# My take on the Amazon review system



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

So many threads on the Amazon review system. Petition here. Petition there. Take DNA samples of any reviewer before they can post. Allow reviewers to accuse authors of pedophilia, high treason and other smears without retribution. Reviews matter. Reviews don’t matter.

So I’ve got an idea: Get rid of the whole thing. I’m sick of it. I’m so tired of walking on eggshells over anything I publicly post, say and sometimes even think. And I can see no good reason for the thing to even exist. Goodreads? Fine. Blogs and review sites? Great! Freedom of speech and all that. But Amazon’s review system is outdated and no longer necessary. It is doing nothing but dividing writers and readers. Innocents, on both sides of the equation, are being damaged every day. It has turned into an industry within an industry.

I wasn’t there, but various books and articles have documented the genius that was Mr. Bezos in the early days. Internet shopping, especially for books, was in it’s infancy at the time. People were hesitant to purchase anything online because they couldn’t see or touch it. Peer reviews made sense. They could put the customer at ease over ordering something they couldn’t hold and feel.

But that’s no longer the case. Internet shopping, even without reviews, is now mainstream. So why are we all bashing our heads against a wall that serves no purpose? 

New writers want reviews so desperately. They think it sells books, or at least is a reason why they aren’t selling books. But if the system wasn’t there, the purchasing decision would be based on other aspects of the product, just like thousands of internet purchases made every day. Why should books be any different?

For those who don’t feel the review system has any impact on sales, then there’s no need for the system to be there- right? For those who feel rape-gangs of review bullies patrol the cyber halls of Amazon looking for prey, then you would be better off without it - right? Everybody wins if we get rid of it. Who loses? I can't think of anyone. Readers no longer will be influenced by other (true or false) opinions. They can spend the same amount of time researching the product (look inside, Goodreads, product specifications, samples, blogs) as reading reviews and make their own decisions.

There have been three separate instances where my income as a writer has been severely impacted by that review system. Think I’m paranoid or justifying a terrible book’s performance on a bad review? Perhaps. But I was approached (2012) by a marketing company that not only offered to “boost” my review average with “hundreds” of Amazon accounts that were ripe with “purchase history” and beyond reproach. 

Want to talk about paranoia? This firm also offered to “lower the review averages” of the competing books in my genera. Now, I turned them down immediately. That’s not my way. But did everybody? Did an author with lower morals take them up on it? How many companies/bad actors are doing something similar? When my books do well and climb the lists, I expect the knives come out, and they do.

It would be so easy to game the Amazon system. I can go buy $50 worth of pre-loaded Visa cards at Walmart. There's no name on them... no address. I can set up multiple Amazon accounts. I can go download a few .99 cent books, wait a few weeks, post a few innocent reviews and then get to work trashing anybody I want too. I can use VPNs to mask my IP. Easy as pie. Buy one copy on each account, tear it a new one with a review, and then return the purchase. Cake.

How do I know this, you might be asking? In late 2012, a small firm out of NYC dumped 26 one-star hits on four of my books. It wasn’t only old Joe who got nailed – every other book in the top 10 of the genera got smeared. All the same day, all with the exact same reviews, word for word. I have a one-inch thick file of the screen shots. I asked the Amazon rep how they had managed to do that. She described the above method.

If they hadn’t messed up (I assume) by repeating the text of the reviews, Amazon might not have deleted them. One of them still resides on a title of mine to this day. It took Amazon four weeks to figure it all out. During that time, my sales went from 250 books per day to less than 20. After the reviews were deleted, sales went back up to normal levels. So please don’t say reviews don’t make a difference – I know they do.

I recently released a 11 hour audio book. One hour and fifteen minutes after it went live, it was trashed on Audible. "I could barely finish this book," the reviewer wrote. Huh? How? How do you listen to an 11 hour book in 75 minutes? The entire thing is just silly.

Even talking about reviews on this site can lead to smear campaigns. A few weeks ago I asked a question of my fellow writers on this very site. A simple question. I didn’t threaten, whine or rattle my saber. I just asked for opinions. The next day one of our fellow KB’ers posted a blog that completely twisted my words, intent and the spirit of the thread. That blog has since been copied and re-blogged numerous times, with the exaggerations and spin increasing with each ripple across the internet pond. Some folks have even went so far as to post links to the blog on Amazon. All over an innocent question. Go figure... I’m the new Adolf Hitler of indie writers. Shrug.

So let’s stop this. If we want to do petitions, lobby or change our industry for the better, let’s start a grass roots campaign to simply boycott the review system. Maybe it is being abused a lot, or maybe not. Regardless, it is wasting enormous amounts of resources all for a benefit that is no longer necessary. 

Amazon must still think the review system is important. They go out of their way to get reviews. But if everyone boycotted it (readers and writers)... if no one cared or paid any attention, it would eventually go away. When they bought Goodreads, I was hoping that was their intent. Maybe they are thinking the same thing.

What say you?


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

Maybe they could add a rotten tomatoes style of thermometer. On one side there is a "critic average" and on the other side there is an "average". It would help people to have a refinement.

How would you become a critic? I would include amazon published writers, as well as an application process for book bloggers, literary reviewers, etc.

Goodreads members would be critics as well, but their ratings wouldn't matter until they had been verified as real people and had been on Goodreads for awhile.

Heck, just throw up the Goodreads rating next to it. That might be enough.

I'm sure something can be done.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I understand your sentiment and a lot of what you say make sense.

However, you have achieved a measure of success with a solid base of loyal readers and you don't particularly _need _reviews to sell.
That is not the case for the majority of authors.

Like it or not, many readers (including me) choose what books they check out by the number of stars, first and foremost. If I see a title that has 100 reviews averaging 3 stars I give it a pass. These help me narrow things down BEFORE I spend a whole lot of time digging through blurbs and previews.

If you remove the reviews (and the accompanying stars) my only recourse is to return to the gatekeepers like Bookbub to have them find books for me. There are only so many hours in a day. Stars without reviews? No way, man.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Joe, sorry you've had such a rough time with negative reviews and people gaming the system against you. Nobody deserves that to happen to them. But as you say - reviews do affect sales - so getting rid of the review system would be bad for everyone trying to get sales.

Accumulating reviews, particularly positive reviews, does make people more likely to purchase a book - and therefore has a direct impact on discoverability. Without a review system - we have one less tool for discoverability. It may not be perfect but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Even more pertinent, the review system is a big part of what made Amazon king of the online game - so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2014)

I don't support boycotting the review system at Amazon, but then again, I don't have a problem with the "big, bad" Amazon.  I'm a fan of Amazon.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

The thought of the reviews I'll get scares me more than the thought of my own death. But I'd keep them. As unfair as they may be at times.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bad reviews make me cry and my hair to fall out in clumps. Sometimes I lose sleep. It isn't pretty.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

I've thought they should keep reviews but ditch stars. Make people read the review.  

On the other hand, my philosophy is be honest in writing a review, but always give 4 or 5 stars. I dont want to trash writers star ratings, but will be honest when a book is not up to snuff.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

What about all the non-book products on Amazon? I do much of my shopping on Amazon and rely quite heavily on product reviews. Baby strollers, tricycles, a TV, whole wheat no-boil lasagna noodles, jewelry ... you name it. Reading about other customers' experiences with these products is so useful that it's actually moved my buying onto Amazon. I suspect that's the reason Amazon promotes reviewing -- it cuts through the marketing surrounding a product and lets customers find out what it's really like. I know I'm not the nly person who feels this way. I've seen people with their phones out checking the Amazon reviews on a product they're standing in front of in a brick-and-mortar store.

The experience of book quality is much more subjective than whether a baby stroller works well, but it's still hard to see books being exempt from reviewing. Even if it were a good idea to make them exempt, I can't seen Amazon being willing to do it. Too many people enjoy reading reviews and/or find them useful. But I do think authors who are good earners for Amazon are in a position to pressure the company to keep improving its policing of reviews. Being known for quality reviews, not fake garbage, will be to Amazon's advantage in the long run.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

I think the problem is, as self-published writers without a publicist behind us, we have no way of saying 'my writing is good' without reviews. I know readers can look at the sample, but it's possible for someone to write good prose, but not be able to construct a decent book, so it doesn't always tell us much. 

Goodreads is great, but it's a bit too niche for most consumers. It could just be my experience, but the users seem to be young, enthusiastic bloggers rather than your average book buyer. 

Without a review system on Amazon, it would make it more difficult for Amazon browsers to make a decision. On one hand you have the bestseller with reviews in all the newspapers, fancy adverts and so on, but on the other hand you have an unknown self-published author with no reviews on the product page. It would then pretty much come down to price and/or subscription services like bookbub. I think it would make it much harder as an indie author. 

But I completely understand your frustration at the gaming of the system. I don't really know what can make it better.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Quiss said:


> I understand your sentiment and a lot of what you say make sense.
> 
> However, you have achieved a measure of success with a solid base of loyal readers and you don't particularly _need _reviews to sell.
> That is not the case for the majority of authors.
> ...


You make a good point, as usual. But it makes me want to ask, how do you shop when there aren't 100 reviews? How do you shop if there aren't any reviews? As you so wisely pointed out, many authors do need reviews to sell. I'm sure you don't avoid books with less than 100 reviews? There's a dichotomy there.

My suggestion simply levels the playing field of discoverability. If a reader does depend heavily on reviews, then great. Do a few google searches. Allowing bad actors to directly influence at the point of sale throws the entire system out of balance and is hurting readers and writers, IMHO.

Heck, I've even had good reviews attacked by those posting bad reviews... and vice versa. Who needs that?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Joe_Nobody said:


> You make a good point, as usual. But it makes me want to ask, how do you shop when there aren't 100 reviews? How do you shop if there aren't any reviews? As you so wisely pointed out, many authors do need reviews to sell. I'm sure you don't avoid books with less than 100 reviews? There's a dichotomy there.


Oh, suuure, find the flaw in my plan.
Yes, in the case of newer books that don't have a lot of reviews I will give the benefit of the doubt. I'd be suspicious of 6 out of 6 5-stars, too. So in that case, I'd hope the cover is catchy enough to make me take a closer look.

As the others above said, I NEED reviews to make decisions. When purchasing things online I always go to review sites that are NOT affiliated with the manufacturer. I bought a Dyson but I went to other sites to see what users said before going to the manufacturer's site, for example. I have saved a lot of money by reading reviews.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Daniel Knight said:


> But as you say - reviews do affect sales - so getting rid of the review system would be bad for everyone trying to get sales.
> 
> Accumulating reviews, particularly positive reviews, does make people more likely to purchase a book - and therefore has a direct impact on discoverability. Without a review system - we have one less tool for discoverability. It may not be perfect but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> Even more pertinent, the review system is a big part of what made Amazon king of the online game - so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.


Daniel, I would counter these valid points by saying that the only reason why accumulating reviews makes people more likely to purchase a book is due to comparison. If NO books had review counts, then the playing field would be leveled. Think about that for a minute. There's no big guy (1,000) reviews versus little guy (2 reviews). Everyone sees the cover, blurb, ranking, read inside and from the author. Really, just like they were browsing a book in a bookstore. Yeah, we can quote our editorial reviews, just like the back cover of many paperbacks. But the last time I was in a B&N, I didn't see any reviews posted.

I also agree that the review system made Amazon king. Gotta respect that. But times have changed. Does the good of a review system for books (other stuff is more black and white) really outweigh the bad?

I don't know the answers, but I think its a legit question.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

As a customer of Amazon I like that real people can post their real thoughts.  It's really not very hard to sort out those reviews from ones that have an 'agenda' pro or con.  This goes for EVERYTHING amazon sells from air freshener to zorro masks.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

I think the "divide" only exists in out little bubble here and an even smaller segment of reviewers. The vast, vast, vast, VAST number of Amazon customers are not this invested in the reviews. They read them to get a feel if the books is a pile of garbage, but that's about it. WE obsess over them, dissect them, cry about them, and now it's culminated into the ridiculous notion that we can force Amazon to change its entire system. 


Now my caveat... in situations like Joe's case where an author is being targeted there should be a streamlined system in place with Amazon where it can be addressed.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Daniel, I would counter these valid points by saying that the only reason why accumulating reviews makes people more likely to purchase a book is due to comparison. If NO books had review counts, then the playing field would be leveled. Think about that for a minute. There's no big guy (1,000) reviews versus little guy (2 reviews). Everyone sees the cover, blurb, ranking, read inside and from the author. Really, just like they were browsing a book in a bookstore. Yeah, we can quote our editorial reviews, just like the back cover of many paperbacks. But the last time I was in a B&N, I didn't see any reviews posted.
> 
> I also agree that the review system made Amazon king. Gotta respect that. But times have changed. Does the good of a review system for books (other stuff is more black and white) really outweigh the bad?
> 
> I don't know the answers, but I think its a legit question.


But compare our editorial reviews:

New York Times Bestselling author - "This book is amazing," Stephen King.
Indie Author - "This book is amazing," Sheila from Goodreads.

It wouldn't be a level playing field at all.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Ann in Arlington said:


> It's really not very hard to sort out those reviews from ones that have an 'agenda' pro or con.


I'd like to think this is true - but if it were, would Joe have seen his sales go from 250 books a day to 20 over a malicious bad review attack? It seems to me that the vast majority of readers could easily be swayed by a fake review if they weren't looking for clues or telltale signs of fraud.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I don't know the answers, but I think its a legit question.


I do think it's a fair question...but I'm not sure eliminating reviews completely is the answer to the question.



Joshua Dalzelle said:


> I think the "divide" only exists in out little bubble here and an even smaller segment of reviewers. The vast, vast, vast, VAST number of Amazon customers are not this invested in the reviews. They read them to get a feel if the books is a pile of garbage, but that's about it. WE obsess over them...


Agree. As has been said many time before here on KB, the reviews are for the customers. Amazon's interest is in making it as easy as possible for the reviewer to make a purchasing decision. Any seller knows that if a customer leaves without making a purchase, they may not be back. Amazon doesn't want the customer to have to leave Amazon to look stuff up--they may get distracted and not come back.



> Now my caveat... in situations like Joe's case where an author is being targeted there should be a streamlined system in place with Amazon where it can be addressed.


Again, agree. This^ is part of the solution to the problem. Make it easier to fix bogus and spite reviews.

Betsy


----------



## GaryCecil (Jan 5, 2014)

I had a similar experience on this website. I posted a thread about a silly one-star review I had that actually praised my book. Well, 2000 views later, half of the people (my community?) turned on me and went to my Amazon page and voted "yes" to the "Was this review helpful?" question. It gets worse. I had only one other "legit" one-star review for my book, and they voted that "yes" as well. Guess what? Now you go to my sales page, and the first review people see is a 1, and in the vs. review section (since so many people here voted yes to spite me) it's my "most helpful critical review."


----------



## Michelle Hughes (Dec 12, 2011)

I get that there will be bad reviews, even if you feel they are unwarranted. What I don't get is how in the world Amazon allows a review that has nothing to do with a book but everything to do with defamation of character. This wasn't a personal issue and I had no dog in the hunt so to speak, but it was brought to my attention and I was HORRIFIED! The interview basically called out the authors husband saying that he was responsible for an unsolved murder that happened 24 years ago. Granted said author hit the top 20 and it didn't destroy her book, but from what I've read into the story she did have to shut down her facebook and twitter accounts after the witch hunt began. There has to be a better system in place to filter out insanity like this.

Like I said I don't know the author, and hadn't read her work until this came to light.

_Tears, I've removed the link you posted--what happens on Amazon stays on Amazon (WHOA). --Betsy_


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

The concept of Amazon reviews in general has always puzzled me. Why would a store continue to sell crap? That's what they do, they warn you something they want you to buy is not worth buying. 

Imagine if a used car lot did that? Think of all the cars that would never sell. 

I mean, we don't go to Target and pick over terrible products, as defined by Target, in favor of other ones, do we?

Amazon should simply have a philosophy of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". Get rid of the whole star system and replace it with a like button. If a customer liked a product they can say so. if they didn't, they can kep it to themselves. I know, this effectively creates a system of ratings, but it's better than letting spite reviews slip through.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Joe,
You are a nice guy so I feel I can ask you this.  You keep saying reviews have hurt your sales.  Where is the proof of this?  I have read the reviews.  All of them made me want to get your book.  I still might but I really need to justify the price.  
But don't worry I won't review it.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Joe_Nobody said:


> If a reader does depend heavily on reviews, then great. Do a few google searches.


But then they would have to LEAVE Amazon's website to do that. Why would Amazon want to risk losing a potential buyer to another site? Once they leave the site, they might not come back. They might buy the book elsewhere or they might get sidetracked and fall into the Google black hole where they start looking for reviews on a book and end up looking at LOLcats.

It's better for Amazon and book sellers for readers to stay on the site and not leave to look for reviews elsewhere.

Plus, if they have to look elsewhere for reviews, what happens when another eCommerce site comes along and lets customers leave reviews? People might leave Amazon, search Google, find this other site where they can read reviews AND buy the product and, after a while, people aren't flocking to Amazon anymore and we all end up having to figure out how to format our books for the eWhiz Bookreader 4000 from Big Mississippi River Books & More dot Com. And the whole cycle begins again...


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

Amazon has partially built its customer base from the review system.  No other site has that kind of thorough engagement when it comes to reviews which makes Amazon a "trusted" source for product purchase.  The result is an insanely large group of shoppers.  Something that we as authors reap the benefits from.  I think if you took a poll here on KB you'll find that almost everyone would rank Amazon as their number one channels for sales.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

I think removing the ability to up- or down-vote reviews on books would probably help to alleviate some of the problems. It would equalize all the reviews and prevent bad actors from giving more weight to the fraudulent reviews.


----------



## Ronny K (Aug 2, 2011)

I think the only alternative is to sell direct-to-customer, through your own platform. A "boycott" would have to involve authors not selling their books on Amazon as opposed to simply not writing reviews on Amazon.


----------



## GaryCecil (Jan 5, 2014)

I think the point Joe is trying to make is that we don't REALLY use reviews all that much on purchases as we "think" we do. 

Example:

When you're in Wal-Mart (or any store) and you're browsing for dog food, ham, turkey, eggs, etc., you don't have a 3-star selection. You don't have any stars. You go back to the basics. What does it look like? Have I tried this brand before? Rinse and repeat. 

Think back to video stores (I know, ages ago), when you browsed for the movie you would pick up. You didn't look for reviews. You just talked about it with your brother, sister, girlfriend, whomever, and then you made a choice. If you didn't like the movie? No big deal, you were out five bucks, and you probably didn't come back to any more of the director's films.

I have to be honest, I don't like reading reviews all that much, because 99% of the time, they spoil the story! I can tell if something is quality by the top-half of a person's sales page (cover, inside, description). What I can't tell (and nobody can) is if the book will be good to me. Not to Peter, Frank, Henry, Susie, or Alice... ME!  And that's the risk you take when you purchase any product.

Of course there are pros to "dividing the garbage" from the "top-shelf" stock. Hence, the ideas for reviews and stars in the first place. So, I don't really have the ultimate solution, but I know I don't rely 100% on reviews, either.

NOTE: I am not referring to video games in this example, because a game is $60 bucks, and they have huge outlets like IGN and GAMESPOT to notify people of the good and the bad. But those people are professional; it's their job. Bobby John Doe from Amazon is not a professional reviewer, so, IMO, the weights are significantly different.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Joe_Nobody said:


> If NO books had review counts, then the playing field would be leveled. Think about that for a minute. There's no big guy (1,000) reviews versus little guy (2 reviews). Everyone sees the cover, blurb, ranking, read inside and from the author. Really, just like they were browsing a book in a bookstore. Y


Wut? Level playing field? Socialist! Anarchist!   
I'd say that if someone has attained a decent number of good reviews then they should be able to leverage that. The big guy would have worked hard and long to collect those 1000 reviews. Why should he be on par with the newbie who's done nothing yet?

And even in a book store, the more popular books get the display table out front. Others get shelved in the rear.

Like others said here, to fix the review system, Amazon needs to be more reactive to reviews that are clearly meant to undermine someone. Trouble is, that costs money and opens the door to a whole lot of argument.


----------



## Rich Amooi (Feb 14, 2014)

The biggest way to combat this is to only allow reviews to be posted by people who actually purchased the book from Amazon. "Amazon Verified Purchase" as they call it. This won't eliminate the problem completely. But I think it would have a HUGE impact. The anonymous reviews and the multiple reviews from the same person with multiple accounts would go away.


----------



## wolfrom (May 26, 2012)

I don't mind that one of my books has as many one stars as it has four stars (11!). The one stars make it clear that the story is not for everyone, and I think it's clear that the issue is one of preference and not specifically quality of writing, editing, etc.

My aggregate average of 3.4/5 affects not only promotional opportunities, but I am of the strong opinion that it affects my visibility on Amazon, not just through a customer limiting to 4+ stars, but in the general sifting of the default "New and Popular", because obviously, 3.4/5 is not as popular as 4.5/5.

I have started another series that I believe is less polarizing. There is little to no foul language, far less sexuality, less violence, and I *think* that it will fare better with reviews. But to me, that's not due to it being significantly _better_ than my first series, but due to it being less controversial.

It's early days, so maybe that book will also get a slew of one star reviews... but for now, it feels like the "less safe" stories are becoming harder and harder for readers to even find.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Joe,
> You are a nice guy so I feel I can ask you this. You keep saying reviews have hurt your sales. Where is the proof of this? I have read the reviews. All of them made me want to get your book. I still might but I really need to justify the price.
> But don't worry I won't review it.


We track sales, rankings and income like crazy. We have a significant sampling. I have a person who's job it is to do internet searches on the author's name and each book's title every single day. All of this is documented and indexed in an Access database by time and title. We started this in early 2012 to judge the effectiveness of advertising and promotions. When you have titles selling hundreds of copies per day, trend analysis becomes reasonable.

If there is no other influence... no other factor but a review on Amazon, then one has to suspect. If the book continues to tract on it's bell curve on Nook, KOBO and iTunes... only Amazon sales take a hit, then the proof becomes even more reliable. If the review is removed and sales return to their previous levels, then I'm convinced.

I can understand why people have questioned some of my posts. If I were selling 3 here, 5 there, a dozen on Saturday, then my stated facts would be questionable. But that's not the case here. We have over 50 titles (not all of the books I'm talking about are my books), in our catalog and many of them outsell my tomes significantly. The results are the same, time after time after time.

As a reader, I beg of you, don't get me wrong. I'm not addressing real reviews, no matter how harsh, from real readers. I get my share of 1-stars that improve my writing and that I actually appreciate. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm addressing the growing number of attacks. Not opinion about the books, but attacks on my character, family or intentional untruths about the content. There is a difference. A huge difference.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Rich Amooi said:


> The biggest way to combat this is to only allow reviews to be posted by people who actually purchased the book from Amazon. "Amazon Verified Purchase" as they call it.


This would be sensible. Even better if this were coupled with being able to gift specific books that appear as "verified purchase". That would mean authors can give books to reviewers.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I've just accepted reviews as a fact of life, like winter. I might not like it, but it's necessary. All we can do is try to work with the system as it is. I know that it has encouraged me to put out higher quality product and move away from mass producing erotica shorts. I don't have the stomach for bad reviews or no reviews. I don't need to have a panic attack every time Amazon sends out it's mass mailings asking people to leave reviews, which seems to be around the first and the fifteenth. I haven't had anyone attack me like Joe, but I do notice people will jump on a new title that has no reviews if it is in a competitive genre. 

The only solution I can come up with is to write the best books I can. I'm going to have beta readers tell me if something sucks and go through at least one professional editor, maybe two, before I release anything. I'm also moving to novels to avoid the "this is too short and I hate cliffhangers," reviews. 

Yes, reviews are shaping my entire business future. Maybe that's wrong, but the review system does effect sales. I'm personally taking a queue from the bad reviews and not doing whatever they complain about as much as humanly possible. Maybe that's good, maybe it's bad. I don't know. All I know is what I need to do to survive in the current climate.


----------



## Rich Amooi (Feb 14, 2014)

Quiss said:


> This would be sensible. Even better if this were coupled with being able to gift specific books that appear as "verified purchase". That would mean authors can give books to reviewers.


Yes, that's even better!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> For those who don't feel the review system has any impact on sales, then there's no need for the system to be there- right? For those who feel rape-gangs of review bullies patrol the cyber halls of Amazon looking for prey, then you would be better off without it - right? Everybody wins if we get rid of it. Who loses?


Who loses? The subset of consumers who use reviews to decide on purchases. That would then extend to the producers of the products that are selected because of reviews.

I don't know if reviews on Amazon increase Amazon total sales. But if they do, then Amazon is a loser. I suspect they have better data on this.



> I've thought they should keep reviews but ditch stars. Make people read the review.


That would make losers of consumers who rely on star scores.



> Does the good of a review system for books (other stuff is more black and white) really outweigh the bad?


From Amazons perspective, I don't see how they lose anything by having reviews. At a minimum, they have a potential gain with no potential loss.



> Amazon must still think the review system is important. They go out of their way to get reviews. But if everyone boycotted it (readers and writers)... if no one cared or paid any attention, it would eventually go away.


Sure. But what reason would consumers who use reviews have for boycotting them?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> We track sales, rankings and income like crazy. We have a significant sampling. I have a person who's job it is to do internet searches on the author's name and each book's title every single day. All of this is documented and indexed in an Access database by time and title. We started this in early 2012 to judge the effectiveness of advertising and promotions. When you have titles selling hundreds of copies per day, trend analysis becomes reasonable.
> 
> If there is no other influence... no other factor but a review on Amazon, then one has to suspect. If the book continues to tract on it's bell curve on Nook, KOBO and iTunes... only Amazon sales take a hit, then the proof becomes even more reliable. If the review is removed and sales return to their previous levels, then I'm convinced.
> 
> ...


Thank you for answering me. I also totally agree with you on the attacks and untruths. But then my chief bitch is authors that don't do proper research (non-fiction) and just throw up a book with no proofreading. Then their friends call the reviewer names. That is why I have turned off notifications at Amazon. Though I did have to giggle at being called an overly-critical critic. 
It works both ways I do believe.

And now I really do need to start saving my pennies so I can afford your book. Yes, I mean your non-fiction.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GaryCecil said:


> I had a similar experience on this website. I posted a thread about a silly one-star review I had that actually praised my book. Well, 2000 views later, half of the people (my community?) turned on me and went to my Amazon page and voted "yes" to the "Was this review helpful?" question. It gets worse. I had only one other "legit" one-star review for my book, and they voted that "yes" as well. Guess what? Now you go to my sales page, and the first review people see is a 1, and in the vs. review section (since so many people here voted yes to spite me) it's my "most helpful critical review."


The questions of whether Amazon should allow book reviews and whether it's wise to post about your reviews in the Writers' Cafe are entirely different. No review threads. I wish it were a sticky or a pop-up or _something_ so that newer members would know it and older members would be reminded.


----------



## George Applegate (Jan 23, 2013)

Improvement I think are needed:

1) Stars should have a specific meaning that is made clear to the reviewer at the time they click, as Netflix does. As it is, everyone has their own opinion about what they mean.
2) Amazon needs to do better pattern recognition to identify bad actors. They have the data but aren't creating bots that use it effectively. They know, for example, whether a reader of a Kindle book actually read it. 
3) Popular books subject to malicious reviews should be assigned gatekeepers, as Wikipedia does. As it is, a review only seems to be blocked if it criticizes Amazon or mentions another retailer.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

George Applegate said:


> Popular books subject to malicious reviews should be assigned gatekeepers, as Wikipedia does. As it is, a review only seems to be blocked if it criticizes Amazon or mentions another retailer.


Aren't those wikipedia pages just locked down completely? I've never tried to edit one that had that padlock symbol on it.

I sort of like the idea of a human approval process for reviews on books/authors where there have been issues in the past, but the person-hours required on Amazon's part would be daunting.


----------



## Rachel Aukes (Oct 13, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> If NO books had review counts, then the playing field would be leveled. Think about that for a minute. There's no big guy (1,000) reviews versus little guy (2 reviews). Everyone sees the cover, blurb, ranking, read inside and from the author. Really, just like they were browsing a book in a bookstore.


Then, making the top 100 lists and buying Amazon "shelf" space would become more important than ever. It would open a whole new can of worms. How much would (or could) you be willing to pay to get on Amazon's coveted front page or near the top of Amazon's search lists? (that's a rhetorical question, not directed at Joe or anyone in particular).

I'm a fan of reviews. I like reading reviews on products I plan to buy (including books), but if reviews all of a sudden disappeared, I wouldn't stop buying things. I would probably start looking at rankings more as a way to differentiate product A from product B. If others followed the same approach, we'd likely see a bigger chasm grow between best-sellers and "everyone else."

To play devil's advocate, if Amazon did all these things we're asking them to do (to the extent we're asking them to), it's going to take money and resources on their end. I'm assuming the payoff for going after a tiny minority of reviews isn't enough for the investment they'd need to make. If we're asking them to be more diligent about stripping out vendetta-style reviews, we need to ask ourselves as authors how far we're willing to go to help Amazon make that happen. Would we be willing to pay Amazon to investigate each review in question? (again, another rhetorical question) I'm not saying it's a fair solution to the author, but it would a viable solution to address the issue. Of course, that's assuming the system is set up to exclude authors paying to remove honest 1-star reviews (every system out there can be gamed).

I enjoy Joe's questions and ideas. They make for fun debate.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Joe, I feel you are incredibly brave to even be posting your op message. However, I just want to slap you around on your flak jacket and say, "Why are you making yourself a target again? Get back in the bunker!"


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

*Takes a deep breath and wades in to ask a question and make a comment.*

For those who have experienced backlash as a reviewer or author, can you tell me if the negative results (drop in sales, down votes on other reviews, for example) happened strictly as a result of a review?  Or did they happen only after comments started being made on specific reviews (fans or the author call the reviewer on their opinions in a negative review; detractors start in on positive reviews being fake or purchased, etc.)?

Most examples I have seen of negative impact seem to be a result of comments and on-going wars with specific authors or reviewers after the initial positive or negative review.  Does what I am trying to ask/say make any sense?

In other words, I don't think it's the reviews themselves that create the problem, even if they are negative, even if they are fake; it's the reaction to them when someone decides they are one of those things.  

Maybe at least a partial solution would be to disable comments to reviews on Amazon?  Of course if the review violates the TOS, it should be reported and I do think Amazon needs to do a better job of enforcing the guidelines already in place.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Interesting debate.

1) Getting rid of the review system sounds like whack-a-mole to me. I'm sure many would agree that the reviews are plus / minus a bit a helpful tool to separate the wheat from the chaff. If Amazon gets rid of the reviews, I bet you 1,000,000 $ that another site would quickly develop into a "product review central". This would be an unecessary hassle for buyers.

2) A case of tunnel vision? It's easy to focus in on the thousands of cases where the review system failed, but what about the millions of cases where it did its job?

3) Deke proposed keeping the reviews and only getting rid of the stars. This way people actually read the reviews. I like the idea, but to get a sense of how a product performs on average, you'd have to read a representative sample of the reviews, at least 10 or 20. Who's willing to do that? Maybe this would work: keep the star system, but don't display the stars (or the average) and keep the reviews closest to the average on top. This way you'd have to read the reviews and at the same time could be sure that the ones on top are the most representative.

4) George Applegate said this: "Stars should have a specific meaning that is made clear to the reviewer at the time they click" - me likey. I've gotten five star reviews that read like a three star and vice versa. This is unnecessary. People should be given a reference of what three stars mean.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

I find reviews helpful when I'm evaluating non-fiction. I used to write those kinds of books, and you can even find some of them on amazon. They're mostly obsolete because technology quickly out-runs the existing literature.

I start with the one-star reviews, ignoring the ones that don't really say anything. A book can get a lot of 5-stars posted by reviewers who don't really know the subject. The book is well-written and produced, but such reviewers aren't qualified to address the accuracy or completeness of the book's coverage. The one-stars are where I find readers who already know a lot about it and can report technical problems. There aren't usually enough of them to drag the rating down because such people tend not to buy how-to books on subjects they already know. But the ones who do often reveal insights into a book's true value.

The value of reviews of fiction are found in the very criticism of the review system: a non-level playing field. They're the only hope for a really good book to rise like a bubble out of the stewpot. If you level the playing field, the field has a population of a kazillion players from which to choose. Without some kind of measure to apply, where does a buyer start? This situation applies mostly to the more popular genres, such as mystery and romance. The playing field for my book on ventriloquism, for example, has very few players.


----------



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

You have my vote, Joe. 

I don't mind the reviews, it's the ratings I can't stand. The ratings affect the Amazon algorithms and therefore have an impact on sales. If your book does not appear in the "also bought" lists, no matter how hard you market/promote your book, it will not sell. 

Readers having their say about a book has to be a good thing. Their opinions, however, should not carry any weight. Saying that you didn't enjoy reading a book should not knock a book out of the only system (also bought lists) that produces new sales.


----------



## Robert Brumm (Jul 17, 2012)

Seems to me reviews of products based almost entirely on personal opinion (books, music, movies, games) are a different animal so to speak from "normal" products.

When I buy computer stuff on newegg for example, I rely very heavily on reviews and it's one of the largest factors in my buying decisions. If something has one or two reviews, I get nervous. If I find a hard drive that is practically identical to the others and priced the same, but has thousands of good reviews - no brainer.

So I guess what I'm rambling about is, it would be very unwise for Amazon to dump reviews altogether. You could argue only drop book reviews, but where is the line? You'd have to also drop music, movies, etc...


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

To be completely honest, I only care about reviews because of Bookbub. Before Bookbub, reviews made practically no difference to me, and after Bookbub has stopped being effective, I will likely stop caring about them again unless there is some other Bookbub-like service that requires you to have lots of reviews to be accepted.

Why is this?

Well, I don't have that many reviews. And not having many reviews means that they don't have that much affect on me. 

Frankly, I don't get why I don't have reviews. I have this book that sold 10,000 copies last year. How many reviews does it have? 35. How does that make sense in any universe? Like, how many books do you have to sell to get 100 reviews? I have exactly one book with over 100 reviews and it's permafree now, so I'd have to go trackerbox to figure out how many copies of that thing I've moved. But I do know that it took FOUR YEARS to get that many reviews. So, darn it, I'm a little butt hurt about this. Because if all my books had 100+ reviews, I could run Bookbubs on all of them, and then I would get a chance to breathe a little and stop freaking out about when I'm ever going to have enough money to fix the other car so that I'm not stranded in my farmhouse every day when my boyfriend goes to work. That's how I feel about reviews. When will I get more, so that I can improve my standard of living? How do I get more? Why is everything on earth so gosh darned hard? Where have all the flowers gone? What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

Sorry, I got carried away there.

You know, when I hear about review attacks--and I'm talking reviews that are made NOT about the quality of the book, but organized in mass numbers with the express purpose of damaging a book--I feel very righteously angry, because that shouldn't freaking happen. It's WRONG. You don't sell more books by making everyone else around you look bad, and you don't try to hurt people just because you're angry and you're hurting. I mean, anyway, you shouldn't. 

But people do.

And I was thinking about this the other day after I freaked out on the Women and Fantasy thread, and I was thinking about the lengths that we go to protect ourselves from perceived threats. (And when I say "we," I mean people in general). And how sometimes, when we're trying to protect ourselves, we end up inadvertently messing other things up in certain ways, ways that we never intended or weren't even thinking about doing. And I was thinking, you know, we should stop trying to protect ourselves so much, because in some ways, when you ask a question like, "How do you keep from being violently assaulted?" it's akin to asking, "How do you stop hurricanes?" 

(This is all connected. I swear.) People do nasty things. And they SHOULDN'T. But they do. Because... I don't know why. For the same reason that hurricanes level people's houses. Bad stuff happens.

I don't know about everyone else out there. Some people have a fire in them, and they're willing to stand up and fight against injustices (like review attacks). And I... I think I find more peace when I just let it go. I think that I am in a place where I look at my writing career, and I see how hard I've clawed and scraped myself up to a place, only to get knocked down, and then clawed and scraped some more, only to get knocked down again, and I think.... Hurricanes, man. Nasty people. Algorithm shifts. Thirty day cliffs. Bookbub rejections. Bad cover decisions. 

And then I just go write another book. 

But that's just me. And it's for my own personal peace, not for making the world a better place. If you got the fire to make the world a better place, believe me, I'm grateful. But I only got the energy to fight to keep going.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It would be irresponsible to get rid of a system that as done so much for our valuable astroturfing, blackmail and sub-corporate espionage industries. Also, it would force promo sites to actually do some work and/or actually be fair when deciding whose money to take--and no one wants that.

Actually, lets get rid of those things instead.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It would be irresponsible to get rid of a system that as done so much for our valuable astroturfing, blackmail and sub-corporate espionage industries.


What has it done, and for whom has it done it?


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Ann in Arlington said:


> As a customer of Amazon I like that real people can post their real thoughts. It's really not very hard to sort out those reviews from ones that have an 'agenda' pro or con. This goes for EVERYTHING amazon sells from air freshener to zorro masks.


Agreed. Love you, Joe, but I'm not onboard with your idea. Let the chips fall where they may. There are always going to be 'bad guys' and those 'bad guys' will always make it seem like what they are doing is an epidemic where the rest of us have to run around shouting that the sky is falling.

But the sky is not falling. Anne Rice is working hard to shout out that the sky is falling to anyone who will listen, but it isn't working (she's got almost one million followers on FB alone where she's waging a jihad on this subject, and yet the petition has barely 4k signatures...). And that's a good thing. It should be left alone.

And for every Joe Nobody that saw a drop in sales, there's probably one hundred authors that experienced either nothing negative, or experienced a positive push because their book has even more reviews than it did before, and it doesn't matter whether they are good or bad or mediocre reviews.

What's good for the goose might be good for the gander sometimes, but what's good for one goose isn't really what's best for the entire flock (or even species).


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Joe, I feel you are incredibly brave to even be posting your op message. However, I just want to slap you around on your flak jacket and say, "Why are you making yourself a target again? Get back in the bunker!"


I'm retiring kido. There ain't nothing they can do to me anymore. I'm beyond caring.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

AngryGames said:


> Agreed. Love you, Joe, but I'm not onboard with your idea. Let the chips fall where they may.


No problem AG. I fully expect a lot of folks will see it a different way. I put up the post to generate open thought and debate. I respect your opinion.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

There will always be assholes out there. I've gotten two hater reviews, one of them on amazon by people who rather obviously never read my book, (and I've never even had your level of sales, congratulations on that!). I just ignore it. I also wish Amazon didn't use reviews to rank books, because the thing you talked about goes on constantly. There are several now famous indie authors who've admitted that their success came from gaming the system. But apparently Amazon is okay with that.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

crebel said:


> *Takes a deep breath and wades in to ask a question and make a comment.*
> 
> For those who have experienced backlash as a reviewer or author, can you tell me if the negative results (drop in sales, down votes on other reviews, for example) happened strictly as a result of a review? Or did they happen only after comments started being made on specific reviews (fans or the author call the reviewer on their opinions in a negative review; detractors start in on positive reviews being fake or purchased, etc.)?
> 
> ...


This is a valid point, and I have and will continue to answer reviews on non-fiction works that: 1) attack my readers or other reviewers 2) outright lie about what is printed in the book

I have, as of this moment, 1209 reviews on Amazon. 
38 are 1-star.
Since January of 2012, we have managed to have Amazon take down reviews by four reviewers (some had reviewed multiple books).
Amazon has removed another handful, but we don't track that.

I have replied to 9 of the 38.
Two of those were readers who swore they didn't get the entire book downloaded. I offered to help get them a new copy.
One was a reader whose POD copy was smeared. I sent him a new one.
Two were reviewers who said the 100,000+ word book wasn't long enough to be considered a novel (or similar remark). I just pointed out the length of the book.
The rest involved some level of back-and-forth.

I will state that my comments on reviews, or lack there of, have had no impact positive or negative on sales. When I don't, sales drop (on the attack reviews), when I do, sales drop.

There have been a few times when my comments have fostered a wave of supporting emails. "Way to go, Joe!" and "I like an author who stands up for what he believes in!" type of correspondence.

So yes, an author can make things worse. But our data shows that it really doesn't make much difference in our case.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Joe_Nobody said:


> This is a valid point, and I have and will continue to answer reviews on non-fiction works that: 1) attack my readers or other reviewers 2) outright lie about what is printed in the book
> 
> I have, as of this moment, 1209 reviews on Amazon.
> 38 are 1-star.
> ...


Thanks for once again sharing your experience. One more question regarding your statement I have bolded, whether you responded or not, were there comments from others that drew additional attention to the attack reviews? If so, do you think there would have been less impact if there were no comments, just the review?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Agree. As has been said many time before here on KB, the reviews are for the customers. Amazon's interest is in making it as easy as possible for the reviewer to make a purchasing decision.


Yep. As a reader myself, I use reviews all the time to buy. Not always, but frequently enough that I'd miss them sorely if they vanished.

The thing that often gets overlooked by authors, though, is that I find bad reviews as useful as good reviews in deciding that I _will _buy a book. Bad reviews can be very useful. Consider the romance reader who's looking for a really sexy book. A previous reader who prefers sweet romances might leave a scathing one-star review because of all the offensive SEX!!! in the book. If that's what the browser is looking for, hot dog. Buy it. I can't even tell you how many times it was the complaints in negative reviews that prompted me to buy a book. A bad review is not necessarily bad for your sales.

Now, reviews that say untrue things about the author are a different story, and they are already against the TOS on Amazon and Goodreads and elsewhere, too, I assume. If you get a review stating you're a pedophile or that you're committing fraud or whatever, you can contact Amazon and have it taken down, and you should, because that's just ridiculous.

But for now, people need to stop fearing bad reviews. Honestly. They aren't hurting sales as much as you might fear, unless you have nothing but bad reviews. In that case, you're probably not ready to be selling books anyway!


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

crebel said:


> Thanks for once again sharing your experience. One more question regarding your statement I have bolded, whether you responded or not, were there comments from others that drew additional attention to the attack reviews? If so, do you think there would have been less impact if there were no comments, just the review?


I have had several instances where other readers have disagreed with a reviewer. Even more examples where someone has emailed me and said, "I read that review on Amazon, and disagree, but I don't want to start a war." (or like language).

I can think of one example (a section of a book on firearms) where several reviewers got into a debate, but we didn't see any impact to sales from that review as I recall.

Please keep in mind, I'm not saying that every 1-star hurts sales. If I have implied that, it was an innocent mistake. Some 1-star reviews are so silly, not even the most tainted reader pays attention to them.

Other 1-star reviews are valid, heart-felt opinions by real readers. They don't like the plot, or character development is poor, or Joe can't write worth a hen's foot. My protagonist's sense of humor offends some folks. Other's consider me a sexual deviant. Those are, as many have stated, simply part of being a writer. I smile, take note and move on.

It is the attack reviews that I'm harping on. We all know that political attack ads work. At election time, they spend millions of dollars slinging poo at each other. Why? Because they are effective. Politicians wouldn't spend the money on them if they didn't produce results. The same applies, in our experience, to Amazon reviews. They do work, and the impact can be brutal. Yet, I can't fight back. I'm a bad guy if I even think about it. I'm stupid, out-of-touch or thin skinned.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

As a customer, I use reviews whenever and wherever I can find them. It's usually not that hard to identify which are meaningful, which have an agenda behind them, and which are just plain garbage. If a product has only a few or no reviews, then that also impacts my decision, making me more leery of parting with my hard-earned cash. As such, I feel they provide me with value.

As an author, I hate the review system. I hate being dependent upon it. I hate being vulnerable to it. But I also appreciate them when I begin to see common themes cropping up. I've learned to shrug off the negative reviews _and _not to take the positive ones too seriously. I suppose if I didn't have such a thick skin, I'd simply ignore them altogether to save my sanity.

If I were _only _an author and not a consumer, I'd be perfectly happy to see reviews gone, but I'm not. I'd rather they stayed.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> Now, reviews that say untrue things about the author are a different story, and they are already against the TOS on Amazon and Goodreads and elsewhere, too, I assume. If you get a review stating you're a pedophile or that you're committing fraud or whatever, you can contact Amazon and have it taken down, and you should, because that's just ridiculous.


But they don't E. I agree with your post wholeheartedly (we have to stop meeting like this, people are beginning to talk), but Amazon won't do it. Or, in the rare case that they do, it takes weeks and weeks of lost sales.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Then we ought to find an effective way to get them to pay some damn attention to those issues!  They do need to be upholding their own TOS.  I think that would be a very worthy place to concentrate efforts.  The TOS is already in place...so why aren't they upholding their own rules?  It's worth shining a brighter light on, I think.

Speaking of reviews, has anybody seen the most recent episode of Community, with "Meowmewobeenz"?  Made me think of all this stuff we've been discussing recently. "Long live the Reviewlution!"


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

It used to be (and may still be) that reviews that didn't address the product would be taken down. Talking about shipping, interactions with the vendor, or other logistical issues were part of another rating.

I've read some people advocate that only those with an "Amazon Verified Purchase" should be allowed to post a review, and I have say that that would go against the quirky culture that Amazon loves to embrace. I'm probably about to say something that will forever ban me from the Amazon picnic, but there is internal chatter about these quirky reviews. One such infamous review is Jeff B's review for milk. (Google it). I imagine that he didn't buy that milk from Amazon (at least not in 2006 before Amazon Fresh). Then there is a classic three wolf moon tshirt that has received thousands of reviews (many by non-purchasers) who got involved in the humor. That t-shirt was and is still a bestseller thanks to allowing the non-verified reviews.

Unfortunately, these negative reviews just seem to be part of our overall online culture. You can see the same tone of mean-spirited and petty swipes on Youtube, Twitter, Huffington Post, and Yelp. In fact, I remember reading about a court case involving a Yelp review and its impact on a cleaning business.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Then we ought to find an effective way to get them to pay some d*mn attention to those issues! They do need to be upholding their own TOS. I think that would be a very worthy place to concentrate efforts. The TOS is already in place...so why aren't they upholding their own rules? It's worth shining a brighter light on, I think.


I suspect they enforce various terms of the TOS when it is in their best interests. The relationship between Amazon and the reviewer doesn't include the best interests of third parties observing that relationship.

The TOS is also open to interpretation. Remember when folks here insisted it was a violation of the TOS for authors to review books?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Shelagh said:


> I don't mind the reviews, it's the ratings I can't stand. The ratings affect the Amazon algorithms and therefore have an impact on sales. If your book does not appear in the "also bought" lists, no matter how hard you market/promote your book, it will not sell.
> 
> Readers having their say about a book has to be a good thing. Their opinions, however, should not carry any weight. Saying that you didn't enjoy reading a book should not knock a book out of the only system (also bought lists) that produces new sales.


This is the first I've heard that reviews factor into Amazon's recommendation algorithms. Is this something the Data Avengers established when I wasn't looking?


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> This is the first I've heard that reviews factor into Amazon's recommendation algorithms. Is this something the Data Avengers established when I wasn't looking?


Don't know who Data Avengers are, but Reviews have ALWAYS effected rankings and recommendations. Oh I know Amazon claims they don't, but if you look at two books that come out at the same time, and have close to the same sale numbers, if one has 100 5 star reviews in the first few days it will make the top 100. The other book won't. Heck the other book could have 5 times the sales, it still won't if it doesn't have equal reviews.

this is why people hire companies to post false reviews for them. there was a huge thing about this last year when a now famous ebook author (I forget the name) outed the company he had hired so no one else could use it. Now that he was famous and making good money he wanted to slam the door in the face of anyone else who might do what he did. Nice guy huh? And even though he admitted to 'cheating the system' Amazon didn't do anything to him, because as long as Amazon sells books they really don't care.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> As a customer, I use reviews whenever and wherever I can find them. It's usually not that hard to identify which are meaningful, which have an agenda behind them, and which are just plain garbage.


I agree with the part about the meaningful and garbage reviews. Those are easy to spot. But the ones with the hidden agenda? Let's assume that 95 % of all reviews are authentic and the rest have a hidden agenda. Even if you were able to spot the hidden agenda with a 90 % chance (which is very optimistic), two out of three reviews you identify as having a hidden agenda will actually be authentic. A classic case of the false positive paradox and it's easy to get caught by this.


----------



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

vanstry said:


> Don't know who Data Avengers are, but Reviews have ALWAYS effected rankings and recommendations. Oh I know Amazon claims they don't, but if you look at two books that come out at the same time, and have close to the same sale numbers, if one has 100 5 star reviews in the first few days it will make the top 100. The other book won't. Heck the other book could have 5 times the sales, it still won't if it doesn't have equal reviews.
> 
> this is why people hire companies to post false reviews for them. there was a huge thing about this last year when a now famous ebook author (I forget the name) outed the company he had hired so no one else could use it. Now that he was famous and making good money he wanted to slam the door in the face of anyone else who might do what he did. Nice guy huh? And even though he admitted to 'cheating the system' Amazon didn't do anything to him, because as long as Amazon sells books they really don't care.


Well said.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

Joe, I agree completely with you.  Amazon's review system is  broken and accomplishes nothing.  It doesn't help the reader or the author.

I haven't received any reviews since I stopped giving books away; I don't want any reviews.

I get sales without reviews since the person looks at my covers, description, reads the first few pages and makes a decision.  So reviews are not necessary to sell books.

Let me say again that I agree with you.  Throw the worthless review system away and get back to writing high quality books that stand on their own merit.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Wild Rivers said:


> Joe, I agree completely with you. Amazon's review system is broken and accomplishes nothing. It doesn't help the reader or the author.


Disagree. It helps THIS amazon customer. And I AM a reader. Also buy lots of other stuff there too.


----------



## Nebula (May 29, 2013)

As a reader and a consumer, I love reviews, and find them very useful. There are all sorts of products on Amazon, not just books, and people who buy these products want to know what they're buying without having to leave the site to do a google search or whatever. 

As an author, I realized early that bad reviews will always come, and that even the biggest bestsellers of the last decade have some horrible one-stars. The most liked review for Fifty Shades of Grey on Goodreads is a hilarious review that trashes the book with a very creative use of GIFs, but it still sells despite that. So even though whenever I get a new review, I say a small prayer before I scroll down to read it, I wouldn't trade my good, thoughtful, and considerate reviews for no reviews at all.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

From a consumer/reader pov, I love the reviews. We have to remember it's not just book reviews that Amazon has--it's everything. Are you proposing that they get rid of just book reviews? I read reviews all the time when deciding on what items to purchase. Case in point, I just bought a stroller the other day. As a fairly large purchase, I wanted to read the reviews and I'm glad I did. One that I almost purchased had good reviews, but several mentioned it was great for around the neighborhood, but it was a bit heavy and clunky to get into the trunk of a car. The mom-to-be is only about 4' 11". While she might be strong, she'd have to lift it pretty high to get it in her trunk. Better to get a different, easier to handle stroller. 

I also read book reviews sometimes and what some other reviewer may hate, could be something I'm looking for, so 'bad' reviews aren't always bad. As far as watching what I say online--well, that's been a consideration long before I became an author. For instance, I rarely talk about my job in specifics while online--especially on FB. I work in healthcare and I don't want to take a chance on violating HIPPA. I also would never say something like, "We were so understaffed today at work. It sucked!", because that's not good either. 

My only sort of gripe is that if I don't like a book, I don't bother to review it for fear of retaliation. I would like to be open with all my reviews, not just for the books I like. However, that's my own problem. Nobody is stopping me from speaking my mind--I just don't want to face any repercussions. If I was really brave and confident, I could say what I wanted and not worry about one-star retaliatory reviews.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

> Are you proposing that they get rid of just book reviews?


Yes, I was talking only about book reviews. I believe that is what this posting is about.

Joe did a good job explaining his position and too many people didn't even listen to him.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Wild Rivers said:


> Joe did a good job explaining his position and too many people didn't even listen to him.


It is possible to listen to and thoroughly absorb what someone says and still end up disagreeing with that person. The fact that some people don't agree with Joe's position doesn't automatically indicate that they dismissed it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vanstry said:


> Don't know who Data Avengers are, but Reviews have ALWAYS effected rankings and recommendations. Oh I know Amazon claims they don't, but if you look at two books that come out at the same time, and have close to the same sale numbers, if one has 100 5 star reviews in the first few days it will make the top 100. The other book won't. Heck the other book could have 5 times the sales, it still won't if it doesn't have equal reviews.
> 
> this is why people hire companies to post false reviews for them. there was a huge thing about this last year when a now famous ebook author (I forget the name) outed the company he had hired so no one else could use it. Now that he was famous and making good money he wanted to slam the door in the face of anyone else who might do what he did. Nice guy huh? And even though he admitted to 'cheating the system' Amazon didn't do anything to him, because as long as Amazon sells books they really don't care.


I want proof that these two books sold exactly the same. Some of you keep talking about how this system is gamed. Show don't tell. This is why I appreciated Joe answering me earlier. It made me feel better about him because he did have proof. 
Now can someone please tell me exactly how many the top two sold at Amazon. Or any other two books for that matter. That is any two books that are not yours. No educated guesses there.


----------



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

I very much DO NOT agree with you Joe about the review system at Amazon. Does it get abused by both sides? Yes it does, but is that a reason to get rid of anything in this world? Do we let the abusers dictate now?

I buy more or less everything at Amazon these days and I would be lost without reviews. If I'm buying something unknown to me I want to know not only that its a solid four star product or whatever, I want to see that two in ten received a faulty item and the faults were identical. I want to have that info. I love reviews that tell me the guy loved the product but three months down the road the nonstick coating had worn off!

Police the system, fix it, do whatever, but DO NOT scrap it because abusers abuse. That's what they do. The only one to blame in the end is the site owner for not doing a good moderating job.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

vanstry said:


> Don't know who Data Avengers are, but Reviews have ALWAYS effected rankings and recommendations. Oh I know Amazon claims they don't, but if you look at two books that come out at the same time, and have close to the same sale numbers, if one has 100 5 star reviews in the first few days it will make the top 100. The other book won't. Heck the other book could have 5 times the sales, it still won't if it doesn't have equal reviews.
> 
> this is why people hire companies to post false reviews for them. there was a huge thing about this last year when a now famous ebook author (I forget the name) outed the company he had hired so no one else could use it. Now that he was famous and making good money he wanted to slam the door in the face of anyone else who might do what he did. Nice guy huh? And even though he admitted to 'cheating the system' Amazon didn't do anything to him, because as long as Amazon sells books they really don't care.


The "Data Avengers" are Ed Robertson and Phoenix Sullivan and others who collect hard data and use it to figure out how the Amazon algorithms work. They post about their work here on KB, and you can also read about it on Ed's and Phoenix's blogs. It's extremely useful if you want to make sure your decisions are based on something other than rumor or anecdote.

If you've collected examples of concurrent new releases that have the same number of sales in the first few days and either make the Top 100 or don't based on their review count, it would be great if you'd share that data.


----------



## Joseph Turkot (Nov 9, 2012)

Part of what this boils down to is that Joe's a moral guy (I think we pretty much all are around here, and this may be optimism)--he refuses to fight fire with fire. And he's also seen some of the fundamental weaknesses in an imperfect system, which he's pointing out. Most shocking of which is that company that approached about making hits on other competing books. If that's what he's experienced, we can't assume it to be a singular endeavor of that company's, or that that company is the worst offender. It may be that they are, but I would guess there is a range of corruption as far as reviews. I will also agree that reviews sell books. And that it's frustratingly hard to get them as a newbie--I was SO excited when my brother and my fiancee reviewed my first book. And then Amazon took them down and I was at square zero again, wondering what the hell I could do. 

The advice I picked up here of continuing to write, and sort of having a short memory as far as my last book was concerned, proved invaluable for me. That being said, I do agree that we are at the mercy of malicious reviewers, and maybe especially so by posting anything substantially real and controversial here. I would say that I don't know the underlying flaws in a system where there are no reviews, but there must be some there too. Because if it forces readers to seek reviews elsewhere, it might empower a kind of corporate review, something closer to a paid review from a third party website. This could also upset the balance we are ultimately looking for. We exist in an evolving system, and this is all a very good discussion to be having, though I am unsure of our power to do anything other than pontificate.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

books_mb said:


> I agree with the part about the meaningful and garbage reviews. Those are easy to spot. But the ones with the hidden agenda? Let's assume that 95 % of all reviews are authentic and the rest have a hidden agenda. Even if you were able to spot the hidden agenda with a 90 % chance (which is very optimistic), two out of three reviews you identify as having a hidden agenda will actually be authentic. A classic case of the false positive paradox and it's easy to get caught by this.


When I said reviews with agendas are "usually easy to spot," it's because if a review intrigues me, I dig down into the reviewer's profile and see what other products they've evaluated. Note that I didn't say "always," and I never quantified it. If I misjudge a review as having an agenda, no harm is done, and here's why:

If I dismiss a review, that review has no impact whatsoever on my evaluation of the product or its seller. It's as if the review never existed, so nobody's getting "caught" by "false positives." It's actually the opposite that we should be concerned about, the missed negative.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Oh I know Amazon claims they don't, but if you look at two books that come out at the same time, and have close to the same sale numbers, if one has 100 5 star reviews in the first few days it will make the top 100.


That would be interesting to test. Where do you get the sales numbers for the books?



> Joe, I agree completely with you. Amazon's review system is broken and accomplishes nothing. It doesn't help the reader or the author.


Wouldnt we have to ask consumers if it helps them?



> Joe did a good job explaining his position and too many people didn't even listen to him.


I listen, understand, and disagree.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

It would be the height of naivety to deny that there are parties who engage in business warfare by deliberately torpedoing the competition.

Reviews are helpful when they come from actual customers who have read the works they are reviewing, whether they are 1 or 5 stars. Reviews are business warfare when they are fraudulent, used only to destroy a competitor.

With all of its wisdom and magic, Amazon should be able to distinguish between the two, and actively smash the latter.

EDITED TO ADD: And I disagree about unverified reviews. If I ran the Zon they would not be permitted on the site. Buy the thing, use it (or read it) and that gives you the right to have a seat at the table. Everything else opens the process up to unreliable reviewing.

_Post edited to remove reference to a deleted post. Thanks. --Betsy_


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> With all of its wisdom and magic, Amazon should be able to distinguish between the two, and actively smash the latter.


For any given review, how do we distinguish? Im not smart enough.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> For any given review, how do we distinguish?


We don't. Amazon does. I'm confident they have the ability to do so if they wanted to do so. The first step might be to allow only verified purchase reviews to leave star ratings.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Mad H said:


> We don't. Amazon does. I'm confident they have the ability to do so if they wanted to do so. The first step might be to allow only verified purchase reviews to leave star ratings.


OK. What method do they use? We don't have to be Amazon to identify the factors that distinguish the two types of reviews.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> OK. What method do they use? We don't have to be Amazon to identify the factors that distinguish the two types of reviews.


Well, what method do they use now to distinguish a verified purchase? Or am I misunderstanding your question, because quite frankly, I don't know what your point is.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Mad H said:


> Well, what method do they use now to distinguish a verified purchase? Or am I misunderstanding your question, because quite frankly, I don't know what your point is.


Purchase verification doesn't identify reviews that are business warfare used to destroy a competitor. If the objective is to eliminate business warfare designed to destroy a competitor, how do we identify those reviews? Just buy the book and go to war.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Purchase verification doesn't identify reviews that are business warfare used to destroy a competitor. If the objective is to eliminate business warfare designed to destroy a competitor, how do we identify those reviews? Just buy the book and go to war.


I guess you and I don't know. But one has to assume that a deliberate, concentrated act of business warfare has to be coordinated, and I can't believe that if Amazon wanted to it could not detect such an effort. But I guess I can't say with any certainty that that's the case because the Zon is secretive to a fault. And maybe they don' want to, because they don't care what kind of business warfare goes on.

But Joe cares, because it impacts his business. We all might care if it impacted ours.

And now, I have actual important things to do, like write books.


----------



## David Thayer (Sep 7, 2012)

Joe, there are aspects of Amazon reviews not native to the book reviewing world most of us grew up with. Traditionally if you wanted to destroy another writer via a review you had to slip your barbs past an editor whose primary job was to cut cut cut until your review fit the page allocated to books, greatly reducing the insult payload.

Most Amazon book reviews are about the reviewer, not the book. This doesn't make them dishonest but it it is a little bit jarring because the central thesis is a kind of user experience stream of consciousness riff about the book we did not write but should have written in order to make this customer happy. That's why vacuum cleaner reviews are fascinating genre; the user has cleaned acres of carpet and now wants to share the experience. How bad could it be? The only limits are in the user's imagination.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

just logged on to a slew of reports.  Locking the thread while I review.

EDIT:  We're discussing this thread in Admin, but I'm going to reopen it for now.  I've removed an inappropriate post and posts that responded to it, and edited another that quoted the post.  

Let's move on.

Betsy


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Here's something different.

I love reviews as an author. Of other people's books.
I've checked out the negative reviews of books in my genre to find out what readers DON'T like.  I learn from that.
For instance, I've seen several comments (by those who prefer space opera to hard sci-fi) that authors get totally side-tracked by tedious explanations of technology. It's a space ship. It flies. 'nuff said. Or endless battles. Or the penchant of some authors to create names, remove most of the vowels and then throw a handful of apostrophes at it to come up with alien-sounding names.
Stuff like that makes me take note. Not that I'd take each comment as an absolute, but if you see it often enough there must be something to it.

So, yeah, I'm all for reviews, for many reasons.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am a consumer and a reader. I use reviews and ratings both. I need them both. Its all part of my vetting system. 
I need it not only to see what someone liked, but also to eliminate books on the lower stars. Like cliffhangers, religious, lots of spelling issues, certain tropes I don't like, etc.

So if there were no reviews and no ratings for any books, what would happen? This reader would only buy books from authors that are well known and publishers that are known. It would be one of the only vetting options left then. So where does that leave the brand new unknown author? Yep, out cold in the wind. 
Those already having their name out and having consistent sales and presence? They'd come out all the way on the top. 

Reviews matter, ratings matter, recommendations matter, covers matter. 

If anything, Amazon need to give control to the review writer over the comments placed under it like on goodreads. So they can go and delete the author and fangirl attacks when someone happens not to like a book. Oh the humanity, not liking a book, shocker.  
And get rid of the down votes to eliminate the mobs descending onto readers reviews and sometimes authors even downvote a 4-5 star because they want to move another one higher up on what appears first on the page. As in regular reader doesn't mean to them as much as a book report type technical review from a fellow writer or "important" blog.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Removing all negative feedback for reviews is just the evil mirror twin of the Only Real Names thing. It gives one side infinite harassment privileges with zero recourse.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Atunah said:


> And get rid of the down votes to eliminate the mobs descending onto readers reviews


Agree with this^ as it is abused completely. I upvote helpful app reviews all the time; but I know that those are downvoted, too, as I had a five star review of an app that was downvoted. 

Betsy


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

If they do that, they should disable both up and down votes that control position on the page and just have a review rating. Then just put the most recent reviews on the default pages with a Sort By Rating option on it.

That's how software sites like Cnet and the Mozilla extension hub do it. I'm pretty sure that's how Goodreads does it. Pretty much kills gaming on that level.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

In our new world of online commerce a site like Zon has made reviews work like ads used to. As consumers, we rely on them, as we used to rely on testimonials. "Nine out of ten doctors agree&#8230;"

I don't think consumers have thought yet about the impact of gaming the system or business warfare on reviews. But in regards to the former, Amazon has: they deleted a ton of reviews that they thought gamed the system. So, we can conclude that they don't want their review system to be gamed.

I guess they do not care yet about business warfare gaming the system. Maybe because consumers do not care. Yet.

But remember traditional advertising? A little thing called the FTC regulates all kinds of advertising claims--because consumers wanted them to.

If and when consumers realize that some of the reviews they rely on to make decisions are deliberate attempts to torpedo the reputation of the product/book/author/reviewer, then they may begin to care very much indeed.

We are in an age of _anything goes_ and _the market knows all._ But all things swing back and forth. We may find ourselves with a new reformer like TR who answers the call of Internet consumers-- providing that consumers ever decide they don't like what's going on.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> If they do that, they should disable both up and down votes that control position on the page and just have a review rating. Then just put the most recent reviews on the default pages with a Sort By Rating option on it.
> 
> That's how software sites like Cnet and the Mozilla extension hub do it. I'm pretty sure that's how Goodreads does it. Pretty much kills gaming on that level.


That might be a good thing, for us. But on non-book products, the reviews voted most helpful seem actually to be the most helpful ones. It's great not to have to slog through 400 reviews of a product to find the handful that contain essential info. For instance, I recently wanted to buy a shower mat, but the brand I had my eye on had labeled their sizes "small," "medium," "large," and some other thing ... "round," maybe. Fortunately, some reviewers had included measurements of the mats they ordered, and those reviews had been up-voted. By using the reviews, I was able to quickly choose the one that would fit my tub.

I don't think the 'Zon is going to do anything that compromises that kind of shopping experience. That _New Yorker _article from a few weeks back -- the one that went into trad pub paying major co-op to Amazon -- mentioned that book sales account for only 7% of Amazon's revenue, at this point. We shouldn't overestimate our ability to drive changes to the way things are done on the site as a whole.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Dean Crawford said:


> I generally agree with pretty much everything Joe posts about here on KBoards, but in this instance I think that reviews are a part and parcel of Amazon's system and, although they _can_ be abused, those that do so are far outnumbered by those that don't. It's just like real-life: countless daily small acts of daily kindness mostly go unnoticed, while the acts of cruelty and terror make headline news and create great disruption.
> 
> Reviews make a difference, but I too agree with several comments here that an Amazon review should only be available to an Amazon purchaser and that their real name should be used. It's fine to make purchases under monikers for personal security and such like, but if you're going to comment on something then a reviewer should be willing to share their identity. I fail to understand the reasoning behind Amazon's continued allowance of what are essentially random reviews - anybody can attack from behind a veil of anonymity, and thus they do so, often in great numbers. What's more, it's the veil that allows companies to offer paid-review services and in Joe's case to mount large-scale attacks.
> 
> It has to change: I firmly believe that much of the spite cast by a cruel few would be banished by this simple new term of service from Amazon, and from their new acquisition GoodReads for that matter. If reviewers haven't got the conviction to make their reviews / statements in their own names, then surely they surrender the right to make them at all...?


I have no issuue with a verified purchase requirement, though I have no issue with not having the requirement either. And I post my reviews under my own name, which is my professional name and so is all over the Internet anyway. But I will support "monikers" for reviewers with my last breath, or at least until Amazon requires all authors to publish under their real names. I've seen too much nasty stuff done to begrudge anyone privacy and security.

I do think Amazon should pull reviews that even smell dubious, and should be more responsive to complaints about reviews.

Betsy


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't think the 'Zon is going to do anything that compromises that kind of shopping experience. That _New Yorker _article from a few weeks back -- the one that went into trad pub paying major co-op to Amazon -- mentioned that book sales account for only 7% of Amazon's revenue, at this point. We shouldn't overestimate our ability to drive changes to the way things are done on the site as a whole.


Well yeah, absolutely nothing is going to change because the social media elements of the review system, possibly ESPECIALLY the drama keeps butts in the seat (in this case, the browsers on Amazon). The fact that it can be gamed and weaponized is going to only enhance that aspect.

On the other hand, we should be aware of things like the fact that product assassins exist. I haven't met any who deal in books as of yet though. They were all about computers and large appliances a few year ago and have moved on to apps. It's stunning what they manage to get away with, like straight up lying about features in the description being missing.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Dean Crawford said:


> I don't doubt that, but we're talking about so much nasty stuff done _while hiding behind_ privacy and security. I totally get the privacy thing and maybe you're right that asking for real names is perhaps too much, but there has to be some kind of accountability, perhaps from Amazon itself which presumably has access to the identities of such reviewers. Perhaps their ability to review in future could be revoked if they were discovered to have abused the system or something?
> 
> It's a very complicated problem to police, and I don't think anybody really has come up with a singular solution that would work.


I do think that Amazon will revoke review privileges (not sure, though), but I do agree that that should be a potential consequence. I think Amazon needs to be more responsive when it comes to questionable reviews. However, from what I've seen here, what some authors consider questionable reviews and what I, a reader, consider a questionable review are two very different things many times.

Betsy


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> On the other hand, we should be aware of things like the fact that product assassins exist. I haven't met any who deal in books as of yet though. They were all about computers and large appliances a few year ago and have moved on to apps. It's stunning what they manage to get away with, like straight up lying about features in the description being missing.


Product assassins. Wow.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

When I wrote this post, I had no realistic anticipation of the Amazon review system being taken down. A sharp-edged metaphor might be a more accurate description of my intent.

Still, I don't think it's silly to envision this as the eventual outcome. Amazon must have a small army of people trying to police that system. They are constantly taking down reviews, and given the millions and millions of posts, that must take quite a bit of manpower. I'm sure our own mods will attest to how difficult it is to make decisions and keep up with the volume here. Imagine trying to do that with Amazon's reviews.

Please consider:

-Many folks on this and the other review threads have commented that they ignore reviews that have an agenda, while others say negative reviews actually drive them to purchase a book. Those statements *offset* the intent of the negative review.

-A book with all 5-stars is suspect in many reader's eyes. Again, this POV *offsets* the value of positive reviews.

-I, and several others on this board, have claimed that the review system is occasionally used for acts of skullduggery. Even if it isn't that common, it does happen. This *offset*s the credibility of negative reviews.

-Some authors have abused the review system with sock puppets. Again, this *degrades* the value of reviews.

- A few have posted that they delve into the reviewer's profile and history. Doesn't this take time? The mere fact that they are compelled to do this makes a statement about their perception of system. If it was trusted, why bother?

If these types of activities continue, at what point will the review system become meaningless as a resource? At what point will Amazon determine that it's time to repurpose that army onto more profitable tasks? When will readers just ignore those stars as being nothing but advertisements, vendetta and likely falsehoods?

At the rate we're going, I don't believe this is an outlandish concept.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Amazon doesn't have a small army policing reviews. They have spiders and algos that check for IP address wonkiness, traffic from sites they don't like, bot-like patterns and sloppy astroturfing techniques. That's why they're so bad at picking out fake reviews from real ones and why they really don't care.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Vaalingrade said:


> Amazon doesn't have a small army policing reviews. They have spiders and algos that check for IP address wonkiness, traffic from sites they don't like, bot-like patterns and sloppy astroturfing techniques. That's why they're so bad at picking out fake reviews from real ones and why they really don't care.


Nor do we have a small army reading threads here (though we, clearly, are small potatos next to Amazon). But I _think_ we're responsive to reports. As a customer, I don't expect Amazon to read every review. That's why they have report mechanisms in place. I do expect them, since they have those mechanisms in place, to respond to them. They may not agree with the reporter's assessment (as we don't always here), but I would hope they look at reported reviews....

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> If these types of activities continue, at what point will the review system become meaningless as a resource? At what point will Amazon determine that it's time to repurpose that army onto more profitable tasks? When will readers just ignore those stars as being nothing but advertisements, vendetta and likely falsehoods?


We don't have evidence to support the notion that Amazon devoted substantial manpower to reviews. Most of their actions can be handled by a computer program looking at addresses, accounts,etc. Note all the complaints of inconsistency in Amazon's treatment of different people and books. That's consistent with programs scanning for conditions.

I agree with you regarding offsets. However, after acknowledging offsets, the next task is to identify the extent of the offsets. Do they offset 1% or 100%? What percentage of one effect is offset by another. Matkerts are loaded with offsets. Most are overwhelmed by far stronger forced.



> 1) No one wants to "level the playing field" and why should they? This is capitalism.


God Bless capitalism, for the nimble remain standing on a tilting field.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Nor do we have a small army reading threads here (though we, clearly, are small potatos next to Amazon). But I _think_ we're responsive to reports. As a customer, I don't expect Amazon to read every review. That's why they have report mechanisms in place. I do expect them, since they have those mechanisms in place, to respond to them. They may not agree with the reporter's assessment (as we don't always here), but I would hope they look at reported reviews....
> 
> Betsy


From what I can tell, a flag just puts a review higher in the bot's queue. The thing is, bots are dumb and people usually hand-write reviews, both legit and fake. I suspect there's already a cottage industry of research based around finding out what the bots kill or not.

Like I said, they don't really care, they have no incentive to care, and the drama all this causes drives more people to the site. Because they black box everything, there's no way to prove _why_ they deep sixed something neutral while another that flat out lies about the product stays so you technically can't argue.


----------



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

I think getting rid of the up/down voting thing would go a long way to mitigating the problems associated with reviews because they would sink out of sight rather than float to the surface. However this also works the opposite way. On one of my books I have a very old review that has stayed afloat right at the top. It was written by a very enthusiastic fan of my books. So I love that guy and his review. If the voting went away maybe a one star would be on top. Who knows?

Verified purchase is a good idea, but won't solve any problems discussed here. You can buy, review, and return. Or you can just buy and chalk the cost up to your warfare budget. Seriously, if you are the sort to perpetrate this crap, you're not going to sweat spending a few dollars to get it done.

The only real way to deal with this is if the Zon can have some kind of back end pattern matching that looks for trends from the accounts in question or the IP... something like that. Say one account suddenly posts tons of 1 stars or something like that. How do they find and remove the friends and family reviews? They have the ability they just need to apply it better.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Nor do we have a small army reading threads here (though we, clearly, are small potatos next to Amazon). But I _think_ we're responsive to reports. As a customer, I don't expect Amazon to read every review. That's why they have report mechanisms in place. I do expect them, since they have those mechanisms in place, to respond to them. They may not agree with the reporter's assessment (as we don't always here), but I would hope they look at reported reviews....
> 
> Betsy


Betsy - I in no way meant to imply you guys weren't responsive. You're great, and make this a place worth investing time. But it does take effort/time and resources doesn't it? Multiply that times the behemoth that is Amazon.

I've also seen where you have posted that you were "discussing this among the mods," and I'm sure those decisions take even more time.

As far as my statement about an "army," I base that on my experience in reporting reviews. Once you hit the "report abuse" button, you normally receive an automated response. Soon thereafter we often receive an email from an individual. We haven't reported that many, but a few. If the review still isn't taken down after another week, then we call. There is an entire department (we are normally transferred) that handles reviews. I can't say how many people work in it, but there is a department.

My experience with reporting reviews to Amazon is that most of the "mods" you interact with are good, but some don't care. I had one tell me once that, "You authors think anyone who frowns at your book is unfair. I'm not taking down the review."

"But ma'am, that review says 'this writer is terrible because he's clearly not getting any sex at home and who can blame his wife?' and I don't want my children reading that kind of nonsense. What does my sex life have to do with my book?"

"It is all part of the reader's experience with your book. The review stands."

"But the T&C... the rule about personal attacks..."

"The review stands. Good day." Click.

So yes, in a week or two Amazon is normally responsive, if you can call it that.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Boyd said:


> Oh yeah, with an account with fiverr or Freelancer (or odesk) and about 100$ you can one star an author to death to the point that it makes a significant impact to their book sales. There were ads on there looking for crews to tank authors last time I checked.


Given how unlikely that is to make the sales of some other book in the same genre go up, I assume it's motivated by spite.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Joe,

thanks for the kind words!  I never thought you were saying anything about the moderation here!  Sorry to be confusing.  I was reflecting on what might be done, based on our experience here, which is of course miniscule compared to Amazon.  And yet, I'm willing to bet our moderation staff is also miniscule.

It's a difficult issue, and not made any easier on either side by reports without substance.  We get such reports here--and they take the same amount of effort as do reports with substance.  And I know those reports must exist on Amazon, because we've all seen the threads here where a relatively new author takes umbrage at a review, and when cooler heads actually look at the review, there's not much "there" there.

So no, no easy solutions.  But an interesting discussion, nonetheless....

Betsy


----------



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

Joe_Nobody said:


> Betsy - I in no way meant to imply you guys weren't responsive. You're great, and make this a place worth investing time. But it does take effort/time and resources doesn't it? Multiply that times the behemoth that is Amazon.
> 
> I've also seen where you have posted that you were "discussing this among the mods," and I'm sure those decisions take even more time.
> 
> ...


If Igot that rresponse I would be asking for his supervisor and emailing bezos. THAT is not acceptable. They either follow their own rules are they throw the rules away I say.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

StevenCampbell said:


> 1) No one wants to "level the playing field" and why should they? This is capitalism. The playing field tilts. If I want to challenge Coca Cola I'm going to have a really hard time. Should we make it illegal for Coke to advertise and force stores to stock my off-brand soda so I have a level playing field? That isn't what capitalism does.
> <snip>


I don't agree with this premise.

Capitalism has always put mechanisms in place to help level the paying field. Well--eventually.

To use your own example, Capitalism has a mechanism to prevent that powerful corporate soft drink giant from saying to your customers, "if you stock Steven's soft drink, we won't sell you Coke."

So--sorry. We _do_ want to level the playing field.

That's what Lincoln thought the Federal government's purpose was. To _level the field_ so that everyone had an equal chance--by the sweat of their brow and their own industry-- to succeed.

We may not live in a world where this is currently in practice, but many believe that is the idea of American capitalism.


----------



## Rachel Aukes (Oct 13, 2013)

Dean Crawford said:


> Reviews make a difference, but I too agree with several comments here that an Amazon review should only be available to an Amazon purchaser and that their real name should be used.


Lots of good ideas floating through these posts, but I'll have to disagree with these two ideas (which is strange since I usually find myself agreeing with much of what Dean writes).

If real names are required, no erotic story would ever get a review again. That genre would be horribly discriminated against.

If purchases must be verified, it would eliminate many reviews across all products. While it may have some good to come with it (cut down on shill reviews as well as eliminate the need for authors to send out free copies for review), it would do little to stop the attacks that are the real issue. Also, I don't know of any stores that require purchase to leave a review (or a real name for that fact).

I'd like the up and down votes to disappear. At least the down votes seem capable of causing more harm than good.

I'd also like to see a simple star system (without requiring reviews) to be available as I think books would get a much higher number of ratings, making the average more "real" (i.e. less able to game) for many books.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

markecooper said:


> If Igot that rresponse I would be asking for his supervisor and emailing bezos. THAT is not acceptable. They either follow their own rules are they throw the rules away I say.


What's really funny is I wouldn't even bother to report that review now. That occurred back when I was a newer-newbie (as compared to just a newbie now), and I was thin-skinned. Now days, I'd just shake my head at that review and move on. Amazing what you can get use too, isn't it? As I recall, that one didn't hurt sales at all, it just made me mad.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Mad H said:


> I don't agree with this premise.
> 
> Capitalism has always put mechanisms in place to help level the paying field. Well--eventually.
> 
> ...


Most restaurants either stock coke or pepsi but not both. Matter of fact I think that is an industry standard.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Leveling the playing field usually means Im trying to take away the other guys advantage so I can tilt the field in my favor.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Leveling the playing field usually means Im trying to take away the other guys advantage so I can tilt the field in my favor.


Or, it's taking away the other guy's *unfair* advantage so I can compete with equal opportunity.

But, we're not going to agree about this, so God Bless America and our right to disagree.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Most restaurants either stock coke or pepsi but not both. Matter of fact I think that is an industry standard.


That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to a company threatening another company as a way of crushing the business of another company. It's called a secondary boycott, and it's illegal.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Mad H said:


> Or, it's taking away the other guy's *unfair* advantage so I can compete with equal opportunity.
> 
> But, we're not going to agree about this, so God Bless America and our right to disagree.


Unfair needs a standard against which fairness can be measured. What is it?

Everyone can enter the market, but nobody has to hobble themselves to match the capabilities of the weakest players.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Impossible to legally replicate, gained by means not actually available to others, gained through dishonesty or to the real harm of others, etc.

This tactic of asking questions we know the answers to is tedious.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> This tactic of asking questions we know the answers to is tedious.


Agreed.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Unfair needs a standard against which fairness can be measured. What is it?


Look, Terrence, I'm not going to debate you on this. There are laws in place that protect against Unfair Trade Practices. There are legal definitions. The law, at times, chooses to level the playing field, whether or not I can poorly articulate those definitions to your satisfaction.

My point has always been, we are in unchartered waters when dealing with Internet commerce. What used to be traditional advertising, and the protections put in place to monitor the abuse of that advertising, are now blurred. It may be that nothing will ever be done to address review assassins, but it may well be that eventually, in a more progressive age, regulators--or better yet, consumers--will see this as an unfair trade practice, and something will be done to control the practice.

We'll have to wait and see.

EDITED to spell Terrence's name with two R's. I owe him that courtesy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Vaalingrad and LeeBee (and others):

You know you don't actually have to respond to questions/posts you don't want to, right?


Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Impossible to legally replicate, gained by means not actually available to others, gained through dishonesty or to the real harm of others, etc.
> 
> This tactic of asking questions we know the answers to is tedious.


If I buy a company, nobody else can buy that company. Cant be legally replicated.

If I invest lots of money, and few people have lots of money, I gain knowledge unavailable to others. I am free to use it to my advantage.

I ask the questions to highlight the fact that people really don't know the answers. The slogans sound good, but they are usually empty.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Vaalingrad and LeeBee (and others):
> 
> You know you don't actually have to respond to questions/posts you don't want to, right?
> 
> ...


Hey, for all you know, I could be obsessive/compulsive!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Look, Terrence, I'm not going to debate you on this. There are laws in place that protect against Unfair Trade Practices. There are legal definitions. The law, at times, chooses to level the playing field, whether or not I can poorly articulate those definitions to your satisfaction.


In that case, we can substitute illegal for unfair. That is much easier to deal with, and eliminates from consideration lots of stuff various people consider unfair.



> My point has always been, we are in unchartered waters when dealing with Internet commerce. What used to be traditional advertising, and the protections put in place to monitor the abuse of that advertising, are now blurred. It may be that nothing will ever be done to address review assassins, but it may well be that eventually, in a more progressive age, regulators--or better yet, consumers--will see this as an unfair trade practice, and something will be done to control the practice.


Progressivism contends consumers are too stupid, poorly educated, and uninformed to know what is in their best interests. Given that situation, the more intelligent, better informed, and better educated progressives have to make decisions for them. Since the consumers are too dumb to know what is in their best interests, these progressives can't be subject to democratic processes since consumers are too dumb to know who to vote for.

This does fit with the notion that consumers are too stupid to read reviews and decide for themselves. Someone else has to do it for them.

Lets hope the progressives and their regulators fail, and consumers have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. Consumers know how to pick their own fiction books.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> In that case, we can substitute illegal for unfair. That is much easier to deal with, and eliminates from consideration lots of stuff various people consider unfair.
> 
> Progressivism contends consumers are too stupid, poorly educated, and uninformed to know what is in their best interests. Given that situation, the more intelligent, better informed, and better educated progressives have to make decisions for them. Since the consumers are too dumb to know what is in their best interests, these progressives can't be subject to democratic processes since consumers are too dumb to know who to vote for.
> 
> ...


No, thank you, I'll stick with "unfair."

And try as I might, I cannot find that definition of "progressive" from any reputable source. So I guess we will have to leave it to you to define it for us? 

And, no thank you again--I'll not hope that progressives and their regulators fail. You may do that, if you wish.

And now I'll give my side of this a rest.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Mad H said:


> No, thank you, I'll stick with "unfair."
> 
> And try as I might, I cannot find that definition of "progressive" from any reputable source. So I guess we will have to leave it to you to define it for us?
> 
> ...


OK. In that case I will again ask what is the standard of fairness. How can it be applied if we dont know what it is? The standard of legality is much easier, and I agree with you on that.

If we look at Progressivism as it emerged at the beginning of the last century, we will see what I describe. Progressives firmly believed that the society of 1905 had become so complex people could no longer successfully navigate it. They considered their intervention necessary for the perfection of society. The greatest impediment they faced was the US Constitution with its focus on individual rights and limitation on government. That dissatisfaction with the constitution continues today with the criticism that it lacks positive rights.

Its much more complex than a simple definition, but pretty interesting stuff.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Ethics in a profession are codified and administered by a governing body. The AMA, some unions, realty associations, the bar, etc., are examples. Even the government has oversight committees and rules to keep their members in line. Doesn't always work, but they have it.

We as indie writers/publishers have neither the codes nor the governing body. Consequently, what is ethical or not is often measured from personal perspectives on a case-by-case basis.

To my way of thinking, before we can accuse someone of unethical practices, we need a code of ethics that lays it out. Otherwise practices that fall within the law but that take advantage of others are simply right or wrong in the eyes of the beholders.

But to illustrate how a formal code of ethics sometimes fails, I can offer this story. I was once in a real estate transaction as a seller, and a realtor did something I thought was unethical and certainly to my disadvantage. I set out to file a complaint with the board of realtors, and they gave me a copy of their code of ethics. Guess what. Not one item in the code dealt with ethical concerns between clients and realtors. Is was all about keeping realtors from using unfair business practices that would disadvantage other realtors.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Ethics in a profession are codified and administered by a governing body. The AMA, some unions, realty associations, the bar, etc., are examples. Even the government has oversight committees and rules to keep their members in line. Doesn't always work, but they have it.


When we see all the lawyers advertising on TV today, its great to recall all the ethical hand wringing in the Seventies when lawyers first started to advertise.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

"_It would be so easy to game the Amazon system. I can go buy $50 worth of pre-loaded Visa cards at Walmart. There's no name on them... no address. I can set up multiple Amazon accounts. I can go download a few .99 cent books, wait a few weeks, post a few innocent reviews and then get to work trashing anybody I want too. I can use VPNs to mask my IP. Easy as pie. Buy one copy on each account, tear it a new one with a review, and then return the purchase. Cake."
_

Not so. Amazon will not accept pre-paid or gift cards for the purpose of setting up an account that will allow reviews or purchase of "US only" products. Many people who do not reside in the US tried this - unsuccessfully. They shut that door many years ago.


----------



## death wizard (Jan 31, 2014)

Deke said:


> I've thought they should keep reviews but ditch stars. Make people read the review.
> 
> On the other hand, my philosophy is be honest in writing a review, but always give 4 or 5 stars. I dont want to trash writers star ratings, but will be honest when a book is not up to snuff.


Agreed.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

DarkScribe said:


> "_It would be so easy to game the Amazon system. I can go buy $50 worth of pre-loaded Visa cards at Walmart. There's no name on them... no address. I can set up multiple Amazon accounts. I can go download a few .99 cent books, wait a few weeks, post a few innocent reviews and then get to work trashing anybody I want too. I can use VPNs to mask my IP. Easy as pie. Buy one copy on each account, tear it a new one with a review, and then return the purchase. Cake."
> _
> 
> Not so. Amazon will not accept pre-paid or gift cards for the purpose of setting up an account that will allow reviews or purchase of "US only" products. Many people who do not reside in the US tried this - unsuccessfully. They shut that door many years ago.


I have to disagree. My son just received a pre-paid American Express card (from Walmart) for his birthday and opened his own Amazon account. He drained the card buying video games in less than a day. He could have typed any name, address or other information into his new profile. It worked just fine.


----------



## Wolfpack (Jun 20, 2013)

I agree on taking the ability to vote reviews up and down out of the equation would help to level the playing field.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

My one-click is a prepaid credit card.  I actually just had a gift card for a while. Nook requires a real credit card not Amazon.  Oh and I have nothing at Kobo.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Here's what Amazon says about prepaid cards. I didn't see any restrictions except that you can't use a gift card to sign up for Prime.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201132770
Amazon.com, "Restrictions on Pre-Paid Cards"

Amazon.com lets you use pre-paid cards for the majority of purchases, but certain restrictions apply.

The following restrictions apply to pre-paid Visa, MasterCard, and American Express cards:

•Can't be combined with credit cards on a single order. 
•Can't be used to sign-up for Amazon Prime membership. 
•Amazon.com doesn't support entering the three-digit CVV code normally found on the back of some cards. If the code is required by the issuing bank, payments may not process successfully.

Note:

•Some banks may require registration of pre-paid gift cards by name and billing address. 
•There's a $1 authorization at the time of order to make sure the payment method is valid. This authorization is not a charge, but banks may hold the authorized funds as unavailable until the authorization expires.

*** 
This is what Amazon says about using gift cards for digital downloads. Yes, someone could do a whole bunch of book downloads with gift cards, although they would have to have an account first in order to redeem the cards:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201138910
Amazon.com, "Use a gift card for digital downloads"

Amazon.com gift cards can be used to buy Kindle content, Amazon MP3s and Amazon Instant Video downloads.

To use a gift card for digital downloads, do one of the following:

•Redeem your gift card in Your Account. 
•Click Redeem a gift card or promotion code before clicking Buy now. 
Once your gift card has been redeemed to Your Account, the balance will automatically be used to pay for your downloads.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=3122091
"Amazon.com Gift card terms and conditions"
This is a long document with more details.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I think it may depend on the type of prepaid cards.  I did use it for a magazine subscription but it is a NetSpend not one you pick up at Walmart.  That being said it would not let me use a Visa gift card for that subscription.
I think anything that auto-renews has to be a real credit card.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Reviews are the cornerstone of Amazons business model and I don't see them ditching or changing them--ever. It's copied by everyone. Five years or ten ago you never saw all this review BS going on. Sure some books got crazy 1 and 5 stars but they were in a reasonable curve. What has changed is the entry of SP people and some of them, the authors, their friends, little cabals have played the reviews. Amazon I'm sure tries to ferret them out and they should do a better job. 

HEY JOE: Don't retire. You've yet to hit your prime.


----------



## John Van Stry (May 25, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> I want proof that these two books sold exactly the same. Some of you keep talking about how this system is gamed. Show don't tell. This is why I appreciated Joe answering me earlier. It made me feel better about him because he did have proof.
> Now can someone please tell me exactly how many the top two sold at Amazon. Or any other two books for that matter. That is any two books that are not yours. No educated guesses there.


I don't care if you believe me or not. Do the work yourself, it's not that hard to figure out if you take the time to do it. I didn't hold onto my spreadsheets after I did it, because I was able to determine in the case I was looking at that it wasn't fraud, the author just talked all of the people on a forum he writes for into buying his book and writing a review. I suspect they all got it during a free period, but maybe not, wasn't an expensive book.

As for determining sales numbers, look at the ranking of the book. There are places out there that will give you a pretty darn good estimate how that number converts. Plug your own sales into it to check the curve. It's not rocket science, just a bit of math.

But the biggest proof that reviews help numbers is the simple truth that people sell reviews. And big authors have been caught buying them.

If you have a good book, and suddenly get 100 sales and 100 4 to 5 star reviews, your book will suddenly be in the top 100 of at least one of it's categories. People will see it, and buy it. Pretty soon it becomes self-sustaining, if you've got a good book. If not it'll fall off pretty soon. I can understand why Amazon weights reviews, it only makes sense to push stuff that people like to the top. However that means some people are always going to try and game the system.

Personally I do not get involved in what goes on at Amazon at all anymore beyond just posting my books. I don't take part in the forums there anymore (and I used to be very active) or even read their newsletter. There are too many people who engage in what Joe talks about (I've seen it) and Amazon really doesn't care, doesn't want to care. And considering the childish behavior of some people, I can understand why they don't want to waste money trying to police any of it. So better to just stand clear of all of it.

Sorry if this reply ran a bit astray.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> As for determining sales numbers, look at the ranking of the book. There are places out there that will give you a pretty darn good estimate how that number converts. Plug your own sales into it to check the curve. It's not rocket science, just a bit of math.


How do we know the sales reported by those sites are good? What can we check them against for accuracy? How do those sites determine sales from rank? What is the math? If rank is adjusted by reviews, how can those sites give accurate sales data?

If rank is already distorted by reviews, how can any system use rank to derive accurate sales?



> But the biggest proof that reviews help numbers is the simple truth that people sell reviews. And big authors have been caught buying them.


It is reasonable to contend reviews boost sales, and sales translate to rank.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

vanstry said:


> As for determining sales numbers, look at the ranking of the book. There are places out there that will give you a pretty darn good estimate how that number converts. Plug your own sales into it to check the curve. It's not rocket science, just a bit of math.


But you've claimed that the number of reviews a book has factors into its ranking. If that's the case, then we can't use rankings to estimate a book's sales.

The only way to know that the number of reviews a book has factors into its ranking is to have two (or more) books that sell close to the same number of copies over the same (substantial) time period, yet have markedly different rankings, with the more-reviewed book being ranked higher. In other words, the other variables -- sales over time and ranking -- need to be known in order to test the effect the number of reviews has on ranking. The sales figures would have to be revealed by the authors themselves.


----------



## busywoman (Feb 22, 2014)

Ann in Arlington said:


> As a customer of Amazon I like that real people can post their real thoughts. It's really not very hard to sort out those reviews from ones that have an 'agenda' pro or con. This goes for EVERYTHING amazon sells from air freshener to zorro masks.


So true! I've seen reviews that obviously are hatchet jobs, but I just ignore them when they seem to have suspicious motivations.

Here is how I use reviews as a voracious reader:

(1) I look to see what people said, not the number of stars. Even one star reviews can be positive to me, depending on what they say. For instance, if the one star says "I liked the plot and characters but it was filled with typos and desperately needed editing," that won't stop me. As annoying as I find typos and bad editing, I would much rather have an interesting read. Or if someone says the book was like the other two prior books by the author, I take that as a good thing.

(2) I've never decided not to buy based on a low average review - especially not for the kind of survivalist fiction that you write, Joe Nobody. I am much more likely to buy based on a good thorough blurb. I also buy based on having read an earlier book by the same author that I liked. I use freebie promotions to identify new authors to try, and then buy multiple books once I find something I like.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

rachelaukes said:


> I'd also like to see a simple star system (without requiring reviews) to be available as I think books would get a much higher number of ratings, making the average more "real" (i.e. less able to game) for many books.


This is why I proposed a simple coupon issued by Amazon equal to one-fifth to one-seventh the value of the book you just read, to be applied to the purchase of your next book. All you need to redeem the coupon--which has no cash value--is to rate the finished book. Here is where it might help.

You have one crushing review meant to destroy the marketability of your book, but also seven ratings, say, of three stars or better. Amazon won't remove the terrible review, but the stars give you a fighting chance.

Most of those who commented on the thread attacked or belittled the idea. I see the coupon as a small incentive for the reader to help out the author and to encourage the sale of another book. Considering all the angst over reviews, expressed in thread after thread after thread, I think the coupon, overall, is a plus.


----------



## ecg52 (Apr 29, 2013)

I don't read reviews. So many of them are such crap. I don't look at stars either. I read the blurb and if it grabs me, I take click on Look Inside. Sometimes if the blurb really grabs me, I don't even check out the Look Inside. Yeah, the blurb sometimes is better than the book. When that happens, I usually don't buy another book by the same author. 
I guess I'm already boycotting them by not reading them. I have few reviews, even on the books that sell well under my erotica pen name. Yet I get emails asking when my next book in my western series in my signature is coming out. 
I just ignore reviews as a reader and as a writer. Though I will admit when I do get a good one, I tend to preen a bit. But just a bit.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

busywoman said:


> So true! I've seen reviews that obviously are hatchet jobs, but I just ignore them when they seem to have suspicious motivations.
> 
> Here is how I use reviews as a voracious reader:
> 
> ...


I appreciate you and the other readers chiming in on this post. Readers always have my ear and my heart.

If all consumers of our ware had the same attitude and thoroughness in their selections, then attack reviews wouldn't be nearly as affective and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But unfortunately, my experience (and that of lots of others) is that careful shoppers such as yourself are in the minority. I believe that many Amazon customers are short on time. It appears to me that they often browse lists, categories or enter search terms and make their selections quickly based on summary glances. I base this belief on the number of reviews I read (not my own) where the reader has been surprised by content/length/genera, despite such information being clear in the blurb, Amazon product details, and other information boldly displayed.

You are clearly an "engaged" consumer of books. You are participating in a forum, posting and visiting a site for Kindle readers. Your response got me to thinking that perhaps you're onto the answer.

Maybe someone should undertake an effort to more effectively educate readers and that would solve the problem without the rash acts I propose?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Hudson Owen said:


> This is why I proposed a simple coupon issued by Amazon equal to one-fifth to one-seventh the value of the book you just read, to be applied to the purchase of your next book. All you need to redeem the coupon--which has no cash value--is to rate the finished book. Here is where it might help.
> 
> You have one crushing review meant to destroy the marketability of your book, but also seven ratings, say, of three stars or better. Amazon won't remove the terrible review, but the stars give you a fighting chance.
> 
> Most of those who commented on the thread attacked or belittled the idea. I see the coupon as a small incentive for the reader to help out the author and to encourage the sale of another book. Considering all the angst over reviews, expressed in thread after thread after thread, I think the coupon, overall, is a plus.


But, what's the incentive for amazon to do something like this. The system as it is works well for them and it works well for the vast majority of their customers. I fully agree they need to be instantly responsive when a review is posted that is outside their ToS. Clearly that's something they need to work on. But offering rebates for reviews? I don't see that as a viable solution -- or likely to change HOW people review.

Heck, as it is, there are apparently people who don't know they can ignore notices from Amazon that say, "thanks for buying this, please leave a review." (Me: I have those notices turned off -- I guess folks don't know they can do that, either.) And there have been multiple complaints on this board that people do then go post less than favorable or completely off topic reviews -- usually with out five full stars. I don't see that incentivizing people further will change that.

I am in favor of HONEST reviews.

If the review thought the book was crap and says why, that IS helpful to me and I will likely vote it up.

If it's a personal attack, I'll report it as inappropriate.

If it's glowing but without any substance -- This book was great. Everyone should read it. The author is great. The characters are great. The plot is great. -- that's going to get marked NOT helpful by me.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> But, what's the incentive for amazon to do something like this. The system as it is works well for them and it works well for the vast majority of their customers. I fully agree they need to be instantly responsive when a review is posted that is outside their ToS. Clearly that's something they need to work on. But offering rebates for reviews? I don't see that as a viable solution -- or likely to change HOW people review.
> 
> Heck, as it is, there are apparently people who don't know they can ignore notices from Amazon that say, "thanks for buying this, please leave a review." (Me: I have those notices turned off -- I guess folks don't know they can do that, either.) And there have been multiple complaints on this board that people do then go post less than favorable or completely off topic reviews -- usually with out five full stars. I don't see that incentivizing people further will change that.
> 
> ...


The incentive to Amazon would be the same as for any company that issues a coupon for a RATING not a review--to stimulate an additional sale. You would not say that Amazon is so large it cannot use more sales. As for highly negative reviews that were not deleted by Amazon, I think Joe Nobody gave examples earlier in the thread. A sales killer need not directly attack the author. it could be archly dismissive or even appear to try and help the author, nonetheless with the effect of killing sales. I have sold items door-to-door. During my pitch, the sales killer would enter with a smile. By your own admission, Amazon prompts to review the book annoy you, so you turn that feature off. A coupon that might be worth $.50, say, might get you to push the rating button. Done. You've already read the book. Why not let the author know something about it? Of course, an author that gets terrible ratings _and_ reviews for his book, knows he needs to do something to improve sales.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hudson Owen said:
 

> The incentive to Amazon would be the same as for any company that issues a coupon for a RATING not a review--to stimulate an additional sale. You would not say that Amazon is so large it cannot use more sales. As for highly negative reviews that were not deleted by Amazon, I think Joe Nobody gave examples earlier in the thread. A sales killer need not directly attack the author. it could be archly dismissive or even appear to try and help the author, nonetheless with the effect of killing sales. I have sold items door-to-door. During my pitch, the sales killer would enter with a smile. By your own admission, Amazon prompts to review the book annoy you, so you turn that feature off. A coupon that might be worth $.50, say, might get you to push the rating button. Done. You've already read the book. Why not let the author know something about it? Of course, an author that gets terrible ratings _and_ reviews for his book, knows he needs to do something to improve sales.


The problem with this is it is not financially viable for Amazon. One that could be construed as paying for reviews. Oh yea a 50 cent gift card for every review, I would be all over that. 50 cents off next purchase no.
Now please do some quick math for me. 7000 ebook purchases times 50 cents.
Oh and because prices change, the coupon would have to be one price across the board.
Note those 7000 are just one person.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> But unfortunately, my experience (and that of lots of others) is that careful shoppers such as yourself are in the minority. I believe that many Amazon customers are short on time. It appears to me that they often browse lists, categories or enter search terms and make their selections quickly based on summary glances. I base this belief on the number of reviews I read (not my own) where the reader has been surprised by content/length/genera, despite such information being clear in the blurb, Amazon product details, and other information boldly displayed.


I've used that technique for many for years for fiction, and never found it unfortunate. I'm not a careful shopper. That's what I did in bookstores. The cover would catch my eye. I'd pick up the book, glance at the blurb, check the author, flip through a few pages, and buy it. Others would go back on the rack. I don't know what processes were at work, but I do know the system worked very well because I liked most of the books I bought. If I didn't like the book after buying, I just stopped reading.

On Amazon, I use a similar system, but never read the sample. The system still works well.

It's not because I am short on time. Reviews simply aren't a decision variable for fiction. I buy without them.

But I'm sure I am influenced by the star score on Amazon because I can't avoid seeing it, and have been conditioned all my life to associate varying degrees of quality with stars. It's a reflex.

I don't know what percentage of Amazon books are purchased by people who read the reviews. Anyone know? There are lots of consumer behaviors, and we can't decide how they should behave.



> The incentive to Amazon would be the same as for any company that issues a coupon for a RATING not a review--to stimulate an additional sale.


We can't presume the incentive for any company's use of a tactic unless we know their objective, strategy, and alternative tactics for executing the strategy. All companies want sales, but some use coupons, and some don't. That hardly means the ones that don't are uninterested in sales.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> The problem with this is it is not financially viable for Amazon. One that could be construed as paying for reviews. Oh yea a 50 cent gift card for every review, I would be all over that. 50 cents off next purchase no.
> Now please do some quick math for me. 7000 ebook purchases times 50 cents.
> Oh and because prices change, the coupon would have to be one price across the board.
> Note those 7000 are just one person.


Why is it that when I write* RATING* everyone else sees review? A review requires thought. A rating is more an emotion--one and done. The value of the coupon is determined by the value of the previous book, just like my LL Bean coupon was based on my previous purchase. As I said before, the coupon has NO CASH value. I don't know how Amazon would deal with 7000 ebooks collected on your Kindle. I suppose you could dream up situations that would defeat the coupon. It would not apply to Premium or free books.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hudson Owen said:


> Why is it that when I write* RATING* everyone else sees review? A review requires thought. A rating is more an emotion--one and done. The value of the coupon is determined by the value of the previous book, just like my LL Bean coupon was based on my previous purchase. As I said before, the coupon has NO CASH value. I don't know how Amazon would deal with 7000 ebooks collected on your Kindle. I suppose you could dream up situations that would defeat the coupon. It would not apply to Premium or free books.


Ok, fine I pick up your book for nothing. Terrence picks it up for 2.99, why should he get something for his time, but my time isn't worth anything. 
I guess I shouldn't write it because that tells me because I took advantage of a sale, my opinion is not worth anything. So Hudson, does this mean that I should go remove my review because I didn't spend money on your book so my opinion is worthless.

Now like I said 50 cents off my next purchase would not be appealing. A 50 cent gift card to use on anything at Amazon would be appealing. Oh and either way, Amazon is still out the 50 cents.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I've used that technique for many for years for fiction, and never found it unfortunate. I'm not a careful shopper. That's what I did in bookstores. The cover would catch my eye. I'd pick up the book, glance at the blurb, check the author, flip through a few pages, and buy it. Others would go back on the rack. I don't know what processes were at work, but I do know the system worked very well because I liked most of the books I bought. If I didn't like the book after buying, I just stopped reading.
> 
> On Amazon, I use a similar system, but never read the sample. The system still works well.
> 
> ...


If I'm interested in a book on Amazon, I'll read dozens of customer reviews, making my own judgment about the helpfulness of the reviews. As a reader, I don't take much stock in the star rating system. As an author, I might benefit from additional, coupon-driven ratings. Coupons are a time-honored device, and I see no reason why Amazon should not consider using them.



cinisajoy said:


> Ok, fine I pick up your book for nothing. Terrence picks it up for 2.99, why should he get something for his time, but my time isn't worth anything.
> I guess I shouldn't write it because that tells me because I took advantage of a sale, my opinion is not worth anything. So Hudson, does this mean that I should go remove my review because I didn't spend money on your book so my opinion is worthless.
> 
> Now like I said 50 cents off my next purchase would not be appealing. A 50 cent gift card to use on anything at Amazon would be appealing. Oh and either way, Amazon is still out the 50 cents.


The value of your opinion is not determined by the purchase price of the book. There is no such thing as a .99 review vs. a 3.99 review. The value of the coupon is determined by the value of the book you just read. Think of it this way: .50 off the purchase price of your next book is .50 you did not have to pay out of pocket to obtain that book. In other words, it's cash that stays in your pocket.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Coupons are a time-honored device, and I see no reason why Amazon should not consider using them.


I don't know the reason either. I lack sufficient information. I don't know Amazon's objectives and the strategies they have developed to reach them. Hence, I don't know what tactics are appropriate for those strategies.

But my ignorance is no reason for anyone to do anything.



> In other words, it's cash that stays in your pocket.


Is it cash that stays out of Amazon's pocket?


----------



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

Perhaps there could be a compromise  .

When you upload your book Amazon could offer a check box asking if you want to have your book reviewed. Authors who are against the review system would not tick the box and therefore would not receive any reviews. (You wouldn't be allowed to opt out later after receiving poor reviews, or opt in later on)

Just a thought.


----------



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

Joe_Nobody said:


> What's really funny is I wouldn't even bother to report that review now. That occurred back when I was a newer-newbie (as compared to just a newbie now), and I was thin-skinned. Now days, I'd just shake my head at that review and move on. Amazing what you can get use too, isn't it? As I recall, that one didn't hurt sales at all, it just made me mad.


I don't get mad at reviews but I do get mad at jumped up customer service reps who ddon't follow their own rules or TOS. That was where I was coming from. These jobsworths can really make life difficult for people. Often they are the only link in the chain you have with a company.


----------



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

I had a book listed for free advertising. It required an average of 3.5 stars over 20 reviews. They accepted the book, but just prior to the advert they checked the star rating and someone had posted a low star which brought the average down to 3.2 stars - so no deal *sigh*


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Is it cash that stays out of Amazon's pocket?


In its wisdom, Zon allows those of us who live in the company town to keep some money for liquer, guns, women, things like that.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Hudson Owen said:


> Why is it that when I write* RATING* everyone else sees review? A review requires thought. A rating is more an emotion--one and done. The value of the coupon is determined by the value of the previous book, just like my LL Bean coupon was based on my previous purchase. As I said before, the coupon has NO CASH value. I don't know how Amazon would deal with 7000 ebooks collected on your Kindle. I suppose you could dream up situations that would defeat the coupon. It would not apply to Premium or free books.


I assume Amazon can't afford to do this. Keep in mind that the vast majority of products Amazon sells are not books. What will a 5%-rebate-for-review look like on a $240 stroller? A $200 TV? A $90 tricycle? The idea just isn't workable for a company that operates so close to the red.

I also have to wonder if incentives would greatly increase the number of those "meh" reviews -- the ones where the reader didn't either love or hate the book enough to be motivated to review it on their own. I think one-star reviews can help sales, in some instances, but cold-porridge reviews don't do a book any good at all.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Hudson Owen said:


> In its wisdom, Zon allows those of us who live in the company town to keep some money for liquer, guns, women, things like that.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

If you want to completely destroy the rating/review system, pay people to use it.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> I assume Amazon can't afford to do this. Keep in mind that the vast majority of products Amazon sells are not books. What will a 5%-rebate-for-review look like on a $240 stroller? A $200 TV? A $90 tricycle? The idea just isn't workable for a company that operates so close to the red.
> 
> I also have to wonder if incentives would greatly increase the number of those "meh" reviews -- the ones where the reader didn't either love or hate the book enough to be motivated to review it on their own. I think one-star reviews can help sales, in some instances, but cold-porridge reviews don't do a book any good at all.


What evidence do you have that Amazon operates so close to the red? I'm sure the programming could be applied to any product they sell. Why not? It encourages the buyer to buy something else and perhaps spend more than the value of the coupon. This is why I did not redeem my last LL Bean coupon for $10 (with a time limit)--I knew I would spend more than $10 on something I did not really need. Again, and again, it's ratings I'm talking about.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Monique said:


> If you want to completely destroy the rating/review system, pay people to use it.


You're assuming, I think, that moral hazard will produce inaccurate, evil, or useless results. Not necessarily. Under former New York Mayor Bloomberg, the Board of Ed offered cash or vouchers to students and parents to visit the library and do other things in hopes of raising test scores. Many people smacked palm-to-head, including me. How low can they stoop! However, the pilot program did, in fact, produce the intended results. The program was discontinued, and scores trended downward after that.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Hudson Owen said:


> What evidence do you have that Amazon operates so close to the red? I'm sure the programming could be applied to any product they sell. Why not? It encourages the buyer to buy something else and perhaps spend more than the value of the coupon. This is why I did not redeem my last LL Bean coupon for $10 (with a time limit)--I knew I would spend more than $10 on something I did not really need. Again, and again, it's ratings I'm talking about.


You can follow the article I linked to in my earlier post -- the link is under the words "can't afford." Amazon's super-slim profit margins are pretty widely known, I think.

Amazon does offer rebates on future purchases if you use its credit card. I think that rate is 1%.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> You can follow the article I linked to in my earlier post -- the link is under the words "can't afford." Amazon's super-slim profit margins are pretty widely known, I think.
> 
> Amazon does offer rebates on future purchases if you use its credit card. I think that rate is 1%.


There you go! This credit card works for books, as well? I'll take your word for it about the super slim profit margins. Now that I think about it, one of the early concerns was: how was Jeff Bezos going to make a profit from Amazon.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> What evidence do you have that Amazon operates so close to the red?


Amazon financial statements show operating margin of 1%. Walmart is 5.8%, and Apple is appx 28%.

That's something to keep in mind when analyzing KDP. It heavily relies on computers rather than people because it can't offer what it does and also add lots of people. Note how posters here report inconsistencies in the way Amazon deals with different books. They're right. That's because those computers just aren't smart enough to handle nuance and tweed jackets at thr same time.

God Bless the razor's edge, for it cuts many ways.



> There you go! This credit card works for books, as well? I'll take your word for it about the super slim profit margins


.

Amazon makes money on the credit cards because people use them for everything, not just Amazon stuff.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

That credit card is through Chase.  It is not actually Amazon giving the rebates/rewards.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> That credit card is through Chase. It is not actually Amazon giving the rebates/rewards.


Yeah, Chase issues the card, but the rewards are to be used on Amazon, so I assume there's some impact on Amazon's bottomline. If I charge $1,281 one month, I'll eventually be offered $12.81 off an Amazon purchase. It just shows up at checkout. (I'm pretty sure I'm remembering correctly that it's 1%; I'm so not mathy that I tend to forget this stuff.) Maybe the impact of the discounts is offset by whatever kickbacks Amazon gets from Chase.

Amazon's low margins are the main reason I don't think 70% royalties are going to last, long term. But that's off-topic.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Amazon's low margins are the main reason I don't think 70% royalties are going to last, long term. But that's off-topic


Its hard to dispute that, but its been said about lots of Amazon practices over the last 15 years. The stockholders keep making money. They are happy.


----------



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

Terrence OBrien said:


> Its hard to dispute that, but its been said about lots of Amazon practices over the last 15 years. The stockholders keep making money. They are happy.


I really don't know what I am talking about regarding Amazon and its lack of profits, but didn't i hear the only reason Amazon is near broke is because they are still spending all their money on what they call their expansion phase? No taxes to pay as long as they reinvest every cent is there? So once they own the world, they will stop expanding and then the profits will roll in.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Amazon financial statements show operating margin of 1%. Walmart is 5.8%, and Apple is appx 28%.
> 
> That's something to keep in mind when analyzing KDP. It heavily relies on computers rather than people because it can't offer what it does and also add lots of people. Note how posters here report inconsistencies in the way Amazon deals with different books. They're right. That's because those computers just aren't smart enough to handle nuance and tweed jackets at thr same time.
> 
> ...


Good points. Thanks. Did you read the Maugham novel?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

markecooper said:


> I really don't know what I am talking about regarding Amazon and its lack of profits, but didn't i hear the only reason Amazon is near broke is because they are still spending all their money on what they call their expansion phase? No taxes to pay as long as they reinvest every cent is there? So once they own the world, they will stop expanding and then the profits will roll in.


Yeah, sounds right. "Expansion" = "putting competitors out of business." So when you eventually raise prices (or reduce royalities), there's no one left to undercut you. Not that I think they'll raise prices in a huge way, but that extra royalty money is low-hanging fruit. The 70% is only there because Amazon matched Apple's royalty, right?

But Terrence is right. Amazon is unpredictable.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Amazon isn't near being broke. They have 12 billion in cash and 6 billion in debt. Cash flow is good. But with such low margins, they have to keep a tight rein on everything. When will they start pushing profit? I don't know. Most of the experts said ten years ago.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Amazon isn't near being broke. They have 12 billion in cash and 6 billion in debt. Cash flow is good. But with such low margins, they have to keep a tight rein on everything. When will they start pushing profit? I don't know. Most of the experts said ten years ago.


I think Amazon is a paradigm-shifter. Its ways and goals are therefore somewhat mysterious.


----------



## busywoman (Feb 22, 2014)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I appreciate you and the other readers chiming in on this post. Readers always have my ear and my heart. * * *
> 
> Maybe someone should undertake an effort to more effectively educate readers and that would solve the problem without the rash acts I propose?


I think it's impossible to educate the entire universe of readers. 

But you can educate and encourage the part of the universe you touch... i.e., your fans... to leave more reviews. Presumably those will be people who are positive toward your books, so it's a matter of getting more of them to take action.

There are a lot of ways to encourage positive reviews --without stepping over the line into bribery or anything that violates rules on the retailer's site. You may already do things such as:

If you have a house email list, remind subscribers in every email message how important reviews are to an author and how much you would appreciate them taking a few minutes to leave a review on whatever site they purchased the book from.

On your website, encourage them to leave reviews. If you have a blog, do a periodic blog post about reviews and how much an author like you appreciates honest reviews. If you have social media accounts, remind them to leave reviews. Wherever, whenever.

And start encouraging people to use book retailing sites that discourage anonymous trolls. For instance, I believe Google Play now ties reviews in with Google+ accounts, making it harder for competitors to engage in negative astroturfing. It may seem like Amazon is the big player on the block and impossible to dislodge, but never count Google out. I remember when Altavista was THE search engine. Guess where they are now, after Google came out of nowhere and beat them at their own game.

I think it's great to have discussions like this, but I think it's also important to deal with the world as we have it today. Other business owners (because that's really what you are) find themselves in the same boat, just wearing different clothing. Ask a restaurant owner how he or she feels about Yelp reviews. Ask a contractor how or she feels about Ripoff Report or the BBB. Many are subjected to unreasonable customer complaints or "reviews" by anonymous users. Quite a few industries are filled with cut-throat competitors who pay for negative review campaigns. Everybody has something they have to deal with. But like dealing with any problem in a small business (or in a survival situation, for that matter), half of the battle is to stay focused with an "I'll meet whatever comes at me" frame of mind.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

re: the Chase Amazon Visa:  The rebate is paid by chase.  Doesn't have to be used at Amazon. You can apply it to your account or have them send you a check.  You get more points for shopping at Amazon than elsewhere.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> re: the Chase Amazon Visa: The rebate is paid by chase. Doesn't have to be used at Amazon. You can apply it to your account or have them send you a check. You get more points for shopping at Amazon than elsewhere.


Really! At some point I must've opted for Amazon because the rebate shows up there automatically.

Well, there goes the idea that Amazon is willing to part with that $12.81, or whatever.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Really! At some point I must've opted for Amazon because the rebate shows up there automatically.
> 
> Well, there goes the idea that Amazon is willing to part with that $12.81, or whatever.


Amazon has the Chase rewards program dialed in pretty well. I love using my "points" for shopping. You get 3% if you use the card for Amazon purchases. You get 2% for certain things like gas purchases. You get 1% for everything else. I use that card for absolutely everything just because of the points and then pay it off each month.

But one of the big incentives for vendors to use Chase's co-branded card program is that Chase pays the vendor big bucks for each person they get to enroll. For a company like Amazon, _that alone_ is worth millions. Yes, millions. I was once on a company team that set up a co-branded cc program with Chase.

ETA: My apologies for this being so very OT. But I love my Amazon card.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

DRMarvello said:


> Amazon has the Chase rewards program dialed in pretty well. I love using my "points" for shopping. You get 3% if you use the card for Amazon purchases. You get 2% for certain things like gas purchases. You get 1% for everything else. I use that card for absolutely everything just because of the points and then pay it off each month.
> 
> But one of the big incentives for vendors to use Chase's co-branded card program is that Chase pays the vendor big bucks for each person they get to enroll. For a company like Amazon, _that alone_ is worth millions. Yes, millions. I was once on a company team that set up a co-branded cc program with Chase.
> 
> ETA: My apologies for this being so very OT. But I love my Amazon card.


Do they pay the same amount for each new card, or is it geared to the specifics of the new cardholder? So if one guy has $5,000/year in Amazon purchase, and the other guy has $100, does Chase pay different amounts? I know you are not Amazon, but in general?


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Do they pay the same amount for each new card, or is it geared to the specifics of the new cardholder? So if one guy has $5,000/year in Amazon purchase, and the other guy has $100, does Chase pay different amounts? I know you are not Amazon, but in general?


I'm pretty sure it's the same amount for everyone. At least it was for us when I worked on the program. We didn't pass any purchase history info to Chase at signup time.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

That's interesting, Daniel -- thanks for the info! I like mine, too. It feels a lot more practical than the airline-miles card I had before. Plus, it's bright green.


----------



## Key (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm pretty small potatoes.  In 2013, I focused largely on writing under a penname, in a specific genre. I ended up building an audience without realizing it.  I was getting zero reviews or low reviews saying there wasn't enough sex, things like that.  And the books sometimes kept selling.  I got good reviews, too, some from readers who wanted to offset the bad reviews.  But it turns out I have a lot of people who've become accustomed to my stories, and actually like them.  They don't feel like they need to be warned there's not a lot of sex, and they don't mind that.  It's really reassuring to find out there are people who aren't strongly affected by the negative reviews!!

That said, I think reviews feed into the algorithms and that makes them feel very important!  I also don't have anywhere near dozens or hundreds of reviews, and haven't been targeted professionally.  My negatives have all been from people who didn't actually like the book, and I think one random troll who one-starred every free download they bought.  

The worst thing about reviews for me is that I get invested in them!  I wish I wouldn't keep checking them.  I wish I wouldn't read or pay attention to them.  I don't know how to stop.


----------



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

Key said:


> The worst thing about reviews for me is that I get invested in them! I wish I wouldn't keep checking them. I wish I wouldn't read or pay attention to them. I don't know how to stop.


Last night, I stumbled upon a blog review of one of my books. The blogger said that she had stopped reading the book 20% in and proceeded to give her reasons. I did the same. After reading approximately 20% of the review I stopped reading. It worked for me!


----------



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

Shelagh said:


> Last night, I stumbled upon a blog review of one of my books. The blogger said that she had stopped reading the book 20% in and proceeded to give her reasons. I did the same. After reading approximately 20% of the review I stopped reading. It worked for me!


----------

