# CONSOLIDATED THREAD - Anne Rice 'real name' petition



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/04/anne-rice-protests-bullying-amazon-petition


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

BrianDAnderson said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/04/anne-rice-protests-bullying-amazon-petition


Link fail


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

I respect Anne as a writer, but she is a hypocrite. I for one still remember her EPIC breakdown on Amazon where she insulted and attacked reviewers of her book Blood Canticle.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/04/anne-rice-protests-bullying-amazon-petition


Some of this is nonsense. The idea that there are hordes of people with multiple identities on Amazon is ludicrous - though a claim often made by the naive. In order to review on Amazon you must have an account, provide credit card details and have made purchases. Amazon will quickly limit review rights if the same details connect to more than one personality. They sometimes limit reviews from the same families/households.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Another author that wants to curb freedom of speech.
If you don't like bad reviews, take your books out of circulation, then you don't have to worry about people hurting your feelings.   You know I used to like Anne Rice but now I wouldn't give her 2 cents because she thinks she should be able to tell me what I can say about her books.  I paid for them, so my opinion good or bad would be valid.  Maybe I should go use the paperback I own for TP, and then write a legitimate review about how it isn't even good for TP.
Though I will tell you one more thing, I usually donate my paperbacks to a thrift store so others can read it too.   Hers will be torn up and thrown in the dumpster because I can't risk someone else reading that copy.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

markecooper said:


> Link fail


Remove the extraneous junk ahead of the "www". To clarify, copy the link, then remove the junk. For some reason it has this.

ftp://http//www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/04/anne-rice-protests-bullying-amazon-petition

or click here. www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/04/anne-rice-protests-bullying-amazon-petition


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Sorry. I respect her accomplishments as a writer, but I was in that Amazon forum discussion and it wasn't even close to being the one-sided affair she makes it out to be.  Think less bullying / more "how dare you disagree with me?"

The thread is still there. I'd recommend anyone interested take a sampling of pages (unless you really have time for 10,000 posts) and judge for yourself rather than just take one articles word for it.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

I do think it would be nice to remove anonymity from reviewers. People should stand behind what they say, not hide behind a fake name.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> I do think it would be nice to remove anonymity from reviewers. People should stand behind what they say, not hide behind a fake name.


So, then should pseudonyms be abolished, too? Same general idea.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> So, then should pseudonyms be abolished, too? Same general idea.


I was going to say the same thing. Why should a paying customer have to use their real name, but the author can hide behind a pen name.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Indie writers, particularly those just starting out, are the most vulnerable. We are completely dependent upon word of mouth and reviews to gain notoriety and we should not be subject to someone with an axe to grind. I have a troll right now (I think I know who it is) who is watching my latest release. Every time I get a good review, within 48 hours it gets a "no" click. For me it's not that big of a deal being that I have a wonderful fan-base and it doesn't impact sales, but for someone who is just starting out it can be devastating.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

PamelaKelley said:


> I do think it would be nice to remove anonymity from reviewers. People should stand behind what they say, not hide behind a fake name.


Can't agree with you on this point for reasons other's have stated. While I do think there is a problem on Amazon (and the entire interwebs), I don't think it's as pronounced as some believe.


----------



## KCHawkings (Jul 20, 2011)

Removing anonymity is not the answer, although it would be nice if Amazon enforced their TOS a little more stringently.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I think reviewers often need anonymity, especially prolific ones who say when they don't like something as well as when they do.  There are some very scary people out there!  We need reviews, and if anonymity means more people feel comfortable leaving them (which it does), then I see anonymity as a good thing.  I think it's good that Amazon has people's real identities, though, in case something ever got so bad that someone needed to take legal action.

Personal attacks against an author in a review should not be allowed.  Threats should not be allowed.  However, "I hated this book.  It sucks!" is not a personal attack.  "I hate this book, and the author is clearly an evil person who thinks kittens should be boiled in the blood of babies!" is.  There's also a difference between, "I could kill the author for setting Sarah up with Phil instead of Dominic." and "I'm really angry that Sarah wound up with Phil. Hey *Author*, you'd better look carefully behind you, because I'm coming for you after this."


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Don't get me wrong. I think people should be able to say whatever they want about a book. But I also think they should have bought (or downloaded it for free if that's the case) and read it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

As far as anonymity goes.  Amazon knows my real name.  Why do you need it?  You gonna call me names, send me threatening letters?  Or just come beat me up because you (general not specific) like what I said?
And yes I have been called names because oh I gave a non-fiction book a bad review.  

Like I said previously, if you don't want opinions that disagree with you, don't write books.  
And don't whine that you have too.    If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.   By the way, I don't see EL James or Dan Brown whining.

Oh and by the way, I follow these threads very closely.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Indie writers, particularly those just starting out, are the most vulnerable.


Sorry to say, but there's no reason authors (new or old) should be a protected class. This is a business like any other industry. Survival is harsh, brutal, and not guaranteed. I'm not for criminal harassment of anyone (author or reader), but there's a vast difference between that and what some are claiming as bullying.

If one is looking for a "government bailout", then perhaps they should go into banking.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Some of this is nonsense. The idea that there are hordes of people with multiple identities on Amazon is ludicrous - though a claim often made by the naive. In order to review on Amazon you must have an account, provide credit card details and have made purchases. Amazon will quickly limit review rights if the same details connect to more than one personality. They sometimes limit reviews from the same families/households.


This is why you gotta be discreet about your sock puppets. You have to befriend random people, get them to invite you over to their homes, and then drop the, "Hey, mind if I use your computer for a second? You have an Amazon account, right? I just wanna check something out. Uh....could you get me a glass of water while I do this?"


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Don't get me wrong. I think people should be able to say whatever they want about a book. But I also think they should have bought (or downloaded it for free if that's the case) and read it.


Every book I have reviewed, I have read or tried to read. I may not have bought it at Amazon but I do own it.

Do any of you realize that when you start talking about reviewers, it reflects back on you more than on the reviewers?

Some of you are loud and clear in your beliefs. I do appreciate knowing this about you. (general not specific). It helps when choosing a book to read.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

I hear this a lot that reviewers should have to be 'verified purchasers' but I've yet to hear anyone come up with a completely convincing argument as to why someone who has bought a book elsewhere (maybe in a bookshop - they do still exist) shouldn't be free to leave a review on Amazon. Okay, they didn't buy it on Amazon. So what? Does that make their opinion somehow less valid?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Zelah Meyer said:


> I think reviewers often need anonymity, especially prolific ones who say when they don't like something as well as when they do. There are some very scary people out there! We need reviews, and if anonymity means more people feel comfortable leaving them (which it does), then I see anonymity as a good thing. I think it's good that Amazon has people's real identities, though, in case something ever got so bad that someone needed to take legal action.
> 
> Personal attacks against an author in a review should not be allowed. Threats should not be allowed. However, "I hated this book. It sucks!" is not a personal attack. "I hate this book, and the author is clearly an evil person who thinks kittens should be boiled in the blood of babies!" is. There's also a difference between, "I could kill the author for setting Sarah up with Phil instead of Dominic." and "I'm really angry that Sarah wound up with Phil. Hey *Author*, you'd better look carefully behind you, because I'm coming for you after this."


I don't feel that strongly about it either way really. I just thought it might stop some of the more vicious personal attack type reviews that some authors have experienced. People tend to behave differently when their real name is attached to their actions. I just feel badly for authors that have dealt with that kind of thing. I don't know what the answer is, maybe it would be worse without anonymity?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Drew Gideon said:


> Think that through all the way to the end.
> Erotica book reviews would just about disappear. Authors like Rice, who have a legion of rabid fans, could aim those fans like a weapon at a person and utterly destroy their life (harassing phone calls at home and work, calls to a person's boss, church, etc). Prospective employers, when googling an interviewee's (is that a word?) name, would also get a list of their reviews and would be able to see what kind of books they read and what kind of comments they leave. Think of the havoc that could cause - as well as a breach of privacy. Hard-left-leaning employer sees that the potential employee has left glowing reviews on Atlas Shrugged, or left a negative review on a democratic president's autobiography? That resume goes to the trash.
> 
> Making sure that each account is unique - by requiring a credit card with a matching street address, is enough. The person can use any nickname they like for their own privacy and safety.
> Weighting "verified purchase" reviews more heavily would help, as well. (Or simply not allowing any reviews that are not verified purchases. There's always other places to comment on something that you've bought elsewhere, like GoodReads.)


You're so right! Didn't even think about that with erotica. Like I just posted, I don't really know what the answer is. Maybe its' just best handled by Amazon on a case by case basis as necessary.

I don't think verified purchases should be given more weight though. What if someone gives me a book as a gift and I love it, why should my review not matter? I think all reviews are important, whether verified or not.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Sorry. I respect her accomplishments as a writer, but I was in that Amazon forum discussion and it wasn't even close to being the one-sided affair she makes it out to be. Think less bullying / more "how dare you disagree with me?"
> 
> The thread is still there. I'd recommend anyone interested take a sampling of pages (unless you really have time for 10,000 posts) and judge for yourself rather than just take one articles word for it.


I read every darn post on that original thread when it was going on, and am also following the current incarnation (even though Ms. Rice no longer participates), and I NEVER post on Amazon, NEVER use the up or downvote buttons either. But what you have said is true and I want to thank you for continuing to be the tactful, cool-headed, on-going voice of reason there.

My main complaint is the continued use of the word bullying to describe negative/critical reviews and comments. It has cheapened the word and takes away the seriousness of true on-line or real life bullying.

To those who think all reviews should have a verified purchase tag and a real name badge, be careful what you wish for. There would be very few reviews still left, positive or negative, if both things were required and new reviews of any kind will be even harder to come by.

If authors want to petition Amazon for some redress, I think they should be pushing for Amazon to consistently enforce the Terms of Service that are already in place.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

crebel said:


> I read every darn post on that original thread when it was going on, and am also following the current incarnation (even though Ms. Rice no longer participates), and I NEVER post on Amazon, NEVER use the up or downvote buttons either. But what you have said is true and I want to thank you for continuing to be the tactful, cool-headed, on-going voice of reason there.
> 
> My main complaint is the continued use of the word bullying to describe negative/critical reviews and comments. It has cheapened the word and takes away the seriousness of true on-line or real life bullying.
> 
> ...


THIS 1110% this.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Drew Gideon said:


> Imagine any other store or business allowing random people to post bulletins on the store windows about the products/services inside, even if they never bought something there or used the service.
> (Word of mouth is *not* the same thing.)


A good chunk of the reviews on Newegg.com are from people who bought elsewhere. Also, some of the larger customer review companies out there syndicate their results. It's not as uncommon as you might think.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Drew Gideon said:


> Because Zon isn't a review site. It's a store.


And yet Amazon goes out of their way to increase the volume of reviews on the site. I'm a member of Amazon's Vine Program. So are you telling me since I get those books for free through Vine, because I didn't pay for them, I should not be allowed to post the review? Despite the fact that the publisher GAVE me the book specifically hoping for a review? What about the books I get on NetGalley? Am I "allowed" to review those on Amazon since the publishers gave them to me and wanted my review?

And gee, what about all of the authors busting their butts desperately trying to get reviews by doing giveaways on Goodreads and Librarything, quite literally BEGGING the winners to leave reviews? I guess those winners just have to stay quiet unless they want to buy an additional copy from Amazon. 

Amazon most certainly sees the value of all of those reviews. If they didn't, they wouldn't allow them.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Sam Kates said:


> I hear this a lot that reviewers should have to be 'verified purchasers' but I've yet to hear anyone come up with a completely convincing argument as to why someone who has bought a book elsewhere (maybe in a bookshop - they do still exist) shouldn't be free to leave a review on Amazon. Okay, they didn't buy it on Amazon. So what? Does that make their opinion somehow less valid?


Look at book reviews in the context of all the other products offered on Amazon. If you bought a computer, a T-shirt or a coffee maker, you can review it on Amazon no matter where you bought it. I think this is a good policy. The reviews are often very helpful to someone considering a purchase. If I am making a purchase decision, I don't care whether the person bought the product from Amazon. I just want to know if it's a good product. I believe that most people can spot a personal grudge review and will ignore it when considering the merits of a book or other product.

Sometimes I just shake my head when I see authors who keep saying they want reviews, and ask everybody for the names of places where they can get more reviews -- but then they only want _good_ reviews. There are a few authors who will call every negative reviewer a [name that rhymes with "poll"] and they will start asking for advice on how to make Amazon remove the bad reviews. If you actively seek reviews, chances are that some will be negative. None of us can write a perfect book that 100% of readers will like.


----------



## Lizbooks (Mar 15, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And gee, what about all of the authors busting their butts desperately trying to get reviews by doing giveaways on Goodreads and Librarything, quite literally BEGGING the winners to leave reviews? I guess those winners just have to stay quiet unless they want to buy an additional copy from Amazon.


This deserves to be quoted. It's hard enough to get reviews. Can you imagine if ARCs or book bloggers' reviews didn't count because they hadn't bought their copies at Amazon? Not good for anyone.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Lizbooks said:


> This deserves to be quoted. It's hard enough to get reviews. Can you imagine if ARCs or book bloggers' reviews didn't count because they hadn't bought their copies at Amazon? Not good for anyone.


And this deserves to be quoted too! So very true.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

Drew Gideon said:


> Because Zon isn't a review site. It's a store.
> Customers want valid opinions from other owners of the product - and the only way to assure the customer that the review they're reading is from an owner of the product is to verify the purchase.


Yes, it's a store - a store that encourages reviews of its products. So arguably it's a review site, too.

I understand what you're saying about the verified purchase but the counter-argument to this (that you've probably seen elsewhere), and it's particularly persuasive in the book context, is that ownership of the book does not necessarily mean that the owner has actually read it. Since many complaints that I've seen about reviews question whether the reviewer even read the book, the 'verified purchaser' tag loses ground in the debate.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Do you really think that Haribo cares where I bought their product?  Do you really think HP cares where I bought my computer?   Do you really think that Dan Brown really cares where I bought his books?   Do you think Sharp really cares where I bought my TV?  Or even do you think Amazon gives a care to where I bought my fire?
No, they would all be happy if I gave a review on Amazon.   Why because it means more sales for them.
They don't care where I got it as long as I am happy with it.   
Look I don't buy most of my stuff at Amazon.  Does that mean I shouldn't enjoy it and review it?
It is only a certain segment that thinks we have to prove that we actually bought your stuff and only there should we review where people can't see it.


I have been vocal in this thread.  Now my question to all of you, is how many lurkers in this thread feel the same way?   How many READERS (people that pay to read your stuff) have you alienated?     
You know there are several authors in any given genre.    Let's say I am thinking about picking up a book by Author A.   Well I do a search for Author A and see that they are against any reviews that aren't glowing or should be verified or whatever.    Hmmmm lets see Author B writes in about the same style.   Author B doesn't go around saying stuff about READERS.   I do believe that Author B will be have my support.

Just a little food for thought.   Sorry Author A no coffee this month.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Sam Kates said:


> I hear this a lot that reviewers should have to be 'verified purchasers' but I've yet to hear anyone come up with a completely convincing argument as to why someone who has bought a book elsewhere (maybe in a bookshop - they do still exist) shouldn't be free to leave a review on Amazon. Okay, they didn't buy it on Amazon. So what? Does that make their opinion somehow less valid?


I don't know how a valid opinion differs from an opinion. But neither validity nor opinion entitles one to use Amazon resources.



> I don't feel that strongly about it either way really. I just thought it might stop some of the more vicious personal attack type reviews that some authors have experienced.


I suspect we have a situation where author interests diverge from consumer interests. In that case, I expect Amazon will side with consumers.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Sorry. I respect her accomplishments as a writer, but I was in that Amazon forum discussion and it wasn't even close to being the one-sided affair she makes it out to be. Think less bullying / more "how dare you disagree with me?"
> 
> The thread is still there. I'd recommend anyone interested take a sampling of pages (unless you really have time for 10,000 posts) and judge for yourself rather than just take one articles word for it.


Rick, How do I find the thread. Do you have a link?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Donna White Glaser said:


> Rick, How do I find the thread. Do you have a link?


At the risk of a smacking from Betsy or Ann, here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/meet%20our%20authors/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2UYC1FC06SU8S&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx161FOLX8OXP8L


----------



## Howietzer (Apr 18, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And yet Amazon goes out of their way to increase the volume of reviews on the site. I'm a member of Amazon's Vine Program. So are you telling me since I get those books for free through Vine, because I didn't pay for them, I should not be allowed to post the review? Despite the fact that the publisher GAVE me the book specifically hoping for a review? What about the books I get on NetGalley? Am I "allowed" to review those on Amazon since the publishers gave them to me and wanted my review?
> 
> And gee, what about all of the authors busting their butts desperately trying to get reviews by doing giveaways on Goodreads and Librarything, quite literally BEGGING the winners to leave reviews? I guess those winners just have to stay quiet unless they want to buy an additional copy from Amazon.
> 
> Amazon most certainly sees the value of all of those reviews. If they didn't, they wouldn't allow them.


If I wasn't so afraid of you, I would definitely beg for a review. lol


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/04/anne-rice-protests-bullying-amazon-petition


I'm not onboard. This reeks of butthurt to me, and nobody has forgotten her ridiculous meltdown at the people who dared to leave her less than glowing reviews.

This is silly.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Don't get me wrong. I think people should be able to say whatever they want about a book. But I also think they should have bought (or downloaded it for free if that's the case) and read it.


In the case of books like Anne Rice's, how can you prove a reviewer didn't buy it? Maybe at a second-hand store?

Frankly, authors everywhere need to toughen up their hides. Criticism, sometimes vitriolic, crazy criticism, comes with the territory. If you can't face that, this isn't the right career path for you.


----------



## josephdevon (Feb 6, 2014)

"They've worked their way into the Amazon system as parasites, posting largely under pseudonyms, lecturing, bullying, seeking to discipline authors whom they see as their special prey," Rice told the Guardian. "They're all about power. They clearly organise, use multiple identities and brag about their ability to down vote an author's works if the author doesn't 'behave' as they dictate."

Um...am I the only one that think's this description sounds a lot like a supernatural bad guy from a horror book? Someone's been in the world of fiction too long...


----------



## Michelle Maibelle (Oct 24, 2013)

I don't have a problem with negative reviews. Authors have to realize that once they're in the public arena, they're up for judgment. If you don't like that part of the deal, go into work like programming or accounting.  

The 1 or 2 star reviews that I do have a problem with are the ones which address issues not directly related to the narrative itself (damages with mailing, errors with electronic delivery, etc). I've personally seen these kinds of reviews, and it's really not fair to the author at all. I think that Amazon should more thoroughly screen them.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Michelle Maibelle said:


> The 1 or 2 star reviews that I do have a problem with are the ones which address issues not directly related to the narrative itself (damages with mailing, errors with electronic delivery, etc). I've personally seen these kinds of reviews, and it's really not fair to the author at all. I think that Amazon should more thoroughly screen them.


Amazon reviews, for better or worse, are product reviews, not literary criticism. They can comment on all aspects of the product experience, including elements entirely out of the author's control. It's unfortunate that some consumers and more importantly advertising sites confuse customer reviews with literary criticism but that's not really Amazon's fault. Just unintended consequences.

It would be nice if Amazon at some point broke out the star ratings with multiple categories like they do for some other products, or used weighting on reviewers rather than a flat average but I don't really expect it. Readers are generally smart enough to understand which reviews are valuable to them and which aren't and when a star rating doesn't matter so much.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And yet Amazon goes out of their way to increase the volume of reviews on the site. I'm a member of Amazon's Vine Program. So are you telling me since I get those books for free through Vine, because I didn't pay for them, I should not be allowed to post the review? Despite the fact that the publisher GAVE me the book specifically hoping for a review? What about the books I get on NetGalley? Am I "allowed" to review those on Amazon since the publishers gave them to me and wanted my review?
> 
> And gee, what about all of the authors busting their butts desperately trying to get reviews by doing giveaways on Goodreads and Librarything, quite literally BEGGING the winners to leave reviews? I guess those winners just have to stay quiet unless they want to buy an additional copy from Amazon.
> 
> Amazon most certainly sees the value of all of those reviews. If they didn't, they wouldn't allow them.


I'm wondering how they justify giving a pass on the TOS. I'd never accuse you of skewed reviews, but I have to assume you review books in the genres you write and publish. By their TOS, that's considered a conflict of interest. It is conceivable that someone in your position could try to "knock down" published material that gets released in such a way as to compete with one of your books or publications. They really should be all or nothing in that sense. Either all authors get to post whatever review they feel like, or, once you're published, you should be banned from reviewing books. This "pick and choose" policy leaves too much gray area. The moment mine goes live, I'm gonna refuse to review books on anything other than my own site.


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

Anne Rice is joined in sponsoring this petition by a very scary website which has been dedicated to publishing private information about book reviewers it does not like.

This information has included photos, names, addresses, employers, names of spouses and their employers, and names of minor children.

This site can be looked up -- its name includes "Goodreads Bullies" -- but I will not link to it here.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Alessandra Kelley said:


> Anne Rice is joined in sponsoring this petition by a very scary website which has been dedicated to publishing private information about book reviewers it does not like.
> 
> This information has included photos, names, addresses, employers, names of spouses and their employers, and names of minor children.
> 
> This site can be looked up -- its name includes "Goodreads Bullies" -- but I will not link to it here.


That's awful. I thought they were trying to *stop* cyber abuse, not become the abusers themselves.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> That's awful. I thought they were trying to *stop* cyber abuse, not become the abusers themselves.


That was never, ever their intent. Their intent was always explicitly to frighten readers into never leaving negative reviews for any author. It's disgusting, and authors everywhere need to stand up against this b.s. That includes NOT supporting crap like this petition. We need to speak out in favor of the rights of readers to say whatever they please about books. Maybe some of them are trolls...maybe some of them haven't actually read the books. It doesn't matter. What matters is that honest readers feel safe in sharing their true thoughts on books. We all benefit from that kind of free exchange of opinion, even if sometimes it stings to get a bad review. We need to protect readers' opinions.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> We need to protect readers' opinions.


I'd stay far away from that fray. I think there are unhinged people on both sides of that fracas. If l see either ganh coming, I'm crossing the street.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Drew Gideon said:


> Amazon can verify that you own the book because they gave it to you.
> Maybe instead of "verified purchaser" status there should be "verified owner" status?
> Depends on what Amazon says. Currently, they allow everyone to comment, which leads to the situation we see here: authors getting bogus negative reviews from people who haven't even read the book and don't own it. The author who went off on a rant about JK Rowling last week - she got slammed with reviews from people who didn't read/own her books. How fair was that?
> 
> ...


How do you know if someone has read a book? Let's see JK Rowling is in libraries and friends do lend friends books. I am so tired of authors saying well they didn't read the book or they don't own the book. You don't know whether someone read that book or not.
Look if you put a book that spends 3 chapters talking about domestic abuse and how you ignore your children to write and put it in humor, you can bet you will get a bad review. And the person probably will not finish your book. It is a valid review. 
Or are you telling me that I should have read the rest of book and got nightmares?

IF you don't want opinions that say you are not perfect, then don't go into a business with critics.

You don't like Amazon lets people review, then quit giving Amazon between 30 and 70% of your royalties. There are other places to put your stuff.
Oh I know you won't be making money without Amazon. So quit biting the hand that feeds you.
Either shut up about Amazon's policies or take your books off them. Those are your two choices. Otherwise you (generic not specific) are a hypocrite.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Honestly, do writers write anymore, or do they just complain?

Everyday it's something else.  Reviews, anonymity, traditional publishing, that guy didn't like my book.  Jeez it's getting tiring.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2014)

Drew Gideon said:


> It's a system that is highly open to exploitation.


Drew, while I understand your concern. The problem is not customers abusing the system. It is AUTHORS abusing the system. There are sites that sell reviews by the hundreds, and all of those reviews will be "verified purchases" because the price of the book is factored into the cost of the service. You can go on Fiverr right now and find people who will sell you a review, complete with "verified purchase" status for $5 a pop. Your solution is merely a false sense of security.

The problem is authors that have taken a retaliatory, confrontational position with ALL reviewers. Any review not five stars is considered an "abusive" review by too many people, because all authors think is "Oh my God! If my star rating falls below 4 I'll never be able to get a Bookbub ad!" or "Don't these people know how hard I worked on this book?" Authors don't want honest reviews. They want glowing reviews that never say anything negative. And any negative comment, regardless of how valid it is, is met with disdain and ridicule.

Despite KB attracting a higher caliber of author, it happens here all the time. At least once a week we will get a thread that complains about a "negative" review. And the result is always the same. A few people will tell the OP to ignore the review. But others will rush over to "investigate" the reviewer, downvote the review (even if the complaints are legitimate), downvote ALL the reviewer's reviews out of spite, and make fun of the reviewer by pointing out the most minor of imperfections. "Oh, look, the reviewer used "its instead of it's in her review. She's obviously an idiot lol!" or "Well, look at the other books she reviewed and gave five stars. No accounting for taste." And all sorts of nastiness.

And this is on KB. Now imagine what goes on in some of the more...uncultured indie websites. Even this petition is the result of whiny authors who are themselves enormous bullies.

My solution would be a weighted system based on Amazon's own algorithms. If I was in charge of the program, I would look at the data Amazon has and weight the reviews based on a number of factors.

Reviewer Rank: Reviewers that have a solid review rank and history of strong reviews would have higher weight than first time reviewers. As a reviewer gained more credibility on the site, through more reviews and other factors, their reviewers would weight "more."

Verified purchases: I would give slightly higher weight to verified purchases, but only those tied to "real ID". Not purchases from gift certificates or pre-paid credit cards. Books "bought" when they are free would not get a verified purchase weight.

Purchase weight: Reviews from "free" runs would have slightly less weight than normal purchases (since most of the "this isn't normally my type of book" weird reviews come from free runs.)

Review content: Just how Amazon has the spellchecker for us when we upload KDP books, they could run a basic grammar and spelling check on reviews. They already have the program. Grammatically incoherent reviews would have less weight than articulate reviews.

Verified Reviewer: I would allow reviewers to enroll as "verified reviewers." Particularly those folks who run book blogs or review sites. These reviews would carry more weight than other reviews but would also be subject to periodic reevaluation based on the quality of the reviews.

So you might have something that ends up like this:

Review One: Five stars
Review Two: Five stars
Review Three: Four stars
Review Four: Three stars
Review Five: One star

This would be a 3.6 average normally. That one star review is really pulling down the average. Now let's weigh it.

Review One: Five stars Verified purchase from established Amazon reviewer. 
Review Two: Five stars Unverified purchase from established Amazon reviewer.
Review Three: Four stars Verified purchase from first time reviewer. 
Review Four: Three stars Verified purchase from first time reviewer. 
Review Five: One star unverified purchase from first time reviewer, poor grammar.

So we might take those reviews and instead of counting them on a one-for-one basis, give them a set number of points. The first two reviews might be three points, the third and fourth may be two points. And the fifth might only be one point. So now you are looking at 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1= 4.09 average.

That is just a simple example. The actual algorithm would be more complex depending on the various factors.

So long as Amazon says up front that they are using a weighted algorithm, they don't have to specify the nature of the algorithm. They can simply say that quality reviews have more weight than short, low-quality reviews. If anything, this would encourage people to leave more thoughtful reviews instead of shooting off the one sentence "OMG awesome book" or "lol this book sux".


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Julie,
I only see one flaw with your system.  This would mean that the perma-free books would not have good reviews.  But then that doesn't hurt the reviewer only the author.

Oh and just in case you are curious, Amazon Customer service reps do not have access to how much was paid for a book if they are looking at your overall account.  All they see is the number of purchases.  I have been told I am a really fabulous customer.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> I don't feel that strongly about it either way really. I just thought it might stop some of the more vicious personal attack type reviews that some authors have experienced. People tend to behave differently when their real name is attached to their actions. I just feel badly for authors that have dealt with that kind of thing. I don't know what the answer is, maybe it would be worse without anonymity?


Actually a new study suggests this isn't the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/02/12/online-trolls-are-just-everyday-sadists-according-to-new-paper/

People who are jerks on the internet are jerks in real life. Removing anonymity just makes it so the real-life jerks know who you are so they can threaten you if they don't like who you are. It removes protection from people who aren't jerks.

Honestly, I find this petition extremely chilling. It sounds like authors are saying that they want the means to go and threaten people if that person leaves them a one-star review. Authors can get bullied, of course, but I've yet to seen anything that people call "bullying" actually be bullying. A mean review, or clicking "not helpful" on positive reviews, is not bullying. It's not mean. It's not anything any of us need to be concerned about.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The Federalist Papers were signed by Publius.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

The purpose of a review system is to give the prospective customers guidance on whether the product is a good purchase.

This works well for products like TV, computers, Kindles, etc. since people can actually rate how well they worked and how easy they were to use.

However, this is not the case with reviews which are subjective and based on a person's opinion or motive.

The reviews can easily be increased by hiring people to write five star reviews or have family members or friends write great reviews.  So the customer looks at the high reviews and buys the book.  Something the person is happy, other times very unhappy since the quality of the book is inflated.

Then the reviews can be vindictive and performed without any regard for how good the book is or if the book was even read.  So again the customer loses if she follows the advice of the reviewers since the book may be actually interesting and high quality.

I don't think that Amazon can fix this problem is it is not fixable.  

A simple solution would be to throw out the review and rating system for books and let them ride on their own merits.  If the books sells, then it is enjoyed by someone.  If the reader doesn't like the book, she returns it for a full refund.

At least this system would be fair to everyone and stop this unfair system that doesn't benefit readers or authors.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> I'd stay far away from that fray. I think there are unhinged people on both sides of that fracas. If l see either ganh coming, I'm crossing the street.


All I meant was, protect readers' opinions by not supporting crap like Anne Rice's little petition.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The problem is authors that have taken a retaliatory, confrontational position with ALL reviewers. Any review not five stars is considered an "abusive" review by too many people, because all authors think is "Oh my God! If my star rating falls below 4 I'll never be able to get a Bookbub ad!" or "Don't these people know how hard I worked on this book?" Authors don't want honest reviews. They want glowing reviews that never say anything negative. And any negative comment, regardless of how valid it is, is met with disdain and ridicule.


This, absolutely. Authors are 100% to blame for this stuff, and we can reverse the negativity by having more realistic expectations of reviews, not by trying to get Amazon to change the way they weight reviews, or from whom they'll allow reviews, or whatever.



Wild Rivers said:


> At least this system would be fair to everyone and stop this unfair system that doesn't benefit readers or authors.


The system DOES benefit readers. As a reader, I use reviews all the time to decide which books to purchase. (I often buy a book because the complaints in the bad reviews intrigue me, by the way, so even bad reviews are not strictly detrimental to a book's success.)

Amazon cares about the people who spend money on Amazon. As long as readers continue to want to see reviews, they will remain. Stressing out about it will only make your hair fall out, folks.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

You know how when you start writing, people drill into you "show, don't tell"?

I think we need a similar mantra that says this:

DO NOT LOOK AT THE FREAKING REVIEWS!

It would solve a lot of trouble and save writers a huge chunk of time.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

My response to her wasn't taken very well (but at least cinisajoy appreciated it hehe)



> My response to author Anne Rice's call for petition to get Amazon to 'stop allowing bullies to leave reviews on Goodreads/Amazon':
> 
> As a self-published author, I really could care less about the 'bullying' that goes on because it happens on both sides of the aisle. *Authors Behaving Badly* is one of my pet peeves, and it is a practice that too many engage in _(and even you, Ms. Rice, have engaged in it before with Kayleigh Herbertson)._
> 
> ...


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

I have another idea about reviews and ratings.  Set a time limit on them.  For example have them disappear after a certain time like six months. 

Why worry about a 1 star review if it is going away in a short time.  Of course, the 5 stars reviews are also going away, but you can always hire people to write more reviews.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Whenever I read about bullies, bad reviews, personal threats and so on, all I can think about is Mark Twain's quote about wanting to dig up Jane Austen's skeleton and bash her over the skull with her own shin bone.  

The problem with the internet is that people write their thoughts down without any filter and completely forget that it's public. Yes, there are also trolls who do this preemptively, but most of the so-called melt downs seem to be a case of foot in mouth that goes wrong. But this isn't anything new. Authors have behaved badly long before the internet (see Mark Twain's quote above). It's just one of those things. It certainly won't be solved by a petition. 

I think more energy should be spent on dealing with real internet bullying. There are people whose lives are made a living hell by internet stalkers. I'm not talking about authors here, just people in general. Although I did read once about a literary agent attacked by a disgruntled writer after stalking her on the internet. That is the real threat. Restricting Amazon reviewers would be something else that makes it harder to sell books.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Wild Rivers said:


> I have another idea about reviews and ratings. Set a time limit on them. For example have them disappear after a certain time like six months.
> 
> Why worry about a 1 star review if it is going away in a short time. Of course, the 5 stars reviews are also going away, but you can always hire people to write more reviews.


Why worry about a one-star review _at all, ever?_


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

Drew Gideon said:


> Because Zon isn't a review site. It's a store.
> Customers want valid opinions from other owners of the product - and the only way to assure the customer that the review they're reading is from an owner of the product is to verify the purchase.
> Review sites exist. GoodReads. Shelfari. There are places to leave reviews where your ownership of the item is never even questioned.
> 
> ...


I'm sure most authors are tickled to get a review on any website, but which website's reviews is most helpful and beneficial to authors? Amazon is. Why? It is now *the* place to leave reviews or read reviews. Almost anytime I make a purchase that isn't a part of my routine shopping, I go to Amazon and read the reviews. I don't care if the reviews are verified purchases or not because it's pretty easy to determine who has actually used the product in question.

If I feel strongly about a product that I've bought elsewhere, whether I really loved it or thought there were issues, I'll often leave a review on Amazon. If Amazon preferred reviews from verified purchases only, they'd make it so. Besides, I'm sure many of you authors give away lots of copies of your books during promotions and giveaways. Verified purchase reviews will limit the few reviews you get even more.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Another author that wants to curb freedom of speech.
> If you don't like bad reviews, take your books out of circulation, then you don't have to worry about people hurting your feelings. You know I used to like Anne Rice but now I wouldn't give her 2 cents because she thinks she should be able to tell me what I can say about her books. I paid for them, so my opinion good or bad would be valid. Maybe I should go use the paperback I own for TP, and then write a legitimate review about how it isn't even good for TP.
> Though I will tell you one more thing, I usually donate my paperbacks to a thrift store so others can read it too. Hers will be torn up and thrown in the dumpster because I can't risk someone else reading that copy.


Glad to see nobody's overreacting.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Another author that wants to curb freedom of speech.
> If you don't like bad reviews, take your books out of circulation, then you don't have to worry about people hurting your feelings. You know I used to like Anne Rice but now I wouldn't give her 2 cents because she thinks she should be able to tell me what I can say about her books. I paid for them, so my opinion good or bad would be valid. Maybe I should go use the paperback I own for TP, and then write a legitimate review about how it isn't even good for TP.
> Though I will tell you one more thing, I usually donate my paperbacks to a thrift store so others can read it too. Hers will be torn up and thrown in the dumpster because I can't risk someone else reading that copy.


Even big names like Anne are human. In some ways, prior to the eBook era, she was probably quite a bit more insulated from the reaction of average readers... weren't we all?

Authors who get that upset over one review need to adopt the John Locke mantra: "That's okay. That's just a reader who's not one of my readers." Or words to that effect.

He actually uses the OOU abbreviation, which stands for "one of us," and which means "people who like the type of books I write."

I don't want to start a bonfire over invoking Locke's name, but he has a point: every opinion is just ONE opinion. Focus more on the folks who like you, at least, because when they critique, at least it's constructive. Life's too short to worry about not pleasing everyone, because no one can do that anyway...


----------



## TiffanyTurner (Jun 8, 2009)

I left the Amazon boards when they started the Amazon "Meet Our Authors" forum. I remember seeing her post in a banning books thread back then. It was interesting having one of my favorite authors post in the discussion. 

Then, Amazon corralled all the authors to the "Meet Our Authors" forum. Most of the Amazon boards weren't supportive to any author posts. Anne was posting to other threads then, and I'm sure they flagged her as an author and wouldn't let her post to regular boards. Some of you on this board might remember all that. It's from this time period that I heard about WC and moved here. I've not regretted it. I only post on Amazon book reviews as a reader now. 

Granted, I didn't read the whole thread with over 10,000 posts. But it appears Anne started out giving writing advice, and was being thanked by people stopping by. Very early on Indie writers are mentioned. This could have set some flags off.

So, I think she just should have posted the original thread here. We would have valued her expertise. I hope she finds this thread, because I'd like to say welcome and recommend that for any really good author posts, come here.   Maybe she can start her advice here. I think the editing and proofreading tips were good. Seriously, it was probably a waste to post writing advice on Amazon anyway. I'm not sure if writers go there for advice anymore. Do we?


----------



## phildukephd (Jan 6, 2013)

*Amazon.com encourages spite reviews and personal attacks by not adequately moderating its Forums, not requiring that a Reviewer first purchase/read the ebook, and by turning a blind eye to obvious spite reviews.* A professional book reviewer (I was one) always signs the Review with his or her real name. I always did.

I do not understand why some posters on this thread do not support Anne Rice 's position regarding this petition. If they would post repeatedly on an Amazon Forum for or against most anything, then the vicious Trolls and angry crazies will attack on the Forum, and also give the author's ebooks multiple lousy reviews, if at all possible.

A female friend of mine's excellent biography offended a reader (who had no biography), and the reader gave 7 of my friend's ebooks rotten comments with one star reviews. all in one hour. The Reviewer stated she had never read any of the ebooks, and (just) objected to the author's biography.

I have had numerous spite reviews because I offended for various reasons, such as writing the Ph.D. after my name (now you know why there appear to be so very few Ph.D. ebook authors), making easily confirmed technical statements, etc. My ebook about star travel resulted in vicious Forum attacks and a spite review by a person who said the Albert Einstein's work was "Poppycock Science," and he also stated- "HE WAS AFRAID OF THE STARS." I believe he was. Anyone can open an Amazon account with a credit card using a fake name. Amazon does NOT require proof of identity.

I insist on publishing with my real name, because I stand behind my work, and I seek author name recognition. I have a listed phone number and address in Omaha, NE, and have no problems. However I no longer post on any Amazon Forum, to avoid the inevitable attacks with spite reviews.

Anne Rice is bravely trying to help Indie authors by trying to do something about a very real problem situation. If you like vicious personal attacks on Forums, and vicious spite reviews, then attack Anne Rice on this matter. It's a free country, and YOU ARE entitled to your share of vicious personal attacks, including death threats (Amazon will NOT reveal any identity to you under ANY circumstances) and entirely unwarranted spite reviews. Yes you are, and YOU WILL get them. Just like other authors have, and do, and will in the future.

*God Bless Anne Rice!*

Very truly,

*Phillip Duke Ph,D.*
Email address available on website, website URL in Signature, home address in Omaha phone book. Come over and have a cup of coffee- the pot's always on.


----------



## ElleChambers (Nov 5, 2013)

Alessandra Kelley said:


> Anne Rice is joined in sponsoring this petition by a very scary website which has been dedicated to publishing private information about book reviewers it does not like.
> 
> This information has included photos, names, addresses, employers, names of spouses and their employers, and names of minor children.
> 
> This site can be looked up -- its name includes "Goodreads Bullies" -- but I will not link to it here.


 

This is exactly why I've stopped reviewing books...people be crazy.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

phildukephd said:


> Anne Rice is bravely trying to help Indie authors by trying to do something about a very real problem situation. If you like vicious personal attacks on Forums, and vicious spite reviews, then attack Anne Rice on this matter. It's a free country, and YOU ARE entitled to your share of vicious personal attacks, including death threats (Amazon will NOT reveal any identity to you under ANY circumstances) and entirely unwarranted spite reviews. Yes you are, and YOU WILL get them.


And how is this not just fear mongering? I and many other authors have been active on the Amazon forums for years and yet somehow remain unscathed. I've picked up a few trolls, but oddly enough they're all fellow writers (the type who would probably get skinned alive here). So what you're saying is simply not true. Yes, if you go in there to spam, or you have a massive author chip on your shoulder you will probably get smacked down. If you go in there as a human being, though, to discuss you'll probably do fine.

All you're doing is perpetuating that it's a place filled with author-hating boogeymen. How is that helping anyone?


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> As far as anonymity goes. Amazon knows my real name. Why do you need it? You gonna call me names, send me threatening letters? Or just come beat me up because you (general not specific) like what I said?


I want to come at your door and pat you on the head and feed you chocolate to guilt-trip you into reading my books.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Since I started this threat I've watched the arguments progress and have given a great deal of consideration regarding what has been said. I have no idea if Anne Rice is in favor of banning reviews or anything else. I've never read anything that supports this - that is not to say it's not true, only that I haven't seen it. If it turned out to be a fact, I'm against it.

I am NOT in favor of censorship of reviews. Nor do I think a reviewer should be subject to ridicule or attack. I also believe that anonymity provides the only shield available for someone to say what they feel without repercussion. 

On the other side, I believe an author should have protection from being the target of someone who only wants to harm their career or intimidate them. In the case of indies, this is usually someone we know who doesn't like us and has some sort of grudge. 

What is the answer? I wish I knew. But I know it's not to ban reviews or attack the readers.


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Since I started this threat I've watched the arguments progress and have given a great deal of consideration regarding what has been said. I have no idea if Anne Rice is in favor of banning reviews or anything else. I've never read anything that supports this - that is not to say it's not true, only that I haven't seen it. If it turned out to be a fact, I'm against it.
> 
> I am NOT in favor of censorship of reviews. Nor do I think a reviewer should be subject to ridicule or attack. I also believe that anonymity provides the only shield available for someone to say what they feel without repercussion.
> 
> ...


I think this whole mess is misdirected.

As a longtime reader it breaks my heart to see authors spending this much time and energy, well, tilting at windmills.

Speaking as a reader, I can honestly say no amount of anonymous internet negative reviews will keep me from checking out an interesting-looking book, just as no amount of anonymous five-star reviews will force me to buy it once I've checked it out.

I worry that the petitions to make reviewing difficult and non-anonymous is one of those simple, obvious, wrong solutions that is concealing some different, deeper problem.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

> Why worry about a one-star review at all, ever?


This hurts the sale of your book so an author should worry about it. I am leaning more and more toward Annie Rice's view.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> On the other side, I believe an author should have protection from being the target of someone who only wants to harm their career or intimidate them. In the case of indies, this is usually someone we know that doesn't like us and has some sort of grudge.
> 
> What is the answer? I wish I knew. But I know it's not to ban reviews or attack the readers.


I agree, because this does happen occasionally. However, we already have a solution that works: report reviews that are about the author, not the book, or that clearly state the reviewer never read the book (not that they didn't finish it because it bored them, but that they never even tried to read it.) That is already an option and it already works. Otherwise, there is no way to guarantee that somebody who leaves a review is being honest. It's just a risk you have to take. It's a cost of doing business.

Always remember that title, cover, blurb, and sample will do way more to sell a book than reviews will. And recommendations (either from friends or from algorithms) will do still more. Reviews typically only act as a final enticement for a reader who's still on the fence. In the grand scheme of things, they do not have as much impact on a writer's career as we think they do. We tend to give them much more weight than they're actually worth.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Alessandra Kelley said:


> Speaking as a reader, I can honestly say no amount of anonymous internet negative reviews will keep me from checking out an interesting-looking book, just as no amount of anonymous five-star reviews will force me to buy it once I've checked it out.


Negative reviews eventually are what caused me to try out John Locke's novels in the first place. I found him to be far more clever and entertaining than the negative hype.

He's not without his faults, as a writer, but who isn't? He spins an entertaining yarn most of the time, though.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

phildukephd said:


> *Amazon.com encourages spite reviews and personal attacks by not adequately moderating its Forums, not requiring that a Reviewer first purchase/read the ebook, and by turning a blind eye to obvious spite reviews.* A professional book reviewer (I was one) always signs the Review with his or her real name. I always did. Duke Ph,D.


OK, so how many of the Amazon *CUSTOMER REVIEWS* are professional reviewers? Come on! You do know the difference between a professional reviewer who is paid by a newspaper to write reviews and a customer opinion, correct?

_This right here is the entire problem._ Authors don't understand the fundamental difference between a professional reviewer and a customer reviewer. A customer doesn't own us anything other than buying a legal copy of the book. THAT IS ALL the customer owes us. They don't need to give me their real name if they want to state an opinion. They don't owe me that. They don't have to show me their writing credentials before offering an opinion. They don't owe me that.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Wild Rivers said:


> This hurts the sale of your book so an author should worry about it. I am leaning more and more toward Annie Rice's view.


If a single one-star review hurt one's overall sales so thoroughly, 99 percent of books on Amazon would sell nothing. Most books have some one-star reviews. It's part of a sign that your audience is growing.

Stephen King gets loads of 1-star reviews. And plenty of reviews at 2, 3, 4, and 5-star, too.

Now, when that's ALL you get....  ...maybe it's not the reviews hurting that author's sales. (I'm thinking of the get-rich opportunists, not anyone here....)


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

If you remove anonymity, you will have less reviews and/or eliminate honesty from a lot of reviewers. Angry, bitter people are angry and bitter regardless, so I honestly don't think it would solve anything. 

I also don't think bad reviews are bullying. It diminishes real cases of bullying to say so. I don't care if I get bad reviews. It's that readers opinion and they are entitled to it. That's the beautiful thing about a free country, and I'm glad every day that I live in one that allows people the freedom to say what they mean. I don't even care if they attack me personally. If they want to call me an idiot and a hack who shouldn't even write a grocery list, that's fine. It's their call. 

The only thing I think should be policed is physical threats against authors and their families. That's just wrong. And scary.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

> Stephen King gets loads of 1-star reviews. And plenty of reviews at 2, 3, 4, and 5-star, too.


I rather doubt that Steven King is happy when he gets 1-star reviews. He is an excellent author and doesn't desire any.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

Wild Rivers said:


> I rather doubt that Steven King is happy when he gets 1-star reviews. He is an excellent author and doesn't desire any.


At least he has the dollar bills to mop up the tears. Bad humour aside, I agree, I'm sure all writers feel the sting


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> The only thing I think should be policed is physical threats against authors and their families. That's just wrong. And scary.


I totally agree. That sort of vileness is unacceptable to use against anyone, no matter who they are or what their profession.

That's a matter of the law.

This petition is backed by a group of people who have made threats against people they don't like and their families and children. That Anne Rice has put her name to it shouldn't whitewash that.

Certain behaviors are always unacceptable.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> _This right here is the entire problem._ Authors don't understand the fundamental difference between a professional reviewer and a customer reviewer. A customer doesn't own us anything other than buying a legal copy of the book. THAT IS ALL the customer owes us. They don't need to give me their real name if they want to state an opinion. They don't owe me that. They don't have to show me their writing credentials before offering an opinion. They don't owe me that.


I could not possibly agree more. In fact, I agree so much, it's worth quoting a few more times.



> *This right here is the entire problem.*





> *This right here is the entire problem. *





> *This right here is the entire problem. *





> * This right here is the entire problem.*





Jana DeLeon said:


> If you remove anonymity, you will have less reviews and/or eliminate honesty from a lot of reviewers. Angry, bitter people are angry and bitter regardless, so I honestly don't think it would solve anything.
> 
> I also don't think bad reviews are bullying. It diminishes real cases of bullying to say so. I don't care if I get bad reviews. It's that readers opinion and they are entitled to it. That's the beautiful thing about a free country, and I'm glad every day that I live in one that allows people the freedom to say what they mean. I don't even care if they attack me personally. If they want to call me an idiot and a hack who shouldn't even write a grocery list, that's fine. It's their call.
> 
> The only thing I think should be policed is physical threats against authors and their families. That's just wrong. And scary.


In 100% agreement with everything Jana said above, too.

I'll also add that all the bad reviews I've received have come from people who appear to be using their real names. Removing anonymity wouldn't change anything, except to frighten some people away from sharing _any _ opinions at all, including good ones.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

This is the Internet, there's no way of knowing if a name and a real person are one and the same thing. Using a real name doesn't ensure that the person using that name has the same name in real life. We converse in a virtual world where no one is real.

So, anonymity has to be accepted whether we like it or not. One of the moderators on this forum locked a thread because a link was posted (by me) to a profile page on Amazon. There are thousands of links on this forum to Amazon Author pages, but no links must be added to profile pages on Amazon. Go figure. 

It's Amazon's website and for them to monitor it any way they see fit. As authors, we can ask to be treated with respect. We are reviewers too, and as reviewers we can ask to be treated with respect. That means being treated equally. If it's okay to link to an Author's page on Amazon, it should be okay to link to a profile page. Just my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Alessandra Kelley said:


> I think this whole mess is misdirected.
> 
> As a longtime reader it breaks my heart to see authors spending this much time and energy, well, tilting at windmills.
> 
> ...


At this point I regret posting it. My comments were directed toward anti-intimidation based on the stories told in the article. I never intended to touch off a firestorm of endless debate or to suggest that reviewers should be persecuted. I speak from the point of view of an indie writer. We generally don't deal with death threats and the like. For us, it usually someone who doesn't like us personally and tries to damage our reputation or prevent us from making a living. Such attacks can be very upsetting. In my case, I am accustomed to the occasional bad review. I figured out that if Tolkien gets them, who am I to think I won't? Ankle biting attacks on me from haters do not have an impact other than to pi$$ me off.


----------



## Lizbooks (Mar 15, 2013)

If an author can't handle bad or honest reviews, the only solution I see is for the author to stay out of reader spaces. Reviews aren't there for the author; they're there for other readers. And when you start arguing with or demonizing readers, nobody wins. Especially not you. 

There's always the argument that too many bad reviews means you can't get into some promo places, like Bookbub. In this case, the complaints should be for those promo places to change their policies, not toward readers for expressing their opinions.

As far as one-stars hurting sales...I always read the bad reviews and compare them with the good. Most readers are intelligent enough to recognize a spite review and give it the kind of weight it deserves.  

I didn't check out the Anne Rice Amazon thread posted. I do remember when she went through the reviews left on one of her books and left long comments about how the readers just weren't intelligent enough to understand what she'd written.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Shelagh said:


> It's Amazon's website and for them to monitor it any way they see fit. As authors, we can ask to be treated with respect. We are reviewers too, and as reviewers we can ask to be treated with respect. That means being treated equally. If it's okay to link to an Author's page on Amazon, it should be okay to link to a profile page. Just my opinion.


Do you know the difference between an author page and a profile page?

Author pages are MARKETING TOOLS, used by authors themselves, to promote their books. A profile page is the profile of a person who may or may not actually be involved in anything other than being a customer. Most Amazon customers don't even realize they HAVE a profile, which is why so many of them are empty.

Authors are public people. Customers are private citizens. As authors, we deliberately put ourselves out there in an effort to sell books. Customers generally are just talking about books with other customers.

Or to give you a real world comparison:

If I am doing a book signing and someone snaps my picture and posts it online, well, I'm doing a book signing where I went out of my way to promote myself.

If someone in the aisles says to another customer "I don't like this book" there is no reason to take that person's picture and post it online. The person, despite being in a public place, is engaging in a private conversation with another customer. They are merely voicing an opinion.

It is the same thing with Amazon. As an author, I am going out of my way to be "seen" on Amazon. Customer reviewers, on the other hand, are just talking to each other about books.

I'm curious as to what your reason was for linking to a person's profile? What was the goal? I suspect is was not benign.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

> At this point I regret posting it. My comments were directed toward anti-intimidation based on the stories told in the article. I never intended to touch off a firestorm of endless debate or to suggest that reviewers should be persecuted.


Brian, I used to post frequently. Too much of the time, I regreted doing it since it got into a big fight. Even when I thought the posting was not likely to cause any problems it still blew up. As a result I stopped making postings except when I couldn't help myself.

Unfortunately sweet and lovely postings rarely get many comments.


----------



## dankrubis (Nov 5, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> At this point I regret posting it.


I find this author bullying debate so interesting. On the one hand, yes, people have free speech and can say whatever they want. If a reader purchases a product and hates it, they're allowed to be as nasty as they please. On the other hand, there are people out there that read books they hate just so they can flay it in public with thousands of incendiary words and multiple gifs. Like it's a competition to tear down a book in the grandest fashion.

Nathan Bransford blogged about bullies on Goodreads (something I'm sure he regrets as well), and the vitriol displayed by both sides of the isle was truly fascinating. http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2013/09/the-bullies-of-goodreads.html

Discussion gets very heated on the matter. It's like religion or politics.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Do you know the difference between an author page and a profile page?
> 
> Author pages are MARKETING TOOLS, used by authors themselves, to promote their books. A profile page is the profile of a person who may or may not actually be involved in anything other than being a customer. Most Amazon customers don't even realize they HAVE a profile, which is why so many of them are empty.
> 
> ...


This is gobbledegook. If I post a review on Amazon, I agree to give Amazon sole rights to use that review any way they want. It's public. It's in the public domain. It is not in the least bit private. It's there for customers to read. The reviewers' usernames are linked to their profile pages so that customers can read all their reviews. Authors who are reviewers have profile pages and Author pages (if they choose to join Author Central).


----------



## dave_flora (Jan 26, 2014)

You know, there is just less and less anonymity on the internet nowadays as so many services are interlinked ("Would you like to sign in using your Facebook account?  Click here!").  I don't expect this trend to subside as web services become more connected.  I imagine, in a few years, you'll only have one identity..your own.  Yes, less freedom, and less anonymous trolling.  Welcome to the future.


----------



## josephdevon (Feb 6, 2014)

Alessandra Kelley said:


> I think this whole mess is misdirected.
> 
> As a longtime reader it breaks my heart to see authors spending this much time and energy, well, tilting at windmills.


But the internet runs on energy harvested from tilting at windmills!!!11!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Shelagh said:


> This is gobbledegook. If I post a review on Amazon, I agree to give Amazon sole rights to use that review any way they want.


Which has nothing to do with an author trying to embarrass or intimidate a reviewer by drawing attention to the reviewer's profile page in an effort to create a lynch mob.

I went and found your thread. KB has a WHOA policy (What happens on Amazon stays on Amazon). You violated KB's policy by publicly calling out a reviewer whom you felt wronged you. You had no benign intentions with your post. You were upset that you got a bad review, and you were making an effort to discredit the reviewer. We don't do that on KB. Seriously, if you can't see the difference between what you did and the typical posts where authors link to their own author pages, then you are part of the problem.

If someone posted a link to an author page here on KB for the expressed purpose of ridiculing the author, that thread would get locked just as quick. INTENT MATTERS around here.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

I love you Julie


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

BrianDAnderson, it is rare thing (in my experience) to see someone who had started out in an internet discussion with a specific opinion later admit that in the course of listening to all the arguments in the discussion, he had changed his mind. That takes a mature and open mind.

I don't think you should regret posting this thread. Impassioned discussion of both (or various) sides of an issue are not something to be avoided, although many people seem to have little or no tolerance for differences of opinion these days. I don't think anyone has gotten out of line in this particular discussion, and maybe airing the various viewpoints will have given a lot of those who lurk but don't participate something more to think about.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> if you don't want opinions that disagree with you, don't write books.


Agreed. It's impossible to write a book that everyone loves. 
As much as I want it to be, life is not all rainbows and glitter. Win some, lose some, but whatever you do, do it with grace. I know I can't please every reader who comes across my work. I don't know about the rest of you, but heck if there are actually people in real life who don't like me. I know-shocking, right?
So I focus on people who like me in real life, and when I write, I write for those who enjoy my stories.


----------



## MonaM (Jan 13, 2014)

Sam Kates said:


> Yes, it's a store - a store that encourages reviews of its products. So arguably it's a review site, too.
> 
> I understand what you're saying about the verified purchase but the counter-argument to this (that you've probably seen elsewhere), and it's particularly persuasive in the book context, is that ownership of the book does not necessarily mean that the owner has actually read it. Since many complaints that I've seen about reviews question whether the reviewer even read the book, the 'verified purchaser' tag loses ground in the debate.


Yeah, I'd much rather have a review - even a bad one - from someone who's actually engaged with my book, no matter where they got it from.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, folks...

Back from vacation, had to shovel my walk this morning. 

Anyway, I thought I'd step in to address a misconception and to clarify our WHOA policy (though Julie did a pretty good job, thought it might help to come from one of the Mod Squad).

Shelagh, you said, in part:



Shelagh said:


> One of the moderators on this forum locked a thread because a link was posted (by me) to a profile page on Amazon. There are thousands of links on this forum to Amazon Author pages, but no links must be added to profile pages on Amazon. Go figure.


To clarify, the thread was not locked because you included a link. That link was removed, which is what is typically done. The thread was locked, as I said in-thread, because it had turned into a general dumping ground on reviewers and the original question had been answered.



Betsy the Quilter said:


> And a reminder to people that links to Amazon reviews aren't allowed. General questions, such as the OP, are OK, but links to reviews, no. *And this thread has turned into a general dumping on reviewers which has already caused one reader-member to ask me to delete their account.
> 
> Since the OP's question has been answered, both here and by Amazon,  I'm going to lock this thread and leave it locked.
> *


*

So, next issue....

You also said:



It's Amazon's website and for them to monitor it any way they see fit. As authors, we can ask to be treated with respect. We are reviewers too, and as reviewers we can ask to be treated with respect. That means being treated equally. If it's okay to link to an Author's page on Amazon, it should be okay to link to a profile page. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

We don't allow links to reviews here, in part, because our experience has been that people follow the link and start downvoting the review in an effort to be helpful (I think) and then it starts a cycle of the reviewer and his or her friends one-starring the authors who have posted in the thread, who may or may not be the ones who did the downvoting. If an author has a problem with a review on Amazon, the place to deal with it is on Amazon. (Hence the WHOA acronym.) If an author (or reviewer) wants to post links to their own profile, that's a different matter entirely.

If links to an author's profile page or book thread were posted here for the purpose of stirring things up against that author, we would also remove the link, as was done recently in a thread about the Driven Trilogy.

I hope this clarifies things...

Betsy
KB Moderator*


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Nathalie Aynié said:


> I want to come at your door and pat you on the head and feed you chocolate to guilt-trip you into reading my books.


I respond better to jelly bellys.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I respond better to jelly bellys.


YOU DRIVE A HARD BARGAIN.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> At this point I regret posting it. My comments were directed toward anti-intimidation based on the stories told in the article. I never intended to touch off a firestorm of endless debate or to suggest that reviewers should be persecuted.


No, please don't regret it! A whole lot of authors don't realize what That Website is all about, and don't know the other side of the story of Goodreads (which is tied up in the whole spillover of "Bullying reviews on Amazon!!1!11") It's important for authors to know both sides of the story, because I for one would really love to see all the anti-Goodreads sentiment among authors vanish. It doesn't need to be wafting around; it's largely unfounded. The more people read discussions like this one, the likelier they are to question why they feel they way they do about reviews and reviewers. Discussions like this can point out our weaknesses as a community and help make us better.



> In my case, I am accustomed to the occasional bad review. I figured out that if Tolkien gets them, who am I to think I won't? Ankle biting attacks on me from haters do not have an impact other than to pi$$ me off.


Exactly. This is the best possible attitude to have about it.


----------



## Azi (Mar 6, 2014)

As an author, all of this holds great interest to me. I should be writing my next novel instead of reading Kboard threads but, well, there you have it.  Procrastination is a writer thing, right?

I've read the threads on author bullying, reader bullying, reviewer bullying. It's disheartening, all of it.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, it's clear that writers have to develop a thick skin to survive in this business. Our work is in the public domain and the public has a right to voice their opinions. On the other hand, there are clearly a few bullies out there who get some kind of sadistic pleasure out of ridiculing and trashing books they don't like. I'm not talking a thoughtful 1 or 2 star review -- those can be very useful to a writer. I'm talking reviews that are clearly over the top, using gifs and all caps and ridicule to attack a book, its author and any readers who liked the book.

I'm sure we've seen examples of this kind of review before. I've received a few. Boy, do they sting! Some of them are really funny and I have to admire the caustic wit of the writer, but I try not to let them get under my skin or else I'd stop writing. I do try to learn from all my reviews, bad and good. If reviewers give you lemons, make lemonade! If you're deterred from writing by a few bad reviews, this business is not for you.

I've been a writer and beta reader for about a decade, as a fan fiction writer, in crit groups, and for the past two years as a self-published author, and so I am used to having my work subject to review and criticism. Although I do my very best to put the best product out, I'm a grownup and have resigned myself to the fact that not everyone is going to like my books. Writers have to expect that. As a reader, I don't like every book I read so why should I expect everyone to like mine?

As such, I NEVER complain about any bad reviews, although I do like to talk about the good ones. 

I never leave reviews for books I'd rate less than 4 stars. I don't have the time to waste on books I didn't like. Besides, when I _do_ dislike a book, and would give it a 1 or 2 star rating if I did such things, I find that there are usually dozens to hundreds of other readers who LOVED it! How can that possibly happen? How could other people like a book I don't like?  Clearly they must be total idiots... Joking of course.

I've seen reviewers giving 1 star ratings to books, and then question the taste of other readers who did like the book and gave it a high rating. You know what I mean -- HOW DID THIS BOOK GET SO MANY FIVE STAR REVIEWS WHEN I THINK IT STINKS!

I realized I wasn't smarter than everyone else long ago and so I stopped leaving bad reviews.

That's why I don't leave low ratings. I would never want my 1 star review to put off a potential reader from a book they might love, just because I didn't love it. I figure they can read a sample of the book and decide for themselves. I don't find reviews all that helpful to me as a reader, since I often dislike books with high ratings and loved books with lower ratings. I check out the cover, read the blurb, and then try the sample. If I don't like it, I stop reading and move on.

I tend to think -- promote the things you love, rather than bash the things you hate. It makes your life a whole lot better to focus on the good things.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

MonaM said:


> Yeah, I'd much rather have a review - even a bad one - from someone who's actually engaged with my book, no matter where they got it from.


Me, too.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Which has nothing to do with an author trying to embarrass or intimidate a reviewer by drawing attention to the reviewer's profile page in an effort to create a lynch mob.
> 
> I went and found your thread. KB has a WHOA policy (What happens on Amazon stays on Amazon). You violated KB's policy by publicly calling out a reviewer whom you felt wronged you. You had no benign intentions with your post. You were upset that you got a bad review, and you were making an effort to discredit the reviewer. We don't do that on KB. Seriously, if you can't see the difference between what you did and the typical posts where authors link to their own author pages, then you are part of the problem.
> 
> If someone posted a link to an author page here on KB for the expressed purpose of ridiculing the author, that thread would get locked just as quick. INTENT MATTERS around here.


Gobbledegook, again. I was not upset.  I was not trying to embarrass anyone.  Lynch mob? Pleeeeeease choose your words wisely.  I was not wronged.  I did not post a link to a review on my book (I never mentioned my book).  Benign intentions? LOL! I was supporting the OP! 

The thread was about reviewers not reading books. I gave an example. I linked to a reviewer's profile page so that members here could judge for themselves. At least one member checked out the reviews and took an opposing view. I said she was quite entitled to do so; that was her choice.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hi, folks...
> 
> Back from vacation, had to shovel my walk this morning.
> 
> ...


I didn't post a link to a review on any of my books. I did not mention the title of my book. If members here follow links so that they can start downvoting reviews, I am in very bad company. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## LanelleH (Jul 4, 2013)

I guess I'm one of  those few authors who gets excited at the thought of getting any type of review, good or bad.  : )


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

I have been hesitating to post on this thread. But then I thought I'd say this:

Yes, I have been affected by bad reviews. Yes, I have posted about them here, like so many others, looking for sympathy. So I'm not squeaky clean in that regard. But lately, like three or four weeks ago, I decided not look at my reviews anymore. And I haven't. Not a clue if there is any abuse there or not. Or if readers say my books are rubbish or poorly written or if they are going to come to my house, tucked away in the hills of County Tipperary, Ireland to kill me. 

What you don't know, can't hurt you. Deciding not to look at reviews has been such a great relief. I would really recommend it. Really, truly. Just stop.

And... I just know this: You can't stop bullies. But abusive reviews won't stop genuine readers, looking for a good read in your genre, buying your books. And by those reviews the bullies dig their own graves, don't they? You don't need to point the finger at them They do that all by themselves.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

I'll be retreating from my own thread after this. 

Customers and reviewers have the right to say what they want. They should be able to be anonymous if they so choose. Writers should be able to take the criticism.

An indie starting out (or even established) should not be a victim to some bloody neighbor who hates him/her and has five friends with amazon accounts who only want to cause harm.

No one should be subject to threats whether they be a writer or reader.

Beyond that I have no answers.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Susanne OLeary said:


> I have been hesitating to post on this thread. But then I thought I'd say this:
> 
> Yes, I have been affected by bad reviews. Yes, I have posted about them here, like so many others, looking for sympathy. So I'm not squeaky clean in that regard. But lately, like three or four weeks ago, I decided not look at my reviews anymore. And I haven't. Not a clue if there is any abuse there or not. Or if readers say my books are rubbish or poorly written or if they are going to come to my house, tucked away in the hills of County Tipperary, Ireland to kill me.
> 
> What you don't know, can't hurt you. Deciding not to look at reviews has been such a great relief. I would really recommend it. Really, truly. Just stop.


But then you miss out on those reviews that reduce you to tears. Those gems written my readers who understood, appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed your work. Just one of those makes ten years of writing worth all the effort.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

Shelagh said:


> But then you miss out on those reviews that reduce you to tears. Those gems written my readers who understood, appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed your work. Just one of those makes ten years of writing worth all the effort.


I get lovely e-mails from readers. And very nice posts on my FB page. That's enough for me.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Susanne OLeary said:


> I get lovely e-mails from readers. And very nice posts on my FB page. That's enough for me.


You make people hungry and want to move to Ireland.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> You make people hungry and want to move to Ireland.


That's exactly what I was aiming for.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Barbie Hall said:


> I guess I'm one of those few authors who gets excited at the thought of getting any type of review, good or bad. : )


This is one of those times I wish the forum had the ability to 'upvote' or 'like' a post 



> An indie starting out (or even established) should not be a victim to some bloody neighbor who hates him/her and has five friends with amazon accounts who only want to cause harm.
> 
> No one should be subject to threats whether they be a writer or reader.


An indie just starting out had better learn that the world is not made of rainbows and unicorns. We've all taken our lumps, and it has made all (well, most) of us better for it. If you can't learn to ignore bad reviews, you probably shouldn't be publishing stories for others to read.

I do agree about threats. This is usually taken care of by Amazon. But making five accounts just to give a 1-star review, as ugly and ignorant as that is, is still better left to let readers decide about.

I've yet to see proof that a bad review has affected any sales for any author. I don't think it can be proven.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

A note to all the authors here: do not be intimidated into believing that if you speak out about false reviews (any star rating from 1 to 5), you will then suffer as a consequence and alienate readers. 

I have a permanently free book on Amazon.com. The number of daily downloads has dwindled over the last year and this month began particularly slowly. The KDP report showed 0 downloads for March 1 & 2, then one per day for March 3, 4 and 5. The Best Seller rank was around #20,000. About two hours ago I checked my KDP reports and it showed a total of 43 downloads; that's 40 downloads today. The book dips in and out of the top 100 free in Children's books categories. I checked the rank and it was #89 in one category. A minute ago, I checked again and the rank was up to #3,082: 

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,082 Free in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Free in Kindle Store)
#20 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Fantasy
#27 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Children's eBooks > Science Fiction, Fantasy & Scary Stories > Fantasy & Magic

I have said many times in posts on the Amazon discussion boards that those who visit and read the discussions threads are the intelligent readers I am trying to attract to read my books. They know who they are and I have complete trust in their integrity. The Amazon mafia who have nothing better to do with their time than to downvote and leave spiteful reviews are not the readers I seek; in fact, they are to be avoided.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2014)

Shelagh said:


> A note to all the authors here: do not be intimidated into believing that if you speak out about false reviews (any star rating from 1 to 5), you will then suffer as a consequence and alienate readers.
> 
> I have a permanently free book on Amazon.com. The number of daily downloads has dwindled over the last year and this month began particularly slowly. The KDP report showed 0 downloads for March 1 & 2, then one per day for March 3, 4 and 5. The Best Seller rank was around #20,000. About two hours ago I checked my KDP reports and it showed a total of 43 downloads; that's 40 downloads today. The book dips in and out of the top 100 free in Children's books categories. I checked the rank and it was #89 in one category. A minute ago, I checked again and the rank was up to #3,082:
> 
> ...


I got bored and decided to check the amount of reviews for each of the books you have listed in your signature. As I expected, none of the books in your signature have more than 14 or 15 reviews, tops. The people who complain about reviews always seem to be the ones who don't have a ton of them. The ones who aren't complaining, the ones with a hundred or more reviews for each of their books, don't have time for that.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> I got bored and decided to check the amount of reviews for each of the books you have listed in your signature. As I expected, none of the books in your signature have more than 14 or 15 reviews, tops. The people who complain about reviews always seem to be the ones who don't have a ton of them. The ones who aren't complaining, the ones with a hundred or more reviews for each of their books, don't have time for that.


Thanks for checking out my books, Jolie ... but, crumbs, if I had a hundred reviews I wouldn't be the one complaining -- that would be the Amazon mafia claiming that most were posted by my friends and family and the rest were paid for.

I have to apologise for not checking out your books; maybe when I have more time, I will do.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> I got bored and decided to check the amount of reviews for each of the books you have listed in your signature. As I expected, none of the books in your signature have more than 14 or 15 reviews, tops. The people who complain about reviews always seem to be the ones who don't have a ton of them. The ones who aren't complaining, the ones with a hundred or more reviews for each of their books, don't have time for that.


This is a big part of it, obviously. If someone has 5 reviews with a 4-star average, it only takes a single 1-star to drop that quite a bit, which can ruin the author's chances at some promotional opportunities where a certain star average is required. A bad review is much more obvious when there are only a handful to start with. And I can't provide research data, but I've watched friends and acquaintances get upset at the sudden sales drop than can accompany a bad Amazon review, especially if it's one of few and it remains at the top, up-voted and such. It does happen, and I don't understand the wisdom in pretending that it doesn't.

Is there something to be done about it? Nope. That's just how it goes.

Of course, abusive and possibly libelous reviews, such as one containing a death threat or the accusation of someone being a rapist or a child molester (and there have been those), should be flagged, and Amazon should remove them. (And if they refuse, I would suggest keeping at it until you get someone who will, because those are not the kinds of content Amazon wants in the end.) But negative reviews are not abuse or bullying, and should be left alone.

Anne Rice has hundreds, thousands, of reviews across Amazon, and she chose to engage people over a bad one, remember. So it's not always the newer indies and less-experienced authors who bristle and overreact and complain. She's hardly the first. Quite a few "big name" writers with plenty of reviews have had Internet meltdowns, some so cringe-worthy and embarrassing I couldn't even read the entire things. But I don't think they represent any majority. Especially not Anne Rice, whom I love as a huge source of encouragement for new writers, but who has an apparently gigantic ego and could hardly be thought of as someone with even and calm reasoning skills.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The gatekeepers are gone. 

Publishers and agents were gatekeepers who controlled what was published.

Newspapers and magazine editors were gatekeepers who controlled reviews.

Folks who want to publish reviews have benefitted just as those who want to publish books have benefited.

Nobody is in charge.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2014)

Shelagh said:


> Thanks for checking out my books, Jolie ... but, crumbs, if I had a hundred reviews I wouldn't be the one complaining -- that would be the Amazon mafia claiming that most were posted by my friends and family and the rest were paid for.
> 
> I have to apologise for not checking out your books; maybe when I have more time, I will do.


My indie book hasn't been published yet.  When it does, I would love to receive at least 100 reviews. Of those 100 reviews I hope for, I'm certain some of them will be one star. When that happens, the only people I'll be complaining to are to my hubby and to my close friends - certainly not to a public board.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2014)

shelleyo1 said:


> This is a big part of it, obviously. If someone has 5 reviews with a 4-star average, it only takes a single 1-star to drop that quite a bit, which can ruin the author's chances at some promotional opportunities where a certain star average is required. A bad review is much more obvious when there are only a handful to start with. And I can't provide research data, but I've watched friends and acquaintances get upset at the sudden sales drop than can accompany a bad Amazon review, especially if it's one of few and it remains at the top, up-voted and such. It does happen, and I don't understand the wisdom in pretending that it doesn't.
> 
> Is there something to be done about it? Nope. That's just how it goes.
> 
> ...


Hugh Howey got at least 100 one star reviews for WOOL.

But, I'm sure he's fine.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Hugh Howey got at least 100 one star reviews for WOOL.
> 
> But, I'm sure he's fine.


Sure, especially since he has over 5k 5-stars to offset them. But even Hugh commented on at least a couple of his earlier 1-star reviews at Amazon. I think everybody's tempted at some point.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> Sure, especially since he has over 5k 5-stars to offset them. But even Hugh commented on at least a couple of his earlier 1-star reviews at Amazon. I think everybody's tempted at some point.


I love that when you do an Amazon search on "wool," you get a bunch of books by Hugh and three pairs of socks.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Wild Rivers said:


> I rather doubt that Steven King is happy when he gets 1-star reviews. He is an excellent author and doesn't desire any.


Never said he was thrilled. I said he gets 'em and knows how to handle it like a pro.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

Anne rice recently put out a petition asking that Amazon require people posting reviews on their site to use their real names from now on. She claims hat this is to cut down the the amount of cyberbullying a lot of authors, particularly indie authors, have to endure from trolls and others of their ilk.

I'm inclined to support this petition, but not out of a desire to drive online jerks back into their mothers basements where they belong. Bad reviews are a fact of life for any author (indeed for many of us just starting out, ANY review is better than none...) Instead, it would address a bigger problem Amazon and other online reviews have - cut down the fake posters and spammers who are gaming the system.

If you go online at Amazon and look up most any genre fiction (I write fantasy, so I'm most familiar with that...) the amount of five stars for even the most obscure indie work is mindboggling. Judging by the glowing reviews for the latest vampire romances, cut and past epic fantasy or Hunger Games knockoffs, we're living in a golden age of literature, with a whole army of future Tolkien's coming up the pike. Of course that's not the case...it's pretty easy to get around Amazon's restrictions and there are a bunch of marketing types out there making a lot of money from desperate authors, assuming those authors aren't making the effort themselves.

It used to be that when you read a review of some unknown authors work and it was good, it meant that it was actually good, that the reviewer read the book and gave it his honest opinion. But it's gotten to the point where Amazon book reviews just can't be trusted anymore, where anything with a five-star rating is automatically suspect. We all want to get ahead, I understand the motivation, but in the long run this will only hurt the indie writer community as a whole. Online reviews are one of the most effective ways for an unknown writer to get known, but they only matter IF THEY ARE HONEST, if they separate the good works from the bad. If they become a marketing tool for publicists, where good reviews go to those willing to spend money or spam the system, instead of going to stories that are actually worth reading, than the review system loses credibility and we lose out.

That's why I think this petition is an (inadvertantly) good idea. What do other writers think?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

FYI, there was a long thread on this petition yesterday: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,180458.0.html


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> What do other writers think?


I doubt consumers care.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

"Nearly 3,000 people have signed the petition so far and Anne Rice, perhaps best known for her novel Interview with the Vampire, is one of several authors who have added their name to the cause."

http://www.cbc.ca/books/2014/03/anne-rice-urges-amazon-to-stop-author-bullying.html


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

Zackery Arbela said:


> ... If you go online at Amazon and look up most any genre fiction (I write fantasy, so I'm most familiar with that...) the amount of five stars for even the most obscure indie work is mindboggling. Judging by the glowing reviews for the latest vampire romances, cut and past epic fantasy or Hunger Games knockoffs, we're living in a golden age of literature, with a whole army of future Tolkien's coming up the pike. Of course that's not the case...it's pretty easy to get around Amazon's restrictions and there are a bunch of marketing types out there making a lot of money from desperate authors, assuming those authors aren't making the effort themselves.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's why I think this petition is an (inadvertantly) good idea. What do other writers think?


The problem here is what you are talking about is author fraud aimed at falsely inflating books' ratings. What Ms. Rice and the other sponsors of the petition (about which more in a moment) are proposing has nothing to do with combating that.

Ms. Rice and the others are trying to address an entirely different issue: that sometimes anonymous readers are free to express opinions in public that authors may not like.

But what she and they are proposing is more likely to make precious real, honest readers and reviewers feel unsafe and unwelcome online and drive them far, far away from being willing to review books again.

As for the other sponsors of the petition, they are a website of ironically anonymous posters who have harrassed and published information about online reviewers they have decided are mean. I will not link to them, but they are well known to those who have followed stories of Goodreads bullies.

These people have published reviewers' names, photos, addresses, employers, and family names and *the names of minor children* related to reviewers as part of their own anonymous campaign of harassment of those they label bullies.

They have been bragging about this petition and its connection to Anne Rice.

I'm sorry I have to keep bringing this up. But it's important people know the context and background of this petition.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Also, as someone else mentioned earlier, this petition has a pretty paltry number of signers in comparison to how well-known Anne Rice is. That should make people stop and think before adding their names. If so few people have rushed in to support this cause, maybe there's good reason to think it through really, really carefully.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2014)

LeeBee said:


> Also, as someone else mentioned earlier, this petition has a pretty paltry number of signers in comparison to how well-known Anne Rice is. That should make people stop and think before adding their names. If so few people have rushed in to support this cause, maybe there's good reason to think it through really, really carefully.


And honestly, let's get some real context here. It is an ONLINE petition! I can start a change.org petition right now demanding that Obama produce his real birth certificate and have 5,000 signatures by the end of the day if I post it on the Fox News forum. (and in the interest of balance, I can do the same thing to Ted Cruz at HuffPo's forum.) Online petitions are for lazy people who don't want to do the real work of actually being involved. Has an online petition ever resulted in anything fundamentally important? At best, they become PR tools where a company might change a policy it didn't overly care about and then it lets people think they have power and then the company can say "See, we listened to you" and everyone forgives them for being a bastard in the first place (Xbox One, I'm looking at you). But even then, it isn't the petition that hurts but the (often unrelated) impact on their bottom line that leads to the change. Up until E3, Xbox had doubled-down on all the stuff people hated and were petitioning over (and there were tons of petitions going around). It wasn't until Sony came out and said "Nope, we're not going to do all that stupid stuff" that Microsoft changed it's policies and claimed they were "listening to customers."


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

The negativity among authors on this forum is disappointing. The review system is corrupt. This is a universally accepted fact. Whether Amazon changes policy or not remains to be seen.

Customer discussions are hard to find on the Amazon website. What was once a lively place for discussions is difficult to find for new visitors to the site. When customers complained bitterly about what could and could not be posted, and demanded a separate forum for self-published authors, Amazon complied (they do listen to customer complaints!). The complaining customers didn't win. Amazon found that the discussions were less and less useful at producing sales and allowed them to die (you no longer see a list of links to customer discussions on product pages).

If the review system can be improved without adversely affecting sales, and might actually increase sales, Amazon will make the necessary changes. Bowing to customer pressure doesn't always work (as proved on Customer Discussions -- giving customers what they demanded did not increase sales). Bowing to pressure from KDP users might actually work in Amazon's favour. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, for those interested in following the debate, here's another take on the petition:

http://time.com/13137/cyberbullying-amazon-review-petition/


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

In the hands of groups that know what they're doing, online petitions can be effective as one tool among many in a given campaign. As the sole tool, no, they usually accomplish nothing. And a group that is using only an online petition is definitely one that doesn't know what it's doing.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> The review system is corrupt. This is a universally accepted fact.


No. This is your opinion. This is not a fact. Please do not relay opinions as facts.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Forcing users to post under real names is controversial on any website. Look at what happened to YouTube when Google started requiring real names and signing up for a Google+ account -- furious backlash and a petition with over 100,000 signatures:

http://www.zdnet.com/forced-google-plus-integration-on-youtube-backfires-petition-hits-112000-7000023196/
ZDNet, Nov. 14, 2013, "Forced Google Plus integration on YouTube backfires, petition hits 110,000."

According to users, the use of real names and G+ accounts has not stopped people from making nasty comments on YouTube videos. In fact it has gotten worse because the new system places the most popular (most controversial) comments at the top. Google also has no length limit on comments now, so the bad guys can post very long nasty comments. They also allow posting links. ZDNet says "spam and obscenity is rampant."

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/25/web-trolls-anonymity-huffington-post
The Guardian, Aug. 25, 2013, "Banish the trolls, but web debate needs anonymity."
Good article with citations to studies by the South Korean government and the Disqus commenting system on how real name requirements did not cut down on abusive comments, and failed to improve the quality of discussions. Too long to summarize here, but the Disqus study is especially interesting because it covered 60 million users and 500 million comments.

From the Guardian article, about Huffington Post requiring real names: "But obliging commenters to use their real names will have costs as well as benefits. Chief among the former will be a significant reduction in the volume of commenting, at least in the short term, which in turn will adversely affect the site's advertising revenues."

This is the risk Amazon would have to face if it required real names on reviews: fewer reviews, resulting in lower sales volumes, if consumers are depending on reviews to make a purchase decision. Consumers may leave the Amazon site and search for the product at other, more reviewer-friendly sites where anonymity is still allowed. Once on those sites, they might buy there instead of returning to Amazon.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

AngryGames said:


> No. This is your opinion. This is not a fact. Please do not relay opinions as facts.


It isn't my opinion. It isn't Hugh Howey's opinion either. It is something he has written about, though:

http://www.hughhowey.com/very-small-rocks/


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2014)

Shelagh said:


> The negativity among authors on this forum is disappointing. The review system is corrupt.


It is. Not because of "bullies." But because of authors behaving badly. I've never had a reader bully me. I have had authors threaten me with bodily harm, call my house to harass me, send me threatening emails, and vandalize my book pages all over "bad" reviews. So yes, the system IS corrupted because of too many AUTHORS who are too thin-skinned to deal with the truth.



> This is a universally accepted fact.


I'm beginning to think you function in a different universe than me.



> Customer discussions are hard to find on the Amazon website. What was once a lively place for discussions is difficult to find for new visitors to the site. When customers complained bitterly about what could and could not be posted, and demanded a separate forum for self-published authors, Amazon complied (they do listen to customer complaints!). The complaining customers didn't win. Amazon found that the discussions were less and less useful at producing sales and allowed them to die (you no longer see a list of links to customer discussions on product pages).


Do you even understand WHY self-published authors got relegated to a separate forum? Because they...

*constantly spammed every thread with BUY MY BOOK
*constantly thread-jacked conversations to hawk their books
*attacked reviewers and posters whenever someone complained about the poor quality of self-published books
*generally behaved like...BULLIES to anyone who reminded them that they were breaking forum rules.



> If the review system can be improved without adversely affecting sales, and might actually increase sales, Amazon will make the necessary changes. Bowing to customer pressure doesn't always work (as proved on Customer Discussions -- giving customers what they demanded did not increase sales). Bowing to pressure from KDP users might actually work in Amazon's favour. Time will tell.


Methinks Amazon knows full well what does and does not sell books. The review system DOES work to sell books. The problem is that individual authors don't seem to understand it is not necessarily designed to sell self-published books. Amazon doesn't particularly care if a customer buys your book, my book, or Dan Brown's newest book so long as the customer buys something. So in that regard, the Amazon system does exactly what it is supposed to do.
[/quote]


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

I forgot to say, that no author, no matter how successful, should be forced to make a declaration of innocence. Bullies should not wield this kind of power over authors. Of course, you will have to read to the end of the blog post to see Hugh's declaration.


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Julie, read Hugh's blog post and then get back to me.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Shelagh said:


> I forgot to say, that no author, no matter how successful, should be forced to make a declaration of innocence. Bullies should not wield this kind of power over authors. Of course, you will have to read to the end of the blog post to see Hugh's declaration.


Actually, Hugh posted his declaration here at the time and there was quite a discussion.
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,162945.0.html

Betsy


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Actually, Hugh posted his declaration here at the time and there was quite a discussion.
> 
> Betsy


Maybe you could provide a link, Betsy, to enlighten those who missed the discussion.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's chill, folks....

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Shelagh said:


> Maybe you could provide a link, Betsy, to enlighten those who missed the discussion.


Already added. I had to go look it up.

Betsy


----------



## &#039; (May 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Already added. I had to go look it up.
> 
> Betsy


Thanks, Betsy! Knowledge is power.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ok, let's get back to discussing ideas and not each other.  I'm going to go back, read through and prune some posts...

Ease up, I don't want to have to lock the thread.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

