# This is not fair to other authors/publishers



## WhiteGoodman (Mar 14, 2014)

Hey guys, I am a new to kboards as I am a new author. It is especially hard to try and get your books out there as a new author, which I understand, but its harder when you are competing with other authors cheating the system. 

I noticed this book the other day where they list a bunch of related keywords on their page where the book contributors are supposed to go. For the author they put "animals" and illustrator "children's books", etc. They do the same for their other books as well. 

How can this not be against KDP terms of service? What are your thoughts?


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

WhiteGoodman said:


> Hey guys, I am a new to kboards as I am a new author. It is especially hard to try and get your books out there as a new author, which I understand, but its harder when you are competing with other authors cheating the system.
> 
> I noticed this book the other day where they list a bunch of related keywords on their page where the book contributors are supposed to go. For the author they put "animals" and illustrator "children's books", etc. They do the same for their other books as well.
> 
> How can this not be against KDP terms of service? What are your thoughts?


If you feel that it's a problem, you can report to Amazon. They'll handle the matter by contacting the author and asking him/her to remove the offending metadata/keywords.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

It's against Amazon policy. And wow I've never seen so much manipulation of the Author Central coding in my life. This person is good at it. They have gifs, color text, autoplaying youtube videos....I'm pretty sure none of which is kosher with Amazon. They just haven't noticed it yet.


----------



## Jerri Kay Lincoln (Jun 18, 2011)

Wow, using "normal" fields to flood with keywords . . . interesting, and it must be against the rules.  What is really offensive, though, is the auto-play little visual they have that you can't turn off.  That would never fly.  Report it.


----------



## WhiteGoodman (Mar 14, 2014)

I actually did report it to KDP a couple weeks ago and nothing has changed on the product page for any of their titles. Maybe they don't take me seriously because I am a new author?


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2014)

Best promotional work I've seen.
Trying to figure out how to do it myself.
Wow!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WhiteGoodman said:


> How can this not be against KDP terms of service? What are your thoughts?


My thoughts are that this author is thinking outside the box, not cheating. And it's kind of skeevy to rat out a fellow author to the Man.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

WhiteGoodman said:


> I actually did report it to KDP a couple weeks ago and nothing has changed on the product page for any of their titles. Maybe they don't take me seriously because I am a new author?


Report to their customer support (the main one for customers who buy stuff from Amazon, not KDP)


----------



## portiadacosta (Feb 28, 2011)

I went to look at the listing and it seems to have been removed now.

edited to add:

Strange, I couldn't find it using Amazon's search, but it's still there if you look for it using Google search.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

swolf said:


> My thoughts are that this author is thinking outside the box, not cheating. And it's kind of skeevy to rat out a fellow author to the Man.


Sorry. "Animal" cannot be "translator". And you cannot name your editor "children's books" or some other ridiculous keyword. It is cheating and abusing the system. This is precisely how AMZ gets nastier and nastier with us indies who play fair.

Also auto-playing a video or audio is not something Amazon likes because it makes a lot of people angry while shopping. How many of us enjoy auto-music on websites?


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

swolf said:


> My thoughts are that this author is thinking outside the box, not cheating. And it's kind of skeevy to rat out a fellow author to the Man.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200414280
Do not include HTML, DHTML, Java, scripts, or other types of executables in your detail pages.

I don't care so much for the title, but it's the product description that's really the problem. There's thinking out of the box and there's obnoxious. This crosses the line with all of the work they've done.

Like Nadia says, if every author did this Amazon would get in a really bad mood. As a buyer, this page gives me a headache.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

I can't determine how, but looks like the author managed to inject some arbitrary code to customize the page. It's not likely something they intended.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

In their metadata guidelines, Amazon specifically states:

Contributors

Contributors are the people involved in creating your book. You can use these fields to identify your book's author, editor, illustrator, translator, and any others who you want to give credit to, as long as they worked on that specific book. If the book has more than one author, you can enter multiple authors. Enter author names in the sequence you would like them to appear in the Kindle Store. To publish your book, at least one contributor name is required, and all contributors of any public domain content are required. *Do not add anything other than contributors here; don't add search keywords or other information.* Note that you are free to use a pen name, as long as it does not impair our customers' ability to make good buying decisions.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Daniel Dennis said:


> I can't determine how, but looks like the author managed to inject some arbitrary code to customize the page. It's not likely something they intended.


You can put HTML in your product description page via KDP panel.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Not sure that I'm overwhelmed by the competition, but I find this cheezy.

People looking for books often comb through a lot of title. The product pages are set up a certain way so you know exactly where to scroll to find what you need.
Having each page look vastly different is bound to create headaches.
This one reminds me of a poorly done eBay page.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Quiss said:


> Having each page look vastly different is bound to create headaches.
> This one reminds me of a poorly done eBay page.


As another user pointed out in another post, these boards could benefit from a 'like' button.
/like


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

swolf said:


> My thoughts are that this author is thinking outside the box, not cheating. And it's kind of skeevy to rat out a fellow author to the Man.


Right. The proper way to handle it is to shiv the author nice and quiet.


----------



## dave_flora (Jan 26, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> Right. The proper way to handle it is to shiv the author nice and quiet.


Thank heavens! Someone who understands subtlety!


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

Hello, White, and welcome to Kboards!

I don't really have any thoughts on this particular book beyond the fact that it looks cheesy and will almost certainly be quashed when Amazon pays attention to it.

I do have one thought on this topic in general, though. I think as new authors, we do better to focus on what we are doing and less on what our perceived competition is doing. Every moment I spend looking at things like this and every ounce of energy and attention I give it is time and energy I could be putting into something more worthwhile.

When I was brand new, sock puppet reviews used to drive me crazy. I spent way too much time identifying and worrying about them. Now, I never give them a moment's thought. The sock puppet reviews haven't changed, only my thought process.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Shawn Inmon said:


> Hello, White, and welcome to Kboards!
> 
> I don't really have any thoughts on this particular book beyond the fact that it looks cheesy and will almost certainly be quashed when Amazon pays attention to it.
> 
> ...


Sounds like misdirection. I'm watching you like a hawk, man.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> Right. The proper way to handle it is to shiv the author nice and quiet.


Was this insight gained from, uh, personal experience?

That's okay, you can answer from over there, on the other side of the room. And keep your hands where I can see them, please.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> That's okay, you can answer from over there, on the other side of the room. And keep your hands where I can see them, please.


That's just what he wants. While you're looking at him, the Ninja is stealthing up behind you.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Wansit said:


> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200414280
> Do not include HTML, DHTML, Java, scripts, or other types of executables in your detail pages.


That's a fairly new rule Amazon instituted last year. There was a time you could go through your KDP Dashboard to manipulate html code to display unique visual content on your product page including feature videos. I'm assuming Amazon grandfathered the books that had used the html previously, because there are still quite a few indie books in the Kindle store with videos and stylized content on their product pages. As long as the authors of these books don't claim their titles via Author Central, and Amazon doesn't pull the rug from under them, the unique content will stay.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

While I'll admit that page looks somewhat tacky- I thought my browser was hijacked at first- I don't see what the big deal is. The description is supposed to be keyword-loaded anyway. As for putting keywords in other places, I doubt it helps. That won't put the book in any "hidden" categories (all that really matters) and probably won't help much to appear higher in search results.

Even if you still feel what that author did is "cheating," I really doubt it has given her much of an edge.

You'd be much more productive Googling the author (those are impressive sales numbers) and learning from her marketing. What blogs seem really engaged about her book, for example? Maybe contact those readers that gave it 5 stars and offer a free copy of your own to review.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

ThePete said:


> Even if you still feel what that author did is "cheating," I really doubt it has given her much of an edge.


This.

It's generally a mistake to assume that people actually benefit from stupid things like this.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

BTW: The video is embedded in an editorial review, not the product description.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> That's a fairly new rule Amazon instituted last year. There was a time you could go through your KDP Dashboard to manipulate html code to display unique visual content on your product page including feature videos. I'm assuming Amazon grandfathered the books that had used the html previously, because there are still quite a few indie books in the Kindle store with videos and stylized content on their product pages. As long as the authors of these books don't claim their titles via Author Central, and Amazon doesn't pull the rug from under them, the unique content will stay.


Yep, this is my understanding, too: it's grandfathered. Last year on KB, there threads showing authors how to put elements like those in the product description.

But I don't think putting keywords in the contributor fields has ever been kosher. The author's taking chance, there.


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

Why is thinking outside the box criticized so negatively?  We need to be innovative, try new things, press up against the boundaries. That's what indie writing/publishing is all about. Fairness to other authors? It's a competitive world, learn to live with it. 

You may not agree with/like/approve the result, but why get in a twist?

And put that shiv away - they're banned on KBOARDS - cattle prods only.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

JohnHindmarsh said:


> Why is thinking outside the box criticized so negatively? We need to be innovative, try new things, press up against the boundaries. That's what indie writing/publishing is all about. Fairness to other authors? It's a competitive world, learn to live with it.
> 
> You may not agree with/like/approve the result, but why get in a twist?
> 
> And put that shiv away - they're banned on KBOARDS - cattle prods only.


If it's against Amazon's guidelines, then it's best to not be done.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Mike Brady: Cindy, you know by tattling on your friends, you're really just tattling on yourself. By tattling on your friends, you're just telling them that you're a tattletale. Now is that the tale you want to tell?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

One thing I learned as a kid was that tattling on other kids because they were doing something against the rules - especially if it wasn't negatively impacting me in any way - was a complete waste of my own effort, and usually caused a backlash against _me_. Adults whose rules were being violated might have appreciated it; my peers, not so much.

I eventually learned how to tell when a broken rule was really worth my emotional commitment and the time it takes to report it. That is surprisingly infrequent.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

WhiteGoodman said:


> It is especially hard to try and get your books out there as a new author, which I understand, but its harder when you are competing with other authors cheating the system.


Gaming the system is a way of life on Amazon. At one time you could enter reader forums and promote your books. People abused the system, and Amazon forbid authors to engage in this kind of promotion. Then the game became 'tags.' People abused it, and Amazon deleted the tags system. Then the game became having companies and individuals post favorable reviews for various fees. Amazon cracked down on it, but I'm not convinced it's gone. Just look at all the new books which only have five star reviews, NONE of which are verified purchases. Then the game became the 99 cent books. People knew that could steal sales away from other authors by price cutting. Eventually that changed as authors got Amazon to price-match lower and lower prices. Then Amazon got into it with the Select program and free days, which devolved into perma-free. And don't forget the scam-phlets. The point is, it's all game to get people to buy your book instead of someone else's book. Instead of writing a quality book that will gain tremendous popularity simply because of it's quality, people look for ways to cheat the system.

So instead of complaining, simply find the next big scam and hop on it. If you can't lick 'em, join 'em. Or better yet, beat them at their own cheating games.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

JohnHindmarsh said:


> Why is thinking outside the box criticized so negatively? We need to be innovative, try new things, press up against the boundaries. That's what indie writing/publishing is all about. Fairness to other authors? It's a competitive world, learn to live with it.
> 
> You may not agree with/like/approve the result, but why get in a twist?
> 
> And put that shiv away - they're banned on KBOARDS - cattle prods only.


I think it's less 'thinking outside the box' and more 'violating Amazon's TOS'.

What I'd like to know is, why do so many people think it's okay to sign an agreement and then break the rules of the agreement, and then act angry and aggrieved when someone calls them on their behavior?


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Look, cheating is cheating. I don't care if they don't actually benefit from it at all. If it's a very very blatant and deliberate violation of Amazon's TOS, no one should be upset if they get called on it. And I don't see it being a problem that the report comes from another author; it's good for us to keep each other honest.

Doing something that's merely "iffy" is of course an entirely different animal. I don't see anything to be gained by calling out behavior that's merely unusual, but not outright deceptive or done in flagrant defiance of Amazon's rules. I'm all for thinking outside the box and pressing up against the boundaries, but when the boundaries are pretty clear and someone pushes way outside them, that's when it's time to say something. There's a world of difference between pulling out all the stops to market creatively without truly breaking any rules, and pretty brazenly breaking them after all. I mean seriously, this is _spam_ we're talking about; spam is not acceptable.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

There's thinking outside the box, and then there's violating a site's TOS. Which with Amazon, can get your account terminated tout suite.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> The point is, it's all game to get people to buy your book instead of someone else's book. Instead of writing a quality book that will gain tremendous popularity simply because of it's quality, people look for ways to cheat the system.


While I get what you mean about all the (usually ineffective) attempts to "game the system," I wouldn't say quality alone sells books. No book has ever sold just because it's well written. It sells because someone famous suggested it, the author has a loyal following, a publisher put marketing bucks behind it, etc... Just look at how many people submit quality manuscripts to trad publishers who never even read past the cover letter. No agent, no chance.

It's similar online. A good book alone is not a marketable product. You need pro cover art, a solid description, great reviews and, just as important, discoverability. That's always how it has been. Quality, like flour, is as important to success as in baking a cake, but no one's going to buy a bag of flour with Happy Birthday stenciled on top.

Now, I'm not defending people who think they can cut corners and find shortcuts. I'm just not worried about them. I'll stick to writing and the grunt work of building an audience while they fiddle away their time with The Secret of the week.


----------



## FH (Jul 30, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Right. The proper way to handle it is to shiv the author nice and quiet.


a classic plot line in the making.

"it started out as a innocent marketing campaign and ended with a bloody corpse in the children's section of Barnes & Noble. The only clue? a cheap knife with a amazon ASIN barcode still on the handle. 60 percent off retail. 32 five star reviews. the knife of choice for the modern kindle murderer"


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Freddy Hansen said:


> a classic plot line in the making.
> 
> "it started out as a innocent marketing campaign and ended with a bloody corpse in the children's section of Barnes & Noble. The only clue? a cheap knife with a amazon ASIN barcode still on the handle. 60 percent off retail. 32 five star reviews. the knife of choice for the modern kindle murderer"


I'd buy it.

Maybe you could hire Animal to illustrate it, and Bedtime Stories to do the preface.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> I'd buy it.
> 
> Maybe you could hire Animal to illustrate it, and Bedtime Stories to do the preface.


I declare you the winner. Here is your souvenir shiv.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

People throw around the TOS label a lot. Bear in mind that there's a difference between TOS and rules. TOS carries a specific legal connotation that "rules" does not. Something can be against a site's rules but not in violation of their TOS, depending on how the TOS is written.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> "it started out as a innocent marketing campaign and ended with a bloody corpse in the children's section of Barnes & Noble. The only clue? a cheap knife with a amazon ASIN barcode still on the handle. 60 percent off retail. 32 five star reviews. the knife of choice for the modern kindle murderer"


Ha! I'm stealing that. I'll have the story uploaded by the morning! Seriously, I bet these forums have enough material for a hundred crimis, a thousand conspiracy thrillers... and probably quite a bit of erotica.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> Maybe you could hire Animal to illustrate it, and Bedtime Stories to do the preface.


There was a character with the name "Animal" on "Lou Grant" and in the Muppets as well. I've seen much more bizarre pen names than "Bedtime Stories". So if an erotica author on Amazon can have a pen name of Sandy V. Jyna then I would think an illustrator can use a pen name of "Animal" or a preface writer could have the pen name of "Bedtime Stories".


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

I think Bedtime Stories moonlights writing erotica.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> People throw around the TOS label a lot. Bear in mind that there's a difference between TOS and rules. TOS carries a specific legal connotation that "rules" does not. Something can be against a site's rules but not in violation of their TOS, depending on how the TOS is written.


That's a very good point. And it's worth asking yourself whether you're better off serving as Amazon's neighborhood watch officer or just going about your own business of writing and publishing. For me, there are "wrongs" that I feel compelled to address, and "wrongs" that actually aren't doing anyone any harm. In this case, this would fall into the second category, because I really doubt this author's attempt to game the system is denying any other authors readership.

Interestingly, there's a thread that asks about whether other writers "check out the competition." I wonder if the divide on this topic would mirror the divide of those who consider other writers the competition vs. a community of allies.

Edited because nobody really needs to write "really" that many times in one post.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Everything is unfair. This is an unfair business. Every other thread is about something being unfair to someone, somehow. Frankly, it's annoying. 

Someone write a post about how they went from zero to a million in two years with five dollars in the bank. I'd like to read one of those today. I'd like to hear the real honest to god guts and glory. 

It's too bad no one is actually real on the internet. Big surprise. We're in a hall of mirrors surrounded by lies. 

But hey, I like writing. I think I might be okay at it. So, here I am...


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

TN & AJ said:


> Everything is unfair. This is an unfair business. Every other thread is about something being unfair to someone, somehow. Frankly, it's annoying.
> 
> Someone write a post about how they went from zero to a million in two years with five dollars in the bank. I'd like to read one of those today. I'd like to hear the real honest to god guts and glory.
> 
> ...


Yes please.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

I really don't even consider it "gaming the system". Just taking advantage of an opportunity. Would I do it? No, because I don't really consider it ethical.

Back in high school my biology teacher went to make copies of a test. She told me to come up to the front of the class and sit in her chair. She then told the other students that I was in charge while she was gone. Well, as it turns out, she left the answer sheet for the test out in the open, on her desk. I could have avoided looking at the answer sheet or I could choose to read it and get all the answers. Well, I did the latter. The teacher put me in the position to read the answer sheet, I didn't steal it or create some diversion to get access to it. I saw it not as cheating, but as an opportunity.

I got a perfect score. I probably wouldn't have without seeing the answers. After class I stayed behind and told the teacher. She had completely forgotten about the answer sheet, but she let my grade stand and also didn't consider it "cheating". Not perfectly ethical, but not cheating as such. She said she would have been disappointed in me if she had KNOWINGLY left the answers out for me and I didn't take advantage of the opportunity.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

scribblr said:


> Then the game became the 99 cent books. People knew that could steal sales away from other authors by price cutting. Eventually that changed as authors got Amazon to price-match lower and lower prices. Then Amazon got into it with the Select program and free days, which devolved into perma-free. And don't forget the scam-phlets. The point is, it's all game to get people to buy your book instead of someone else's book. Instead of writing a quality book that will gain tremendous popularity simply because of it's quality, people look for ways to cheat the system.


You've got it confused. Perma-free existed before Select. And I also take issue with your claim that going free is some kind of scam that replaces writing a quality book.

No book goes free on Amazon without Amazon's permission. Whether it's through Select where Amazon grants you the right of five free days, or price-matching, where Amazon decides which books to price match, they are the ones controlling the number of free books on their website. And they obviously think having these free books is good for their business, or they wouldn't be doing it. It's not a scam or cheating the system. It's not 'stealing sales from other authors.' It's a legitimate way of marketing your books to customers.


----------



## KarlaGomez (Mar 16, 2012)

I love all the different POVs.

I do agree with JohnHindmarsh. We need to be innovative and try new things to promote our books.

At the end of the day self-published authors don't have the same resources as traditional published authors, so we have to really push hard. Hard_er_, some might say.

But if there are rules and guidelines we also have to follow them. Feels like a catch-22. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Greer said:


> I think it's less 'thinking outside the box' and more 'violating Amazon's TOS'.
> 
> What I'd like to know is, why do so many people think it's okay to sign an agreement and then break the rules of the agreement, and then act angry and aggrieved when someone calls them on their behavior?


Because the agreement is between that author and Amazon. I am not party to their relationship. Amazon enforces TOS at their discretion. They have no obligation to me to enforce various sections against someone else. That's no it in our agreement.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Because the agreement is between that author and Amazon. I am not party to their relationship. Amazon enforces TOS at their discretion. They have no obligation to me to enforce various sections against someone else. That's no it in our agreement.


And since you're not privy to the agreement between Amazon and the other author, you have no idea what terms are or are not included therein. While it is likely the same agreement as others, it doesn't actually have to be.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

GearPress Steve said:


> And since you're not privy to the agreement between Amazon and the other author, you have no idea what terms are or are not included therein. While it is likely the same agreement as others, it doesn't actually have to be.


Exactly. And nobody is obligated to inform me about their commercial agreements. If they can get a better deal than me, good for therm.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Exactly. And nobody is obligated to inform me about their commercial agreements. If they can get a better deal than me, good for therm.


It's not a deal to be made, like signing a publishing contract. It's following the basic rules of the site, which everyone agreed to follow when they signed up. If someone wants to try to get around the rules, and give themselves an advantage, that's up to them. But if someone else sees the first person as gaining unfair advantage by violating the rules, it should be up to them if they want to report the infraction.

And I'd just like to point out, my question above wasn't really meant to be specific, it was more of a general thought -- why is it that calling someone to account for their rule-breaking is considered worse than the rule-breaking itself?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Those of you reporting today succeeded in getting the page yanked.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Greer said:


> And I'd just like to point out, my question above wasn't really meant to be specific, it was more of a general thought -- why is it that calling someone to account for their rule-breaking is considered worse than the rule-breaking itself?


I'm not sure anyone suggested that it was worse. Just that it might be indicative of an unhealthy focus on the behavior of others that isn't really impacting anyone else. At least, that's what I, personally, was getting at.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It's following the basic rules of the site, which everyone agreed to follow when they signed up. If someone wants to try to get around the rules, and give themselves an advantage, that's up to them.


Agreements between other authors and Amazon are none of my business. I wish them the best in their dealings.



> And I'd just like to point out, my question above wasn't really meant to be specific, it was more of a general thought -- why is it that calling someone to account for their rule-breaking is considered worse than the rule-breaking itself?


I don't know. Who said it was?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Greer said:


> And I'd just like to point out, my question above wasn't really meant to be specific, it was more of a general thought -- why is it that calling someone to account for their rule-breaking is considered worse than the rule-breaking itself?


Who considers it worse? I must have missed that statement somewhere.

What that person did with their book page affected me an absolute total of 0%, so why should I even care? I'm not Amazon's watchdog, feeling the need to report anything I see as in possible violation. _Don't care._ It doesn't hurt anybody. Amazon can take care of itself. If I saw someone doing something that would actually cause harm, somebody beating up someone else, yeah, I'd do something about that even though it doesn't affect me. But someone who put forbidden html into his book page (and in the process made it look terrible anyway)? Why should I care? Why should you?

There also a downside you might not have considered. Everyone who reported or suggested others do that in this thread just made a public record of reporting another author for something incredibly petty _that doesn't affect them_. A record that will exist an indeterminable amount of time, that anyone including the reported author can see. I just can't see reporting some stranger for html being worth any potential fallout from that. Can you?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> Those of you reporting today succeeded in getting the page yanked.


Woohooo! We should all see an increase in sales now!

WhiteGoodman, perhaps you should list some books in your signature, so we can all make sure you're following the rules also. I see there are plenty of children's books out there using this technique. How do we know you're not one of them looking to undermine an author who's been extremely successful in a short period of time?


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> Who considers it worse? I must have missed that statement somewhere.
> 
> What that person did with their book page affected me an absolute total of 0%, so why should I even care? I'm not Amazon's watchdog, feeling the need to report anything I see as in possible violation. _Don't care._ It doesn't hurt anybody. Amazon can take care of itself. If I saw someone doing something that would actually cause harm, somebody beating up someone else, yeah, I'd do something about that even though it doesn't affect me. But someone who put forbidden html into his book page (and in the process made it look terrible anyway)? Why should I care? Why should you?
> 
> Not to mention, everyone who reported or suggested others do that in this thread just made a public record of reporting another author for something incredibly petty _that doesn't affect them_. A record that will exist an indeterminable amount of time, that anyone include the reported author can see. I just can't see reporting some stranger for html being worth any potential fallout from that. Can you?


I didn't report anyone, and I don't really care about some guy's HTML. I care about the keyword-stuffing, because it's against the rules. And because it's annoying to turn up a bunch of results that clearly have no relation to my search just because the search term was popular and the author found a place to cram an extra word in.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

swolf said:


> Woohooo! We should all see an increase in sales now!


Yep, the $$$ will be pouring in for everyone! Let the good times roll! Ding-dong, the witch is dead!


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

This thread really disappoints me - I think I'll opt out of KBOARDS - there is too much petty moaning and complaining, whether it's because advertising is unfair or someone tweaks their Amazon page or some other minor or irrelevant event occurs that is then seen as being 'unfair'. Sheesh.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

JohnHindmarsh said:


> This thread really disappoints me - I think I'll opt out of KBOARDS - there is too much petty moaning and complaining, whether it's because advertising is unfair or someone tweaks their Amazon page or some other minor or irrelevant event occurs that is then seen as being 'unfair'. Sheesh.


I understand your feelings, but if all the people who want it to be something different leave, then it's pretty much guaranteed to go that route, isn't it?


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> Those of you reporting today succeeded in getting the page yanked.


Ummmmm... yay?

So sad.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Greer said:


> It's not a deal to be made, like signing a publishing contract. It's following the basic rules of the site, which everyone agreed to follow when they signed up. If someone wants to try to get around the rules, and give themselves an advantage, that's up to them. But if someone else sees the first person as gaining unfair advantage by violating the rules, it should be up to them if they want to report the infraction.


Well I, for one, have no idea what they agreed to when they signed up. I'm guessing that you have a knowledge of their specific agreement with Amazon. Are you familiar with mine?


----------



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

I didn't bother to go and inspect this bad ad, nor did I report it. My comment is-- I totally detest those musical pop up things that you can't get rid off. I would never, never buy any product advertised in this obnoxious way. If you want to sell anything to me don't even try it.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> I didn't bother to go and inspect this bad ad, nor did I report it. My comment is-- I totally detest those musical pop up things that you can't get rid off. I would never, never buy any product advertised in this obnoxious way. If you want to sell anything to me don't even try it.


Congratulations: this makes #2000!


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

GearPress Steve said:


> Well I, for one, have no idea what they agreed to when they signed up. I'm guessing that you have a knowledge of their specific agreement with Amazon. Are you familiar with mine?


I would expect a TOS to be the same for everyone. Unless, perhaps, their name is Stephen King. What reason would there be to think it would be different?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

You know, it seems like a poster gathering a posse at KB to go out and report an author's page to Amazon would be a violation of the WHOA policy. Maybe it's just my interpretation.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Greer said:


> I would expect a TOS to be the same for everyone.


You must not be from around here.

I personally don't know what their agreements with Amazon consist of, if any even exist at all. I expect they have some agreement with Amazon, but I have no access to their records or Amazon's. I could assume, but assumptions (especially legal ones) often prove to be incorrect (see the threads about stock image licensing for pre-made covers).


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> You know, it seems like a poster gathering a posse at KB to go out and report an author's page to Amazon would be a violation of the WHOA policy. Maybe it's just my interpretation.


What is a WHOA policy?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

GearPress Steve said:


> What is a WHOA policy?


What happens on Amazon. Cannot be linked here.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> What happens on Amazon. Cannot be linked here.


Sorry, I'm completely lost.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

I'd just like to know how all of this did anything to help the OP "get his books out there."


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

GearPress Steve said:


> Sorry, I'm completely lost.


WHOA = What Happens On Amazon (stays on Amazon). In other words, we're not allowed to bring fights from Amazon to KBoards and continue them here.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

GearPress Steve said:


> Sorry, I'm completely lost.


Let me try to draw you a map. Though you might wind up in New York instead of LA. 
You can link to your page all day long but you cannot link to mine to send people to downvote my reviews.
If I want to brag on your book I can link it. I cannot link to your book saying go downvote this j*Cia**. 
I hope this helps. PS I don't think you are a j*Cia**


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Ok, got it.



cinisajoy said:


> PS I don't think you are a j*Cia**


That's good, because I have no idea what a j*Cia** is. No word I can think of will fit.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> Ok, got it.
> 
> That's good, because I have no idea what a j*Cia** is. No word I can think of will fit.


It's a jay star CIA star star. Duh.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> It's a jay star CIA star star. Duh.


Well that clears it up.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

GearPress Steve said:


> Ok, got it.
> 
> That's good, because I have no idea what a j*Cia** is. No word I can think of will fit.


It was my fire's idea of a jackass. Oh wow that word did not censor.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Thank _god_ the witch is dead. Now I can get back to reading on the toilet.


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> I understand your feelings, but if all the people who want it to be something different leave, then it's pretty much guaranteed to go that route, isn't it?


True. But if we're not here any more, we'll never notice.

This thread has saddened me, too. It's like using Kboards as a weapon. Just, sad.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Shawn Inmon said:


> True. But if we're not here any more, we'll never notice.
> 
> This thread has saddened me, too. It's like using Kboards as a weapon. Just, sad.


I notice that the OP made a grand total of two posts. It would seem he registered just to marshal a lynch mob to attack a rival author. It is really disheartening that the plan succeeded.

What really made this forum so compelling and attractive was the willingness of the membership to share their knowledge and advice freely to those with less experience. But this incident shows that there's a darker side to that willingness to pitch in. It is very sad, indeed.


----------



## 60169 (May 18, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> I notice that the OP made a grand total of two posts. It would seem he registered just to marshal a lynch mob to attack a rival author. It is really disheartening that the plan succeeded.
> 
> What really made this forum so compelling and attractive was the willingness of the membership to share their knowledge and advice freely to those with less experience. But this incident shows that there's a darker side to that willingness to pitch in. It is very sad, indeed.


I feel a deep loyalty to Kboards and WC. I can honestly say I've learned more about how to be a publisher here than I have anywhere else, by factor of about ten. I've made friendships here that mean a lot to me. I am grateful to Harvey and Betsy and Anne for the hard work and sense of fairness they put into running this site.

And still... I have found myself spending less and less time here because of threads like this.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Shawn Inmon said:


> I feel a deep loyalty to Kboards and WC. I can honestly say I've learned more about how to be a publisher here than I have anywhere else, by factor of about ten. I've made friendships here that mean a lot to me. I am grateful to Harvey and Betsy and Anne for the hard work and sense of fairness they put into running this site.
> 
> And still... I have found myself spending less and less time here because of threads like this.


Such threads (and the reaction they produce) do diminish the community. Each time, a bit of damage is done that can't be undone. Sometimes that damage drives good people away. Sometimes, it attracts more people who don't see it as damage. The difference between a bug and a feature is often one of perspective.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, I've just read through this thread for the first time. Y'all know we can't possibly read every thread on KBoards, right?

I hear a few people bemoaning this thread tonight, which, while I agree the initial post was a WHOA situation, also contained a lot of good discussion about what is allowed in a book page on Amazon and what is not, and other good discussions such as about the ethics of reporting a fellow author or not. So I don't see the thread as a whole as the disaster a few of you seem to.

As for the WHOA situation... Know how many reports we got on this thread? Zero. I can't reiterate enough that this is your forum, too. If you think a thread or post is not appropriate, please....report it. Ann, Harvey and I cannot possibly read every thread, let alone every post in the forum. Not and have a life, too. We depend on our membership to let us know when there is something not right.

Make the forum what you want it to be. If you're not getting what you want out of KBoards, ask yourself what you can do to improve it. This is not a passive activity like watching a TV show. It's a community. Be a force for good. And eat more chocolate.

Betsy


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As for the WHOA situation... Know how many reports we got on this thread? Zero. I can't reiterate enough that this is your forum, too. If you think a thread or post is not appropriate, please....report it. Ann, Harvey and I cannot possibly read every thread, let alone every post in the forum. Not and have a life, too. We depend on our membership to let us know when there is something not right.
> Betsy


I considered it, actually, but 1) there was the inherent irony of reporting a thread in which I was arguing against reporting something just because someone was breaking a rule somewhere, and 2) by the time I would have reported it, the damage had already been done. People were already descending on that link and reporting it to Amazon. Locking the thread, removing the link - it wouldn't have happened quickly enough.

Please understand, Betsy, that my disappointment was not directed at the forum's moderators. I wasn't looking for the authorities to swoop in and fix everything, because what was wrong here was not fixable by moderation. The forum administration didn't fail; the community failed.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

It's not a matter of criticism of the moderation.  I don't think you, or anyone else here was doing that.  It's a matter of practicality. We can't handle a situation we don't know about.  

I disagree that what needed to be fixed here couldn't be fixed by moderation.  If the WHOA situation had been reported, we could have removed the post, explained the reason why, and had what is often called "a teachable moment."  We could have prevented views of the WHOA link after that point.

To me, the failure by the community WAS the failure report it.  Once the WHOA situation is there, it's going to continue to generate visits to the product page until the info is removed. At any given time, we have about 2 guests viewing the forum for every member.  Anyone viewing the forum could have gone to that page and reported it to Amazon.  By removing the WHOA info, we prevent anyone reading the thread after that point from knowing which book is being discussed.

Betsy


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I disagree that what needed to be fixed here couldn't be fixed by moderation. If the WHOA situation had been reported, we could have removed the post, explained the reason why, and had what is often called "a teachable moment." We could have prevented views of the WHOA link after that point.
> 
> To me, the failure by the community WAS the failure report it. Once the WHOA situation is there, it's going to continue to generate visits to the product page until the info is removed. At any given time, we have about 2 guests viewing the forum for every member. Anyone viewing the forum could have gone to that page and reported it to Amazon. By removing the WHOA info, we prevent anyone reading the thread after that point from knowing which book is being discussed.
> 
> Betsy


Good point. In my case, the WHOA aspect didn't even occur to me until the time when I made that comment about it, on the third page of the thread, I think. I've been a lurker for a while and a poster for a very short time, and the WHOA policy isn't second nature to me yet. And the fact that no one else reported it may be an indication that the policy hasn't penetrated the community consciousness as deeply as it needs to.

So yes, I agree that the community failed to enforce the WHOA policy by reporting it, and I'm as guilty as anyone else. But what I have been "bemoaning" here is really the quickness of so many to jump on a negative, spiteful bandwagon rather than stopping and thinking about counseling the OP to concentrate on his own business. Maybe what I'm disappointed in is human nature in general.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LeeBee said:


> So yes, I agree that the community failed to enforce the WHOA policy by reporting it, and I'm as guilty as anyone else. But what I have been "bemoaning" here is really the quickness of so many to jump on a negative, spiteful bandwagon rather than stopping and thinking about counseling the OP to concentrate on his own business. Maybe what I'm disappointed in is human nature in general.


There were 89 posts in this thread, counting the OP (90, now with mine). Three posts recommended to the OP that he or she report the book.

19 discussed the issues that made the page against Amazon's TOS without any recommendation.

6 thought it was either bad promotion or good promotion.

21 posts were humorous or casual comments.

A couple of posts talked about not being able to find the thread.

12 posts recommended doing nothing.

10 posts discussed what constitutes a TOS and whether a TOS would be uniform for everyone at Amazon.

15 discussed KBoards and the WHOA nature of the thread.

(Note that these may not add up exactly to 89--I think I forgot to count one.)

I don't see "so many jumping on a negative, spiteful bandwagon." 3 people recommended reporting it to Amazon. Personally, the advice to the OP to report the book to Amazon if he or she had a problem with it is perfectly legitimate--it's the same advice I give everyone who has a problem with any entity--tell the entity involved. And it's the heart of WHOA. What Happens on Amazon, Stays on Amazon. In other words, it should be dealt with at Amazon.

12 people recommended doing nothing.

46 posts had little to do with the OP.

We don't know how many places the OP posted about the book page. We don't know how many people from here actually reported it. Sorry, I think any discussion of the downfall of human nature based on this thread is way overstated.

Betsy


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Perhaps.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

That's why Betsy wears the cape!


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

FWIW, I didn't get the sense that anyone was marshaling a posse to get multiple people to report the book. I don't like "gang up" situations as a rule, and it's sensible not to encourage them. I can see how the appearance of that sprang up though. Betsy pretty well hit the nail on the head as far as the actual outcome of the thread.

Since there was apparently a link or other info in the original post leading to the offending book, though, it was definitely the right call to pull that info. Being new, I'm sure the OP didn't know. I never actually noticed if there was such a link or not. Probably a lot of people didn't, having no intention of dogpile-reporting the book themselves. I'm sure the OP's only intent was to illustrate what was going on, not to encourage bad behavior.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Betsy, there's one more reference to the actual book ASIN in an early quote you might want to get rid of.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> Betsy, there's one more reference to the actual book ASIN in an early quote you might want to get rid of.


Thanks, Rayven. Removed it and went through the thread again. I think it's good now. A bit of locking the barn door after the horse is lost, but at least there's no thread to point at where the ASIN was allowed to stand. WIsh I'd caught it sooner. 

Betsy


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

What the heck is a "WHOA"? I don't think you mean the Wisconsin Hockey Officials Association.

Sorry for the newbie question, but ya'll are way too technical for me!


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Greer said:


> WHOA = What Happens On Amazon (stays on Amazon). In other words, we're not allowed to bring fights from Amazon to KBoards and continue them here.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

ThePete--

LOL! No, we don't mean the Wisconsin Hockey Officials Association. (Is that a real association?)

As Rayven says, WHOA means What Happens on Amazon, stay on Amazon (and also, What Happens on Another Site, stays on that site). We don't want people to bring arguments or battles they're having somewhere else here to fight or to get reinforcements. If someone is having a problem with someone somewhere else, they should deal with it there. They can ask, in general terms, for advice here, but shouldn''t post a link here in the expectation to drive people there to support them or take action on their behalf.

It's not codified in Forum Decorum but is part of the culture here that people learn about eventually.

Betsy


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

JohnHindmarsh said:


> Why is thinking outside the box criticized so negatively? We need to be innovative, try new things, press up against the boundaries. That's what indie writing/publishing is all about. Fairness to other authors? It's a competitive world, learn to live with it.
> 
> You may not agree with/like/approve the result, but why get in a twist?
> 
> And put that shiv away - they're banned on KBOARDS - cattle prods only.


This. If I try something outside the box, (and I do most of my stuff outside the box), how many people are going to pile on? This poor author is just trying to gain some visibility. Yes, everyone should read the TOS, but how many do?

In reference to how many read the AMMY TOS


Spoiler



not to thinking outside the box


:
Shoot, you go to a trade conference and all you'll hear from the agents is how authors don't read the rules for submitting their manuscripts. So of course, some newbies assume they know the rules and don't read them.

Like I said before, this place used to cheer on those who were thinking outside the box, and if they felt something crossed an imaginary line, they would mention it to the author directly, like "Hey dude, did you know it's against the TOS to stuff keywords in those lines?" so the author could clear it up before Ammy found out. Someone might even give him helpful hints how to include the keywords in his book description and editorial space. *And* as someone else pointed out, Amazon's TOS is a fluid doc. what was okay one week, wasn't the next.

Remember the author "like" and everyone thought that helped visibility? Or the tweet groups? Or the giveaways? We used to do all kinds of thinking outside the box to raise our visibilty. It wasn't us against each other, it was us trying to work together to raise self published books visibility.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Shoot, you go to a trade conference and all you'll hear from the agents is how authors don't read the rules for submitting their manuscripts.


Speaking as someone who used to read slush for a small press, I understand where those agents are coming from. Outsiders may not understand the reason for the rules, but there are reasons. Open submissions - and, I would imagine, agent pitches - are hell. You get swamped, and you have to find a way to stay organized. The rules help.

The worst part is, it's not just one person thinking outside the box, it's many. Many submissions that don't conform to the rules. To me, when an author didn't follow the rules set out by the press, it always suggested to me that they thought their time was more valuable (too valuable to bother reading the rules) than the time of the person they were submitting to, or else they thought they were simply too good to follow the rules.

One thing to keep in mind if you are submitting to someone (agent pitch, manuscript submission, review request, whatever else) is that there will always be more people submitting than there are openings. Way more. And the people receiving the submissions will be looking for ways to knock a large percentage out of the running as fast as they can. One very easy way is to take every sub that didn't follow the rules and toss it. Because if someone can't be bothered to follow the rules, how difficult are they going to be to work with? How likely is it they'll meet deadlines? The thing is, it's not just a simple case of not following the rules - it's what that simple action tells others about the rule-breaker.

Just some food for thought...


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> This. If I try something outside the box, (and I do most of my stuff outside the box), how many people are going to pile on? This poor author is just trying to gain some visibility. Yes, everyone should read the TOS, but how many do?


But the issue brought up here really wasn't an outside-the-box thing. It was a spam thing. The author in question was spamming keywords into fields that should never, ever have them, because they're for names and not keywords. It's obvious why Amazon frowns on such a thing, and no one could be tempted to do it without knowing they were almost certainly crossing a line. Basically the spammer knew they were spamming. Was it effective? Was it worth it? Not really the point.

There's nothing wrong with outside-the-box thinking, but it's the difference between creative strategy in a game and outright cheating. I think it's awesome that authors are constantly discovering new ways to improve visibility and sharing their success stories. What this particular author did wasn't that; he was just plain cheating. This clearly isn't one of those gray areas where successful marketing involves testing boundaries. I've seen plenty of ideas out there that made me think: "Gosh, that's iffy; I'm not even sure if that's ethical." This one, there wasn't even any question about it.

But of course, piling on to report that author is obviously a bad idea. Clearly the ball was in the OP's court on that, whether to report or not, and it wasn't anyone else's place to get involved. I never got the impression the OP was recruiting for a pile-on though, and I hope that people didn't do that.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> But the issue brought up here really wasn't an outside-the-box thing. It was a spam thing. The author in question was spamming keywords into fields that should never, ever have them, because they're for names and not keywords.


Just because *you* see it as a spam thing doesn't mean a newbie author would. 
They see: Keywords=Discoverability.
The *keyword* only makes it pop up to people who have expressed an interest in that *keyword*, and his book page won't show up, just the link to it, along with links to others who have triggered that keyword, so no, it doesn't resemble "spam" in the least. His book link may not even make it onto the first page of suggestions. That's how hard it is to get discoverability.

Edit: Also my comment about reading the TOS was that since authors don't even bother to read agent instructions, why would they bother to read the Ammy TOS? I''ll go back and make it clearer.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Just because *you* see it as a spam thing doen't mean a newbie author would.
> They see Keywords=Discoverability.
> The *keyword* only makes it pop up to people who have expressed an interest in that *keyword*, and his book page won't show up, just the link to it, along with links to others who have triggered that keyword, so no, it doesn't resemble "spam" in the least. His book link may not even make it onto the first page of suggestions. That's how hard it is to get discoverability.


Seriously? Would anyone, newb or not, think putting Animals for the illustrator or Children's books as the editor is what those fields were intended for? No. It's clearly an attempt to use something in a way it was not designed. To keyword stuff.

By your reasoning, if I *keyword* stuff my listing somehow, it's okay because only people looking for that *keyword* will see it? It's not okay. This is basic stuff here.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Monique said:


> Seriously? Would anyone, newb or not, think putting Animals for the illustrator or Children's books as the editor is what those fields were intended for? No. It's clearly an attempt to use something in a way it was not designed. To keyword stuff.
> 
> By your reasoning, if I *keyword* stuff my listing somehow, it's okay because only people looking for that *keyword* will see it? It's not okay. This is basic stuff here.


Seriously? Would a newbie think it was okay? Yes. Because it happened.

You have to remember not everyone thinks like a seasoned WC member. I get lots of questions from new authors because of Indie Author Chat and some other groups I belong to. Some things we take for granted and think everyone shoudl know...well, they don't. Not everyone is social media savvy either.

How many times do we see authors post "Buy my book!" on twitter then get upset because it didn't work? All the time. They're clueless mainly because they don't understand. Learning is a process. No, I think the author is embarrassed once someone points out these things don't work, and I'll bet they thought they were being savvy to use what little space is available on keywords.

BTW, no one said it was okay. They obviously didn't read the TOS. I don't think they're an evil mastermind trying to game the system but just a newbie who doesn't understand it's not kosher.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

As I posted earlier, this practice isn't limited to this one woman.  I have to wonder why the OP singled her out.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> BTW, no one said it was okay. They obviously didn't read the TOS. I don't think they're an evil mastermind trying to game the system but just a newbie who doesn't understand it's not kosher.


I wouldn't have to read the TOS to know that the spot for Author is for the author's name, and the spot for Illustrator it for the Illustrator's name. I'd only have to know how to read.

Lots of people put keywords in those spots, and they all know they're not really supposed to.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> I wouldn't have to read the TOS to know that the spot for Author is for the author's name, and the spot for Illustrator it for the Illustrator's name. I'd only have to know how to read.
> 
> Lots of people put keywords in those spots, and they all know they're not really supposed to.


They also put them in the editorial area and that's meant for editorials! The nerve! So?
It's illegal to jay walk, and there are even painted lines (for people to walk in) that go between two lights that have a cute little stick man on it that lights up when people should cross. Why don't they use the cross walk? Guess what, people break that law every day, and it comes with a fine. The nerve of those jaywalkers who don't care and people who don't read/care about the TOS!


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

swolf said:


> As I posted earlier, this practice isn't limited to this one woman. I have to wonder why the OP singled her out.


I've never seen it.

Off topic:
Are you trying method acting writing yet?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's not start another brouhaha today.  Oh, wait, it's Wednesday.  Let's not start Wednesday with another brouhaha.  I can already see where this is going.  All of the usual suspects are gathering and it's not going to go well.

Really, Lisa, if I have to lock another thread, I'm going to have to get the cattle prod out.

Betsy


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Let's not start another brouhaha today. Oh, wait, it's Wednesday. Let's not start Wednesday with another brouhaha. I can already see where this is going. All of the usual suspects are gathering and it's not going to go well.
> 
> Really, Lisa, if I have to lock another thread, I'm going to have to get the cattle prod out.
> 
> Betsy


Please use it on the others, thank you. I just did my hair and I'd like it to stay nice for awhile. 

P. S. You gave me a story idea: Queen of the Locks


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Those who think outside the box don't much care what the competition thinks about it.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> They also put them in the editorial area and that's meant for editorials! The nerve! So?
> It's illegal to jay walk, and there are even painted lines (for people to walk in) that go between two lights that have a cute little stick man on it that lights up when people should cross. Why don't they use the cross walk? Guess what, people break that law every day, and it comes with a fine. The nerve of those jaywalkers who don't care and people who don't read/care about the TOS!


I'm not sure how this follows what I said.

You suggested it was a newbie mistake to put keywords in the author/illustrator/whatever fields. I said it's not, it's a deliberate act that no amount of newness explains. What you've written here is that people do it and don't care that they're not supposed to. Which is exactly what I said.

So I guess we agree! And like Swolf, I've seen this done many, many times. It got particularly blatant at Kobo because their search engine is as useful as a match underwater.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> You suggested it was a newbie mistake to put keywords in the author/illustrator/whatever fields. I said it's not, it's a deliberate act that no amount of newness explains.


My point exactly. I'm all for giving newbies a ton of slack, because there are lots of mistakes that seem obvious in hindsight that aren't so much when you're new. But keyword stuffing is so obviously spammy a practice that there's just no such excuse. I mean everyone has seen variations on keyword stuffing all over the Internet. And it's one thing to try putting keywords in a place that's unorthodox but not misleading; pretending they're contributor names is something else.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

Actually I think it's quite clever. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't do it myself. It's so obviously a rort and it violates amazons TOS, but that doesn't mean I can't admire someone for thinking of it. 

I also suspect it won't earn the author a lot of sales. Yes people might be more likely to find the book in a keyword search, but honestly not much more so. Not if they were already using their seven keywords to their best. It also might well backfire if readers see it when they click on the book link, see the keywords listed under author etc and think - this is a shyster.

As to the OP. As another author how well another authors books sell really doesn't have a lot to do with how my books sell. So personally I wouldn't care.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> And it's kind of skeevy to rat out a fellow author to the Man.


Thou shalt not betray a fellow author = crossing the thick red line, eh? 

When I was younger, I tried to rat someone out to The Man, once.

Turns out The Man was a Cat, and a female one at that. And way too hungry to listen to me...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

A reminder that a discussion of using keywords, etc, inappropriately is fine, but any singling out of an individual on Amazon is going to be a WHOA situation (see prior posts for a definition if you're not familiar with our WHOA policy).

Swolf, what's your point in pointing out that the book is back up and that books in her also-boughts use the technique? 

Betsy


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> That's a fairly new rule Amazon instituted last year. There was a time you could go through your KDP Dashboard to manipulate html code to display unique visual content on your product page including feature videos. I'm assuming Amazon grandfathered the books that had used the html previously, because there are still quite a few indie books in the Kindle store with videos and stylized content on their product pages. As long as the authors of these books don't claim their titles via Author Central, and Amazon doesn't pull the rug from under them, the unique content will stay.


Can I just ignore that you shared this because I still stylize my product page. Seriously? Why can't we use html to make a product page pop?


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Thou shalt not betray a fellow author = crossing the thick red line, eh?
> 
> When I was younger, I tried to rat someone out to The Man, once.
> 
> Turns out The Man was a Cat, and a female one at that. And way too hungry to listen to me...


I'm kind of like ... hey if it works ... wish I had thought of it first LOL


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't think that it takes any "experience" to realize that lying on the product page to stuff keywords is unethical.  Seriously.  I think my 11 year old would be mad at the author if he ran across a product page like that, with no prompting from anyone.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

I think it's erroneous to attribute keyword stuffing author/illustrator/editor fields to "newbie" misunderstandings. I know seasoned erotica authors who were doing this on Kobo until Kobo cracked down (in their defense, Kobo's search engine was even worse at the time than it is now). I know I contemplated something along the lines of a "BBW Romance Editorial Group" for the editor field -- but I'd want to make it reasonably legit and that would be more work than any SEO juice it gave me to have it in there.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Thou shalt not betray a fellow author = crossing the thick red line, eh?


"Spammers must pay" trumps it; at least for me. But trumping _that_ is the dogpile rule: If someone else pointed it out, I'm not getting involved. If I run across something like that myself, though, I'll at least consider it. Question: What if it's a thick blue line? Is it okay for cops to overlook other cops tampering with evidence? Solidarity is valuable; it is not the end-all.

My objection to keyword stuffing and similarly outright deceptive practices is as a consumer more than as a producer anyway, because it taints the search pool. When I'm trying to find something I want, I'm infuriated by running across things that were only thrown in my path because of blatantly deceptive practices. From an author's perspective, I'm much more comfortable with the notion that eventually a like-minded reader will speak up; if I see something I think is iffy but not outright wrong, I'm inclined to overlook it. For the record though, to date I've never turned in anyone for deceptive practices, because I never see it except in WHOA situations where it's none of my business. I think Amazon would like for me to continue not seeing it, so that I find the things I'm looking for. They want their search to keep running smoothly and as someone who uses it on a regular basis, so do I.



vmblack said:


> I don't think that it takes any "experience" to realize that lying on the product page to stuff keywords is unethical. Seriously. I think my 11 year old would be mad at the author if he ran across a product page like that, with no prompting from anyone.





Christa Wick said:


> I think it's erroneous to attribute keyword stuffing author/illustrator/editor fields to "newbie" misunderstandings.


This! Keyword stuffing isn't attributable to newbie error. I get that a lot of things we find obvious now weren't so obvious when we started, and not everyone is savvy to all the tools they have to work with, but there's a _line_. Thinking of Twitter as just a place where you badger people to buy your books--one of Lisa's examples--is a newbie mistake. Name-dropping in your blurb is a newbie mistake. Trying to get your book into more categories where it doesn't belong because you don't really understand how those categories are perceived by the readers (e.g., a love story with no HEA into Romance) is a newbie mistake. Being outright deceptive with keywords by claiming something like "Sword and sorcery" as a contributor is clearly wrong. And it's not clever; spam is _never_ clever.

Clever is writing your blurb so that it contains the keywords you want but still packs all the punch you want it to. Clever is finding a new way to use social media to your advantage that isn't sleazy (or at least not overtly so). I think it's pretty clever how someone pointed out Amazon's 7-keyword limit in the keyword area only goes by commas, that you can use spaces to separate words and they'll all count; I plan to use this judiciously in the future, since I think there are legit uses for multi-word keywords. That's the kind of envelope pushing I can get behind; it's not deceptive!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Can I just ignore that you shared this because I still stylize my product page. Seriously? Why can't we use html to make a product page pop?


I don't know. Seems that is between you and Amazon. Go for it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Off-topic on jaywalking.
Go for it.  But if you get hit, you get the ticket.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

FYI: There is at least one "get rich on Kindle books" course that teaches this keyword stuffing technique.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Off-topic on jaywalking.
> Go for it. But if you get hit, you get the ticket.


I agree. Hell, if someone wants to jaywalk on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws, they have the choice to take that risk.

However, I won't be calling a cop over and saying, "Look what he's doing."


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Swolf, 
I learned that from a cop that tried to run over me.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Swolf,
> I learned that from a cop that tried to run over me.


Which part of 'Protect and Serve' was that?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode, _To Serve Humanity_. Maybe its step #1?


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

You wanna know how to sell more books? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He stuffs contributor fields with keywords, you report him to Amazon. That's the _Writer's Cafe_ way! And that's how you sell more books. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a book deal. Do you want this book deal?

I ain't no rat, see! I ain't snitchin' on nobody, see? In the _Writer's Cafe_, snitches get stitches!


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

swolf said:


> I agree. Hell, if someone wants to jaywalk on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws, they have the choice to take that risk.
> 
> However, I won't be calling a cop over and saying, "Look what he's doing."


If these "new" people are being told by people to keyword stuff in that way (as GearPress Steve pointed out) then yes, it could be because they're new and that's how people-in-the-know are telling them to do it.

Lol, I don't care who jay walks either. I also don't care who keyword stuffs as they are just trying to be visible. 
I don't call it *lying*or *spamming* as they are reaching their target readers. 
And frankly, readers want the right books to pop up. 
Nothing irritates me more than when I put in a keyword, and ten bestsellers pop up that have nothing to do with the keyword. I'd much rather have been offered the books by the unknown indies whose books do fit the keyword.

Another beef is trades get to be on many more lists and consequently get to use many more keywords.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

My chief gripe is at least once a month there are 2 or 3 or more free books on how to get rich quick selling Kindle books.    I did pick one once.    
It was basically a manual on taking from the internet, turning them into book form and throwing them in Amazon select so you would get 5 free days to boost sales.

Note within 2 weeks there are a ton of new "how-to" books free.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

GearPress Steve said:


> You wanna know how to sell more books? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He stuffs contributor fields with keywords, you report him to Amazon. That's the _Writer's Cafe_ way! And that's how you sell more books. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a book deal. Do you want this book deal?
> 
> I ain't no rat, see! I ain't snitchin' on nobody, see? In the _Writer's Cafe_, snitches get stitches!


I just don't understand the reluctance to treat spam as spam. This isn't about infighting between authors; as I said most of my objection to deceitful practices is as a _consumer_. It's not about sour grapes for being out-competed, and shouldn't be; that's a bad way to go about life. It's about keeping the field clean and not poisoning the well. There's an enormous difference between creative marketing and deceptive practices, and the gray area between has never greatly concerned me. This isn't even in spitting distance of the gray area, and that's the problem.

Thankfully, I don't think the attitude that tearing other authors down is a good way to get ahead is very prevalent around here. The act of condemning spam and clearly deceptive practices should not be conflated with that attitude.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

I can understand noting that someone is misusing keyword fields. I can understand believing that it is possibly against the Amazon TOS to do so. What I can't understand is why anyone who is not the offending individual or Amazon would think they have a role to play in dealing with the situation. There is no reason to think that the keyword abuse is affecting anyone else -- even if the author manages to eke out a smidge of extra visibility from the abuse, that still doesn't impact anyone else's books. Visibility is not a zero sum game.

But there does seem to be at least two kinds of people in these scenarios: those who can see a technical, no-harm "wrong" and adopt a live-and-let-live attitude, and those who see that "wrong" and feel compelled to appeal to the relevant authorities. Not sure what the second approach really accomplishes, other than to foster a sense of general wariness and potential ill will.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Another beef is trades get to be on many more lists and consequently get to use many more keywords.


^^
This

ETA: LeeBee, your winking coffee cup freaks me out every time I see it!


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> I can understand noting that someone is misusing keyword fields. I can understand believing that it is possibly against the Amazon TOS to do so. What I can't understand is why anyone who is not the offending individual or Amazon would think they have a role to play in dealing with the situation. There is no reason to think that the keyword abuse is affecting anyone else -- even if the author manages to eke out a smidge of extra visibility from the abuse, that still doesn't impact anyone else's books. Visibility is not a zero sum game.
> 
> But there does seem to be at least two kinds of people in these scenarios: those who can see a technical, no-harm "wrong" and adopt a live-and-let-live attitude, and those who see that "wrong" and feel compelled to appeal to the relevant authorities. Not sure what the second approach really accomplishes, other than to foster a sense of general wariness and potential ill will.


This. I prefer to leave judgment to our conscience and the big guy upstairs. Inform people personally if you have an issue with them, and discuss topics in the WC from all points of view. You can argue all day long whether a glass is half full or half empty and both sides are going to be correct.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Donna White Glaser said:


> ETA: LeeBee, your winking coffee cup freaks me out every time I see it!


I know. It freaks me out, too. But I've come too far to give up on it now.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> I know. It freaks me out, too. But I've come too far to give up on it now.


I like it. It's one of my flavorites.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> I just don't understand the reluctance to treat spam as spam. This isn't about infighting between authors; as I said most of my objection to deceitful practices is as a _consumer_. It's not about sour grapes for being out-competed, and shouldn't be; that's a bad way to go about life. It's about keeping the field clean and not poisoning the well. There's an enormous difference between creative marketing and deceptive practices, and the gray area between has never greatly concerned me. This isn't even in spitting distance of the gray area, and that's the problem.
> 
> Thankfully, I don't think the attitude that tearing other authors down is a good way to get ahead is very prevalent around here. The act of condemning spam and clearly deceptive practices should not be conflated with that attitude.


I'm not seeing how this is spam. The definition of spam is "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses" or "irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients."

The consumer is not being deceived here. The keywords being inserted match the product being sold. It would be different if the keywords being used were misleading, and had nothing to do with the book. It makes no sense to call this a 'clearly deceptive practice.'

It's very obvious, based upon the reviews this particular author has received, that the vast majority of her readers are very happy with the books they found and bought.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> I can understand noting that someone is misusing keyword fields. I can understand believing that it is possibly against the Amazon TOS to do so. What I can't understand is why anyone who is not the offending individual or Amazon would think they have a role to play in dealing with the situation.


If as a consumer, I run across something that I think is cluttering up search results as a result of someone going too far to game the system, I don't see the harm in letting Amazon know.



swolf said:


> I'm not seeing how this is spam. The definition of spam is "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses" or "irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients."


Choosing a restrictive definition doesn't change the issue. The spirit of spam is to get something in front of maximum eyeballs regardless of how appropriate it is or the methods used to do so.



> The consumer is not being deceived here. The keywords being inserted match the product being sold. It would be different if the keywords being used were misleading, and had nothing to do with the book. It makes no sense to call this a 'clearly deceptive practice.'


The keywords match the product; they do not match what they say they go with. The author obviously didn't have "Animal" translate and there's no such thing as a contributor named "Childrens books". So yes, that part is deceptive. Sure it's a children's book, but there was no co-author by that name. Sure there are animals, but you can't claim it has a translator if it was never translated. Stuffing the keywords into the vital stats is still lying about the vital stats, even if the keywords would have been legit if they were in their proper field. What's worse is that there are ways to use the actual keyword field more effectively that would have obviated the "need" for stuffing into bogus fields completely!

Obviously this is way better than putting in keywords that have absolutely nothing to do with the book; but it still isn't any kind of right.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

swolf said:


> I'm not seeing how this is spam. The definition of spam is "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses" or "irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients."
> 
> The consumer is not being deceived here. The keywords being inserted match the product being sold. It would be different if the keywords being used were misleading, and had nothing to do with the book. It makes no sense to call this a 'clearly deceptive practice.'
> 
> It's very obvious, based upon the reviews this particular author has received, that the vast majority of her readers are very happy with the books they found and bought.


This. Our goal is not to make AMMY happy. *Our goal is to reach readers.* Keywords serve that purpose. If some authors want to stuff keywords in where the illustrator goes, so what? 
Kids want books about animals, Mommy is going to search for "books with animals."

Ammy is probably *okay* with it (the same way they're okay with perma free) as long as the mommy is happy and the kid is happy. Junior got what he wanted. 
The only ones who seem to be unhappy are the legalistic authors who are hung up on the practice.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

The keywords stuffed into the contributor field match the product. That certainly doesn't lead to cluttered search results and it certainly isn't SPAM or UCE.

Meh. No skin off my nose, as an author, a publisher, or a consumer.

Would I do it? Nah. Would complain about it? Nah. Do I think it's unfair? Nah.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

This reminds me about how "pulp" fiction got that moniker.

Authors were paid by the word, two cents a word. So authors started "stuffing" as many words into a story as they could. Editors would take as many out as they could. 
"Pulp fiction" was a derogatory term cooked up by authors who didn't approve of authors doing that practice. They only approved of set fee works.

So this attitude thing about what should and shouldn't be done has been going on a long time. What _should_ be done? Things that get the right books into the hands of the people who want to read them, that's it.

Trade screams at what Ammy does all the time, "That's unfair! You're breaking the rules! You can't just let people push publish! They have to be vetted first! They're not *real* books or stories! They're fake! Your *spamming* readers with fake books!"

Ammy said, "Huh, readers are _buying_ them. Readers are _liking_ them. We're calling them _real books and stories_. Go fly a kite trades. But hey, if you want to sell your "real" books with our fake ones to the same readers, join the party."


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> This reminds me about how "pulp" fiction got that moniker.
> 
> Authors were paid by the word, two cents a word. So authors started "stuffing" as many words into a story as they could. Editors would take as many out as they could.
> "Pulp fiction" was a derogatory term cooked up by authors who didn't approve of authors doing that practice. They only approved of set fee works.
> ...


I'm pretty sure it was called 'pulp' fiction because that described the kind of cheap paper the books were printed on.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I wish the guy the best of luck.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Greer said:


> I'm pretty sure it was called 'pulp' fiction because that described the kind of cheap paper the books were printed on.


Yes, that's why the word "pulp" was used, but the reason it became a "derogatory term" rather than just a description, was because the authors were thought to be "hacks" (not real authors) for working by the pennies for the rags.


----------



## Micah Ackerman (Feb 16, 2014)

I bet the author got more exposure from this thread than he/she ever did from stuffing keywords...

Micah


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Micah Ackerman said:


> I bet the author got more exposure from this thread than he/she ever did from stuffing keywords...
> 
> Micah


I doubt it. Someone above noted that the key word stuffs seem to be working, that the author's books are selling. I don't know who is doing it, and I don't care.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Greer said:


> I'm pretty sure it was called 'pulp' fiction because that described the kind of cheap paper the books were printed on.


Yes.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Yes, that's why the word "pulp" was used, but the reason it became a "derogatory term" rather than just a description, was because the authors were thought to be "hacks" (not real authors) for working by the pennies for the rags.


No.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> Choosing a restrictive definition doesn't change the issue. The spirit of spam is to get something in front of maximum eyeballs regardless of how appropriate it is or the methods used to do so.


It's not a restrictive definition. It's the actual definition. You're the one trying to apply it where it doesn't make sense. The spirit of spam is something showing up in your face that you didn't want or expect. That has nothing to do with this, because the search terms matched the product, and people found what they were searching for.



Lummox JR said:


> The keywords match the product; they do not match what they say they go with. The author obviously didn't have "Animal" translate and there's no such thing as a contributor named "Childrens books". So yes, that part is deceptive. Sure it's a children's book, but there was no co-author by that name. Sure there are animals, but you can't claim it has a translator if it was never translated. Stuffing the keywords into the vital stats is still lying about the vital stats, even if the keywords would have been legit if they were in their proper field. What's worse is that there are ways to use the actual keyword field more effectively that would have obviated the "need" for stuffing into bogus fields completely!


Sorry, no matter how many times you claim it, putting the right words in the wrong places isn't deceptive. The author wasn't misleading anyone.



Lummox JR said:


> Obviously this is way better than putting in keywords that have absolutely nothing to do with the book; but it still isn't any kind of right.


So you're willing to turn in a fellow author because your sense of morality has determined them to be deceitful. Incredible.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

swolf said:


> Sorry, no matter how many times you claim it, putting the right words in the wrong places isn't deceptive. The author wasn't misleading anyone.


Claiming you have a translator you do not is a lie. Claiming you have a contributor you do not is a lie. There's no gray area there. From an engineering standpoint, from a website maintenance standpoint, this kind of thing can't be allowed to proliferate or it starts to gunk up the search algorithms pretty badly. That's why Amazon themselves have a problem with it.

Perhaps I come at this from a different angle because I've been in a position like theirs. It takes way less time than you might think for these kinds of things to get out of hand.



> So you're willing to turn in a fellow author because your sense of morality has determined them to be deceitful. Incredible.


Not exactly. But first, let's be clear: They literally said something about the book that was not true; that part is not a judgment call.

But neither am I on a witch hunt, nor do I condone reporting a book as part of a mob mentality, nor out of spite or a lot of other reasons. Hopefully this will clarify where I'm coming from: When the author hat is on, like if I'm following links from forums like this one for whatever reason, or researching what other writers are doing, etc., etc., I _do_ think it's inappropriate to act on anything I might find except the very most extreme cases. Because then it's like I went looking for trouble. Even if I followed another author's sig link because I thought I might be interested in their book as a reader, I'm here with the author hat on. But if I go onto Amazon without the author hat because I'm just browsing, and I stumble across something that's beyond the gray area, I don't think the fact that I merely _own_ an author's hat should deter me from, as a consumer, saying something about it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Claiming you have a translator you do not is a lie. Claiming you have a contributor you do not is a lie.


A translator named Gothic Romance, and a contributor named Bodice Ripper?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Lummox JR said:


> Claiming you have a translator you do not is a lie. Claiming you have a contributor you do not is a lie. There's no gray area there.


I don't know. I see this as misuse of data fields rather than lying. Yes, the fields are intended to contain names of translators and contributors rather than keywords, but the author's name field probably contains a pen name. That, by your standard, would also be a lie.

Bottom line is, it's not hurting anybody as far as I can tell, which is my only criterion for worrying about this sort of thing. _Maybe_ it's inconveniencing Amazon in some way, but I don't know that (and neither do you), because Amazon keeps its business to itself. So the Zon can take care of its own business. It certainly doesn't need a bunch of indie writers running around yelling, "Citizen's array-est! Citizen's array-est!"


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

I did not see the original link or book. I did not report it because I didn't know about it. Just a few points:

First, just because someone figured out how to upload a Word Document to Amazon doesn't make them my friend, peer, or comrade. I don't owe anyone any loyalty by virtue of sharing virtual shelf space. So the entire "why would you turn in a fellow author" is just silly. These people are not fellow authors by virtue of owning an Amazon KDP account.

Second, my loyalty is to readers. When readers can't trust the Amazon search function, it makes it harder for them to find what they are looking for. The harder it is for them to find what they are looking for, the less likely they will buy something at all. It's the old "everyone on the internet as A.D.D." problem. The longer a person has to search for something, the less likely they are to complete the purchase. Lots of studies have noted that almost fifty percent of all internet purchases are made at work. People are browsing during their coffee breaks or lunch breaks. Which means they have a finite amount of time to search. The longer a search takes, the more likely the consumer is interrupted before the sale is made. Make a customer shift through two pages of false search returns is how you lose the customer. Who here thinks that driving consumers AWAY from Amazon will benefit their sales rank?

Third, no, I don't see this sort of thing as directly impacting my sales. I can't imagine it even works all that well. But whether or not something works isn't really the point. The point is that Amazon tends to use chainsaws on problems, not scalpels. Whenever a critical mass of people begin to abuse the system, Amazon makes ALL of us suffer with their corrective action. For me, this is a case of self_-preservation_. When I see things like this, I DO report them. Because I would much rather Amazon deal with individual problems now than allow these things to fester to the point where Amazon finds out about it from complaining customers. Because Amazon will always put the interest of the customer above us. We never fair well when Amazon "corrects" an issue. How many people here have lost legitimate reviews during Amazon's review purges? Why did Amazon start restricting KDP users to only two book categories (remember, it wasn't always that way). We lost tags because they 'stopped having value' to readers due to abuse. And let's not forget the ongoing issues with the adult dungeon. Time and time again, when a few bad players decide to game the system and use it in ways it was not intended, Amazon brought the hammer down on all of us with a draconian response.

I don't know about anyone else, but frankly I'm fairly tired of being punished for the bad actions of other people.

So yes, I think as responsible business people who depend on Amazon's system to drive consumers to our books, we have a vested interest in making sure the information returned from search is accurate. I have a business relationship with Amazon. It is in my best interest to alert them when I see issues that may cause problems for them. Because Amazon's problems tend to become my problems. I like to AVOID problems in my business relationships. So if the choice is between "ratting out" some random guy I don't know who is trying to break the system for his personal benefit without regard to how it might impact consumers or other vendors and helping Amazon protect its system, I side with Amazon every time.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> I don't know. I see this as misuse of data fields rather than lying. Yes, the fields are intended to contain names of translators and contributors rather than keywords, but the author's name field probably contains a pen name. That, by your standard, would also be a lie.


Not at all. Pen names are totally legitimate. Unless you're claiming a completely different author wrote the book, then that's fine. The pen name is just a persona, and this is established as accepted practice. Heck, big authors like James Patterson are more persona than true author.

But misuse of data fields is a lie simply because the data field is there for the express purpose of stating a specific fact. If you don't have a contributor named Bodice Ripper--that is, there's not an entity going by that name that actually contributed to the book--it's wrong to say you do. I at least agree that the _intention_ isn't as malicious as some other cases, but the integrity of the data fields does matter. If this sort of thing becomes commonplace, it becomes a real problem for sites like Amazon.



> Bottom line is, it's not hurting anybody as far as I can tell, which is my only criterion for worrying about this sort of thing. _Maybe_ it's inconveniencing Amazon in some way, but I don't know that (and neither do you), because Amazon keeps its business to itself. So the Zon can take care of its own business. It certainly doesn't need a bunch of indie writers running around yelling, "Citizen's array-est! Citizen's array-est!"


No indeed, that level of hysteria is not called for. We definitely don't need mobs or witch hunts seeking out problems like this. But I can say from professional experience, yes, Amazon is inconvenienced by stuff like this. When it's at a minor level they can deal with it with a skeleton staff and the search engine is barely affected; if it spreads to the point of becoming a major problem, they will act and the fallout is usually bad for all of us. It's not my job to pull the weeds for them, though.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When readers can't trust the Amazon search function, it makes it harder for them to find what they are looking for. The harder it is for them to find what they are looking for, the less likely they will buy something at all.
> ...
> But whether or not something works isn't really the point. The point is that Amazon tends to use chainsaws on problems, not scalpels. Whenever a critical mass of people begin to abuse the system, Amazon makes ALL of us suffer with their corrective action. For me, this is a case of self_-preservation_.


This this this! I'm not exercised enough about the book in question on this thread to report it--especially as I'm not the one who found it and I'm no dogpiler. But the practice being carried out here is abuse, even if it happens to be relatively tame abuse, and sooner or later Amazon will bring down the hammer if it gets out of hand. So far it doesn't appear to be out of hand.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> Claiming you have a translator you do not is a lie. Claiming you have a contributor you do not is a lie.


Oh please. You're saying you're approaching this as a consumer. Do you actually believe even one single consumer is going to feel deceived because the Translator for a book is listed as 'kids books' and the Preface was written by 'bedtime stories'? (Excluding your fragile sensibilities, of course.)

It's too ridiculous to even contemplate.



Lummox JR said:


> Even if I followed another author's sig link because I thought I might be interested in their book as a reader, I'm here with the author hat on. But if I go onto Amazon without the author hat because I'm just browsing, and I stumble across something that's beyond the gray area, I don't think the fact that I merely own an author's hat should deter me from, as a consumer, saying something about it.


I like to think of our community of indie authors as being close-knit and supportive of each other, whether it's specifically here on KBoards, or all self-published authors in general. I wouldn't be where I am today if other authors hadn't given me their support, so I feel a bond with everyone out there trying to forge a writing career on their own. I don't see any good in authors running off to Amazon to report other authors over nick-picking crap like this. Sure, if it's something like a case of plagiarism, then we need to pull together to put an end to it. But I've had books taken down, and it's not a pleasant feeling, especially if you're depending on the money you're making from it. If you've self-published, you're still part of the indie author community whether your writing a book or reading one. What happened in this thread only serves to make us less trusting of each other, and might possibly prevent someone in the future from sharing some new marketing technique, afraid they might be accused of being deceptive and turned into Amazon by their peers.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When readers can't trust the Amazon search function, it makes it harder for them to find what they are looking for.


The values entered were appropriate to the book, so they didn't make searching harder.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When I see things like this, I DO report them.


I wouldn't expect anything else from you.


----------



## Laurel Cremant (Dec 10, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Third, no, I don't see this sort of thing as directly impacting my sales. I can't imagine it even works all that well. But whether or not something works isn't really the point. The point is that Amazon tends to use chainsaws on problems, not scalpels. Whenever a critical mass of people begin to abuse the system, Amazon makes ALL of us suffer with their corrective action. For me, this is a case of self_-preservation_. When I see things like this, I DO report them. Because I would much rather Amazon deal with individual problems now than allow these things to fester to the point where Amazon finds out about it from complaining customers. Because Amazon will always put the interest of the customer above us. We never fair well when Amazon "corrects" an issue. How many people here have lost legitimate reviews during Amazon's review purges? Why did Amazon start restricting KDP users to only two book categories (remember, it wasn't always that way). We lost tags because they 'stopped having value' to readers due to abuse. And let's not forget the ongoing issues with the adult dungeon. Time and time again, when a few bad players decide to game the system and use it in ways it was not intended, Amazon brought the hammer down on all of us with a draconian response.


I have to agree with Bards and Sages. Anyone pretending they don't know how Amazon deals with these types of instances is being disingenuous. Whether you admire this person's pluck or not for doing what they did with their books, it would be a mistake to think that Amazon wouldn't catch on regardless of who reported it. It would have been reported eventually because frankly that kind of thing screws with the customer browsing experience.

And yes, that should matter to ALL of us because this is a business we are all trying to profit on and that means we need readers/customers. No one should confuse that basic fact with comradery. This situation is not the same as playing with extra tags. It impacted the actually page viewing from what I understand and it only takes one bad experience for a person to not want to visit a merchant again and that impacts all of us.

And finally yes, Amazon is HUGE, one lost customer isn't going to break them. BUT how AMZ chooses to prevent it moving forward could break "US".

2 cents in


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Frankly, I think Amazon is more than capable of taking care of its own algorithms and any abuses thereof. Furthermore, I think that their actions are always going to be dictated by what makes things easier and more profitable for Amazon. I do not believe that reporting relatively benign abuses makes it any less likely that Amazon will take actions that will be detrimental to all self-publishers. Maybe if this keyword abuse was really widespread, yeah, but it clearly is not.

Amazon will always be an outsized partner to indies in a business relationship that is mostly one-sided. What we do or don't do will not affect our relationship with them when all is said and done. But what we do or don't to _to one another_ will definitely have an impact on our relationships and the indie community. I worry about the things I can control. I can't control Amazon. I can control how I treat other authors.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Laurel Cremant said:


> It impacted the actually page viewing from what I understand and it only takes one bad experience for a person to not want to visit a merchant again and that impacts all of us.


There was two different issues. One was the tags in the contributor slots, and the other was the html on the page. Amazon didn't make her take off the html.

Which means it's still there. So you'd better giddy-up and drop that dime to Amazon. Let them know about this terrible travesty occurring under their noses.

*sigh* Sometimes I wonder why I bother.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

swolf said:


> Oh please. You're saying you're approaching this as a consumer. Do you actually believe even one single consumer is going to feel deceived because the Translator for a book is listed as 'kids books' and the Preface was written by 'bedtime stories'? (Excluding your fragile sensibilities, of course.)


In the case of a single book, no, I don't think a consumer is going to be too much put out by seeing this kind of thing. Someone who's had to work on systems like search engines might still see it as worth mentioning, to keep the search engine running well. Because eventually, if all books started doing this, it _would_ become a problem. And then the individual consumers would start to get cheesed by it, because increasingly abusive forms of this would crop up and the search listings would get more and more cluttered. It's the way of things.



> I don't see any good in authors running off to Amazon to report other authors over nick-picking crap like this.


I don't particularly see it as "running off to Amazon to report", either. Again, this isn't a witch hunt. And I don't see it as terribly nit-picky, though I accept that some are more inclined to see it that way than others.

I get where you're coming from on this, truly, because it has to really suck to get a book adult-dungeoned. And there are some authors out there who are just plain malicious and like to find excuses to report others; that's wrong.



> What happened in this thread only serves to make us less trusting of each other, and might possibly prevent someone in the future from sharing some new marketing technique, afraid they might be accused of being deceptive and turned into Amazon by their peers.


But this isn't some new marketing technique; it's blatant violation of Amazon's TOS. It's not simply a case of creative marketing or a gray area. I can get behind gray areas just fine. Nor, as I said, am I the type who's apt to rush into reporting something just because it does happen to be blatant. I think intent matters enough that if I'm looking around as an author, I ought to be way more forgiving of anything that catches my eye. Yet I don't see how it can possibly be damaging to trust to say something is too far over the line. Actually pointing out where to draw one keeps us separated from the kinds of sites where scams and shady dealing run amuck.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> just because someone figured out how to upload a Word Document to Amazon doesn't make them my friend, peer, or comrade.


Where's that thread about slogans for KBoards on a T-shirt? I think I found a good one.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

swolf said:


> It's not a restrictive definition. It's the actual definition. You're the one trying to apply it where it doesn't make sense. The spirit of spam is something showing up in your face that you didn't want or expect. That has nothing to do with this, because the search terms matched the product, and people found what they were searching for.
> 
> Sorry, no matter how many times you claim it, putting the right words in the wrong places isn't deceptive. The author wasn't misleading anyone.
> 
> So you're willing to turn in a fellow author because your sense of morality has determined them to be deceitful. Incredible.


Agreed.

Hey, if they can get more keywords in that are applicable to a reader finding their book, great. I don't think AMMY really cares either. They've been quite flexible when it comes to readers buying, and have been known to change their TOS to make it easier for customers to buy. The only reason Ammy limits keywords, is because so many authors use ones that aren't applicable in any way.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hey folks,
I just thought of something.  If I had a book I could put Spider in as illustrator and it would be legit.  I have an autographed picture to prove it too.


----------



## Micah Ackerman (Feb 16, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I did not see the original link or book. I did not report it because I didn't know about it. Just a few points:
> 
> First, just because someone figured out how to upload a Word Document to Amazon doesn't make them my friend, peer, or comrade. I don't owe anyone any loyalty by virtue of sharing virtual shelf space. So the entire "why would you turn in a fellow author" is just silly. These people are not fellow authors by virtue of owning an Amazon KDP account.
> 
> ...


**THIS** There is so much noise out there and if our job as Indies is to get through the noise than anything that adds to the noise is a disservice to all of us. My issue wouldn't be this one author; my issue would be that a newbie would see this and then do it, and then another, then another and so on. It's already hard enough for readers to find what they're looking for why on earth would you condone anything that makes it even harder for them. We should be thinking about our customers in this instance. Not all of them will put only info that pertains to their books in the field. Some people will target anything for clicks.

Just my opinion...
Micah


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

I just don't see how what the author in question did made it harder for any reader to find what they are looking for.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

1) I don't have any ethical problem with reporting someone who's breaking the rules. Rule-breakers make systems less functional for everyone.

2) Going out of your way to hunt down and report people who are breaking minor rules is lame.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> I just don't see how what the author in question did made it harder for any reader to find what they are looking for.


They tried to put their rather awful and badly executed book ahead of other better ones in search results by cheating. It's like the sites that used to pop up on Google all the time that had junk content and ad links they wanted you to click.

Fake reviews don't count as real endorsement, either.

I would be annoyed to have junk like that pop up if I used any of those search terms. Tsunami of crap, indeed.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

vmblack said:


> They tried to put their rather awful and badly executed book ahead of other better ones in search results by cheating. It's like the site that used to pop up on Google all the time that had junk content and ad links they wanted you to click.
> 
> Fake reviews don't count as real endorsement, either.
> 
> I would be annoyed to have junk like that pop up if I used any of those search terms. Tsunami of crap, indeed.


None of which offers evidence that her keyword shenanigans actually prevented readers from finding what they want.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

L.L. Akers said:


> ...pokes head in to see why this thread is still active and growing ...then backs out slowly and quietly...
> 
> tip toe...tip toe...


Hey, look, everyone! L.L. is here!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> First, just because someone figured out how to upload a Word Document to Amazon doesn't make them my friend, peer, or comrade. I don't owe anyone any loyalty by virtue of sharing virtual shelf space.


Good point. Thats why it doesn't make sense to speak of the community of independent authors. It doesn't exist.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I bought my first ebook a number of years ago.  I just wanted a Gutenberg-quality book in a more convenient format, and I was willing to pay $.99 for it.  What I got--once you got past the preview--was unproofed, bad OCR.

I didn't but another ebook for several years after that.  I felt like I'd gotten a pig in a poke, and if Amazon was going to let people cheat other people, count me out.

I have spoken to many other readers who don't bother with ebooks by indies because of that kind of problem.  Amazon's doing a lot to make it better, sinking books with poor content and cracking down on scammers.  This guy is trying to scam people.  If he's not successful, it would still be bad, because he gives the impression that Amazon is indifferent to people being scammed.  If a reader ends up on that page, it's bad for everyone not because the book is terrible quality but because the scam is so obvious that it lowers trust in ALL indie books.

Amazon should kill it with fire.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

vmblack said:


> I bought my first ebook a number of years ago. I just wanted a Gutenberg-quality book in a more convenient format, and I was willing to pay $.99 for it. What I got--once you got past the preview--was unproofed, bad OCR.
> 
> I didn't but another ebook for several years after that. I felt like I'd gotten a pig in a poke, and if Amazon was going to let people cheat other people, count me out.
> 
> ...


Perhaps it's a terrible book - I have no idea, as I did not click the link when it was available to look at it. But that's a separate issue from the claim that she (as I understand it, the pen name is female) is somehow depriving readers of finding what they are looking for. If your claim is that she's depriving readers of finding a well-executed ebook, I would say that quality is a very subjective thing. A lot of readers seem to eat up stuff that I find unbearably incompetent. So basically, I have not yet seen a convincing argument that the author in question prevented any readers from finding what they want by her misuse of keywords in the wrong fields.


----------



## komura 420 (Aug 25, 2013)

I will not report the person.  
Nor will I copy them.  
Both cross my ethical line.  
I agreed to the T&Cs...my word, my bond.

But I admire the innovation and take note of those who self nominate as police...thanks for identifying yourselves.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

vmblack said:


> They tried to put their rather awful and badly executed book ahead of other better ones in search results by cheating. It's like the sites that used to pop up on Google all the time that had junk content and ad links they wanted you to click.
> 
> Fake reviews don't count as real endorsement, either.
> 
> I would be annoyed to have junk like that pop up if I used any of those search terms. Tsunami of crap, indeed.


How do you know the books' reviews are fake?

I see three books in the series with star-ratings of 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 across about 440 reviews. Unless you have some proof of a very large number of fake reviews, I'd say we have some strong evidence that readers like these books just fine.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> 1) I don't have any ethical problem with reporting someone who's breaking the rules. Rule-breakers make systems less functional for everyone.
> 
> 2) Going out of your way to hunt down and report people who are breaking minor rules is lame.


Bingo.

This isolated case probably had no impact and it definitely didn't put the book in front of people who didn't want to find it. But none of those points are relevant; just because one case doesn't hurt anyone doesn't make the precedent okay. It still broke the rules blatantly and if more books do this, more of them are going to do so in ways that are less benign. And even if the abuse remains benign, eventually it'll hit critical mass anyway and have a measurable impact on the search engine. One way or another, this _will_ gunk up the search engine once it becomes common enough, and Amazon will respond. None of us are apt to like Amazon's response because they're simply not capable of approaching such things with nuance. But per point #2, I'm not getting involved in this particular case and I'm not going hunting for more.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

GearPress Steve said:


> You wanna know how to sell more books? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He stuffs contributor fields with keywords, you report him to Amazon. That's the _Writer's Cafe_ way! And that's how you sell more books. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a book deal. Do you want this book deal?
> 
> I ain't no rat, see! I ain't snitchin' on nobody, see? In the _Writer's Cafe_, snitches get stitches!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I have spoken to many other readers who don't bother with ebooks by indies because of that kind of problem.


God Bless the free market, for it gives those folks thousands of books from traditional publishers.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> None of which offers evidence that her keyword shenanigans actually prevented readers from finding what they want.


Actually, I think what these authors are doing is helping readers find their books, as evidenced by over 400+ reviews. This is what Ammy wants: readers finding the books they are willing to buy. They may change or relax their TOS if it is helping sales. Ammy is all about what makes sales, they're privy to what is working, and they tend to go with that flow.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Hey, if they can get more keywords in that are applicable to a reader finding their book, great. I don't think AMMY really cares either. They've been quite flexible when it comes to readers buying, and have been known to change their TOS to make it easier for customers to buy. The only reason Ammy limits keywords, is because so many authors use ones that aren't applicable in any way.


Lisa, think about what you just said. You simultaneous said it was great that this author was able to get more keywords by abusing the system AND admitted that Amazon limits keywords because authors abused the system.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LeeBee said:


> It certainly doesn't need a bunch of indie writers running around yelling, "Citizen's array-est! Citizen's array-est!"


Note that there is no evidence that anything remotely like this^ happened. Very few people, even in this thread, recommended reporting the page. If someone here knows and can show me how many actual reports Amazon received, I'd be interested to see that.

Betsy


----------



## Silly Writer (Jul 15, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> It certainly doesn't need a bunch of indie writers running around yelling, "Citizen's array-est! Citizen's array-est!"


^Andy Griifith Show^

I win.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Lisa, think about what you just said. You simultaneous said it was great that this author was able to get more keywords by abusing the system AND admitted that Amazon limits keywords because authors abused the system.


They limit key words for self publishers, yes. They don't for trades and publishers who continue to "abuse" the system. I've tried to run searches for my daughter and it's unbelievable how many trade books pop up as suggestions when they fit zero of the parameters I have set.
I'm actually grateful when I find one that fits what I'm searching for and as a reader I'm grateful it comes up. As I reader I don't give a flying flip if the keyword was in the proper spot. Rather, I'm upset with the gatekeepers that make it harder by making arbitrary rules that hinder a search rather than help it.

I guess you missed my point. These authors are using applicable keywords because they have so few ways to get them in, and yes, I'm totally okay as a reader with them putting in "animal book" for the illustrator, or "for ten year olds" for the translator, because it helps the book pop up when I run a search.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Note that there is no evidence that anything remotely like this^ happened. Very few people, even in this thread, recommended reporting the page. If someone here knows and can show me how many actual reports Amazon received, I'd be interested to see that.
> 
> Betsy


Please note that I did not in any way say that this happened in this case. My statement was in respect to the attitude voiced by some of the participants in this thread that they feel the need to act as Amazon's eyes and ears when they encounter what they deem to be "rule-breaking."


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

L.L. Akers said:


> ^Andy Griifith Show^
> 
> I win.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LeeBee said:


> Please note that I did not in any way say that this happened in this case. My statement was in respect to the attitude voiced by some of the participants in this thread that they feel the need to act as Amazon's eyes and ears when they encounter what they deem to be "rule-breaking."


Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make; I based it on the fact that you were posting in, well, this thread. 

To the point you were actually making--I don't see any signs that anyone is proposing this^ in this thread. Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make; I based it on the fact that you were posting in, well, this thread.
> 
> To the point you were actually making--I don't see any signs that anyone is proposing this^ in this thread. Just sayin'.
> 
> Betsy


LOL. No, no one actually proposed it. I was making a humorous exaggeration coupled with an obscure nostalgic pop culture reference. The temptation was simply too strong to resist.

I will announce, however, my intention to start telling people, "Don't be such a Gomer!" at appropriate times. Without explanation. It'll be part of my mystique.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LeeBee said:


> I will announce, however, my intention to start telling people, "Don't be such a Gomer!" at appropriate times. Without explanation. It'll be part of my mystique.


A strategy I can support. 


Betsy


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> Please note that I did not in any way say that this happened in this case. My statement was in respect to the attitude voiced by some of the participants in this thread that they feel the need to act as Amazon's eyes and ears when they encounter what they deem to be "rule-breaking."


I never saw any evidence that people feel the need to act as police. Rather, some people merely said if they saw something that was bad, they had no issue with reporting it. Being willing to report something and being eager to find things to report are entirely different, and I think some folks are glossing over that distinction way too freely. I'm not sure they understand that nobody's calling for a witch hunt.



LisaGraceBooks said:


> I'm actually grateful when I find one that fits what I'm searching for and as a reader I'm grateful it comes up. As I reader I don't give a flying flip if the keyword was in the proper spot. Rather, I'm upset with the gatekeepers that make it harder by making arbitrary rules that hinder a search rather than help it.
> 
> I guess you missed my point. These authors are using applicable keywords because they have so few ways to get them in, and yes, I'm totally okay as a reader with them putting in "animal book" for the illustrator, or "for ten year olds" for the translator, because it helps the book pop up when I run a search.


It's a fair point that trades have more options than we do, and I don't like it any more than you do. But the bottom line is Amazon has put in limits and rules. (And as I previously mentioned, someone on these forums has pointed out that the seven keyword limit has some workarounds that I don't think are really unethical, so it's not as if there's _no_ other option.) The more authors break Amazon's rules blatantly, the worse the situation will get and the faster it will deteriorate. Whenever it reaches the point where it interferes with searches in a meaningful way, Amazon will drop the hammer. They've done it before. When they do drop the hammer, it never ends well for anyone. So encouraging this really isn't in anyone's best interest. Better to find creative strategies that work within the rules or at least within the gray area.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> I will announce, however, my intention to start telling people, "Don't be such a Gomer!" at appropriate times. Without explanation. It'll be part of my mystique.


I sometimes throw my hands up and shout, "Heavens to Mergatroid!" for no real reason. Keep 'em guessing, I say. Keep up the _mystery_.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

shelleyo1 said:


> I sometimes throw my hands up and shout, "Heavens to Mergatroid!" for no real reason. Keep 'em guessing, I say. Keep up the _mystery_.


My preference is "Great Googley Moogley." Followed by "Godfrey Daniels!"


Betsy


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> I sometimes throw my hands up and shout, "Heavens to Mergatroid!" for no real reason. Keep 'em guessing, I say. Keep up the _mystery_.


Eggsit, stage left!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Very few people, even in this thread, recommended reporting the page.





NadiaLee said:


> If you feel that it's a problem, you can report to Amazon.





Jerri Kay Lincoln said:


> Wow, using "normal" fields to flood with keywords . . . interesting, and it must be against the rules. What is really offensive, though, is the auto-play little visual they have that you can't turn off. That would never fly. Report it.





WhiteGoodman said:


> I actually did report it to KDP a couple weeks ago





NadiaLee said:


> Report to their customer support





Lummox JR said:


> And I don't see it being a problem that the report comes from another author; it's good for us to keep each other honest.





Greer said:


> But if someone else sees the first person as gaining unfair advantage by violating the rules, it should be up to them if they want to report the infraction.
> 
> And I'd just like to point out, my question above wasn't really meant to be specific, it was more of a general thought -- why is it that calling someone to account for their rule-breaking is considered worse than the rule-breaking itself?





Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> When I see things like this, I DO report them.





Laurel Cremant said:


> Bards and Sages (Julie) said:
> 
> 
> > When I see things like this, I DO report them.
> ...





Micah Ackerman said:


> Bards and Sages (Julie) said:
> 
> 
> > When I see things like this, I DO report them.
> ...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I knew someone would do this. 

We can agree to disagree on this one, swolf. In a thread with almost 200 posts and over 5000 views in a forum with, oh, let's be conservative, hundreds of active members, four three people recommended to the original poster that the thread be reported and an additional five people have said in the course of the discussion that they would report something similar. I consider that "very few" people. Obviously, you don't. I'm okay with that.

Betsy

_Edited to reflect correction to data posted later in the thread. --Betsy_


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> You can argue all day long whether a glass is half full or half empty and both sides are going to be correct.


I want to be the person with the glass that sits level with liquid. Seriously though, I don't really care what other people are doing to promote a book UNLESS I can take that information and help my sales LOL


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> It's a fair point that trades have more options than we do, and I don't like it any more than you do. But the bottom line is Amazon has put in limits and rules. (And as I previously mentioned, someone on these forums has pointed out that the seven keyword limit has some workarounds that I don't think are really unethical, so it's not as if there's _no_ other option.) The more authors break Amazon's rules blatantly, the worse the situation will get and the faster it will deteriorate. Whenever it reaches the point where it interferes with searches in a meaningful way, Amazon will drop the hammer. They've done it before. When they do drop the hammer, it never ends well for anyone. So encouraging this really isn't in anyone's best interest. Better to find creative strategies that work within the rules or at least within the gray area.


This is where we disagree. Amazon does not allow us to set prices to "free" unless you are in Kindle Select, and then only for five days out of ninety. However, they have a rule that prices can not be lower elsewhere. Since other vendors do allow us to set the price to zero, and Ammy can not control other vendors, they have no choice but to match perma free books. In this way they "violate" their own TOS. Again, they do not set that limit on trade books.
Amazon has changed their TOS several times to make customers happy. 
It is all about getting customers to buy. If those books are selling, chances are Amazon is not going to enforce hazy language that could slow sales and make for unhappy customers. 
Amazon knows exactly what keyword searches are done and what comes up, and what percentage of those searches lead to sales. If their keyword search to follow through sale is high, Ammy is happy. Period. 
If Ammy decides they don't want that going on, but having those extra keyeords work, they will institute more keywords for us all, which would work to our benefit.

Also, think why Ammy cut us down to seven keywords. Because they wanted selfies to make better choices when picking them. These people using the other blanks for keywords are using good terms, not wasting them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Google had rules. Until late 2011 the rules said one had to be 18 or older to use their service. They changed it when it was revealed in congressional hearings on the SOPA Act. Thank God I was over 18. The ethical dilemma would have been devastating.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Google had rules. Until late 2011 the rules said one had to be 18 or older to use their service. They changed it when it was revealed in congressional hearings on the SOPA Act. Thank God I was over 18. The ethical dilemma would have been devastating.


Lol, good one. How many people let their kids have accounts before they're 13 on Facebook? Lots. How many people go a mile or two over the speed limit? 99%? How unethical.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> If Ammy decides they don't want that going on, but having those extra keyeords work, they will institute more keywords for us all, which would work to our benefit.


Amazon already decided they didn't want it going on; they just haven't cracked down yet. I don't think we can count on them increasing the number of keywords in response. Typically their responses to mass TOS violations haven't been rosy. Maybe you're right and they'll do just that; I just wouldn't bank on it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I knew someone would do this.
> 
> We can agree to disagree on this one, swolf. In a thread with almost 200 posts and over 5000 views in a forum with, oh, let's be conservative, hundreds of active members, four people recommended to the original poster that the thread be reported and an additional five people have said in the course of the discussion that they would report something similar. I consider that "very few" people. Obviously, you don't. I'm okay with that.
> 
> Betsy


That '200 posts' is a bit misleading, isn't it? Most of those 200 posts were made by a fairly small group of people. And nine of that fairly small group recommended reporting the page. That's not very few people. Using that logic, I can say very few people recommended not to report the page.

I'm not sure what the 5000 views have to do with anything, nor the amount of active members. Neither of us knows their views, since they didn't participate in the conversation.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

swolf said:


> Using that logic, I can say very few people recommended not to report the page.


Yes, you could. And I'm okay with that, too.


Betsy


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

swolf said:


> And nine of that fairly small group recommended reporting the page.


Not quite; several of the posts you quoted, including mine, just said they'd be comfortable reporting a page like that if they saw one. Some said that the author could report it, but didn't make a recommendation. In fact of the posts you quoted only two _advised_ reporting. The others either said they would, do, might, or did report in a similar situation. "I would/do/might/did" is not the same as "You should".

Lots of misunderstandings flying around on this thread. I still don't think it's fully understood that most of the people who've expressed willingness to report such things are not taking up pitchforks and scouring the fields, nor would they condone such a thing. It's possible to disagree about the seriousness of the violation and what to do about others like it without nefarious purpose.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yes, you could. And I'm okay with that, too.
> 
> 
> Betsy


He's just asking for the cattle prod to be used on him in a very polite (and subtle way).


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> Not quite; several of the posts you quoted, including mine, just said they'd be comfortable reporting a page like that if they saw one. Some said that the author could report it, but didn't make a recommendation. In fact of the posts you quoted only two _advised_ reporting. The others either said they would, do, might, or did report in a similar situation. "I would/do/might/did" is not the same as "You should".


Wow. You certainly do like to parse words for you own purposes.

Yes, if someone says "I would report it", they are recommending it be reported.

If you want to parse something like:

"Do you think I should report it?"
"I would."

And claim the second person didn't actually recommend reporting it, then you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you're just failing to understand the situation.



Lummox JR said:


> Lots of misunderstandings flying around on this thread. I still don't think it's fully understood that most of the people who've expressed willingness to report such things are not taking up pitchforks and scouring the fields, nor would they condone such a thing. It's possible to disagree about the seriousness of the violation and what to do about others like it without nefarious purpose.


Yes, if you're reporting an author for a violation, you are taking up your pitchfork. Every mob is made up of individuals.


----------



## Micah Ackerman (Feb 16, 2014)

Let's talk about parsing words...



> Quote from: Micah Ackerman on Today at 11:11:48 AM
> Quote from: Bards and Sages (Julie) on Today at 09:43:51 AM
> When I see things like this, I DO report them.
> 
> **THIS**


Swolf you posted this in reference to my post which never even came close to saying I'd report someone. I was referring to a completely different part of the post about making things harder for readers to find. It's obvious from my response

I haven't seen this bad of quoting out of context since "Gigli" was called a can't miss film by Roger Ebert.

Micah


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

swolf said:


> Wow. You certainly do like to parse words for you own purposes.
> 
> Yes, if someone says "I would report it", they are recommending it be reported.
> 
> ...


The OP didn't ask whether he should report it; the question was "What are your thoughts?" Most of those posts were just discussing whether the act of reporting is right or wrong. (Also one thing I missed: the "I did" case you quoted was actually the OP. Pretty sure he wasn't recommending anything to himself.) If you want to take "I would report it" as a suggestion, eh, fair enough, but surely "I might" is not. And even that's a very rough take on what I actually said, which is that there's nothing wrong with reporting it. At worst it's merely a cop-out.



> Yes, if you're reporting an author for a violation, you are taking up your pitchfork. Every mob is made up of individuals.


If you're suggesting that individuals reporting individual cases as they find them, who weren't even looking for them in the first place, constitutes a mob then that's _really_ stretching the metaphor. A pitchfork-wielding mob is out to get someone; reporting a violation doesn't inherently mean you're out to get anyone. Many people see such a thing as equivalent to picking up litter, and they're no more wrong than the people who don't want to touch it. The only real difference is that I don't think it's constructive to go out looking for this stuff, which is obviously not the case for litter.

But to be clear, I fully understand that you're coming from the perspective that there's an author on the receiving end of that complaint, and it sucks to get them. Hence why I have no truck with the kinds of authors who think the way to get ahead is by taking a hatchet to their competition. (And honestly, who does? Those people are losers.) There probably are self-appointed police who go out looking for problems, and I have no more respect for their ilk than you do. It's entirely possible, though, to make a report without underhanded motives and without being a busybody.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

vmblack said:


> This guy is trying to scam people. If he's not successful, it would still be bad, because he gives the impression that Amazon is indifferent to people being scammed. If a reader ends up on that page, it's bad for everyone not because the book is terrible quality but because the scam is so obvious that it lowers trust in ALL indie books.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

We keep hearing how consumers will come to shun independent books for one reason or another. Reviews, sock puppets, Mom's review, comments on reviews, lack of editing, bad covers, poor grammar, ethical lapses, lack of professionalism, amateurism, too many 5-stars, adverbs, Oxford Commas, and wearing white after Labor Day.

Now we hear the same because Bodice Ripper is listed as a contributor, and consumers searching for a bodice ripper won't want the book if Mr. Ripper is listed as a contributor. In fact, if Ripper is listed as such, they won't want any independent books and will run back to Random House because Amazon's search engine gave them what they were looking for.

Interesting theory. But we also have Hugh Howey's data on Amazon sales that shows substantial independent market share. It seems the independent market keeps growing while all these problems persist. 

So do we believe theory, or our own lying eyes? I'll go with the eyes...


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

Terrence OBrien said:


> We keep hearing how consumers will come to shun independent books for one reason or another. Reviews, sock puppets, Mom's review, comments on reviews, lack of editing, bad covers, poor grammar, ethical lapses, lack of professionalism, amateurism, too many 5-stars, adverbs, Oxford Commas, and wearing argyle socks.
> 
> Now we hear the same because Bodice Ripper is listed as a contributor, and consumers searching for a bodice ripper won't want the book if Mr. Ripper is listed as a contributor.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why these things are mutually exclusive to you. If you have 500,000 authors selling one book a day each, and the big five publishers selling 100,000 books a day each, you can claim indies have 50% of the market but that wouldn't mean indies are actually doing well. The actual accuracy of Hugh's data aside, there is no THEORY insofar as how Amazon treats indies when they "fix" these problems. This is not a theoretical conversation. Amazon routinely uses a sledgehammer to kill ants, and any harmless ladybugs in the vicinity get smashed as well. That isn't a theory, Terrence, it's a documented fact (and before you make one of your "Where is it documented" comments, use the KB search tool. I'm sure you are more than capable of finding it.).


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I'm not sure why these things are mutually exclusive to you.


What's mutually exclusive?



> If you have 500,000 authors selling one book a day each, and the big five publishers selling 100,000 books a day each, you can claim indies have 50% of the market but that wouldn't mean indies are actually doing well.


I agree. But it does indicate consumers haven't shunned them due to things other authors don't like about some independnet books.



> The actual accuracy of Hugh's data aside, there is no THEORY insofar as how Amazon treats indies when they "fix" these problems.


Could be. I have no idea if there is such a theory. The theory I referenced says consumers will shun independents because of things other authors don't like about some independent books.



> This is not a theoretical conversation. Amazon routinely uses a sledgehammer to kill ants, and any harmless ladybugs in the vicinity get smashed as well.


Could be. But I am talking about the notion that consumers will shun independent books because of the multiple transgressions highlighted by various posters.



> That isn't a theory, Terrence, it's a documented fact (and before you make one of your "Where is it documented" comments, use the KB search tool. I'm sure you are more than capable of finding it.).


Could be. Interesting idea. But when will consumers learn they are supposed to shun independent books because of things other authors don't like?

So, where is the documentation that consumers shun independent books because of reviews, sock puppets, Mom's review, comments on reviews, lack of editing, bad covers, poor grammar, ethical lapses, lack of professionalism, amateurism, too many 5-stars, adverbs, Oxford Commas, and wearing argyle socks.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Could be. But I am talking about the notion that consumers will shun independent books because of the multiple transgressions highlighted by various posters.


Such things _do_ make the indie crowd look amateurish, or at least make us look polluted by amateurs. I don't think anyone expects a few authors here and there abusing the data fields to trigger a landslide of consumer backlash, obviously, but there's no denying it looks bad. As far as I can tell, no one is seriously contending that this kind of thing will drive lots of readers away.

The bigger and more important point, though, is that once such things hit a certain point Amazon's going to act on it in a way no one will like. Lisa posits that they might react by increasing keyword space, but I don't think that fits our experience with how Amazon solves problems.


----------



## BellaRoccaforte (May 26, 2013)

i need serious help. How can I be competitive when I only put the keywords in the keyword box on my books. I think I'm doing it wrong:\


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

issue = molehill
thread re: issue = mountain


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> issue = molehill
> thread re: issue = mountain


Post of the day!


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So, where is the documentation that consumers shun independent books because of reviews, sock puppets, Mom's review, comments on reviews, lack of editing, bad covers, poor grammar, ethical lapses, lack of professionalism, amateurism, too many 5-stars, adverbs, Oxford Commas, and wearing argyle socks.


There's an 2011 MIT study very clearly defining the negative consumer reaction to self-published authors wearing argyle socks.

The rest seems to be anecdotal in any number of "author behaving badly" type threads on various sites and discussion forums. Who knows to what extent this translates from specific author-focused to general disdain, but given the negative references to self-publishing I'd assume it's at least "some".


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> issue = molehill
> thread re: issue = mountain


+1 on this one.

I think Mr. Barnum would be proud of whomever it is that came up with this rapscallionistic concept referenced by the OP. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

All Hail to Commerce!

(THIS WAY----> TO THE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum's_American_Museum EGRESS)


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Ar


Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I'm not sure why these things are mutually exclusive to you. If you have 500,000 authors selling one book a day each, and the big five publishers selling 100,000 books a day each, you can claim indies have 50% of the market but that wouldn't mean indies are actually doing well. The actual accuracy of Hugh's data aside, there is no THEORY insofar as how Amazon treats indies when they "fix" these problems. This is not a theoretical conversation. Amazon routinely uses a sledgehammer to kill ants, and any harmless ladybugs in the vicinity get smashed as well. That isn't a theory, Terrence, it's a documented fact (and before you make one of your "Where is it documented" comments, use the KB search tool. I'm sure you are more than capable of finding it.).


Yes, Amazon has temporarily shut down accounts. But I can't recall any legitimate authors not getting their accounts back once the problem is fixed.

And let's get real. When customers do a search, they typically only look at the first two pages max of results. It's frustrating ( I use search all the time for my daughter to help her find books) to have short pieces 10K works or less, pop up as books. 
When I find a book that fits the search parameters, we're both delighted. I don't look at the book page past the cover, book and length. Most readers Never look at the illustrator, translator, or even publisher line because frankly, they don't care.

Using your theory about Amazon cracking down, they are happy if the customer buys. That's it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> Such things _do_ make the indie crowd look amateurish, or at least make us look polluted by amateurs. I don't think anyone expects a few authors here and there abusing the data fields to trigger a landslide of consumer backlash, obviously, but there's no denying it looks bad. As far as I can tell, no one is seriously contending that this kind of thing will drive lots of readers away.
> 
> The bigger and more important point, though, is that once such things hit a certain point Amazon's going to act on it in a way no one will like. Lisa posits that they might react by increasing keyword space, but I don't think that fits our experience with how Amazon solves problems.


I don't know what consumers think about it. I question if anyone does. But it doesn't appear to rise to the level that they will shun independents because they were led to the book they want by Bodice Ripper.

I have no idea what Amazon will do. Perhaps they will observe consumer behavior, and take advantage of their new knowledge to increase total sales revenue. But they still don't call me to confide. The distressing thing is that to date they have done pretty well without my guidance. I'm beginning to think they just see me as another ASIN.

And those amateurs? I'm one, and I'm happy to engage the professionals, real authors, sincere writers, real writers, serious authors, and assorted experts.

Ain't this a great country?


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

So... Amazon might crack down on putting keywords in the contributor's field. That hurts all of us exactly_ how_?

And to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Amazon didn't already know that this situation existed and didn't even bother to do anything about it until they received (probably) several complaints in the same day that were (probably) generated by this thread. There are a lot more people who read this forum than actually post in it.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> So... Amazon might crack down on putting keywords in the contributor's field. That hurts all of us exactly_ how_?


Yes, I don't follow that argument either. Supposedly they will do something that will hurt all self-pubbed authors, but exactly what kind of action are we expecting? Anything to do with further limiting keywords for indies wouldn't just hurt the authors, but readers as well. That's the last thing Amazon would want to do.



GearPress Steve said:


> And to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Amazon didn't already know that this situation existed and didn't even bother to do anything about it until they received (probably) several complaints in the same day that were (probably) generated by this thread.


This thread and perhaps one or more on other sites. The poster who started the thread either joined for the specific purpose of starting this fire (in which case, he may have been a serial arsonist traveling from site to site), or he was a sockpuppet of an existing member. Either way, he hasn't been heard from since.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> This thread and perhaps one or more on other sites. The poster who started the thread either joined for the specific purpose of starting this fire (in which case, he may have been a serial arsonist traveling from site to site), or he was a sockpuppet of an existing member. Either way, he hasn't been heard from since.


With all the carrying on in here I never noticed that. Good point. I say we shut it down right now.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Yes, Amazon has temporarily shut down accounts. But I can't recall any legitimate authors not getting their accounts back once the problem is fixed.


And how many hundreds or thousands of dollars did those legitimate authors lose while waiting for their accounts to get fixed? This is a little like saying "Yeah, man, sorry you were incarcerated for six months on a false charge. But hey, at least they let you out!"


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And how many hundreds or thousands of dollars did those legitimate authors lose while waiting for their accounts to get fixed? This is a little like saying "Yeah, man, sorry you were incarcerated for six months on a false charge. But hey, at least they let you out!"


Finally you are agreeing accounts were not shut down permanently. Most only a day or two. Sales are about the long tail, remember? Authors can promote their books on all the other sites that sell them, and if they lost money, (readers who are looking for a specific book can find it at other sources or contact the author directly) it's a valuable lesson to learn the importance of not putting all one's eggs in one basket. That lesson alone is worth some lost sales on Amazon and works as a cautionary tale for any author contemplating using only one sale source.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Boyd said:


> I don't know, but 2 days of sales would definitely make a dent in my sales. 60-80 books might not be a lot for you, but that's a chunk of change for me


If you're selling that many per day, it wouldn't be that big of a dent. 60 x 2 $120 per day, is $240 out of $3,600. That's a bargain price for learning not to put all your eggs in one basket.

Frankly, the only people I've heard who have had their accounts cut off did one of 3 big no-nos and/or repeat no-nos:
1)Possible copyright infringement
2) Questionable descriptions, covers, or topics in erotica
3) Cut and paste fake books from the internet public domain
4) Repeat offenders

That's it. So all this fear-mongering is really just that. Let's keep the drama down.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> If you're selling that many per day, it wouldn't be that big of a dent. 60 x 2 is $120 out of $3,600. That's a bargain price for learning not to put all your eggs in one basket.


Okay... except you're assuming the person had all the eggs in the one basket. Even if you have your books at all the major distributors, if Amazon is your biggest seller, having that account shut down is going to hurt.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> Okay... except you're assuming the person had all the eggs in the one basket. Even if you have your books at all the major distributors, if Amazon is your biggest seller, having that account shut down is going to hurt.


I'm not assuming anything. I took _his_ number, 60 books a day, the average indie prices their book at 2.99 with a profit of 2.01 per book, so 60 a day is going to be a $120 a day. Most accounts are not frozen long (another mark that Amazon is not out to get authors but to have them work with them and correct the error of their ways).
Amazon freezing an account is not going to hurt his sales elsewhere. As I pointed out, Amazon does not freeze accounts for just any reason, they limit it to just four issues that are pretty serious and could get them in legal trouble.

They could get sued and lose for allowing copyright infringement and in most cases they send out emails first asking the author to defend their right to sell the material. The author must respond in 24 hours. Most don't respond that quickly and that's why their account is frozen. That is not Amazon's fault, but the authors.

Ammy could get sued for allowing pornography. If an erotica author is walking the line between porn and erotica, they risk this also. Usually cleaning up keywords, descriptions or covers clears this up, but not always because what is porn is: you know it when you see it, and real people at Ammy make those decisions.

Ammy can get sued for allowing the cut and paste books, and those are the fake books that no one wants. These people tend to eventually get banned.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Boyd said:


> Uhhhhhh what?
> 
> Anyhoodles, 240$ is a chunk of change to me, something that would hurt enough to significantly change how I pay my bills, how I buy my groceries.


Then don't risk doing any of the four things Amazon is known to freeze accounts for. 
I also suggest you branch out to selling more in other channels because nothing is assured sales wise when Ammy changes their algorithms. Plenty of authors here have sales drop by a third or more when they make changes. That's a much more real concern than getting frozen.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Sigh.

Yeah, because not one single person who couldn't buy a book on Monday would come back on Wednesday and find that they can. Such a ridiculous things to argue over.

Here, I'll tell you what is REALLY unfair to other authors/publishers: the fact that my books are so much better than theirs.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> issue = molehill
> thread re: issue = mountain


Or, to use another metaphor:


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Boyd said:


> Oh, I sell on more than just Amazon Lisa... kobo, apple, B&N, google, etc etc etc. $240 in a couple of days may not be a lot of money to you down there on the water, but up here in the great white north, my gas bill alone is about 375$. My point is.. I don't know if you realize it or not, but your posts make folks like me feel trivialized.


I'm not sure you're getting what it is that is being discussed. We are talking about those who do the things that get their accounts frozen. You put up a hypothetical 60 books sold a day on Amazon. If you're selling elsewhere, those books presumably would keep selling, right? Only the hypothetical books on the Ammy account would be frozen.

Again, that would be a small price to pay if you're doing one of the four things Ammy freezes accounts for. If you're not, you should be worrying more about their algorithm changes they seem to make once a quarter. That is what is impacting changes in self publisher incomes the most.

PS. I can't "make you" feel anything. That's all you. I can't influence whether you feel $240 is a lot or a little. It all comes from you internally and how you perceive yourself. It's the same thing I tell my daughter, and my students. You get to choose how you feel in every situation, so you may as well choose to be happy and satisified and learn to love your life right where you are right now. If you don't like your life, then change it so you do.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Perhaps, Lisa, people worry about both.  And please don't assume that most people can afford to write off $240.  Really, I think you've beaten this dead horse long enough, don't you?  You're single-handedly keeping this thread alive.

Betsy


----------



## Micah Ackerman (Feb 16, 2014)

"Ammy could get sued for allowing pornography. If an erotica author is walking the line between porn and erotica, they risk this also. Usually cleaning up keywords, descriptions or covers clears this up, but not always because what is porn is: you know it when you see it, and real people at Ammy make those decisions."

Huh... Amazon doesn't not sell Pornography because they're worried about being sued. Amazon doesn't sell pornography because its not in their business model, just like Walmart or any other business that wants to create a family atmosphere.


Micah


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> If you're selling that many per day, it wouldn't be that big of a dent. 60 x 2 $120 per day, is $240 out of $3,600. That's a bargain price for learning not to put all your eggs in one basket.
> 
> Frankly, the only people I've heard who have had their accounts cut off did one of 3 big no-nos and/or repeat no-nos:
> 1)Possible copyright infringement
> ...


But what about authors posting reviews to Amazon or posting review comments on their own page? We had similar warnings about that. It didn't happen?



> Here, I'll tell you what is REALLY unfair to other authors/publishers: the fact that my books are so much better than theirs.


God Bless the warped playing field.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Boyd said:


> I do love my life... I do not like folks who trivialize it, and feel they need to get the last word in, even if it's an edited PS after the mods swoop in. I do feel that anybody who feels they can write off that kind of money has never lived through hard times.
> 
> Betsy, I am trying Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hard to follow the forum decorum ... please have cattle prod ready. I admit, it's late here, and a Friday night....... I don't want to step into it any more than I have


I have lived through hard times. I worked very hard to get where I'm at.

Betsy, I didn't trivialize $240. I said in the hypothetical it was small price out of 3,600 to learn the lesson not to do things Amazon is known to freeze accounts for.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> But what about authors posting reviews to Amazon or posting review comments on their own page? We had similar warnings about that. It didn't happen?
> 
> God Bless the warped playing field.


I'm aware they took reviews down. Goodreads banned sock puppets. We're talking author book accounts.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I have lived through hard times. I worked very hard to get where I'm at.
> 
> Betsy, I didn't trivialize $240.


And Boyd is working hard right now. $240 is still a big deal to him. It's a big deal to me. The point we are trying to make is that people can be doing everything you say they should be doing, and getting their Amazon account frozen for two days can still be a blow to their income. There is no need to be condescending and dismissive of those who aren't at your level yet, and the fact that they aren't doesn't mean they did anything wrong.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Boyd said:


> I do love my life... I do not like folks who trivialize it, and feel they need to get the last word in, even if it's an edited PS after the mods swoop in.


If you check my edit time, you can see I added my P.S. before Betsy added hers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> I'm aware they took reviews down. Goodreads banned sock puppets. We're talking author book accounts.


I know. The doomsayers told us Amazon would shut down author accounts if they posted reviews or commented on their own pages. Seems Amazon wasn't listening.



> The point we are trying to make is that people can be doing everything you say they should be doing, and getting their Amazon account frozen for two days can still be a blow to their income.


Id never minimize any loss of income, starting with my own. But I do minimize the probability that Amazon will shut down accounts for letting Bodice Ripper be a contributor, even if they do it to repeat copyright infringers.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

LeeBee said:


> And Boyd is working hard right now. $240 is still a big deal to him. It's a big deal to me. The point we are trying to make is that people can be doing everything you say they should be doing, and getting their Amazon account frozen for two days can still be a blow to their income. There is no need to be condescending and dismissive of those who aren't at your level yet, and the fact that they aren't doesn't mean they did anything wrong.


Let me say I'm sorry if anyone took the hypothetical $240 as being condescending. I am not meaning to be. Publishing books is a business. Some gambles pay off, and we see a positve in our income, some don't and we see a negative.
There is nothing steady in a writing paycheck at the lower levels.

My point I was trying to make, is: Amazon doesn't go around just banning accounts for no reason. This has been blown way out of proportion. 
It's like being afraid to fly. You're much more likely to die in your bathtub from a fall than in a plane.

Yes, if people get frozen, they're going to lose money. Life isn't fair, but neither is Ammy out to get you, and your chances of getting your account frozen are miniscule.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK...The OP has been left long behind, the dead horse is nothing but a grease spot, leaving us to start beating on each other.  Time to move on to another thread.  Have y'all met the goblin?

Threadlock has commenced.  

Betsy
KB Mod


----------

