ...


I'm feeling a bit clueless myself. 

Before self-publishing on Amazon, when I was just a constant reader/buyer/shopper, I always scanned the reviews. I can't honestly say how much they influenced my buying, but it was comforting to see the reviews weighted toward the favorable end. That said, when it came to buying, I _always_ did the "look inside" thing on books, and now I always download samples.

After reading as much of this thread as I can assimilate,  I'll be even more careful to read those samples. This is just another reminder for us--a Buyer Beware, warning. But at least with the sampling and return policy at Amazon, there is a way to step around as much of the, uh, poop as possible.

Big mess. Uncertain clean up time.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

I finally got around to reading this piece on the NYT (but not all these posts).  It was fascinating and funny as well, and confirmed much of what I've suspected.  Gaming the system is a reality.  It's like cheating on tests.  All the students do it now, and the teachers even help them (cause their sorry jobs are on the line).  Back in my day, you didn't do it, well, most of us didn't, but there was always someone who would.  But when they were caught they were held up to ridicule and shame.  Try that now and you'll get sued.  

So Locke did it and his books eventually made it to the top.  They must have been (are) good, but the question still arises, better than others that did not have the benefit of 50 or however many reviews it was, good reviews?  

Anyway, more power to them all. It also puts my own scores into perspective.

I wish the article would have looked into the really dark side of all of this, drive-by, crap-flinging and knee-capping reviews by gangs of ... well, let's just call them sellers of units, taking down the competition.  

I know, I know, Clayton is a crank.  But I've been saying for years on this board and others, that Amazon (and others) have got to police the ranking system better.  Eventually it won't count for anything.

All of this is sad, but it's funny too.  What is true, what is real?  What's on the other side of this keyboard, this monitor?  What's for dinner?  

Later!


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

*I will repeat myself (again):*

*I never said Kirkus was good.* Anyone who has ever read any of my posts on Kirkus knows that I think they are scumbags who sold any cred they once had when they started charging indies for reviews. The difference between Kirkus and Locke is this:

If indie author buys a Kirkus review it is the AUTHOR getting screwed. Why? Because the author thinks this is the only way they can get a review in Kirkus, which is often touted as a respected review publication used by libraries to determine which books to buy. This is a purchase the author makes based on lack of knowledge, not a desire to scam anyone. The author is the one getting scammed, because the author is being charged for something trads don't get charged for.

Locke, on the other hand, bought reviews and took action to disguise them as independent, spontaneous customer reviews. He then lied to his fellow authors and sold them a book about "how he did it" that didn't include the fact that he spent thousands of dollars buying fake reviews.

BOTH ARE BAD. The difference is in who gets the short end of the stick. With Kirkus, the authors paying for the review are getting scammed. With Locke, it was the customers.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

KayBratt said:


> I keep seeing references to Kirkus and I thought they were legit? I do know one thing, there are some honest and hard-working authors who used Kirkus and didn't knowingly engage in anything illegal or unsavory. If Kirkus is still legit (??), we need to stop using their name in order to avoid slinging mud on innocent parties, unless I've missed something or have read things incorrectly. But if that is so, I know if I'm confused, others reading this thread will be too.
> 
> (and I have not used Kirkus or any site like that, btw.)
> 
> And I'll add that I know I have good reviews from readers who had never reviewed anything before my book, and haven't since. These are usually from readers who contacted me about my book and work in China, and on the end of my reply I ask if they truly enjoyed the book, will they kindly leave a review. Does that fall under bad practices? Should I be looking for shelter from an impending storm? Not being sarcastic, I am really concerned if that would be looked upon as wrong.


Kirkus take money for reviews.

From wikipedia: Self-published book reviews are solicited through the Kirkus Author Services at a price between $425-$575 per review. If the review of a self-published book is negative, authors are given the option of keeping the review private.

Kirkus have been around for a long time so for some strange reason it is deemed okay to pay for a Kirkus review. Perhaps that note about not guaranteeing a good review gets them over the line?

Kirkus are mentioned because the basic business model is the same: I give you money, you give me a review.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> I keep seeing references to Kirkus and I thought they were legit? I do know one thing, there are some honest and hard-working authors who used Kirkus and didn't knowingly engage in anything illegal or unsavory. If Kirkus is still legit (??), we need to stop using their name in order to avoid slinging mud on innocent parties, unless I've missed something or have read things incorrectly. But if that is so, I know if I'm confused, others reading this thread will be too.
> 
> (and I have not used Kirkus or any site like that, btw.)
> 
> And I'll add that I know I have good reviews from readers who had never reviewed anything before my book, and haven't since. These are usually from readers who contacted me about my book and work in China, and on the end of my reply I ask if they truly enjoyed the book, will they kindly leave a review. Does that fall under bad practices? Should I be looking for shelter from an impending storm? Not being sarcastic, I am really concerned if that would be looked upon as wrong.


How do you define "legit"? They are PAID for their reviews, but for some reason they are "legit" and no one else who is paid for reviews is.

They don't guarantee a good review but they don't automatically publish a bad one either. This is BS. Seriously.



Atunah said:


> Heck, I wish someone would put it on their site somewhere. As a reader I do not want under any circumstances support an author that did this. I might have already done so, I can't help that, but going forward, I can mentally mark them off. But I guess I am clueless.
> There are just so many reviews to sift through and I keep reading how easy it is to find and I am getting carpel tunnel clicking.
> 
> Anyone want to pm me, please do. This is just for me not wanting to put my money in those directions, but rather supporting those of you that don't resort to these "tactics". But how the heck would I know.
> ...


Is saying this is BS going to bat for Locke? Not really. He should have been honest about what he did (and shouldn't have done it in the first place), but considering the number of people who have paid for reviews I'm not up for a lynching either.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

JonathanH said:


> I recommend reading the full post: he goes on to point out that some of the authors aren't self-published, and that there's currently really no way to prove you *didn't* pay for fake reviews. Thought-provoking stuff.


This is what frustrates me. There needs to be some sort of litmus test so those of us who have never paid for a review or created a sockpuppet review can distance ourselves from this. I would love to wave some kind of certificate of authenticity to avoid the pitchforks, but how do you prove a negative? Maybe some kind of software spider that crawled through our credit card histories and showed no link to any of these cheat factories? I think this is why some have compared this to a witch hunt or McCarthyism. All you have to do is go near this stuff to have it rub off on you. And then how to get rid of the stink?

It'll take someone smarter than me to come up with the answers. Maybe Amazon could have its algorithms concoct a quiz on the book's contents that you have to pass before leaving a review?


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> There's plenty of consequences he's suffering already. Conflating this into an FTC issue is ... off the rails. And unlike you.





> My never humble opinion is this: if you bought one of Locke's books, particularly the "how to" book,* based on his reviews either in part or in full and feel that you were defrauded because you would not have bought the book if you had known the reviews were paid for*, you have a valid FTC complaint and should file one.


How is that off the rails? If you bought something based on false advertising, and you feel you were defrauded, complain. Don't be a doormat and let people take advantage of you. Not over $5 or a $1000. There is nothing gained by silently feeling defrauded while the person who did it laughs all the way to the bank. There is no honor in allowing someone to knowingly rip you off and get away with it.

I complain to my state consumer affairs all the time. Why is filing a valid complaint going off the rails? When Pep Boys tried to charge me twice for the same repair, I got my money back by complaining to consumer affairs. When an old book club tried to send me to collections over a $10 bill that wasn't mine, I filed a complaint and three weeks later got a formal apology. When Dish Network tried to charge me for an installation that never happened because of their screw up, I got consumer affairs involved and lo and behold they backed down.

That is what these agencies exist for. If you feel you were defrauded, you have a right to complain. That's not going off the rails. That is protecting your own interests. As a consumer, you have the right to file if you were lied to. Telling people they are going off the rails for exercising a rational recourse if they feel wronged is bizarre.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Just a few thoughts.

Doesn't this cast a shadow of doubt (or worse), not only on authors but also on reviewers? Isn't it clear some of them can be bought (at very reasonable prices)?

Isn't the meme that has done the rounds, also on this board, that _"this is a business and it should be treated as one"_ partly to blame for this?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Not as far as I'm concerned. He's brought down a storm of bad publicity on indies in general, and I personally don't intend to reward him for it.


We can watch his sales ranking to see if the publicity has any effect. I don't know what will happen. Should be interesting.

I remember when _Naked Came The Stranger_ was unmasked in 1970(?). It was written by about twenty reporters. I think they were from the Long Island News. They listed the author as Penelope Ashe and kept their involvement secret. The thing became a best seller. However, after the hoax was revealed sales soared even more. Yes, I rewarded them by buying. The ice cube chapter was especially chilling.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> Doesn't this cast a shadow of doubt (or worse), not only on authors but also on reviewers? Isn't it clear some of them can be bought (at very reasonable prices)?
> 
> Isn't the meme that has done the rounds, also on this board, that _"this is a business and it should be treated as one"_ partly to blame for this?


Yes, I think it does cast a disparaging view on reviewers, but those people over at Fiverr aren't reviewers! Their just people who saw an easy way to make money and fill a niche. Supply and demand. Do they know their breaking the rules - the absolutely have to. I've seen whole conversations (in the ratings after the "gig" has been completed - this is how the two parties communicate most often) about one girl losing her account and having to post "Not a paid review" or "I didn't take money for this review" at the end of every single review. I saw the books she referenced this to - that account is now gone. But I still remember the titles. And somehow, on a recent second look, those reviews are all missing. Maybe Amazon pulled them (again) when the reviewer got caught? I dunno.

And YES, to me, writing and publishing is a business. But your remark implies that businesses are bad, they always cheat, and there's no getting around that. I'm pretty sure I've never uttered these words in my life because so little in this world offends me, but that actually offends me. *A person who treats their work as a business means they make decisions based on profit and loss. Since when does that translate to cheating?*

If someone ELSE thinks that being in business means they should cheat, that's their problem, not mine. Additionally, I'm NOT RESPONSIBLE for what John Locke did, nor any other author (traditional or indie).


----------



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

Hugh Howey said:


> This is what frustrates me. There needs to be some sort of litmus test so those of us who have never paid for a review or created a sockpuppet review can distance ourselves from this. I would love to wave some kind of certificate of authenticity to avoid the pitchforks, but how do you prove a negative? Maybe some kind of software spider that crawled through our credit card histories and showed no link to any of these cheat factories? I think this is why some have compared this to a witch hunt or McCarthyism. All you have to do is go near this stuff to have it rub off on you. And then how to get rid of the stink?
> 
> It'll take someone smarter than me to come up with the answers. Maybe Amazon could have its algorithms concoct a quiz on the book's contents that you have to pass before leaving a review?


Yeah, it would pretty much have to be a top-down implementation, I'd think. I mean, we can't just take the No-Cheat Loyalty Oath and expect readers to care.

My thinking, which I could be totally dumb about, is we may have to actively address any accusations of our reviews being false--while making absolutely certain we don't cross the line into Authors Behaving Badly. That's going to be a really fine line to walk.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> *Returns to regularly scheduled vacation action. All that Hungarian folk art isn't going to see itself.*
> B.












Hungarian Folk Art!!!! 

And somehow appropriate.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> My thinking, which I could be totally dumb about, is we may have to actively address any accusations of our reviews being false--while making absolutely certain we don't cross the line into Authors Behaving Badly. That's going to be a really fine line to walk.


We can easily avoid having to address the cheating-reviewers-and-the-authors-who-buy-them-problem&#8230; by not actively soliciting reviews in any way. Just let them come, and let the dice fall whichever way they happen to fall.

On another note: we now know _positive_ reviews can be bought. Is there a possibility that _negative_ reviews can be bought as well?
Nah&#8230;


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> *I will repeat myself (again):*
> 
> *I never said Kirkus was good.* Anyone who has ever read any of my posts on Kirkus knows that I think they are scumbags who sold any cred they once had when they started charging indies for reviews. The difference between Kirkus and Locke is this:
> 
> ...


Thanks, Julie, you are so kind. That does help clarify it in my mind. At least the part about Kirkus. What I now understand is with Kirkus you are paying for a review, just not necessarily a bad review. Now that I'm getting the total picture, I agree that paying for reviews in any way (with legit company or not) can probably end up causing the author trouble in the long run. I'm sort of glad this came about because a while back I was considering Kirkus but didn't have time for thorough research so let it lay on my to do list.

Also, someone mentioned that next blog tours would be questioned. I paid to be a part of a blog tour, but if my money was supposed to buy me all good reviews, I certainly got shafted.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Caption This:



> John Locke currently has a new release ranked #284 in the Kindle store that is also ranked #83 in the Hot New Releases out of all Kindle eBooks.


(I found that by accident.)


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> This is what frustrates me. There needs to be some sort of litmus test so those of us who have never paid for a review or created a sockpuppet review can distance ourselves from this. I would love to wave some kind of certificate of authenticity to avoid the pitchforks, but how do you prove a negative? Maybe some kind of software spider that crawled through our credit card histories and showed no link to any of these cheat factories? I think this is why some have compared this to a witch hunt or McCarthyism. All you have to do is go near this stuff to have it rub off on you. And then how to get rid of the stink?
> 
> It'll take someone smarter than me to come up with the answers. Maybe Amazon could have its algorithms concoct a quiz on the book's contents that you have to pass before leaving a review?


Does Amazon's "Amazon Verified Purchase" badge on reviews count for anything towards proving legit reviews? It seems to me to be a good way to tell, but I guess it can be rigged too if people are paying fake reviewers more than the cost of the ebook so that buying the ebook is included in the review.  Gah, this stuff makes you crazy paranoid. Not so much about other peoples reviews and what they're doing, but I get worried about what people think *I'M* doing.

I admit I tried out Bookrooster, then cancelled and got a refund after deciding it wasn't for me. I saw it as paying someone to submit my book to reviewers for me, not paying for reviews, but after some conversations here I realised, no matter what I thought it was, it wasn't seen in the best light. I still ended up with one review through them, which I wish wasn't there now. It's easy to make mistakes when you're new and still feeling things out. For instance, I paid for a "Press Release", which I thought would be submitted to, you know, _the Press_, but ended up getting posted on review sites looking icky.

I hate to sound defensive, but this stuff freaks me out (scared witless even posting in this thread) because I agree that shady review behaviour is wrong, and don't want to be seen as someone who does it. Everyone is always speculating about the "signs" of a fake review, and I have panic attacks thinking they sound like mine which aren't fake, nor from family or friends. I personally don't think it's wrong to do the occasional facebook page nudge saying "If you've read my books please consider sharing your thoughts about them in a review on Amazon". But I'm going to stop, because when I do, I end up getting a bunch of reviews on the same date which could look dodgy.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Selina Fenech said:


> Does Amazon's "Amazon Verified Purchase" badge on reviews count for anything towards proving legit reviews?


Not. At. All.

The scammers make sure they have the Verified Purchase tag. Meanwhile, if you send a book to an honest book reviewer, their review won't show the tag.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> On another note: we now know _positive_ reviews can be bought. Is there a possibility that _negative_ reviews can be bought as well?
> Nah&#8230;


Going to fiverr.com and searching for 'negative review' gives me this:

http://fiverr.com/buddingn/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
http://fiverr.com/makeoffer/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
http://fiverr.com/gallian/be-the-one-you-need-if-you-want-to-send-out-positive-or-negative-reviews
http://fiverr.com/profile3/assist-and-share-how-you-feel-just-by-giving-20-negative-or-positive-reviews-from-different-ip-addresses
http://fiverr.com/dredman/write-a-grossly-overwritten-negative-amazon-review-that-will-draw-a-lot-of-attention
http://fiverr.com/appstorefaceboo/really-rate-anything-positive-or-negative-20-times-different-ip-address
http://fiverr.com/charles335/use-different-ip-addresses-in-order-to-send-you-additional-50-positive-or-negative-ratings

I'm in the wrong business. I takes two sales at $3.99 to equal what these people earn for a few minutes of work posting negative reviews. WTF was I thinking pouring my heart and soul into my books?


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

WilliamEsmont said:


> Going to fiverr.com and searching for 'negative review' gives me this:
> 
> http://fiverr.com/buddingn/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
> http://fiverr.com/makeoffer/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
> ...


Somehow that is even more discouraging than the other 20 pages of this thread...


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Sorry guys. It had to be said.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

KayBratt said:


> Also, someone mentioned that next blog tours would be questioned.


The bottom line is this:

If you run your business transparently and don't try to pretend A is B, you will be fine. It is when people try to fake stuff that they get in trouble. People make these things complicated because instead of just being transparent, they try to see how far they can push or bend the rules.

Treat your customers how you want to be treated as a consumer, and people won't have reason to question you. That's the real moral of the story here.

For example, there are a lot of book awards that allow you to submit your own books for consideration. So let's say you submit your book to the Foreword Book Awards. And you are pretty excited about it, because you've never entered a book competition before and you don't know what to expect. You could come here and say:

"I'm so excited. I just submitted my book for the Foreword Book Awards. Wish me luck!"

or you could say:

"I'm so excited. I my book was nominated for the Foreword Book Awards. Wish me luck!"

Both statements are technically accurate, because you nominated your own book. But which statement is the ethical and transparent one? And which one is designed to mislead?

Or, let's say your sister is a reporter for the NY Times, and sis convinced the editor to let her run a story on Kindle publishing using you as a source. You could say:

"My sister just ran this interview she did with me in the NY Times!"

or you can say:

"I was just interviewed by the New York Times for a feature article on Kindle publishing."

Both statements are true. But in the first one, it is clear your connection to the article. That connection doesn't make the accomplishment any less cool. It simply provides context. There is an implication in the second statement that doesn't explain your connection to the reporter.

Be transparent and make sure connections are clear so that people can make real decisions. Its when we try to be "smarter" than the readers that we get in trouble.


----------



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

mathewferguson said:


> Evidence is needed. Finding five-star reviewers who review in a splurge and then never again isn't evidence. Even finding reviewers who only review two or three things and then disappear isn't evidence.
> 
> If an accusation is made it is up the to accuser to provide evidence. It is not up to the accused to defend themself.
> 
> ...


To draw a distinction between evidence and proof, where "evidence" is smoke, and "proof" is fire--I think there's a lot of evidence. For some implicated authors, however, there isn't a lot if any proof. I'm sure there are tons of false positives, and connections to reviewers that look bad but are perfectly legit. That's the insidious thing about this whole mess. We've all got some reviews that look fishy.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> We've all got some reviews that look fishy.


This is a valid concern. For example, there are several places that did not charge for reviews years ago, but now the only way to get a review is to pay. ReaderViews is a case in point. Back in 2006-2007, they didn't charge for reviews (I believe they had an "express" service then, if for some reason you needed a review in a hurry). They reviewed several of our books back then and we didn't pay for any of the reviews except for the comp copies. But today, you can't get a review from them without paying. Similar situation with another site back in 2007-2008 that had free reviews and a separate promo service. We got free reviews and later decided to buy a promo package. Now they "bundle" the review with the promo package so the only way to get the review is to buy the package.

The whole thing is one of the reasons I don't even seek out reviews anymore. It has gotten very convoluted and messy. I just put my promotional energies elsewhere.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This is a valid concern. For example, there are several places that did not charge for reviews years ago, but now the only way to get a review is to pay. ReaderViews is a case in point. Back in 2006-2007, they didn't charge for reviews (I believe they had an "express" service then, if for some reason you needed a review in a hurry). They reviewed several of our books back then and we didn't pay for any of the reviews except for the comp copies. But today, you can't get a review from them without paying. Similar situation with another site back in 2007-2008 that had free reviews and a separate promo service. We got free reviews and later decided to buy a promo package. Now they "bundle" the review with the promo package so the only way to get the review is to buy the package.
> 
> The whole thing is one of the reasons I don't even seek out reviews anymore. It has gotten very convoluted and messy. I just put my promotional energies elsewhere.


That and the fact that blog reviewers who are still doing reviews are booked years ahead--really, if I get reviews I get them. If I don't, then I don't.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

I think there is a ton of stuff Amazon does with its algorithms which really diminish the power of reviews (and also explains why no one can figure out their algorithms).

For example, Amazon knows which books are read from beginning to end and which books are abandoned. That alone is a multiplier that can be applied to push sales ranks up or down.

Amazon want readers to buy and come back to buy again. I'm sure they have categories of readers - the frequent purchaser who abandons 30% of the books they buy, the infrequent buyer who reads 100% of the book they buy, the mad sampler who buys 10% of the books they sample ... etc. I'm sure they could get some variables out of this to alter what you see in the best-seller lists when you log in.

There are books that are finished faster than others, books that take months to finish ... the list of variables Amazon have at their disposal is enormous. They'd even be able to report back to authors one day that of the 1000 people who sampled their book, zero bought it. 

So paid reviews ... well, they're only one part of the buying decision. Personally I hardly ever read reviews. Sampling is a much better way to buy. Does anyone here buy titles without sampling?

The big thing that is missing also is that even if 200 paid reviews are successful in pushing a title up the rankings, the end point is that there will be a huge volume of sales, a huge volume of returns, a huge volume of truthful reviews ...

Locke may have bought reviews but if you look at his books, they have a fairly wide spread of star ratings and actual reviews.

Or to put it another way: even if you bought 1000 five-star reviews, reality will soon hit that title due to the false success those reviews produce.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

mathewferguson said:


> Does anyone here buy titles without sampling?


I don't sample. Occasionally I download a sample but I never get around to looking at them.

Betsy


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

WilliamEsmont said:


> Going to fiverr.com and searching for 'negative review' gives me this:
> 
> http://fiverr.com/buddingn/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
> http://fiverr.com/makeoffer/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
> ...


And all of those have zero orders in queue and it doesn't appear they've even had a single order, so you're better off with your two book sales.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

As a book buyer, I only sample if it's an author I don't know (though now that Look Inside is there, I don't actually download samples, even.)

For authors I know, I take their name on the cover as a brand-stamp. If I liked other books by them, I expect to like their latest.

For me, at least, books are NOT like tablet covers, computer parts, or whatnot -- reviews don't factor into my purchase decisions hardly at all.

Part of my reason for this is that, having been on the author side of things, I now realize how off-target some of the more quickly-written reviews are.

(For example, a review for a book I bought by Beth Bednar accused her true crime book of several inaccuracies... but she used to be my local newscaster, so I felt I knew her better than that. I bought the book IN SPITE of the review, not because of it, and after reading it, realized that the reviewer couldn't have done more than skim Beth's book.)

So, reviews don't play a big factor in my own book buying decisions. But that's me...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I didn't know anything about Fiverr until this thread. I had high hopes for this one:
http://fiverr.com/atticanibal/make-you-teleport
but then I looked at it and it was just to make a video of you appearing to teleport...


Betsy


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I don't sample. Occasionally I download a sample but I never get around to looking at them.
> 
> Betsy


I often sample, but I don't download the sample or read it on my Kindle. I guess that's because I do most of my Kindle purchasing from my PC.

So instead, I use our online sample tool, replacing those X's with the ASIN of the book:

http://www.kboards.com/sample/?asin=XXXXXXXX


----------



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

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I didn't know anything about Fiverr until this thread. I had high hopes for this one:
> http://fiverr.com/atticanibal/make-you-teleport
> but then I looked at it and it was just to make a video of you appearing to teleport...
> 
> ...


I got to go through a Star Trek transporter. True story. Even know I *knew* it wasn't real, the effect was so authentic that our entire group was like "ok, seriously, that wasn't real people, really wasn't real, holy crap that felt real."


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I got to go through a Star Trek transporter. True story. Even know I *knew* it wasn't real, the effect was so authentic that our entire group was like "ok, seriously, that wasn't real people, really wasn't real, holy crap that felt real."


 

I guess it's just as well the Fiverr thing was just for a video. I'm not sure I'd trust a $5 transporter ride. 

Betsy


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

I'd love to be a fly on the mods' wall.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Mike McIntyre said:


> I'd love to be a fly on the mods' wall.


Seriously, dude.

The entire country is in an uproar with politics, hurricanes and gas prices, and all we can do is sit and whine about reviews. Our mods are saints.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

WilliamEsmont said:


> Going to fiverr.com and searching for 'negative review' gives me this:
> 
> http://fiverr.com/buddingn/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
> http://fiverr.com/makeoffer/send-your-competitor-a-negative-review
> ...


Oh come on. Would you touch those with a ten-foot pole --- even if you _were_ that unethical? 
How easy would it be for Amazon to assign employees to set up a bunch of fiverr accounts with offers just like this, then report (or just pounce on!) all the writers who bit? For buying negative reviews OR positive ones?

For all we know, Amazon does this already, following through on the deal each time (temporarily) a few months in advance of each big review "purge" where a bunch are taken down. It has the advantage of allowing them to do this over and over again, with next to no risk of being found out. Even if they're found out, what could be said about them --- that they're on the lookout for fake reviews? What could they be held liable for --- trying to prevent FTC violations?

And what'd it cost them to set up the accounts on fiverr? Nothing that'll break 'em, that's for sure.


----------



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

KayBratt said:


> The entire country is in an uproar with politics, hurricanes and gas prices, and all we can do is sit and whine about reviews. Our mods are saints.


*looks around* My country is not in an uproar over any of those things.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *looks around* My country is not in an uproar over any of those things.


Don't rub it in, Krista.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> Seriously, dude.
> 
> The entire country is in an uproar with politics, hurricanes and gas prices, and all we can do is sit and whine about reviews. Our mods are saints.


Seriously, dudette.

I'd still love to be a fly on the "saints'" wall.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Mike McIntyre said:


> I'd love to be a fly on the mods' wall.


Have I mentioned that the cattle prod converts to a bug zapper?


Betsy


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Harvey said:


> I often sample, but I don't download the sample or read it on my Kindle. I guess that's because I do most of my Kindle purchasing from my PC.
> 
> So instead, I use our online sample tool, replacing those X's with the ASIN of the book:
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/sample/?asin=XXXXXXXX


Hey, that's cool. Is that the same length of sample that you get if you sample a book on your kindle?


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Have I mentioned that the cattle prod converts to a bug zapper?
> 
> 
> Betsy


And then the enabler's wand?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Hey, that's cool. Is that the same length of sample that you get if you sample a book on your kindle?


It's close. The KB sample goes to the end or near the end of Chapter 8 in your book (I used the ASIN for the cover on the right in your signature). The sample I sent to my iPad went just over into Chapter 9....

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Is there some reason to presume authors who do not operate as a business are morally superior to those who do? If so, what is it?



> Does anyone here buy titles without sampling?


I never sample, and never read reviews. I accept that it's impossible to be unaware of star scores. We don't know what percentage of Amazon revenue is due to consumers who sample or review. It's all guessing and projecting personal preference.



> If you run your business transparently and don't try to pretend A is B, you will be fine.


What does running a business transparently mean? Does Amazon run its business transparently?


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I didn't know anything about Fiverr until this thread. I had high hopes for this one:
> http://fiverr.com/atticanibal/make-you-teleport
> but then I looked at it and it was just to make a video of you appearing to teleport...
> 
> ...


Fiverr is actually a great place for little jobs. Yes, there are a lot of shoddy stuff going on, but I had my Facebook timeline cover done at Fiverr:

https://www.facebook.com/AlanPetersenBooks

Five bucks, and I didn't have to curse at my computer trying to do it myself.

I've also ordered some birthday gigs for my buddies. Those are hilarious and some will make you blush! 



Harvey said:


> I often sample, but I don't download the sample or read it on my Kindle. I guess that's because I do most of my Kindle purchasing from my PC.
> 
> So instead, I use our online sample tool, replacing those X's with the ASIN of the book:
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/sample/?asin=XXXXXXXX


Nifty tool! I wasn't aware of it. Thanks.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> It's close. The KB sample goes to the end or near the end of Chapter 8 in your book (I used the ASIN for the cover on the right in your signature). The sample I sent to my iPad went just over into Chapter 9....
> 
> Betsy


Hrm, cool. Did you get that backwards, though? The KB sample on my computer goes just over into Chapter 9.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

mathewferguson said:


> The big thing that is missing also is that even if 200 paid reviews are successful in pushing a title up the rankings, the end point is that there will be a huge volume of sales, a huge volume of returns, a huge volume of truthful reviews ...


I'm not so sure "a huge volume of truthful reviews" can be realistically expected. My biggest selling book has sold in the mid-4 figures and yet has garnered only 22 reviews.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

RuthNestvold said:


> This. I never kicked Locke anywhere. In fact, I wrote a couple of long blog posts analyzing his system and what I thought writers might be able to get out of it, only to find out he cheated me out of an essential part of the strategy.
> 
> But I'm not mad. Yes, he has 4.99 from me I'll never get back, and I spent lots of time doing ineffective promotion, but I learned a lot while I was making my mistakes too.
> 
> Mostly I'm just relieved knowing that the reason his system didn't work for me isn't because I'm a doofus -- it's because I skipped the part about paying $1,000+ for reviews. And since I have absolutely no interest in going there, that's the way it will stay. I hope this doesn't make any of us with several five star reviews look like we're spreading the money around, but hopefully readers will look at dates and figure out when reviews grow organically and when they're bought.


You've expressed my feelings exactly.

It's a bittersweet sense of relief to know that all along there was a missing secret ingredient he did not bother to mention in his success formula. In other words, *not my fault* for trying his methods and not achieving the results.

It is also a relief to stop wondering why some absolute newbies have hundreds of 5-star reviews while my books (including Nebula Award Finalist works) take decades to get a handful of honest mixed reviews.

Yes indeed, I do feel suddenly a whole lot better about this business.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

EllenFisher said:


> I think cover blurbs are more of a please-your-publisher sort of thing. When my first book was published by Bantam, I got a lovely blurb from Elizabeth Thornton, who was a well-known romance author at the time and who surely wasn't looking for any sort of reciprocity from me-- she was a major author, and I was a nobody. I don't know for sure if she read my book or not, but I do know she was asked to do it by the publisher. I imagine major authors are asked to do this by their editors as a matter of course, and agree to it because they feel a sense of obligation to their publishing house.
> 
> But that's only ONE quote. That seems different to me than purchasing a boatload of reviews which purport to be from readers, but which are actually being generated by a company that's turning a profit by churning out reviews. The first is at least somewhat straightforward-- the person whose name is on the blurb is (presumably) actually the person who wrote it. The other is blatantly fraudulent, it seems to me-- the reviews are supposedly from ordinary reviewers, but in fact they've been purchased. I don't really see these two things as even remotely equivalent.


Blurbs, also known as jacket quotes -- just as introductions by name authors -- are never purchased. They are a courtesy.

In my publisher capacity for Norilana Books, I've solicited such quotes from big name authors for my authors' new releases (directly, or by having my author contact their favorite name author themselves with a polite query), and in many cases have successfully received them.

I have also been fortunate, with my own work, to have received wonderful quotes from some of the top authors in the field, including Tanith Lee, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Jacqueline Carey, Sherwood Smith, and numerous others. And, Gene Wolfe and Charles de Lint have both been kind enough to provide introductions for two of my own books.

Finally, I myself have been solicited by other publishers and individual authors to read and provide jacket blurbs for their books. I've provided blurbs in some cases, and in some cases refused -- for various reasons including bad timing, a busy schedule, and the quality for the work in question.

In each of these cases, the author who gives the quote is risking their good reputation. It is a responsibility, and it is not to be taken lightly. After all, it's my good name that goes along with the blurb.

However, in some cases thee is an illusion of reciprocate blurbing because the publisher happens to have the same set of contacts, and uses the same authors for blurbs for most everyone in their "stable" of authors.

Finally, there is always the chance that the big name author may have read only a portion of the work before finding it satisfactory enough to give a positive recommendation -- in the same way that an editor may need to read a few paragraphs or a mere page to immediately recognize quality writing or bad prose. But again, is is all a courtesy.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

KayBratt said:


> Seriously, dude.
> 
> The entire country is in an uproar with politics, hurricanes and gas prices, and all we can do is sit and whine about reviews. Our mods are saints.


LOL

Yeah, I wonder what a certain Yahoo news director would say about us?  (And no, I'm not posting a link because I don't want to veer us off in that direction, but it's all over most news aggregation sites, no matter whether you're a fan of Drudge or HuffPo or Yahoo or Google or whoever... Look it up yourself, LOL.)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Caption This:
> 
> (I found that by accident.)


Yeah, it's BOX, his second Dr. Gideon Box novel. (Think HOUSE, but creepier.)

Fun read... I'm about halfway through it.

And yes, I intend to keep buying his NOVELS. I like 'em. And frankly, those rankings are lower than he's been averaging... but still strong for most folks.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *looks around* My country is not in an uproar over any of those things.


Based on my knowledge of the Canadian political system, courtesy of the old Great White North skits on SCTV, about the only thing Canadian feathers get ruffled over is a shortage of beer, eh?



Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas rule!

And Strange Brew is the BEST take on HAMLET since Bill Shakespeare put quill to parchment. (Shakespeare was largely self-published, BTW... Just sayin')


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> Hrm, cool. Did you get that backwards, though? The KB sample on my computer goes just over into Chapter 9.


Hmmm... Not sure what I did earlier, now they both go to the same place. probably operator error. Or perhaps it hadn't fully loaded before when I checked....

Betsy


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

KayBratt said:


> Our mods are saints.


I give them five stars! Fantastic! Love everything by these mods! Will buy all their posts in the future!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hugh gets a 








for sucking up in this and the "Three reasons" thread.



Betsy


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hugh gets a
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee, this comes as a complete surprise. Thank you, Betsy. I know this really came from the bottom of your heart. I'm moved.

(Check your Paypal)


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

You can tell I'm fired up about this when I write a SECOND blog.

http://seansweeneyauthor.blogspot.com/2012/08/can-you-spot-review-i-paid-for.html


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

Selina Fenech said:


> I admit I tried out Bookrooster, then cancelled and got a refund after deciding it wasn't for me. I saw it as paying someone to submit my book to reviewers for me, not paying for reviews, but after some conversations here I realised, no matter what I thought it was, it wasn't seen in the best light. I still ended up with one review through them, which I wish wasn't there now. It's easy to make mistakes when you're new and still feeling things out. For instance, I paid for a "Press Release", which I thought would be submitted to, you know, _the Press_, but ended up getting posted on review sites looking icky.


BookRooster is basically a downmarket NetGalley - although their systems are slightly different (and BookRooster has fallen over in terms of people doing reviews), they both make available a copy of the book for people who review books to, if they choose, read and review.

Both NetGalley and BookRooster charge the publisher to distribute the book. BookRooster sends links to potential reviewers until ten reviews are achieved (something which happened less and less effectively over time). NetGalley puts it on their site for up to six months and potential reviewers express interest and receive an approval/a copy. I don't have an issue with authors using either option.

The mainstream big reviewers like Kirkus who charge self-publishers for what they do for free for trade publishers - those I consider exploitive.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I couldn't use the cattle prod, but a long-handled bug zapper would really come in handy. I could have such fun with that. We've had this unnatural invasion of spiders since teh drought. Oh, yeah. I could have serious fun with a long-handled bug zapper.


You could have one by Friday:



Betsy


----------

