# Amazon Actions re NEW Bonus Content Limits, Amazon Taking Action (MERGED)



## RBN

I didn't see this posted anywhere here yet.

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960

"To provide an optimal customer experience, bonus content should make up no more than around 10% of your book."

Also prohibits gifts/rewards.

Now, to see if this is enforced...


----------



## Used To Be BH

Better late than never!

I suspect that enforcement of this rule, like so many rules on Amazon, may be an on-again, off-again kind of thing, but I'm at the point where I think increasing the risk factor for potential bad actors is better than nothing. At least now, there's a clearer standard that could be enforced.


----------



## 41419

10% - that's clear. Let's see what the stuffers do now...


----------



## Dpock

RBN said:


> I didn't see this posted anywhere here yet.
> 
> https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960
> 
> "To provide an optimal customer experience, bonus content should make up no more than around 10% of your book."
> 
> Also prohibits gifts/rewards.
> 
> Now, to see if this is enforced...


That's a reasonable percentage. Though I doubt it's the case, it would be nice if was retroactive as well. There are enough stuffed books on Amazon to fill reading appetites for the next decade.


----------



## 41419

Anyone want to bet on how long until we get the "but what if you're hopping on one foot" response?


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## Usedtoposthere

dgaughran said:


> Anyone want to bet on how long until we get the "but what if you're hopping on one foot" response?


I thought they'd moved on to jewelry now...


----------



## Michaela Strong

dgaughran said:


> Anyone want to bet on how long until we get the "but what if you're hopping on one foot" response?


"That only applies to bonus content. These 7 extra novels are 'special content,' totally different."

Or maybe some kind of special math where 10% can be bigger than 100%.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

My guess is they'll move into sexy aliens in space-opera with ghostwriters doing the heavy lifting. Alien cuisine recipes at the back so you can make it yourself at home.


----------



## Not any more

Usedtoposthere said:


> I thought they'd moved on to jewelry now...


LOL!!! Diamonds!!!



dgaughran said:


> 10% - that's clear. Let's see what the stuffers do now...


 This also includes disruptive or unnecessary enticement to click on elements within TOCs. Continued addition of these types of elements in your titles could affect your account status, up to and including termination.

Of course, this all depends on Amazon's interpretation and enforcement. Anyone want to lay odds that someone who innocently includes a first chapter of a new book gets slammed while a stuffer figures out a way to game the system to the tune of 2K pages per novella?


----------



## Not any more

Atlantisatheart said:


> My guess is they'll move into sexy aliens in space-opera with ghostwriters doing the heavy lifting. Alien cuisine recipes at the back so you can make it yourself at home.


Oh, that's rich! Kudos!!!


----------



## Atlantisatheart

But seriously... I'd say there will be a bucket load of boxsets and anthologies so they can wring every last penny out of page reads before they're done.


----------



## Dpock

Atlantisatheart said:


> But seriously... I'd say there will be a bucket load of boxsets and anthologies so they can wring every last penny out of page reads before they're done.


If they box six stories, can those same six stories appear in other box sets?


----------



## Crystal_

In all seriousness, a policy is only as good as its enforcement. Unless Amazon enforces this, people will continue to use bonus books.

I really hope they do enforce it. I'd love to look at the top 100 in romance and see nothing that's stuffed. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Dave Dykema

I wonder if books with be grandfathered. I'm currently reading a book where the actual novel is 50% of the experience, and the other 50% is short stories by the various authors and the last 30 or so percent is a "making of" the book.


----------



## raminar_dixon

Whether you like this change or not, at least we can all agree that some actual, non-vague guidelines about it are nice to have.


----------



## unkownwriter

I give it a day before the first post either defending stuffing, or complaining about how their 2.8KENPC book was taken down, and Amazon won't pay them their money.

There's got to be thousands of books violating these new guidelines, none of which will likely be affected in any way whatsoever, but I'm sure the algos have changed and now I can look forward to getting even less money, for doing absolutely nothing wrong.


----------



## Dpock

she-la-ti-da said:


> .
> 
> There's got to be thousands of books violating these new guidelines, none of which will likely be affected in any way whatsoever,


Probably not as they published before this clarification, but they'll need steel man bits to continue stuffing now that the rules are clear.

If Amazon enforces the new limit their $0.99 strategy is toast. Their books are launched with mega ad spends assuming KENP will cover costs.


----------



## 41419

Crystal_ said:


> In all seriousness, a policy is only as good as its enforcement. Unless Amazon enforces this, people will continue to use bonus books.


Here you go Crystal! So happy to oblige.



> "Please note that prompt compliance with these new guidelines and policies is required to qualify for programs such as KDP Select All Stars Bonuses for the month of June and future months."


https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en


----------



## Atlantisatheart

dgaughran said:


> https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en


Looks like their weekend plans just got canceled.


----------



## X. Aratare

Amazon just updated their TOS with respect to bonus content (emphasis mine):



> Bonus Content
> If you choose to include bonus content (e.g., other stories, or previews of other books that are not part of your book's title), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we require placing additional content at the end of the book, and listing the bonus content in your book's table of contents.
> 
> *To provide an optimal customer experience, bonus content should make up no more than around 10% of your book. If you would like to include multiple stories within your book, consider creating a collection of works. When selecting your book's title, always make sure to follow the Metadata Guidelines. *
> 
> Primary and bonus content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.
> 
> For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions.


https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960

Also:



> Hello,
> 
> To improve the shopping and reading experience for customers, we've updated our Bonus Content and eBook Metadata Guidelines.
> 
> Please ensure that the books you've published comply with the new guidelines. *Please note that prompt compliance with these new guidelines and policies is required to qualify for programs such as KDP Select All Stars Bonuses for the month of June and future months.*
> 
> Thank you for choosing to publish with Amazon KDP!
> 
> Best Regards,
> The Kindle Direct Publishing Team


https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

I am curious what enforcement will look like.


----------



## ShayneRutherford

Yaaaaaassss! Finally, a decisive answer.


----------



## Michele_Mills

I'm happy that there's an actual rule now instead of the typical Amazon vagueness, along with a timeline for enforcement. Enforcement is the key here, or we're back where we started. 

They even sent an email about this to Marie Force to announce. I'm super curious to see how this will effect all star bonuses in the coming months. Will it change payouts? We'll see!


----------



## Crystal_

dgaughran said:


> Here you go Crystal! So happy to oblige.
> 
> https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en


You do realize that this hasn't happened yet, right? This is a promise to enforce the policy, but until it actually happens, it's just a promise.

We'll see what happens in late July. I hope KDP holds to this policy change--it would be great for me, personally; I will dance in the streets if bonus books actually disappear--but they don't have the best history of evenly enforcing policies.


----------



## boba1823

Crystal_ said:


> I'd love to look at the top 100 in romance and see nothing that's stuffed. But I'm not holding my breath.


Assuming it was enforced, do you think the Romance bestseller list would change much? I mean, do you think it would be basically the same sort of books (just without all the bonus content) as before, or would there be substantial changes in what's up there?

Personally, I'm skeptical that it would make much of a difference. There was the one board member on here who does the whole Romance ghost-writers thing, who I recall saying that including the bonus content only made a 10 percent or so difference in page reads. That seemed like a plausible figure to me, assuming an author isn't using click-to-the-back trickery (maybe that's a big assumption, I don't know). I would think that most KU readers are just looking to read the title work and not bonus content, especially if it's old, lower quality, etc., which I take it is often the case for books of this sort.

If that's right, and the bonus content is only marginally increasing revenues for books of this sort, then I doubt that these books would just fall off of the bestseller list without the bonus stuffing. I can't imagine that their profit margins are quite _that_ thin - at least not for the experienced ones.

Anyway, just a curiosity for me. I ended up not doing KU, and that's not going to change. And in any case, I never thought that aiming to hit the Amazon bestseller list as the primary driver of visibility sounded like a very good or sustainable business strategy. (I know that some people - maybe you? don't remember - have expressed doubt that being on Amazon bestseller lists, by itself, actually drives sales.) Not that I'd complain or anything


----------



## 41419

Errrr do you really think these guys went to all this effort for a slight increase in sales? 

And anyway, the click to the end scams are still in play. Multiple variations.


----------



## X. Aratare

boba1823 said:


> Assuming it was enforced, do you think the Romance bestseller list would change much? I mean, do you think it would be basically the same sort of books (just without all the bonus content) as before, or would there be substantial changes in what's up there?
> 
> Personally, I'm skeptical that it would make much of a difference. There was the one board member on here who does the whole Romance ghost-writers thing, who I recall saying that including the bonus content only made a 10 percent or so difference in page reads. That seemed like a plausible figure to me, assuming an author isn't using click-to-the-back trickery (maybe that's a big assumption, I don't know). I would think that most KU readers are just looking to read the title work and not bonus content, especially if it's old, lower quality, etc., which I take it is often the case for books of this sort.
> 
> If that's right, and the bonus content is only marginally increasing revenues for books of this sort, then I doubt that these books would just fall off of the bestseller list without the bonus stuffing. I can't imagine that their profit margins are quite _that_ thin - at least not for the experienced ones.
> 
> Anyway, just a curiosity for me. I ended up not doing KU, and that's not going to change. And in any case, I never thought that aiming to hit the Amazon bestseller list as the primary driver of visibility sounded like a very good or sustainable business strategy. (I know that some people - maybe you? don't remember - have expressed doubt that being on Amazon bestseller lists, by itself, actually drives sales.) Not that I'd complain or anything


How much they make per book is how much they can advertise it. Meaning that they used to have the value of 3000 page reads to advertise, now they don't. Visibility will be impacted for them, because it's hard to justify spending likely what they are in ads for 500 page reads, for example. It makes it a lot less lucrative, too. So some who were only in it for the money, might realize that these aren't as green pastures and move on.


----------



## Crystal_

boba1823 said:


> Assuming it was enforced, do you think the Romance bestseller list would change much? I mean, do you think it would be basically the same sort of books (just without all the bonus content) as before, or would there be substantial changes in what's up there?
> 
> Personally, I'm skeptical that it would make much of a difference. There was the one board member on here who does the whole Romance ghost-writers thing, who I recall saying that including the bonus content only made a 10 percent or so difference in page reads. That seemed like a plausible figure to me, assuming an author isn't using click-to-the-back trickery (maybe that's a big assumption, I don't know). I would think that most KU readers are just looking to read the title work and not bonus content, especially if it's old, lower quality, etc., which I take it is often the case for books of this sort.
> 
> If that's right, and the bonus content is only marginally increasing revenues for books of this sort, then I doubt that these books would just fall off of the bestseller list without the bonus stuffing. I can't imagine that their profit margins are quite _that_ thin - at least not for the experienced ones.
> 
> Anyway, just a curiosity for me. I ended up not doing KU, and that's not going to change. And in any case, I never thought that aiming to hit the Amazon bestseller list as the primary driver of visibility sounded like a very good or sustainable business strategy. (I know that some people - maybe you? don't remember - have expressed doubt that being on Amazon bestseller lists, by itself, actually drives sales.) Not that I'd complain or anything


In my very limited experience, it makes a big difference. Somewhere between 25 and 50% of people read the bonus content. It's definitely a higher percentage than people who will go on to read content in another book, though how much higher is probably a function of quality and series contentedness.

If enforced, this could destroy all the marketing machine types.

It will hurt authors who use bonus content as well, but it will help authors who don't use bonus content. I think the All Star thing is where we'll see the biggest difference. If that is enforced, I expect to see bonus thresholds drop considerably.


----------



## Lady Vine

"...and other stories." 

I'm with the person who said all we'll see is a title change, nothing more. They'll turn everything into boxed sets.


----------



## boba1823

dgaughran said:


> Errrr do you really think these guys went to all this effort for a slight increase in sales?
> 
> And anyway, the click to the end scams are still in play. Multiple variations.


Well, that's a good question. I guess that probably depends on how much effort it actually is for them, though. If I was sitting on a backlist of a hundred something old (and ghost written) books/stories, maybe it's relatively little effort to just pick some at random and cram them in. Assuming they're already formatted, that's pretty much just a quick copy-paste job, right? If I could do something that takes 10 minutes or so, and it results in 10% higher profits, that seems like a good use of time.

I'm assuming that most of the bonus content is old stuff, of course, and that these authors (well.. publishers) aren't actually commissioning a bunch of brand new work. That almost certainly would not be worth the cost for a marginal improvement in KU revenue.

I recall you saying a month or two back that the click-to-the-back thing is still an issue. I don't know any details on that (and won't ask), so I can't really evaluate the impact of that on the overall Romance bestseller list. I have noticed, though, that lately it seems more of the bonus-stuffed books have been in the 400-500 page range rather than the thousands. (There's one on there now with like 2600+, which.. wow, lol!)


----------



## Shelley K

Lady Vine said:


> "...and other stories."
> 
> I'm with the person who said all we'll see is a title change, nothing more. They'll turn everything into boxed sets.


That's okay. Boxed sets don't get the pages a new book with seven old ones tacked onto the back does. Some will try to fiddle with the wording, but hopefully if Amazon enforces this they're strict about requiring collection/bundle/complete series or whatever on the cover/in the title. If collections and bundles worked half as well, nobody would have started chucking five books in the back as a "bonus." Also, what happens in the next few months with this is the canary in the coal mine for mega-mondo bundles in KU. Watch and see if it dies.

Especially after my email exchange a while back in which the person would not name a percentage, even when I specifically asked for a guidelines, or say that entire books weren't allowed, I'm surprised they finally threw a number out. I didn't think they would, because I didn't think they wanted to have to try to enforce it. But as skeptical as I have been about that, the fact that they named "June all-star bonuses" specifically--June, not just generally--makes me think they intend to try to enforce it.

It's not going to matter for the vast majority of us, the rate's not going to go up any more than the standard variation, but the all-star bonuses should be within easier reach for some _if _they enforce it and do it correctly. You know there are going to be people falsely accused in the first round of enforcement and screwed over in one way or another. Feel for those folks in advance.


----------



## sela

I'm not sure how the stuffers are making their money. Is it off the page reads that occur when their hapless reader finds ten extra bonus books at the end and reads them where they might not have read them if they had to actually physically go to the website and click on the "read now" button? Is part of it from double-dipping, where a reader finds the book they love at the end of the new book and re-reads it for sh*ts and giggles, thus garnering a double-dip page read for the author? Double-dipping is against TOS outside of boxed sets. Or are the stuffer publishers hiring bot readers in Malaysia to slide through the stuffed books on the Amazon online Kindle site? According to tests, sliding through to the back in a KU book in the online reader still registers a full read through. So an enterprising warrior forum type mill publisher could hire a hundred or thousand bots to read all the books in their catalogue and their pen name catalogues online. It would generate a lot of money probably at a small cost. It will indeed be interesting to see if there are any changes to the lineups on the Amazon top 100 romance categories. Perhaps if they can't get $13.50 instead of $1.68 per book, the strategy will no longer be worth their while and not worth all the ad spend they go through to help hit the top 100. 

Maybe they'll go elsewhere to find easy pickings and a loophole filled system to exploit...

One can hope.


----------



## Forgettable

.


----------



## sela

LMareeApps said:


> Sela, I saw this posted on Twitter. It is screen shot from someone allegedly showing a writer's PA explaining to readers how to go about their day while still flipping through each page of story + bonus content, before then going to buy the book so that reviews left are verified and the writer gets maximum revenue from their read and purchase...
> https://twitter.com/ease_dropper/status/1002001437876944897


I guess I've been doing this wrong all along. Here I thought I should just write the best damn book I could, thinking of pleasing my reader to the best of my abilities!

I never thought of cheating the system or finding cracks and loopholes. WHAT A SUCKER!


----------



## Forgettable

.


----------



## Phxsundog

There's a good chance this policy, if enforced, will damage many of the high spender ghostmachines clogging the romance charts with unedited books. I'm crossing my fingers knowing it hinges on enforcement.

Many of these publishers need their stuffed books to support over a thousand dollars daily spent on ads. If the stuffing is over and they can only release more normally sized works, the best they can do is try to flood the market with more books. However, I'm doubtful this will work. It'll spread their resources thinner across ads supporting many books. Plus different titles require their own covers, ads, reviews, and promotional bookings. They're going to have a harder time juggling many books and expecting the same results.

They generally don't have backlogs of hundreds of stories either. They may have half a dozen or more books in progress at any one time and there's a finite supply of ghostwriters on Upwork where they recruit. They won't go away entirely but there's a chance this tips the balance back toward authors producing quality books over volume publishers rushing out weaker content. Time will tell.


----------



## Ava Glass

Kudos to those who ignored the "keep your eyes on your own paper" advice* and agitated for this. 

*translation: "stop talking about this. We like this status quo."


----------



## Shelley K

LMareeApps said:


> I think there are plenty of us sharing that red-faced realisation.


Everything I have to say about that particular screenshot would be redacted here. Just one whole paragraph of [redacted] on repeat.


----------



## Guest

I'll only be excited if this impacts payout per page read (probably won't, since the $/page read is set by psychologists trying to get us to stay in the KU machine), and for the all star bonus threshold. I would have qualified, easily, the last four months if this had been 2017.

If neither of those change, then the whole "wah wah book stuffers" agitating was just a nothing burger and I will go back to keeping my eyes on my own paper


----------



## C. Gold

So, they can no longer hide the bonus content as a wad of 'stuff' at the end but have to create bundles. Will that really slow them down much? Or will that prevent them from duplicating content and simply rearranging the order for their other books? It's the multiple dipping into the Select reads that these stuffers take a huge advantage of. If this stops that, then good.

Also, that's only if they want to get the Select bonus... if they forgo that, they can still stuff, at least how I interpreted that.


----------



## Ava Glass

mawnster said:


> and I will go back to keeping my eyes on my own paper


You do you. The problem is when people tell others to basically shut up about issues.


----------



## MmmmmPie

mawnster said:


> I'll only be excited if this impacts payout per page read...


Assuming that Amazon actually enforces this, I'll be excited regardless, and not even because of the KU rate or All Star bonuses. Because the stuffers have been earning up to $13 per borrow, even on a 99-cent book, they've been able to spend like drunken sailors on advertising, not to mention more nefarious promotional methods. As a result, they've made it that much harder for non-stuffers to purchase advertising, make the top 100 lists, and gain visibility. Plus, they've driven down the average purchase prices in virtually all romance genres.

Browsing through the top 100 romance lists, there's an embarrassing number of 99-cent stuffed books -- books that end at 30% of the Kindle pages, books that are poorly edited, books that feature recycled stories and misleading product descriptions. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that customer complaints played a role in this.

I've already pulled most of my books out of KU, but I still think this is a positive development. Funny, I was browsing romance books on Kobo the other day, and it really struck me how much better the other retailers are right now -- cleaner, less cluttered, more truthful in product descriptions, etc. As a reader and a writer, I think it's long past time that Amazon made this change. I just hope they enforce it.


----------



## T E Scott Writer

Excellent


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Merged a couple of threads on this topic -- sorry for any confusion.


----------



## 41419

MmmmmPie said:


> Assuming that Amazon actually enforces this, I'll be excited regardless, and not even because of the KU rate or All Star bonuses. Because the stuffers have been earning up to $13 per borrow, even on a 99-cent book, they've been able to spend like drunken sailors on advertising, not to mention more nefarious promotional methods. As a result, they've made it that much harder for non-stuffers to purchase advertising, make the top 100 lists, and gain visibility. Plus, they've driven down the average purchase prices in virtually all romance genres.


Exactly. What happens to the payout won't necessarily be an indication of anything. Amazon decides the payout based on things we can only speculate about. If it removes some of this crud from the charts, and punches a hole in their skeavy business model, we all win.

Which would almost be worth the "wah" - one would think.


----------



## unkownwriter

Lynn Is A Pseudonym, I'm sure that all the books will now be "bundles" or "collections". That's how Amazon will once again let this crap slide by. If they're looking at June payouts, that means they'd have to be going back two months to see what was in KU then, and that's going to take a lot of work. Frankly, the more I think about it, the less I believe anything will happen.

The thing I think that's missing in these new terms is twofold:  #1:  taking all bundles, collections etc. out of KU and #2:  topping the KENPC at 1K.Those two changes would have nipped this in the bud, because without a huge payout, click farming, page flipping and the stuffing won't pay. Another part would be to end the All Star bonuses. There's no gain in this from sales, because that only gets them .35, rather than upwards of $13 or more. Not to mention thousands more in bonuses. Click farms and huge ad buys (and Tiffany diamonds) are expensive when there's no big return on investment.


----------



## PhoenixS

she-la-ti-da said:


> The thing I think that's missing in these new terms is twofold: #1: taking all bundles, collections etc. out of KU and #2: topping the KENPC at 1K.


Who's to say KU3 won't be coming July 1 once these stuffed books get properly labeled?


----------



## PhoenixS

Slowly but surely we've seen Amazon plugging holes in the dike. It's not happening anywhere close to the speed legit authors need to see it today, but the hope is tomorrow will be better. As we report and report and raise a stink and report some more, Amazon has gradually changed its policies, guidelines and TOS. 

Some examples:
The Top 100 Free has been fairly well cleaned up. The major offenders STILL have a couple hundred books in their catalogs and they are STILL in Select. But they've been slapped back and are no longer cycling books through the Top 20 Free daily.

Certain publishers who were dividing their box sets and putting half the stories on Instafreebie resulted in an unequivocable amendment to their 'disallowed content' that reads: Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content.

Some folk who were routinely botting their books to the tops of the Free and Paid lists have been slapped back, and have lost traction overall.

Giveaways rules amended to pointedly disallow every entry being a winner.

Is it depressing, infuriating and frustrating that sooo many scammers have obtained All-Star bonuses, USAT/NYT letters and high-dollar homes -- and that none of these gains will be redacted -- based on the slowness with which Amazon is reacting? Or that some of the worst offenders are still crack-slipping? Damn right. But at least there is progress, and a bone or two occasionally thrown our way for all our yapping.

Report on.


----------



## SuzyQ

Got so excited until I imagined a huge wave of 'collections' coming


----------



## GeneDoucette

the difference is that 'bonus content' is hypothetically not subject to the double-dipping rules. There's nothing wrong with labeling a collection a collection, until it's more than Book A published standalone + featured in a Collection. If it's Book A in five collections, it's either bonus content (which is now not an option) or it's the same book in multiple collections (which is disallowed under a different rule.)


----------



## Crystal_

Even if machines keep publishing collections at that same rate, this will hurt. Bundles don't sell nearly as well as standalone titles.


----------



## Sam Rivers

> Slowly but surely we've seen Amazon plugging holes in the dike. It's not happening anywhere close to the speed legit authors need to see it today, but the hope is tomorrow will be better. As we report and report and raise a stink and report some more, Amazon has gradually changed its policies, guidelines and TOS.


I was planning to not renew my books in KU when they ran out next month. However, I may reconsider this since Amazon seems to be trying to fix the problems.


----------



## boba1823

mawnster said:


> I'll only be excited if this impacts payout per page read (probably won't, since the $/page read is set by psychologists trying to get us to stay in the KU machine)


That's what they have been trying to do? I assumed that the $/page read rate was set with the intent of keeping authors *out* of KU, lol!

Based on my initial number crunchings, I figured that KU simply would not be workable for me at anything less than 1cent/page. Possibly not even at that... I don't have a good sense of what is typical in terms of what % of KU readers borrow a book but never actually get around to reading it, or what % start but don't complete (though that's largely related to quality, I imagine). Plus the fact that Amazon doesn't actually tell you how many people borrow your book  When you're multiplying unknowns by unknowns.. well, that's more uncertainty than I can take in my own business plans.

Anyway, I'm watching the Romance bestseller list with great interest. But.. I'm not optimistic. I certainly recognize the possibility that a large portion of the revenue for the book-factory type publishers comes from various nefarious tactics. Personally, though, I doubt it. Not because I don't think that those types _would_ use such tactics. But more because I think that KU making things crazy (with the borrow=sale for ranking purposes, etc.) is a sufficient explanation for the bestseller list looking the way it does. I suppose I have a rather low opinion of the average KU reader and his or her taste in books, ha! And yeah, I _do_ have a KU subscription myself, so - not every KU reader, obviously


----------



## David VanDyke

boba1823 said:


> Assuming it was enforced, do you think the Romance bestseller list would change much? I mean, do you think it would be basically the same sort of books (just without all the bonus content) as before, or would there be substantial changes in what's up there?
> 
> Personally, I'm skeptical that it would make much of a difference. There was the one board member on here who does the whole Romance ghost-writers thing, who I recall saying that including the bonus content only made a 10 percent or so difference in page reads. That seemed like a plausible figure to me, assuming an author isn't using click-to-the-back trickery (maybe that's a big assumption, I don't know). I would think that most KU readers are just looking to read the title work and not bonus content, especially if it's old, lower quality, etc., which I take it is often the case for books of this sort.
> 
> If that's right, and the bonus content is only marginally increasing revenues for books of this sort, then I doubt that these books would just fall off of the bestseller list without the bonus stuffing. I can't imagine that their profit margins are quite _that_ thin - at least not for the experienced ones.


Do you really think a statement from a book-stuffer will be accurate?

But even a 10% boost in page reads is far from "marginal" except in the technical sense. If you suddenly got a 10% pay raise in your ordinary job, you'd consider that a pretty good raise.

I suspect the number is more like 100% myself. In other words, Kindle file stuffed with 9 extra books probably gets on average one of those extra books read, for a 100% increase in page reads.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Since the box set loophole is worrisome, could Amazon just say, "No box set content in KU unless the content is not available elsewhere in KU"? That would eliminate the possibility of double-dipping on box sets, and it would force an author to make a choice--does he or she want the individual titles in KU or the box set? Of course, a simpler rule that just prohibited box sets in KU completely, as suggested earlier, would be simpler and easier to enforce.


----------



## 41419

Box sets aren't the draw they used to be for a number of reasons. Most relevant here is reader behavior of KU subscribers. 

Where non-KU readers still swarm multiple books in a series and buy them all at once if there are discounts across several installments, KU readers are more like dentists: they take 'em out in ones.

Box sets just aren't as attractive to KU readers because they don't really save anything by grabbing them ahead of the individual books. And box sets could be next for the chopping block anyway. Who knows? There has been enough shenanigans around them to date where that's entirely possible, especially if the scammers flood those now.


----------



## Not any more

dgaughran said:


> Box sets aren't the draw they used to be for a number of reasons. Most relevant here is reader behavior of KU subscribers.
> 
> Where non-KU readers still swarm multiple books in a series and buy them all at once if there are discounts across several installments, KU readers are more like dentists: they take 'em out in ones.
> 
> Box sets just aren't as attractive to KU readers because they don't really save anything by grabbing them ahead of the individual books. And box sets could be next for the chopping block anyway. Who knows? There has been enough shenanigans around them to date where that's entirely possible, especially if the scammers flood those now.


From my own experience, I would disagree. I have a series that completed in 2015. I also have a 5-book omnibus for that series. One third of my revenue for that series this year is the boxed set, and 90% of its revenues are page reads. I've had readers tell me they prefer the convenience. A lot of them will take the set because it only takes up 1 of their 10 KU slots.


----------



## jb1111

I can see (in the future) the possibility of extra material being thrown in to the romance novels in question without the massive TOC's and other links that make it obvious.

Say -- some guy or gal writes a 50 page story, and then adds a bunch of older material to it _without denoting it as extra material._ The reader -- who may be curious -- may just flip through a lot of it anyway. Maybe instead of the book being 80% extra material, it's only 30 or 40%. Still, the author may benefit in KU.

Can the bots automatically tell if you put older material in a new book -- without a human looking at it and comparing?

[Edited for clarity]


----------



## Crime fighters

Step one in the right direction. The next step should be to lower the cap on KENP and exclude collections from All Stars.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

K.B. said:


> Step one in the right direction. The next step should be to lower the cap on KENP and exclude collections from All Stars.


Why? Collections are a long existing segment of the marketplace, and one that readers understand. It's only multiple iterations of the same books that's a problem, not the putting of said books into a box set. Same with the length question. Some books are just long.


----------



## Becca Mills

I'm thrilled with what seems to me like a much clearer set of guidelines.



Crystal_ said:


> In all seriousness, a policy is only as good as its enforcement. Unless Amazon enforces this, people will continue to use bonus books.
> 
> I really hope they do enforce it. I'd love to look at the top 100 in romance and see nothing that's stuffed. But I'm not holding my breath.





Amanda M. Lee said:


> I am curious what enforcement will look like.


Indeed, the proof will be in the pudding. Knowing Amazon, they've come up with some automated system to detect bonus content that exceeds 10%. I really, really hope they've developed a good one.


----------



## writerbiter

This does nothing. 

For Example:

Baby Bump - The Accidental Baby Collection #2

Featuring the never-before-released story, Baby Bump!

***

There. Now it's a bundle. And, not only that, because it's a bundle and NOT a "New Title" it doesn't need to follow the rules for a regular book--especially in regards to WHERE the new content is placed. That "never before released" book will be in the back, preceded by Baby On The Way, An Accidental Baby, Whoops-My Boss's Baby, and Where'd I Put My Baby?

Theoretically, people could stuff 10 books into this file, put the new content in the back, and then earn all the pages from everyone scrolling past the stuff they've already read--and it won't be against the guidelines. 

This changes nothing--just legitimizes what's already plaguing the store.


----------



## Rose Andrews

SuzyQ said:


> Got so excited until I imagined a huge wave of 'collections' coming


This.


----------



## Phxsundog

Like David said, bundles and collections haven't performed as well in KU for sometime. Having to identify stuffed books as anthologies will cause some readers to avoid them. That's a step up from them hiding 3000 page volumes under a single title and the vague phrase "bonus content."


----------



## Becca Mills

writerbiter said:


> This does nothing.
> 
> For Example:
> 
> Baby Bump - The Accidental Baby Collection #2
> 
> Featuring the never-before-released story, Baby Bump!
> 
> ***
> 
> There. Now it's a bundle. And, not only that, because it's a bundle and NOT a "New Title" it doesn't need to follow the rules for a regular book--especially in regards to WHERE the new content is placed. That "never before released" book will be in the back, preceded by Baby On The Way, An Accidental Baby, Whoops-My Boss's Baby, and Where'd I Put My Baby?
> 
> Theoretically, people could stuff 10 books into this file, put the new content in the back, and then earn all the pages from everyone scrolling past the stuff they've already read--and it won't be against the guidelines.
> 
> This changes nothing--just legitimizes what's already plaguing the store.


Wouldn't that sort of thing strike readers as clearly manipulative and quite annoying? As a reader, I could pretty easily ignore stuff that comes after the thing I want to read, but making me search through a bunch of other books for the thing I want to read would piss me off. I think there'd be returns, and Amazon would hear complaints.


----------



## Ros_Jackson

jb1111 said:


> I can see (in the future) the possibility of extra material being thrown in to the romance novels in question without the massive TOC's and other links that make it obvious.
> 
> Say -- some guy or gal writes a 50 page story, and then adds a bunch of older material to it _without denoting it as extra material._ The reader -- who may be curious -- may just flip through a lot of it anyway. Maybe instead of the book being 80% extra material, it's only 30 or 40%. Still, the author may benefit in KU.
> 
> Can the bots automatically tell if you put older material in a new book -- without a human looking at it and comparing?


The way stories are labelled is going to be the key. It should be trivial for a bot to go through content and figure out chapter headings to flag whether there's more than 10% bonus content, if they're conventionally labelled. But if they're not?

However, if this creates a poor user experience it will be a competitive disadvantage for scammers.


----------



## Crime fighters

MonkeyScribe said:


> Why? Collections are a long existing segment of the marketplace, and one that readers understand. It's only multiple iterations of the same books that's a problem, not the putting of said books into a box set. Same with the length question. Some books are just long.


Because it prevents scammers from getting a foothold on the program. Honest to God, I'm not worried about the small fraction of authors who will take a hit with such a cap. 1000 KENP is still extremely long (150-200k words). Not everyone will be pleased with the measures it's going to take to stop the scammers, but it'll eventually be the only way for KU to sort itself out.

It's either that or a gatekeeper of sorts.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

K.B. said:


> Because it prevents scammers from getting a foothold on the program. Honest to God, I'm not worried about the small fraction of authors who will take a hit with such a cap. 1000 KENP is still extremely long (150-200k words). Not everyone will be pleased with the measures it's going to take to stop the scammers, but it'll eventually be the only way for KU to sort itself out.
> 
> It's either that or a gatekeeper of sorts.


I have a thirteen book series (legit novels of 70-90K words), and I like to bundle them up into collections when I'm done. The first in this bundle series has pulled in nearly $40,000 by itself in the last couple of years from borrows, reads, and purchases. There is no ambiguity in the titling, the books are only available individually or in this single collection, and the readers appreciate getting a steep discount on purchasing the books individually.

Given that what I'm doing is completely above board, not violating the ToS in any way, and is packaged much like print collections have been for a half century, if not longer, why make a new rule to wreck a strategy that is both working for the author and providing reader value?

Instead, I would like to see Amazon simply enforce the rules they've got, drop the ban hammer on scammers and stuffers, and other rather simple measures to keep out the bad actors.


----------



## boba1823

Becca Mills said:


> Wouldn't that sort of thing strike readers as clearly manipulative and quite annoying?


Something like that might annoy the average reader, but I'm not sure that the average reader is the same as the kind of reader for _this_ type of work.

For example: In general, I'd think that the _average_ reader would be annoyed if, after buying/borrowing what appears to be a regular novel, it turns out that the title work is only 10-15k words and the rest of the book is 'bonus' material. Or if, after buying/borrowing what appears to be a Romance book, the work turns out to be.. well, basically a bunch of erotica scenes with maybe 2,500 words of added 'plot' with no character development and very few of the beats found in the typical Romance book. (Granted, I've only read a handful of these things, so maybe I'm basing this on a non-representative sample.. but these things were true of the ones I did read.)

Yet by all indications, these things that I would expect to be annoyances do not seem to be any real problem for books of this sort. So I can totally imagine "click to the back for the (actual) new story!" being something that readers of _this_ sort would come to accept as normal.


----------



## Becca Mills

K.B. said:


> Because it prevents scammers from getting a foothold on the program. Honest to God, I'm not worried about the small fraction of authors who will take a hit with such a cap. 1000 KENP is still extremely long (150-200k words). Not everyone will be pleased with the measures it's going to take to stop the scammers, but it'll eventually be the only way for KU to sort itself out.
> 
> It's either that or a gatekeeper of sorts.





MonkeyScribe said:


> I have a thirteen book series (legit novels of 70-90K words), and I like to bundle them up into collections when I'm done. The first in this bundle series has pulled in nearly $40,000 by itself in the last couple of years from borrows, reads, and purchases. There is no ambiguity in the titling, the books are only available individually or in this single collection, and the readers appreciate getting a steep discount on purchasing the books individually.
> 
> Given that what I'm doing is completely above board, not violating the ToS in any way, and is packaged much like print collections have been for a half century, if not longer, why make a new rule to wreck a strategy that is both working for the author and providing reader value?
> 
> Instead, I would like to see Amazon simply enforce the rules they've got, drop the ban hammer on scammers and stuffers, and other rather simple measures to keep out the bad actors.


We had a lengthy thread on the idea of lowering the KENP limit from 3,000 to 1,000 a couple months ago. Please revive that one rather than importing the argument to this one.


----------



## Phxsundog

I believe some of these scammers will go to greater extremes under the new rules. They'll try to hide extra content in books with no TOC heading and put ten lines of space between paragraphs to inflate their page count. An extension of what they're doing now. These tricks will become more obvious, more annoying to readers, and reportable to Amazon.


----------



## sela

I'm not convinced of anything until I see the biggest stuffers change their approach. 

Currently, there are several stuffers in the top 100 romance category. Their books are stuffed to the gills with bonus books far exceeding the 10% limit. But at least now Amazon has it in writing. Whether the bots can detect it properly and whether the process for adjudicating the TOS infraction are fair is another question. 

I have hope, but all the problems authors have been having with KU and their accounts being shut down, rank disappearing, reviews disappearing, etc. have made me really push to go wide again. Right now, I have only one series in KU and I am rethinking whether I should go ahead with my plan to release a new series in KU. 

UGH. I hate that KU has been a scammer-magnet, making it harder for those of us who follow the rules...


----------



## Dpock

sela said:


> whether the process for adjudicating the TOS infraction is fair is another question.


That's my big concern. The bots can only sift and locate suspects. The new mandate is more an appeal for compliance than a hard-fast rule they can enforce without producing a lot of collateral damage.


----------



## Used To Be BH

MonkeyScribe said:


> I have a thirteen book series (legit novels of 70-90K words), and I like to bundle them up into collections when I'm done. The first in this bundle series has pulled in nearly $40,000 by itself in the last couple of years from borrows, reads, and purchases. There is no ambiguity in the titling, the books are only available individually or in this single collection, and the readers appreciate getting a steep discount on purchasing the books individually.
> 
> Given that what I'm doing is completely above board, not violating the ToS in any way, and is packaged much like print collections have been for a half century, if not longer, why make a new rule to wreck a strategy that is both working for the author and providing reader value?
> 
> Instead, I would like to see Amazon simply enforce the rules they've got, drop the ban hammer on scammers and stuffers, and other rather simple measures to keep out the bad actors.


You are making a good point, and I don't really want to see legitimate authors lose what has been a useful strategy. However, I also think the scammers will take books with bonus content and relabel them as box sets. Maybe that will be less appealing to readers. Maybe not. But is there a way to prevent this kind of modified scam without eliminating box sets?

I'm not sure how easy it would be to get the bots to do this, but one way might be to require common subject matter (for instance, all the books are in the same series) and that each component be a certain length. A bot won't be able to judge subject matter for books that aren't in a series but that might be related in some way (like all of an author's novels under a particular pen name), but at least if Amazon had a policy, a real human might look if there were enough complaints.

Of course, there are still anthologies--but they don't have as much reader appeal, so I'm not as worried about scammers using that avenue.


----------



## unkownwriter

PhoenixS said:


> Who's to say KU3 won't be coming July 1 once these stuffed books get properly labeled?


Well, I guess there's a little hope buried in my heart, but I also know that anytime Amazon tweaks something, or shakes up KU, I end up losing. I get knocked back to making a couple of dollars, and have to build back up again as best I can. I only have some niche shorts in KU now, because nothing else I have works in the program. I was gradually building up to some nice money, considering what they were (not erotica), and then the September Sobbing happened. I haven't gotten back to where I was, and actually steadily decline.

But, if this works, and more is coming down the road, I'll be happy, because I have friends who are hurt by how this mess is going, and I want them to be able to compete against real authors, not botted SEO scams.



Phxsundog said:


> I believe some of these scammers will go to greater extremes under the new rules. They'll try to hide extra content in books with no TOC heading and put ten lines of space between paragraphs to inflate their page count. An extension of what they're doing now. These tricks will become more obvious, more annoying to readers, and reportable to Amazon.


I'm sure some will go to the extra work, but will it gain them enough to be worth it? The majority of them aren't going after legitimate readers, they're paying click farms to bot them up in the ranks. It's expensive to stay on top and get bonuses, lots of bots and ads to run. Make it harder to make the big bucks, and many of them will move on.

Don't forget, a lot of these folks aren't like us, aren't writing because they love telling stories. They're SEO scammers out to make the easy money. Warrior Forum types, looking for that mythical passive income that will make them millionaires in a week sorts of things. They don't want too many real readers, because those people don't want to read 3K KENPC books full of junk.


----------



## 41419

I don't want to give the mods too much work to do this weekend, so forgive me for being somewhat enigmatic. 

Let me just say this. What's happened over the last day/week, this isn't the end of something. It's the start of something. Many things are in motion, and we'll see how they all play out. I'm aware of some of the pieces in play, but I don't know what the end result will be. I have my theories, and my hopes, not necessarily identical.

I think the next month or two will be interesting...


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## 41419

@P.J. Post

Present it as a bona fide box set and I think you will be fine. As in clearly indicated in the cover, title, blurb.


----------



## Becca Mills

dgaughran said:


> I don't want to give the mods too much work to do this weekend, so forgive me for being somewhat enigmatic.
> 
> Let me just say this. What's happened over the last day/week, this isn't the end of something. It's the start of something. Many things are in motion, and we'll see how they all play out. I'm aware of some of the pieces in play, but I don't know what the end result will be. I have my theories, and my hopes, not necessarily identical.
> 
> I think the next month or two will be interesting...


Dude, this is the cruelest tease ever!

"I know what all your presents are. They're really ... striking. I'm not saying you won't like them. I mean, you might not. But I think you will. Probably. Do you like orange? I'm not saying they *are* orange, but orange might have something to do with them. They could be orange. Orange adjacent. Well, some people might call it puce. Colors, you know -- it's hard to say. And the shape. No, I'm just not going to go there. Can't wait for tomorrow, though. Your face when you open them -- hooboy! Yep, can't wait. That reminds me, do we have a fire extinguisher?" - David on Christmas Eve


----------



## Usedtoposthere

dgaughran said:


> I don't want to give the mods too much work to do this weekend, so forgive me for being somewhat enigmatic.
> 
> Let me just say this. What's happened over the last day/week, this isn't the end of something. It's the start of something. Many things are in motion, and we'll see how they all play out. I'm aware of some of the pieces in play, but I don't know what the end result will be. I have my theories, and my hopes, not necessarily identical.
> 
> I think the next month or two will be interesting...


I think I may have mentioned this before, but I love you.


----------



## Dpock

dgaughran said:


> What's happened over the last day/week, this isn't the end of something. It's the start of something.


The only thing that happened over the past week is Amazon's TOS clarification on bonus material. Or did I miss something?

A couple months ago erotica rankings disappeared and reappeared a week later.

For the past two months in a row, many authors had KENP pages removed from their accounts and received threating notices. (Take deep breaths before checking your mail June 10-11 when the new round begins).

Random Amazon page layouts have been shifting back and forth for over a month now.

Another round of reviews disappearing and reappearing occurred recently. (Did they amend their TOS regarding ARCs? I don't recall.)

The AMS dash reports it'll be down for nine hours June 9.

The above _could_ be clues to something big coming down the road.

Tiffanygate and Cockygate are separate issues (from Amazon itself, though both are occurring on Zon's platform).


----------



## levz

Becca Mills said:


> "I know what all your presents are. They're really ... striking. I'm not saying you won't like them. I mean, you might not. But I think you will. Probably. Do you like orange? I'm not saying they *are* orange, but orange might have something to do with them. They could be orange. Orange adjacent. Well, some people might call it puce. Colors, you know -- it's hard to say. And the shape. No, I'm just not going to go there. Can't wait for tomorrow, though. Your face when you open them -- hooboy! Yep, can't wait. That reminds me, do we have a fire extinguisher?" - David on Christmas Eve


LOL. That made me laugh. 

Still, I'm glad to see the new verbiage Amazon's now made even more explicit and look forward to seeing any of these new/extra changes David's hinted are coming up.


----------



## 41419

levire said:


> Still, I'm glad to see the new verbiage Amazon's now made even more explicit and look forward to seeing any of these new/extra changes David's hinted are coming up.


"Developments in this matter" would be more accurate than "changes." I wish I could be more explicit, but I can't.


----------



## Crime fighters

dgaughran said:


> I don't want to give the mods too much work to do this weekend, so forgive me for being somewhat enigmatic.
> 
> Let me just say this. What's happened over the last day/week, this isn't the end of something. It's the start of something. Many things are in motion, and we'll see how they all play out. I'm aware of some of the pieces in play, but I don't know what the end result will be. I have my theories, and my hopes, not necessarily identical.
> 
> I think the next month or two will be interesting...


No, David. You can't do this. I'm relaunching my pen name over the next three months. If it's going to be a turbulent time, I might wait.


----------



## 41419

K.B. said:


> No, David. You can't do this. I'm relaunching my pen name over the next three months. If it's going to be a turbulent time, I might wait.


I'm in the same boat. Not worried. I don't have special knowledge of what Amazon might do, but I'm not worried about that side of things. No one knows whatever the hell Amazon might do but there's no reason to worry more than your usual base level of worry.

Now, if I was a stuffer or clickfarmer or review purchaser or whatever, I might be a little twitchy.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

dgaughran said:


> I'm in the same boat. Not worried. I don't have special knowledge of what Amazon might do, but I'm not worried about that side of things. No one knows whatever the hell Amazon might do but there's no reason to worry more than your usual base level of worry.
> 
> Now, if I was a stuffer or clickfarmer or review purchaser or whatever, I might be a little twitchy.


I'm not a stuffer, a clickfarmer, or a review purchaser, and I've always played by the rules, but after the rank stripping, the page culling, and the history of KU poop-ups after every change - I'm more than twitchy - I'm bricking it because I just don't trust amazon.


----------



## unkownwriter

dgaughran said:


> I don't want to give the mods too much work to do this weekend, so forgive me for being somewhat enigmatic.
> 
> Let me just say this. What's happened over the last day/week, this isn't the end of something. It's the start of something. Many things are in motion, and we'll see how they all play out. I'm aware of some of the pieces in play, but I don't know what the end result will be. I have my theories, and my hopes, not necessarily identical.
> 
> I think the next month or two will be interesting...


Wow. Now I need a tranquilizer, I may not make it another few weeks!

Oh, well. Going to continue in my efforts to get all my stuff not in KU wide, and some of it in print. If KU settles down and looks more friendly, I might release a new book in, see how it goes. I've got a while before I need to think about that.


----------



## BGArcher

So I'm of two minds. Let's say I have an erotica pen name. A lot of money from that channel comes from bundles. Meaning, I say up front this is a bundle of shorts. That should be fine right? Second, My other pen names (aka mysteries) will only have the one novel, plus a bonus chapter or two from other books. In both cases I'm in the clear correct?


----------



## Dpock

BGArcher said:


> So I'm of two minds. Let's say I have an erotica pen name. A lot of money from that channel comes from bundles. Meaning, I say up front this is a bundle of shorts. That should be fine right? Second, My other pen names (aka mysteries) will only have the one novel, plus a bonus chapter or two from other books. In both cases I'm in the clear correct?


You'll be fine. Just make sure your bonus chapters follow the 10% guideline (of the titled book, not 10% of another book your catalog).


----------



## BGArcher

Dpock said:


> You'll be fine. Just make sure your bonus chapters follow the 10% guideline (of the titled book, not 10% of another book your catalog).


That's what I figured. I do have romance pen names where I would add a bonus book in the back, simply because everyone else would do it. I have no problem changing that policy going forward.


----------



## Ava Glass

Lady Vine said:


> "...and other stories."
> 
> I'm with the person who said all we'll see is a title change, nothing more. They'll turn everything into boxed sets.


Tia Siren is already trying this. It's just a parenthesis added to the title.

_Link removed. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crime fighters

Ava Glass said:


> Tia Siren is already trying this. It's just a parenthesis added to the title.
> 
> _Link removed. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


And we're all slanderous fools out to hurt readers. Give me a [expletive]ing break, Tia.


----------



## AltMe

Bill Hiatt said:


> You are making a good point, and I don't really want to see legitimate authors lose what has been a useful strategy. However, I also think the scammers will take books with bonus content and relabel them as box sets. Maybe that will be less appealing to readers. Maybe not. But is there a way to prevent this kind of modified scam without eliminating box sets?


Require all books inside to be listed on the cover?

This will obviously be a problem for the multi-author box sets, especially the ones with 10+ books inside. And would likely limit the number which can be in them.

But it would point out to the reader exactly what is inside.

KDP could take it one step further, and for box sets have another section where title and author of each book inside has to be listed, and this has to agree with the titles on the cover. This would also allow them to list the books on the product page, perhaps even before the blurb.

For normal box sets with 3 books in them, this wouldn't be an imposition. It might make huge box sets be re-thought by those doing the work.

And it makes what's in the book totally obvious to those looking at the product page.


----------



## Guest

Well. If people call it a compilation and list the books in the TOC... I don't see what the problem is. Like, if Tia Siren does that? So what? She's obeying the rules as laid out by Amazon.

I feel like Amazon got pestered about bonus books, put something in as a "there there" pat on the head "see we did something! loook!" knowing that it could easily be skirted by a simple addition of a few words to covers/titles, which kinda makes me feel like they don't really GAF.


----------



## 41419

mawnster said:


> Well. If people call it a compilation and list the books in the TOC... I don't see what the problem is. Like, if Tia Siren does that? So what? She's obeying the rules as laid out by Amazon.
> 
> I feel like Amazon got pestered about bonus books, put something in as a "there there" pat on the head "see we did something! loook!" knowing that it could easily be skirted by a simple addition of a few words to covers/titles, which kinda makes me feel like they don't really GAF.


We're going to find out pretty quickly if Amazon's rules mean anything or not. If stuffers can just add (Collection) to the title of all their stuffed books then the rule is a sham.

This is why I said we don't need new rules when people were advocating for a KENPC limit of 1000. We just need Amazon to enforce the ones they already have. If they have no interest in proper enforcement, then it doesn't matter if they bring in 20 new rules.

It's an early test, and I'm interested to see what happens next.


----------



## Jack Krenneck

Amazon's notice made a special point about prompt compliance to qualify for All Star Bonuses. They didn't have to mention that. So it reads like a preemptive legal/PR thing to me. In other words, if someone loses money and kicks up a fuss Amazon can respond with "You were warned. Specifically."

So it seems promising to me. But time will tell.


----------



## 41419

Jack Krenneck said:


> Amazon's notice made a special point about prompt compliance to qualify for All Star Bonuses. They didn't have to mention that. So it reads like a preemptive legal/PR thing to me. In other words, if someone loses money and kicks up a fuss Amazon can respond with "You were warned. Specifically."
> 
> So it seems promising to me. But time will tell.


I find that reassuring and worrying at the same time. Reassuring that they specifically said that All Stars are on the line for June onwards if people don't immediately comply. Worrying that they felt the need to say that (should be on the line anyway) and, a bigger concern, that perhaps Amazon are only going to look at who is getting All Stars and not engage in a wider sweep.

I mean, that's better than nothing but perhaps a sign this is more about PR than fixing the problem.


----------



## AuthorX

The issue with the just adding "Collection" to a new release should be a non-issue, because there is a rule that already exists that should counteract that:

Duplicate Content

The author cited above is stuffing her new release with old books that are already in KDP. If she were releasing a new book and stuffing with with a collection of unseen books, would anyone here care? Of course not... But she's still breaking the old rule with her book packed with duplicate content.

I think Amazon is really trying to give authors a chance. They understand that people want to write six books series and then release box set of that series and have them all in KDP select without flagging them for duplicate content.

But they REALLY need to start enforcing the duplicate content rule or book stuffers simply will not learn. They'll just add "collection" to their title and pretend that their new release is somehow a collection just because they stuffed a bunch of old books in it.

This is how these guys work... Amazon releases a positive policy that only seeks to help the community, but some people try to twist it to their advantage. Don't attack Tia Siren for releasing a new book that's part of a collection. Attack her because she released a new book and stuffed it will duplicate content that's already in KDP select. It is in no way a real collection and violates the duplicate content policy.


----------



## Phxsundog

Several more of the stuffed romances in the Top 100 now have Compilation, Collection, or Bundle in the title and on the cover (sometimes in tiny lettering). This appears to be the official Mastermind strategy going forward. Hope Amazon proves it's a poor one. This group is not giving up the bundles unless Amazon brings out the banhammer. Their entire business model depends on 3000 pages volumes disguised as single title books as much as possible.


----------



## 91831

BGArcher said:


> ... My other pen names (aka mysteries) will only have the one novel, plus a bonus chapter or two from other books. In both cases I'm in the clear correct?


See I wouldn't have said a chapter from another book by the same author was 'bonus content' I thought that was standard. Trad books I've bought since I was a teen have often done that and never labelled it as a bonus. I personally just thought it was with regards to extra books/additional stories/deleted scenes...


----------



## 41419

I agree that Amazon didn't need new rules to tackle stuffing but I also hoped the simplification of those rules would help with enforcement.

I've blogged about Tia Siren's attempt at a loophole: 

I think this is a crucial moment, and a real test for Amazon. If it lets this BS fly, then we know this whole thing was a sham. I think all honest authors should be asking Amazon publicly and loudly if they will apply their new rules.

I should also point out she has only bothered doing this for her new release... and that she is a Kindle All Star, because of course she is!


----------



## 41419

Here's why Amazon doesn't need new rules, it just needs to enforce old ones. Tia Siren is triple spacing all her books to artificially increase page count:










_Post edited--but discussion of formatting used to artificially increase page count is allowed as germain to the discussion. --Betsy_


----------



## D-C

The answer is simple: don’t allow duplicated content in KU.

KDP have no interest in fixing this or any of the enormous issues with KU. That’s the devil we know. If we want to play in KU and sell on Amazon, we basically have to agree to all these shady tactics and the way Amazon wield their ban hammer. They’ve had ample opportunity to fix KU over the past few years and haven’t. It’s time to push to iBooks, Kobo, etc.


----------



## 41419

Amazon customers aren't fungible. They won't move to Kobo or iBooks just because we start pushing those retailers. And I'm not prepared to hand off the Kindle Store to scammers just yet...


----------



## D-C

dgaughran said:


> And I'm not prepared to hand off the Kindle Store to scammers just yet...


The problem is, Amazon are.


----------



## Not any more

dgaughran said:


> Here's why Amazon doesn't need new rules, it just needs to enforce old ones. Tia Siren is triple spacing all her books to artificially increase page count:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Edited quoted post. --Betsy/KB Mod_


If this works, then everything Amazon has been telling us about how KENP is calculated is a lie. I can't imagine that actually works. By that standard, I should boost my font to 14pt also, and use 1.5 spacing, and a bunch of other tricks that wouldn't be near as noticeable or damage the readability.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Yep, as predicted the word 'compilation' is springing up all over the place, but do they realise that they can't use duplicate material in KU, and will amazon actually care enough to sort through these sets?


----------



## AltMe

brkingsolver said:


> If this works, then everything Amazon has been telling us about how KENP is calculated is a lie. I can't imagine that actually works. By that standard, I should boost my font to 14pt also, and use 1.5 spacing, and a bunch of other tricks that wouldn't be near as noticeable or damage the readability.


This was removed in the first KU2 fix, when they downgraded KENPC by a third for lots of people.

As I understand it now, no sort of spacing or font size has any baring on KENPC. And hasn't for a long time.



Atlantisatheart said:


> Yep, as predicted the word 'compilation' is springing up all over the place, but do they realise that they can't use duplicate material in KU, and will amazon actually care enough to sort through these sets?


I wonder if Amazon have actually triggered this, in order to have something to target?

If I was Amazon, I'd have been this devious. Set out a word where anyone trying to get around the new rule would use in a hurry. Target the word, and scrutinize the book it's used on. Catchee monkey. Nuke monkey.

But are Amazon this devious? Probably not. Or they'd have caught them during re-submission.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

One thing that strikes me about amazon is that they don't just burn at the source. If behavior is allowed to go 'unchecked', how do we know it's unchecked? Or can we assume that amazon is building their case. Watching what the stuffers are doing. Compiling their list to hit with the next round of adjustments. 

Just like the guy they went after for clickfarming? Surely they didn't uncover the fraud and go after him in the same week. Surely, they would have built their case, double checked their numbers and then lowered the boom in one fell swoop.

Or am I being cutely naive?


----------



## PearlEarringLady

TimothyEllis said:


> If I was Amazon, I'd have been this devious. Set out a word where anyone trying to get around the new rule would use in a hurry. Target the word, and scrutinize the book it's used on. Catchee monkey. Nuke monkey.
> 
> But are Amazon this devious? Probably not. Or they'd have caught them during re-submission.


I think they're not that devious lol. But what they have done is to draw a clear distinction between a single title book, with up to 10% extra material, and multi-book compilations/collections/whatever. Previously there was this swamp in the middle with loads of books that looked exactly like single titles but were stuffed to the gunnels with other things.

So now they have an easy way to treat the two differently. If they should be so minded. Now it may be that all they're looking for is a way for *readers* to spot the difference between a stuffed book and non-stuffed. But it also makes it easier for *Amazon* to spot, too, if they should want to (say) ban collections/compilations/box sets altogether.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

Maybe they should go back to the old KU 1.0 system, but have a tiered borrow payment.

10 page minimum for a payout.
10-50 pages = 50¢
51-100 pages = $1.00
101-200 pages = $1.50
200+ pages = $2.00.

That lets people write shorts, novellas, etc., and caps the payout like it used to be, except for novels. You'd see more shorts, like in the old days, but for 50¢ a pop, the shorts wouldn't be eating all of the pot.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

MonkeyScribe said:


> Maybe they should go back to the old KU 1.0 system, but have a tiered borrow payment.
> 
> 10 page minimum for a payout.
> 10-50 pages = 50¢
> 51-100 pages = $1.00
> 101-200 pages = $1.50
> 200+ pages = $2.00.
> 
> That lets people write shorts, novellas, etc., and caps the payout like it used to be, except for novels. You'd see more shorts, like in the old days, but for 50¢ a pop, the shorts wouldn't be eating all of the pot.


How would that stop people from stuffing to get the higher payout?


----------



## 41419

brkingsolver said:


> If this works, then everything Amazon has been telling us about how KENP is calculated is a lie. I can't imagine that actually works. By that standard, I should boost my font to 14pt also, and use 1.5 spacing, and a bunch of other tricks that wouldn't be near as noticeable or damage the readability.


I have an idea about how they are doing it but not going to detail it for obvious reasons.

The key point is that it works. You may have noticed that stuffers are putting in less books now. It's 3 or 4 or 5, where it used to be 8 or 9 or 10. Same books, still hitting 2500+ in the page count (before they wipe that off by pairing with an unstuffed print edition).


----------



## unkownwriter

One thing about the tiered system, there would only be a $2 per book maximum. Not a lot of profit in that, when you have to pay click farms and bot firms. Ten books would get you two bucks. One book would get you two bucks. Figure out how much extra work there's going to be in making even more titles, that only get you two bucks.


----------



## 41419

We can talk about systems, but Amazon is yet to demonstrate *the will* to tackle this comprehensively.


----------



## Avery342

I have a couple of questions about the TOS and metadata guidelines, etc. Please humor me, as I am most definitely NOT an evil mastermind, so my brain doesn't think that way.

Question 1: Shouldn't a title be, well a title? As in all in the same place and all in the same, or very similar, font size? If you are naming your book "Love Next Door (A Romance Compilation), then shouldn't that title be one cohesive string of words on the book's cover? And not, for reference sake, LOVE NEXT DOOR as the title in large descriptive font and then up in the corner of the book in tiny little print "and Romance Compilation". When I say tiny little print--I mean it! How is that considered to be a part of the title?

Question 2: About using print books in order to show a lesser number of pages for the Kindle version. Don't paperbacks and the Kindle versions have to match up in order to be... well, matched? Surely there is something in the behemoth rule book that says that, right? How can they match a single book to a stuffed one that is, I don't know, ten times longer?

There are so many ways that Amazon could stop this, but truthfully, the easiest would be to come up with unambiguous language regarding Duplicate Content. With any hope, that will be next.

And for those who wonder, I no longer have a horse in the race, I was one of the innocent ones forced out by "illegitimate page reads". And yet, the scammers and stuffers live on...


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

Honestly, the only surefire way to fix things is to say content can only be in KU one time. I have omnibuses in KU, but the real appeal to an omnibus for me is audio. Just keep the omnibuses on Amazon but don't allow them in KU. I do think this is where things will end up. How soon? I have no idea. I do find it interesting that they're looking to shake things up signicantly at this time of year, though. I guess we will know in a few weeks if more changes are coming (which I'm hearing whispers about but nothing concrete). 'Tis the season.


----------



## Used To Be BH

she-la-ti-da said:


> One thing about the tiered system, there would only be a $2 per book maximum. Not a lot of profit in that, when you have to pay click farms and bot firms. Ten books would get you two bucks. One book would get you two bucks. Figure out how much extra work there's going to be in making even more titles, that only get you two bucks.


Depending on the payout, a scammer might make about $13.50 on 3,000 pages, so $2.00 is a pretty substantial drop. It removes most of the incentive to stuff. Regular novels will all be in the $1.50 or $2.00 tiers (depending on how pages are calculated). It also gives people a clear idea of what they'll be paid per unit _when they sign up_, rather than long after the fact.

Someone could still use click farms and bots to inflate payout, so I guess the question is whether or not that's economically feasible. None of us probably know how much those practices cost.

I actually thought counting pages read was an interesting innovation, but since Amazon can't actually do it accurately, it makes sense to return to some kind of pay per borrow model. A tiered model avoids incentivizing the creation of scamphlets.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

dgaughran said:


> We can talk about systems, but Amazon is yet to demonstrate *the will* to tackle this comprehensively.


They won't devote resources to enforcement, that's the number one problem. So modifying the system to make certain things impossible would be an improvement. It's like the difference between a speed limit sign and a speed bump. The speed limit requires someone to sit there with a radar gun and then hand out fines. The speed bump destroys cars that go over it too fast.

Since Amazon only invests (weakly) in speed bumps, let's see what better speed bumps we could install.


----------



## 41419

Yeah I get that. Like the 1000 KENPC ceiling isn't an ideal solution, but it would make things a good deal better. As would several other solutions which have been mooted.

I'm taking a slightly different tack in that I think we have a pretty unique moment right now to affect change, and if that's possible, I'd like to take advantage of that window as much as possible, rather than with a half-measure (which would undeniably be an improvement, but I feel these guys would just pivot...).


----------



## Guest

As a legitimate author that routinely stuffed, this is very concerning for me.

Fact is, this is going to hurt authors like me way more than the scammers you guys get up in arms about. I write my own books and I work really hard to do it. I've built a fanbase over years and I actively give those fans what they want. When KU1 hit, I had to find a new way to stay competitive, and including one or two bonus books at the end of a new release was one way to stay afloat. That became the new norm, and I just continued the practice. Readers got used to it and nobody complains anymore, and sometimes I get readers saying that they like getting free content (big shock there).

Unfortunately, I'm going to stop stuffing my books, which means I'm going to take something like a 1/3rd paycut. That means my family makes less money. That means my hard work on every release makes less money. I don't have ghostwriters churning this stuff out for me. I'm not "triple spacing" my files or whatever David's complaining about now. I have never, ever used a link scam / click to back scam. I'm a real, hardworking author trying to make a living, and I used book stuffing to stay competitive. I don't get bonuses every month and I'm not making millions (far from it) but I am making enough to support myself and my family.

Every time this board gets up in arms about something and forces Amazon to make sweeping changes, WE ALL MAKE LESS MONEY.

KU2 was a paycut. This bookstuffing thing is going to be a paycut. The rate IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE, which is the only way this could be a good thing. Now I have to try and find a new strategy, one that may be less effective. And you know what? The scammers are still going to keep doing what they're doing, because they don't care in the end.

When are we going to be happy with what we have? Petitioning Amazon, getting up in arms, that will never solve anything. I don't know how many times we have to go through this before you all realize that Amazon always makes it harder and worse for us, never better.

The scammers will never go away, no matter how much you beg Amazon. They will keep selling. In the end, the only people you're hurting are people like me, legitimate authors just trying to keep up.

Anyway, that's all. I'm posting this anonymously because this board has a loooong history of brigading and I'm afraid to use my real author name. I don't want to risk my career, so normally I'm quiet, but this is getting absurd. I just want everyone to stop and think about what they're doing, and really ask: has pushing Amazon for big changes ever actually benefitted anyone other than Amazon itself? If not, why do we keep doing it?

I hope I'm wrong and the rate goes up. I hope I'm wrong and the scammers slowly disappear. History tells me I'm not wrong, though.

_Note that this member account has been deleted. Secondary accounts in general are not allowed here (see Forum Decorum) and secondary accounts created for the purpose of making some posts anonymously are definitely not allowed. Members *are* allowed to have a single anonymous account, if that's how they wish to engage here. Either be anonymous or not, but do not create a second account to be anonymous, as it is not fair to the members who do post publicly under their author names and accept the risks therein. Also note that if we discover a member or a member's books have been attacked on Amazon as a result of posts here, and we can identify the culprit, that person will be banned permanently. --Betsy_


----------



## 41419

Dude, you realize your the part of the problem right? And that you are cheating the authors on this forum? And you want sympathy.

LOL.


----------



## Guest

dgaughran said:


> Dude, you realize your the part of the problem right? And that you are cheating the authors on this forum? And you want sympathy.
> 
> LOL.


You're going to make it waaaay worse for all these authors. All because of this agenda you have.

I'm asking, when has making Amazon put in place big, sweeping changes EVER helped authors?

It only benefits Amazon.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## AltMe

letsgetanonymous said:


> Unfortunately, I'm going to stop stuffing my books
> ....
> KU2 was a paycut.


  
The only way KU2 was a paycut, was if you write short.
If you put 3 original new shorts in a book to make it up to novel size, this is not stuffing. This is bundling. It gets recommended all the time.
But if you're putting out 1 new story, with several old ones after it, then yes, you're stuffing, and sorry, but ....
In the latter case, all you need to do is shift strategy to only bundling new stories. You'll take a hit, but in time you'll build it back.


----------



## AltMe

Geez guys, get a room!
I hear the patter of mod feet.


----------



## Guest

TimothyEllis said:


> Geez guys, get a room!
> I hear the patter of mod feet.


I still stand by my original post. And KU2 was a paycut-- there are a ton of blog posts out there doing the math, even for authors writing long, up to like the 100k+ range, and even then it barely breaks even until you're getting up past where most authors are writing, even in the high wordcount genres.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## AltMe

letsgetanonymous said:


> I still stand by my original post. And KU2 was a paycut-- there are a ton of blog posts out there doing the math, even for authors writing long, up to like the 100k+ range, and even then it barely breaks even until you're getting up past where most authors are writing, even in the high wordcount genres.


The only way I can see that happening is if readers are not reading the whole book. If so, that's a content problem, not a KU problem. Full book reads on 70k+ books pays more than KU1 did.

_Edited quoted post. --Betsy_


----------



## Atlantisatheart

KU2 was a pay cut for a lot of us. I wrote novellas and my income dropped by over half, but I didn't cheat to get my share of the pot back. Instead, I wrote longer, put out less but made more income that way and built it back up again. 

I think it's a little rich that you admit to taking money from other authors who have a family of their own to support, and yet, you expect sympathy because your income is going to drop now that you've been caught. 

There is no legitimate stuffing - it's stuffing.


----------



## Crime fighters

I wonder if this "legitimate" stuffer ever worried about paying their ghostwriters more than a measly one cent per word. Their plates were probably thin while poor miss (or mr.) stuffed carried a hundred thousand from Amazon in a duffel buffer bag.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

brkingsolver said:


> If this works, then everything Amazon has been telling us about how KENP is calculated is a lie. I can't imagine that actually works. By that standard, I should boost my font to 14pt also, and use 1.5 spacing, and a bunch of other tricks that wouldn't be near as noticeable or damage the readability.


Do we know that this is an attempt to increase earnings and not just bad formatting or an artifact of using the preview or look inside or whatever was used for the screen grab? Because, frankly, I saw formatting like this for years before KU existed. Maybe this is a naive question, but I thought I'd ask. 

And setting the font size shouldn't matter, should it? --Kindle owners set the default font and size on their devices.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

TimothyEllis said:


> Geez guys, get a room!
> I hear the patter of mod feet.


And you would be right....

Folks, let's knock off the personal comments. The folks making them know better. I'd hate to have to start banning people from the thread, putting them on post approval or have to lock the thread

David, I thought you said you didn't want us to work too hard this weekend. 

Betsy
KB Admin


----------



## AuthorX

letsgetanonymous said:


> As a legitimate author that routinely stuffed, this is very concerning for me.
> 
> Fact is, this is going to hurt authors like me way more than the scammers you guys get up in arms about. I write my own books and I work really hard to do it. I've built a fanbase over years and I actively give those fans what they want. When KU1 hit, I had to find a new way to stay competitive, and including one or two bonus books at the end of a new release was one way to stay afloat. That became the new norm, and I just continued the practice. Readers got used to it and nobody complains anymore, and sometimes I get readers saying that they like getting free content (big shock there).
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm going to stop stuffing my books, which means I'm going to take something like a 1/3rd paycut. That means my family makes less money. That means my hard work on every release makes less money. I don't have ghostwriters churning this stuff out for me. I'm not "triple spacing" my files or whatever David's complaining about now. I have never, ever used a link scam / click to back scam. I'm a real, hardworking author trying to make a living, and I used book stuffing to stay competitive. I don't get bonuses every month and I'm not making millions (far from it) but I am making enough to support myself and my family.
> 
> Every time this board gets up in arms about something and forces Amazon to make sweeping changes, WE ALL MAKE LESS MONEY.
> 
> KU2 was a paycut. This bookstuffing thing is going to be a paycut. The rate IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE, which is the only way this could be a good thing. Now I have to try and find a new strategy, one that may be less effective. And you know what? The scammers are still going to keep doing what they're doing, because they don't care in the end.
> 
> When are we going to be happy with what we have? Petitioning Amazon, getting up in arms, that will never solve anything. I don't know how many times we have to go through this before you all realize that Amazon always makes it harder and worse for us, never better.
> 
> The scammers will never go away, no matter how much you beg Amazon. They will keep selling. In the end, the only people you're hurting are people like me, legitimate authors just trying to keep up.
> 
> Anyway, that's all. I'm posting this anonymously because this board has a loooong history of brigading and I'm afraid to use my real author name. I don't want to risk my career, so normally I'm quiet, but this is getting absurd. I just want everyone to stop and think about what they're doing, and really ask: has pushing Amazon for big changes ever actually benefitted anyone other than Amazon itself? If not, why do we keep doing it?
> 
> I hope I'm wrong and the rate goes up. I hope I'm wrong and the scammers slowly disappear. History tells me I'm not wrong, though.


Hopefully, I can offer you some constructive feedback.

I hear what you're saying. Offering bonus books definitely leads to more income, but it also gives you an unfair advantage over other authors. Essentially, you are getting more page reads for producing less content and if you are stuffing your books with books that are already in KDP select, you're often getting paid multiple times for reads on the same book, which isn't allowed. A non-bookstuffing author would have to produce twice as much content or more as someone who stuffs every book with extra books.

Is that fair? No, of course not.

It's unfortunate that your family will take a little bit of a pay cut by not being able to book stuff, but it's equally as unfortunate that all the non-bookstuffers aren't getting as much money as you simply because they're not uploading duplicate content.

There's only two routes to make things fair. Not allow book stuffing, or everyone book stuffs. If every author stuffed their books, Amazon would be forced to drop the payout, and you'd lose money either way. Essentially, the only reason you're making more money by book stuffing now is because *the vast majority of authors don't do it*. For a healthy and fair store, Amazon has to put some limitations on book stuffers to make sure that KU payouts are fair and that no author has an advantage over another other than writing better content and marketing their content better.

Don't look at a book stuffing ban as a loss of well-deserved income, but look back and be happy that you were able to gain so much extra money while it was still allowed. So long as Amazon enforces their new rules, you will now be on an equal playing field with every author in your genre. You can and will earn just as much as you did before if you can write harder, faster, and produce better content. You can do it if you put your best foot forth. Don't give up just because tricks to obtain more for less are getting tightened up on. Look at it as an opportunity to up your writing game and challenge yourself to do better than everyone else that you'll be on a level playing field with from now on.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Ok, threadlock commencing in 3...2...1...

Too many personal comments.

I expect to reopen in a few hours after discussion in the smoke filled Admin caves.  PM me if you have any questions.

EDIT:  We've been pruning and discussing.  The goal *is* to reopen the thread.  Thank you for your patience.

EDIT2:  And, we're open...please keep it civil and on topic.  Next threadlock will be permanent.

Betsy
KB Admin


----------



## Phxsundog

Worth pointing out whatever happens this week will be the true test of the new policy. Amazon hasn't had time to react or clarify anything due to the weekend. The new compilation loophole, if it exists, won't save the megastuffers from consequences outside Amazon either. New Twitter accounts are firing up as we speak from the GetLoud movement to spotlight stuffers. Amazon is sure to review the Tia Siren book since it's been reported dozens of times already.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Phxsundog said:


> Worth pointing out whatever happens this week will be the true test of the new policy. Amazon hasn't had time to react or clarify anything due to the weekend. The new compilation loophole, if it exists, won't save the megastuffers from consequences outside Amazon either. New Twitter accounts are firing up as we speak from the GetLoud movement to spotlight stuffers. Amazon is sure to review the Tia Siren book since it's been reported dozens of times already.


It may be that the TOS changes are just laying the groundwork for bigger changes down the line, say on 1st July. It's worthy of note, I think, that Amazon has said explicitly that it expects compliance before the June All-star bonuses are dished out. So nothing significant may happen before then.

What is the GetLoud movement?


----------



## AltMe

PaulineMRoss said:


> It may be that the TOS changes are just laying the groundwork for bigger changes down the line, say on 1st July. It's worthy of note, I think, that Amazon has said explicitly that it expects compliance before the June All-star bonuses are dished out. So nothing significant may happen before then.


Could be Amazon is trying to get people to self-change, and July 1, or Aug 1, are when planned enforcement's no-one is going to like will kick in if they dont.
The whole thing could be detected at the time you upload a book. They already look for spelling mistakes. Wouldn't take much programming to check for how much bonus is included.
In fact, I'd like to see this done.
"Your book was not accepted due to excessive bonus material being found. Please remove the offending material and submit again."
And do it 3 times in a row, and the book is locked and banned permanently.


----------



## Phxsundog

PaulineMRoss said:


> It may be that the TOS changes are just laying the groundwork for bigger changes down the line, say on 1st July. It's worthy of note, I think, that Amazon has said explicitly that it expects compliance before the June All-star bonuses are dished out. So nothing significant may happen before then.
> 
> What is the GetLoud movement?


This is very possible.

#GetLoud is the hashtag on social media covering most of the book stuffing issues. It's an outgrowth of the activity around Cockygate and Tiffanygate.


----------



## HillOnLong

So bonus content was allowed all along. Who could have guessed?


----------



## DaniO

HillOnLong said:


> So bonus content was allowed all along. Who could have guessed?


What do you mean? We all knew bonus content was allowed but most people assumed that meant a short story or a chapter of the next book. Amazon have confirmed that now by saying 10% or label it as a boxed set, which means people sticking tons of books in one file and pretending it was one title are no longer allowed to do so.

I think the formatting is interesting. I wonder when Amazon does react will it claim back money paid already?

Three books do not usually =2500 pages unless the books are an epic length. If they are knowingly inflating page count, could that be seen as fraud?


----------



## 41419

HillOnLong said:


> So bonus content was allowed all along. Who could have guessed?


Yeah except for the part where Amazon has repeatedly and unambigiously stated in writing - including in court papers dude - that it is against the TOS.

Try again.


----------



## 41419

In case anyone missed it, Chance Carter's new release has been yanked down by Amazon.

He said in a video to his readers that he will be removing all bonus content from his books and that he expects other authors to be doing likewise.

This is only beginning.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## C. Gold

This is a good first step. I'd also like to see a limitation on how many times a particular book in Select can be included in a bundle in Select (like only once). Because that will probably be the next step they take to try and get double plus dipping page reads.


----------



## 41419

Views my differ on this, but my personal opinion is that Amazon is getting serious about this and we'll see some major developments soon. The bonus content rules are getting all the attention but Amazon has also quietly redrawn a lot of metadata guidelines too to make all those much more explicit and less vague. And even in the bonus content rules you can see (what looks like, IMO) Amazon thinking ahead to what the next stuffer scam might be, and trying to close those loopholes in advance.

For example, if a hypothetical bad boy author called Pants Sharter had stuffed 10 books in one, meaning the 10% sample contained an entire book, he could, in theory, have argued that having this KU book up somewhere like BookFunnel was legit because it was part of that 10% sample. So Amazon are now making it abundantly clear that: (a) bonus content can only be 10%, (b) any "sample" displayed outside Amazon can only be 10%, and (c) any bonus content in KU books must also be exclusive. 

Heading off future scams at the pass basically.


----------



## AltMe

dgaughran said:


> Mods: not sure why that link to news of Chance Carter's book being yanked by Amazon has been removed. Is there a list of mod-approved news sources I can consult?


Not consult, post. I found that link very interesting, and am glad I saw it.
It would be nice to know where the mines are placed. Several issues are a matter of continual links to new posts elsewhere, and knowing which ones can be linked to, and which ones not, would be useful.


----------



## DaniO

I missed the link.  I get that Kboards might not want the link posted here but did you post the link to Twitter, David?


----------



## 41419

Pinned to the top of my Twitter feed... which I guess I can't link to so you'll have to search for it yourself.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Here's the screenshot showing the quality notice, but the book is currently available.(I checked.)


----------



## 41419

I don't want to link to my Twitter again, but if you look at it you will see the screenshot. It was off sale yesterday.

This is why it's important to have actual confirmation of things, rather than just someone stating something. A screenshot, a news article, a social media posting - some written/visual confirmation clears up these kinds of confusions.

So, moving on, what appears to have happened is that Amazon yanked Chance Carter's book for about 18 hours I think? And in that timeframe he has uploaded a fresh version without the problematic competition, click to the end inducement, and stuffed books. It looks clean to me.

Although all his other books are all still stuffed and on sale so I don't know what Amazon is doing here.


----------



## Used To Be BH

dgaughran said:


> Although all this other books are all still stuffed and on sale so I don't know what Amazon is doing here.


Whack-a-mole? Each book has to get hit with complaints in turn? It shouldn't be like that, but it would make sense, given Amazon's reactive nature.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Here's David's screenshot of the book's status from yesterday.










So from yesterday to today, the quality notice is still there but the book is available again.

EDIT: Just a note to clarify--If germain to the topic on hand, posting a screenshot here of a publicly available page as a direct source for news is OK in most cases and would have been allowed in David's original post. His tweet is not the news source, the screenshot is. If in doubt, ask us. (I should have replaced the link with the screenshot in his post, it would have saved some confusion!)


----------



## Ros_Jackson

In terms of the timescales for enforcing this, Amazon hasn't sent me an email with notification of the changes to Bonus Content and Metadata terms - I only know about it from this board and other writer circles. The first step to enforcement will usually be informing authors through official channels such as their contact emails. Has anyone had an email about this yet? Have Amazon posted a blog?


----------



## 41419

Ros_Jackson said:


> In terms of the timescales for enforcing this, Amazon hasn't sent me an email with notification of the changes to Bonus Content and Metadata terms - I only know about it from this board and other writer circles. The first step to enforcement will usually be informing authors through official channels such as their contact emails. Has anyone had an email about this yet? Have Amazon posted a blog?


They posted an announcement to the KDP Community Forum, which is often how they do such things. An email would be better of course: https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en

Slightly o/t but you'll notice there that the Metadata Guidelines were also changed. Some really, really welcome changes that could help clean up the store considerably and reduce other annoying things like title keyword stuffing and category squatting and so on.

IF enforced of course, which is the perma-necessary caveat.


----------



## Sam Rivers

It sounds like scammers and stuffers are bad for the rest of us. One thing confuses me though. Is a stuffer also a scammer?


----------



## 41419

Sam Rivers said:


> It sounds like scammers and stuffers are bad for the rest of us. One thing confuses me though. Is a stuffer also a scammer?


People define the word "scam" differently but for me at least it needs to be more than just cheating or general shadiness and should involve an element of fraud or deception.

I've seen stuffers (speaking generally about the infamous circle, rather than any individual) also engaging in:

*review manipulation
*mass gifting
*incentivized purchasing
*formatting cheats

as well as various other street team shenanigans and the like, all aimed at manipulating rank and reviews and social proof to make books seem much more popular and successful, to encourage borrows and impulse buys. Probably other stuff going on we don't even know about.

Up to you what you call it.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Sam Rivers said:


> It sounds like scammers and stuffers are bad for the rest of us. One thing confuses me though. Is a stuffer also a scammer?


Motivation may make some difference. I can imagine someone who doesn't mean to do anything unethical getting into stuffing, at least to some degree, without realizing the problems with it. I'm not talking about someone stuffing a whole bunch of old stuff repetitively to get to 3,000 pages, even with short works. I'm talking about someone who included a fairly good amount of related additional content. Come to think of that, that could be a box set that wasn't labeled properly rather than stuffing.

Newbies often make mistakes because they don't have all the background. More experienced writers have less excuse.


----------



## Ros_Jackson

dgaughran said:


> They posted an announcement to the KDP Community Forum, which is often how they do such things. An email would be better of course: https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en
> 
> Slightly o/t but you'll notice there that the Metadata Guidelines were also changed. Some really, really welcome changes that could help clean up the store considerably and reduce other annoying things like title keyword stuffing and category squatting and so on.
> 
> IF enforced of course, which is the perma-necessary caveat.


Thanks, good to know. They must know however what the open rate is on their KDP emails versus how many people read their blog, and I imagine the two vary a lot.

Mind you, the stuffers are probably a fraction of a percent of authors, so perhaps they don't need to make sure everyone knows how the rules have been clarified before bringing the ban hammer down?


----------



## Dpock

Ros_Jackson said:


> Thanks, good to know. They must know however what the open rate is on their KDP emails versus how many people read their blog, and I imagine the two vary a lot.
> 
> Mind you, the stuffers are probably a fraction of a percent of authors, so perhaps they don't need to make sure everyone knows how the rules have been clarified before bringing the ban hammer down?


They should email TOS updates, but imagine how many clarifications inquires they'd receive in response (it's generated seven pages of speculation in this thread alone). So they went with Plan B, assuming active KDP indies would get the message.

Stuffers are a fraction of active KDP authors, but that probably translates into thousands of stuffed books and they dominate Top Lists in several genres. They're also funking-up other genres as they roam for broader audiences. If they can no longer stuff, they can no longer survive at their cherished $0.99 price-point. Their last hurrah will likely be boxed sets, but I doubt those will serve them very well. They're already retitling the stuffed books, and I'm sure (or hopeful) Amazon is tracking the situation.


----------



## notenoughcoffee

This is something I'm getting confused about.

I can think of numerous instances of big name authors putting out one large book with several books inside it. Koontz comes to mind. These are all previously released books in both print and ebook format.

What makes that acceptable, but adding previously released books at the back of a new book unacceptable? On the surface, to me, it seems the same. If you've read the older books, you're probably going to skip those. You got what you paid for - the new book - so you read that book, and ignore the rest. If you haven't read them, then as a reader, you get to feel good that you got something for free. The author is actually losing a sale, as now you're reading that book for free, vs buying it at .99 or 5.99 or whatever it's listed as. How are they making more money this way? The page reads are still the same for extra content - a bonus book at the end that's 200 pages is still going to be 200 pages read, regardless if it's read in the "stuffed" book or on it's own.

At least, that's how I, as a reader, would do/see things. 

Now, I have nothing but two small novellas out, so I'm nowhere near an expert in self publishing, so maybe there's some nuance here that I'm just not getting.


----------



## Crystal_

notenoughcoffee said:


> This is something I'm getting confused about.
> 
> I can think of numerous instances of big name authors putting out one large book with several books inside it. Koontz comes to mind. These are all previously released books in both print and ebook format.
> 
> What makes that acceptable, but adding previously released books at the back of a new book unacceptable? On the surface, to me, it seems the same. If you've read the older books, you're probably going to skip those. You got what you paid for - the new book - so you read that book, and ignore the rest. If you haven't read them, then as a reader, you get to feel good that you got something for free. The author is actually losing a sale, as now you're reading that book for free, vs buying it at .99 or 5.99 or whatever it's listed as. How are they making more money this way? The page reads are still the same for extra content - a bonus book at the end that's 200 pages is still going to be 200 pages read, regardless if it's read in the "stuffed" book or on it's own.
> 
> At least, that's how I, as a reader, would do/see things.
> 
> Now, I have nothing but two small novellas out, so I'm nowhere near an expert in self publishing, so maybe there's some nuance here that I'm just not getting.


It no longer matters, really. Amazon has a new ToS that bans the use of bonus content. That renders moral/ethical arguments pointless.

It may be right. It may be wrong. But most people who used bonus books didn't care about that. They only cared what was allowed. They're no longer allowed. If that's enforced (we'll see), people will actually stop using bonus books.


----------



## Dpock

Crystal_ said:


> If that's enforced (we'll see), people will actually stop using bonus books.


In all likelihood, Amazon will depend on a certain amount of vigilantism by the author community to police the new 10% bonus content rule. It's a personal choice. I won't make it a hobby, but if I come across a new release blatantly violating the 10% rule, I will probably report it.


----------



## sela

I just checked and it seems as if the stuffer in question has unstuffed a couple of his books. No stuffing in the first couple on his author page. No link to the back. Just an offer for a free story at the end and a link off site. 

ETA: The next book in the list appears to still be stuffed.


----------



## Rose Andrews

Dpock said:


> In all likelihood, Amazon will depend on a certain amount of vigilantism by the author community to police the new 10% bonus content rule. It's a personal choice. I won't make it a hobby, but if I come across a new release blatantly violating the 10% rule, I will probably report it.


I've been reporting the stuffed mail-order bride books for some time now so I'm happy to finally see Amazon stepping up. Not sure how much of a banhammer they'll bring down but it's better than nothing. I mean, shit, not just from an author pov but as a reader I've gotten burned so many times by this crap.


----------



## Desert Rose

TimothyEllis said:


> Could be Amazon is trying to get people to self-change, and July 1, or Aug 1, are when planned enforcement's no-one is going to like will kick in if they dont.
> The whole thing could be detected at the time you upload a book. They already look for spelling mistakes. Wouldn't take much programming to check for how much bonus is included.
> In fact, I'd like to see this done.
> "Your book was not accepted due to excessive bonus material being found. Please remove the offending material and submit again."
> And do it 3 times in a row, and the book is locked and banned permanently.


If they're going to do that, especially if there's any kind of punishment, then they need to offer more information than, "offending material." They need to tell you, at minimum, what percentages they're showing as main content vs bonus content (and an appeals process just in case their bot declares everything after chapter 50 bonus content in a 56 chapter book). An author with an extensive glossary or appendices in their fantasy novel, for example, could get dinged over Amazon counting those things as "bonus material" while the author considers them an integral part of their novel.


----------



## MmmmmPie

I just browsed through the also-boughts of the book under discussion. Every single also-bought that appears on my computer screen (eight books total) is a stuffed book.  And nearly all of these stuffed books are squatting in the top 100. I'm glad Amazon has changed their policy, but as many have already said, enforcement will be paramount. Just the fact that these books are squatting in the top 100 is making a mockery of Amazon's new rules.


----------



## David VanDyke

notenoughcoffee said:


> This is something I'm getting confused about.
> 
> I can think of numerous instances of big name authors putting out one large book with several books inside it. Koontz comes to mind. These are all previously released books in both print and ebook format.
> 
> What makes that acceptable, but adding previously released books at the back of a new book unacceptable? On the surface, to me, it seems the same. If you've read the older books, you're probably going to skip those. You got what you paid for - the new book - so you read that book, and ignore the rest. If you haven't read them, then as a reader, you get to feel good that you got something for free. The author is actually losing a sale, as now you're reading that book for free, vs buying it at .99 or 5.99 or whatever it's listed as. How are they making more money this way? The page reads are still the same for extra content - a bonus book at the end that's 200 pages is still going to be 200 pages read, regardless if it's read in the "stuffed" book or on it's own.
> 
> At least, that's how I, as a reader, would do/see things.
> 
> Now, I have nothing but two small novellas out, so I'm nowhere near an expert in self publishing, so maybe there's some nuance here that I'm just not getting.


Since you're newish, I'll recap.

Merely putting in bonus content was never the problem. The problem is stuffing of 1) multiple copies of things into a 2) KU book that 3) would get lots of extra "reads" that were never actually read, merely skipped by legitimate readers, thus creating "free" page reads and 4) creating a file that could easily be botted and 5) the file was multiplied in rearranged format in order to do the same thing repeatedly.

The core of the problem is not a retail sale. The core of the problem is KU page read manipulation via stuffing.


----------



## notenoughcoffee

David VanDyke said:


> Since you're newish, I'll recap.
> 
> Merely putting in bonus content was never the problem. The problem is stuffing of 1) multiple copies of things into a 2) KU book that 3) would get lots of extra "reads" that were never actually read, merely skipped by legitimate readers, thus creating "free" page reads and 4) creating a file that could easily be botted and 5) the file was multiplied in rearrange format in order to do the same thing repeatedly.
> 
> The core of the problem is not a retail sale. The core of the problem is KU page read manipulation via stuffing.


I don't know what "created a file that could easily be botted" means.

I guess I'm assuming the stuffed books look like:
Beginning content is new book.
Proceeding content is older books.

If the new book was BEHIND the old books, then the issue is obvious to me. But of it's not, then...? ? ?

Let's say I buy a book that's one new book, four old books. I've read all but one of the old books. I use the Table of Contents to jump to the book I haven't read yet. Sure any pages I leaped over aren't getting counted as read?

Otherwise, some of the non fiction books I read are gonna look really wonky on page reads as I jump to the back to look up included references/explanations. Am I causing issue for the author by doing that? If so, why the puck does Amazon allow such books to be in KU?


----------



## Not any more

sela said:


> I just checked and it seems as if the stuffer in question has unstuffed a couple of his books. No stuffing in the first couple on his author page. No link to the back. Just an offer for a free story at the end and a link off site.
> 
> ETA: The next book in the list appears to still be stuffed.


All the books in his also-boughts are also stuffed. If Zon is serious, it shouldn't be too difficult to track this crap down.


----------



## Shelley K

Bonus. Content. Has. Not. Been. Banned. It. Was. _Never._ Banned.

The rule _change_ is pretty simple. You CAN STILL have bonus content in your ebook. But keep it to 10% or less.

If your novel is 100,000 words, your bonus content should be 10,000 words or less. If your novel is 50,000 words, keep it to 5,000 words or less.

This effectively eliminates the possibility of entire novellas or novels being used as bonus content without them spelling it out. You can't fit one now, let alone five.

But if you have a short story that's less than 10% of your novel's word count, you can use that as a bonus content. You can put a few chapters of another book in there to entice people to buy. You can put a concordance, maps, whatever the heck, just don't go over 10% of the length of the title book.

But, for the people in the bleachers, bonus content was not and has not now been banned.


----------



## Crime fighters

Which, btw, none of The Bling Ring are following. A new release two days ago has a book, followed by a "never seen before novel from a friend". That's labeled in the sham they're (the book is co-written, presumably outing both "authors" as being the same person) calling a compilation. What's not worded (on cover or description) is that there are five more books in this "complilation". Now, you can sign up for their mailing list (again, shouldn't there be two of those?) and receive a feee book that can't be bought anywhere else, but I'd wager that book belongs to the third pen name (the one who so willingly allowed these two co-authors to use her book as bonus material). 

Will they get away with it? Yes. If someone here puts bonus content totaling 15% in their book, will they have their page reads cut in half? Yes. 

If the day ever comes when these "authors" finally face consequences for what they're doing (preferably being sued for millions), I'm dusting off the baking drawer and baking the most magnificent cake that'll be STUFFED with a triple layer of icing. 

Edit: it seems the highest ranking member of The Bling Ring is working on branching off to her fourth name, which would explain why she so graciously offered to stuff her book into the back, 5 days after releasing a book as a co-author. 

On a slightly more serious note, I notice they're all publishing much faster. Is there any hope they see the writing on the wall that Amazon is about to bring the hammer down so they're trying to collect as much cash as possible and GTFO of town? Wishful thinking I'm sure.


----------



## Dpock

brkingsolver said:


> If Zon is serious, it shouldn't be too difficult to track this crap down.


I doubt there's an automated, algo-driven way for Zon to police stuffers. Only a human can make the final call, and we know how Amazon feels about hiring humans.

I don't think it's as huge a job as we may think. Only the Top 100 lists need monitoring. If those are kept clean, the suffers will have no incentive to scam KU. As they only infest a few select genres, those genre's author communities can single out offenders. The question is whether Amazon will respond to their reports of abuse.

We now have evidence they will respond if the author community makes enough noise. Mr. Diamond is an isolated case. In time we may look back upon it as the tipping point. There are many reports of significant de-stuffing activity in progress. I suspect Amazon will give them some time to comply before bringing down the hammer. Any who don't ultimately comply will deserve to be treated like a nail.


----------



## Phxsundog

K.B. said:


> Which, btw, none of The Bling Ring are following. A new release two days ago has a book, followed by a "never seen before novel from a friend". That's labeled in the sham they're (the book is co-written, presumably outing both "authors" as being the same person) calling a compilation. What's not worded (on cover or description) is that there are five more books in this "complilation". Now, you can sign up for their mailing list (again, shouldn't there be two of those?) and receive a feee book that can't be bought anywhere else, but I'd wager that book belongs to the third pen name (the one who so willingly allowed these two co-authors to use her book as bonus material).
> 
> Will they get away with it? Yes. If someone here puts bonus content totaling 15% in their book, will they have their page reads cut in half? Yes.
> 
> If the day ever comes when these "authors" finally face consequences for what they're doing (preferably being sued for millions), I'm dusting off the baking drawer and baking the most magnificent cake that'll be STUFFED with a triple layer of icing.
> 
> Edit: it seems the highest ranking member of The Bling Ring is working on branching off to her fourth name, which would explain why she so graciously offered to stuff her book into the back, 5 days after releasing a book as a co-author.
> 
> On a slightly more serious note, I notice they're all publishing much faster. Is there any hope they see the writing on the wall that Amazon is about to bring the hammer down so they're trying to collect as much cash as possible and GTFO of town? Wishful thinking I'm sure.


If you mean Masterminds by Bling Ring, yes they are publishing faster. That started earlier this year before the bonus content changes. Some of them are trying to expand. For others it's probably desperation since their books aren't performing as well. They're slowly oversaturating their own niche of romance readers who will forgive paper thin storylines and no editing. The content mills publishing faster is good news for slower authors and publishers. It means they'll be forced to divide their promotional efforts between more books rather than putting them all behind a few large stuffed releases every month.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> They're slowly oversaturating their own niche of romance readers who will forgive paper thin storylines and no editing.


On a similar note, I signed up for one of their mailing lists over 200 days ago. During this timeframe, I've received one email a day, sometimes TWO emails a day, and that's just from one of these pen names. Unless they're adding new subscribers like crazy, this seems like a good way to burn through their lists.


----------



## Desert Rose

Puddleduck said:


> I have a hard time thinking that any book long and complex enough to need an extensive glossary would not also be long enough to offset the length of the glossary such that the glossary does not make up more than 10% of the book. And in the very unlikely event that that happened, the author would need to make a decision whether or not to put that book in KU (put it in KU without the glossary or take it out to keep the glossary in).


You can focus on the specifics of my example, but my larger point was that, if Amazon is going to be punitive about bonus content, and strict about the 10% rule, then they need to be very clear about what constitutes bonus content. They have given us a rule, and it's a good rule, but legitimate authors will still have valid reasons to need to know where the "book" stops and where "bonus" content begins.


----------



## Dpock

Dragovian said:


> legitimate authors will still have valid reasons to need to know where the "book" stops and where "bonus" content begins.


A legitimate author should be able to use their good judgment. Anything after "The End" that relates to the titled content, such as an epilogue, an index, a glossary, maps, authors notes, or mailing list information should be fine.


----------



## Desert Rose

JRTomlin said:


> Things like a glossary, historical notes, or 'other books by this author' are normally called back matter rather than bonus content, but it would be nice if Amazon clarified that. I always have back matter, I can't imagine that it ever comes anywhere near 10%, but clear rules are always helpful.


The more I think about it, the more I have questions. Are "back matter" and "bonus content" going to be conflated as the same thing? How will 10% be calculated. Word count? "Page" count? KENPC, that mysterious number Amazon calculates, but nobody can figure out the criteria of? Is an epilogue bonus content? Is a prologue? Author's Notes/Author's Foreword? Glossary? Preview chapters?

It's easy to say "no legitimate author would hit 10%", but without knowing what counts and how it's calculated, I can absolutely see an author with a prologue, an epilogue, and a teaser chapter from book 2, inadvertently going over the limit.


----------



## AltMe

Dragovian said:


> I can absolutely see an author with a prologue, an epilogue, and a teaser chapter from book 2, inadvertently going over the limit.


If anything is going to do it, it's the teaser chapter.
If in doubt, lop it out.


----------



## David VanDyke

notenoughcoffee said:


> I guess I'm assuming the stuffed books look like:
> Beginning content is new book.
> Proceeding content is older books.
> 
> If the new book was BEHIND the old books, then the issue is obvious to me. But of it's not, then...? ? ?
> 
> Let's say I buy a book that's one new book, four old books. I've read all but one of the old books. I use the Table of Contents to jump to the book I haven't read yet. Sure any pages I leaped over aren't getting counted as read?
> 
> Otherwise, some of the non fiction books I read are gonna look really wonky on page reads as I jump to the back to look up included references/explanations. Am I causing issue for the author by doing that? If so, why the puck does Amazon allow such books to be in KU?


All of these have been answered extensively in other threads, but again, a simple recap:

Amazon never counted page reads since KU started. It only counted where you left a KU book. So if you closed the book at 87%, it counted 87% as read.

This may or may not have been fixed on some platforms, but it appears it's still the old way on the cloud reader, allowing easy botting (bot account skips to the end, counts the 3000-KENPC stuffed book as "read" in seconds).

Other stuffed books put 1 real book, a bunch of extra content (often copied from other books) and a "bonus" story at the end to get the legit reader to skip to the end and trigger a full read. This may have been fixed on some platforms, but not all. This is the essence of stuffing--putting in content never intending to be read, in order to trigger false page reads.

Why does Amazon allow such books to be in KU? We've been wondering the same thing for years.


----------



## 41419

I've said it a bunch of times but it gets lost in the noise: click-to-the-end scams are still in play, there are several varities. Not going to put the techniques in the public domain for obvious reasons, but it should be obvious it still works for one simple reason: stuffers are still stuffing and putting EXCLUSIVE FREE SHORT STORIES at the end of the stuffed content.

And for anyone going to trot out the tired lie that it is for the readers, you know what's funny? When I caught one stuffer giving out supposedly exclusive KU books on Facebook, guess how many books were stuffed inside that file when they don't get page reads for it? 

None.


----------



## 9 Diamonds

dgaughran said:


> They posted an announcement to the KDP Community Forum, which is often how they do such things. An email would be better of course: https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/Updates-to-KDP-Bonus-Content-and-eBook-Metadata-Guidelines?language=en
> 
> Slightly o/t but you'll notice there that the Metadata Guidelines were also changed. Some really, really welcome changes that could help clean up the store considerably and reduce other annoying things like title keyword stuffing and category squatting and so on.
> 
> IF enforced of course, which is the perma-necessary caveat.


I agree -- some very welcome changes here ... let's hope they have a widespread effect.


----------



## caitlynlynch

Amazon are starting to make moves. I've redacted identifying information, but an author I know about shared this in a group today. While this author had made changes to 'unstuff' the updated content hadn't yet gone live when she received this in an email.

"Hello,

On June 1st we updated our Bonus Content and eBook Metadata Guidelines:

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G202018960

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G201097560

During a review, we noticed book(s) in your catalog do not comply with our guidelines. Below is an example of a book that does not comply with our guidelines.

Title: REDACTED ASIN: REDACTED

Please review the new guidelines and ensure that all of the books you've published are in compliance. Compliance with our policies and guidelines is required to qualify for programs such as the KDP Select All Stars Bonus.

For any questions, please reply to this e-mail: [email protected]

Regards,

Amazon KDP"


----------



## AltMe

caitlynlynch said:


> Compliance with our policies and guidelines is required to qualify for programs such as the KDP Select All Stars Bonus.


I wish it said....

Compliance with our policies and guidelines is required to qualify for payments for page reads.

No page reads, no bonus.


----------



## unkownwriter

> It means they'll be forced to divide their promotional efforts between more books rather than putting them all behind a few large stuffed releases every month.


Good. Make them spend more money and more time for less payout. Sooner or later, the ROI isn't worth it, and most of them will find something else to do.



dgaughran said:


> I've said it a bunch of times but it gets lost in the noise: click-to-the-end scams are still in play, there are several varities. Not going to put the techniques in the public domain for obvious reasons, but it should be obvious it still works for one simple reason: stuffers are still stuffing and putting EXCLUSIVE FREE SHORT STORIES at the end of the stuffed content.
> 
> And for anyone going to trot out the tired lie that it is for the readers, you know what's funny? When I caught one stuffer giving out supposedly exclusive KU books on Facebook, guess how many books were stuffed inside that file when they don't get page reads for it?
> 
> None.


So much this. If skipping to the end didn't work, why is it still done? If there's not a click farm involved, where are these people finding readers to go through every page of the crap they're uploading? If none of the stuffing and incentives worked anymore, why is stuffing getting worse and worse?

I think the reason Amazon is saying stuff like "to qualify for All Star bonuses" is because that's a huge chunk of money, and it will hurt these people to not get it. I'm not sure what the biggest payout is, but it's like $25K, right? That's huge. Every month. Author bonuses and book bonuses. Don't forget, the majority of these people aren't writers, as we consider them, they're Internet marketers, out for the easy money. Make it harder to get it, and they'll go away.


----------



## GratefulWriter

I read through most of the posts on this thread and don't think this was covered.  I am a wide author who is NOT in select/unlimited and include some bonus content at the end of my books.  From what I can see, the new policy effects me as well even though i am not being compensated on the pages-read model correct?

I had understood that as long as you were not in select the bonus book thing was kind of a non issue because you were taking the loss and not taking funds from other authors.  I used to include just a bonus chapter but after trying out a permafree book as a bonus I noticed a huge uptick in sales so I started offering a permafree bonus at the end of my books to introduce people to my other series.

Anyways, just curious if anyone had clarified whether this was just a Select thing or an everyone thing before I go emailing Amazon and and get one of their rote email responses.  Thanks, and happy Tuesday!


----------



## unkownwriter

Another thought I had was that there's a reason we see this almost exclusively in Romance, and that's because those readers are voracious. It's not unheard of for someone to read a book a day, every day. Maybe more. And yes, it's possible. I've done it myself, though I tend to read SF. With that amount of turnover, it's easier to hide huge page reads. But in a genre like horror? It would stand out, and the last thing they want is for Amazon to finally really look at something and begin to ask questions.


----------



## AltMe

GratefulWriter said:


> I read through most of the posts on this thread and don't think this was covered. I am a wide author who is NOT in select/unlimited and include some bonus content at the end of my books. From what I can see, the new policy effects me as well even though i am not being compensated on the pages-read model correct?
> 
> I had understood that as long as you were not in select the bonus book thing was kind of a non issue because you were taking the loss and not taking funds from other authors. I used to include just a bonus chapter but after trying out a permafree book as a bonus I noticed a huge uptick in sales so I started offering a permafree bonus at the end of my books to introduce people to my other series.
> 
> Anyways, just curious if anyone had clarified whether this was just a Select thing or an everyone thing before I go emailing Amazon and and get one of their rote email responses. Thanks, and happy Tuesday!


Nothing I've seen indicates anyone is exempt.

Interesting thing is though, will they go after people not in KU? Or will the bots not know the difference? Have to wait and see. If you get a love note from KDP, let us know.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

I'm not an author so maybe I'm not understanding.

To me, the concept of 'all star bonus' is something like "wow, you sold so many books this month, you're like a rock star and we're going to give you extra money because of it, because, after all, you made us a bunch of extra money too." Seems perfectly reasonable.

That said, if it was MY money I was more-or-less giving away, I think I'd go one step beyond just letting a computer pull the top 5 books in the category or whatever and cut those folks a check. Knowing there's the possibility of jiggery pokery in the system, I'd want to actually look at those books and make sure they're 'real' books. 

Further, I'd make note of any I found to be in violation of the rules and that author/publisher would be off the list of ever being allowed to get a bonus. Maybe even banned from publishing through the system, period. Sorry, 1 strike and you're out in this game. I wonder if the recent change/clarification in the rule about bonus content is in preparation for a move such as this.

Point is, they don't need to review every one of the thousands of books that are uploaded each day -- which, from a cost/benefit point of view would probably be nearly impossible anyway.They just need to look monthly at the top books and see if they got to the top by less than honorable means, and deal with those publisher/authors. Even if they're checking a hundred books a month, that shouldn't take very long for an actual human to do. A team of 10 could probably do it in about an hour.

The system gamers would pretty quickly learn that if their plan works and they get into the top spots, they're going to get a closer look and be shut out for good. Sure, they can open new accounts, but if it's harder work to get less money, at some point -- as someone else noted -- perhaps they'll move on to some other 'get rich quick' scheme.

Again, not an author, and not a KU user. Maybe not even a typical Zon/kindle customer. Anyway, I never see any of these books you all talk about recommended to me. And when I do get a book recommended, I go through to see what sort of extras there are in the back . . . . frankly, if it's more than the book and some relevant backmatter, I'm not interested. I absolutely don't want a whole 'nother book back there, or even a short of some sort. I don't ever read 'the first chapter of the next installment', which is actually pretty common. I'll read that chapter when I buy that book, thankyouverymuch. If I liked this one well enough to do that, I mean.  I also don't like buying more than one book in a set even on purpose, because I like to know when the end of THIS story is and it's too hard to tell when there's more than one novel in the file. 

Anyway, just my perspective. I suspect this change is as much from reader/customer complaints as from author complaints.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Dragovian said:


> If they're going to do that, especially if there's any kind of punishment, then they need to offer more information than, "offending material." They need to tell you, at minimum, what percentages they're showing as main content vs bonus content (and an appeals process just in case their bot declares everything after chapter 50 bonus content in a 56 chapter book). An author with an extensive glossary or appendices in their fantasy novel, for example, could get dinged over Amazon counting those things as "bonus material" while the author considers them an integral part of their novel.


Yes, that kind of clarification would be highly desirable.

Glossaries and appendices raise somewhat the same questions with respect to KU that nonfiction reference books do. There's a lot of jumping around. Reference books aren't read cover to cover, and not every fantasy reader is going to read all the appendices. In the latter case, it would probably make sense for Amazon to stop counting KENP when the appendices begin, but I don't know if that's really how the situation is handled.

Perhaps Amazon needs to make a distinction between bonus content (other complete works) and back matter. I would argue that back matter is an integral part of the work, not a bonus. If Amazon doesn't count the back matter for KU purposes, I'm fine with that.

I have a book on Greek mythology that I wrote for my former school. Though the text is geared for the average reader at which the book is targeted, the appendices provide additional material for students who want to know more, as well as reference aids like genealogies, Greek to Roman name conversion, and annotated bibliography. Together, the back matter is 11.3% of the total length of the paperback, though it might be somewhat less in the ebook (genealogies are omitted because they didn't work well). I guess I'll just have to wait and see if that's a problem. The book is not in KU, and the school uses the paperback, not the ebook, so I could in theory just drop the ebook if there's an issue with it. However, my situation is unusual. No fantasy author with lots of appendices is going to want to drop the ebook.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

TimothyEllis said:


> I wish it said....
> 
> Compliance with our policies and guidelines is required to qualify for payments for page reads.
> 
> No page reads, no bonus.


Yeah, this is lame. A bonus is just icing, and some of those stuffers would probably be happy to give it up if it meant taking the target off their backs. By the time you get 25 grand, you're already pulling six figures a month. Why can't Amazon go after _that_ pile of cash? Seems it's the equivalent of saying, "Go ahead and keep the money you get embezzling from the company, but we're not going to give the employee of the month or the bonus if you do."


----------



## AltMe

Bill Hiatt said:


> If Amazon doesn't count the back matter for KU purposes, I'm fine with that.


I have a feeling they dont. There was a minor adjustment down on KENPC a fair while back, which felt like the back matter was removed.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Puddleduck said:


> I always get so confused when people present an example to illustrate their point, then don't want that example responded to and act as if it's irrelevant whenever anyone does.
> 
> To me, "what is bonus content" seems pretty obvious. Bonus content is anything that's not the book. Appendices, previews, a bonus short story, a glossary--these all seem pretty obviously like bonus content. Epilogues and prologues are part of the story--duh--so they're not bonus. (I can understand readers skipping these because they don't think they're relevant. I can't understand anyone trying to claim they're not part of the story.) Front and back matter shouldn't take up more than a few pages. If you've got more than a links page and maybe a newsletter sign up at the back, then whatever else you've added is probably bonus content. Copyright info, dedications, author notes--usually all accepted as part of the front/back matter. But even if Amazon wanted to count everything that's not between Prologue/Chapter One and Epilogue/last chapter as bonus content, that still shouldn't amount to more than a handful of pages, so the difference is pretty irrelevant.


See, and for me 'bonus content' is pretty obvious, too. But in my brain, relevant backmatter -- glossaries, family trees, notes on the history, etc. is NOT Bonus content. It's all something relevant to the book I just read. And it could be somewhat substantial, depending on the type of book. I see stuff like this all the time in historicals.

What's NOT relevant is a whole 'nother story, or the first few chapters of the next book, or a letter begging me to join a mailing list. To me, that is "Bonus Content". And for me, it's a bug, not a feature. 

AND . . . . therein lies the problem.


----------



## Ros_Jackson

Bill Hiatt said:


> Yes, that kind of clarification would be highly desirable.
> 
> Glossaries and appendices raise somewhat the same questions with respect to KU that nonfiction reference books do. There's a lot of jumping around. Reference books aren't read cover to cover, and not every fantasy reader is going to read all the appendices. In the latter case, it would probably make sense for Amazon to stop counting KENP when the appendices begin, but I don't know if that's really how the situation is handled.
> 
> Perhaps Amazon needs to make a distinction between bonus content (other complete works) and back matter. I would argue that back matter is an integral part of the work, not a bonus. If Amazon doesn't count the back matter for KU purposes, I'm fine with that.
> 
> I have a book on Greek mythology that I wrote for my former school. Though the text is geared for the average reader at which the book is targeted, the appendices provide additional material for students who want to know more, as well as reference aids like genealogies, Greek to Roman name conversion, and annotated bibliography. Together, the back matter is 11.3% of the total length of the paperback, though it might be somewhat less in the ebook (genealogies are omitted because they didn't work well). I guess I'll just have to wait and see if that's a problem. The book is not in KU, and the school uses the paperback, not the ebook, so I could in theory just drop the ebook if there's an issue with it. However, my situation is unusual. No fantasy author with lots of appendices is going to want to drop the ebook.


You've reminded me of something that often bugs me in non-fiction, that many traditional publishers are still doing (although they're not in KU or KDP and not the target for this action). An ebook doesn't need an index, and in fact the index numbers won't be valid for the ebook anyway. Yet they leave the index in, so that the book finishes at around 50%, then you get the notes which are needed and the index which should really be taken out. It's disappointing because you don't get a fair idea of how long the book is, and it's utterly pointless to have an ebook index - it's padding that pushes up the page count.

In theory the 10% limit on bonus content applies across the board, and what is an unneeded index other than "bonus" content? As a reader I hope this rule drives up standards.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Puddleduck said:


> I always get so confused when people present an example to illustrate their point, then don't want that example responded to and act as if it's irrelevant whenever anyone does.
> 
> To me, "what is bonus content" seems pretty obvious. Bonus content is anything that's not the book. Appendices, previews, a bonus short story, a glossary--these all seem pretty obviously like bonus content. Epilogues and prologues are part of the story--duh--so they're not bonus. (I can understand readers skipping these because they don't think they're relevant. I can't understand anyone trying to claim they're not part of the story.) Front and back matter shouldn't take up more than a few pages. If you've got more than a links page and maybe a newsletter sign up at the back, then whatever else you've added is probably bonus content. Copyright info, dedications, author notes--usually all accepted as part of the front/back matter. But even if Amazon wanted to count everything that's not between Prologue/Chapter One and Epilogue/last chapter as bonus content, that still shouldn't amount to more than a handful of pages, so the difference is pretty irrelevant.


I'm going to refer back to my example on the previous page. Nonfiction often has extensive appendices. They probably shouldn't count for KU, but they're part of the book, not a bonus.

To me bonus content is a standalone short story or some other kind of content that could theoretically be published on its own. The appendices in nonfiction? No one's going to publish the appendices by themselves. That's the dividing line in my mind.

It's also true, as Dragovian points out, that fantasy writers tend to do quite a bit with appendices. Ever read Tolkien? Appendices all over the place. (Tolkien invented his own languages and uses the appendices to explain their structure--he was also, among other things, a linguist.) That kind of material is only going to be read by diehard fans, but for the few people who do read it, it can add to their enjoyment of the story. If, as Timothy suggests, that kind of back matter doesn't count for KU, it should really be a non-issue.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Ros_Jackson said:


> You've reminded me of something that often bugs me in non-fiction, that many traditional publishers are still doing (although they're not in KU or KDP and not the target for this action). An ebook doesn't need an index, and in fact the index numbers won't be valid for the ebook anyway. Yet they leave the index in, so that the book finishes at around 50%, then you get the notes which are needed and the index which should really be taken out. It's disappointing because you don't get a fair idea of how long the book is, and it's utterly pointless to have an ebook index - it's padding that pushes up the page count.
> 
> In theory the 10% limit on bonus content applies across the board, and what is an unneeded index other than "bonus" content? As a reader I hope this rule drives up standards.


In the non-fiction I read, I don't often see a dedicated 'index', but the notes are often all the way in the back, though readily accessed via links within the text. That does tend to sort of 'inflate' the length of the book, but I can't see what else could be done.

An index could still be useful in an eBook, if it were properly linked and formatted. You could use the search and find terms not just in the text, but in the index which could then link you to other terms.

Anyway, the issue of the book ending well before the end of the file doesn't bother me as much in non-fiction. Still, by my previous definition, it would be 'relevant backmatter' and so not 'bonus' content.


----------



## Dpock

caitlynlynch said:


> Title: REDACTED ASIN: REDACTED
> 
> Please review the new guidelines and ensure that *all of the books you've published are in compliance*. Compliance with our policies and guidelines is required to qualify for programs such as the KDP Select All Stars Bonus.
> 
> For any questions, please reply to this e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Amazon KDP"


This is very interesting (bolded). It looks like Amazon is (why do people say "are"?) making stuffers de-stuff their backlists as well.

As for the new 10% bonus rule, the safest bet is to make sure your final epilogue doesn't end before 90% on a Kindle after you've added your back matter including any bonus previews. If you have an index or glossary related to the title, seek clarification from Zon on whether it counts toward the title's 90% or is viewed as bonus content. No one on this board can answer that question.


----------



## Ros_Jackson

Ann in Arlington said:


> In the non-fiction I read, I don't often see a dedicated 'index', but the notes are often all the way in the back, though readily accessed via links within the text. That does tend to sort of 'inflate' the length of the book, but I can't see what else could be done.
> 
> An index could still be useful in an eBook, if it were properly linked and formatted. You could use the search and find terms not just in the text, but in the index which could then link you to other terms.
> 
> Anyway, the issue of the book ending well before the end of the file doesn't bother me as much in non-fiction. Still, by my previous definition, it would be 'relevant backmatter' and so not 'bonus' content.


IMO notes are part of the book's content in non-fiction, and shouldn't be considered bonus. But the indexing I've seen included this disclaimer: "The page references in this index correspond to the printed edition..." and the suggestion that readers use the search function. The page numbers explicitly weren't linked. It's not the first time I've seen similar in a big 5 published book, and it's lazy.


----------



## Broken Monitor

Dpock said:


> It looks like Amazon is (why do people say "are"?)


Depending on your country of origin, you may speak of corporations as plural or as singular.

Like most KU changes, this is just another compromise. It's annoying, but short of scrapping KU I don't think they can ever eliminate people figuring out ways to game the system, all they can do is continue to mitigate whatever new creative ways people come up with.

I've read a lot of books which had tons of great bonus content, and I haven't checked to see how long some of those are. I hope most people will be unaffected.


----------



## Crystal_

MonkeyScribe said:


> Yeah, this is lame. A bonus is just icing, and some of those stuffers would probably be happy to give it up if it meant taking the target off their backs. By the time you get 25 grand, you're already pulling six figures a month. Why can't Amazon go after _that_ pile of cash? Seems it's the equivalent of saying, "Go ahead and keep the money you get embezzling from the company, but we're not going to give the employee of the month or the bonus if you do."


No, even if it's just All Stars that's a great start. The marketing machines run on thin profit margins and thru bed those bonuses to juice their profits.

And I need those bonuses too. I've probably lost 50k+ on All Star bonuses because of the increased thresholds (which happened because of bonus books). Sure, it's a bonus and I still make a nice profit without it, but why shouldn't the authors who actually moved more (longer) KU units get the bonuses?


----------



## bobfrost

I haven’t used bonus content in a good while, but I was always on the side of “who cares, it’s allowed”.

Now 10% is allowed. That’s enough for a preview or a bonus chapter to push someone to a new book. Seems fair to me. There’s no mystery here. We all know what amazon is doing and this is about as clear a policy as they have ever implemented.

Whole bonus books are gone, and that’s fine with me too.

If this also means I might start hitting all star bonuses again, all the better. I used to hit them every month, but pagereads went crazy enough that they were pushed out of reach. I suspect I’ll be back in the all star zone over the next few months. That’s a happy bonus. I miss those 1k-10k  bumps ,

And yeah, for me all star bonuses were just that... a bonus. I never counted on them, or priced them into my marketing, because they never seemed consistent. A few big hitters could push you right out of the big money. You could never count on them, but they’re fun when you get em.

Anyway, life goes on. If your strategy required bonus content to be profitable, change strategies. There is plenty of money to make without bonus content. The vast majority of my comfortable five figure income last month came from titles that had no bonus content whatsoever. You don’t need it to make a living. I’ve already been yanking bonus content out of years-old books sitting in my back catalog. It’s not needed, and there’s no point waiting on amazon to poke me about it.


----------



## Shelley K

Puddleduck said:


> If you truly _need _them, I'd recommend coming up with a business plan that doesn't rely on one company continuing to hand out perks which they may discontinue or hand out to other people at any time.
> 
> I agree that if they're going to hand them out, they should hand them out to people who didn't cheat the system, but it's right there in the name: bonuses. They're not your wages or rightful earnings.


I've read this three times and still can't believe it.

_Edited quoted post. --Betsy_


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Folks,

Let's not make personal comments about other members. That way leads to post approval or banning from the thread.  Posts have been edited.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## AltMe

bobfrost said:


> If your strategy required bonus content to be profitable, change strategies. There is plenty of money to make without bonus content. 95% of my comfortable five figure income last month came from titles that had no bonus content whatsoever. You don't need it to make a living.


I made it onto the list for April, first time in 2 years, and only my second time. 0% bonus content. What a buzz!

Things change every 6 months. It's June, and the July/August changes are upon us. Those effected need to change strategy, the rest of us wait for the next change. This is how it is. Deal with it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

TimothyEllis said:


> I made it onto the list for April, first time in 2 years, and only my second time. 0% bonus content. What a buzz!


That's great, Timothy!


----------



## AltMe

Betsy the Quilter said:


> That's great, Timothy!


I thought so.  There's even a nice little badge on the product page for the book which did most of the work, which I found today.
With all the current activity, it makes me wonder what will happen for May, which for me was actually slightly better than April. Not holding my breath or anything, but if Amazon does strip reads retrospectively in May, for any book currently being un-stuffed, and any others the author had in May, it will be interesting to see what it does to the bonus thresholds. Not holding my breath though.


----------



## Desert Rose

Puddleduck said:


> But I tried to engage by responding to the example she provided, and she brushed all my comments off as irrelevant because she didn't want anyone else analyzing the example she'd provided to make her point.


Your engagement was "I don't see this specific thing happening, and if it does the author can just stay out of KU"; it didn't touch on the possibility that an author could reasonably consider material part of their book, while Amazon considers it bonus content, and without clarification in the rules, or Amazon specifically stating "we have found your book contains X% bonus content", that author would never know what the problem is. Even in this thread we've seen disagreement over what counts as part of the book vs "bonus content", and until Amazon clarifies we're all just making assumptions and guesswork about where the line is going to be drawn.


----------



## Dpock

Dragovian said:


> until Amazon clarifies we're all just making assumptions and guesswork about where the line is going to be drawn.


Not really. If your book and related backmatter end before 90% on your Kindle, trim any content that comes after. What is backmatter? Anything related to the title. If you're unsure whether that would include an index or glossary, check with Amazon. No one here can answer that question.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Dpock said:


> Not really. If your book and related backmatter end before 90% on your Kindle, trim any content that comes after. What is backmatter? Anything related to the title. If you're unsure whether that would include an index or glossary, *check with Amazon. No one here can answer that question.*


And as we've seen, Amazon customer representatives has always been able to give a straight answer that isn't ever contradicted by any other Amazon customer service representatives.


----------



## Desert Rose

Dpock said:


> Not really. If your book and related backmatter end before 90% on your Kindle, trim any content that comes after. What is backmatter? Anything related to the title. If you're unsure whether that would include an index or glossary, check with Amazon. No one here can answer that question.


And Amazon have chosen not to answer that question in their ToS. Which would be why I keep saying Amazon needs to clarify what they mean by bonus content.


----------



## Dpock

Dragovian said:


> And Amazon *have chosen not to answer that question* in their ToS. Which would be why I keep saying Amazon needs to clarify what they mean by bonus content.


That's sort of my point. If you're worried, make sure your titled content and whatever back matter YOU DEEM related is at least 90% of your entire file on a Kindle. Use the remaining 10% any way you want.

There may be a reason why Amazon hasn't clarified exceptions to the new 10% bonus rule. Stipulating them would give scammers the loopholes they need to stay in business. If Amazon said "excluding Author Notes" we'd suddenly see 400-page author bio's told in story format. That may or not may be a stretch.


----------



## Crystal_

Puddleduck said:


> If you truly _need _them, I'd recommend coming up with a business plan that doesn't rely on one company continuing to hand out perks which they may discontinue or hand out to other people at any time.
> 
> I agree that if they're going to hand them out, they should hand them out to people who didn't cheat the system, but it's right there in the name: bonuses. They're not your wages or rightful earnings.
> 
> _Edited. Let's not make personal comments, thanks PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


I think it's obvious I was making a point, but in case it's not, I don't literally need All Star bonuses to make a profit (I make six figures in profit). However, I've made a lot from them and I'd be much less inclined to be on KU of there were no All Star bonuses.

While All Stars are technically bonuses, they are a part of the KU system we agreed to. I'm absolutely entitled to a bonus if I'm in the top 100 authors/books (by pages read) for the month. It's part of my compensation package.


----------



## Guest

Crystal_ said:


> I think it's obvious I was making a point, but in case it's not, I don't literally need All Star bonuses to make a profit (I make six figures in profit). However, I've made a lot from them and I'd be much less inclined to be on KU of there were no All Star bonuses.
> 
> While All Stars are technically bonuses, they are a part of the KU system we agreed to. I'm absolutely entitled to a bonus if I'm in the top 100 authors/books (by pages read) for the month. It's part of my compensation package.


Crystal, you are the bomb.com. You are totally right.

On another tack - the doxxing and outing happening on Twitter right now is every bit as gross. Bullying isn't acceptable. I'm disappointed in the author community for resorting to this. Innocent authors are already getting scooped up by a mob hungry to chase down "scammers and cheats" when these people were never scammers and cheats to begin with.


----------



## The one with all the big dresses on the covers

I’m curious. For those in the know, what did the bottom threshold for All-Stars used to hang around at and what did it jump to after stuffing became widespread?


----------



## Phxsundog

MelanieCellier said:


> I'm curious. For those in the know, what did the bottom threshold for All-Stars used to hang around at and what did it jump to after stuffing became widespread?


From 2015 to early 2017, you could get a low hanging bonus with as little as 1-2 million reads. The last few months authors have missed $1,000 bonuses with over four million reads. Higher up the chain, you used to be able to get $10,000 and $25,000 bonuses with as little as 8-12 million pages read. Over the past year that amount has exploded to roughly double to qualify. It's all due to the content mills pushing out tons of books stuffed to the cap and spending like crazy on ads to get the bonuses. In some cases almost half their profits come from one of the Top Twenty author bonuses. They'll take a sure hit if the collection loophole is closed and they can no longer qualify for bonuses with stuffed books vaguely re-titled collection or compilation.


----------



## Crystal_

MelanieCellier said:


> I'm curious. For those in the know, what did the bottom threshold for All-Stars used to hang around at and what did it jump to after stuffing became widespread?


Back in 2015, I'd get a US bonus every month with 3-4 million reads. The title bonus started in 1.5-2 million range. Usually, 12-15 million pages were enough for the 25k (according to a friend who regularly earned it. I've only got it once, and it was with 25 million pages 20 million US pages (Thanks BookReport), and that was Oct 2017) and 10 million pages was a lock for the 10k. The other bonuses fell somewhere in between those.

Of course, it varied by the month.

I've found UK bonuses to be much more consistent. They start around 500k pages and the top bonus goes for 2-3 million over 2-3 million. They scale much less aggressively (from 500 pounds for 50-100 to 2k pounds for the top 1-10, compared to $1k for 50-100 and $25k for 1-10), so they're likely less of a target for aggressive marketers.

That's all from memory/off the top of my head. If only BookReport told me exactly how many pages I had in each region, each month...

EDIT: OMG BOOK REPORT WILL TELL ME THIS!!!


----------



## Ava Glass

mawnster said:


> On another tack - the doxxing and outing happening on Twitter right now is every bit as gross. Bullying isn't acceptable. I'm disappointed in the author community for resorting to this. Innocent authors are already getting scooped up by a mob hungry to chase down "scammers and cheats" when these people were never scammers and cheats to begin with.


Are you talking about the "when did you have your first 'o'...let's get personal" screenshot? I haven't seen a name put out.

I believe that women have the right to know there's a good chance it wasn't really "girl talk." [ETA: I've seen proof that strongly suggests it wasn't.]

ETA: I guess it's possible a paid assistant made that tweet, but how much better is that?

ETA2: thread to discuss "catfish" authors

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,259658.0.html

ETA3: This person appears to be linking page counts to paperbacks and putting "this romance collection includes" in fine print at the very bottom of descriptions. I really hope mawnster isn't talking about this person, because this looks like a cheat to me.


----------



## Guest

Ava Glass said:


> Are you talking about the "when did you have your first 'o'...let's get personal" screenshot? I haven't seen a name put out.
> 
> I believe that women have the right to know there's a good chance it wasn't really "girl talk." [ETA: I've seen proof that strongly suggests it wasn't.]
> 
> ETA: I guess it's possible a paid assistant made that tweet, but how much better is that?
> 
> ETA2: thread to discuss "catfish" authors
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,259658.0.html
> 
> ETA3: This person appears to be linking page counts to paperbacks and putting "this romance collection includes" in fine print at the very bottom of descriptions. I really hope mawnster isn't talking about this person, because this looks like a cheat to me.


Not specifically that person, but it's dancing close enough to the line for me to say "that's not okay". There's someone else who got doxxed I think just yesterday on Fbook. I'm not linking to it to prevent further doxxing obvs.

I'm not okay with authors breaking the rules (I was fine with book stuffing before but now you're gonna get my side-eye if you go over the 10% mark), at the same time I am also not okay with doxxing and harassing people. Not only is it just as bad (in my mind), but it can also verge into the territories of illegality. People have died from being doxxed. A friend of a friend ended up murdered and stuffed in the trunk of his car because he was doxxed. Serious business.

I would be a heck of a lot more supportive of the #getloud and #tiffanygate movements if more care was taken by the people leading the charge.

Like... what does everyone want? For people like Chance Carter to go away and never publish a book again? The guy broke rules for SURE (not cool) and I don't like the way he does bizness at all (ugh gross) but he's cleaned up his giveaway, and he's cleaning up his back catalog (which will take awhile I'm sure).

I just want to know what the end goal is here. What do the people want? We're already getting our wish of book-stuffing going away (yay!) which is going to bring down the cost of ads as there's less money fueling their steep increase in price, and all star bonuses might be in reach for even someone like myself (a solid midlister who's starting to edge in the 5 figure a month territory on the regular).

Stuff like tiffanygate is already against the law (and it was a gross move to begin with). I think men should be allowed to write under female pens if they want, and while it's skeevy yeah, for all we know some lady is running all of that dude's social media and he has nothing to do with it. Certainly if you're publishing books 2-3 times a month, you're probs NOT running your social media. I publish once every few months, and I barely have time to run my social media anymore... so I pass that off to my PA because she is rad and does it for me.

I'm just confused. And worried. And confused and worried.


----------



## Phxsundog

Personally I want to see the book slammed shut on book stuffing with no more questions or loopholes. Amazon needs to come down hard against the poorly marked collections and the people using this trick to try to get around the new policy. The formatting and spacing in some of these heavy stuffed romance books was also atrocious. Books were being deliberately formatted like gunk for page reads. KDP should have zero tolerance for that. It's the mark of a bad actor. They can't plead ignorance when their earlier books were nicely formatted with Vellum, and then the spacing and font size just kept getting more extreme in a bad direction.


----------



## Guest

Phxsundog said:


> Personally I want to see the book slammed shut on book stuffing with no more questions or loopholes. Amazon needs to come down hard against the poorly marked collections and the people using this trick to try to get around the new policy. The formatting and spacing in some of these heavy stuffed romance books was also atrocious. Books were being deliberately formatted like gunk for page reads. KDP should have zero tolerance for that. It's the mark of a bad actor. They can't plead ignorance when their earlier books were nicely formatted with Vellum, and then the spacing and font size just kept getting more extreme in a bad direction.


So basically... "you break the rules once, banned forever"?


----------



## AltMe

Phxsundog said:


> Personally I want to see the book slammed shut on book stuffing with no more questions or loopholes. Amazon needs to come down hard against the poorly marked collections and the people using this trick to try to get around the new policy. The formatting and spacing in some of these heavy stuffed romance books was also atrocious. Books were being deliberately formatted like gunk for page reads. KDP should have zero tolerance for that. It's the mark of a bad actor. They can't plead ignorance when their earlier books were nicely formatted with Vellum, and then the spacing and font size just kept getting more extreme in a bad direction.





mawnster said:


> So basically... "you break the rules once, banned forever"?


No, that's not what was meant at all.
The people this applies to have been doing [stuff] like this since KU began. So they have a long track record of breaking the rules. It's not a case of breaking the rules once, but finally having the hammer dropped on them for continuing to break the rules after being invited to stop.

_Edited. Please don't work around our filters. --Betsy_


----------



## Phxsundog

mawnster said:


> So basically... "you break the rules once, banned forever"?


For the repeat offenders with deliberate junk formatting, yes. The people doing it aren't stupid. They knew how to format books and clearly chose formatting designed to sacrifice readability for extra pages. Nothing else explains why they began to pad out their releases over the past few months with increasingly extreme spacing between lines, huge fonts, bonus content hidden in Tables of Contents and so on. Older books in their catalogue are cleanly formatted, yet the newer releases went up looking like a dumpster fire. You couldn't help but see it if you paid attention to the content mills in the Romance top 100. I'd have no problem with that being a bannable offense or at least worth a final warning before they're out.


----------



## Hoop

TimothyEllis said:


> No, that's not what was meant at all.
> The people this applies to have been doing [stuff] like this since KU began. So they have a long track record of breaking the rules. It's not a case of breaking the rules once, but finally having the hammer dropped on them for continuing to break the rules after being invited to stop.


"After being invited to stop."

"Invited" by who?

The self-appointed crusaders need to freaking STOP.

The ONLY entity that should be "inviting" authors to stop is AMAZON. It's their platform, it's their rules, it's their money.

If these vigilante crusaders spent as much time writing as they do pointing fingers, screeching, making threats and doxxing people, they'd have a nice fat backlist of their own.

_Some editing done, this post is being reviewed. EDIT: Further editing has been done to come closer to the tone we expect on this forum; this post is still under review --Betsy_


----------



## Michaela Strong

Hoop said:


> "After being invited to stop."
> 
> "Invited" by who?


Invited by Amazon. Who make the rules and have said this is not allowed.

_Edited to remove quoted bit which has been deleted from the post it was in and also the response to the now deleted bit, PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy_


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Folks, 

Comparisons of the current actions against "bonus content" to the Salem witch trials or other human tragedies is inappropriate.  Let's tone down the rhetoric.  Posts will be edited or removed.

Betsy
KB Admin


----------



## AltMe

Michaela Strong said:


> Invited by Amazon. Who make the rules and have said this is not allowed.


As stated above, Amazon are already sending emails asking people to conform to the rules.


----------



## 41419

Ava Glass said:


> Are you talking about the "when did you have your first 'o'...let's get personal" screenshot? I haven't seen a name put out.


I have been very careful not to do that, even when people were clamoring for evidence, so I'm not sure who has been doxxed. I haven't seen anything along those lines.

Although the stuffers were screaming "DOXXING" the first time I even mentioned that many of them were men pretending to be women - without even saying which author.

Kind of funny seeing admitted cheaters suddenly cloak themselves in ethical arguments.


----------



## GeneDoucette

are we sure we're using the phrase "doxxing" correctly? Are people's real names and home addresses and phone numbers being posted on the Internet? Because that's my understanding of what this word means.


----------



## 41419

GeneDoucette said:


> are we sure we're using the phrase "doxxing" correctly? Are people's real names and home addresses and phone numbers being posted on the Internet? Because that's my understanding of what this word means.


It is deliberately being used incorrectly by "mawnster."

It's an emotive term and handy for smear tactics. But no, I haven't posted anyone's name or address or phone number or identifying information. I merely stated that Author X is a man pretending to be a women and linked to one of their creepy social media statements.

And for those like "mawnster" playing "devil's advocate" on that too and wondering if it was just a PA, well it's a hell of a mistake to make over and over and over again, isn't it? A coincidence that this mistake would be repeated in Facebook groups. And in emails. Repeatedly. And by many of the other men-posing-as-women in that circle o'stuffers.

By jiminy it's coincidences all the way down!

_Editing--sending you a PM, David. --Betsy_


----------



## Guest

GeneDoucette said:


> are we sure we're using the phrase "doxxing" correctly? Are people's real names and home addresses and phone numbers being posted on the Internet? Because that's my understanding of what this word means.


In one of the cases I'm thinking about, yes, absolutely.



TimothyEllis said:


> As stated above, Amazon are already sending emails asking people to conform to the rules.


I got some info this morning that is going to be super disappointing to anyone expecting all the box sets to go away, or for there to be strict rules around them. It's basically business as usual, so this is kind of the nothingburger I thought it would be.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

mawnster said:


> I got some info this morning that is going to be super disappointing to anyone expecting all the box sets to go away, or for there to be strict rules around them. It's basically business as usual, so this is kind of the nothingburger I thought it would be.


Now, if I were amazon then I'd get the stuffers to go to the trouble of renaming all their books as collections and pointing them out, and then bring in KU-2018 in July where I banned collections from KU altogether.

I wouldn't be smug just yet, but only time will tell.


----------



## Guest

Atlantisatheart said:


> Now, if I were amazon then I'd get the stuffers to go to the trouble of renaming all their books as collections and pointing them out, and then bring in KU-2018 in July where I banned collections from KU altogether.
> 
> I wouldn't be smug just yet, but only time will tell.


Please don't attribute emotions to my words.

I'm not smug, I'm exasperated.


----------



## MmmmmPie

The cheaters aren't stealing from Amazon. They're stealing from other authors, who lose money in the form of lost All-Star bonuses, reduced payments for page reads, higher advertising costs, and lost visibility as stuffed books squat in the top 100, supported by artificially high advertising budgets (due to the $13-per-borrow dynamic). It's other authors, not Amazon, who are the real victims of this unethical behavior.

To expect genuine authors not to object is laughable. It's like suggesting that a farmer whose fields are raided every night should just shut up and grow more corn rather than work to stop the thieving.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

mawnster said:


> Please don't attribute emotions to my words.
> 
> I'm not smug, I'm exasperated.


Exasperated at _what?_ That Amazon is trying to do something about stuffing and other scammy behavior? To me, this is all pretty straightforward.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crystal_

mawnster said:


> Not specifically that person, but it's dancing close enough to the line for me to say "that's not okay". There's someone else who got doxxed I think just yesterday on Fbook. I'm not linking to it to prevent further doxxing obvs.
> 
> I'm not okay with authors breaking the rules (I was fine with book stuffing before but now you're gonna get my side-eye if you go over the 10% mark), at the same time I am also not okay with doxxing and harassing people. Not only is it just as bad (in my mind), but it can also verge into the territories of illegality. People have died from being doxxed. A friend of a friend ended up murdered and stuffed in the trunk of his car because he was doxxed. Serious business.
> 
> I would be a heck of a lot more supportive of the #getloud and #tiffanygate movements if more care was taken by the people leading the charge.
> 
> Like... what does everyone want? For people like Chance Carter to go away and never publish a book again? The guy broke rules for SURE (not cool) and I don't like the way he does bizness at all (ugh gross) but he's cleaned up his giveaway, and he's cleaning up his back catalog (which will take awhile I'm sure).
> 
> I just want to know what the end goal is here. What do the people want? We're already getting our wish of book-stuffing going away (yay!) which is going to bring down the cost of ads as there's less money fueling their steep increase in price, and all star bonuses might be in reach for even someone like myself (a solid midlister who's starting to edge in the 5 figure a month territory on the regular).
> 
> Stuff like tiffanygate is already against the law (and it was a gross move to begin with). I think men should be allowed to write under female pens if they want, and while it's skeevy yeah, for all we know some lady is running all of that dude's social media and he has nothing to do with it. Certainly if you're publishing books 2-3 times a month, you're probs NOT running your social media. I publish once every few months, and I barely have time to run my social media anymore... so I pass that off to my PA because she is rad and does it for me.
> 
> I'm just confused. And worried. And confused and worried.


IMO, it's fine to post info that is publicly available or meant for consumption--like the inside of an author's book, a mailing list page, a FB group, a Twitter post, etc. That is definitely not doxxing, nor is a list of people who are publicly breaking rules. It's not okay to post people's real name or place of residence.

I do think Chance Carter types, meaning people who deliberately and frequently violate the ToS, should have their accounts closed. It's one thing to publish a lot of gw crap. It's another to consistently try to game the system or flat out cheat with skip to the back epilogues, requests for readers to flip through bonus books they aren't actually reading, illegal lotteries inserted between chapters, etc.

Personally, I'll be happy as a clam is this change really does end stuffing. I don't need any additional take down of bad actors on top of that. But I'd also love if they all left publishing (I think they will if they can't stuff anymore because they won't make enough, but only time will tell).


----------



## Atlantisatheart

mawnster said:


> Please don't attribute emotions to my words.
> 
> I'm not smug, I'm exasperated.


Apologies, must be the internet, your answer read as smug to me.


----------



## Dpock

An author whose pen surname rhymes with 'heart' is definitely testing the new mandate. Every stuffed book in her backlist is now a 'collection'. Kudos for getting those covers redone so quickly. I guess we'll see if Amazon lets it ride.


----------



## sela

My experience is that whenever people are caught with their finger in the pie they attack and try to smear the people who found them out rather than admit error. I doubt it will change anytime soon as it seems to be a very common human failing.


----------



## Guest

Dpock said:


> An author whose pen surname rhymes with 'heart' is definitely testing the new mandate. Every stuffed book in her backlist is now a 'collection'. Kudos for getting those covers redone so quickly. I guess we'll see if Amazon lets it ride.


Apparently that's all they require. "Collection" (or box-set or whatever) in the title, and on the cover of the book. Nothing else.


----------



## writerlygal

dgaughran said:


> I have been very careful not to do that, even when people were clamoring for evidence, so I'm not sure who has been doxxed. I haven't seen anything along those lines.
> 
> Although the stuffers were screaming "DOXXING" the first time I even mentioned that many of them were men pretending to be women - without even saying which author.
> 
> Kind of funny seeing admitted cheaters suddenly cloak themselves in ethical arguments.


Ethics are a funny thing - they must be applied in all situations. If it's not ethical for people to be nasty, demeaning & belittling towards you [general you], then it's not ethical for you [general you] to be nasty, demeaning & belittling toward them. Two rights don't make a wrong. I've seen a lot of mean-spirited, hateful comments in these Twitter hashtag movements that have caused me to lose respect for a lot of the authors & even the indie author community in general. For me, these hashtag things have done the opposite of what people intended. I'm seeing a lot of other authors & readers saying the same so I know it's not just me, although of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But people getting involved in mob mentality & being mean towards others are not ethical IMO. Illegal giveaways are bad, but so is a lot of this other stuff they're doing in response.


----------



## writerlygal

GeneDoucette said:


> are we sure we're using the phrase "doxxing" correctly? Are people's real names and home addresses and phone numbers being posted on the Internet? Because that's my understanding of what this word means.


People are certainly encouraging doxxing. Yes, I have seen the address & personal information of the person on Facebook. Also the real names & identifying information posted of other pen names. [Some of what I have seen has been incorrect. I've attended conferences & have been in the indie romance community for a long time & so I know a lot of people & keep seeing completely incorrect information being spread. It is wrong to dox people but another issue is that when the information is incorrect, no one knows the truth versus fiction so it gets into very murky waters. But once in a while, the information being spread is so hilariously wrong that to me it completely ruins the credibility of those spreading it.]

Doxxing or encourage/inciting doxxing is despicable behavior, just as bad as what these people are protesting against. Not to mention, it's illegal. So I think some of the people pointing the finger should be looking at all the other ones that are pointing back at them.

I have no problem with people bringing attention to issues & starting campaigns for change. But the methods of doing it can be very problematic & hypocritical. Also, many of the people saying that now that there is a bonus book policy, anyone who ever stuffed is against it, used to stuff themselves. So to me, that is another way it's hypocritical. I mean I just look at this stuff & see hypocrisy & despicable behavior galore, on all sides. It is not a good look for the indie author community, IMO.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## sela

Dpock said:


> An author whose pen surname rhymes with 'heart' is definitely testing the new mandate. Every stuffed book in her backlist is now a 'collection'. Kudos for getting those covers redone so quickly. I guess we'll see if Amazon lets it ride.


I personally don't care if the author in question creates a dozen collections stuffed with crappy books as long as the collections conform to the TOS about duplicate material and bonus material. If the collection is merely a reshuffled repeat of other collections, that's a TOS violation and should not be permitted.


----------



## GeneDoucette

writerlygal said:


> People are certainly encouraging doxxing. Yes, I have seen the address & personal information of the person on Facebook. Also the real names posted of other pen names. This is despicable behavior, just as bad as what these people are protesting against. Not to mention, it's illegal. So I think some of the people pointing the finger should be looking at all the other ones that are pointing back at them. I have no problem with people bringing attention to issues & starting campaigns for change. But the methods of doing it can be very problematic.


OK.

I agree, that's terribly wrong, and potentially dangerous. At the same time, there isn't anyone here who can say "all right everyone, cut it out." It's an unintended consequence.


----------



## sela

writerlygal said:


> Ethics are a funny thing - they must be applied in all situations. If it's not ethical for people to be nasty, demeaning & belittling towards you [general you], then it's not ethical for you [general you] to be nasty, demeaning & belittling toward them. Two rights don't make a wrong. I've seen a lot of mean-spirited, hateful comments in these Twitter hashtag movements that have caused me to lose respect for a lot of the authors & even the indie author community in general. For me, these hashtag things have done the opposite of what people intended. I'm seeing a lot of other authors & readers saying the same so I know it's not just me, although of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But people getting involved in mob mentality & being mean towards others are not ethical IMO. Illegal giveaways are bad, but so is a lot of this other stuff they're doing in response.


So, people should not be upset when they see their colleagues breaking the rules and profiting? There's a difference between being mean in response to injustice and the injustice itself. One is far worse on the old ethical scale, at least IMO. There's righteous anger when people who play by the rules see rule-breakers profiting from their lack of ethics.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Guest

MonkeyScribe said:


> Exasperated at _what?_ That Amazon is trying to do something about stuffing and other scammy behavior? To me, this is all pretty straightforward.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Exasperated at people who engage in scammy behavior; exasperated by people who lump non-scammy behavior in with scammy behavior and whip up Twitter mobs to harass people, report books, and encourage the doxing of people; exasperated by Amazon for finally being clear about bonus content and box sets but somehow not taking the time to be very clear about what is considered significantly differentiated content vs not significantly differentiated content.

All of it is bad.



Atlantisatheart said:


> Apologies, must be the internet, your answer read as smug to me.


No worries. I can totally understand that. Especially since I'm in a vocal minority of "please hold the horses before setting everything on fire, let's make sure we're targeting the appropriate people in the appropriate ways", I've rubbed up against more than one person who's misconstrued or misunderstood what I'm saying.



GeneDoucette said:


> OK.
> 
> I agree, that's terribly wrong, and potentially dangerous. At the same time, there isn't anyone here who can say "all right everyone, cut it out." It's an unintended consequence.


The people shouting the loudest, in my opinion, have an ethical duty to be very clear, over and over again if necessary (and it's obviously necessary) that people shouldn't be doxxing, instead of barely containing their glee over it. Clearly they disagree with me, since they're doing a lot of the latter and barely none of the former. *shrug*



sela said:


> So, people should not be upset when they see their colleagues breaking the rules and profiting? There's a difference between being mean in response to injustice and the injustice itself. One is far worse on the old ethical scale, at least IMO. There's righteous anger when people who play by the rules see rule-breakers profiting from their lack of ethics.


What's the point of fighting if you just become the monster you're doing battle against? I'm assuming I've lost between 10-50k in dolla dolla bills because of book stuffers. I'm still not okay with the mass call to report every book that is still stuffed (it's been less than a week for effs sake since the new rules rolled out).

_One of the quoted posts has been edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## MmmmmPie

writerlygal said:


> Ethics are a funny thing - they must be applied in all situations. If it's not ethical for people to be nasty, demeaning & belittling towards you [general you], then it's not ethical for you [general you] to be nasty, demeaning & belittling toward them.


If someone's stealing from their fellow authors, they certainly do deserve to be called out and yes, belittled. Calling out the cheaters is not wrong. It is just and perfectly ethical. Personally, I'd like to see the cheaters cough up their ill-gotten gains before crying that they're somehow victims.


----------



## sela

mawnster said:


> What's the point of fighting if you just become the monster you're doing battle against? I'm assuming I've lost between 10-50k in dolla dolla bills because of book stuffers. I'm still not okay with the mass call to report every book that is still stuffed (it's been less than a week for effs sake since the new rules rolled out).


I don't see them as equivalent. There will always be those who slide into excess in every dispute or protest, but that does not negate the validity of the protest or condemn the rest of the protesters. Don't tar all those of us who are upset with the scammers with the same brush as you do the doxxers. That's a logical fallacy at best and a tactic of those who wish to divert attention away from the wrong-doers at worst.


----------



## Guest

sela said:


> I don't see them as equivalent. There will always be those who slide into excess in every dispute or protest, but that does not negate the validity of the protest or condemn the rest of the protesters. Don't tar all those of us who are upset with the scammers with the same brush as you do the doxxers. That's a logical fallacy at best and a tactic of those who wish to divert attention away from the wrong-doers at worst.


Yeah it would be bad to say that anyone speaking up is the same as someone who is actively trying to doxx, or encouraging doxxing, except I never said that. If I've been unclear, I apologize.



MmmmmPie said:


> If someone's stealing from their fellow authors, they certainly do deserve to be called out and yes, belittled. Calling out the cheaters is not wrong. It is just and perfectly ethical. Personally, I'd like to see the cheaters cough up their ill-gotten gains before crying that they're somehow victims.


See this is where we diverge. If Amazon had put in this 10% rule 2 years ago and the stuffers had gotten away with their behavior the entire time? Yes, I would consider that "stealing". But Amazon didn't. Amazon left it entirely unclear as to what they meant by bonus content, and despite probably thousands of reports (if the enthusiastic bragging on Twitter is anything to go by) on these books, they never got taken down for adjustment. To me unclear TOS + no enforcement = probably not against the rules, so probably not stealing.

Now there's a clear rule: either keep the content to 10% of your file, or it must be labeled as a collection/whatever in the title and on the cover. I'm sorta mentally giving people a 1-2 week grace period before I'm like "hey, dudes, clean up your act here. Not cool."


----------



## writerlygal

MmmmmPie said:


> The cheaters aren't stealing from Amazon. They're stealing from other authors, who lose money in the form of lost All-Star bonuses, reduced payments for page reads, higher advertising costs, and lost visibility as stuffed books squat in the top 100, supported by artificially high advertising budgets (due to the $13-per-borrow dynamic). It's other authors, not Amazon, who are the real victims of this unethical behavior.
> 
> To expect genuine authors not to object is laughable. It's like suggesting that a farmer whose fields are raided every night should just shut up and grow more corn rather than work to stop the thieving.


Amazon purposefully sets up a zero sum environment & encourages this kind of infighting between authors so that less people pay attention to the real problem - Amazon & the KU program.

We are giving into Amazon every time we play its game & attack or smear other authors. Amazon sets it up to be a limited pool w/ 'prizes' going to those at the very top & very vague & inconsistently enforced TOS it can use when they want or don't want against who it wants or doesn't want. It's Amazon's playground & they set it up so that we are all fighting w/ each other, tattling on each other & hating each other instead of acting for real reform on very bad policies & issues with the store.

It is a lot like the current state [or maybe just the continual state, always] as politics. Politicians blame certain groups & people for the problems that it is the politician's job to fix by changing or enacting policies. The little people all fight w/ each other & blame each other instead of pointing out that the politicians at the very top control everything & that changes should be made that benefit the people.

I refuse to play this game & I am very saddened by people who are playing it. Just like I will not attack people personally w/ whom I disagree politically b/c in my view, this means the politicians win & nothing of substance gets changed & b/c I believe it is wrong to treat people in a way that I myself would not like to be treated... I will not attack authors personally or slander them or try to dox them etc. I try hard not to fight too much w/ other authors b/c that too is playing into Amazon's game & letting Amazon win instead of We the Authors. There are ways to effect change by going at the people on top who actually have the power to change things but instead many of these movements & authors are attacking others in their same position [powerless to change policies or the Amazon system], and so nothing good is going to come from it.

When I read posters saying there should be a gatekeeper or people shouldn't be allowed to publish as frequently or people who write long books should have to suffer & have a lower page read limit to stop scammers, I am saddened b/c indie authors who have benefits from the no gatekeeper system [who is to say who the gatekeepers would be or that their books would pass muster & they'd be allowed in] are now advocating that it be closed & that steps should be taken to punish ALL authors just b/c some are behaving badly, not to mention the horrible tactics & methods in which they are engaging to try to accomplish their goal, I shake my head thinking that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are going to burn down the very system from which they benefited & could still benefit, all while screaming that other people are trying to burn it down.


----------



## sela

mawnster said:


> Yeah it would be bad to say that anyone speaking up is the same as someone who is actively trying to doxx, or encouraging doxxing, except I never said that. If I've been unclear, I apologize.
> 
> See this is where we diverge. If Amazon had put in this 10% rule 2 years ago and the stuffers had gotten away with their behavior the entire time? Yes, I would consider that "stealing". But Amazon didn't. Amazon left it entirely unclear as to what they meant by bonus content, and despite probably thousands of reports (if the enthusiastic bragging on Twitter is anything to go by) on these books, they never got taken down for adjustment. To me unclear TOS + no enforcement = probably not against the rules, so probably not stealing.
> 
> Now there's a clear rule: either keep the content to 10% of your file, or it must be labeled as a collection/whatever in the title and on the cover. I'm sorta mentally giving people a 1-2 week grace period before I'm like "hey, dudes, clean up your act here. Not cool."


We all agree that doxxing is bad. The people on this thread who are complaining about the response to the stuffers have suggested that the protest is as bad as the thing they are protesting. That's wrong and an overreach. Maybe you intended to be narrower in your criticism, but I read it as being wider and so responded to that.

As to the "clear rule" -- it was clear to the rest of us for months and months. We've been arguing that the surfing is wrong for months and months. How is it that the suffers didn't come to the same conclusion as the rest of us non-stuffing authors? It's clear to me that there was wrong-doing taking place by the stuffers (and other scammers) long ago. It was just as unethical then as it is now that Amazon has clearly put it in writing that no one can misread or ignore. There has long been a prohibition on duplicate material and that's what we were talking about last year. Of course, scammers being who they are -- ethically challenged -- they had to wait until it was written down in absolutely crystal clear language before they would change their ways. The rest of us didn't need it spelled out that way.


----------



## writerlygal

GeneDoucette said:


> OK.
> 
> I agree, that's terribly wrong, and potentially dangerous. At the same time, there isn't anyone here who can say "all right everyone, cut it out." It's an unintended consequence.


It's the natural consequence of human behavior & mob mentality, I agree. If everyone followed the Golden Rule that I believe to be a part of every religion & the better side of human consciousness, then none of these awful things would happen. I am just pointing out that those engaging in this behavior are being just as bad as the people they are trying to call out as being awful. There are two sides to every coin & the two sides need each other in order to exist. As an author I am worried about the effects of both sides of this coin for the future of self publishing. What i love about self publishing is the ability to upload my book & have people read it within a couple of hours or sometimes when Amazon is acting wonky, a couple of days. I dont' like people trying to take the simplicity & beauty of that system away from me/all authors by engaging in illegal tactics... whether that be illegal giveaways or illegal doxxing. People should be very very careful what they wish for b/c they just might get it & the self publishing platform that we love [or at least love/hate] will be closed except for those who have access to agents, publishers, contacts at Amazon and/or lots of money to pay to play. Yes, it already is like that to some extent... whoever has the money can always play more easily, but, w/ the way things are going & people shouting for gatekeepers & strict rules that limit indie publishing, it is going to be even MORE that way, instead of less.


----------



## writerlygal

sela said:


> So, people should not be upset when they see their colleagues breaking the rules and profiting? There's a difference between being mean in response to injustice and the injustice itself. One is far worse on the old ethical scale, at least IMO. There's righteous anger when people who play by the rules see rule-breakers profiting from their lack of ethics.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


I'm pointing out bad behavior just as others are, but in a way that doesn't mock, demean or disrespect them, unlike many are doing. I have no idea why you have a problem w/ my posts, but I really don't appreciate your attitude towards me. Please treat me w/ respect as I will do for you. I am just expressing my own opinions, as are you. Thank you!

Back on subject - I never said people can't be upset. I understand people being upset. I said they shouldn't use methods & tactics that are just as despicable as the things about which they are upset. This is also bad behavior & two wrongs don't make a right. That is what I said & what I stick to.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crystal_

mawnster said:


> Yeah it would be bad to say that anyone speaking up is the same as someone who is actively trying to doxx, or encouraging doxxing, except I never said that. If I've been unclear, I apologize.
> 
> See this is where we diverge. If Amazon had put in this 10% rule 2 years ago and the stuffers had gotten away with their behavior the entire time? Yes, I would consider that "stealing". But Amazon didn't. Amazon left it entirely unclear as to what they meant by bonus content, and despite probably thousands of reports (if the enthusiastic bragging on Twitter is anything to go by) on these books, they never got taken down for adjustment. To me unclear TOS + no enforcement = probably not against the rules, so probably not stealing.
> 
> Now there's a clear rule: either keep the content to 10% of your file, or it must be labeled as a collection/whatever in the title and on the cover. I'm sorta mentally giving people a 1-2 week grace period before I'm like "hey, dudes, clean up your act here. Not cool."


I agree. Even with someone like Chance who is very publicly breaking both ToS and actual laws, it's not okay to doxx or harass him. It's completely fine to call him out, as in his pen name. All the stuff he's doing is public.

There's a difference between expressing frustration and harassing someone. There's a lot of anger about bonus books and sketchy publishers out there. These people have been messing up the romance market for over a year. And bonus book hating authors have been suffering from an unfair system for two years now. But that doesn't make it okay to be a jerk.

It would have been nice if Amazon was more specific about prompt, but I agree that a week is fair. People are going to report books they consider in violation. I don't personally have an issue with it, though I wouldn't do it myself. IMO, there's no reason for people who follow rules to fear being reported.


----------



## writerlygal

mawnster said:


> What's the point of fighting if you just become the monster you're doing battle against? I'm assuming I've lost between 10-50k in dolla dolla bills because of book stuffers. I'm still not okay with the mass call to report every book that is still stuffed (it's been less than a week for effs sake since the new rules rolled out).


Yes, this exactly. That's what I was trying to say- that some of the people enraged at bad behavior are sinking to that level & behaving badly & becoming the very people they hate. It also happens in politics & it is happening here.

Take #Cockygate for instance. I don't think it is right to try to trademark a word & bully other authors into not using it. But nor do I think it is right for other authors to continually mock, insult & smear that author [or her fans/readers, or family members & friends, as some have done, yuck]. There is a court system in place for trademarks, where this all got started & where it is playing out & I'm glad that it looks like the trademark won't stand up.

I'm really happy to read updates about the court situation on social media, w/ some annotations or opinions about what people think of it or what will happen from here etc. But I really hate all the personal condemnation & snarkiness & meanness directed towards the author in question, & all of this other meanness towards other authors ranging from those who are giving away diamonds to those who used bonus books to those who use ARC teams or ghostwriters etc., w/ all of it conflated as part of some kind of #gategate. To me it diminishes the importance of the focus of fighting the trademark.

Therefore, I often turn off social media when it comes to any kind of #gate now b/c it disgusts & saddens me that humans can be so awful to each other. I tell myself it is a vocal minority w/ some ringleaders & I can see how the process all works but I can't just sit there staring at all the awfulness or I will not getting anything productive done. On that note, I also wonder how these people [NOT naming names, as others have done to their fellow human beings, yuck] have so much time to be so belittling to every else 24/7; this tells me they do not have happy lives & are not happy w/ themselves & so they are just trying to cause drama & chaos. They are just as unhappy & mean as the people they are against.

On that note I am going to go about my day & I hope that all of this stops soon although I fear it is leading to the end of open & free indie publishing & that will hurt everyone.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Becca Mills

Locking briefly to catch up with recent posts.

*Edit:* Sorry for the delay. Reopening this with a suggestion we move past the meta-conversation about the nature of protest that mawnster initiated in what is currently post No. 226. A number of good points have been made on both sides, IMO, but all we can really do, in a concrete sense, is maintain KB as a space for those who are interested in keeping lines of civil communication open. Perhaps, in fact, model the sort of conversation/protest we want to see. So let's get back to discussing the matter itself. Much remains to be clarified about how Amazon is applying its new language about bonus content and how authors can and should adapt to their altered sales environment.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Crystal_ said:


> IMO, it's fine to post info that is publicly available or meant for consumption--like the inside of an author's book, *a mailing list page*, a FB group, a Twitter post, etc. That is definitely not doxxing, nor is a list of people who are publicly breaking rules. It's not okay to post people's real name or _place of residence_.


Since I thought CAN-SPAM required a valid address for the mailing list owner...that's a chilling statement right there.


----------



## Becca Mills

DonovanJeremiah said:


> Since I thought CAN-SPAM required a valid address for the mailing list owner...that's a chilling statement right there.


I _think _Crystal_ meant the landing page where you send people to sign up for your mailing list, not one of the emails sent out to to the list. If you need to display your physical address on your sign-up page in addition to the emails you send ... well ... I don't think I'm in compliance. 

Now, let's please move on from the meta-discussion of how the protest is playing out. We'll mind our own house on that front.


----------



## Dpock

Becca Mills said:


> Now, let's please move on from the meta-discussion of how the protest is playing out. We'll mind our own house on that front.


I'm not sure I understand what this means. If we discover an author is blatantly breaking the spirit of the new bonus content TOS, can we call them out here in the forum?


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Becca Mills said:


> I _think _Crystal_ meant the landing page where you send people to sign up for your mailing list, not one of the emails sent out to to the list. If you need to display your physical address on your sign-up page in addition to the emails you send ... well ... I don't think I'm in compliance.


Well, I said valid, not physical.



Becca Mills said:


> Now, let's please move on from the meta-discussion of how the protest is playing out. We'll mind our own house on that front.


Fair enough.


----------



## C. Gold

sela said:


> I personally don't care if the author in question creates a dozen collections stuffed with crappy books as long as the collections conform to the TOS about duplicate material and bonus material. If the collection is merely a reshuffled repeat of other collections, that's a TOS violation and should not be permitted.


This is my concern as well. As a reader, I didn't mind ten books tacked on the end. I considered that worth spending 99c on since there was usually a story or two that was decent. What I began noticing though was the repetitive content which forced me to play a game of 'have I read these before?' which got annoying and definitely gave this reader a negative experience. So to me, stuffing wasn't bad it was the duplication that was the problem. Note that I usually shelled out 99c for these rather than read them in KU. I didn't realize while just a reader that that was even a 'thing' with double dipping. Now as an author, I realize what the goal was for these stuffed books and why there was so much duplicate content. I'm even happier I never read them in Select.

Forcing these books to be labeled a collection is a good first step, but will there be further enforcement to ensure the books aren't multiple rearrangements of the same books tacked on at the end of every other book in the author's backlog? That's what I'm waiting to see.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Becca Mills said:


> I _think _Crystal_ meant the landing page where you send people to sign up for your mailing list, not one of the emails sent out to to the list. If you need to display your physical address on your sign-up page in addition to the emails you send ... well ... I don't think I'm in compliance.
> 
> Now, let's please move on from the meta-discussion of how the protest is playing out. We'll mind our own house on that front.


CAN SPAM requires a physical address on the emails sent out:

"Tell recipients where you're located. Your message must include your valid physical postal address. This can be your current street address, a post office box you've registered with the U.S. Postal Service, or a private mailbox you've registered with a commercial mail receiving agency established under Postal Service regulations."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business

I can't find anywhere where it requires it on the website itself.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Dpock said:


> I'm not sure I understand what this means. If we discover an author is blatantly breaking the spirit of the new bonus content TOS, can we call them out here in the forum?


If you have concerns that someone is breaking the rules of another site, the place to handle that is on that site, not here. That includes Amazon. You should contact Amazon with your concerns. This is our WHOA (What Happens on Amazon/What Happens on Another site) policy. KB is the place to discuss issues.

If someone is breaking OUR rules, you should use the report feature to let the moderating staff know. You can also PM, but we all get a lot of PMs--so reports are better since a report goes to the entire mod staff, so anyone who is "on duty" can handle the report, and reports stay in the moderation center until they are handled, so are harder to miss.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Dpock

Betsy the Quilter said:


> KB is the place to discuss issues.
> 
> Betsy
> KB Mod


But not issues relating to Amazon authors violating TOS which affect this entire community's livelihood?
That's a shame. This forum could be a powerful voice between the indie community and Amazon.

Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Desert Rose

Dpock said:


> But not issues relating to Amazon authors violating TOS which affect this entire community's livelihood?
> That's a shame. This forum could be a powerful voice between the indie community and Amazon.
> 
> Thanks for clearing it up.


We have been discussing the issues. The mods are asking that people refrain from calls to release the hounds against specific authors on this forum.


----------



## Dpock

Dragovian said:


> We have been discussing the issues. The mods are asking that people refrain from calls to release the hounds against specific authors on this forum.


Got it.


----------



## AltMe

Has anyone watched ducks, when plenty of food is about?
I feed the local wild ducks every afternoon, and from watching them, I understand people a lot better now.


----------



## Crystal_

DonovanJeremiah said:


> Since I thought CAN-SPAM required a valid address for the mailing list owner...that's a chilling statement right there.


That actually didn't occur to me as IME 99% of authors a) don't use their (or any) home address (they'll put something like 123 No Stalkers) and b) let literally anyone who signs up for their list join, but that is true.

I share mailing list links with friends a lot because the point of the mailing list is to get more business/spread news.

I'm of two minds with this. There's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't share a business address (and that is what should be on a mailing list), but you shouldn't share a personal address. I don't really consider maling lists to be private communications, but maybe some do.


----------



## Dpock

How did this turn into a mailing list thread? lol...

Are there any Facebook groups dedicated to watch-dogging scammers and TOS offenders?


----------



## caitlynlynch

Not that I know of, Dpock, but there are some Twitter accounts. Search the #bookstuffer hashtag and it shouldn't be too hard to find them.


----------



## Ava Glass

#getloud is a hashtag people are using on Twitter and Facebook. It's appropriate considering the "stop talking and mind your business" rhetoric many of us have seen.


----------



## Becca Mills

K.B., you may not post in this thread again.


----------



## Dpock

Ava Glass said:


> *#getloud *is a hashtag people are using on Twitter and Facebook. It's appropriate considering the "stop talking and mind your business" rhetoric many of us have seen.





caitlynlynch said:


> Not that I know of, Dpock, but there are some Twitter accounts. Search the *#bookstuffer* hashtag and it shouldn't be too hard to find them.


Thanks. It's nice to see that level of activism in the broader community.


----------



## Phxsundog

So, how do we best lobby Amazon to implement these guidelines without allowing a collection or compilation retitling workaround? This remains the most important open question. If they don't act against the heavily stuffed books adding compilation or collection to their titles and changing almost nothing else, then this is hardly a positive change. It could empower stuffers more if the only consequence to massive stuffing is vigilante style justice on social media. Ending stuffing cleanly and quickly hinges on this question. It's the fairest and most orderly way as well. Readers and other authors shouldn't have to police the store reporting stuffed books with mangled formatting to end this.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Phxsundog said:


> So, how do we best lobby Amazon to implement these guidelines without allowing a collection or compilation retitling workaround? This remains the most important open question. If they don't act against the heavily stuffed books adding compilation or collection to their titles and changing almost nothing else, then this is hardly a positive change. It could empower stuffers more if the only consequence to massive stuffing is vigilante style justice on social media. Ending stuffing cleanly and quickly hinges on this question. It's the fairest and most orderly way as well. Readers and other authors shouldn't have to police the store reporting stuffed books with mangled formatting to end this.


The question uppermost in my mind is what is Amazon's reason for the change? Is this merely a cosmetic change, so that readers can better distinguish those books that have bonus books included? Or is there some larger intent still to be implemented, such as excluding stuffed books from All-Star bonuses, or excluding them from KU altogether? Until we know that, we won't be able to determine how (or whether) to lobby Amazon.

As for policing the store, it has always been the job of readers to report books not in compliance with the TOS, which now includes stuffed books not labelled as compilations, as well as poor formatting, disruptive links, incentivised sales and reviews and so on.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Ava Glass said:


> #getloud is a hashtag people are using on Twitter and Facebook. It's appropriate considering the "stop talking and mind your business" rhetoric many of us have seen.


There's a problem I can see with this. If numerous authors are all out there downloading KU books and flicking through them to see if they are stuffed - How many false positives are amazon bots going to pick up for page flipping and botting?


----------



## C. Gold

Dpock said:


> An author whose pen surname rhymes with 'heart' is definitely testing the new mandate. Every stuffed book in her backlist is now a 'collection'. Kudos for getting those covers redone so quickly. I guess we'll see if Amazon lets it ride.


Each book blurb lists the extra books now, so that's a start. Still need a definitive way to get rid of duplicated content for books in Select.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Crystal_ said:


> That actually didn't occur to me as IME 99% of authors a) don't use their (or any) home address (they'll put something like 123 No Stalkers) and b) let literally anyone who signs up for their list join, but that is true.
> 
> I share mailing list links with friends a lot because the point of the mailing list is to get more business/spread news.
> 
> I'm of two minds with this. There's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't share a business address (and that is what should be on a mailing list), but you shouldn't share a personal address. I don't really consider maling lists to be private communications, but maybe some do.


I think the problem is that CAN-SPAM didn't think about people like indie authors. Most of us don't have a business address per se. (We're not the only ones. My landscaper, for example, lists his home address, and the business number is another line in his house. He doesn't have a mailing list, though.)

Technically, someone using a fake address could get in trouble under the law. How likely that is happen I have no idea.

Fun fact: German law requires a physical address on websites. I've never heard of Germany coming after someone who didn't provide one. I suspect it's a question of wanting somewhere to serve papers in the event another law in broken, so if you stay out of trouble with Germany, it may never be an issue. (I don't know for sure, though.) As with CAN-SPAM, the law assumes that all business have a business address. Indie authors all in effect run businesses, but not necessarily in the official sense and not necessarily from a business address.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Puddleduck said:


> At least you're allowed to put a PO Box on a mailing list. If you want to register a DBA, you have to put your actual physical address out there where anyone on the web can find it (via public records easily searchable database). It frustrates me how many of our laws do not at all take into account the financial/safety/privacy burden to small business owners.


Apparently, no one entertained the possibility of people working out of their homes. For a lot of businesses, that wouldn't be possible because of zoning restrictions. Of course, an indie could very easily do everything on a home computer.


----------



## boba1823

Puddleduck said:


> If you want to register a DBA, you have to put your actual physical address out there where anyone on the web can find it (via public records easily searchable database).


Off of the main topic, but because I'm big on privacy I though it worth mentioning just for anyone who is not aware: You can establish an LLC in certain states, without being a resident, through a registered agent (ideally an attorney) such that your name, address, etc. does not appear in any public records whatsoever. Might cost a bit more than filing a DBA depending on your local fees for that, but it's not that much.

_Back to the main topic:_

It's day seven! I've been watching with great interest to see what, if anything, changes. Specifically with the Romance bestseller chart, which I'm looking at pretty often, but also overall in the Kindle store.

I haven't really noticed much change. Some authors have been slapping "a collection" onto their.. rather lengthy 'collections.' Overall, the Romance bestseller page looks about the same to me as it has for quite a while. Dominated by books in KU, a bit less than half of the 99cents+KU variety. Not all of these include multiple titles, of course, but looks like there are still plenty of those stuck in there.

Just a few minutes ago, I did notice that a certain rather _sparkly_ title fell off of the map and into the abyss. Earlier this week it had become unavailable for.. maybe 24 hours or so, but then went back on sale after the author updated it and was holding rank in the 300s. Still had a quality notice box on the page, but it was available for purchase or borrow. Not sure exactly what is happening with it now, and whether or not it will be permanent. Though that one had another glaring issue that went beyond excess bonus content.


----------



## 41419

boba1823 said:


> I haven't really noticed much change. Some authors have been slapping "a collection" onto their.. rather lengthy 'collections.' Overall, the Romance bestseller page looks about the same to me as it has for quite a while. Dominated by books in KU, a bit less than half of the 99cents+KU variety. Not all of these include multiple titles, of course, but looks like there are still plenty of those stuck in there.


Early days, I guess, but I've noticed many of those who had been stuffing in lots and lots of books have switched tricks and are now doing the multiple carriage returns thing instead. There are a few varieties going around



boba1823 said:


> I haven't really noticed much change. Some authors have been slapping "a collection" onto their.. rather lengthy 'collections.' Overall, the Romance bestseller page looks about the same to me as it has for quite a while. Dominated by books in KU, a bit less than half of the 99cents+KU variety. Not all of these include multiple titles, of course, but looks like there are still plenty of those stuck in there.


I wonder if we saw the same thing. He's using one... flavor of carriage return trick now. A friend borrowed one of his other titles to see what he was up to now and he has reformatted it to take out all the extra books but now pretty much every sentence is a seperate paragraph and there are extra carriage returns between the paragraphs. The book is 30 chapters but the sample ends during chapter six, indicating perhaps that this trick has doubled the length.

Even weirder is something new (to me at least). The auto-estimated listening time for that book should just be a few hours but it's now saying 33 hours which is bizarre. Not sure what's going on there but I have some guesses...


----------



## 41419

All his ebooks are down, in fact. Wow.


----------



## Dpock

dgaughran said:


> All his ebooks are down, in fact. Wow.


I suspect he took them down to regroup. Destuffing was probably too big a job to do piecemeal.


----------



## lilywhite

Dpock said:


> I suspect he took them down to regroup. Destuffing was probably too big a job to do piecemeal.


I don't think that at all. He would have done them one by one rather than lose money for however many days it takes to do all those books.

The only things left on his page are things that wouldn't have been published through his KDP dashboard. I think they yanked his account.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza

His books are still there. They're not on his author page, but if you search his name you'll see them.

He's also still running AMS ads for them.


----------



## Monique

Not Lu said:


> His books are still there. They're not on his author page, but if you search his name you'll see them.
> 
> He's also still running AMS ads for them.


I don't see any ebooks.


----------



## 41419

Not Lu said:


> His books are still there.


His last release is turning up 404 doggos. A search for his name is only returning audiobooks.


----------



## 41419

Dpock said:


> I suspect he took them down to regroup. Destuffing was probably too big a job to do piecemeal.


I don't think that's it. The last release is a 404 and every single one of his ebooks is down, including all the stuff her wrote under that female erotica name.

Besides, he already did republish all his books (at least the ones I checked) without the extra books in the back, but with that weird spacing/formatting trick.

I think he's been shut down. That's what it looks like at least...


----------



## munboy

kw3000 said:


> If an author generates a lot of income for Amazon, doesn't that make them highly valuable to the company if not largely untouchable?


We get it...you got it out for Amazon. That's fine.

But here's the thing. I see this as Amazon looking out for other, less shady authors. We're talking KDP here. Amazon is going to get their money through subscriptions whether the reader reads 1 book a month or 100. The difference now is instead of a huge chunk of available author funds going to a few stuffers who have astronomical read numbers because of their nefarious methods, Amazon is trying to make it more fair to those of us who just write books and send them out to the world without trying to beat the system.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza

dgaughran said:


> His last release is turning up 404 doggos. A search for his name is only returning audiobooks.


Yep. My mistake. Doh!


----------



## Dpock

dgaughran said:


> I think he's been shut down. That's what it looks like at least...


If so then kudos to you and yours (I Googled "Amazon Book Stuffers" -- the first result is your blog post about Amazon authors stuffing their books).


----------



## Ava Glass

I was gonna post "I wonder if the RWA had a word with Amazon about this," and then I see:



> We're glad to see that Amazon has taken action against book stuffing and begun to remove bad actors from KU. Thank you to everyone who has sent in information to RWA on this matter.


https://twitter.com/romancewriters/status/1004859578390056960


----------



## Ava Glass

https://www.rwa.org/page/perseverance-fund

If you want to give back to the RWA for the awesome work they do, consider donating to their perseverance fund.


----------



## caitlynlynch

"BEGUN" to remove bad actors.

Long may it continue.


----------



## Phxsundog

Every stuffer continuing on with barely labeled collection-compilations or playing games with bad formatting should be very afraid right now. Chance is a prime example of how far Amazon will go when books are mass reported and major wrong doing turns up. I think asking his fans to flip through pages cost him his account more than anything. However this proves Amazon will find dirty tricks if they're given a good reason to look.


----------



## Guest

I can't wait for everyone to start reporting on compilations, not caring that Amazon only asks that the word "compilation" appear in the title and on the cover.

I've already seen the disinformation being spread far and wide across Twitter. I wish people would actually pay attention instead of just saying "I don't like this activity so it must be against the TOS!!!!"


----------



## caitlynlynch

mawnster said:


> I can't wait for everyone to start reporting on compilations, not caring that Amazon only asks that the word "compilation" appear in the title and on the cover.
> 
> I've already seen the disinformation being spread far and wide across Twitter. I wish people would actually pay attention instead of just saying "I don't like this activity so it must be against the TOS!!!!"


And in the metadata, and the table of contents, and that the blurb must 'accurately reflect the contents of the book'. Plus, I'm guessing they'll start enforcing the already-existing rule against duplicate content if people don't fall into line. Repeatedly stuffing the same books into the back of new ones doth not a box set make.


----------



## Dpock

mawnster said:


> I can't wait for everyone to start reporting on compilations, not caring that Amazon only asks that the word "compilation" appear in the title and on the cover.
> 
> I've already seen the disinformation being spread far and wide across Twitter. I wish people would actually pay attention instead of just saying "I don't like this activity so it must be against the TOS!!!!"


It depends on whether each compilation offers unique content or is just the same bonus content over and over. It's a bit tedious to figure out so yes, some people may jump the gun, some will get it right.


----------



## Guest

caitlynlynch said:


> And in the metadata, and the table of contents, and that the blurb must 'accurately reflect the contents of the book'. Plus, I'm guessing they'll start enforcing the already-existing rule against duplicate content if people don't fall into line. Repeatedly stuffing the same books into the back of new ones doth not a box set make.


The email direct from Amazon said "in the title and on the cover" specifically, and that no mention of it was necessary in the blurb. I will be very disappointed if people go on reporting sprees knowing these details - at that point its willful negligence and is very unethical.


----------



## 41419

mawnster said:


> I can't wait for everyone to start reporting on compilations, not caring that Amazon only asks that the word "compilation" appear in the title and on the cover.


You are asserting that just putting compilation in the title and on the cover will be sufficient for these guys to continue pretty much as normal but that is an assertion. You claim to have evidence to back this up but you haven't provided it, just like that email you couldn't provide last time which you swore existed.

You also said this was a big nothingburger, and yet the main stuffer is down...


----------



## Guest

dgaughran said:


> You are asserting that just putting compilation in the title and on the cover will be sufficient for these guys to continue pretty much as normal but that is an assertion. You claim to have evidence to back this up but you haven't provided it, just like that email you couldn't provide last time which you swore existed.
> 
> You also said this was a big nothingburger, and yet the main stuffer is down...


And unless I see more money in my pocket, than yeah, it is a nothingburger. Because literally nothing is stopping any of the bookstuffers from starting up LLCs to continue publishing.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## caitlynlynch

The Guidelines already say that all included books must be listed in the metadata and that the blurb must accurately reflect the contents of the book, and that an accurate table of contents must be included. Nothing new there.

I, for one, wouldn't report a 'compilation' without checking to see whether the included books were already included in other 'compilations'. If they were, why buy the new one?


----------



## Phxsundog

mawnster said:


> The email direct from Amazon said "in the title and on the cover" specifically, and that no mention of it was necessary in the blurb. I will be very disappointed if people go on reporting sprees knowing these details - at that point its willful negligence and is very unethical.


This isn't what other authors are hearing from KDP reps on the phone. Maybe you're right because KDP doesn't always give the same answer. However I've heard several who spoke to reps who tell them there's no official rule yet on collections-complications. Only that how collections will be handled is being figured out internally in their content review teams. When people ask the reps tell them the safest option is to trim all bonus content under 10%. The reps also explicitly say don't follow anyone else into a grey area. We'll have a real answer soon after the compliance period ends.


----------



## Guest

caitlynlynch said:


> The Guidelines already say that all included books must be listed in the metadata and that the blurb must accurately reflect the contents of the book, and that an accurate table of contents must be included. Nothing new there.
> 
> I, for one, wouldn't report a 'compilation' without checking to see whether the included books were already included in other 'compilations'. If they were, why buy the new one?


Shuffling books and offering them in varying compilations creates multiple points of entry into a catalog. I've seen it used wide to very great success.



Phxsundog said:


> This isn't what other authors are hearing from KDP reps on the phone. Maybe you're right because KDP doesn't always give the same answer. However I've heard several who spoke to reps who tell them there's no official rule yet on collections-complications. Only that how collections will be handled is being figured out internally in their content review teams. When people ask the reps tell them the safest option is to trim all bonus content under 10%. The reps also explicitly say don't follow anyone else into a grey area. We'll have a real answer soon after the compliance period ends.


That's good that more clarification will come out.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## 41419

mawnster said:


> And unless I see more money in my pocket, than yeah, it is a nothingburger. Because literally nothing is stopping any of the bookstuffers from starting up LLCs to continue publishing.


It's quite amusing the contortions you will go to claim nothing is happening.

1. Amazon brought four or five people to arbitration. 
2. Amazon then filed suit to confirm the first award. 
3. ECR stated in writing to several members here - who could actually produce their emails - that it is against TOS. 
4. Amazon stated in court papers that it harms all authors and is against TOS. 
5. KDP announced new rules of 10% max bonus content and a swathe of related metadata guidlines.
6. KDP further announced that those breaching these guidelines would not get All Stars starting this month.
7. One week into the new regime and the leading stuffer, previously bulletproof, looks to have had his account shut down.

That's one meaty nothingburger!

_edited quoted post. --Betsy_


----------



## Guest

dgaughran said:


> It's quite amusing the contortions you will go to claim nothing is happening.
> 
> 1. Amazon brought four or five people to arbitration.
> 2. Amazon then filed suit to confirm the first award.
> 3. ECR stated in writing to several members here - who could actually produce their emails - that it is against TOS.
> 4. Amazon stated in court papers that it harms all authors and is against TOS.
> 5. KDP announced new rules of 10% max bonus content and a swathe of related metadata guidlines.
> 6. KDP further announced that those breaching these guidelines would not get All Stars starting this month.
> 7. One week into the new regime and the leading stuffer, previously bulletproof, looks to have had his account shut down.
> 
> That's one meaty nothingburger!


If it doesn't result in an increase in income for me, why the heck should I think this whole circus was worth any of the time we've all spent on it.

This was, after all, because we were losing money to these bookstuffers. That's why this started, right? Cause we were all losing money? If it doesn't mean we're all getting paid more, then what was the point?


----------



## Mr. Sparkle

Puddleduck said:


> At least you're allowed to put a PO Box on a mailing list. If you want to register a DBA, you have to put your actual physical address out there where anyone on the web can find it (via public records easily searchable database). It frustrates me how many of our laws do not at all take into account the financial/safety/privacy burden to small business owners.


If you make the company LLC or Corp. from the initials or surname of the owner's name, you don't have to fill out a DBA form, at least in some states.

Honestly, enforcement of filling out the fictitious name form varies from state to state, and you should consult an attorney, but theoretical me would rather pay the state fine if I'm caught someday than bother with it, even if I wasn't already fulfilling the letter of the law (which I am).

IMHO, there is no reason why you should have to sacrifice your privacy and your safety for bureaucratic red tape. Don't scam people and pay your taxes, and no one will have reason to investigate your company.


----------



## 41419

mawnster said:


> If it doesn't result in an increase in income for me, why the heck should I think this whole circus was worth any of the time we've all spent on it.
> 
> This was, after all, because we were losing money to these bookstuffers. That's why this started, right? Cause we were all losing money? If it doesn't mean we're all getting paid more, then what was the point?


Interesting to see your mindset. There are some people able to look beyond their own wallet.


----------



## boba1823

Mr. Sparkle said:


> If you make the company LLC or Corp. from the initials or surname of the owner's name, you don't have to fill out a DBA form, at least in some states.


Right-o, mostly, I think. Except that if you have created an actual LLC or other corporate entity, whatever its name, you _don't_ need to fill out any DBA while you are operating as that entity under its formal name. (That would only be needed if your business is Scooblaroo Publishing, LLC, but you want to operate as Scooblaroo Books - then your business entity needs to do some kind of DBA something.) If you just want to operate as Gilford Bakery, then - in some jurisdictions at least - you don't need to create a business entity _or_ file a DBA. Assuming your name is Gilford, etc. But.. there are many, many good reasons to create an LLC. Just saying, lol.

*But, to the matter at hand:*

Remember that Mr. Sparkleypants had some other goings-on, in addition to the stuffing, that Amazon may well care much more about - and that may explain the disappearance of said publishing hero.

I'll believe that the disappearance is actually related to the stuffing when I see those near-3000 page 'compilations' that are still on the bestseller list getting iced. Until some of those fall off, too, I'm going to suspect that other forces were at play when it comes to the sad departure of my favourite author.


----------



## ChristinaGarner

dgaughran said:


> It's quite amusing the contortions you will go to claim nothing is happening.
> 
> 1. Amazon brought four or five people to arbitration.
> 2. Amazon then filed suit to confirm the first award.
> 3. ECR stated in writing to several members here - who could actually produce their emails - that it is against TOS.
> 4. Amazon stated in court papers that it harms all authors and is against TOS.
> 5. KDP announced new rules of 10% max bonus content and a swathe of related metadata guidlines.
> 6. KDP further announced that those breaching these guidelines would not get All Stars starting this month.
> 7. One week into the new regime and the leading stuffer, previously bulletproof, looks to have had his account shut down.
> 
> That's one meaty nothingburger!


 I'm vegan, and even I like the meat on this nothingburger.

The community owes you a debt of gratitude for your efforts. Thanks, DG.


----------



## MmmmmPie

I care about my lost income. _And _I care that other honest authors are being cheated. At this point, it's laughable that anyone can still be defending the stuffers, unless they are one.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Folks, 

locking for just a few minutes while I catch up.  Everyone take a breath.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Reopening thread.  Posts have been edited or removed and more pruning may happen.

Mawnster, you are banned from this thread; see my PM.

Folks, discuss the issues, not each other.  Not every post need be responded to.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## lilywhite

Betsy the Quilter said:


> locking for just a few minutes while I catch up.


I sometimes disagree with your moderating decisions, but I do appreciate how hard you guys work.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

lilywhite said:


> I sometimes disagree with your moderating decisions, but I do appreciate how hard you guys work.


Thanks, lilywhite!


----------



## 39416

Just a quick question--My books aren't in KU. At the end of each of them, I have bonus first-chapters from some of my other books. I doubt it's more than 10% but I haven't checked them all.

Should I be worried?


----------



## Dpock

boba1823 said:


> *But, to the matter at hand:*
> 
> Remember that Mr. Sparkleypants had *some other goings-on*, in addition to the stuffing, that Amazon may well care much more about - and that may explain the disappearance of said publishing hero.
> 
> I'll believe that the disappearance is actually related to the stuffing when I see those near-3000 page 'compilations' that are still on the bestseller list getting iced. Until some of those fall off, too, I'm going to suspect that other forces were at play when it comes to the sad departure of my favourite author.


I see what you mean. Carter was so blatantly violating TOS on several fronts, so a true test-case he's not. But it's a start. Earlier I received a newsletter from a stuffer promoting her new romance, now #40 storewide, a compilation. She's changed the titles of the bonus books compilation so Amazon won't catch the recycling. I wonder how she handled the meta data.


----------



## Ava Glass

loraininflorida said:


> Just a quick question--My books aren't in KU. At the end of each of them, I have bonus first-chapters from some of my other books. I doubt it's more than 10% but I haven't checked them all.
> 
> Should I be worried?


The policy clarification is for all of KDP--not just KU--although Amazon stated a method of enforcement will be KU all-star bonuses.


----------



## Dpock

loraininflorida said:


> Just a quick question--My books aren't in KU. At the end of each of them, I have bonus first-chapters from some of my other books. I doubt it's more than 10% but I haven't checked them all.
> 
> Should I be worried?


I wouldn't think so, but I'd check the % to be sure.


----------



## PhoenixS

What kw3000 said. Oh, and here's a thing to back up that pessimism: An author who had their account terminated for cause last year and who repubbed their books under their same name through a small press account just got a Monthly Deal. So yeah, in Amazon World, you can run multiple scams, have your account terminated, and still wind up with a prize.

Now, if this happened just one time, I might be tempted to call it a fluke. But I've seen one author who botted their way to #1 Free every month for 2 years and who was reported multiple times who was also given at least one Monthly Deal spot. And I've seen an author who botted their way multiple times to #2 and #3 PAID who was reported multiple times get a face-out spot in the SFF newsletter.

Now, both of those authors were eventually rank-stripped and apparently made to realize the error of their ways, because neither of them have used bots since they were outed here on KBoards, and their books are hovering in much more mundane ranks than they were before. But it took a PUBLIC outcry before Amazon took any notice. Internal reporting with ample evidence had absolutely no effect.


----------



## 41419

PhoenixS said:


> Now, both of those authors were eventually rank-stripped and apparently made to realize the error of their ways, because neither of them have used bots since they were outed here on KBoards, and their books are hovering in much more mundane ranks than they were before. But it took a PUBLIC outcry before Amazon took any notice. Internal reporting with ample evidence had absolutely no effect.


Reporting never has any effect*. Ever. Amazon only acts when it gets embarrassed publicly, either through the press or social media pressure. I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.

I'm glad Amazon has done something, and from the reaction of some people on this thread and elsewhere I think that action has touched a nerve. If I was a stuffer, or engaged in other black-hat-flavored shenanigans, I'd be pretty worried right now.

But I would rather they fixed the problem than put one head on a pike, even if it was the leader of the gang.

*= still very much worth doing, despite that. I don't want to give the wrong impression. Mass reports put someone on Amazon's radar and are an indication of the strength of feeling surround an issue. Amazon does care what authors think, and about the erosion of trust in the author community this issue has caused. Which is why it was important to get loud and show that to Amazon, via posts, social media, reports - all of that has been hugely effective. Keep reporting stuff! It's one of the few tools we have in this fight. Also allows us to say "I've been reporting this author for nine months and they received 7 All Stars in that period" - which is very powerful and perfectly demonstrative of Amazon's inaction.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Following some of this on twitter, one ghost-writer mentioned that she earns only $400 for a 50,000 to 75,000 word story. The turnaround time? Less than a month. 

The sad thing is, before the stuffers started gaming the system, independent writers had a much better chance of building their own brand and publishing under their own pen name. However, under the current high-dollar marketing environment, it's nearly impossible to gain any visibility in romance unless you're an established name or have mega marketing bucks. I find it really sad that writers are being exploited on both ends by the stuffing debacle. On the front end, ghost-writers are being paid shamefully low rates to produce the content. On the back end, authors who are publishing their own stuff are being buried by stuffers and their inflated marketing budgets, which wouldn't even be possible without the 13-dollar borrows.

Given the fact that stuffers are responding to the 10% bonus-content guideline mostly by slapping "collection" on their covers and titles, I suspect we'll see bigger changes in July. Maybe Amazon will ban collections entirely from Kindle Unlimited. Maybe they'll limit the page counts. Maybe they'll cap the amount you can earn from a borrow at the amount you can earn from an actual sale. To me, this seems like just the beginning, especially considering how many stuffed books are still ranking.


----------



## AuthorX

MmmmmPie said:


> Following some of this on twitter, one ghost-writer mentioned that she earns only $400 for a 50,000 to 75,000 word story. The turnaround time? Less than a month.
> 
> The sad thing is, before the stuffers started gaming the system, independent writers had a much better chance of building their own brand and publishing under their own pen name. However, under the current high-dollar marketing environment, it's nearly impossible to gain any visibility in romance unless you're an established name or have mega marketing bucks. I find it really sad that writers are being exploited on both ends by the stuffing debacle. On the front end, ghost-writers are being paid shamefully low rates to produce the content. On the back end, authors who are publishing their own stuff are being buried by stuffers and their inflated marketing budgets, which wouldn't even be possible without the 13-dollar borrows.
> 
> Given the fact that stuffers are responding to the 10% bonus-content guideline mostly by slapping "collection" on their covers and titles, I suspect we'll see bigger changes in July. Maybe Amazon will ban collections entirely from Kindle Unlimited. Maybe they'll limit the page counts. Maybe they'll cap the amount you can earn from a borrow at the amount you can earn from an actual sale. To me, this seems like just the beginning, especially considering how many stuffed books are still ranking.


All writers are not created equal...

A ghostwriter who is charging $400 for a 50,000 book _probably isn't that great of a writer_. I've seen plenty of ghostwritten work, and even the ones who would charge $1000 for 50,000 words are (usually) at the very bottom of the tier when it comes to quality/creativity of writing. Any publisher buying their work is taking a risk that they'll even make that money back that they paid.

I don't agree with book stuffing at all, but I don't think it has any correlation to ghostwriters being underpaid. Ghostwriting has been around since the beginning of time, and there have always been less-skilled writers who will write for dirt cheap, because they aren't going to make that much money going at it alone. Ghostwriting is guaranteed income where the publisher assumes all the risk, cost of editing, rewriting, covers, advertising. There are many, many, many indie writers who write novels and never make any profits at all on their work, and many who are lucky to turn just a small profit after putting their lifeblood into it. So, ghostwriting is a way for them to pay the bills when push comes to shove.

In fact, if there was more demand for ghostwriting, the prices would go up, not down.

I really dislike book stuffing, but if anything, low-tiered ghostwriters will start getting paid even less now since they will be in low demand. Book stuffers aren't going to want their low quality work to stuff their books with. When you've got hundreds of book stuffers trying to find work and nobody buying their stuff, they'll be forced to write for less or forced to risk their $$ editing, buying covers, etc. on their own. And they might not make their money back.

High Quality ghostwriters who are charging thousands upon thousands for books probably aren't at too much of a risk, but the low-tiered guys charging less than a cent per word written might need to start looking for a new job.


----------



## Anarchist

AuthorX said:


> All writers are not created equal...
> 
> A ghostwriter who is charging $400 for a 50,000 book _probably isn't that great of a writer_. I've seen plenty of ghostwritten work, and even the ones who would charge $1000 for 50,000 words are (usually) at the very bottom of the tier when it comes to quality/creativity of writing. Any publisher buying their work is taking a risk that they'll even make that money back that they paid.
> 
> I don't agree with book stuffing at all, but I don't think it has any correlation to ghostwriters being underpaid. Ghostwriting has been around since the beginning of time, and there have always been less-skilled writers who will write for dirt cheap, because they aren't going to make that much money going at it alone. Ghostwriting is guaranteed income where the publisher assumes all the risk, cost of editing, rewriting, covers, advertising. There are many, many, many indie writers who write novels and never make any profits at all on their work, and many who are lucky to turn just a small profit after putting their lifeblood into it. So, ghostwriting is a way for them to pay the bills when push comes to shove.
> 
> In fact, if there was more demand for ghostwriting, the prices would go up, not down.
> 
> I really dislike book stuffing, but if anything, low-tiered ghostwriters will start getting paid even less now since they will be in low demand. Book stuffers aren't going to want their low quality work to stuff their books with. When you've got hundreds of book stuffers trying to find work and nobody buying their stuff, they'll be forced to write for less or forced to risk their $$ editing, buying covers, etc. on their own. And they might not make their money back.
> 
> High Quality ghostwriters who are charging thousands upon thousands for books probably aren't at too much of a risk, but the low-tiered guys charging less than a cent per word written might need to start looking for a new job.


I agree 100%.

Ghetto ghostwriting (e.g. $400 for 50,000 words) is a soft skill. Anyone can do it. As a result, ghetto ghostwriters offer no competitive advantage. No shortage of customers, but...

The one thing that works in the ghetto ghostwriter's favor is volume. As you pointed out, when stuffing goes away, so too does that circumstance.

_Edited by Becca._


----------



## MichaelRyan

So the book stuffing and maybe more importantly --- other shady stuff is perhaps at an end?

Amazon stripped Chance's account (audio books are still up at this moment).

I'd been listening to a lot of LitRPG guys say they were leaving KU because of worries about being falsely accused of doing things against the Zon TOS.  Now, the thing is, most of these guys (in LitRPG and GameLit) were small players and I often wondered if they were being too paranoid.

A few people have had accounts terminated in which it's easy to believe they didn't knowingly do anything wrong (although I tend to be cynical).

I've been a fan of Chance and have followed his marketing (email, FB groups, newsletters, etc.) since his first book came out. But when the book stuffing got really bad (books with 1600 pages) I started thinking:  Okay, there's something hinky here.

Now from what I've heard Amazon determined that he was using some tricks to show complete reads of long books, essentially stealing money from the KU pool.  If true, it means he was stealing from other authors, and I don't see anyway getting around forgiveness here.  People work really hard at this business, so to be scamming them is horrible.


----------



## PhoenixS

We've been discussing here (starting about page 12 and already a couple of pages in). The thread has already been shut down, modded and reopened since. Perhaps the mods can merge your comment in.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,263872.msg3674582.html#msg3674582


----------



## MarkParragh

> I'd been listening to a lot of LitRPG guys say they were leaving KU because of worries about being falsely accused of doing things against the Zon TOS.


Why LitRPG in particular? Is there something about the way they do things in that niche?

Or is that just where you hang out?


----------



## AYClaudy

dgaughran said:


> I don't think that's it. The last release is a 404 and every single one of his ebooks is down, including all the stuff her wrote under that female erotica name.
> 
> Besides, he already did republish all his books (at least the ones I checked) without the extra books in the back, but with that weird spacing/formatting trick.
> 
> I think he's been shut down. That's what it looks like at least...


Do you have a screenshot of this? I know other authors were doing this, but I glanced at a couple of his books before the ban hammer dropped and it looked like normal formatting to me. Not trying to defend him or anything. I know he was doing multiple things that could get him in trouble with Amazon, but I wanted to clarify this one point.

I'm curious as to what was the infraction that pushed Amazon to shut him down. I know RWA's message makes it seem like it's the bonus books, but I'm doubtful of that since it's a new rule and he was making changes there. I'd think that would be a roll back of reads at most, currently. I'm leaning towards the publicity behind his illegal lottery, since that breaks laws outside of just Amazon's TOS.


----------



## MichaelRyan

PhoenixS said:


> We've been discussing here (starting about page 12 and already a couple of pages in). The thread has already been shut down, modded and reopened since. Perhaps the mods can merge your comment in.
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,263872.msg3674582.html#msg3674582


I looked and didn't see anything. Yeah, they might as well delete this one. I thought this happened only last night and nobody had posted about it.


----------



## MichaelRyan

MarkParragh said:


> Why LitRPG in particular? Is there something about the way they do things in that niche?
> 
> Or is that just where you hang out?


It's just a hot genre to some extent, and I've written a couple of LitRPG/GameLit, so I follow things on FB.

It's also one of those genres where 50-80% of revenue can come from KU, so authors have been nervous about this issue, especially since a bunch of them got warning letters recently.


----------



## Justa Nobody

Removed 9/19/2018 - non-agreement with VerticalScope TOS


----------



## PearlEarringLady

AYClaudy said:


> I'm curious as to what was the infraction that pushed Amazon to shut him down. I know RWA's message makes it seem like it's the bonus books, but I'm doubtful of that since it's a new rule and he was making changes there. I'd think that would be a roll back of reads at most, currently. I'm leaning towards the publicity behind his illegal lottery, since that breaks laws outside of just Amazon's TOS.


My guess is that it has to do with training his fans to page through his books while doing other things, to artificially increase his page-reads tally. Amazon takes a dim view of fake page reads.


----------



## 41419

AYClaudy said:


> Do you have a screenshot of this? I know other authors were doing this, but I glanced at a couple of his books before the ban hammer dropped and it looked like normal formatting to me. Not trying to defend him or anything. I know he was doing multiple things that could get him in trouble with Amazon, but I wanted to clarify this one point.


Don't have a screenshot but I can confirm that he was doing something odd with the formatting and the estimated listening time had jumped to a bizarre 33 hours for a book which only had one book in it which was maybe 250 pages long and a short author's note. Something was up there.

But who knows why Amazon took him down. The competition, organizing readers to all flip to the end, incentivizing reviews, stuffing, formatting hacks, all of it together... we can only guess.


----------



## 41419

MarkParragh said:


> Why LitRPG in particular? Is there something about the way they do things in that niche?
> 
> Or is that just where you hang out?


Critically underserved niches tend to attract a bad crowd looking for a quick buck. Plenty of good, fast, honest writers too, but lots of black hats. They can hire a few ghosts and flood the niche quickly, and then move on to the next thing.


----------



## 41419

Actually, I do have some screenshots, just not permission to share. Definitely doing something funky with the formatting. Each sentence is a separate paragraph and there are extra returns between each para too. This was on one of his books right before the banhammer came down.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

Ok, let's just shut down the Litrpg accusations. I know a few of the authors who were hit. NONE stuff books or engage in any black hat behaviors. What does seem to be a common thread is really long books being devoured very quickly by readers. Which is why many LitRPg authors pulled their books from KU. If you want to know what's going on, please look up LitRPG Podcast's YouTube video on the issue.  He explains it well and details his reasons for leaving KU as a result. 

Thanks.


----------



## munboy

AYClaudy said:


> I'm curious as to what was the infraction that pushed Amazon to shut him down. I know RWA's message makes it seem like it's the bonus books, but I'm doubtful of that since it's a new rule and he was making changes there. I'd think that would be a roll back of reads at most, currently. I'm leaning towards the publicity behind his illegal lottery, since that breaks laws outside of just Amazon's TOS.


I would guess multiple infractions. Stuffing, formatting, and basically paying for reviews.


----------



## 41419

I know plenty who were hit too. I wasn't casting aspersions on the genre at all. I like LitRPG and have no issue with it. But this happens to any profitable, under-served niche - it attracts bad actors. The overwhelming majority - as always - are honest, rule-abiding authors. Really didn't mean to insinuate otherwise.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

dgaughran said:


> I know plenty who were hit too. I wasn't casting aspersions on the genre at all. I like LitRPG and have no issue with it. But this happens to any profitable, under-served niche - it attracts bad actors. The overwhelming majority - as always - are honest, rule-abiding authors. Really didn't mean to insinuate otherwise.


No harm done! I just got a little nervous this thread is mixing two very separate issues.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

I've merged a thread about this same topic; sorry for any confusion.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## AYClaudy

dgaughran said:


> Don't have a screenshot but I can confirm that he was doing something odd with the formatting and the estimated listening time had jumped to a bizarre 33 hours for a book which only had one book in it which was maybe 250 pages long and a short author's note. Something was up there.
> 
> But who knows why Amazon took him down. The competition, organizing readers to all flip to the end, incentivizing reviews, stuffing, formatting hacks, all of it together... we can only guess.


Ah okay. It doesn't really surprise me that there was something going on. I was just checking that with all the details you weren't accidentally getting authors mixed together. Thanks for expanding!


----------



## Crystal_

lilywhite said:


> I don't think that at all. He would have done them one by one rather than lose money for however many days it takes to do all those books.
> 
> The only things left on his page are things that wouldn't have been published through his KDP dashboard. I think they yanked his account.


I would be really surprised if that's true. Amazon seems to give big earners a lot more slack (not complaining--I'm a big earner--just pointing it out). But if anyone deserves to lose their account it's someone who not only violated the ToS (many times) but also violated federal laws.

I've seen some people taking out their bonus books, but a lot of people have done nothing. I'm hopeful Amazon will send them quality notices then eventually remove non-compliant books from sale if they don't comply... But we'll see. If I was Amazon I'd give people a week or two to shape up before reaching for the banhammer.


----------



## 39416

Just out of curiosity, anybody have any guesstimates how much a ban like Carter allegedly received ends up costing an author like that in profits?


----------



## Dpock

This deserves its own thread--round three of page read reductions is underway by Amazon. Authors affected in the last round are being hit again. Started last night.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

RBN said:


> An "author" like Carter? Last I heard, top tier All-Star took about 10 million pages per month, so KU money plus the bonus would amount to at least $70,000 per month.
> 
> That's per pseudonym, of which most of these people have several, so sky's the limit, really.


It takes a lot more than 10 million pages to hit the top bonus these days. I'm guessing these particular numbers are much closer to 200K a month (including bonuses)


----------



## Avery342

RBN said:


> An "author" like Carter? Last I heard, top tier All-Star took about 10 million pages per month, so KU money plus the bonus would amount to at least $70,000 per month.
> 
> That's per pseudonym, of which most of these people have several, so sky's the limit, really.


Actually that's only the beginning. You also have to figure in the massive amount they spent promoting their stuffed books. All that and absolutely NO income to offset it.


----------



## Crystal_

RBN said:


> An "author" like Carter? Last I heard, top tier All-Star took about 10 million pages per month, so KU money plus the bonus would amount to at least $70,000 per month.
> 
> That's per pseudonym, of which most of these people have several, so sky's the limit, really.


If only... The top bonus is more like 20 million pages now.

AFAIK, Amazon will withhold all unpaid royalties, so it would be two to three months of earnings. Closer to two since we're early in the month.


----------



## lilywhite

Crystal_ said:


> I would be really surprised if that's true.


Honestly, no one is more surprised than me, but apparently that is what happened. He was live in his group this morning and said that his account is suspended. He's mobilized his readers to email Jeff and ECR.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Let's keep it classy, KBoards.

Personal comments have been and will continue to be removed.  If I have to do it too many times, people are going on post approval or posting timeouts.  Discuss issues.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Lydniz

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Let's keep it classy, KBoards.


I think you're in the wrong gin joint.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

RPatton said:


> Just seconding that this is mostly about the illegal lottery. You can say it's x, y, and z until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true.
> 
> The Illegal Lottery is the one thing that can come back and bite Amazon pretty hard.
> 
> This wasn't about stuffing (which Amazon has plainly said is okay, as long as a book is labeled as a collection), this isn't about bonus content, this isn't even about page reads or possible formatting issues (and for the record, the look inside isn't an accurate measure of whether formatting is hinky or not. One needs to actually break into the file and do a little digging).
> 
> This is all about the illegal lottery and what it means to Amazon. The incentivized reading (the PA laid it all out for the readers) and the possible review manipulation (leaving a review with a verified mark to enter the lottery) add to the issue.
> 
> But to crow that this is about bonus books and the number of bonus books involved is a perfect example of confirmation bias for any Psych 101 students out there.


You may be right, but you're engaging in the same sort of speculation as everyone else. We really don't know.


----------



## lilywhite

I don't think it was about the bonus books, either, or they would have pulled one of those accounts that's still stuffing. Chance was in the process of unstuffing (for lack of a better word) his books, so I can't see that being the reason.

Of course, we'll never know what reason or combination of reasons, so folks are gonna speculate, but that's the way of things.


----------



## Phxsundog

Chance had more serious violations than stuffing so I agree. It's also likely the compliance period to clean up books hasn't expired yet. We should see serious consequences for bonus books within a few more weeks.


----------



## sela

I third the notion that CC's books were pulled -- not because of stuffing -- but because of the lottery to get reviews and the way his PAs coached and rewarded readers for flipping to the back to garner the full page reads. If other stuffers aren't using that tactic to get full page reads, their actions are less egregious, but still contravene the TOS. I imagine the tactic will wane in value and we'll see people unstuff. There are top-ranked authors who are still right there in the top 100 who don't stuff or use these tactics so it can be done. Thing is, you need a really really popular commercial book and/or deep advertising pockets to get there.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crystal_ said:


> Amazon seems to give big earners a lot more slack...


I agree this is true, but this poses an interesting question. *Why has Amazon given them more slack?

A theory: In the past, Amazon has given big earners more slack because big earners made Amazon more money. *Prior to this KU stuffing debacle, high earners tended to be big-name authors with mass appeal. These high earners made Amazon money, both in the form of Amazon's cut of the royalty and in the form of mass customer-appeal. In addition to direct profits for Amazon, these authors drew people to the Amazon store and added to the book-buying experience.

*But now? These KU big earners are costing Amazon, bigtime. And it's not just money. They're harming Amazon's reputation, attracting negative publicity, and eroding the book-buying experience for Amazon customers, especially those not in KU.*

Kindle Unlimited subscriptions are what? Ten bucks a month? Take your average stuffer. If he's encouraging his "readers" to flip through the pages at thirteen bucks a pop, Amazon is losing money on every transaction. Sure, much of that money comes out of the communal pot (robbing honest authors), but the situation has now gotten so out-of-hand that Amazon must be losing money hand over fist. Let's say that a "reader" pages through just five "books" a month, that's 65 dollars worth of "reading." Subtract this from the ten-dollar KU subscription, and Amazon is losing 55 bucks, just from one reader in a single month. Plus, these readers are likely leafing through many more than five "books" a month. These losses have to be adding up.

Plus...

Amazon's book store is becoming a mess of stuffed, misleading titles. If you're a reader who's not in KU, it's becoming more frustrating by the day. Unlike the (non-profitable) KU-page-turning readers, the non-KU readers _make _Amazon money, because Amazon profits on every transaction. But now, these more profitable customers are getting frustrated, probably buying less, maybe even taking their business elsewhere, further eroding Amazon's bottom line.

When you look at this in terms of dollars and cents, Amazon would be wise to terminate the stuffers' accounts now, before the store (and Amazon's bottom line) is further damaged. Probably, the bigger the name, the more damage they're doing. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I predict bigger changes before all is said and done.


----------



## 91831

MmmmmPie said:


> ...
> Amazon's book store is becoming a mess of stuffed, misleading titles. If you're a reader who's not in KU, it's becoming more frustrating by the day. Unlike the (non-profitable) KU-page-turning readers, the non-KU readers _make _Amazon money, because Amazon profits on every transaction. But now, these more profitable customers are getting frustrated, probably buying less, maybe even taking their business elsewhere, further eroding Amazon's bottom line.
> ...


Yup, I traded in Kindle for Kobo. I got fed up with not finding the things I want. I find it much easier to shop and get what I want there than I do at Amazon (or Google. I'll use Google if I know exactly what I want when I have credits from their 'Reward' system).


----------



## Crystal_

MmmmmPie said:


> I agree this is true, but this poses an interesting question. *Why has Amazon given them more slack?
> 
> A theory: In the past, Amazon has given big earners more slack because big earners made Amazon more money. *Prior to this KU stuffing debacle, high earners tended to be big-name authors with mass appeal. These high earners made Amazon money, both in the form of Amazon's cut of the royalty and in the form of mass customer-appeal. In addition to direct profits for Amazon, these authors drew people to the Amazon store and added to the book-buying experience.
> 
> *But now? These KU big earners are costing Amazon, bigtime. And it's not just money. They're harming Amazon's reputation, attracting negative publicity, and eroding the book-buying experience for Amazon customers, especially those not in KU.*
> 
> Kindle Unlimited subscriptions are what? Ten bucks a month? Take your average stuffer. If he's encouraging his "readers" to flip through the pages at thirteen bucks a pop, Amazon is losing money on every transaction. Sure, much of that money comes out of the communal pot (robbing honest authors), but the situation has now gotten so out-of-hand that Amazon must be losing money hand over fist. Let's say that a "reader" pages through just five "books" a month, that's 65 dollars worth of "reading." Subtract this from the ten-dollar KU subscription, and Amazon is losing 55 bucks, just from one reader in a single month. Plus, these readers are likely leafing through many more than five "books" a month. These losses have to be adding up.
> 
> Plus...
> 
> Amazon's book store is becoming a mess of stuffed, misleading titles. If you're a reader who's not in KU, it's becoming more frustrating by the day. Unlike the (non-profitable) KU-page-turning readers, the non-KU readers _make _Amazon money, because Amazon profits on every transaction. But now, these more profitable customers are getting frustrated, probably buying less, maybe even taking their business elsewhere, further eroding Amazon's bottom line.
> 
> When you look at this in terms of dollars and cents, Amazon would be wise to terminate the stuffers' accounts now, before the store (and Amazon's bottom line) is further damaged. Probably, the bigger the name, the more damage they're doing. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I predict bigger changes before all is said and done.


Amazon wants to keep big KU earners in the store. If they didn't care, they'd discontinue All Star bonuses. The popular KU authors are the reason why a lot of readers sign up for KU. And many people who sell a lot also spend a lot on driving traffic to Amazon.

There are plenty of other reasons why Amazon would want to close accounts of certain authors who stuff, but it's not because they get a lot of pages.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crystal_ said:


> Amazon wants to keep big KU earners in the store. If they didn't care, they'd discontinue All Star bonuses. The popular KU authors are the reason why a lot of readers sign up for KU. And many people who sell a lot also spend a lot on driving traffic to Amazon. There are plenty of other reasons why Amazon would want to close accounts of certain authors who stuff, but it's not because they get a lot of pages.


I see what you're saying, and I should've clarified. Big names _who stuff_ are a net-loss for Amazon, especially if they're engaging in questionable practices, such as publishing duplicate content, encouraging readers to flip to the end, buying reviews, and/or making use of click farms. Big names who _don't _stuff -- those who provide a great reader experience and rack up pages naturally -- yes, Amazon would definitely want to keep them.

I also agree about the bonuses. The problem, I think, is that lately, the bonuses haven't been going to authors who provide the most value to the KU environment, but rather to those who best game the system. By clearing out the scammers, Amazon could better attract the big earners who don't rely on questionable practices to rack up the page-reads.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Lydniz™ said:


> I think you're in the wrong gin joint.


I have faith in y'all. Please live up to my expectations. 

(And we drink margaritas here. The pool boys make the best ones...)










Betsy


----------



## K&#039;Sennia Visitor

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I have faith in y'all. Please live up to my expectations.
> 
> (And we drink margaritas here. The pool boys make the best ones...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Betsy


 I have two pool girls, Margarita and Gyn, and they serve me cherry Pepsi.


----------



## trixie

Long time reader, first-time poster.  I think.

Some things in this thread have me really confused. I think maybe ya'll can help me out.

I thought Amazon fixed the whole "flipping to the back of the book" issue inside KU. So if someone doesn't read the page, you don't get paid for it. Ergo, yes I don't like bonus books either, but if I don't read them, then the author doesn't get paid for them. I'm not so stupid I'm going to read the same book 15 times just because it shows up in the back of a new book. 

If the "pot" is 14 million dollars, and let's say the only two authors left are me and one of you, and we each have, oh, I don't know, a total of 100 page reads for the month...  Do we really think Amazon is going to pay us each 7 million dollars? I mean, I guess we'd get more because of those sweet bonuses too, right? Basically, how much faith do we really have in the idea that there is a finite "pot" or do we think Amazon does one of their magic algos and decides how much they can get away with paying us and still keep us in KU? 

There are a lot of voices and minds here, and people who pay close attention to this, so I wanted to bring these up and see what the general consensus is.


----------



## PhoenixS

trixie said:


> Long time reader, first-time poster. I think.
> 
> Some things in this thread have me really confused. I think maybe ya'll can help me out.
> 
> I thought Amazon fixed the whole "flipping to the back of the book" issue inside KU. So if someone doesn't read the page, you don't get paid for it. Ergo, yes I don't like bonus books either, but if I don't read them, then the author doesn't get paid for them. I'm not so stupid I'm going to read the same book 15 times just because it shows up in the back of a new book.
> 
> If the "pot" is 14 million dollars, and let's say the only two authors left are me and one of you, and we each have, oh, I don't know, a total of 100 page reads for the month... Do we really think Amazon is going to pay us each 7 million dollars? I mean, I guess we'd get more because of those sweet bonuses too, right? Basically, how much faith do we really have in the idea that there is a finite "pot" or do we think Amazon does one of their magic algos and decides how much they can get away with paying us and still keep us in KU?
> 
> There are a lot of voices and minds here, and people who pay close attention to this, so I wanted to bring these up and see what the general consensus is.


Welcome to posting, Trixie!

Flipping to the back: 
1) It hasn't been fixed on all devices.
2) Bots can be scripted to page through books, especially in the cloud.
3) Some authors are incentivizing real folk to actually flip page by page through each book. Read an email, flip a page.

The pot:
1) Trending helps predict what the final page count will be month to month. Amazon has enough trending data by now to be able to predict total page reads pretty well, the same as some authors who've been with the program a while can predict what their page reads will be based on how many books they have in, promotions run that month, etc.
2) Regardless whether Amazon actually divvies up the pot based on actual reads and program revenues or simply throws a dart at a board with incremental amounts ranging from $0.004 to $0.005, they have now admitted in legal documents that book stuffing and other shenanigans harm authors. For financial harm to occur, the pot needs to work the way they claim. If it doesn't, they've lied in court.


----------



## lilywhite

trixie said:


> I thought Amazon fixed the whole "flipping to the back of the book" issue inside KU. So if someone doesn't read the page, you don't get paid for it.


Amazon insists that this is the case, but it's demonstrably untrue in certain circumstances and on certain devices. Amazon has never been able to accurately count pages read, but how can they admit that? It's the basis for how they pay KU authors.



> Ergo, yes I don't like bonus books either, but if I don't read them, then the author doesn't get paid for them. I'm not so stupid I'm going to read the same book 15 times just because it shows up in the back of a new book.


I believe you, and I think many if not most readers are like you. That's why these stuffed books usually contain an incentive to skip to the back or page through. 4-8 books stuffed in the back, followed by an "Exclusive short story!" or some such enticement.



> If the "pot" is 14 million dollars, and let's say the only two authors left are me and one of you, and we each have, oh, I don't know, a total of 100 page reads for the month... Do we really think Amazon is going to pay us each 7 million dollars? I mean, I guess we'd get more because of those sweet bonuses too, right? Basically, how much faith do we really have in the idea that there is a finite "pot" or do we think Amazon does one of their magic algos and decides how much they can get away with paying us and still keep us in KU?


Amazon adds to the pot every month, so I think the KU payout is exactly what Amazon wants it to be; I don't believe getting rid of stuffers will affect the per-page rate much, if at all. But All-Star bonuses are a different story. THOSE are finite, and stuffers have been stealing them every month for, what, a year now?


----------



## lilywhite

I guess I could have just waited for Phoenix to post. LOL


----------



## PhoenixS

lilywhite said:


> I guess I could have just waited for Phoenix to post. LOL


I could have said the same in reverse! It helps to have corroboration, though. More people admitting to seeing the naked king...


----------



## trixie

I guess I don't see how the payout is going to actually change. Amazon's going to pay us what they decide to pay us and yes sometimes it moves a little, but I don't think it's going to move a lot. I mean, if I'm wrong, yay! Though they will just take away 50% of my page reads anyway, right? #sojaded

So what are the odds do you think that the actual authors on the all-star bonus list will change? The total number of pages required may drop, but the top-selling authors will still be the top selling authors, right? It's not like removing bonus books will make it so that romance isn't a big seller.


----------



## unkownwriter

I don't think any of us expect to get more per page read, but we'd sure like those who are cheating their way to the big money (and it is BIG money) not be getting anything per page read. Or any bonuses. Most of us want the store to be cleaned up so readers can actually find good books to read, whether they're ours or not. Because upset readers stop reading. Or reading on Amazon, at least. And that doesn't help any of us.


----------



## lilywhite

trixie said:


> So what are the odds do you think that the actual authors on the all-star bonus list will change? The total number of pages required may drop, but the top-selling authors will still be the top selling authors, right? It's not like removing bonus books will make it so that romance isn't a big seller.


I'm not sure you're understanding how out of proportion their pages read are. If Stuffed Book is at #50 in the store, and Unstuffed Book is at #49, the authors are selling about the same number of "books," but Stuffed Book's author is getting 4, 6, maybe 8 times as many pages read. So yeah, evening the field will give other people a chance.

Edited to add: Rereading your post, I wonder if you thought bonuses are based on rank or something to do with sales or borrows? They're based on pages read.

Some of these authors are spending so much on advertising to keep their ranks up that a lot of the page read income goes right back out the door, so losing the All-Star bonuses might really hurt their bottom line.

We can't really know how it will shake out, but I for one am very interested to see. And, if nothing else, it'll make the Romance category a bit less of a dumpster fire -- which, as a reader, I would appreciate a lot.


----------



## Used To Be BH

trixie said:


> I guess I don't see how the payout is going to actually change. Amazon's going to pay us what they decide to pay us and yes sometimes it moves a little, but I don't think it's going to move a lot. I mean, if I'm wrong, yay! Though they will just take away 50% of my page reads anyway, right? #sojaded
> 
> So what are the odds do you think that the actual authors on the all-star bonus list will change? The total number of pages required may drop, but the top-selling authors will still be the top selling authors, right? It's not like removing bonus books will make it so that romance isn't a big seller.


The real problem may be lack of transparency. We have no way of knowing how many pages are read each month. The assumption in the past (that hitting scammers hard would raise the amount legitimate authors were getting) hasn't always panned out. Is that because Amazon is just hitting somewhere around an arbitrary number each month without regard to pages read? Is because the program is growing so fast that pages lost by scammers are replaced by pages read by new subscribers? There's no way to tell. We also don't know how many subscribers there are or how much Amazon gets in income from subscribers, many of whom are on one-month free trials. That means we don't know whether the size of pot is based on anything or is also an arbitrary number. Probably we will never know.

Since the authors getting all-star bonuses has changed significantly since the stuffing and other issues started, it's logical to assume it might change back if the stuffing issue is resolved.


----------



## Crystal_

trixie said:


> I guess I don't see how the payout is going to actually change. Amazon's going to pay us what they decide to pay us and yes sometimes it moves a little, but I don't think it's going to move a lot. I mean, if I'm wrong, yay! Though they will just take away 50% of my page reads anyway, right? #sojaded
> 
> So what are the odds do you think that the actual authors on the all-star bonus list will change? The total number of pages required may drop, but the top-selling authors will still be the top selling authors, right? It's not like removing bonus books will make it so that romance isn't a big seller.


A lot of people say this but I don't agree. If pages dropped dramatically, Amazon wouldn't take money out of the pot, so the rate would go up. They might not add to the pot to make the rate significantly higher, but IMO, less total pages will lead to the rate increasing (or at least not decreasing). But no one truly knows how Amazon calculates these things.

I think the bigger issue is how much "shelf space" stuffed books have been able to take. Because they make more per borrow, they can spend more on ads, so they're able to push un stuffed books out of the way. Without the income boost of bonus books, theses will get less visibility, which will be good for all the non bonus book using romance authors who were at a huge disadvantage.

I'm not sure how much it will help on other genres, but I'm confident that it will help romance authors (if it's enforced).


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

The rate won’t go up. The unlimited fund is a meaningless number. They adjust the rate to be within an acceptable range on a monthly basis, they don’t just let it happen. If they started paying us more without a business strategy driven reason, it would be a violation of their duty to their shareholders. They spent months experimenting to find the rate that would be best tolerate by authors and they’re not going to let it go up.


----------



## Phxsundog

The rate will go up slightly and thresholds for bonuses will come down if Amazon aggressively chokes off the stuffers retitling books compilations. This happened late last year after KU 3. The update temporarily reduced stuffers' pages because they lost their click to the end skipped page tricks. Too bad by December or January they figured out how to break their formatting again to get vastly more pages. Remember, it isn't just the stuffing alone driving high page reads for the group in romance. They have custom formatting inserted into their books to stretch out the page count, reduce words per page and break accurate page counting as much as possible.


----------



## Bella Breen

Quinning said:


> I think LitRPG was being hit with the stripping of page reads and threats of account loss in the last couple of months.


And the Mpreg genre. 80-90% of our income is KU page reads. I got an email yesterday that I had page read manipulation. I released my 6th book in May, had built up a fan base with well written books, people were recommending my book in genre reader groups, my page reads were stripped by 50%. $1,500 gone. My marketing was posting to FB reader groups, AMS ads, a blog blitz tour.

I sure as hell didn't do any page read manipulation. I don't believe that 50% of my page reads were illegitimate, if any. Would taking them to small claims court, or contacting the FTC, state's attorney general, anything have a chance at them proving any illegitimate page reads and getting an accurate percentage of illegitimate page reads instead of a blanket 50%?


----------



## Shelley K

monamorabooks said:


> And the Mpreg genre. 80-90% of our income is KU page reads. I got an email yesterday that I had page read manipulation. I released my 6th book in May, had built up a fan base with well written books, people were recommending my book in genre reader groups, my page reads were stripped by 50%. $1,500 gone. My marketing was posting to FB reader groups, AMS ads, a blog blitz tour.
> 
> I sure as hell didn't do any page read manipulation. I don't believe that 50% of my page reads were illegitimate, if any.


I don't believe that, either. It's no coincidence that the genres they keep stripping reads from are popular in KU and get a ton of reads. I think they're flagging success as questionable, and automatically taking a certain number of reads from people based on some math formula.

Sure, there are cases that are legitimate. But the simple fact that it works out to be 50% of so many different people's reads in a given month when their reads have been pretty steady or gone up appropriately with something like a new release's sales is a dead giveaway that there's an equation at work here, not actual fraud-busting activities.


----------



## Justa Nobody

Removed 9/19/2018 - non-agreement with VerticalScope TOS


----------



## LL2018

Deleted.


----------



## caitlynlynch

Crystal_ said:


> I think the bigger issue is how much "shelf space" stuffed books have been able to take. Because they make more per borrow, they can spend more on ads, so they're able to push un stuffed books out of the way. Without the income boost of bonus books, theses will get less visibility, which will be good for all the non bonus book using romance authors who were at a huge disadvantage.
> 
> I'm not sure how much it will help on other genres, but I'm confident that it will help romance authors (if it's enforced).


This is the point a lot of people are missing. Facebook ads are absolutely dominated by stuffers, who spend 10-20 thousand a month there. AMS ads are crazy too... look at Sponsored Products for basically every book in the entire romance category and it's the same names, over and over again. Cut the $12 or whatever they're making per KDP borrow to the standard $2-3 the rest of us get, and suddenly the bid rate and CPC is gonna go waaaay down for everyone else.

The playing field will get a lot more even for everyone struggling for visibility once this all gets cleared up.


----------



## Sam Rivers

> If you imagine those botters and schemers as thieves who've infiltrated and are emptying the vault at the casino, you could see that they'd want to cover up the cameras inside the vault or provide an alternate feed to hide what they're up to...that would be them using bots to spread non-legitimate page reads to random innocent authors, a masking activity, i.e. their version of covering up the cameras.
> 
> If the money to be made is vast enough - and it appears to be - I could see people being incentivized enough to want to mask their activities in the extreme. There's too much money to be had to NOT do that. We may come to find out that something crazy, like two-thirds or more of all page reads in KU are the result of bots or other efforts to cover up the vault thievery.
> 
> Having the majority of all page reads in the program coming from masking activities, bots etc, would mean Amazon isn't lying when they tell innocent authors that they've received non-legitimate page reads on their titles. If the manipulation was that widespread and there was some level of automation involved, I could see it effecting a great number of authors randomly across multiple genres - it would make sense.
> 
> I think Amazon comes across as lying because of their clear-as-mud methods of communication which is likely on purpose because they want to avoid litigation and as a business I don't think they'd want to admit how deep the rot goes and they wouldn't want to level with vendors about just how severe and widespread the manipulation has gone.
> 
> It doesn't help Amazon, in the eyes of indies, that they're only capable of assessing much of the non-legit page-read damage with their own bots until well after the fact. That delay makes the removal of all these page reads all the more painful and hard to accept as the truth because it comes out of left field for innocent authors who'd believed the numbers they'd been seeing themselves and had believed were coming from legitimate page reads given there's no real way for the average indie to tell the difference.
> 
> We're deep in the fog of war here, so this is all theory I realize. But just thought I'd toss this out here as a possibility of what's going on.


What you are saying makes sense. A lot of writers will be uncomfortable if you are right.


----------



## sela

Sam Rivers said:


> What you are saying makes sense. A lot of writers will be uncomfortable if you are right.


I think that this explanation makes the most sense. There are too many apparently innocent authors getting hit by the page-read removal to be otherwise. Botters / scammers were targeting innocent books as a way to mask the real targets of their scams. How sad if so. It makes KU dangerous because none of us in the targeted genres and categories can know if our page reads are legit or due to the scammers covering their tracks. UGH!

That's the problem with KU. It's totally opaque. We are blind going in. All we know is what KENP our books are assigned and whatever Amazon tells us are the page reads. We have no idea how the system really works and have to rely on Amazon to make all the decisions on how to pay us -- finding out only after the fact what our work is worth.

It's no way to do business. It may work well for many authors, and of course readers, but to me, it's a risk.

My last series is out of KU at the end of the month and that's it. I'm done with KU at least in terms of the romance genre until Amazon gets its act together and the scammers no longer pollute the ranks. For non-romance? It's probably still pretty safe. I'm branching into suspense and thrillers so I hope to eventually escape the perils of the romance genre in KU altogether.


----------



## Sam Rivers

> Innocent authors in KU were caught up in the scam and then were hit along with the scammer when page readers from that source were removed. How sad if so. It makes KU dangerous because none of us in the targeted genres and categories can know if our page reads are legit or due to the scammers covering their tracks. UGH!


Most of my books in KU are due to run out early next month. I have to make a decision at that time to keep taking a chance or run like Hell.


----------



## boba1823

caitlynlynch said:


> the standard $2-3 the rest of us get


Isn't the standard for a full read more in the range of $1 or so?

Maybe I'm off, but this is one (of many) of the reasons I never signed up for KU. I'd heard that it might be something like 250 words per one KENPC - but that it varies - which would mean 280 KENPC for a 70,000 word book, so $1.26 if the rate is .45 cents / page. Does everyone else just write really, really long books, or is Amazon much more generous with the page calculation?


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

boba1823 said:


> Isn't the standard for a full read more in the range of $1 or so?
> 
> Maybe I'm off, but this is one (of many) of the reasons I never signed up for KU. I'd heard that it might be something like 250 words per one KENPC - but that it varies - which would mean 280 KENPC for a 70,000 word book, so $1.26 if the rate is .45 cents / page. Does everyone else just write really, really long books, or is Amazon much more generous with the page calculation?


My 60K books are between 350-400 KENPC generally. At .0045, that's about $1.57 for a full read. My 90K books are usually between 500 and 600 KENPC. At the low end, that gets me $2.25 and the high end $2.70. I used 90K as a baseline but they actually vary between 80-95K depending on the book. More are closer to 90K than 80K.


----------



## Dpock

boba1823 said:


> Isn't the standard for a full read more in the range of $1 or so?
> 
> Maybe I'm off, but this is one (of many) of the reasons I never signed up for KU. I'd heard that it might be something like 250 words per one KENPC - but that it varies - which would mean 280 KENPC for a 70,000 word book, so $1.26 if the rate is .45 cents / page. Does everyone else just write really, really long books, or is Amazon much more generous with the page calculation?


Based on my numbers, I get an average of 189 words per KENP page.


----------



## Shelley K

I think botters _are_ spreading it around to innocent books and authors to try to cover up their real agenda, absolutely. We've seen evidence of that when people's reads have spiked. But it's pretty amazing how when they hit someone without a major spike it almost always accounts for 50% of their total pages read. Authors with wildly different numbers of reads across different numbers of books in different genres, yet for so many people hit, it's 50% of their total. I call BS.

That's Amazon's algo and has nothing to do with removing pages from bot accounts or counting or any kind of investigative work at all. That's punishing an account that was affected with a set penalty which, in this case, is theft.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> Considering the likelihood that at least one of the major players in the scam operations is someone on the inside at Amazon running a little side business...


Now that's a terrifying thought. At first, I want to say, "No way!" And then, I pause to consider how many things turn out to be rigged by insiders with special access. (An example: the McDonald's monopoly game pieces.) The sad thing is, if Amazon ran the program better, we'd have no reason to consider that insiders could be gaming this flawed system for their own benefit. It wouldn't be that hard. They'd just need to pass along their insider information to a girlfriend, friend, relative, whatever.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

There's one thing to remember. All those scammers we hate so much = traffic to Amazon. You see those guys spend THOUSANDS a month in advertising. And where does there ads point to? You guessed it, Amazon. On top of that, all the big earners (not just scammers) also spend $$$$ using AMS monthly. 

But just think about it. All those FREE advertising dollars for Amazon and they get to double dip by also getting AMS revenue. KU pulls us into an entirely Amazon controlled system. One where authors not only provide the content but also pay the advertising bill. And with AMS Amazon get's to take a cut of those dollars directly. All this and a never-ending line of new authors streaming int (along with their advertising dollars) every day.


----------



## Dpock

Gentleman Zombie said:


> There's one thing to remember. All those scammers we hate so much = traffic to Amazon. You see those guys spend THOUSANDS a month in advertising. And where does there ads point to? You guessed it, Amazon.


Bots aren't traffic. If the ads are AMS, scammers are just pulling from an audience Amazon has already captured. If they're advertising in paid newsletters, they're competing with other Amazon authors already driving traffic.


----------



## AltMe

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> Considering the likelihood that at least one of the major players in the scam operations is someone on the inside at Amazon running a little side business, I'd say there's someone making it hella difficult for the bot operations to be found and shut down. Find one, you'll find a lot more. So what do you do? You interfere as much as possible so that as few as possible are found. You create "solutions" that aren't really solutions at all. You hem and haw and stall and put up roadblocks and you keep the gravy train rolling for as long as you possibly can because it's like printing your own money.


I've had the exact same thought.

The easiest way to scam is be part of the coding team. The easiest way to avoid being caught is be part of the coding team. The easiest way to put blame on others is to be part of the coding team.

But here's the really stupid thing:

The numbers I've been seeing over the last few days, do NOT show bot activity. They show BELOW NORMAL read numbers in relation to sales figures. I dont know what is going on, but bot activity to me is reads without corresponding sales. How can anyone claim bot activity when the reads are well below normal?

Something else is going on here, and no-one has yet identified it. But....if the real scammers are inside Amazon, nothing which comes out of Amazon is reliable, and all we are chasing is red herrings.

Mr Bezos, you need a witch hunt inside your own organization. And you need it last year! Because the only thing which makes any sense now, is the major scammers of KU are your own employees. And until you find them or prove otherwise, no-one will trust you.


----------



## boba1823

TimothyEllis said:


> The numbers I've been seeing over the last few days, do NOT show bot activity. They show BELOW NORMAL read numbers in relation to sales figures. I dont know what is going on, but bot activity to me is reads without corresponding sales. How can anyone claim bot activity when the reads are well below normal?


Unless the idea of what is 'normal' turns out to have been based on a high portion of bot activity all along...


----------



## AltMe

boba1823 said:


> Unless the idea of what is 'normal' turns out to have been based on a high portion of bot activity all along...


Then KU is all bot activity.

Which makes targeting a few measly thousands of reads even more ridiculous.


----------



## Guest

Once we accepted the concept of page reads, with Amazon doing the counting, I think we started down this long road:
Amazon bot picks up that we described a colorful sunset in the first chapter
Yet our characters in chapter 3, hold hands and snuggle as they admire ANOTHER sunset, this time over a golden beach.
The Amazon bot screams: you're padding to increase the page count. One sunset is enough. SCAM! SCAM! SCAM!

And we thought we were free of gatekeepers.


----------



## David VanDyke

Sam Rivers said:


> Most of my books in KU are due to run out early next month. I have to make a decision at that time to keep taking a chance or run like Hell.


Or start gradually transitioning them out for minimum disruption.


----------



## Arches

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> Considering the likelihood that at least one of the major players in the scam operations is someone on the inside at Amazon running a little side business, I'd say there's someone making it hella difficult for the bot operations to be found and shut down. Find one, you'll find a lot more. So what do you do? You interfere as much as possible so that as few as possible are found. You create "solutions" that aren't really solutions at all. You hem and haw and stall and put up roadblocks and you keep the gravy train rolling for as long as you possibly can because it's like printing your own money.
> 
> *wildly speculating now* (I will not deny)
> 
> (But seriously, you know someone's doing it.)


Really? Have you got any actual proof that's happening? If so, what is it? If not, maybe it's time to dial back the wild speculation. I still haven't seen anything with regard to the latest KU scandal that can't be explained by simple incompetence. Amazon is playing whack-a-mole, and not very well.

Despite the ever-increasing fury on Kboards, I don't see any evidence that big KU authors are leaving or that significant numbers of other authors are either. Maybe that's because, for most KU authors, this is still the best thing going. And if that changes, getting out is easy.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Arches said:


> Despite the ever-increasing fury on Kboards, I don't see any evidence that big KU authors are leaving or that significant numbers of other authors are either. Maybe that's because, for most KU authors, this is still the best thing going. And if that changes, getting out is easy.


Define big? I know a lot of six figure authors that are slowly pulling their books out, and we are doing well in KU and haven't been caught up in the 50% cull yet.

Better to jump before being pushed or before the program either collapses under the weight of the scammy crud that's in it or you have a mass exodus for whatever reason. You might not be looking in the right places.


----------



## Sam Rivers

> Better to jump before being pushed or before the program either collapses under the weight of the scammy crud that's in it or you have a mass exodus for whatever reason.


The sky is falling; the sky is falling.


----------



## Anarchist

Arches said:


> If not, maybe it's time to dial back the wild speculation.


That'd probably reduce post volume on Kboards by half. lol


----------



## MmmmmPie

Arches said:


> Despite the ever-increasing fury on Kboards, I don't see any evidence that big KU authors are leaving or that significant numbers of other authors are either. Maybe that's because, for most KU authors, this is still the best thing going. And if that changes, getting out is easy.


Well, you obviously don't follow romance, because many, MANY big names have dropped out of KU. And here's a data point for you. During my best month in KU 2.0, I netted nearly 70K, in a _single month_. With no stuffing, trickery or click farming. So you'd say that KU has been very good to me. Well, guess what? I'm mostly out.

Slowly over time, the payment per page dropped. Okay, I guess I can deal with that if I make up for it in other ways, such as through All Star bonuses or increased visibility on the top 100 lists. But then the masterminds and stuffers moved in. Soon, it became nearly impossible to compete for those top spots unless I was willing to add a few bonus novels, because a measley $1.75 per borrow was drop in the bucket compared to the $13 bucks per borrow the stuffers were raking in. (The stuffing enabled them to pay for mega-advertising, which of course grew even more expensive for non-stuffers as a result.)

Soon, I realized that there was no longer any benefit to being in KU. Oh sure, my rank was higher due to the borrows, but not so high that I made a dent in the best-seller lists compared to the 99-cent stuffed monstrosities. So what was the point? Now, I'm mostly out of KU and have taken my books wide. Yes, I'm making less money than I did in KU before stuffing became such a problem. But I'm still making more money than I was in KU _after _the stuffers took over.

Plus, I came to the realization that by keeping my high-quality non-stuffed books in KU, I was only subsidizing the stuffers. No more. Now, I doubt I'd ever go exclusive with Amazon again. And I'm far from the only one.


----------



## Arches

MmmmmPie said:


> Well, you obviously don't follow romance, because many, MANY big names have dropped out of KU. And here's a data point for you. During my best month in KU 2.0, I netted nearly 70K, in a _single month_. With no stuffing, trickery or click farming. So you'd say that KU has been very good to me. Well, guess what? I'm mostly out.


You're right, I don't follow romance, and maybe there are "many, MANY big names" who have dropped out of KU recently. If so, I hope Amazon is noticing and starts to work harder to clean up KU. You've obviously decided KU isn't worth it anymore, and that's perfectly fine. Everyone should make their own decision based on their own best interests.

But I'm still not persuaded that enough KU authors are leaving to get Amazon's attention. I just took a look at the Kindle Romance best sellers, and out of a those 100, 94 are in KU or were published by one of the big traditional publishers (only a handful). And I do follow urban fantasy, and by a wide margin, most bestselling authors in that genre are in KU as well.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

MmmmmPie said:
 

> Now that's a terrifying thought. At first, I want to say, "No way!" And then, I pause to consider how many things turn out to be rigged by insiders with special access. (An example: the McDonald's monopoly game pieces.) The sad thing is, if Amazon ran the program better, we'd have no reason to consider that insiders could be gaming this flawed system for their own benefit. It wouldn't be that hard. They'd just need to pass along their insider information to a girlfriend, friend, relative, whatever.


Yeh. Find the bottle top with the right code and win $1 000. Does anyone think the people who work at the company that make the bottle tops, and the people who feed them into the machines won't be looking out for those tops and giving them to family members or friends?


----------



## Becca Mills

P.J. Post said:


> Point of fact: we're already knee-deep in sky.


You really are going to have to use that line in a book, P.J.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Arches said:


> I'm still not persuaded that enough KU authors are leaving to get Amazon's attention. I just took a look at the Kindle Romance best sellers, and out of a those 100, 94 are in KU or were published by one of the big traditional publishers (only a handful). And I do follow urban fantasy, and by a wide margin, most bestselling authors in that genre are in KU as well.


You may be right in that not enough are leaving to get Amazon's attention. It's hard to say. But one thing to consider is that the top 100 is no longer a list of best-sellers. It's a list of most-borrowed or most-stuffed, because those are the things driving rank these days. With one borrow (even if it's a bot-borrow or phantom-borrow) equaling one sale, the lists are no longer a true measure of what readers are spending their money on or which romance authors have the most genuine fans.


----------



## Crystal_

MmmmmPie said:


> Well, you obviously don't follow romance, because many, MANY big names have dropped out of KU. And here's a data point for you. During my best month in KU 2.0, I netted nearly 70K, in a _single month_. With no stuffing, trickery or click farming. So you'd say that KU has been very good to me. Well, guess what? I'm mostly out.
> 
> Slowly over time, the payment per page dropped. Okay, I guess I can deal with that if I make up for it in other ways, such as through All Star bonuses or increased visibility on the top 100 lists. But then the masterminds and stuffers moved in. Soon, it became nearly impossible to compete for those top spots unless I was willing to add a few bonus novels, because a measley $1.75 per borrow was drop in the bucket compared to the $13 bucks per borrow the stuffers were raking in. (The stuffing enabled them to pay for mega-advertising, which of course grew even more expensive for non-stuffers as a result.)
> 
> Soon, I realized that there was no longer any benefit to being in KU. Oh sure, my rank was higher due to the borrows, but not so high that I made a dent in the best-seller lists compared to the 99-cent stuffed monstrosities. So what was the point? Now, I'm mostly out of KU and have taken my books wide. Yes, I'm making less money than I did in KU before stuffing became such a problem. But I'm still making more money than I was in KU _after _the stuffers took over.
> 
> Plus, I came to the realization that by keeping my high-quality non-stuffed books in KU, I was only subsidizing the stuffers. No more. Now, I doubt I'd ever go exclusive with Amazon again. And I'm far from the only one.


Really? I've seen one big romance author leave, but then I don't really follow "BookBub Contemporary," only "BookBub New Adult," which is much more KU centric.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Sam Rivers said:


> The sky is falling; the sky is falling.


I'm guessing you weren't around for the carnage that happened from KU1 to KU2. A lot of really good authors went to the wall and lost everything.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Puddleduck said:


> I suspect this is kind of a confirmation bias thing. Indie authors writing UF put their books in KU because they believe that's where the primary UF audience is and that they kind of _have_ to put it in KU. That doesn't necessarily mean that KU is actually necessary for UF books to succeed. (Speaking as someone who doesn't use KU, mostly prefers to buy from Kobo, and really enjoys UF.)


Off of the top of my head, I can think of two big authors in UF that are pulling their books, Izzy Shows and May Sage are both going/gone wide.


----------



## unkownwriter

Atlantisatheart said:


> I'm guessing you weren't around for the carnage that happened from KU1 to KU2. A lot of really good authors went to the wall and lost everything.


But, they were erotica authors! Nobody cares about them, they're what broke Amazon to begin with! Them and those other uppity short story writers. The nerve, thinking they should be allowed to be anywhere near the real books. At least they finally got what was coming to them.

/sarcasm

Sadly, there are some who actually said stuff like the above, one in particular who has been venerated as a god among indie publishers by some.


----------



## Arches

Puddleduck said:


> I suspect this is kind of a confirmation bias thing. Indie authors writing UF put their books in KU because they believe that's where the primary UF audience is and that they kind of _have_ to put it in KU. That doesn't necessarily mean that KU is actually necessary for UF books to succeed. (Speaking as someone who doesn't use KU, mostly prefers to buy from Kobo, and really enjoys UF.)


Right now, there are only four books in the bestseller ranking for Paranormal and Urban Fantasy that are self-pub and aren't in KU. Now, maybe some bestselling authors simply follow the crowd, or maybe, like me, they don't want to mess with going wide. Nevertheless, in my experience, the average UF author is a rational creature. He puts his books in KU because it pays off, and he stays in because it keeps paying off.

That doesn't mean every UF author is in KU, but the fact that almost all of the bestselling UF self-pub authors are there is a lot more persuasive to me than a theory that says they are acting against their own self-interest.


----------



## Anarchist

Atlantisatheart said:


> I'm guessing you weren't around for the carnage that happened from KU1 to KU2. A lot of really good authors went to the wall and lost everything.
> 
> 
> 
> she-la-ti-da said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, they were erotica authors! Nobody cares about them, they're what broke Amazon to begin with! Them and those other uppity short story writers. The nerve, thinking they should be allowed to be anywhere near the real books. At least they finally got what was coming to them.
> 
> /sarcasm
> 
> Sadly, there are some who actually said stuff like the above, one in particular who has been venerated as a god among indie publishers by some.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that Amazon transitioned from KU1 to KU2 in response to customers' demands. The action was not a value statement about erotica authors nor short story writers.

Those two groups happened to comprise a large portion of the collateral damage because their products were out of alignment with what Amazon's KU subscribers wanted.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crystal_ said:


> Really? I've seen one big romance author leave, but then I don't really follow "BookBub Contemporary," only "BookBub New Adult," which is much more KU centric.


What's funny is that the romance writers I've been following didn't really make a big deal out of leaving. It's just that a year ago, the majority of them seemed to be in KU, and now, the majority of them seem to be out. Even with myself, when I left KU, I didn't make a big deal out of it. I just let my books expire and began publishing wide again. These days, very few of these "big names" hit Amazon's top 100, partly because they don't get the rank boost through borrows, but they're still out there -- just lower in the Amazon charts and of course, publishing on other outlets.

Don't get me wrong. There are still a TON of romance writers on Amazon, and many more waiting in the wings. It's just that I've seen quite a few best-selling veterans quietly pull their books from KU.


----------



## Arches

Puddleduck said:


> My point was that just because KU is working for those authors doesn't mean that wide wouldn't work for them. If few UF authors are trying wide, how do they really know wide would work? I didn't suggest they're "acting against their own self-interest". That wasn't my point at all. Saying, "We're all in KU and KU is working well for us, so KU must be the only place where UF can succeed, and if you write UF and want to succeed, you have to do be in KU" is short-sighted and circular reasoning.


I don't think UF authors are unwilling to try new things like going wide. You would know better than me how many self-pub UF authors are on Kobo, but there have to be some. Same with Apple and B&N and Google. There have to be UF authors trying to be successful outside of KU.

But I've been following Kboards pretty regularly for years, and I haven't seen any threads from UF authors saying they're having great success with going wide. In fact, most of the posts I see about authors going wide in general say that it isn't working out so great. Whereas, KU is a natural environment for UF readers who love to read a lot.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Arches said:


> Right now, there are only four books in the bestseller ranking for Paranormal and Urban Fantasy that are self-pub and aren't in KU. Now, maybe some bestselling authors simply follow the crowd, or maybe, like me, they don't want to mess with going wide. Nevertheless, in my experience, the average UF author is a rational creature. He puts his books in KU because it pays off, and he stays in because it keeps paying off.
> 
> That doesn't mean every UF author is in KU, but the fact that almost all of the bestselling UF self-pub authors are there is a lot more persuasive to me than a theory that says they are acting against their own self-interest.


And yet, you're looking in the wrong place. Those authors get the ranking boost from being in KU and doesn't actually reflect the top 100 authors by earnings or popularity because wide sales aren't taken into account. That's like saying JK Rowling writing under a pen name for infants is doing badly because you can't see the big picture.

ETA - Read your last post and wanted to add that Izzy Shows posted on another forum the other day to say that in the first eight days of going wide, she'd made up lost KU reads and had gotten her first bookbub. Yep, wide is bad.


----------



## Arches

Atlantisatheart said:


> And yet, you're looking in the wrong place. Those authors get the ranking boost from being in KU and doesn't actually reflect the top 100 authors by earnings or popularity because wide sales aren't taken into account. That's like saying JK Rowling writing under a pen name for infants is doing badly because you can't see the big picture.
> 
> ETA - Read your last post and wanted to add that Izzy Shows posted on another forum the other day to say that in the first eight days of going wide, she'd made up lost KU reads and had gotten her first bookbub. Yep, wide is bad.


On Amazon, I can see for myself how successful UF authors are in KU. If you think there's actual proof of success on other forums, I'd love to see it. KU and Author Earnings say Amazon is where people are finding success. If there's other evidence even remotely comparable, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Arches said:


> On Amazon, I can see for myself how successful UF authors are in KU. If you think there's actual proof of success on other forums, I'd love to see it. KU and Author Earnings say Amazon is where people are finding success. If there's other evidence even remotely comparable, I'd love to see it.


There are plenty of closed groups for 6 figure authors around where people share screen shots of income, tactics and collaborate. If you're in that bracket then I'm sure you'll be welcomed in, but if you go in with the attitude of only KU works for authors then you'll be laughed right back out again.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle

Arches said:


> But I've been following Kboards pretty regularly for years, and I haven't seen any threads from UF authors saying they're having great success with going wide.


It may be shocking to hear this, but many successful indies don't post on KBoards once they become successful. Some never did.

There's a lot of information out there shared directly between authors via FB and private forums, friends-locked and behind paywalls, and people who hear it don't usually have permission to post it elsewhere for obvious reasons. I realize that may not be sufficient for you to gather info, and that's fine.

I can personally attest to seeing several big hitters deciding to pull out of KU in the past week.


----------



## PhoenixS

UF is a subgenre where a lot of scammers authors who play loose with the rules also hang out. Many high-ranking UF authors are in KU for the same reason many romance authors who play loose with the rules are: Because they've set up the infrastructure to game KU and it's paying off for them.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## unkownwriter

Anarchist said:


> I was under the impression that Amazon transitioned from KU1 to KU2 in response to customers' demands. The action was not a value statement about erotica authors nor short story writers.
> 
> Those two groups happened to comprise a large portion of the collateral damage because their products were out of alignment with what Amazon's KU subscribers wanted.


Nowhere did I say it was anything to do with Amazon. That was the response many people -- here and elsewhere -- had in response to KUv2 rolling out. There was a thread celebrating that many fellow authors, who had done nothing wrong but simply participated in the program AS AMAZON CREATED IT, were suddenly and without any warning (despite people saying there were emails, not a single one was anything more than a mild suggestion that readers like longer books, though erotica readers were thrilled with the shorts) being punished for providing what their readers wanted IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BLASTED PROGRAM.

People like to forget how it's been for erotica writers, even here on the great Writer's Cafe, and how short story writers have also been snickered at and called scammers. But some of us don't forget. I swear, I think there are some who wouldn't mind if the scamming and book stuffing went on, so long as they can get in on the action.


----------



## Becca Mills

Arguments about the KU1/KU2 transition are out of place in this thread, folks. Let's keep the focus on how the new bonus content rules are playing out.


----------



## ImaWriter

TechCrunch article on Chance Carter.


----------



## alawston

We do live in interesting times


----------



## unkownwriter

Talking about this in the big thread:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,263872.0.html


----------



## Gertie Kindle

Did you read the one comment at the end of the article? Very vocal defense of Carter and his wonderful books.


----------



## PhoenixS

Not gonna comment about Chance and the scamming, since that's being covered elsewhere. Just want to say how disappointed I am in the TechCrunch article. What a mess and mishmash of the facts. Could the writing and fact-checking be any lazier? We want and need a spotlight on all this -- publicity is a good thing -- but is it also too much to ask that those spotlights be professional in nature? And that aggregators of content, such as TechCrunch, also do a minimum of reading and fact-checking before pulling the content in?


----------



## Kathy Dee

Crystal_ said:


> I'd love to look at the top 100 in romance and see nothing that's stuffed.


Hmm ... far too much erotic romance in the store thee days.


----------



## Crime fighters

Yes they are, but they are most prominent in Romance / UF because that's where the "easy" money is.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

PhoenixS said:


> UF is a subgenre where a lot of scammers authors who play loose with the rules also hang out. Many high-ranking UF authors are in KU for the same reason many romance authors who play loose with the rules are: Because they've set up the infrastructure to game KU and it's paying off for them.


I'm in a few private groups and while I can't name names -- there are a good percentage of well-known authors who have quietly gone wide. Either they got scared after Amazon threatened to close their accounts. Or they got sick of competing with book stuffers. There were even a few posts I read, where folks were fine with making a little less, in exchange for reduced stress and peace of mind.



> Plus, I came to the realization that by keeping my high-quality non-stuffed books in KU, I was only subsidizing the stuffers. No more. Now, I doubt I'd ever go exclusively with Amazon again. And I'm far from the only one.


I walked away from a 70k a year job due to what I considered to be questionable business practices. At the time I regretted it, but a few months later they crashed and burned dramatically. While it meant a significant pay cut I also dodged a bullet. I've never regretted it. I'm a risk taker, always have been. So right now I'm pledged to spend the rest of the year creating a backlist. I'll start 2019 fresh and wide, with a catalog ready to go. _Amazon KU may be the easiest way, but it's not the only way. _


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

I ignored KDP Select when it first came out, and likewise KU1.  However, with KU2, I decided on a change and went all in with Amazon.  I've been exclusive since and I have to admit KU has been pretty good to me.  On any given month I find about a 50/50 split between sales and reads, which has been pretty steady since I've joined.  My KU income has never fallen below the threshold I originally set to make me consider going wide again.

That said, I am beginning to tire of the drama.  Between scammers, stuffers, and people churning out puppy-mill books once a week or more*, it feels like KU is an overflowing bathtub ... and unless you resort to one of those methods, you're going to be swept out the moment you think you hit the top.  

I always considered KU to be a short term strategy.  Beginning to wonder if wide is once more calling my name. 

*disclaimer, no I'm not saying everyone who writes super fast churns out crap.


----------



## Lydniz

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I ignored KDP Select when it first came out, and likewise KU1. However, with KU2, I decided on a change and went all in with Amazon. I've been exclusive since and I have to admit KU has been pretty good to me. On any given month I find about a 50/50 split between sales and reads, which has been pretty steady since I've joined. My KU income has never fallen below the threshold I originally set to make me consider going wide again.
> 
> That said, I am beginning to tire of the drama. Between scammers, stuffers, and people churning out puppy-mill books once a week or more*, it feels like KU is an overflowing bathtub ... and unless you resort to one of those methods, you're going to be swept out the moment you think you hit the top.


All of this. I decided to risk a pay cut to go wide about a year ago and I'm pleased I did. It's a lot more work, but in the end the pay cut never materialised and I feel safer having my eggs in lots of baskets.


----------



## 91831

[Re the TechCrunch article:]

Probably best that I can't access it then (they're not letting people on it without giving consent for cookies, browsing history, and location for advertising use only, and as an EU member, I'm refusing to give it simply for advertising use.).

_Bracketed insertion added following thread merge, for clarity. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Aderyn Wood

PhoenixS said:


> Not gonna comment about Chance and the scamming, since that's being covered elsewhere. Just want to say how disappointed I am in the TechCrunch article. What a mess and mishmash of the facts. Could the writing and fact-checking be any lazier? We want and need a spotlight on all this -- publicity is a good thing -- but is it also too much to ask that those spotlights be professional in nature? And that aggregators of content, such as TechCrunch, also do a minimum of reading and fact-checking before pulling the content in?


Good journalism is so last century


----------



## MmmmmPie

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Between scammers, stuffers, and people churning out puppy-mill books once a week or more*, it feels like KU is an overflowing bathtub ... and unless you resort to one of those methods, you're going to be swept out the moment you think you hit the top.


Oh yeah. That sums it up perfectly. And this is especially true if you're in a genre (such as romance) that's overpopulated by stuffers and scammers. It got to the point where I felt that I had to choose -- stuff or drop out of KU.

Now that Amazon has issued clearer guidelines against stuffing, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. If you can skirt the rules by slapping "collection" on your cover and title, we're pretty much back where we started.


----------



## Crystal_

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I'm in a few private groups and while I can't name names -- there are a good percentage of well-known authors who have quietly gone wide. Either they got scared after Amazon threatened to close their accounts. Or they got sick of competing with book stuffers. There were even a few posts I read, where folks were fine with making a little less, in exchange for reduced stress and peace of mind.
> 
> I walked away from a 70k a year job due to what I considered to be questionable business practices. At the time I regretted it, but a few months later they crashed and burned dramatically. While it meant a significant pay cut I also dodged a bullet. I've never regretted it. I'm a risk taker, always have been. So right now I'm pledged to spend the rest of the year creating a backlist. I'll start 2019 fresh and wide, with a catalog ready to go. _Amazon KU may be the easiest way, but it's not the only way. _


I kinda feel the opposite. Being in KU is so much easier than being wide and dealing with multiple stores. I could probably make more with my backlist permafree first in series and wide, but it makes enough in KU.

I've seen a lot of people say they're going wide because of some KU issue that is yet to effect them and I wonder why. Amazon won't notice you leaving. You should only leave if you think it will somehow be better for your career, not if you take issue with cheap and quick books making a lot, or whatever. Those books will only make more of you leave KU, because there will be more pages to go around.


----------



## Crystal_

Yeah, there's a lack of facts in that article.

I've seen some authors defending Chance and, beyond a knee jerk reaction against the witch hunting, I don't get it. Shady and illegal tactics being everyone down. This is a community. A rising tide helps all boats and a sinking one hurts everyone.

This isn't an issue where the policy wasn't clear either. Dude straight up broke the law. We can't claim to be professionals then turn around and say "aw, but the poor author who's just trying to feed his family didn't know better."


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals

> I've seen a lot of people say they're going wide because of some KU issue that is yet to effect them and I wonder why. Amazon won't notice you leaving. You should only leave if you think it will somehow be better for your career, not if you take issue with cheap and quick books making a lot, or whatever. Those books will only make more of you leave KU, because there will be more pages to go around.


While I agree with the sentiment that a few people leaving isn't going to make Amazon care, there's no issue in KU that doesn't effect every other author in KU because unlike writing as a whole, KU is a zero sum game. For ever dollar a scammer makes, it's one less dollar that other people make.


----------



## Rose Andrews

Crystal_ said:


> Yeah, there's a lack of facts in that article.
> 
> I've seen some authors defending Chance and, beyond a knee jerk reaction against the witch hunting, I don't get it. Shady and illegal tactics being everyone down. This is a community. A rising tide helps all boats and a sinking one hurts everyone.
> 
> This isn't an issue where the policy wasn't clear either. Dude straight up broke the law. We can't claim to be professionals then turn around and say "aw, but the poor author who's just trying to feed his family didn't know better."


We're all trying to feed our families. You'd think that they could come up with a better excuse than that. Every author wants to be read and make money (the amount depends on other factors) BUT, for the most part, it's pretty safe to say that if you're writing and publishing books you want to be read. We're only read if people buy our books. So saying shit like "oh, he just wants to feed his family" is making it seem like his family is more important than the rest of ours. It's a BS excuse, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Crystal_

Rose Andrews said:


> We're all trying to feed our families. You'd think that they could come up with a better excuse than that. Every author wants to be read and make money (the amount depends on other factors) BUT, for the most part, it's pretty safe to say that if you're writing and publishing books you want to be read. We're only read if people buy our books. So saying [crap] like "oh, he just wants to feed his family" is making it seem like his family is more important than the rest of ours. It's a BS excuse, is what I'm saying.


Totally agree. I can't stand when people say that. Guys who were doing insider trading were also trying to feed their families.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

PhoenixS said:


> Not gonna comment about Chance and the scamming, since that's being covered elsewhere. Just want to say how disappointed I am in the TechCrunch article. What a mess and mishmash of the facts. Could the writing and fact-checking be any lazier? We want and need a spotlight on all this -- publicity is a good thing -- but is it also too much to ask that those spotlights be professional in nature? And that aggregators of content, such as TechCrunch, also do a minimum of reading and fact-checking before pulling the content in?


speaking as the original source - Ouch


----------



## David VanDyke

Crystal_ said:


> Yeah, there's a lack of facts in that article.
> 
> I've seen some authors defending Chance and, beyond a knee jerk reaction against the witch hunting, I don't get it. Shady and illegal tactics being everyone down. This is a community. A rising tide helps all boats and a sinking one hurts everyone.
> 
> This isn't an issue where the policy wasn't clear either. Dude straight up broke the law. We can't claim to be professionals then turn around and say "aw, but the poor author who's just trying to feed his family didn't know better."


People rally around their tribe, right or wrong. I'm not trying to start a political argument about specifics, but you can see it in all walks of life, usually with celebrities of some sort--sports figures, politicians, actors, celebrities that are famous for being famous, yes, even authors. These people are lightning rods for both haters (legit or not) and defenders (sincere or not).

That's just how things work. People put "I like them" ahead of "They're destructive."


----------



## David VanDyke

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I always considered KU to be a short term strategy. Beginning to wonder if wide is once more calling my name.


The time to go wide is before you're forced into it. Worst case scenario, you're innocent but get your account terminated and your last couple months of money confiscated. Now you're scrambling.

The best way to go wide is gradually, which is also easier to do before you're forced into it.


----------



## Sam Rivers

His audio books are still there. I wonder why they weren't deleted.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18

It's amazing how much some families eat.


----------



## Lydniz

ellenoc said:


> It's amazing how much some families eat.


----------



## EllieDee

> His audio books are still there. I wonder why they weren't deleted.


Weird. Maybe because the audiobooks are a slightly different ecosystem from kindle ebooks? Or it could be in the works, but they're more sluggish on that side of the company.


----------



## Rose Andrews

ellenoc said:


> It's amazing how much some families eat.


Damn, right? They eat so much the only way to continue feeding them is by stealing.


----------



## Crystal_

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> While I agree with the sentiment that a few people leaving isn't going to make Amazon care, there's no issue in KU that doesn't effect every other author in KU because unlike writing as a whole, KU is a zero sum game. For ever dollar a scammer makes, it's one less dollar that other people make.


Absolutely, but there's really nothing we can do about anaconda unwillingness to take on scammers (outside of pleas to the KDP team). The decision should be is my career better in KU or it of it? Scammers might be taking money from me, but if I'm earning more in KU than I would out of KU, I'm not leaving out of hate for scammers. (Of course, there is more to career planning than money, but that is the metric I use).


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Crystal_ said:


> Absolutely, but there's really nothing we can do about anaconda unwillingness to take on scammers (outside of pleas to the KDP team). The decision should be is my career better in KU or it of it? Scammers might be taking money from me, but if I'm earning more in KU than I would out of KU, I'm not leaving out of hate for scammers. (Of course, there is more to career planning than money, but that is the metric I use).


I feel similarly to you, but I had to laugh at "anaconda" for Amazon.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

Sam Rivers said:


> His audio books are still there. I wonder why they weren't deleted.


Because they are delivered via a different channel that KDP, and Carter was booted from KDP.


----------



## Becca Mills

I've merged in a separate thread, and I see its posts are now interspersed with what was already here in a not-ideal way. Sorry for any confusion.

I've also deleted a post that referred to Chance Carter in a way not in keeping with KB's ethos. Please keep in mind that we treat _everyone _with civility around here. Civility does not preclude rigorous criticism; it does preclude name-calling, snarky or sarcastic nastiness, and piling on.


----------



## Crystal_

Usedtoposthere said:


> I feel similarly to you, but I had to laugh at "anaconda" for Amazon.


Oops, new phone, auto-correct isn't trained yet!


----------



## C. Gold

Crystal_ said:


> Oops, new phone, auto-correct isn't trained yet!


I absolutely adore phone autocorrect typos!


----------



## 41419

I'm also disappointed with the TechCrunch article. Did they even speak to any authors? It doesn't seem like it. It has a bunch of pretty critical inaccuracies, and is pretty much exclusively focused on Chance Carter. Which is also unfortunate, as there is quite obviously a wider issue here I would rather journalists focus on. The piece here if anyone wants to see it: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/notorious-kindle-unlimited-abuser-has-been-booted-from-the-bookstore

Much more welcome is this more properly researched piece from Pajiba. It's very well done, calls out a few of the major stuffers (there are many more of course), and it documents a few aspects of the entire scheme with screenshots and the like. It's a great piece overall: http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/book-stuffing-bribery-and-bullying-the-selfpublishing-problem-plaguing-amazon.php

I didn't have anything to do with either of these particular articles but all I'll say is... lots more to come! There is also a big meeting happening in Seattle today about all of this. Can't wait to hear the outcome.

For the stuffers who still are stuffing: you really want to call that formatter of yours. This might be your last chance. And drop the formatting hacks too. We see those...


----------



## unkownwriter

> For the stuffers who still are stuffing: you really want to call that formatter of yours. This might be your last chance. And drop the formatting hacks too. We see those...


The wise will listen. The others? Expect more moaning. And excuses.


----------



## Arches

dgaughran said:


> I'm also disappointed with the TechCrunch article. Did they even speak to any authors? It doesn't seem like it. It has a bunch of pretty critical inaccuracies, and is pretty much exclusively focused on Chance Carter. Which is also unfortunate, as there is quite obviously a wider issue here I would rather journalists focus on. The piece here if anyone wants to see it: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/notorious-kindle-unlimited-abuser-has-been-booted-from-the-bookstore
> 
> Much more welcome is this more properly researched piece from Pajiba. It's very well done, calls out a few of the major stuffers (there are many more of course), and it documents a few aspects of the entire scheme with screenshots and the like. It's a great piece overall: http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/book-stuffing-bribery-and-bullying-the-selfpublishing-problem-plaguing-amazon.php
> 
> I didn't have anything to do with either of these particular articles but all I'll say is... lots more to come! There is also a big meeting happening in Seattle today about all of this. Can't wait to hear the outcome.
> 
> For the stuffers who still are stuffing: you really want to call that formatter of yours. This might be your last chance. And drop the formatting hacks too. We see those...


Thanks, David, for keeping on top of this issue for everyone while trying to keep your own publishing empire growing.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

dgaughran said:


> I'm also disappointed with the TechCrunch article. Did they even speak to any authors? It doesn't seem like it. It has a bunch of pretty critical inaccuracies, and is pretty much exclusively focused on Chance Carter. Which is also unfortunate, as there is quite obviously a wider issue here I would rather journalists focus on. The piece here if anyone wants to see it: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/notorious-kindle-unlimited-abuser-has-been-booted-from-the-bookstore
> 
> Much more welcome is this more properly researched piece from Pajiba. It's very well done, calls out a few of the major stuffers (there are many more of course), and it documents a few aspects of the entire scheme with screenshots and the like. It's a great piece overall: http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/book-stuffing-bribery-and-bullying-the-selfpublishing-problem-plaguing-amazon.php
> 
> I didn't have anything to do with either of these particular articles but all I'll say is... lots more to come! There is also a big meeting happening in Seattle today about all of this. Can't wait to hear the outcome.
> 
> For the stuffers who still are stuffing: you really want to call that formatter of yours. This might be your last chance. And drop the formatting hacks too. We see those...


Can't wait. Great work, David.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

Crystal_ said:


> Absolutely, but there's really nothing we can do about anaconda unwillingness to take on scammers (outside of pleas to the KDP team). The decision should be is my career better in KU or it of it? Scammers might be taking money from me, but if I'm earning more in KU than I would out of KU, I'm not leaving out of hate for scammers. (Of course, there is more to career planning than money, but that is the metric I use).


_Business decisions are not always about profit. Ethics and personal beliefs matter too._

The entire KU system is basically the Hunger Games. Authors are pitted against one another to fight over a finite pile of money in an arbitrary pool. I've never liked the idea, I miss the old days when everyone was wide. Those days aren't coming back, but I also know too many authors who've made wide work. So why not try it myself? I'll just be over here quietly and slowly building my house out of bricks. Oink Oink.

So today's big issue is stuffing, what's next? Because as long as the KU ecosystem works the way it does, it provides a tempting target for scamming. There's always something new, always.


----------



## BellaJames

dgaughran said:


> I'm also disappointed with the TechCrunch article. Did they even speak to any authors? It doesn't seem like it. It has a bunch of pretty critical inaccuracies, and is pretty much exclusively focused on Chance Carter. Which is also unfortunate, as there is quite obviously a wider issue here I would rather journalists focus on. The piece here if anyone wants to see it: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/notorious-kindle-unlimited-abuser-has-been-booted-from-the-bookstore
> 
> Much more welcome is this more properly researched piece from Pajiba. It's very well done, calls out a few of the major stuffers (there are many more of course), and it documents a few aspects of the entire scheme with screenshots and the like. It's a great piece overall: http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/book-stuffing-bribery-and-bullying-the-selfpublishing-problem-plaguing-amazon.php
> 
> I didn't have anything to do with either of these particular articles but all I'll say is... lots more to come! There is also a big meeting happening in Seattle today about all of this. Can't wait to hear the outcome.
> 
> For the stuffers who still are stuffing: you really want to call that formatter of yours. This might be your last chance. And drop the formatting hacks too. We see those...


Thank you David for pointing out these articles.

I kept talking about [one of these publishers] without mentioning her name (hope it's ok to mention her name now _[We'd prefer not, thanks. - Becca]_) who has been stuffing and misplacing her books for a long time now. She writes erotica and keeps putting them under contemporary romance and I am tired of seeing her books all over the romance chart and now on the main top 100.

There are some good romance books and authors out there being kept out of the top spots because of these [publishers]. I read Carters first book a couple years ago  and I am surprised that he started doing this because he was releasing full length novels (no stuffing) at the start and getting some ok reviews on goodreads.

I also didn't realise he was writing under a couple other names or getting them ghostwritten.

_
Someone's started a petition to bring back his books. _ Reading some of the comments, it's sad that some readers don't understand the impact these authors actions have on other authors and on the way this damages the self-publishing industry/community.

_Edited; please don't use "scammer" in reference to particular a individual(s), per our rules against name-calling. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Dpock

Gentleman Zombie said:


> [
> The entire KU system is basically the Hunger Games. Authors are pitted against one another to fight over a finite pile of money in an arbitrary pool.


That was certainly the case before the 10% ruling. I'm sure Amazon will soon also realize they have to eliminate box-sets, collections, and compilations from KU (the boldness of stuffers intent on monetizing the grey-zones is amazing). The KU marketplace will only truly be fair when one book equals one book. Period.


----------



## A.R. Williams

Gentleman Zombie said:


> So today's big issue is stuffing, what's next? Because as long as the KU ecosystem works the way it does, it provides a tempting target for scamming. There's always something new, always.


I think the next big issue has already started being discussed. Collections and bundles.

Scammers will adjust. Everything will be labeled correctly. The toc, blurb, contents will be exactly as described.

Huge bundles & collections will appear at the top of the charts stealing the positions of legitimate authors.

Per page rates will not rise. They will remain as they currently are. Indies will blame bundles.

There will be calls for a harder cap.

There will be demands for only single novel works.

With enough outcry the cap will be lowered.

Then collections will be banned.

The per page rate will still not rise.

Inferior novels will appear at the top of the lists.

Finally, there will be stronger calls against botting and click farms.

Amazon will raise the amount of pages they will redact from previous months.

The per page rate still will not rise...


----------



## BellaJames

I'm sick of seeing authors saying 'you shouldn't call out others authors, karma and all that'. 
I know I cannot mention where I read this.

If these stuffers are doing nothing wrong by giving readers a few more books to read and a chance to win a prize, then why don't they just say upfront:

1._"This book that you think is a novel is a bundle of page turning novellas"_ 
2. _"This book features previously published hot novels, look at this bargain you are getting"._
3. _"I need you to give me a positive review, cause it helps me sell more books" _

One of the books on the main 100 today still appears to be one romance novel but it's a collection of erotic novellas.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Dpock

BellaJames said:


> I'm sick of seeing authors saying 'you shouldn't call out others authors, karma and all that'.


I think bad karma is associated more with not doing the right thing. Also, there's no need to call out authors. Their books speak for themselves.


----------



## Becca Mills

A.R. Williams said:


> The per page rate still will not rise...


I don't think most people who want to see KU better policed believe the rate will rise if that policing happens. People may not like the rate, but they see it as a separate issue; it's not what's bothering them about this situation.


----------



## BellaJames

Dpock said:


> I think bad karma is associated more with not doing the right thing. Also, there's no need to call out authors. Their books speak for themselves.


Then why were some of these authors stuffing for weeks or months or putting their erotic books in contemporary romance? Amazon didn't spot these [publishers] and stop them. Their readers just think they are getting a great deal when they buy one book for 2 bucks and get 20 smutty stories.
They have some decent to glowing reviews and most readers don't mention the blank pages, poor editing or old books that are included in the back.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Arches

Gentleman Zombie said:


> The entire KU system is basically the Hunger Games. Authors are pitted against one another to fight over a finite pile of money in an arbitrary pool.


Actually, it's not at all like the Hunger Games. I can't remember the last time somebody snuck up on me in KU and put an arrow in my back. When you have to exaggerate so much to make a point, it's a sign that your underlying argument is weak.

KU is just a different kind of business option. Lots of companies use subscription services, particularly when it comes to electronic media. KU has pluses and minuses, and everybody can judge for themselves whether they'd like the option. If not, fine.


----------



## Crystal_

Gentleman Zombie said:


> _Business decisions are not always about profit. Ethics and personal beliefs matter too._
> 
> The entire KU system is basically the Hunger Games. Authors are pitted against one another to fight over a finite pile of money in an arbitrary pool. I've never liked the idea, I miss the old days when everyone was wide. Those days aren't coming back, but I also know too many authors who've made wide work. So why not try it myself? I'll just be over here quietly and slowly building my house out of bricks. Oink Oink.
> 
> So today's big issue is stuffing, what's next? Because as long as the KU ecosystem works the way it does, it provides a tempting target for scamming. There's always something new, always.


For sure. It's not just about profit. But it should still be a business decision, not a spite decision. Everyone values different things. That might be the ease of being Amazon exclusive or it might be the feeling of security that comes with being wide and not relying so heavily on Amazon or that might be money. It's great to make decisions based on your mental health (we are the main employee of our businesses; morale is important). But, to me, it's silly to make a decision about being in KU or not because of how much other KU authors make. The decision should be based on how KU affects you and your business. It's irrelevant the stuffers are making mad monies if it doesn't affect your metrics.



Arches said:


> Actually, it's not at all like the Hunger Games. I can't remember the last time somebody snuck up on me in KU and put an arrow in my back. When you have to exaggerate so much to make a point, it's a sign that your underlying argument is weak.
> 
> KU is just a different kind of business option. Lots of companies use subscription services, particularly when it comes to electronic media. KU has pluses and minuses, and everybody can judge for themselves whether they'd like the option. If not, fine.


It's like THG in that Amazon gets authors to see each other as competitors rather than allies the same way the capitol gets the districts to see each other as enemies. It's not literally like the games themselves.

THG is useful for all sorts of real life comparisons. It's really thematically rich. Also, it's awesome. (End fangirling).


----------



## writerlygal

PhoenixS said:


> Not gonna comment about Chance and the scamming, since that's being covered elsewhere. Just want to say how disappointed I am in the TechCrunch article. What a mess and mishmash of the facts. Could the writing and fact-checking be any lazier? We want and need a spotlight on all this -- publicity is a good thing -- but is it also too much to ask that those spotlights be professional in nature? And that aggregators of content, such as TechCrunch, also do a minimum of reading and fact-checking before pulling the content in?


I agree. There is a lot of fake news going on left & right. The articles are full of false information & things being tweeted are completely incorrect. I saw someone on Facebook accuse a big name author of stealing covers & they contacted the cover company AFTER posting slanderous info about the author, only to find out the covers had been paid for. Also a lot of authors are being misidentified & a lot of false information being spun so that innocent authors are saying hey readers stop reporting my legitimate box sets or hey Amazon put me in this category & I had nothing to do with it or people are reporting my books with sponsored ads when I never told Amazon to advertise them on historical fiction book pages etc.

This derails the message & makes all of us in the indie writing community look like a bunch of immature people who like to fight w/ each other & attack our competitors, or like a bunch of monkeys throwing our poop all over each other. There are some real issues that need to be honed in on but the only people w/ the power to fix them are at Amazon so it saddens me that people are divided & ganging up on each other & starting & spreading fake news instead of working together towards a solution that will truly benefit authors.

This is just as bad as the current state of politics so I have refused to participate in smear campaigns or social media fights & bashing. Just like I refuse to fight w/ those of a different political ideology because the people who can change things are the rich powerful people on top, not the little people on the bottom, but they often don't because none of us little people can get their crap together & unite enough to get anything of real import done.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Arches said:


> Actually, it's not at all like the Hunger Games. I can't remember the last time somebody snuck up on me in KU and put an arrow in my back. When you have to exaggerate so much to make a point, it's a sign that your underlying argument is weak.


Your view might be influenced by the fact that your genre isn't polluted by 99-cent stuffed books. Browsing through some of the categories where your books are placed, the top 100 titles show a healthy mix of KU and non-KU books. And the books that _are _in KU tend to be priced at fair market value, usually $3.99 or $4.99. This suggests that your genre has seen only moderate disruption from the stuffing.

In contrast, my genre is new adult romance, ground zero for 99-cent stuffers. And yes, it does feel like an arrow in my back when my livelihood is threatened by cheaters.

I always find it amusing when those who haven't been personally impacted by unethical behavior mock the justifiable outrage of those who _have _been impacted.


----------



## writerlygal

I'm not defending Tiffany giveaways & page flip instructions. But the article is full of false facts when it claims that the Chance Carter books were full of nonsense & not real books. They were full length romances w/ plots & HEAs. A lot of readers legitimately liked them.

_Edited. Let's not divert the conversation into the lack of respect that romance writers have seen for their genre nor whether erotica should be in romance. We've had those discussions in other threads.

PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Dpock

BellaJames said:


> Then why were some of these authors stuffing for weeks or months or putting their erotic books in contemporary romance? Amazon didn't spot these scammers and stop them.


Amazon could have responded much earlier by issuing the 10% guideline. It's hard to know if there's a link between David and others sounding the alarm on Carter and, five days later, Amazon imposing the new guideline, but I think there might be. Things of this nature often have to reach various thresholds before authorities will react.


----------



## Delta

Dpock said:


> That was certainly the case before the 10% ruling. I'm sure Amazon will soon also realize they have to eliminate box-sets, collections, and compilations from KU (the boldness of stuffers intent on monetizing the grey-zones is amazing). The KU marketplace will only truly be fair when one book equals one book. Period.


We already had the KU 'one book equals one book' version. That was the original version. Previous to KU, erotica authors had developed markets for their books -- mostly short stories -- where their fans (and fans of that genre) were not adverse to paying $2.99 for these stories.

NOTE in especial that this was before KU. This short story market had been developed by hard-working legitimate authors. They made money -- sometimes lots of money -- for selling their goods on Amazon. And many of these authors wrote serials -- yes, BEFORE KU. Serials weren't a KU invention to scam money.

Then along came KU 1.0 where one book equaled one book. Novel writers were incensed that a 6000 word short story equaled their 100,000 word novel and b*tched and complained about that. I can see the point, as I also wrote novels. It doesn't seem fair, does it? But, then again, they had often priced their 100k novels at $2.99, same as the erotica authors priced their 6k short stories. Whose fault was that? Nobody's. But if a KU subscriber read -- what was it? -- 10%? 15%? of the book each author got paid the same whether epic saga, novel or short story. One book equaled one book.

Of course, the scammers came along and started putting up books so short that if you even opened it you'd have read the required percentage and they collected their fee.

Point is, no version of KU is EVER going to be fair. It is a diseased and corrupt format and has been from the beginning. It is almost as if it were made for scammers to take advantage of. I can't see any set of rules changing that.


----------



## writerlygal

For those who know what's up w/ Amazon: KU is optional & is giving into Amazon's growing monolopy. Going wide on other platforms is a way you can have more power instead of only complaining about other authors on forums & social media all the time. Rise up & take back some of your power instead of handing it over to Amazon.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## S.R.

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## PhoenixS

writerlygal said:


> I agree. There is a lot of fake news going on left & right. The articles are full of false information & things being tweeted are completely incorrect.


And yet, there's a difference between fake news and lazy reporting. Please don't conflate them or make it seem like you're agreeing that I said anything about fake news. Chance Carter is not fake news. Stuffers and scammers on Amazon are not fake news. What derails the message is folk suddenly crying 'fake news.'



writerlygal said:


> I'm not defending Tiffany giveaways & page flip instructions. But the article is full of false facts when it claims that the Chance Carter books were full of nonsense & not real books. They were full length romances w/ plots & HEAs. A lot of readers legitimately liked them.


I have a pen name with erotic romance menage books. Much of what I've seen with the stuffing group under discussion I would classify as erotica trying to pass at its barest minimum -- and yet, still unsuccessfully -- as romance. Simply slapping on the tropes doesn't turn one thing into another.

No reason women can't like erotica or erotic romance. But also classifying it as Classic Literature, Women's Fiction, and all the other categories where they're squatting goes back to an intent to scam.



writerlygal said:


> But in the event ya'all think there is any hope, focus your wrath on Amazon & don't give into Amazon's divide & conquer tactics by attacking other authors instead of pointing at Amazon's greed at all cost profit model.


And yet I can manage to call out bad actors right along with calling out Amazon for enabling them. Personally, I have the time on my hands.

_Edited quoted post and response to the now edited bits. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Delta

Puddleduck said:


> I don't think the "one book equals one book" that people are suggesting is the same as KU1. They just mean that one book is one book, not that every book will be paid the same as happened in KU1. My understanding of _today's _one book equals one book idea is that payout is calculated based on percentage of the book read (as it is, or nominally is, today), but each title has to be only one book/story. If a 5,000 word short is published as one story, it gets a payout of (pulling numbers out of the air) $0.15 for a read, and a 100k word novel is one story in one title (one book is one book) but gets a payout of $3 for a read. Same rate, based on length, but still only one story for one title.


Yes, I realize that. But that would just shift the scammers to a different level. I put out a 150k book -- a legitimate 150k book -- and others have written longer. You figure that a stuffer who uses ghost writers couldn't, wouldn't just have say a dozen ghost writers each write one 'part' of a 3000 KENP book, with each section only having minimal continuity with the others, and then publish it? And there you are, one poorly written, trickily formatted 500k book that the click farms would go crazy for, ranking high do to these borrows and the spending of tons on advertising to get them into the heights. New rules; same game. And then those who want one book to BE one book (not EQUAL one book) would complain about this, 'cause it's not fair.

KU is a broken dysfunctional model.


----------



## Crystal_

writerlygal said:


> For those who know what's up w/ Amazon: KU is optional & is giving into Amazon's growing monolopy. Going wide on other platforms is a way you can have more power instead of only complaining about other authors on forums & social media all the time. Rise up & take back some of your power instead of handing it over to Amazon.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


No. I'll call out the person, people, or organization who deserves blame. In some cases, that's Amazon. In many cases, it's authors. We shouldn't need Amazon to give us spankings in order to behave. We should be able to police ourselves--to accurately label our content and put out quality content--without the threat of action from Amazon. When that doesn't happen, we're messing up indie pubbing for everyone.

Romance and erotica authors often get the worst end of it, but we're also particularly bad about this. There is so much erotica with a tacked on HEA in romance that does not belong there. At some point, customers will complain, and Amazon will bring down the hammer, and it will hurt everyone, not just the bad actors. That goes the same for any other issue that publishers are creating.


----------



## BellaJames

writerlygal said:


> For those who know what's up w/ Amazon: KU is optional & is giving into Amazon's growing monolopy. Going wide on other platforms is a way you can have more power instead of only complaining about other authors on forums & social media all the time. Rise up & take back some of your power instead of handing it over to Amazon.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


You can highlight the problems with Amazon all day long or year long. However don't take the blame away from these authors.

There will always be people who feel the need to cut corners and find a way to make a quick buck. These authors especially Carter know what he is doing is wrong. Carter started off writing full length novels and publishing them just as that, no bonus books, no blank pages, no gifts and no links to the back of the book. I have one of his early novels on my kindle.

Why did he start doing this? Because of changes to KU? So why hasn't every romance author who started around 3 or 4 years ago doing the same thing. Most of them are writing engaging books and working hard to promote them and build a tribe of loyal fans. Some are writing in several genres/sub-genres.

He was the first author that I saw with over 200 5 star reviews in the first week of publication. I wondered how he was doing that. Then I heard him explain how.

These authors who stuff, add blank pages, put their books in the wrong category and then go and teach others how to do the same thing are cheating the system.

His followers and readers defending him today are completely blind to how much this affects other authors, maybe even other authors they love.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Dpock

Delta said:


> You figure that a stuffer who uses ghostwriters couldn't, wouldn't just have say a dozen ghost writers each write one 'part' of a 3000 KENP book, with each section only having minimal continuity with the others, and then publish it?


I'm sure stuffers are already pursuing that course. For that matter, they could just do a "find and replace" on character names and republish five books into one (though they won't bother making sure their heroine's hair colors, professions, circumstances, etc., all match up. They're not that smart.).

So what do we do? Speaking for myself, if I see a suspect book in the top twenty of my category, I'll investigate.


----------



## Phxsundog

Crystal_ said:


> No. I'll call out the person, people, or organization who deserves blame. In some cases, that's Amazon. In many cases, it's authors. We shouldn't need Amazon to give us spankings in order to behave. We should be able to police ourselves--to accurately label our content and put out quality content--without the threat of action from Amazon. When that doesn't happen, we're messing up indie pubbing for everyone.
> 
> Romance and erotica authors often get the worst end of it, but we're also particularly bad about this. There is so much erotica with a tacked on HEA in romance that does not belong there. At some point, customers will complain, and Amazon will bring down the hammer, and it will hurt everyone, not just the bad actors. That goes the same for any other issue that publishers are creating.


I like this. I'm all for reigning in anyone getting carried away pointing fingers or slinging false accusations. At the same time authors truly behaving badly like Chance should get called out. Same goes for the stuffers who were using formatting code and putting ten lines of space between their text up until recently to gain pages. Part of the reason we're in this mess is because publishers with extremely loose ethics started getting high visibility and taking over. Back in 2015 and 2016 stuffing was a lot more self-controlled. Many top romance authors in KU didn't stuff at all. Others might use one or two bonus books or put out a clearly marked boxed set for extra pages. They weren't stuffing up to 3000 pages or taking formatting techniques to extremes to game pages and make their books hard to read. They weren't disguising collections of ten books to look like single novels. In 2017 the brakes were cut by the Mastermind group and other authors like them. These publishers thought nothing of running stolen images as Facebook ads, using exotic formatting hacks, spamming their email lists aggressively up to several times per day every day, stuffing unrelated books to the limit and doing other shady things. If they'd had any restraint they wouldn't be getting the flak they are now across social media. You don't see anyone jumping to their defense because their blackhat tactics destroyed their reputation with other romance authors.


----------



## Becca Mills

Folks, I've just edited a number of posts for name-calling. FYI, it's not okay to call an identifiable person or group of people _scammers_ (or other pejorative terms) here. You can certainly detail and analyze activities that strike you as problematic, and _scamming_, as a general activity, can be mentioned ("Phishing is a type of scam in which someone ...," "Subscription services are vulnerable to scamming because ..." -- no problem). But bringing an insulting label together with an identifiable individual -- that's not the kind of discourse we want here. I realize the line can seem a bit unclear, especially for newer members. If you're at all uncertain when writing a post, please err on the side of caution and use a neutral place-holder. The moderation load becomes too heavy if we have to comb through multiple posts replacing words. Thanks.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

Amazon should structure their policies so there's no need for authors to "call each other out". What they've done from day one with KU, ever since they made it a zero-sum game thanks to payment based on distribution from a "set"* amount, is put authors at each other's throats. We shouldn't have to police ourselves. Amazon should do more to fix the broken system. Just simple stuff like logical limits on maximum KENPC per book and publishing/enrollment frequency. Stuff that they've already done that needs more tweaking.

The "calling each other out" stuff -and I'm not saying Chance didn't deserve it, make no mistake- is Amazon tricking you into doing their work for free.

Their response to the "stuffing" issue has amounted in sum total to editing some words on an obscure webpage in the TOS that no one reads. They didn't even bother sending out an email to alert the community, as they have with past changes. They are *not* going to crack down on stuffed books. If anything they've given them official sanction by altering the guidelines so that "collections" are fine. They probably don't care if a "collection" has new content in the _back_, since that's an established publishing practice from when books were still dead tree format only.

This isn't going to stop unless the KENPC count for a book is maxed out lower, and collections/bundles/anthologies of novels are banned from KU.

There's no reason to have a bundle in KU in the first place, other than to double dip. Bundles are a discount proposition for *readers* who want to buy a set of books at a discounted price. They appeal to bargain hunters. There's no bargain hunting in a 'sales' ecosystem where $10 a month gets the reader all the books they want for free. Having the novels of a series in a bundle all together doesn't give any advantage to a KU reader. It only gives the publisher the advantage of double dipping and putting out a file with a higher KENPC.

Bundles should be allowed in the paid store only, not KU. They don't belong there. This is a pretty simple thing, it needs to be either/or and Amazon needs to take steps with the way the program operates that can't be circumvented and don't depend on Amazon listening when an author/reader identifies a book and complains. They keep making these issues into subjective decisions, because subjective, decision-based TOS changes give Amazon legal coverage to give the boot to someone screwing _them_ if they feel like it without any obligation to make the program fair to us, the users.

The only way to solve this problem is to put the users on an equal footing with one another and take reliance on Amazon acting on reports and making subjective judgements about what's a valid "bundle" or "bonus book" out of the equation.

*The Select fund is not set in any way. I'm sure there's a maximum budget that they can't exceed, but they tailor the exact number they give us on the 15th of the month to whatever it needs to be to keep the per page rate to a .0044 to .0052 range. When they say they don't know what it is, they're telling a technical, half truth. They know that it will be enough to set the per page rate where they want it, but they also don't know exactly what that number will be in advance. It's a half truth, buyoed by their refusal to talk about the system in terms of per page rate, favoring explaining it terms of "shares" and "proportions" of a meaningless number.


----------



## A.R. Williams

Puddleduck said:


> I followed your train of logic through most of that, but where on earth do you get "Inferior novels will appear at the top of the lists"? I don't see how that's a rational next step as you've laid it out.


Writers will look at the books dominating the lists--if they think the writing is good, as in legit, there will not be any problems. If they think the writing is terrible they will say: "That book can't be ranked that high. They must have cheated."

Those books they view as 'inferior' will be believed to have been artificially boosted. (Click farmed or botted)



> Also, I agree with what Becca said about the page rate not being the primary concern, as you portray it to be.


OK. What is the primary concern?

Stuffing? Fixed, right?

Bonus content? Problem solved, right?

Stuffed books unrightfully earning the bonus award?

Stuffed books taking the majority of the pot because of their size?

Stuffed books earning so much from a single read through?

Stuffed books stealing money from legitimate authors?

The page rate is about money. If money isn't or wasn't the major concern of stuffing, then what was?

Ethics? Morals? The TOS? Reader experience? Visibility?

If those were the concerns why are people already starting to gripe about collections?

It's all about money.


----------



## Phxsundog

It's far too early to say what Amazon's response will be to bonus content and how it's packaged. The tone is very different with reps over the phone. Several authors have been told direct by KDP reps that their safest option is to cut all bonus content under 10%. These are higher level KDP supervisors and Executive Customer Support. The reps also say the compliance period hasn't expired but they don't give a specific date. In a few months it might be obvious the response is underwhelming. I wouldn't bet on it just yet. Wait a few more weeks.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

An Amazon rep would have no problem saying "you'd better cut your bonus content to 10%" and omitting that the same practice with "collection" in the metadata and cover is perfectly fine. The never volunteer information or clarify anything that hasn't been clarified to them from above.


----------



## Shelley K

I never agreed to VerticalScope's rights-grabbing TOS.


----------



## writerlygal

Shelley K said:


> God but I want the phrase "fake news" to go away in any context.


The reason I used the term fake news was b/c we were talking about the specific context of the techcrunch article. In the opinion expressed by many here & elsewhere, it is arguably fake news & it is why so many people don't trust journalism anymore. The reporters put their own spin & subjective opinion on things rather than actually checking & reporting on neutral facts.

As far as other things are concerned- I'm not on social media much but I have jumped on to watch this circus a bit & I have actually seen lot of defense of authors & also people calling out what they consider to be bad tactics of those making accusations. When it comes to Chance Carter specifically, as I said I'm not defending him for any wrongdoing but I have seen a lot of his fans speaking out on his behalf & saying they truly love his work. Even some authors here have said they read his books - which is why I think the article should not have portrayed them as full of garbage or fake books etc. My issue was w/ defending the romance genre & romance fans themselves & not w/ defending Chance himself. The readers are being dragged into this & made fun of on social media & that is not right. Without readers none of us would sell any books. It is not a good look to be attaching readers online no matter what genre or preference of reading material they enjoy.

I think that social media is in the eye of the beholder & people see the side they want to agree with & block the rest out. I have definitely seen a division & infighting among authors everywhere I look, which is why I said we are giving into Amazon's divide & conquer tactics. Some parts of my post about Amazon were edited out so I think my posts are being read out of context. I'm not sure what I said wrong about Amazon but I think I'm allowed to say that Amazon is a corporation looking out for its own interests above all else. I feel that most of the vitriol aimed at people is probably better reserved for those corporations who are truly the ones in power. I am not saying not to point out wrongs but I would advise people to keep your dignity while you do it so as not to disgrace the indie writing community as a whole, & try to keep in perspective that it's Amazon's playground & rules , & we shouldn't expect much to change when it comes to a very capitalist company in a very capitalist country.


----------



## Crime fighters

You say to take the fight to Amazon, but also that they're not going to do anything. As for your, admiringly limited exposure to the social media campaign, thoughts on the behavior of those in the #getloud campaign, you're missing context. Nobody is attacking readers and saying otherwise is disingenuous. If you believe that what you say is the truth then I'd ask for you to read the entire threads and not one comment taken out of context. 

What I've seen is the scammers and stuffers fighting back under the guise of being readers, the majority of which now proven to not be who they claim to be, operating under new accounts. 

There were two authors who were called out for stuffing books and then threatened lawsuits because they were in the process of editing their content. That's not a false accusation. That's someone being called out and rushing to fall in line. 

The way I see it is that while you indicate that you're looking at this mess from both sides, you're not. You are arguing for what amounts to silence. I, too, am looking st this from one side. I'm not interested in the side of these people who are knowingly violating the rules for their own gain without care for the wreckage they've brought to the Kindle store. 

This fight is about so much more than money as well. I've seen people argue that the fight is pointless because it's not going to change the rate. That's fine. I don't care about that. What I do care about is that this plague has left a stain on Indie publishing that's only going to become worse with the passing of time. I care that if I were to spend money on AMS ads, I have to spend a whole lot more because these stuffers are able to outspend legitimate authors, therefore limiting visibility.

As for the quality of Chance Carter's books, that's debatable but it's not a debate I feel we should be having. I personally think they're terrible books but that doesn't mean others don't enjoy them. Readers are allowed to have the space to make their own decisions on the matter. This also shouldn't be a debate about ghostwriters. 

Maybe Amazon has done all they're going to do. Maybe they'll finally bring the hammer down. In a fight for the soul of indie publishing, we all know they eventually have to. I'm not going to stay silent and hope for that to happen. The louder we get (authors, readers, the media), the less choice they'll have but to listen.


----------



## AltMe

ParkerAvrile said:


> Considering it's 2018, yeah, you almost *have* to be the last/only person on earth who still buys DVDs. Sorry.


Not the last. In the US perhaps.

In Australia, our internet is so bad, and so expensive, dvd's make a much better choice. Streaming works for those who watch something once, and not all that often. But for those like me who re-watch year after year, the download costs would be prohibitive. We dont get super fast cable. Even the new NBN is fiber optics grafted to copper wire, and a fraction of the speed it should be, not to mention it's taking forever to be completed.

I was in Miami last year, and the hotel wifi was about 100 times faster than our cable.

Until such time as the Australian cable system is taken out of the 19th century, its DVD's, Blue-rays, and 4K's which keep me entertained.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Chiming in with others...I still buy DVDs too, quite frequently, in fact.


----------



## Confused Fairywren

RPatton said:


> The next step won't be curbing maximum KENPC or prohibiting duplicate content, it will be disallowing any external links.


This is a chilling idea. That would curtail a lot of mailing list building. And unfortunately I think you're right that this would be Amazon's 'quick and easy' solution to things like the illegal lottery link.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Let's not turn this conversation into one about the lack of respect romance writers see for their genre.  That's a whole 'nother conversation that's been discussed (and shown) many times on these boards.  Respect each other and the genres they write in.  Posts may be edited or removed.

And let's drop the whole fake news thing...thanks.

PM me if you have an issue with the moderation of this thread so as to avoid derailing this thread.  Posts discussing the moderation will be removed without comment.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## unkownwriter

A.R. Williams said:


> Writers will look at the books dominating the lists--if they think the writing is good, as in legit, there will not be any problems. If they think the writing is terrible they will say: "That book can't be ranked that high. They must have cheated."
> 
> Those books they view as 'inferior' will be believed to have been artificially boosted. (Click farmed or botted)
> 
> OK. What is the primary concern?
> 
> Stuffing? Fixed, right?
> 
> Bonus content? Problem solved, right?
> 
> Stuffed books unrightfully earning the bonus award?
> 
> Stuffed books taking the majority of the pot because of their size?
> 
> Stuffed books earning so much from a single read through?
> 
> Stuffed books stealing money from legitimate authors?
> 
> The page rate is about money. If money isn't or wasn't the major concern of stuffing, then what was?
> 
> Ethics? Morals? The TOS? Reader experience? Visibility?
> 
> If those were the concerns why are people already starting to gripe about collections?
> 
> It's all about money.


I don't know about you, but I can focus on more than one motivation for doing something. Of course it's about money. These people are raking it in and stopping legitimate books from achieving the payments they would normally get. They're hurting innocent authors by targeting them with their click farms, making their actions look more legit. This is costing people their accounts, making them think they're making more than they are, and causing huge amounts of stress worrying over getting the account back.

They're also offending my sense of morals, and apparently those of a lot of other people. YMMV But don't forget, when one defends the indefensible, one might come out covered in the same... blanket.



> During a period when reviews were being blocked due to a glitch, Chance panicked and broke the law. What happened to Chance wasn't about book stuffing. What happened to Chance was about the things people do when they panic.


Seriously? Panic over a temporary glitch to the point of breaking Federal law? He's been around Amazon long enough to know these things happen. You don't start cheating and scheming over something that will be fixed in a few days. Besides, from all I've seen, this is something he's been working for a while, he just got bolder because Amazon didn't stop him. I thought I'd heard every possible defense of this behavior. Now I know it only gets worse.


----------



## 41419

she-la-ti-da said:


> Seriously? Panic over a temporary glitch to the point of breaking Federal law? He's been around Amazon long enough to know these things happen. You don't start cheating and scheming over something that will be fixed in a few days. Besides, from all I've seen, this is something he's been working for a while, he just got bolder because Amazon didn't stop him. I thought I'd heard every possible defense of this behavior. Now I know it only gets worse.


I have evidence that Chance Carter repeatedly broke the rules against review manipulation. This was no one off, it was a permanent part of his approach to "marketing."


----------



## MissingAlaska

TimothyEllis said:


> Not the last. In the US perhaps.
> 
> In Australia, our internet is so bad, and so expensive,


I'm in the US and still use DVDs. I live in a rural area and rely on a cellphone connection for internet. While I am able to stream video, it eats up data pretty quickly. A large percentage of the rural US has ZERO access to true broadband. People often forget that.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

A friendly reminder that this thread is not about DVD sales, thanks. Though that would be a great discussion in Not Quite Kindle.


----------



## Ava Glass

More news stories. This is why talking is so important.

Not surprisingly, Amazon didn't respond to Inc's request for comment.

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/amazon-book-stuffing-authors-scam-chance-carter-romance-kindle-unlimited.html



> The most intelligent suggestion I've seen is to cap the payout per book at the (non-Unlimited) price of the book. There is no other situation--not even on Amazon--where authors take in 100 percent of what readers pay for a book. So it's particularly absurd to have an author make $13.50 when someone reads a book that they paid 99 cents for.


----------



## unkownwriter

dgaughran said:


> I have evidence that Chance Carter repeatedly broke the rules against review manipulation. This was no one off, it was a permanent part of his approach to "marketing."


That's my understanding of how he's been working. He's not the only one, just the one who got caught doing illegal things, not just acting against TOS.


----------



## David VanDyke

she-la-ti-da said:


> That's my understanding of how he's been working. He's not the only one, just the one who got caught doing illegal things, not just acting against TOS.


If Amazon really wants to make an example of someone like CC, they could report him to all 50 states' attorneys-general, as well as the feds, and lobby to get them to take action. Depending on the laws, he could be viewed as running an illegal lottery in all 50 states, and even other countries too, perhaps.


----------



## Ava Glass

RPatton said:


> Well first, it isn't that difficult to get a profile on Inc. This isn't a magazine where they should be a fact checker and an editor checking on sources. This is essentially no different than Huff Post. If I ran a business, I wouldn't comment for an Inc "author" either. Having the ability to post on any of those sites is not an assumption of authority. It's a self ascribed status, not achieved and not given.
> 
> Also, the idea that the removal of the books is because of the bonus books had been demonstrably shown to not be likely at all. First, the tos says as long as the duplicate content is correctly labeled, they're okay with it. Books advertised as single title books cannot exceed 10% bonus content and Amazon has given authors time to update their books.
> 
> Correlation doesn't mean Causation. Just because this happened when the notices came out about bonus books doesn't mean bonus books caused the removal of the catalog. The books were likely removed because of the illegal lottery, potential review manipulation, and incentivized reviews.


Inc isn't Medium. "Create your profile" isn't for writers, but businesses. This is the staff:

https://www.inc.com/staff/a/h

Also, nowhere does the article state Carter was booted for stuffing. The article in fact says that Amazon's exact reasons for booting Carter are unknown.

ETA: and I happen to think reporters bugging Amazon about this is a good thing. May there be more.


----------



## BGArcher

MmmmmPie said:


> Chiming in with others...I still buy DVDs too, quite frequently, in fact.


If I truly love the content I buy it on blu ray/digital/4k/dvd package that I like. Yes, streaming works most of the time, but when it doesn't, I want to be able to access great films and shows. I will say since Netflix Hulu Amazon I will now buy way less shows. Movies though I still like to have a physical copy of.


----------



## Phxsundog

Just heard more authors are getting emails from Amazon asking them to remove bonus content in five days or books will be taken off sale. One person received notice for a clearly labeled boxed set. Hard to believe collections and compilations will be allowed. We'll find out next week when the purge starts.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> Just heard more authors are getting emails from Amazon asking them to remove bonus content in five days or books will be taken off sale. One person received notice for a clearly labeled boxed set. Hard to believe collections and compilations will be allowed. We'll find out next week when the purge starts.


That's great to hear. I hate to get my hopes up, but this is the most encouraging news we've had in a while. I can't help but wonder how much of this stems from bad publicity.


----------



## Ava Glass

Phxsundog said:


> Hard to believe collections and compilations will be allowed.


Allowed in KU or KDP?


----------



## Phxsundog

Ava Glass said:


> Allowed in KU or KDP?


KU I think. Soon we'll know for sure or if this is just a one off.


----------



## Ava Glass

Phxsundog said:


> KU I think. Soon we'll know for sure or if this is just a one off.


Potential dates for KU announcements: June 15, July 1 (June 29 or July 2 this year), July 15 (14 this year), Aug 1.


----------



## unkownwriter

If they say no more collections/bundles/compilations/box sets in KU, I will gladly remove mine. If it will help to drain the swamp, no problem. If they're still allowing stuffed books, click farms and paid reviews, then I'll not be a happy camper. I suspect it will be the latter reaction. Prove me wrong, Amazon.


----------



## AltMe

she-la-ti-da said:


> If they say no more collections/bundles/compilations/box sets in KU, I will gladly remove mine. If it will help to drain the swamp, no problem. If they're still allowing stuffed books, click farms and paid reviews, then I'll not be a happy camper. I suspect it will be the latter reaction. Prove me wrong, Amazon.


#ProvemewrongAmazon


----------



## Used To Be BH

she-la-ti-da said:


> If they say no more collections/bundles/compilations/box sets in KU, I will gladly remove mine. If it will help to drain the swamp, no problem. If they're still allowing stuffed books, click farms and paid reviews, then I'll not be a happy camper. I suspect it will be the latter reaction. Prove me wrong, Amazon.


Amazon isn't known for its consistency. That said, if they're expanding the "no more than 10% bonus content" restriction to prohibit compilations and collections, they might actually be able to do that consistently. Even bots could be fairly good at weeding out box sets and compilations, and excess bonus content (the exceptions being things that are grossly mislabeled). If Amazon is willing invest a little human effort in weeding those out, the system could actually be fairly evenly administered. In the beginning, books would probably have to be reported for mislabeling, but cleanup could still be relatively rapid.

Amazon doesn't actually allow click farms or paid reviews. It just isn't very good at differentiated real activity from fake activity, as we know from the people who get hit with false positives while obvious scammers don't get hit. I'll predict getting rid of click farms in particular is going to be a long process.

I see some hope, though, in the fact that Amazon is pursuing bonus content with some degree of vigor. At times in the past, there's been a high profile strike or two when an issue came up, and then activity more or less ceased--more keeping up appearances than changing the underlying reality. With so many authors getting notices, it appears to me that this time might be different. Of course, only time will tell...


----------



## Dpock

Phxsundog said:


> Just heard more authors are getting emails from Amazon asking them to remove bonus content in five days or books will be taken off sale. One person received notice for a clearly labeled boxed set. Hard to believe collections and compilations will be allowed. We'll find out next week when the purge starts.


Can anyone else confirm this? I haven't been able to. Not questioning Phxsundog--just wondering if others can chime in.


----------



## Ava Glass

http://www.cracked.com/article_25681_the-stupid-stupid-way-scammers-are-ripping-off-amazon.html

More press.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Ava Glass said:


> http://www.cracked.com/article_25681_the-stupid-stupid-way-scammers-are-ripping-off-amazon.html
> 
> More press.


Thanks for the link. The word is spreading.


----------



## unkownwriter

I've seen the contents of an email elsewhere (not giving any details to protect where), so they are definitely coming. As usual, some people who aren't stuffing are going to get them, but that's how it works with bots.

Amazon may not actually "allow" click farms and fake reviews, but by not acting on these issues when they were reported multiple times, with evidence, they've certainly turned a blind eye to it. Result is the same, people taking advantage of a system that was so easily gamed, you might think the scammers came up with it. All of this could have been avoided it Amazon had simply set in place some strict rules when they rolled out Select, like no short stories, no entry unless the author demonstrated a certain level of sales, no entry for books that were badly formatted, poorly written (not content but logistics, like spelling errors). Something "Select" should be, well select. It's like me trying to sell a dog food patty as filet mignon, and at the price for it. No one with any sense would think that's a good idea.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

she-la-ti-da said:


> Something "Select" should be, well select.


It's 'select' for authors, but for readers, it's 'unlimited'. Quantity not quality. Somewhat different emphasis.


----------



## Used To Be BH

she-la-ti-da said:


> I've seen the contents of an email elsewhere (not giving any details to protect where), so they are definitely coming. As usual, some people who aren't stuffing are going to get them, but that's how it works with bots.
> 
> Amazon may not actually "allow" click farms and fake reviews, but by not acting on these issues when they were reported multiple times, with evidence, they've certainly turned a blind eye to it. Result is the same, people taking advantage of a system that was so easily gamed, you might think the scammers came up with it. All of this could have been avoided it Amazon had simply set in place some strict rules when they rolled out Select, like no short stories, no entry unless the author demonstrated a certain level of sales, no entry for books that were badly formatted, poorly written (not content but logistics, like spelling errors). Something "Select" should be, well select. It's like me trying to sell a dog food patty as filet mignon, and at the price for it. No one with any sense would think that's a good idea.


There's no doubt the system could be run much better than it is. Entry requirements to put books in KU would have been a good start, though, as Pauline says, the emphasis in advertising the program to readers often mentions the number of books available. As a reader, I'd be happier with a smaller selection of high-quality books than a larger one exploited by scammers.

All of that said, Amazon hasn't exactly turned a blind eye to the problems. What it has done is overuse bots and underuse human beings. Every time it tries to crack down on click farms--which, it has, many times--it catches so many innocent people in the net and has to deal with so many complaints that it quickly backs down. Given the fact that click farms target legitimate books as well as scam books to camouflage their activities, that's a hard thing to control from the author side, even with human beings looking at the results. To control it from the customer side, Amazon would have to make it harder to open new accounts, which I'm sure it's reluctant to do. That gives it a limited range of options.

The more I think about it, the more I think you have the right idea: some kind of TOS curation of KU. If every book is examined to be sure it meets the TOS before it enrolls, that would make like more difficult for scammers. They could still work within a system like that, but they'd have to have genuine books to do it with. If some kind of sales minimum were added to qualify, as you suggest, that would make it even harder for scammers (and for authors just starting out, though). I'd like such a sales minimum to be per author rather than per book. You don't want to have to twiddle your thumbs every time you release a new book in a series for it to work its way into KU. Such a restriction would force scammers to work for outright sales or find another area to exploit. It would take a long time to screen all the books currently in KU, but it may be a necessary step at some point if Amazon truly wants to have a viable system.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Bill Hiatt said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think you have the right idea: some kind of TOS curation of KU. If every book is examined to be sure it meets the TOS before it enrolls, that would make like more difficult for scammers. They could still work within a system like that, but they'd have to have genuine books to do it with. If some kind of sales minimum were added to qualify, as you suggest, that would make it even harder for scammers (and for authors just starting out, though). I'd like such a sales minimum to be per author rather than per book. You don't want to have to twiddle your thumbs every time you release a new book in a series for it to work its way into KU. Such a restriction would force scammers to work for outright sales or find another area to exploit. It would take a long time to screen all the books currently in KU, but it may be a necessary step at some point if Amazon truly wants to have a viable system.


Having someone check the books would be ideal. But authors get impatient waiting 2 - 3 days for their books to become 'live'. I can't imagine them enjoying waiting weeks or months waiting for a human to give the ok. 
Authors also use KU to gain visibility. If they have to wait for sales before they can enrol in KU it could be a long wait.


----------



## Viper Spaulding

"Having someone check the books would be ideal. But authors get impatient waiting 2 - 3 days for their books to become 'live'. I can't imagine them enjoying waiting weeks or months waiting for a human to give the ok."

Maybe only have the books that are 500+ pages checked by a human (or some other reasonable limit).  Then, all the legitimate single books would be published as usual, with only the potentially stuffed books being checked to verify content.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Having someone check the books would be ideal. But authors get impatient waiting 2 - 3 days for their books to become 'live'. I can't imagine them enjoying waiting weeks or months waiting for a human to give the ok.
> Authors also use KU to gain visibility. If they have to wait for sales before they can enrol in KU it could be a long wait.


Checking doesn't have to mean reading the whole thing--or even close. How long does it take a human to determine if a book meets the TOS? I'd say a few minutes at most. And it isn't a question of waiting for the book to go live. It's a question of waiting for the book to be enrolled in KU.

It's true that KU can help with visibility--but not so much in its present condition, with scammers seizing more and more slots on the bestseller list. The way I see it, KU as presently constituted will just become more and more dysfunctional for the average author. Unless we all want to see KU die or remain as a scammer's paradise, some changes need to be made. Amazon is taking some steps, but, as she-la-ti-da points out, scammers can still operate without bonus content.

My experience may not be typical, but I notice new releases typically don't pick up in KU right away. I get some sales, and then KU readers start to notice the book. I've yet to have a release that took off in KU without having a fair number of sales first. If that's typical, requiring some sales prior to entry in KU might not be as much as a handicap as you think. A small delay in a scammer-free environment might actually produce more visibility than instant enrollment in a jungle where the visibility is largely being soaked up by scammers.


----------



## Becca Mills

Welcome to KBoards, Viper Spaulding.


----------



## 39416

Just a quick question --when I type in "top romance in Kindle Store" the first _and_ fourth book appear to me to be the same book (a collection of the original book and five added books). How does that work? And the first one says "Sponsored." What is that?


----------



## Phxsundog

loraininflorida said:


> Just a quick question --when I type in "top romance in Kindle Store" the first _and_ fourth book appear to me to be the same book (a collection of the original book and five added books). How does that work? And the first one says "Sponsored." What is that?


Sponsored is an AMS ad. Many authors bid for ads on their own titles. That's probably why you're seeing it twice.


----------



## 39416

Phxsundog said:


> Sponsored is an AMS ad. Many authors bid for ads on their own titles. That's probably why you're seeing it twice.


Thanks. I didn't know that.


----------



## 101569

I don't know if this has been suggested yet or not. Now that Amazon is limiting content added or required a book to be labelled collection etc, what if they made it is own group. The best sellers in collections etc wont show within the single title lists. They can still be romance collections adding sub genres to find what you are looking for, but they wont block all the single titles from best sellers lists. They could do that for all other genres as well.

This way they can keep the KNEP limits the same which is good for doorstop books, and collections can still be in KU.


----------



## Avery342

Was amazed to find a habitual stuffer that seemed to have a book following ALL the rules. One book and only two "samples" in the back. So I borrowed the book in KU to check it further.

First of all the file size is almost 3500 kb. Dang big file for 320 printed pages, huh? So the main book does end after 90%, so totally legit, right?

Then why is the print so much larger than any other book I've read from KU? And the spaces between paragraphs are there too.

The thing is, I know I'm a slow reader, but Amazon estimates it will take me more than 25 hours to read this 320 page book. I ain't that slow!

So even if they look like they are compliant, they've just moved on to a new way to cheat. I'm betting the KENP for that 320 page single book is about 2500 pages. Of course, can't prove that, can we?

Cheaters are gonna cheat. Now they don't even have to pay for incentives to get their readers to do the page flip.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

Avery342 said:


> Was amazed to find a habitual stuffer that seemed to have a book following ALL the rules. One book and only two "samples" in the back. So I borrowed the book in KU to check it further.
> 
> First of all the file size is almost 3500 kb. Dang big file for 320 printed pages, huh? So the main book does end after 90%, so totally legit, right?
> 
> Then why is the print so much larger than any other book I've read from KU? And the spaces between paragraphs are there too.
> 
> The thing is, I know I'm a slow reader, but Amazon estimates it will take me more than 25 hours to read this 320 page book. I ain't that slow!
> 
> So even if they look like they are compliant, they've just moved on to a new way to cheat. I'm betting the KENP for that 320 page single book is about 2500 pages. Of course, can't prove that, can we?
> 
> Cheaters are gonna cheat. Now they don't even have to pay for incentives to get their readers to do the page flip.


what's the title?


----------



## Avery342

Nate, sent you a PM. Don't want to make it too hard on the mods here.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

Got the PM, and thank you for sending it.

FYI: The 320 page count is based on the print edition. 

I am looking at the file now; I think it really is only a standard novel length; Kindle Cloud Reader says it is 315 pages long.


----------



## AltMe

Avery342 said:


> First of all the file size is almost 3500 kb.


3.5mb. Quite normal, assuming the cover is about 1mb. It's odd how KDP turn less than a meg of text into several, but 3.5mb file size for a mobi is quite normal.


----------



## Avery342

Nate Hoffelder said:


> Got the PM, and thank you for sending it.
> 
> FYI: The 320 page count is based on the print edition.
> 
> I am looking at the file now; I think it really is only a standard novel length; Kindle Cloud Reader says it is 315 pages long.


Weird. Amazon usually does a much better job at guessing my reading speed. I just surfed another scammer and found one with over 1,000 print pages and a file size of only around 2250 kb.

You sure the cloud reader is an accurate judge of pages-- comparible to KENP?


----------



## Avery342

Just for the record, according to Amazon, the other writer's 1056 page book (with the extra spaces too btw) should take me 24 and a half hours to read.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

Avery342 said:


> Weird. Amazon usually does a much better job at guessing my reading speed. I just surfed another scammer and found one with over 1,000 print pages and a file size of only around 2250 kb.
> 
> You sure the cloud reader is an accurate judge of pages-- comparible to KENP?


I think it is reasonably accurate, yes. And just to be clear, page 315 was actually the end of the file. Fire tablet concurs.

In comparison, I just checked one of Carter's stuffed books; the page count in KCR stopped at 249 when it was 26% of the way through the file. Everything after that was still on page 249, LOL.


----------



## Avery342

Thanks for checking, Nate. I'll have to check out that kcr sometime. Sounds like a handy tool.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

TimothyEllis said:


> 3.5mb. Quite normal, assuming the cover is about 1mb. It's odd how KDP turn less than a meg of text into several, but 3.5mb file size for a mobi is quite normal.


Not really - I just sorted my decade old collection and found that well over half the Mobi files were under one megabyte. 3.5MB would put a file in the largest 8% or so (106 out of 1,25. And most of the files in my collection that large are exceptions of some kind - dictionaries, help files, or comic books.

So 3.5MB is pretty big for a Mobi.


----------



## 75845

Nate Hoffelder said:


> Not really - I just sorted my decade old collection and found that well over half the Mobi files were under one megabyte. 3.5MB would put a file in the largest 8% or so (106 out of 1,25. And most of the files in my collection that large are exceptions of some kind - dictionaries, help files, or comic books.
> 
> So 3.5MB is pretty big for a Mobi.


I just checked and the last book I published was 95,000 words and the full size high quality cover Amazon requests nowadays and the Jutoh/KindleGen generated file was 1.1MB.


----------



## AltMe

I must be using a way too big cover size then. All of mine are over 3mb.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Avery342 said:


> Weird. Amazon usually does a much better job at guessing my reading speed. I just surfed another scammer and found one with over 1,000 print pages and a file size of only around 2250 kb.
> 
> You sure the cloud reader is an accurate judge of pages-- comparible to KENP?


KENP pages aren't visible to anyone except the author. The readers and apps calculate pages on a different basis than the one used to calculate KENP.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Avery342 said:


> Was amazed to find a habitual stuffer that seemed to have a book following ALL the rules. One book and only two "samples" in the back. So I borrowed the book in KU to check it further.
> 
> First of all the file size is almost 3500 kb. Dang big file for 320 printed pages, huh? So the main book does end after 90%, so totally legit, right?
> 
> Then why is the print so much larger than any other book I've read from KU? And the spaces between paragraphs are there too.
> 
> The thing is, I know I'm a slow reader, but Amazon estimates it will take me more than 25 hours to read this 320 page book. I ain't that slow!
> 
> So even if they look like they are compliant, they've just moved on to a new way to cheat. I'm betting the KENP for that 320 page single book is about 2500 pages. Of course, can't prove that, can we?
> 
> Cheaters are gonna cheat. Now they don't even have to pay for incentives to get their readers to do the page flip.


The good news is that something like forcing large type in a file is pretty easy for a bot to spot--which means Amazon can crack down on that relatively quickly.


----------



## Ava Glass

June 18 announcement:



> In response to concerns we've heard from authors, we wanted to take a moment to clarify in more detail how we measure pages read to calculate the monthly allocation of the KDP Select Global Fund.
> 
> We have worked steadily over time to improve the fidelity of the KENPC system that measures the number of pages read. For the vast majority of cases, KENPC v3.0 records actual pages read with a high degree of precision. For the few remaining cases, such as very old devices, we employ several processes and technologies (both manual and automated) to accurately measure pages read. In addition, we regularly audit the pages read of top titles.
> 
> Our commitment to the fair allocation of the KDP Select Global Fund remains a top priority. That includes addressing attempts to manipulate our services. If you have direct evidence of these types of activities, we will review every single example provided to us at [email protected]


https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/How-we-measure-pages-read


----------



## 39416

Ava Glass said:


> June 18 announcement:
> 
> https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/article/How-we-measure-pages-read


People have PROVEN over and over that Page Flip causes their page reads _not to be reported_ to them. And yet Amazon can post a message like this. Amazing.


----------



## unkownwriter

PaulineMRoss said:


> It's 'select' for authors, but for readers, it's 'unlimited'. Quantity not quality. Somewhat different emphasis.


Well, sure. Two different things. But how long was it before Amazon was complaining about the stuff in Select? Less than a year, if I'm remembering correctly.

Would it have taken a bit longer to build up a good selection of books if they had been vetted? Sure. Despite their usual let's build this thing slower attitude, Amazon wanted to have an instant collection of books to entice readers. Despite people here and elsewhere sounding the warning that it was going to be full of junk. Despite people telling Amazon over and over again how the system could be and was gamed by the cheaters.

Of course, now they've got this huge mess, half of them don't know how to spot the scammers and the other half doesn't know how to fix it. But, hey. Susie Q. Author ran a legit promo last week, so she must be doing something shady, so lets' just terminate her account. And, look at that! Someone with the same 3K KENPC books will get another bonus! Wheeeeeeeeee! Ain't life grand?

Frankly, if it took a bit longer to get my stuff uploaded to get rid of this crap, bring it. If it means real live people have to look at books to be considered for Select, bring it. If it costs me a penny or two per book (and frankly it shouldn't cost us a darned thing), bring it.


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant

> Our commitment to the fair allocation of the KDP Select Global Fund remains a top priority. That includes addressing attempts to manipulate our services. If you have direct evidence of these types of activities *(other than our own bestseller lists with books that are stuffed, obviously mis-categorized, blatantly formatted to force more pages per read, or otherwise in open violation of TOS) *, we will review every single example provided to us at [email protected]


There. Fixed it for you. You're welcome!


----------



## Phxsundog

> Our commitment to the fair allocation of the KDP Select Global Fund remains a top priority. That includes addressing attempts to manipulate our services. If you have direct evidence of these types of activities, we will review every single example provided to us at [email protected]


There. Take this as an open invitation to report every barely labeled "collection" or "compilation" springing up with the same duplicate content the megastuffers are now using. If Amazon doesn't already plan to crack down on this, they'll get the idea we want it gone fast.


----------



## AltMe

loraininflorida said:


> People have PROVEN over and over that Page Flip causes their page reads _not to be reported_ to them. And yet Amazon can post a message like this. Amazing.


Page Flip was fixed, back at the end of January. When they brought in the "close book" option at the top of the menu, replacing the 'go to library' option.

There might be some odd issues still, but the force closing of books when you change, seems to have fixed things. Until close book is pressed, you dont get paid. But as soon as it is, the next sync uploads the reads.

I had a test going to see if it was fixed, and while it wasn't completed, the exact number of read pages turned up about a week later, which I suspect was when the person picked up his reader again, and changed books. Not conclusive, but when I returned to KU late in March, I saw none of the page flip indicators.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

TimothyEllis said:


> I must be using a way too big cover size then. All of mine are over 3mb.


You're not alone. All my designer covers are between 3-4mb, but my designer also sends me a low-res cover that's 1mb as well.


----------



## bobfrost

Amazon's amazing ability to calculate exactly how many pages are read in my catalog still seems to end up creating quite a few oddball 1-page-read situations.

Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was an old book (maybe they opened and closed it), but it's pretty weird when it happens on a newer release in the middle of a decent-sales-cycle. Meanwhile, the page-flip situation (where pages read in page-flip don't count toward KENPC) is still happening (which I suspect results in many of these 1-page-reads). 

Long and the short of it? I have little faith in Amazon's ability to properly calculate my pagereads.

Anyway, I do know this: Come July 15th, the KENPC rate is going to be similar to what it was this month, because Amazon determines the rate and juices the pot accordingly. People who are good at selling books will still be good at selling books (with or without bonus content), and people who are bad at selling books will still be bad at selling books. Modifying the bonus-content rule or shouting at dudes publishing as women or people doing compilations or people using ghostwriters or whatever else this crazy situation has led to won't change that. 

If you need me, I'll be busy writing/editing/publishing my next bestseller while other people are out scouring the store trying to play Amazon Mall-Cop.


----------



## AltMe

Atlantisatheart said:


> You're not alone. All my designer covers are between 3-4mb, but my designer also sends me a low-res cover that's 1mb as well.


A lot of my new covers are coming in around 5-6mb.

But I suddenly realized why my books are larger. I put maps in some of them, which have to be big in order to not go bad quality on the device, and I also use book posters in the back matter, which used to be all individual book cover thumbnails. All adds up. Those using no images at all, would of course see a much smaller file size.

So update what I said before: A 3.5mb file size is common when there are maps, book thumbnails, or other images included.


----------



## AltMe

bobfrost said:


> Amazon's amazing ability to calculate exactly how many pages are read in my catalog still seems to end up creating quite a few oddball 1-page-read situations.
> 
> Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was an old book (maybe they opened and closed it), but it's pretty weird when it happens on a newer release in the middle of a decent-sales-cycle. Meanwhile, the page-flip situation (where pages read in page-flip don't count toward KENPC) is still happening (which I suspect results in many of these 1-page-reads).


1 page reads indicate the book was downloaded, and opened to ensure it was downloaded ok. Then closed again. A lot of people check the book is fine, but go back to whatever they were reading at the time. Your book in fact may not be read for days, weeks, months, never.

Page flip changed this into a real problem, because the actual reads when it was read, were never counted. But this has been fixed.

If all you see is 1 digit reads, you have to ask yourself what might be stopping the book being read at the time it was downloaded. It might or might not indicate a problem with the attractiveness of the book. Or it might just be too many downloads in a short time, put yours on hold.


----------



## Phxsundog

bobfrost said:


> Amazon's amazing ability to calculate exactly how many pages are read in my catalog still seems to end up creating quite a few oddball 1-page-read situations.
> 
> Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was an old book (maybe they opened and closed it), but it's pretty weird when it happens on a newer release in the middle of a decent-sales-cycle. Meanwhile, the page-flip situation (where pages read in page-flip don't count toward KENPC) is still happening (which I suspect results in many of these 1-page-reads).
> 
> Long and the short of it? I have little faith in Amazon's ability to properly calculate my pagereads.
> 
> Anyway, I do know this: Come July 15th, the KENPC rate is going to be similar to what it was this month, because Amazon determines the rate and juices the pot accordingly. People who are good at selling books will still be good at selling books (with or without bonus content), and people who are bad at selling books will still be bad at selling books. Modifying the bonus-content rule or shouting at dudes publishing as women or people doing compilations or people using ghostwriters or whatever else this crazy situation has led to won't change that.
> 
> If you need me, I'll be busy writing/editing/publishing my next bestseller while other people are out scouring the store trying to play Amazon Mall-Cop.


Reporting is probably what brought Chance Carter's illegal giveaway to Amazon's attention. It also got two Cassandra Dee books yanked for bad formatting. This caused more of the megastuffers to clean up their own formatting issues like putting five lines of space between every paragraph. Can it be overdone or abused? Yes. However it's far from useless. Reports are slowly getting KDP's attention and forcing bad actors into line. Anyone who wants to see changes should continue while people are motivated to do it.


----------



## Crime fighters

bobfrost said:


> Amazon's amazing ability to calculate exactly how many pages are read in my catalog still seems to end up creating quite a few oddball 1-page-read situations.
> 
> Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was an old book (maybe they opened and closed it), but it's pretty weird when it happens on a newer release in the middle of a decent-sales-cycle. Meanwhile, the page-flip situation (where pages read in page-flip don't count toward KENPC) is still happening (which I suspect results in many of these 1-page-reads).
> 
> Long and the short of it? I have little faith in Amazon's ability to properly calculate my pagereads.
> 
> Anyway, I do know this: Come July 15th, the KENPC rate is going to be similar to what it was this month, because Amazon determines the rate and juices the pot accordingly. People who are good at selling books will still be good at selling books (with or without bonus content), and people who are bad at selling books will still be bad at selling books. Modifying the bonus-content rule or shouting at dudes publishing as women or people doing compilations or people using ghostwriters or whatever else this crazy situation has led to won't change that.
> 
> If you need me, I'll be busy writing/editing/publishing my next bestseller while other people are out scouring the store trying to play Amazon Mall-Cop.


And you, as well as every other author, will benefit from those attempting to help clean up the Amazon store. Your snark is misguided and misplaced considering you don't even have a clear understanding of the goal here.

It's not about raising the pay rate in KU. It has never been about that. It's about visibility. It's about negative reader experiences. It's about reclaiming AMS ads from the stuffers who dominate all ad placements and drive up the costs for everyone in the romance genre.

And yet you choose to pretend as if it has ever been about the page rate. So no, the movement doesn't need you. But you're welcome.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> *1 page reads indicate the book was downloaded, and opened to ensure it was downloaded ok. Then closed again.* A lot of people check the book is fine, but go back to whatever they were reading at the time. Your book in fact may not be read for days, weeks, months, never.


Not necessarily. Try this experiment.

1. Download a book. (It can be a free book, or any book that you are interested in -- or not.)

2. Turn OFF your wi-fi, so that your kindle can't sync with Amazon.

3. Page through your new book (either reading or not reading) to a certain point, perhaps the beginning of Chapter 3.

4. Page backwards to a different point, say the beginning of Chapter 2.

5. Turn your wi-fi back on.

6. Go back to the beginning of the book.

7. use the 'go to' function to 'sync to the furthest page read'.

8. look at where it takes you -- it will take you to the furthest page you've read: the beginning of Chapter 2. That's right, the beginning of Chapter 2, not Chapter 3.

So, Amazon only knows the furthest page that you left the book open to WHILE SYNCED to Amazon.

Now, make a supposition. Suppose you borrow a book from KU. You download it to your Kindle and you then TURN OFF your wi-fi. (After all, who keeps it on while reading? That just uses up the battery.) Now, suppose further that you finish the book, return to the beginning to look at the cover once again, and THEN leave the book. NOW you TURN ON the wi-fi, and Amazon counts the pages read as they appear to do by looking at the last page read (which we now know is the furthest page that you have left the book open to when you sync with Amazon): ONE PAGE READ.

Authors I know have done this experiment on books in KU that haven't had reads in ages. The result: 1 page reported read by Amazon.

Above experiment (Steps 1- done today using a Kindle Fire.


----------



## AltMe

Delta said:


> Now, make a supposition. Suppose you borrow a book from KU. You download it to your Kindle and you then TURN OFF your wi-fi. (After all, who keeps it on while reading? That just uses up the battery.) Now, suppose further that you finish the book, return to the beginning to look at the cover once again, and THEN leave the book. NOW you TURN ON the wi-fi, and Amazon counts the pages read as they appear to do by looking at the last page read (which we now know is the furthest page that you have left the book open to when you sync with Amazon): ONE PAGE READ.


That was what was happening. I do believe its been fixed.

You'd have to test it and provide proof.


----------



## MmmmmPie

K.B. said:


> It's not about raising the pay rate in KU. It has never been about that. It's about visibility. It's about negative reader experiences. It's about reclaiming AMS ads from the stuffers who dominate all ad placements and drive up the costs for everyone in the romance genre.


Exactly! I'm mostly out of KU, and even I can see the benefit of cleaning up the store, discouraging scammers, and returning some sanity to the bestseller lists. These stuffers are hurting all honest authors, whether they're in KU or not. The time to report them is now while Amazon is focused on this issue.

And sheesh, they're not even hard to find. Just this morning, I spotted several in the top 100. They need to go.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> That was what was happening. I do believe its been fixed.
> 
> You'd have to test it and provide proof.


I did the steps 1-8 today. That's what happened. I don't subscribe to KU, and I don't have books in KU that you can test -- well, I have 2 left -- coming out in a couple of days, but they both get reads now and again.

However, if you do have a subscription to KU, we can run the experiment. I haven't yet gone wide on all my books, and I can drop one into KU for an hour, you can borrow it, and follow the supposition. The book will be ranked at about 3 million in the store -- no one has bought it in over a year. It'll be a short story, but it's in the erotica section (though it actually isn't erotica), so you might have qualms. If you wish to do the experiment, PM me and we'll do it.


----------



## AltMe

Delta said:


> I did the steps 1-8 today. That's what happened. I don't subscribe to KU


Which negates any test.



> However, if you do have a subscription to KU, we can run the experiment. I haven't yet gone wide on all my books, and I can drop one into KU for an hour, you can borrow it, and follow the supposition. The book will be ranked at about 3 million in the store -- no one has bought it in over a year. It'll be a short story, but it's in the erotica section, so you might have qualms. If you wish to do the experiment, PM me and we'll do it.


I'm not in KU. I'm a buyer, not a one time reader.

You'd need to find someone who is. And is reliable enough to do the whole test, and know how to prove it.



Delta said:


> 8. look at where it takes you -- it will take you to the furthest page you've read: the beginning of Chapter 2. That's right, the beginning of Chapter 2, not Chapter 3.


Its taking you back to where you left off. Not the same thing as how many pages have been read.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> Which negates any test.
> 
> I'm not in KU. I'm a buyer, not a one time reader.
> 
> You'd need to find someone who is. And is reliable enough to do the whole test, and know how to prove it.
> 
> *Its taking you back to where you left off. Not the same thing as how many pages have been read.*


No, it's not taking you back to where you left off. It's taking you back to the last page you were on WHILE YOU WERE SYNCED to Amazon.

Try it for yourself. Pick up a book. Read the first few chapters (say to chapter 3). Return to the beginning. Then sync with Amazon and 'sync to last page read'. You'll get sent to page 1. Continue to read with WiFi on -- say up to Chapter 4. Then turn WiFi off, and continue to read to chapter 5. Return the the beginning. Turn WiFi on and 'sync to last page read' again. (you can't do this operation with WiFi off.) You'll get sent to where you were when you were last synced with Amazon -- Chapter 4, even though you left off reading at the end of chapter 5 and you left the book on page 1. Try it for yourself. Amazon has no idea how many pages we read, only where the book was left open when we have the WiFi on.


----------



## AltMe

Delta said:


> Amazon has no idea how many pages we read, only where the book was left open when we have the WiFi on.


You're making an assumption, with only half the test done.

As an ex-programmer, the 2 functions would be totally separate. And I think this was part of what they fixed.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> You're making an assumption, with only half the test done.
> 
> As an ex-programmer, the 2 functions would be totally separate. And I think this was part of what they fixed.


That's correct. I'm making that assumption. And you are making an assumption that they fixed it. What proof have you? I have none either way. On another forum I've made a request for someone to help me with this. Don't know if anyone there subscribes to KU, we're pretty down on that at the moment.


----------



## AltMe

Delta said:


> That's correct. I'm making that assumption. And you are making an assumption that they fixed it. What proof have you?


Observation. I left KU over page flip. I observed full reads return at the end of Jan, instead of 1 digit numbers, where no books were in KU and so it couldn't be download 1's. I didn't see the same problem when I returning in March.

I also had someone do a test on a book which hadn't any reads, and what was read, was paid about a week later.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> Observation. I left KU over page flip. I observed full reads return at the end of Jan, instead of 1 digit numbers, where no books were in KU and so it couldn't be download 1's. I didn't see the same problem when I returning in March.
> 
> I also had someone do a test on a book which hadn't any reads, and what was read, was paid about a week later.


However, we're not talking about page flips here.


----------



## AltMe

Delta said:


> However, we're not talking about page flips here.


Yes, we are. Books read entirely using page flip mode, and books returned to the start position before being closed, using page flip.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> Yes, we are. Books read entirely using page flip mode, and books returned to the start position before being closed, using page flip.


No, I'm talking about reading a book normally. not using page flip mode. Nowhere have I mentioned page flip. And you only mentioned it later in saying why you left KU. Remember you started off saying:

"1 page reads indicate the book was downloaded, and opened to ensure it was downloaded ok. Then closed again."

Obviously, you weren't referring to page flip mode, because in your opinion the downloader never got around to reading the book, only opened and closed it.

I then said that that wasn't necessarily the only way to get a one-page-read.

The problem I brought up was extant (I believe, but am not entirely sure of -- I'd have to go digging into archives, which I'm not going to do) before page-flip came about.


----------



## bobfrost

Phxsundog said:


> Reporting is probably what brought Chance Carter's illegal giveaway to Amazon's attention. It also got two Cassandra Dee books yanked for bad formatting. This caused more of the megastuffers to clean up their own formatting issues like putting five lines of space between every paragraph. Can it be overdone or abused? Yes. However it's far from useless. Reports are slowly getting KDP's attention and forcing bad actors into line. Anyone who wants to see changes should continue while people are motivated to do it.


I think we disagree a bit on the usefulness of this sort of thing. Nothing that has happened has had any real perceptible positive or negative effect on my own income or catalog, and it's a lot of wheel spinning to accomplish empty victories. Nobody "won" when chance went away. Nobody "wins" when you get a book taken down for bad formatting. All the bad actors can get in line and the KU page rate will still be 0.00449 next month if that's what Amazon wants.



K.B. said:


> And you, as well as every other author, will benefit from those attempting to help clean up the Amazon store. Your snark is misguided and misplaced considering you don't even have a clear understanding of the goal here.
> It's not about raising the pay rate in KU. It has never been about that. It's about visibility. It's about negative reader experiences. It's about reclaiming AMS ads from the stuffers who dominate all ad placements and drive up the costs for everyone in the romance genre.
> And yet you choose to pretend as if it has ever been about the page rate. So no, the movement doesn't need you. But you're welcome.


I disagree. The removal of bonus content hasn't and won't end up making any real change to the page rate (I'd love to be proven wrong), and since I'm not currently gunning for all-star bonuses due to the way my catalog is structured, I'll see little benefit if those bonuses become slightly more attainable in the wake of these changes. Visibility won't change in any meaningful way either. The people who were all over the top list a month ago are still all over the top list today, most with no bonus content, some with compilations. The lack of bonus content doesn't prevent them from achieving top list visibility and sales. Most of them have a following, large mailing lists, and are effective at marketing their book to readers. If you think bonus content was giving them those ranks you're mistaken. It certainly helped them make a bit more money than they otherwise would have, but removing it isn't going to remove their ability to buy their way onto the toplist and crowd people out in a profitable way.

After Amazon largely fixed the full-read bug, bonus content didn't lead to some kind of massive income difference. Sure, it was statistically better than no-bonus-content, but we're not talking about a massive bump to earnings like it worked on day 1 of KU 2.0. In other words, the people jacking up AMS and FB ads with high-bids are still able to pay high bids in the aftermath. They're still going to dominate ad placements, and if you think any different you're daft. Have you looked at CPC lately? I have. I run ads all day long, every day. CPC hasn't changed one red cent in my favor. It won't change. I'm profitable. So are they. The authors with followings and the money to push books are going to continue to be all over those top lists.

If you want to pretend tearing down and attacking authors/books all over Amazon is going to accomplish lower ad prices or better visibility for people who aren't already dominating the top-charts, you're going to be disappointed.

Like I said, I won't bother participating in it. I've got books to write and sell, which has proven to be the best way to increase my daily income.


----------



## Phxsundog

We do disagree. Amazon draws clear boundaries everytime they respond to these bad actors. If Chance still had his KDP account and another top bonus for June after running an illegal giveaway, then what would stop anyone else from doing the same thing? Same logic with the bad formatting. Many of the stuffed books with extreme spacing issues were starting to collect bad reviews before they were reported. It was a poor reader experience. Readers won when Amazon sent the stuffers a message to stop making their books look like garbage or risk having them pulled.

Let's go back further. Imagine if Amazon had done nothing about the rampant clickfarming last year. Do you really think a large section of the Top 100 wouldn't be clickfarmed books today? Yes they wrongly rank strip people all the time which is wrong. The alternative, complete inaction, would have been worse.

And it's too early to assess the recent changes. The stuffers who unbundled have pages continuing to come in from old editions. So they can test higher priced new releases with large ad budgets. The others are leaning on the collection loophole Amazing might yet slam shut. Obviously I don't expect these people to disappear overnight but they're not going to be running $2000 per day ad spends in a couple months if they don't have the pages to support them anymore. It's impossible. Their hardcore fans are fewer than the average romance author who succeeds at marketing because their quality on average is so low. They have huge lists and Facebook groups of soft support built mostly from giveaways and free book offers. If you want proof how disengaged their support really is, look at Chance. It took him more than a week to get a thousand petitions from fans who want him reinstated. Yet his Facebook page shows over a hundred thousand Likes and thousands more across several groups plus a large email list. On paper he should be a star. The reality is very different.

The megastuffer group succeeds off huge ad spends supported by bonus content. They'll face a harder time when Amazon cuts off stuffing and crashes their ability to use ad budgets far larger than the author who doesn't stuff, but is just as competent at marketing. There's no shortage of romance authors just as good at marketing and producing better content. The only difference is visibility due to refusal to stuff to reach the kind of ad budgets they use.


----------



## bobfrost

Again, bonus content was a "win more" strategy, and is unnecessary to support ad spend.

Ad prices aren't coming down because people finally found something concrete to attack Chance with.

As someone who runs ads every day, there has been no effect on ad prices by amazon mall cops tearing people and their books down.

No effect on kenpc, no effect on CPC.

The same crowd is going to continue to dominate the lists. Hell, Chance will probably be back with a new account and corporation and end up right back up there like nothing happened (probably under a new name, but you get my point).

I don't think anything particularly good comes from these pitchfork and torch moments. People get hurt, the damage inevitably spreads to those who don't deserve it, and many hours of productivity are wasted chasing tails for little to no tangible benefit. The straw man you're building about a world where amazon doesn't care about people abusing their system is silly. Amazon polices their store without my help. And even those old changes didn't particularly help us. I don't remember CPC going down or kenpc value going up in the wake of clickfarmers being stopped.

Amazon sets the page rate. They juice the pot to whatever number they want. Amazon has added extra cash to the KU pot every single month, in varying amounts. People abusing the system hurt amazon, not me. If taking down carter or stuffing causes the pages read to drop by some tiny fraction of a percent, amazon will reduce their month-end juice and the end result is the KENPC rate amazon decides to pay regardless.

If tearing peoples books and accounts down over relatively minor infractions makes you feel good I guess carry on.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## TaraCrescent

bobfrost said:


> Again, bonus content was a "win more" strategy, and is unnecessary to support ad spend.
> 
> Ad prices aren't coming down because people finally found something concrete to attack Chance with.
> 
> As someone who runs ads every day, there has been no effect on ad prices by amazon mall cops tearing people and their books down.
> 
> No effect on kenpc, no effect on CPC.


I can't tell if you're being deliberately hand-wavy or not, but come on.

The rules clarifying bonus content came into effect came into effect June 1. Chance's account got shut down a few days ago. Almost all the other relevant actors have just renamed their books 'collections'. Of course there's going to be no effect on CPC - ad patterns are largely unchanged, almost all the relevant players are still stuffing their books, and everyone's still doing business as usual until they know how much enforcement Amazon's going to do.

As for KENPC, I'm not holding my breath assuming the rate will be higher either, but given that the explicit 10% bonus content rule came into effect June 1, we have no idea if the rate's going to rise. *June's rate isn't out yet. *


----------



## Anarchist

bobfrost speaketh the truth.


----------



## bobfrost

TaraCrescent said:


> I can't tell if you're being deliberately hand-wavy or not, but come on.
> 
> The rules clarifying bonus content came into effect came into effect June 1. Chance's account got shut down a few days ago. Almost all the other relevant actors have just renamed their books 'collections'. Of course there's going to be no effect on CPC - ad patterns are largely unchanged, almost all the relevant players are still stuffing their books, and everyone's still doing business as usual until they know how much enforcement Amazon's going to do.
> 
> As for KENPC, I'm not holding my breath assuming the rate will be higher either, but given that the explicit 10% bonus content rule came into effect June 1, we have no idea if the rate's going to rise. *June's rate isn't out yet. *


I specifically said a few posts back that I look forward to June's rate coming out and the kenpc rate being the same (or slightly worse).

So far, no change or righteous crusade has resulted in higher KU rates.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Crystal_

bobfrost said:


> Again, bonus content was a "win more" strategy, and is unnecessary to support ad spend.
> 
> Ad prices aren't coming down because people finally found something concrete to attack Chance with.
> 
> As someone who runs ads every day, there has been no effect on ad prices by amazon mall cops tearing people and their books down.
> 
> No effect on kenpc, no effect on CPC.
> 
> The same crowd is going to continue to dominate the lists. Hell, Chance will probably be back with a new account and corporation and end up right back up there like nothing happened (probably under a new name, but you get my point).
> 
> I don't think anything particularly good comes from these pitchfork and torch moments. People get hurt, the damage inevitably spreads to those who don't deserve it, and many hours of productivity are wasted chasing tails for little to no tangible benefit. The straw man you're building about a world where amazon doesn't care about people abusing their system is silly. Amazon polices their store without my help. And even those old changes didn't particularly help us. I don't remember CPC going down or kenpc value going up in the wake of clickfarmers being stopped.
> 
> Amazon sets the page rate. They juice the pot to whatever number they want. Amazon has added extra cash to the KU pot every single month, in varying amounts. People abusing the system hurt amazon, not me. If taking down carter or stuffing causes the pages read to drop by some tiny fraction of a percent, amazon will reduce their month-end juice and the end result is the KENPC rate amazon decides to pay regardless.
> 
> If tearing peoples books and accounts down over relatively minor infractions makes you feel good I guess carry on, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's going to help your catalog unless you're using your righteous indignation as a sales pitch for some how-to books.


No, bonus content makes a huge difference in profits. I made 25-50% more with a single title as bonus. With four or five, it's probably double or triple that. I don't know where you're getting this information but every author I know who previously used bonus content is preparing to move away from 99 pricing because it's not profitable with a single title. If the marketing machines are forced to use good forgetting and a single title, so their books have 400-600 KENPC, there's no way their current strategy will stay profitable. It might take awhile for them to figure that out, but it will happen, and it will be great for visibility for other romance authors.

And if I'm wrong, I'm still happy about the changes because they make the system fairer which is good for everyone who would rather not use bonus books or or see them polluting the store. The All Star bonus thing will make a big difference to my bottom line, so that's a boon too.


_edited quoted post -- Ann_


----------



## Crime fighters

bobfrost said:


> I specifically said a few posts back that I look forward to June's rate coming out and the kenpc rate being the same (or slightly worse).
> 
> So far, no change or righteous crusade has resulted in higher KU rates.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat.


NOBODY is claiming the page rate is going to change. Yet, you keep running in circles about it to make a point that NOBODY is disagreeing with. You call people daft, yet refuse to understand simple math. The difference between $4 and $13 for a KU read is huge, and it affects the scammers abilities to dominate the AMS Ads. Nobody but scammers are paying $1.50 per click.

And then further up, you say people are going to get hurt. Yes, the scammers will and I don't give two shits about them. You shouldn't either, and if you do, you're probably one of them. To continue to deny that cleaning up the store wouldn't have a positive impact for all of us is asanine, and yes, daft.

Next time you venture to respond, please stop arguing against talking points nobody else is even mentioning.


----------



## Michaela Strong

K.B. said:


> NOBODY is claiming the page rate is going to change. Yet, you keep running in circles about it to make a point that NOBODY is disagreeing with.


Exactly this. Those without a good argument love to create strawmen to fight.


----------



## Delta

TimothyEllis said:


> Observation. I left KU over page flip. I observed full reads return at the end of Jan, instead of 1 digit numbers, where no books were in KU and so it couldn't be download 1's. I didn't see the same problem when I returning in March.
> 
> I also had someone do a test on a book which hadn't any reads, and what was read, was paid about a week later.


Well, I found someone to do the experiment, and it looks as if *you were correct*. The person in question agreed to borrow a book I put into KU and follow my directions. I put one in that had 13 KENP. After I got the following message, I pulled the book out of KU (It sat in KU for less than one hour):



> 1: borrowed it
> 2: Checked that it downloaded, but did NOT open it.
> 3: Turned off both Kindle Wi-Fi and house Wi-Fi. (Overkill, overkill, I know.)
> 4: Read story, spending a little extra time on each page. No Page Flip.
> 5: Scrolled back to the first page after the cover.
> 6: Turned on Wi-Fi.
> 7: Figured out how to return a KU borrow.
> 8: Checked that it now shows as returned.
> 9: Let you know.


That was 8 hrs ago.

This morning, I checked and I indeed have 13 Pages read for that book.

For all that work, I'm now about 6 cents richer!


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell

I'm the other half of Delta's experiment. It was my first day of a trial KU account--I got it for the experiment. 

Note that I'm running Fire OS 5.6.1.0, installed April 12, 2018. It's still possible that some of the older Kindles out there don't save the necessary information. But that's a problem that will keep getting smaller as time goes by.

The experiment didn't address page flip. I'm available for that experiment, also.  I prefer short stories, so we're not cheating anyone out of money. (Delta earned his 7 cents honestly--I read every page.)


----------



## 75845

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Note that I'm running Fire OS 5.6.1.0, installed April 12, 2018. It's still possible that some of the older Kindles out there don't save the necessary information. But that's a problem that will keep getting smaller as time goes by.


It will be a long wait in England as the Kindle Wifi is by far the most popular Kindle in daily use (e.g., seen being used by colleagues and fellow commuters). This is because it was sold by our biggest bookchain Waterstones and biggest catalogue store Argos. Then are long lasting although I bricked my recently by having it in the same bag as a leaky water bottle. The Kindle Wifi has not had a software update since well before Page Flip was launched, so long before the return to start error was fixed. Of course that would effect repetitive bonus contenters as much as anyone else.

Prior to the return to start error being discovered I would typically go and view the cover or contents after finishing the book. Page Flip not required to trigger the error when you have a GoTo menu and going to the start via Page Flip would be far too much of a waste of time for me. Of course the Page Flip bug (Amazon's intended design) would also affect bonus contenters.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> I'm the other half of Delta's experiment. It was my first day of a trial KU account--I got it for the experiment.
> 
> Note that I'm running Fire OS 5.6.1.0, installed April 12, 2018. It's still possible that some of the older Kindles out there don't save the necessary information. But that's a problem that will keep getting smaller as time goes by.
> 
> The experiment didn't address page flip. I'm available for that experiment, also.  I prefer short stories, so we're not cheating anyone out of money. (Delta earned his 7 cents honestly--I read every page.)


I've got a book of short stories, and also children books that are obviously short. I haven't had any reads for yonks, so if you'd like to try mine I'd be grateful. They are in my signature.


----------



## lilywhite

Gentleman Zombie said:


> There were even a few posts I read, where folks were fine with making a little less, in exchange for reduced stress and peace of mind.


^^ This.

If your goal is to maximize income and everything else is secondary, then KU is probably for you (at least in the biggest genres). But if you're content to make a comfortable living, wide is more secure. I know I saw Annie say once that if Amazon closed her account tomorrow it would hurt, but she made enough on the other platforms to support her and her husband. In an environment where that 100K you made last month might never materialize, because Amazon might close your account THIS month, so you're not getting paid at the end of NEXT month, being able to support myself on the income from the other platforms is heavenly. It matters way more to me than the potential 6 figures a month, and I mean that sincerely.


----------



## lilywhite

Crystal_ said:


> I've seen a lot of people say they're going wide because of some KU issue that is yet to effect them and I wonder why.


I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but I know several LitRPG authors, as an example, who are going wide because there was a wave of people we KNEW to be ethical getting their accounts pulled. It was too scary.


----------



## lilywhite

A.R. Williams said:


> Per page rates will not rise.
> ...
> The per page rate will still not rise.
> ...
> The per page rate still will not rise...


Bingo. I hate the stuffers and I hope they all get their accounts pulled, but the page rate is exactly what Amazon wants it to be.


----------



## David VanDyke

bobfrost said:


> I specifically said a few posts back that I look forward to June's rate coming out and the kenpc rate being the same (or slightly worse).
> 
> So far, no change or righteous crusade has resulted in higher KU rates.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat.


The best arguments are when both sides are right.

Bob's right in that the payout rate is unlikely to change. KDP won't adjust the rate so legit authors get more of the pie.

But others are right in that, outside the narrow-but-important measure of payout rate, enforcement actions are good for the ecosystem. Everyone except the abusers benefit when everyone follows the rules. Legit authors know what the terms are and can plan strategy accordingly based on known measures and outcomes. They and the customers have higher confidence in the system. It runs smoother. The customer has a better experience. More people are happier to read ebooks (the indie advantage) if the Kindle ecosystem works properly, and if they don't run into scammers, stuffers and repeated content. And the bonus system will be more fair.

It's not so different from cleaning up the city streets. Core businesses may not make more money right away, but everyone benefits in the long run with better quality of life.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

lilywhite said:


> Bingo. I hate the stuffers and I hope they all get their accounts pulled, but the page rate is exactly what Amazon wants it to be.


I tend to agree. Thinking this will magically increase page reads to a cent and open the money gates up for everyone is ... probably unrealistic. Instead, focus on the good of ridding the Amazon store of those who are unfairly gaming the system. Cleaning up the slush pile and evening the playing field benefits us all (and by all, I mean those playing by the rules).


----------



## lilywhite

Crystal_ said:


> No. I'll call out the person, people, or organization who deserves blame. In some cases, that's Amazon. In many cases, it's authors. We shouldn't need Amazon to give us spankings in order to behave. We should be able to police ourselves--to accurately label our content and put out quality content--without the threat of action from Amazon. When that doesn't happen, we're messing up indie pubbing for everyone.


We disagree a lot, but credit where it's due: This made me want to jump up and cheer. EXACTLY.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

lilywhite said:


> Bingo. I hate the stuffers and I hope they all get their accounts pulled, but the page rate is exactly what Amazon wants it to be.


agreed - but if we could get rid of the cheats then real authors would get more of the KY bonus money


----------



## bobfrost

Well, as someone who follows the rules I have no issues with the rules being enforced.

I just don’t feel that I’m the one who needs to be doing the enforcing, and it’s a little silly when people start making up imaginary new rules that aren’t in the TOS and trying to force people to adhere to them. 

And at the end of the day, I don’t think it really benefits me when people do exactly that, as I was trying to point out. People have talked about how scammers were stealing page reads and visibility, and trying to point out that they’d earn more if those people were stopped. I disagree with the sentiment, but all I can really do is share my thoughts and keep on keeping on .


----------



## lilywhite

K.B. said:


> NOBODY is claiming the page rate is going to change.


I don't know where you're hanging out, but LOTS of people are saying the page rate will go up. It's a very common misconception that getting rid of scammers will mean more money for other authors.


----------



## lilywhite

Nate Hoffelder said:


> agreed - but if we could get rid of the cheats then real authors would get more of the KY bonus money


That's a great point, and I often forget it when I start ranting. I should put a Post-It on my computer or something.


----------



## Crystal_

I don't think the rate will necessarily go up--it might, it might not--but I do think this will help slow the rate drop.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

lilywhite said:


> That's a great point, and I often forget it when I start ranting. I should put a Post-It on my computer or something.


no worries - I just realized it myself a few weeks ago


----------



## Crime fighters

bobfrost said:


> Well, as someone who follows the rules I have no issues with the rules being enforced.
> 
> I just don't feel that I'm the one who needs to be doing the enforcing, and it's a little silly when people start making up imaginary new rules that aren't in the TOS and trying to force people to adhere to them.
> 
> And at the end of the day, I don't think it really benefits me when people do exactly that, as I was trying to point out. People have talked about how scammers were stealing page reads and visibility, and trying to point out that they'd earn more if those people were stopped. I disagree with the sentiment, but all I can really do is share my thoughts and keep on keeping on .


If you're referring to stuffing, even labeled as compilations or whatever the scammers are calling them, then they are against the TOS. Amazon's lawsuit proves that point.


----------



## Phxsundog

K.B. said:


> If you're referring to stuffing, even labeled as compilations or whatever the scammers are calling them, then they are against the TOS. Amazon's lawsuit proves that point.


In theory these collections should be violating Amazon's duplicate content rule. However we keep getting mixed responses from KDP about whether or not they're allowed under the new rules. One day someone gets a compliance email about a clearly marked boxed set. The next, we hear about stuffers having one-on-one reps helping them re-title their stuffed material collections. If Amazon considers this acceptable it's something people should continue to apply pressure on. The collections and compilations being published by scammers are barely marked bundles of duplicate content. They're nothing but slightly re-titled books stuffed with the same revolving bonus content across volumes. I'm holding out hope KDP sees the problem with this quickly and slams the loophole shut. I just wouldn't bet on it one way or another.


----------



## Crime fighters

The only hope is that they are building a case behind the scenes, or they're implementing tools to prevent them from returning to the system once they bring the hammer down. Maybe either of those scenarios are a stretch, but I choose to believe Amazon has to know this is a huge problem and has to be taking steps to rectify it. Unfortunately, they've had a list of scammers for 9 months and only one of them has been given the axe.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> The collections and compilations being published by scammers are barely marked bundles of duplicate content. They're nothing but slightly re-titled books stuffed with the same revolving bonus content across volumes.


Exactly. From David Gaughran's blog, here's an illustration of how this is done. Look at all of the duplicate content. As merely one example, [a particular book] is used as stuffing for at least ten books.

_Edited to delete image. We generally don't name names here, whether of books or authors. What you could say is that people can visit David's blog to see a table illustrating how particular stories appear in multiple books. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crystal_

Phxsundog said:


> In theory these collections should be violating Amazon's duplicate content rule. However we keep getting mixed responses from KDP about whether or not they're allowed under the new rules. One day someone gets a compliance email about a clearly marked boxed set. The next, we hear about stuffers having one-on-one reps helping them re-title their stuffed material collections. If Amazon considers this acceptable it's something people should continue to apply pressure on. The collections and compilations being published by scammers are barely marked bundles of duplicate content. They're nothing but slightly re-titled books stuffed with the same revolving bonus content across volumes. I'm holding out hope KDP sees the problem with this quickly and slams the loophole shut. I just wouldn't bet on it one way or another.


I actually think Amazon was pretty clear on the duplicate content rule. It was that you couldn't ever have the exact same content, reordered. So you couldn't have Bundle A, B, C then Bundle A, C, B, but you could have Bundle A, B, C then Bundle A, B, D, and so on.

They've now clarified the rules about bonus content. That still leaves room for a lot of collections of books, so long as they aren't the exact same content.


----------



## sela

bobfrost said:


> Well, as someone who follows the rules I have no issues with the rules being enforced.
> 
> I just don't feel that I'm the one who needs to be doing the enforcing...


So let me try this attitude in RL:

- I live in a bad part of the town where there are few police patrols.

- I see a stranger enter my neighbour's house. I know my neighbour is out of town.

- I see the stranger leaving with TVs, VCRs, microwaves and other possessions.

- I don't bother to call the police because I don't break, enter and steal. Besides, I don't feel like I'm the one who has to enforce the "don't break/enter and steal" laws.

Nope. That rationale doesn't work for me.


----------



## AltMe

Delta said:


> This morning, I checked and I indeed have 13 Pages read for that book.


I'm very happy to have it confirmed.



ElisaBlaisdell said:


> I'm the other half of Delta's experiment. It was my first day of a trial KU account--I got it for the experiment.
> The experiment didn't address page flip. I'm available for that experiment, also.


Yes please, but you cant do it on the same book.



Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I've got a book of short stories, and also children books that are obviously short. I haven't had any reads for yonks, so if you'd like to try mine I'd be grateful. They are in my signature.


Here you go. Check with Jan for which book to read. If you could read one all in page flip, with the book closed at the end. And just to double check, another one in page flip, with the book closed at the beginning. My as well dot the i's and cross the t's.

If a 3rd book is available, try reading half of it in page flip, and closing the book. Leave it for 2 days, or after Jan says the pages showed up, and read the rest. Be interesting to see what pages do show up, and when.


----------



## bobfrost

K.B. said:


> If you're referring to stuffing, even labeled as compilations or whatever the scammers are calling them, then they are against the TOS. Amazon's lawsuit proves that point.


No it doesn't.

It wasn't a lawsuit, and the arbitration wasn't about book stuffing or compilations.


----------



## Crime fighters

bobfrost said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> It wasn't a lawsuit, and the arbitration wasn't about book stuffing or compilations.


We're playing semantics now. Don't you have a bestseller to write? For not being bothered with the ordeal, you're very involved. And the ARBITRATION was about book stuffing when Amazon VERY clearly stated that book stuffing was against the TOS.

That's not up for debate. It's a fact. To try and continue to dance around the issue masks your point with questionable intentions.


----------



## bobfrost

sela said:


> So let me try this attitude in RL:
> 
> - I live in a bad part of the town where there are few police patrols.
> 
> - I see a stranger enter my neighbour's house. I know my neighbour is out of town.
> 
> - I see the stranger leaving with TVs, VCRs, microwaves and other possessions.
> 
> - I don't bother to call the police because I don't break, enter and steal. Besides, I don't feel like I'm the one who has to enforce the "don't break/enter and steal" laws.
> 
> Nope. That rationale doesn't work for me.


That's not really what happened though.


----------



## bobfrost

K.B. said:


> We're playing semantics now. Don't you have a bestseller to write? For not being bothered with the ordeal, you're very involved. And the ARBITRATION was about book stuffing when Amazon VERY clearly stated that book stuffing was against the TOS.
> 
> That's not up for debate. It's a fact. To try and continue to dance around the issue masks your point with questionable intentions.


I read the information posted about this, and I don't see how anyone who read that could draw the conclusion you have unless they went into it with some clear bias.

That arbitratuon was very obviously attacking someone who'd done a very specific exploit against amazon (using click incentives) to maximize income and was not an inditement against having bonus content.

Which is why bonus content continued to be allowed until recently, and it's also why compilations still exist happily on the top 100 list.

Read into that whatever you want, but if we're going to be truthful we should start with being honest and not trying to read the wrong motivations into a random arbitration.

Nobody, to my knowledge, was banned for bonus content.

But it doesn't matter. Bonus content is gone now. Compilations are specifically allowed. Ask amazon and they will confirm this.


----------



## Crime fighters

bobfrost said:


> I read the information posted about this, and I don't see how anyone who read that could draw the conclusion you have unless they went into it with some clear bias.
> 
> That arbitratuon was very obviously attacking someone who'd done a very specific exploit against amazon (using click incentives) to maximize income and was not an inditement against having bonus content.
> 
> Which is why bonus content continued to be allowed until recently, and it's also why compilations still exist happily on the top 100 list.
> 
> Read into that whatever you want, but if we're going to be truthful we should start with being honest and not trying to read the wrong motivations into a random arbitration.
> 
> Nobody, to my knowledge, was banned for bonus content.
> 
> But it doesn't matter. Bonus content is gone now. Compilations are specifically allowed. Ask amazon and they will confirm this.


For your sake, I hope you're right. For everyone else, we will see in the next few weeks. You hve a wildly different view of what a 'compilation' is. And having the same 'book' in ten different books violates the TOS.

I'm going to write now


----------



## bobfrost

Anyway, no use arguing over old news. Bonus content is dead, welcome to the new age .

I got involved because I dislike author on author attacks. I think they’re crab mentality and run counterproductive to our efforts to succeed. I think things can often turn into an echo chamber, and a dissenting view isn’t always a wrong view. I wish this whole situation hadn’t ended the way it did. My interests aren’t just self motivated. I want all of us to operate in as unrestricted a publishing environment as we can. Building extra walls around us does authors no favors.


----------



## Crime fighters

But first...










No bias. Amazon's words.


----------



## Crime fighters

bobfrost said:


> I got involved because I dislike author on author attacks.


Most of them aren't authors.


----------



## bobfrost

K.B. said:


> For your sake, I hope you're right. For everyone else, we will see in the next few weeks. You hve a wildly different view of what a 'compilation' is. And having the same 'book' in ten different books violates the TOS.
> 
> I'm going to write now


I have no compilations and not a single bonus book, so I have literally nothing to worry about. Don't worry about "my sake", worry about all of our "sake".

Keep closing the walls and soon you'll find we're all in a tiny uncomfortable box.


----------



## bobfrost

K.B. said:


> Most of them aren't authors.


I disagree with this sentiment.

You can keep attacking them like that, but I know for a fact that many of these people have and continue to write their own books. Buying a few ghostwritten titles along the way doesn't make you "not an author".


----------



## Crime fighters

> I disagree with this sentiment..
> 
> You can keep attacking them like that, but I know for a fact that many of these people have and continue to write their own books. Buying a few ghostwritten titles along the way doesn�t make you, as DG called me earlier today, �subhuman�.


There is nothing wrong with ghostwriting. Not what the conversation is about. But the BIG guys, the ones we are actually talking about, don't write their own books. Ever. Now, I don't know who 'ME' is, but that's not my concern.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

bobfrost said:


> I disagree with this sentiment.
> 
> You can keep attacking them like that, but I know for a fact that many of these people have and continue to write their own books. Buying a few ghostwritten titles along the way doesn't make you "not an author".


Yeah, nah. They (and you, from what I know) are marketers. It's a job. It's just not the same job.


----------



## bobfrost

Usedtoposthere said:


> Yeah, nah. They (and you, from what I know) are marketers. It's a job. It's just not the same job.


I'm good at marketing. I'm talented at selling books.

But I'm also an author. I've personally written and published an absolutely staggering amount of novels. I banged out 8000 words today. I haven't had a break in my daily writing streak for six hundred fourteen work days (I only work 5 days a week).

Maybe there's a marketing nut out there who doesn't write, but I haven't met them. Some of them dabble in ghostwriters (as I did for a few years), but they usually do that to supplement their writing.

And hell, even ghostwritten books require authorship. I typically rewrite more than 1/5th of a ghostwritten title to fix it and bring it up to quality that matches the catalog I'm publishing on.

Those ten thousand words don't write themselves .

Anyway, what can I say. You can vilify them all you want, but the "marketers" I've met are also fantastic authors (and you have to be pretty good to bang out books as frequently and consistently as they do). Go read their books and you'll see the evidence. They aren't building followings on trash.

Tooting my own horn, but I love my books, and judging from their success, people seem to love them too.

Some authors aren't starving artists, and that's ok.


----------



## Crime fighters

Quality is always subjective, but I've read a few of these books written by scammers and to say they are great books is not something most would agree with. That's not coming from a place of disliking romance, either. Obviously. They are littered with grammatical and consistency errors, have rushed endings, stories that don't make sense, and random tropes thrown together to hit all the right marketing spots.


----------



## Crystal_

Usedtoposthere said:


> Yeah, nah. They (and you, from what I know) are marketers. It's a job. It's just not the same job.


I'd say they're publishers, which is a completely fine job, but a different job. Authors and publishers have different concerns and goals, so we won't always have much to talk about or many areas of agreement.

Still, publishers or authors who mess up the system for everyone should be called out. Clear, fair rules are good for everyone who plays by the rules. Though we'll never agree on what fair is.


----------



## Phxsundog

They are publishers, and the group that often gets discussed so much for mass stuffing and shady marketing practices is no bigger than a couple dozen people. Most of them have their origin in the underbelly of the internet marketing world, which has never had the most sterling reputation. It shows in their strategies, their short-sighted marketing and their (lack) of quality control with books. The fact that their names keep showing up in every sketchy looking Kindle money making master course exposes who they are and where they came from. Three of the heaviest most underhanded stuffers in Top 100 romance gave glowing testimonials on the sales page for the Karla Marie Self-Pub course being discussed today. Make no mistake, this is a blackhat internet marketer invasion. It's poisoning the well for legitimate indie authors and publishers alike.


----------



## Crime fighters

RPatton said:


> Okay. Once and for all. There. Was. No. Lawsuit.
> 
> Amazon filed to verify an award from Arbitration. The verification of said award is not based on any of the claims Amazon made during the arbitration. They could have put whatever they wanted in that filing, as long as it was part of the award settlement. If they hadn't made that filing, the award wouldn't have been valid.
> 
> There was no law suit. Nothing is public record except for that filing, which isn't a law suit. It's no different than going to the DMV and transferring your title from one state to another, except that the judge is looking at the arbiter and not any other parties. The judge is looking for any potential corruptness on the arbiter's part.
> 
> Amazon could have attached a grocery list to that filing, they could have put in the contents to the Rosetta stone.
> 
> Please, stop the myth that Amazon filed a lawsuit. They didn't and they likely never will. A lawsuit means lots of depositions and that all of those depositions will be public record. It is in Amazon's best interest to not be involved in a lawsuit. Ever.
> 
> Actually, it's not semantics. Arbitration and Law suits are very different animals and even a first year law student will say as much.
> 
> Also, in the claim filed, it didn't say that several bonus books went against the TOS, it said posting the same content under different titles went against the TOS.
> 
> I have always been against bonus content, mostly because it trained readers to expect more for less and undervalued the worth of a book in general (those were the objective reasons, I also had personal reasons and my feeling is that they were skeevy in the way the guy with the 70s porn mustache driving the van with the bed in the back is skeevy). However, that arbitration award filing did not say bonus content was against the TOS. Additionally, the filing, as stated above, could have included anything Amazon wanted it to. All the judge did was sign off that it was a fair arbitration, not that any of the claims made by either party had any standing.
> 
> Not calling anyone out specifically, but just referenced this post because it was the most recent. Can we please not use the terms scammer and stuffer as though they are the same. They aren't. Yes, there might be some overlap, but some of the people who included a large amount of bonus content are not scammers. In a Venn diagram they are two separate circles with a portion meeting in the middle. They are not in the same circle.


They're the same. Deal with it. Or don't. Maybe you're a "legitimate author who stuffs." I'd call that person a scammer. Most people would. Some of you are hellbent on diluting this, and the question is, why? It's certainly interesting that Bob was screaming from the rooftops about scammers and stuffers in October. And now they've changed their tune. Did they take an online course? That's certainly a possibility.

And as Phoenix said above; we're talking about a VERY specific set of people here. People we're not allowed to name but maybe that would help clear things up. Because maybe you think this is about something more widespread than it is. It's not.

These people have a history in other industries and schemes. They didn't drop their black hat strategies to become writers because it's something they loved. They brought their unethical practices from other businesses and incorporated them into the Kindle platform.

It is of my opinion that no true artist would defend what these people are doing. Especially because of the irreparable damage they are doing to indie publishing and legitimate authors.


----------



## bobfrost

Crime fighters said:


> They're the same. Deal with it. Or don't. Maybe you're a "legitimate author who stuffs." I'd call that person a scammer. Most people would. Some of you are hellbent on diluting this, and the question is, why? It's certainly interesting that Bob was screaming from the rooftops about scammers and stuffers in October. And now they've changed their tune. Did they take an online course? That's certainly a possibility.
> 
> And as Phoenix said above; we're talking about a VERY specific set of people here. People we're not allowed to name but maybe that would help clear things up. Because maybe you think this is about something more widespread than it is. It's not.
> 
> These people have a history in other industries and schemes. They didn't drop their black hat strategies to become writers because it's something they loved. They brought their unethical practices from other businesses and incorporated them into the Kindle platform.
> 
> It is of my opinion that no true artist would defend what these people are doing. Especially because of the irreparable damage they are doing to indie publishing and legitimate authors.


My position hasn't changed, and I certainly wasn't "screaming from the rooftops".

I was very clear, months ago, that I felt bonus books were fine and that I'd had numerous conversations with amazon where they indicated they were fine. I didn't think attacking authors back then was a good thing. Pointing out that I believe (backed by evidence) that those authors weren't breaking rules isn't the same as "defending" them.

When people finally got amazon to release the 10% rule, I said that was fine. It's not an unreasonable rule and it's easy enough to play by that rule. I can "not care" that people used bonus books, while still feeling that a 10% bonus rule is fair and probably a good thing overall. I'm pragmatic.

And I can agree with the new rule while not wanting people to push amazon to go further, because it tends to lead to a more restrictive environment for all of us without any tangible benefit. Sure, I'll still thrive if amazon gets rid of compilations or something, but given the fact that it won't likely effect my visibility or page income, why should I wish harm on the authors it would effect?

That's not a changed opinion, that's just adaptation to the new rule. It doesn't mean I suddenly thought people who used bonus books six months ago were evil scammers. I'm not really certain what you're trying to accuse me of.

Anyway, I am no true artist. I am an author who puts out quality work and treats my writing (and publishing) as a business venture. I do what's best for my business, and encouraging authors to play amazon mall cop is not conducive to my efforts to sell books.

That opinion didn't come from a "course". It came from my practical and well-meaning nature. I'd rather build than try to tear down.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

TimothyEllis said:


> Here you go. Check with Jan for which book to read. If you could read one all in page flip, with the book closed at the end. And just to double check, another one in page flip, with the book closed at the beginning. My as well dot the i's and cross the t's.
> 
> If a 3rd book is available, try reading half of it in page flip, and closing the book. Leave it for 2 days, or after Jan says the pages showed up, and read the rest. Be interesting to see what pages do show up, and when.


I don't know if anyone tried to read any of my books but here is what I'm seeing today 20th.
_Something to Read on the Plane_ went up 458,999 in rank. There is no sale, so it must have been borrowed. I'm seeing 4 page reads for yesterday. (this could be entirely unconnected to any experiment, but they are the only page reads I've had for the entire month.)

Leon/eggs went up 171
Leon/mouse went up 300
Bheki went up 354
Bheki in Chinese went up 659
The Race went up 95.

These rises in rank really mean nothing as they could be due to all sorts of reasons and would be higher if the book had been borrowed.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

bobfrost said:


> My position hasn't changed, and I certainly wasn't "screaming from the rooftops".
> 
> I was very clear, months ago, that I felt bonus books were fine and that I'd had numerous conversations with amazon where they indicated they were fine. I didn't think attacking authors back then was a good thing. Pointing out that I believe (backed by evidence) that those authors weren't breaking rules isn't the same as "defending" them.
> 
> When people finally got amazon to release the 10% rule, I said that was fine. It's not an unreasonable rule and it's easy enough to play by that rule. I can "not care" that people used bonus books, while still feeling that a 10% bonus rule is fair and probably a good thing overall. I'm pragmatic.
> 
> And I can agree with the new rule while not wanting people to push amazon to go further, because it tends to lead to a more restrictive environment for all of us without any tangible benefit. Sure, I'll still thrive if amazon gets rid of compilations or something, but given the fact that it won't likely effect my visibility or page income, why should I wish harm on the authors it would effect?
> 
> That's not a changed opinion, that's just adaptation to the new rule. It doesn't mean I suddenly thought people who used bonus books six months ago were evil scammers. I'm not really certain what you're trying to accuse me of.
> 
> Anyway, I am no true artist. I am an author who puts out quality work and treats my writing (and publishing) as a business venture. I do what's best for my business, and encouraging authors to play amazon mall cop is not conducive to my efforts to sell books.
> 
> That opinion didn't come from a "course". It came from my practical and well-meaning nature. I'd rather build than try to tear down.


So, if you had a pension pot to invest then you'd rather nobody blew the whistle on a pyramid scheme before you put your money into it? You'd be quite happy to be the last one in where the good money had all been shared out by the guys at the top?

That seems like a strange way to do business.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Crime fighters said:


> Some of you are hellbent on diluting this, and the question is, why?


Seems to me the people diluting the issues are the ones not using precise language to explain what they mean. Instead, they depend on broad brushstrokes to define very specific issues and paint everyone who appears to be standing close with the same accusations.

It makes it very hard to have any meaningful discourse when people are intent on muddying the waters in their righteous indignation, and accusing anyone who does business differently than them as being a scammer, as I have seen on twitter.


----------



## Avery342

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I don't know if anyone tried to read any of my books but here is what I'm seeing today 20th.
> _Something to Read on the Plane_ went up 458,999 in rank. There is no sale, so it must have been borrowed. I'm seeing 4 page reads for yesterday. (this could be entirely unconnected to any experiment, but they are the only page reads I've had for the entire month.)
> 
> Leon/eggs went up 171
> Leon/mouse went up 300
> Bheki went up 354
> Bheki in Chinese went up 659
> The Race went up 95.
> 
> These rises in rank really mean nothing as they could be due to all sorts of reasons and would be higher if the book had been borrowed.


Interesting. I borrowed the plane book yesterday and read the front matter in regular fashion, about four pages as I recall. Then I switched to page flip mode and read (yes really read--cute stories btw) up to page 25. Unless you get credited with another 20 pages or so in the next few days, I'd say the page flip issue hasn't been fixed after all.


----------



## bobfrost

Atlantisatheart said:


> So, if you had a pension pot to invest then you'd rather nobody blew the whistle on a pyramid scheme before you put your money into it? You'd be quite happy to be the last one in where the good money had all been shared out by the guys at the top?
> 
> That seems like a strange way to do business.


That's ridiculous and you know it.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Avery342 said:


> Interesting. I borrowed the plane book yesterday and read the front matter in regular fashion, about four pages as I recall. Then I switched to page flip mode and read (yes really read--cute stories btw) up to page 25. Unless you get credited with another 20 pages or so in the next few days, I'd say the page flip issue hasn't been fixed after all.


Thanks so much. It's still showing only 4 pages. If the 4 pages showed up so quickly, then so should the other 25. I'll keep checking (always do anyway). I've had my suspicions that something was amiss as I used to have regular (but small) page reads and then they just seemed to dry up. If Amazon are genuine in wanting us to let them know about these sort of problems, then I shall begin what could become a lengthy list. 

What device are you using?


----------



## Avery342

I have a Kindle Fire HD. About a year old now.


----------



## Anarchist

bobfrost said:


> That's ridiculous and you know it.


I'm not sure she does.

Everyone is scrambling to come up with quaint analogies that validate their positions, and nearly all of them are total misfires.

Fun to watch though.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Locking this thread temporarily: Betsy and Becca are both OOC until tomorrow at the earliest, and I have some Real Life things to do this morning. To avoid an explosion while the bomb squad is busy elsewhere, I'll leave this locked until later today when I have time to keep an eye on things.

_apologies for not re-opening sooner; real life took a bit longer than expected. PLEASE NOTE: we will monitor this thread and if there's trouble people *will* be banned from the thread -- at the least. Let's keep it civil, eh. This is not a schoolyard and y'all aren't 10 any more._


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## Ann in Arlington

T. M. Bilderback said:


> I'm telling!


There's a 'report' button right . . . . . . . . . . . . . down . . . . . . . . . . . . . there . . . . . . . . . . . . . vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## Ann in Arlington

I stand corrected: apparently some of you ARE 10. 


Still . . . . try to behave like young ladies and gentlemen, eh?


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Avery342 said:


> I have a Kindle Fire HD. About a year old now.


I've PMed you about another 11 page reads yesterday. But no sign of the 25 you read in page flip.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## 75845

I've been updating my websites and came across a very dated article I wrote on the Scribd booting out of romance novels. At the time the common consensus (not shared by me) was that Scribd did not have a viable business model. There would be no point in book stuffing when a reader had to read 30% of the novel before a publisher gets paid However in the light of how KU was gamed maybe it was not voracious romance readers that caused problems for Scribd, but an earlier form of marketers targeting an easy pay day. At that stage all books submitted to Scribd appeared in their catalogue unlike the curated version that exists today.


----------



## Crime fighters

RPatton said:


> That's the problem with rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. Eventually you'll target someone who has shown no evidence of any of the behavior you're describing and you will lose all credibility.


Right. Except that's not going to happen. Unlike some in the GetLoud movement, I'm not targeting anyone. I'm not searching the depths of the Kindle Store for scammers because I don't need to. We all know who they are. We're just not allowed naming them here. And the only ones I care about are the ones I know, you know, and everyone in the romance community knows.



> No we are not. Anyone who included any amount of bonus content, from a novella or short story to 10 novels has been tarred and feathered as a scammer. Again, the logical fallacies abound.


Not here. On Twitter, some people have been falsely accused. I've spoken up about that. But to include the innocent with someone who stuffs 10 books at the back of a book is asinine. Those people are scammers. You can call them smart. Whatever. They're still gaming the system.



> These people? That's a pejorative phrase and is usually code for someone I think to be less than me. You are also making an assumption about a lot of authors without actually knowing who some of them are. I'm not saying that there aren't people who are gaming the system, they absolutely are. And who says anyone has to love writing? Is that a requisite to publishing? I don't see it anywhere in any retailer's TOS. Love or Art or Craft is not included anywhere. It's a business. I don't agree with the all of the tactics of everyone. But. It's. A. Business.


Yes, the people I was referring to are absolutely less than. The people I was ACTUALLY talking about; the one who threatened another author's life, the one who appropriated sexual stories of assault for his own financial gain, the one who iinformed his readers that every author on the planet is jealous of them because of how amazing they are. It's systematic and I'm taking about EIGHT people in particular. Eight people a part of a group who got together and decided to destroy the Kindle market for their own gain. Eight people. Eight black hat marketers who do not deserve your respect or mine. Or anyone's. Eight people who took a course that was labeled with content such as "how to steal sales and readers from legitimate authors." Who were given access to 50,000 emails for a few (illegal).

I've made it clear that my ire is directed at a very small subset of people. You continue to conflate that issue to paint a broad brush.



> Do you think trad publishers only put out books that are lovingly written by an author and nurtured by a doting editor? No. That'd be silly. So why is it anathema for independent authors to treat publishing as a business?


Never even came close to saying that. Of course, it's a business. It should be treated like a business.



> Wait, so now a legitimate author is a true artist? Pretty sure Patterson might take offense to that. So would the ghostwriters writing under the pen Carolyn Keene. If you want to treat this as art, go ahead, you do that. But do not disparage others who choose to take a more practical approach and run their business like a business.


Yes, someone who writes their own books is a true artist. Someone who ONLY uses ghostwriters is not. How is that up for debate? Running a business isn't art.


----------



## 101569

What I see is a lot of people knocking down any idea instead of offering up a better one. It's very easy to say another's idea stinks. It's much harder to actually come up with a good idea.

Here's my viewpoint... If Amazon doesn't do something to get rid of the junk in KU and blocking the best seller list, readers will start leaving Amazon for other platforms. Maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but eventually. You can have a platform that isn't user friendly for patrons especially in this day and age. Shoppers want to be able to look, click and buy in a very short time. If it takes a while to find a book that's worth buying or isn't well marketed garbage, they are going to get irritated. Point blank. 

Several people say build other authors up leave a free market. How do you suggest making the market better? It seems like your only point is to squash any idea that people come up with and not make for a better community.


----------



## Crime fighters

I'm bowing out.


----------



## BGArcher

bobfrost said:


> Amazon's amazing ability to calculate exactly how many pages are read in my catalog still seems to end up creating quite a few oddball 1-page-read situations.
> 
> Which wouldn't be a big deal if it was an old book (maybe they opened and closed it), but it's pretty weird when it happens on a newer release in the middle of a decent-sales-cycle. Meanwhile, the page-flip situation (where pages read in page-flip don't count toward KENPC) is still happening (which I suspect results in many of these 1-page-reads).
> 
> Long and the short of it? I have little faith in Amazon's ability to properly calculate my pagereads.
> 
> Anyway, I do know this: Come July 15th, the KENPC rate is going to be similar to what it was this month, because Amazon determines the rate and juices the pot accordingly. People who are good at selling books will still be good at selling books (with or without bonus content), and people who are bad at selling books will still be bad at selling books. Modifying the bonus-content rule or shouting at dudes publishing as women or people doing compilations or people using ghostwriters or whatever else this crazy situation has led to won't change that.
> 
> If you need me, I'll be busy writing/editing/publishing my next bestseller while other people are out scouring the store trying to play Amazon Mall-Cop.


just caught up with the thread, and this writer gets it.


----------



## David VanDyke

_Quote from: bobfrost on June 18, 2018, 07:49:15 PM
Anyway, I do know this: Come July 15th, the KENPC rate is going to be similar to what it was this month, because Amazon determines the rate and juices the pot accordingly. People who are good at selling books will still be good at selling books (with or without bonus content), and people who are bad at selling books will still be bad at selling books. Modifying the bonus-content rule or shouting at dudes publishing as women or people doing compilations or people using ghostwriters or whatever else this crazy situation has led to won't change that.

If you need me, I'll be busy writing/editing/publishing my next bestseller while other people are out scouring the store trying to play Amazon Mall-Cop._



BGArcher said:


> just caught up with the thread, and this writer gets it.


No, he doesn't. He keeps pounding on one dead horse: that cleaning up the system won't change (in and of itself) the page read rate. That's true, but that's like saying cleaning up the city won't change the average worker's wage.

It's just one piece of the pie. He keeps trying to claim that's the only piece that matters. It's not.

Cleaning up the ecosystem will help in many direct and indirect ways.

One big direct way IMO is the elimination of black-hatters and gray-hatters getting bonuses, which 1) directly incentivizes bad behavior and 2) crowds out legit authors from the chance of getting those bonuses. Frankly, I think bonuses should be done away with, but if they are given out, they should be carefully vetted to only reward those who stick to the law, the TOS, and provide their readers with the best customer experiences. Note that none of that will change the page read rate, but that's moot.

Another big direct benefit will be a reduction in false positives and authors suffering false accusations.

One indirect way cleaning up the ecosystem with permanent fixes will help is that Amazon itself will expend less effort on fielding complaints related to that situation, and should have more available to address other issues. Until now we've been in a Prohibition-type situation, where lax enforcement and wink-wink-nudge-nudge acceptance has corrupted the whole system, rendering policing efforts almost irrelevant.

Other indirect benefits include more confidence in Amazon, more consistency in all Amazon-using authors' production and marketing plans, and less stress on everyone. Everything works better when rules are just and fair, and the rules are followed. Both are needed, neither will change the payout directly--but everyone will be happier.


----------



## David VanDyke

lilywhite said:


> I don't know where you're hanging out, but LOTS of people are saying the page rate will go up. It's a very common misconception that getting rid of scammers will mean more money for other authors.


It will, but not in the rate, only in the bonuses, and possibly in general because improving the ecosystem will please buyers more and they will buy/borrow/read more Kindle books.


----------



## A.R. Williams

The 3PO (per-page-payout) is important. It's what all the angst and vitriol and mud-slinging over the past several months has been about. Now, some people act as if it's not important.  It's an after thought a non sequitor.

But it is important.

Are we to believe all the fighting over the past several months was for a make Amazon beautiful again campaign? A puritan belief in the sanctity of the ebook?

It wasn't.

It was about money, pure and simple.

"They stealing my money!!!"

That's what it was about.

But here's the funny thing--we were all wrong. And the proof was right before our eyes and we talked about it, and glossed over it, and batted it back and forth.

But we never understood it.

The truth is--scammers never stole anything from legitimate authors.

The truth is there is no pot.

The truth is there is no formula.

Scammers never stole anything from legitimate authors. They stole it from Amazon.

The reason the 3PO will not change is because Amazon determines the payout. You get paid what Amazon wants to pay you. Period.

Scammers click farm 10 million page reads--Amazon kicks in extra money to get the 3PO they want.

Amazon removes 10 million illegitimate page reads--Amazon sets the 3PO they want. 

Click farming doesn't matter.

Botting doesn't matter. 

Book stuffing doesn't matter.

Collections and bundles and anthologies don't matter.

There is no spoon.

Amazon sets the 3PO they want you to get. You never lost anything to scammers because despite all our beliefs, KU is NOT a zero sum game.

The payout is what Amazon makes it.

So go out #MAGA (Make Amazon Great Again) if you want to. You won't get a penny more.


----------



## BGArcher

David VanDyke said:


> _Quote from: bobfrost on June 18, 2018, 07:49:15 PM
> Anyway, I do know this: Come July 15th, the KENPC rate is going to be similar to what it was this month, because Amazon determines the rate and juices the pot accordingly. People who are good at selling books will still be good at selling books (with or without bonus content), and people who are bad at selling books will still be bad at selling books. Modifying the bonus-content rule or shouting at dudes publishing as women or people doing compilations or people using ghostwriters or whatever else this crazy situation has led to won't change that.
> 
> If you need me, I'll be busy writing/editing/publishing my next bestseller while other people are out scouring the store trying to play Amazon Mall-Cop._
> 
> No, he doesn't. He keeps pounding on one dead horse: that cleaning up the system won't change (in and of itself) the page read rate. That's true, but that's like saying cleaning up the city won't change the average worker's wage.
> 
> It's just one piece of the pie. He keeps trying to claim that's the only piece that matters. It's not.
> 
> Cleaning up the ecosystem will help in many direct and indirect ways.
> 
> One big direct way IMO is the elimination of black-hatters and gray-hatters getting bonuses, which 1) directly incentivizes bad behavior and 2) crowds out legit authors from the chance of getting those bonuses. Frankly, I think bonuses should be done away with, but if they are given out, they should be carefully vetted to only reward those who stick to the law, the TOS, and provide their readers with the best customer experiences. Note that none of that will change the page read rate, but that's moot.
> 
> Another big direct benefit will be a reduction in false positives and authors suffering false accusations.
> 
> One indirect way cleaning up the ecosystem with permanent fixes will help is that Amazon itself will expend less effort on fielding complaints related to that situation, and should have more available to address other issues. Until now we've been in a Prohibition-type situation, where lax enforcement and wink-wink-nudge-nudge acceptance has corrupted the whole system, rendering policing efforts almost irrelevant.
> 
> Other indirect benefits include more confidence in Amazon, more consistency in all Amazon-using authors' production and marketing plans, and less stress on everyone. Everything works better when rules are just and fair, and the rules are followed. Both are needed, neither will change the payout directly--but everyone will be happier.


Couple of things. First, whenever someone on here starts arguing about what's "fair," it's usually not somebody who's the strongest at business or being an entrepreneur. I don't mean that as offense, but in general I see a lot of author's who haven't written dozens and dozens of books (and are making a living) complaining about it.

Second, if the page rate doesn't go up drastically in July, you going to say "oops, maybe I was wrong?" I don't think so. You mentioned there are a lot of different pieces of the pie, and that's true. But everyone on here claiming that kicking Chance off (and comparing him to bad actors,) was a great victory or something is kidding themselves. When Chance was called on the diamond program, he stopped it. But the mob went after him after the 10% rule changed that day and so he's gone for the moment. But here's what people are missing. Chance, and many other author's aren't successful because of the page stuffing. I'm sure it pushed his bottom line up an amount, but that wasn't the main reason. They were successful because they were better marketers and wrote books that their readers really wanted to read. So when he comes back with books that are stand alone and are 85K each, under a different name, with only 10% bonus content, is everyone who was in that mob (and those on twitter that doxxed innocent authors and never apologized about it,) going to say, congrats now it's fair that you're still at the top of the list? I doubt it.

Cleaning up the bots and scam stuff is a good thing, I support it. If you're copying the same ten pages for a thousand pages and putting up a hundred version of that book with a hundred bots borrowing it over and over, yes you should be reported and have your stuff shut down. But the amount that Chance and other author's who were big for legitimate reasons, actually effecting and hurting author's who aren't writing to market (or writing to market poorly) from making more money, when all is said and done... I doubt it's going to make a big difference. The people who spend so much time hunting these people down would do better for their own business by focusing on their work. Which again, was why I quoted the other poster.
Winner's worry about their own game, they don't worry so much about what others are doing. Unless they are studying other winners to see how they're doing that, and adding it to their game.

Last note on the fair. I mean that exclusively about business stuff. If we're talking healthcare or tax rate or any of that junk it's totally not fair, and I agree it needs to be changed. But that's another conversation.


----------



## Crystal_

Why does everyone insist they know how the page rate is calculated? Unless you have insight I'm not aware of, you have no idea how Amazon calculates the rate. Maybe they roll a d20 to decide it. Maybe they carefully calculate what will do the most psychological damage to authors while keeping them in the program. Maybe the KDP Select team begs their bosses for a bit more money every month to juice the pot and make their program successful.

Any of them are possible.

IMO, the latter is the most likely. But I don't know if that's the case. It may be. It may not.

You don't know if the rate will go up. You don't know how it's calculated. Stop stating these things like they are facts.

(General you for all you's in this message).

Also, even if scammers are "only" stealing from Amazon, they're still stealing. How is stopping them a bad thing?


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

A.R. Williams said:


> The 3PO (per-page-payout) is important. It's what all the angst and vitriol and mud-slinging over the past several months has been about. Now, some people act as if it's not important. It's an after thought a non sequitor.
> 
> But it is important.
> 
> Are we to believe all the fighting over the past several months was for a make Amazon beautiful again campaign? A puritan belief in the sanctity of the ebook?
> 
> It wasn't.
> 
> It was about money, pure and simple.
> 
> "They stealing my money!!!"
> 
> That's what it was about.
> 
> But here's the funny thing--we were all wrong. And the proof was right before our eyes and we talked about it, and glossed over it, and batted it back and forth.
> 
> But we never understood it.
> 
> The truth is--scammers never stole anything from legitimate authors.
> 
> The truth is there is no pot.
> 
> The truth is there is no formula.
> 
> Scammers never stole anything from legitimate authors. They stole it from Amazon.
> 
> The reason the 3PO will not change is because Amazon determines the payout. You get paid what Amazon wants to pay you. Period.
> 
> Scammers click farm 10 million page reads--Amazon kicks in extra money to get the 3PO they want.
> 
> Amazon removes 10 million illegitimate page reads--Amazon sets the 3PO they want.
> 
> Click farming doesn't matter.
> 
> Botting doesn't matter.
> 
> Book stuffing doesn't matter.
> 
> Collections and bundles and anthologies don't matter.
> 
> There is no spoon.
> 
> Amazon sets the 3PO they want you to get. You never lost anything to scammers because despite all our beliefs, KU is NOT a zero sum game.
> 
> The payout is what Amazon makes it.
> 
> So go out #MAGA (Make Amazon Great Again) if you want to. You won't get a penny more.


What about when Dave Koziel had the link scam going and we had the lowest payout we'd ever seen and he and his buddies were kicked out of the store and we had the huge recovery a month later? I'm not saying we're going to see a big bounce back, but pretending scammers haven't effected the payout on more than one occasion is false. There have been several instances of the pot going extremely low, Amazon swatting scammers and it bouncing back a bit. So, do I think we're going to see some huge number? Absolutely not. Do I think cleaning up the store is important for all over us over the long haul? Pretty much.


----------



## A.R. Williams

Crystal_ said:


> Why does everyone insist they know how the page rate is calculated? Unless you have insight I'm not aware of, you have no idea how Amazon calculates the rate. Maybe they roll a d20 to decide it. Maybe they carefully calculate what will do the most psychological damage to authors while keeping them in the program. Maybe the KDP Select team begs their bosses for a bit more money every month to juice the pot and make their program successful.
> 
> Any of them are possible.


Seriously? Is that wahat you believe?



> You don't know if the rate will go up. You don't know how it's calculated. Stop stating these things like they are facts.


How do people figure out the 3PO on the 15th?

Somehow they do, even though Amazon doesn't tell them.

I don't know.

Maybe it's not based on fact? Maybe they pull it out of Smurf poop.

So, can anyone tell me how you guys figure out the monthly page rate?
.


> Also, even if scammers are "only" stealing from Amazon, they're still stealing. How is stopping them a bad thing?


It's not.

But you don't need to worry about bonus content.

You don't need to worry about box sets.

You don't need to worry about collections.

You don't need to worry about someone stealing your money.

You don't need to worry about getting paid unfairly.

You don't need the angst, the anger, the bitterness, the BS.

Take a deep breath

[INHALE]

Let all the worry go.

[EXHALE]

AHHHHHHHHHHH....

Now, don't you feel better?


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

A.R. Williams said:


> So, can anyone tell me how you guys figure out the monthly page rate?
> .


You go through the report and find a line with one page listed, or a round number like 100 to divide.


----------



## A.R. Williams

Amanda M. Lee said:


> What about when Dave Koziel had the link scam going and we had the lowest payout we'd ever seen and he and his buddies were kicked out of the store and we had the huge recovery a month later? I'm not saying we're going to see a big bounce back, but pretending scammers haven't effected the payout on more than one occasion is false. There have been several instances of the pot going extremely low, Amazon swatting scammers and it bouncing back a bit. So, do I think we're going to see some huge number? Absolutely not. Do I think cleaning up the store is important for all over us over the long haul? Pretty much.


The page rate dropped because Amazon said:

"F' that! We ain't worrying about that bull**** this month."


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

A.R. Williams said:


> The page rate dropped because Amazon said:
> 
> "F' that! We ain't worrying about that bull**** this month."


Right. That's exactly how I remember it. Except ... not.
Oh, and it was a downward trend for months and then a huge drop, with Amazon finally stepping in after the huge drop so ... no, it didn't happen how you're saying.


----------



## Crystal_

A.R. Williams said:


> Seriously? Is that wahat you believe?
> 
> How do people figure out the 3PO on the 15th?
> 
> Somehow they do, even though Amazon doesn't tell them.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> Maybe it's not based on fact? Maybe they pull it out of Smurf poop.
> 
> So, can anyone tell me how you guys figure out the monthly page rate?
> .
> It's not.
> 
> But you don't need to worry about bonus content.
> 
> You don't need to worry about box sets.
> 
> You don't need to worry about collections.
> 
> You don't need to worry about someone stealing your money.
> 
> You don't need to worry about getting paid unfairly.
> 
> You don't need the angst, the anger, the bitterness, the BS.
> 
> Take a deep breath
> 
> [INHALE]
> 
> Let all the worry go.
> 
> [EXHALE]
> 
> AHHHHHHHHHHH....
> 
> Now, don't you feel better?


The attitude is unnecessary.

I stopped angsting about bonus books many months ago, when I realized that all the angst did was make me feel bad.

But saying pulling bonus books won't make a difference is ridiculous. We've outline a bunch of ways it will make a difference, even if it doesn't increase the rate.

Personally, I believe the KDP team tries to get extra money to add to the pot to bring the rate up, because, like most people, they want to keep their jobs. They want their program to succeed. That seems like the most likely scenario to me. There is a pot, which Amazon announces in advance of every month. They've never taken from the pot. Only added to it.

If pages drop, they might not add to the pot, but they're certainly not going to take away from the pot. If pages drop enough, the rate will go up. That's math.

Will that happen in June? Maybe. IME, pages come in pretty slowly, so we're probably still seeing a ton of bonus book pages. July will be a better judge.

But even if it doesn't happen, I'm going to be really happy about these new rules, because they're good for people who don't want to use bonus books. The complication loophole is concerning. I do hope Amazon pulls the titles that are not clearly labeled (stuff like "Sexy Billionaire: A Complication: A Billionaire Romance" <- made up title is not clearly labeled. Is it a compilation or a single romance?), but I never know what to expect with Amazon.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## A.R. Williams

Amanda M. Lee said:


> You go through the report and find a line with one page listed, or a round number like 100 to divide.


Thanks. 

Ok, there is a formula.

But...

Amazon uses it to find out how much to add to the pot.

Here it is:

"THE POT" divided by PAGE READS = 3PO

Amazon says:

"This month we want the 3PO to be .0045."

They use the formula to adjust the pot. They don't remove pages. But by adding to the pot they can change the 3PO to what they want.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

A.R. Williams said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Ok, there is a formula.
> 
> But...
> 
> Amazon uses it to find out how much to add to the pot.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> "THE POT" divided by PAGE READS = 3PO
> 
> Amazon says:
> 
> "This month we want the 3PO to be .0045."
> 
> They use the formula to adjust the pot. They don't remove pages. But by adding to the pot they can change the 3PO to what they want.


Maybe you should take your own advice and take a breath. As for me, I'm hitting the pool for some laps and then bed. I have a whole new day of writing and editing tomorrow.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## A.R. Williams

Crystal_ said:


> The attitude is unnecessary.
> 
> I stopped angsting about bonus books many months ago, when I realized that all the angst did was make me feel bad.
> 
> But saying pulling bonus books won't make a difference is ridiculous. We've outline a bunch of ways it will make a difference, even if it doesn't increase the rate.
> 
> Personally, I believe the KDP team tries to get extra money to add to the pot to bring the rate up, because, like most people, they want to keep their jobs. They want their program to succeed. That seems like the most likely scenario to me. There is a pot, which Amazon announces in advance of every month. They've never taken from the pot. Only added to it.
> 
> If pages drop, they might not add to the pot, but they're certainly not going to take away from the pot. If pages drop enough, the rate will go up. That's math.
> 
> Will that happen in June? Maybe. IME, pages come in pretty slowly, so we're probably still seeing a ton of bonus book pages. July will be a better judge.
> 
> But even if it doesn't happen, I'm going to be really happy about these new rules, because they're good for people who don't want to use bonus books. The complication loophole is concerning. I do hope Amazon pulls the titles that are not clearly labeled (stuff like "Sexy Billionaire: A Complication: A Billionaire Romance" <- made up title is not clearly labeled. Is it a compilation or a single romance?), but I never know what to expect with Amazon.


You're right. The attitude wasn't called for. I apologize.

_Edited, and edited quoted post. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## MmmmmPie

Scammers are stealing from other authors every time they receive an All Star bonus. They're also stealing when they make the top 100, denying sales-boosting visibility from someone who's not cheating. And yes, I do believe they do contribute to a low page rate. I honestly don't get why this is so hard to understand.

I'm also noticing a correlation here. Writers in non-romance genres seem more inclined to suggest that this isn't a problem. I guess it's easy to tell others to "chill out" when your own genre has been only minimally impacted. I can't help but wonder how "chill" these other authors would be if it was their genres getting buried under a pile of stuffed 99-cent "books." 

(Also, I should add a sincere thanks to all the writers in non-romance genres who do seem to care and to realize that eventually, this will impact us all. Your foresight and kindness is really appreciated. It helps more than you know.)


----------



## BGArcher

RPatton said:


> In all fairness, part of the strategy was specifically about pushing people out of the market by increasing add spends and saturating the first few pages with similar books.
> 
> It's valid, but it doesn't mean it's good for a sustained market.
> 
> Part of the reason for the vitriol is that the same authors that group might have stepped on with their increased bids and overspending on marketing and devaluation of books, are watching at least one of that group fall. The reactions aren't pretty, but they are understandable.
> 
> I wouldn't call Chance an above board business man with impeccable ethics. That doesn't make him evil or bad, it just means that people will laugh and point when they see him trip and fall.


That's a very valid point. I did not have any encounters with him, or have his group hurt my sales, so that aspect of the schadenfreude is something I didn't account for.


----------



## David VanDyke

A.R. Williams said:


> The 3PO (per-page-payout) is important. It's what all the angst and vitriol and mud-slinging over the past several months has been about. Now, some people act as if it's not important. It's an after thought a non sequitor.
> 
> But it is important.


Nobody says it's not important. We're saying it's a settled point. We got it. We all agree. You're beating a dead horse.

What we're saying is, that settled point is not a reason to shrug and not care, not talk about it, and not try to get Amazon to change.


----------



## Ava Glass

A.R. Williams said:


> Seriously? Is that wahat you believe?
> 
> How do people figure out the 3PO on the 15th?
> 
> Somehow they do, even though Amazon doesn't tell them.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> Maybe it's not based on fact? Maybe they pull it out of Smurf poop.
> 
> So, can anyone tell me how you guys figure out the monthly page rate?
> .
> It's not.
> 
> But you don't need to worry about bonus content.
> 
> You don't need to worry about box sets.
> 
> You don't need to worry about collections.
> 
> You don't need to worry about someone stealing your money.
> 
> You don't need to worry about getting paid unfairly.
> 
> You don't need the angst, the anger, the bitterness, the BS.
> 
> Take a deep breath
> 
> [INHALE]
> 
> Let all the worry go.
> 
> [EXHALE]
> 
> AHHHHHHHHHHH....
> 
> Now, don't you feel better?


Translation: "stop rocking the boat."

This fake concern talking point is tired.


----------



## David VanDyke

BGArcher said:


> Winner's worry about their own game, they don't worry so much about what others are doing. Unless they are studying other winners to see how they're doing that, and adding it to their game.
> 
> Last note on the fair. I mean that exclusively about business stuff. If we're talking healthcare or tax rate or any of that junk it's totally not fair, and I agree it needs to be changed. But that's another conversation.


I'm making a living, so I'm not coming at this from a position of failure and whining about success.

I'm also not saying CC is not a good author. However, he's the poster boy for pushing beyond the legal limits of the situation. He's the guy who got caught with the steroids--metaphorically, not saying he wasn't a great athlete, but he exemplified a pattern of pushing the boundaries and breaking the rules and he deserved to get busted for what he did. Hopefully that will deter others.

In any endeavor, there are those who go beyond the boundaries of the law or the TOS or the rules, whatever you want to call it. None of that is whining about "fairness." It's about competing within the bounds of the spirit of the rule of law.

"People are getting away with it" is not a credible defense. "Other people do it" is not a credible defense. The fact that Amazon doesn't do a good job of policing is no defense.


----------



## 39416

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know whatever happened to those very-successful KU writers of past who got kicked out? What became of them? I only know of two (RH and Chance Carter) but I remember there have been more over the years. I'm just wondering if they went wide, created a new persona, I mean, where are they now? Anybody ever hear whatever happened to these writers after the fall?


----------



## Ava Glass

BGArcher said:


> Winner's worry about their own game, they don't worry so much about what others are doing. Unless they are studying other winners to see how they're doing that, and adding it to their game.


This is another tired talking point.

Let me turn it around on you. Why are you so concerned about what other authors do with their time and energy? People want to change the status quo, why do you care?


----------



## lilywhite

David VanDyke said:


> Cleaning up the ecosystem will help in many direct and indirect ways.


Agreed!


----------



## Crime fighters

A.R. Williams said:


> Seriously? Is that wahat you believe?
> 
> How do people figure out the 3PO on the 15th?
> 
> Somehow they do, even though Amazon doesn't tell them.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> Maybe it's not based on fact? Maybe they pull it out of Smurf poop.
> 
> So, can anyone tell me how you guys figure out the monthly page rate?
> .
> It's not.
> 
> But you don't need to worry about bonus content.
> 
> You don't need to worry about box sets.
> 
> You don't need to worry about collections.
> 
> You don't need to worry about someone stealing your money.
> 
> You don't need to worry about getting paid unfairly.
> 
> You don't need the angst, the anger, the bitterness, the BS.
> 
> Take a deep breath
> 
> [INHALE]
> 
> Let all the worry go.
> 
> [EXHALE]
> 
> AHHHHHHHHHHH....
> 
> Now, don't you feel better?


EDIT: Nevermind. Trying to be a better person, but this was a very shitty thing to say.


----------



## BGArcher

Ava Glass said:


> This is another tired talking point.
> 
> Let me turn it around on you. Why are you so concerned about what other authors do with their time and energy? People want to change the status quo, why do you care?


Several people have pointed out cleaning house is overall good for the store, and I once again am saying I agree with that. Amanda made a great point up thread about a known spoofer getting taking down and the payout bouncing up afterwards. That's totally valid. Those practices should be removed from the store. I'm saying the mob mentally is lumping those people in with Chance, and it's not the same thing. I'm also not saying CC was some golden god, or even someone to be a role model to other writers. He pushed things too far, but at the same time, having everything he had up being completely removed is not a win. That's my concern. I don't mind people changing the status quo, I don't like author's taking down other author's, and having a mob mentality about it. Doxxing author's, which plenty of people in these threads always skate over. As for other author's in how they spend their time and energy? I'm not concerned at all. That's a bunch of people who would rather be wasting their time and energy on being amazon police than doing the work. I'm fine with that. My only concern is continuing to produce solid books and pleasing readers.


----------



## Ava Glass

BGArcher said:


> As for other author's in how they spend their time and energy? I'm not concerned at all. That's a bunch of people who would rather be wasting their time and energy on being amazon police than doing the work. I'm fine with that.


I shall quote you again:



> The people who spend so much time hunting these people down would do better for their own business by focusing on their work.
> 
> Winner's worry about their own game, they don't worry so much about what others are doing. Unless they are studying other winners to see how they're doing that, and adding it to their game.


You said losers care, and winners mind their own business.

If you had simply said that you don't think Chance and his buddies are that bad, and people should leave them alone, it would be more honest than "winners mind their own business."


----------



## BGArcher

Ava Glass said:


> I shall quote you again:
> 
> You said losers care, and winners mind their own business.
> 
> If you had simply said that you don't think Chance and his buddies are that bad, and people should leave them alone, it would be more honest than "winners mind their own business."


You're trying to mince my words here, or focusing on one point and still missing the larger one. But I've said it several times, clearly, and it feels like you're choosing not to hear it. That's fine. Pointing out that I have noticed a general trend of the most successful people in whatever field focus on their own stuff instead of attacking others (whether it's writers, or any other field I've studied) generally do better than the people who get stuck in the muck attacking others is not calling those other people losers. They just aren't at the top of the game usually. To put it simply, I believe that positivity, always, always beats out negativity in the long run. I don't think that Chance or his buddy's were great. I never said that. The diamond thing was a bridge too far, and plenty of the other stuff also needed to be curbed. But the fact that he was removed, and others were attacked, including innocent authors (doxxing and so on) is what I'm calling out. I also stated earlier that in the end this part, the cc part, probably won't have a big impact on the store. I could be wrong about that. If I am, okay, good on Amazon on fixing it. But that doesn't change my point, or make it any less valid. The people who focused on the negative will long term never beat the people who focus on the positive (namely writing a ton and doing the work.)


----------



## Crime fighters

Nobody has been doxxed. It's a point that's been proven patentky false over and over again. It takes away your credibility when you keep saying it. And to imply that only "losers" are pissed off about the entire situation is absurd. Some big name people are talking; they're just doing it behind closed doors.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

Folks,

right now, based on the way this thread is headed, I thinking I might lock it when I retire and let y'all cool off and reopen in the morning.  We don't have anyone here for the night shift.

OR, y'all could stop making personal comments about each other and just discuss issues.

Just sayin'.

EDIT:  Those of you who think discussion of these issues is not a worthwhile use of one's time, don't discuss.  This is not the thread for you.  Lots of other threads.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Phxsundog

Without getting personal, a lot of the anger over this situation is coming from a place of justified fear and extreme frustration among indie authors. Romance has never seen anything like the invasion that's taken place over the past year. A small internet marketer group has gotten a powerful stranglehold on KU. This group has shown they don't care about producing quality content or being good actors in the indie community. They create new pen names constantly and rely on heavy stuffing to support ad spends no author with an unstuffed book can match. They take a disproportionate number of bonuses by stuffing to the max. This book stuffing exploit strategy is what's enabled them to become so prominent and hard for other romance authors to hold their ground against. Very little keeps them accountable, including social media shame, because if one pen name gets burned, they just jump to a new one.

It's also encouraged them to push the lines further with bad formatting tricks, breaching copyright in ads by running stolen images and other jaw dropping behavior almost no ordinary author or publisher would ever do. They don't think like authors or sensible publishers because they never were. There's no doubt about their origins. The ones who are constantly in the Top 100 stuffing to the limit and causing problems originated in Warrior Forum world. It's proven by the sketchy looking master courses showing up lately on social media. They're either the instructors of these $1000 classes or giving testimonials for each other, inviting even more marketers to storm Kindle publishing. These are not indie authors or publishers who play by ordinary operating rules. They don't change strategy or listen to the frustrations others are experiencing. They only care if Amazon makes them or they get tarred and feathered publicly.

I don't want to see indie authors buried by blackhat internet marketers. That's my issue. It's taking the entire industry in a really ugly direction where content quantity and bad ethics win. The only way to make sure it doesn't get worse is to continue applying pressure on Amazon to shut down the lopsided financial advantage page stuffing brings. I'd much rather see Amazon fix KU versus leaving authors policing this situation in a messy, unfocused way.


----------



## PhoenixS

Phxsundog said:


> Without getting personal, a lot of the anger over this situation is coming from a place of justified fear and extreme frustration among indie authors.
> ...
> I don't want to see indie authors buried by blackhat internet marketers. That's my issue. It's taking the entire industry in a really ugly direction where content quantity and bad ethics win. The only way to make sure it doesn't get worse is to continue applying pressure on Amazon to shut down the lopsided financial advantage page stuffing brings. I'd much rather see Amazon fix KU versus leaving authors policing this situation in a messy, unfocused way.


*slow clap*

Thank you.



loraininflorida said:


> Just out of curiosity, does anyone know whatever happened to those very-successful KU writers of past who got kicked out? What became of them? I only know of two (RH and Chance Carter) but I remember there have been more over the years. I'm just wondering if they went wide, created a new persona, I mean, where are they now? Anybody ever hear whatever happened to these writers after the fall?


I've been following a few who were botting their way up the paid and free lists who've been slapped back. And by 'following,' I mean I have some of their more successful books in my Tracker account where I can take *a few seconds every week or so* to peek at their rank trends for the last 30 days. Pointing this out since some people apparently think those of us on neighborhood watch spend an inordinate amount of time documenting and reporting.

A couple of examples:

One guy who was botting to #1 Free every month with the same book, and botted a couple of hundred borrows while free, and who managed to keep a paid rank under #10K the rest of the time has taken to using non-botted ad promos, rarely breaks the Top 100 Free, and generally has a paid rank now of #30K+. He was busted last fall, and is still in Select.

Another guy who was botting to the Top 5 Paid every month -- and sometimes 2 to 3 times a month -- with a different book each time was busted late last summer. He slowly went wide with his titles and put a couple permafree, where they typically hang in the #2K-3K Free range. I saw he ran a couple of 99 cent Countdowns, and didn't get better than about #12K with promo with them. His new releases -- he'd just started pubbing a new series when he was busted -- tanked hard. I don't know how he's doing off-Amazon.

Gotta say, while these guys were slapped back and their incomes decimated, I'm disappointed they were allowed to stay in Select (possibly because they weren't botting page reads?), but mostly disappointed that their accounts weren't terminated, although the Paid Rank botter had his suspended for a few days. They were multi-, multi-repeat offenders and were obviously actively engaged in scamming the system.


----------



## Crime fighters

Phxsundog said:


> Without getting personal, a lot of the anger over this situation is coming from a place of justified fear and extreme frustration among indie authors. Romance has never seen anything like the invasion that's taken place over the past year. A small internet marketer group has gotten a powerful stranglehold on KU. This group has shown they don't care about producing quality content or being good actors in the indie community. They create new pen names constantly and rely on heavy stuffing to support ad spends no author with an unstuffed book can match. They take a disproportionate number of bonuses by stuffing to the max. This book stuffing exploit strategy is what's enabled them to become so prominent and hard for other romance authors to hold their ground against. Very little keeps them accountable, including social media shame, because if one pen name gets burned, they just jump to a new one.
> 
> It's also encouraged them to push the lines further with bad formatting tricks, breaching copyright in ads by running stolen images and other jaw dropping behavior almost no ordinary author or publisher would ever do. They don't think like authors or sensible publishers because they never were. There's no doubt about their origins. The ones who are constantly in the Top 100 stuffing to the limit and causing problems originated in Warrior Forum world. It's proven by the sketchy looking master courses showing up lately on social media. They're either the instructors of these $1000 classes or giving testimonials for each other, inviting even more marketers to storm Kindle publishing. These are not indie authors or publishers who play by ordinary operating rules. They don't change strategy or listen to the frustrations others are experiencing. They only care if Amazon makes them or they get tarred and feathered publicly.
> 
> I don't want to see indie authors buried by blackhat internet marketers. That's my issue. It's taking the entire industry in a really ugly direction where content quantity and bad ethics win. The only way to make sure it doesn't get worse is to continue applying pressure on Amazon to shut down the lopsided financial advantage page stuffing brings. I'd much rather see Amazon fix KU versus leaving authors policing this situation in a messy, unfocused way.


Co-sign. This is a much better wording of what I've been trying to say, so thank you.


----------



## Ava Glass

Just a reminder that the RWA called these people "bad actors" and seemed quite pleased at Chance's removal.

https://twitter.com/romancewriters/status/1004859578390056960

The RWA also thanked those who sent them info, so those here who think authors should focus on something else can move along.


----------



## Phxsundog

Ava Glass said:


> Just a reminder that the RWA called these people "bad actors" and seemed quite pleased at Chance's removal.
> 
> https://twitter.com/romancewriters/status/1004859578390056960
> 
> The RWA also thanked those who sent them info, so those here who think authors should focus on something else can move along.


This. Their full history is only known to a few like David Gaughran and there's a bigger issue at work here. This is a hostile takeover of indie romance by pseudopublishers who don't care what kind of product they produce, as long as they have a lot of it. Page stuffing is just their lifeblood. Closing off bonus content and thinly marked collections in KU will at least force them to compete without the unnatural advantage they have now.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

Phxsundog said:


> Without getting personal, a lot of the anger over this situation is coming from a place of justified fear and extreme frustration among indie authors. Romance has never seen anything like the invasion that's taken place over the past year. A small internet marketer group has gotten a powerful stranglehold on KU. This group has shown they don't care about producing quality content or being good actors in the indie community. They create new pen names constantly and rely on heavy stuffing to support ad spends no author with an unstuffed book can match. They take a disproportionate number of bonuses by stuffing to the max. This book stuffing exploit strategy is what's enabled them to become so prominent and hard for other romance authors to hold their ground against. Very little keeps them accountable, including social media shame, because if one pen name gets burned, they just jump to a new one.
> 
> It's also encouraged them to push the lines further with bad formatting tricks, breaching copyright in ads by running stolen images and other jaw dropping behavior almost no ordinary author or publisher would ever do. They don't think like authors or sensible publishers because they never were. There's no doubt about their origins. The ones who are constantly in the Top 100 stuffing to the limit and causing problems originated in Warrior Forum world. It's proven by the sketchy looking master courses showing up lately on social media. They're either the instructors of these $1000 classes or giving testimonials for each other, inviting even more marketers to storm Kindle publishing. These are not indie authors or publishers who play by ordinary operating rules. They don't change strategy or listen to the frustrations others are experiencing. They only care if Amazon makes them or they get tarred and feathered publicly.
> 
> I don't want to see indie authors buried by blackhat internet marketers. That's my issue. It's taking the entire industry in a really ugly direction where content quantity and bad ethics win. The only way to make sure it doesn't get worse is to continue applying pressure on Amazon to shut down the lopsided financial advantage page stuffing brings. I'd much rather see Amazon fix KU versus leaving authors policing this situation in a messy, unfocused way.


I found this immensely informative and helped put the argument into perspective. Thank you.

Part of the subtext is that this behavior isn't a major concern for authors in other genres. Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed but I'd like you to try to see it from our perspective as you'd like us to see it from yours. I can't say I understand what it's like to be under siege like this. And I won't belittle the invasion of a genre you both love and rely on to make a living.

Many of us write long books. We buy and borrow long books. And our genres haven't developed any of these problems. To come out and hear people demanding caps on pages, limits to box sets, and a host of regulations for problems we don't have is jarring to say the least. And please understand the sea of rules will affect both our enjoyment of an art we love and the way we put food on the table. Taking from us and giving to you can't be the answer your looking for. And why would you seek such a binary choice?

Have you thought of making these rules dependent on your genre? I can guess that you have and given it up as a snows balls chance Amazon would do it. You have thought on this issue far longer than I have but these answers won't get you what you want. If you destroy other genres to fix your problem your not really fixing anything. All your doing is hurting others for doing nothing but enjoying the books they love and making a living.

I think we can agree on the following. 
Ban stuffers. 
Get them out of the top 100.
Fnd a way that they can't come back without maiming other genres.

We'd be glad to help you. Many of us don't want you to suffer but few of us want to take your place. I refuse to believe the choices set out are the only ones. I refuse to sign onto a solution that only hurts other authors. Surely we can find a better solution. On this forum are thousands of people, are we saying that out of all those people the best we can do is to feed on each others flesh, to cannibalize each other.

I'd be glad to talk with you, to fight beside you, and to champion your cause. But I'm done fighting with you. Can't you understand I just don't want to be hurt by you? Must that be the only way that we can fix this?


----------



## Phxsundog

Yes, OnlytheGrotesqueKnow, that's fair. I'm open to solutions on how best to handle this. You're right about shared goals. I just want to see this takeover by sleazy marketers end. Plus harsh penalties for the stuffers who are still doing it after June 1st. I'd welcome romance specific rules by Amazon although it would be unlikely. Whatever chops the cheating marketers down and the advantages they get from inflated pages is a good thing. If it doesn't affect authors across genres much then all the better.

I'll add the same marketers have tried weaseling their way into other genres. People have seen evidence of them starting up names in postapocalyptic survival fiction and cozy mysteries. Fortunately they've had a harder time expanding beyond romance. I think this is partly because they don't have Warrior Forum type teachers standing by to hand them a mystery book producing formula as they did in romance. They're also not able to rapidly build the huge email lists with giveaways and pull ordinary authors into swaps. Both were commonplace practices in romance last year and helped them get off the ground. Page stuffing might not work as well outside romance either but I'm unsure.


----------



## Crime fighters

As a romance author, I just want to say that I would be completely fine with a romance-only cap. Whenever I've talked about a 750 KENP, it has gotten mixed reviews between people who agree and people who disagree. Most of the people disagreeing are outside the genre. 750 KENP is still 125,000 words (estimated). That's a long romance, and the problem mostly seems relegated to Romance, where most of the scamming is. 

Someone on twitter mentioned that someone who routinely stuffed had a "READ" flag once the first story ended, giving the reader the option to do normal 'end of book' activities such as reviewing or checking out other titles. I haven't seen proof of this myself, but if that's the case, then maybe Amazon is implementing something as we speak. 

And I do appreciate how we've calmed down somewhat, myself included. I've all ready apologized for my tone to people privately. I have personal reasons about why I seem to be angrier about this than others, but I don't feel comfortable repeating those reasons in a public forum. 

ETA: This isn't about the pay rate for me. I don't suspect it'll change much. It's never been about that. It's about visibility. It's about being crushed by ads. It's about not being able to find books I want to read anymore without recs because of category abuse. It's about mailing list abuse, and now their actions affect reader trust across the board. It's about the disrespect they have for the genre they are dominating. It's about authors being pushed out and smothered, and it's about the underhanded tactics they use to make competing authors not feel safe.


----------



## MmmmmPie

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> Have you thought of making these rules dependent on your genre?


As a romance writer, I'd welcome this. After all, romance is ground zero for book-stuffing, so that idea has a lot of merit. One thing concerns me though... I suspect that these guys would just pick up their party and move to another genre. That would be wonderful for romance writers, but potentially awful for whatever new genre these guys target.

It really is awful when they invade your genre. I wouldn't wish that on my fellow authors, as much as I'd love to see them booted out of romance.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crime fighters said:


> As a romance author, I just want to say that I would be completely fine with a romance-only cap. Whenever I've talked about a 750 KENP, it has gotten mixed reviews between people who agree and people who disagree. Most of the people disagreeing are outside the genre. 750 KENP is still 125,000 words (estimated). That's a long romance, and the problem mostly seems relegated to Romance, where most of the scamming is.


You make a good point. Most of the people disagreeing do seem to be outside the genre. This isn't terribly surprising, especially in genres like Fantasy. Speaking as a romance writer, I'd vote for an even lower cap, like 500, but heck, I'd jump for joy at a cap of 750. That would make it a lot harder for the stuffers to game the system.


----------



## Crime fighters

MmmmmPie said:


> As a romance writer, I'd welcome this. After all, romance is ground zero for book-stuffing, so that idea has a lot of merit. One thing concerns me though... I suspect that these guys would just pick up their party and move to another genre. That would be wonderful for romance writers, but potentially awful for whatever new genre these guys target.
> 
> It really is awful when they invade your genre. I wouldn't wish that on my fellow authors, as much as I'd love to see them booted out of romance.


I think they'd have a much harder time in other genres. For one, they'd need to build up new mailing lists. Also, the sheer number of romance readers and how voracious they are gave them the opening they needed. The books they are selling are extremely formulaic, and that's not as easy to do on other genres. That's not to say one is more difficult to write than the others, but I do believe adapting to romance is easier.


----------



## Crime fighters

Crime fighters said:


> I think they'd have a much harder time in other genres. For one, they'd need to build up new mailing lists. Also, the sheer number of romance readers and how voracious they are gave them the opening they needed. The books they are selling are extremely formulaic, and that's not as easy to do on other genres. That's not to say one is more difficult to write than the others, but I do believe adapting to romance is easier.


Yeah, I'm fine with even lower. 500 sounds GREAT to me. That's still 83,000 words, however I think that begins to push what people would be willing to agree to. I've noticed many authors trending around 80K words, and some even going as high as mid 100's.

It's not unheard of though. Didn't Scribd (or another subscription service limit romance on some level?)


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crime fighters said:


> I think they'd have a much harder time in other genres. For one, they'd need to build up new mailing lists. Also, the sheer number of romance readers and how voracious they are gave them the opening they needed. The books they are selling are extremely formulaic, and that's not as easy to do on other genres. That's not to say one is more difficult to write than the others, but I do believe adapting to romance is easier.


Those are really good points. I'm sure they'd try to invade other genres, but you make a compelling case that it might not be nearly as easy as I thought.


----------



## Phxsundog

I share the concerns about the stuffers trying to creep into other genres if romance only rules are imposed. We've seen them miscategorizing books before. They try to drop books into Westerns and Crime categories now because they can hit the #1 slot with a lower rank to get the bestseller flag on their books. Better enforcement of categories by Amazon would have to go along with regulating romance. These marketers will always try to find any loophole they can to maximize their pages because they know the advantage it brings.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crime fighters said:


> Yeah, I'm fine with even lower. 500 sounds GREAT to me. That's still 83,000 words, however I think that begins to push what people would be willing to agree to. I've noticed many authors trending around 80K words, and some even going as high as mid 100's.
> 
> It's not unheard of though. Didn't Scribd (or another subscription service limit romance on some level?)


True on the 500. That might be lower than a majority would agree to. My last book was 100K, so I'm one of those longer writers myself. Probably, I'm just so desperate to boot the scammers that I'd probably agree to a 250-page limit, if that's what it took -- anything to clean up the romance market. It's just so godawful right now.

About Scribd, I might not be remembering it correctly, but I think they ended up removing romance from their subscription offerings entirely. The way it sounded, romance readers were reading them out of house and home.


----------



## lilywhite

MmmmmPie said:


> It really is awful when they invade your genre. I wouldn't wish that on my fellow authors, as much as I'd love to see them booted out of romance.


^^ Seconded. They have absolutely destroyed my favorite genre -- both as a reader and as a writer. And I know romance writers who couldn't pivot to a new genre or ramp up releases enough to compensate; some of them don't publish anymore. That's a tragedy, IMO.


----------



## Delta

Crime fighters said:


> As a romance author, I just want to say that I would be completely fine with a romance-only cap. Whenever I've talked about a 750 KENP, it has gotten mixed reviews between people who agree and people who disagree. Most of the people disagreeing are outside the genre. 750 KENP is still 125,000 words (estimated). That's a long romance, and the problem mostly seems relegated to Romance, where most of the scamming is.


I put out a 157k LitRPG -- 763 KENP (And, no, no stuffing. It took me 157k to tell the story I wanted to tell.)


----------



## unkownwriter

> In any endeavor, there are those who go beyond the boundaries of the law or the TOS or the rules, whatever you want to call it. None of that is whining about "fairness." It's about competing within the bounds of the spirit of the rule of law.
> 
> "People are getting away with it" is not a credible defense. "Other people do it" is not a credible defense. The fact that Amazon doesn't do a good job of policing is no defense.


Thank you, David.

For the record, I do not write romance, but I understand the genre and those who love it and want to write it. When you're looking at increasing competition, you can up your game and compete. When you're looking at people who are cheating their way to the top spots, and getting bonuses to do it, while making it almost impossible to market due to their huge ad spends, it makes it very hard to want to try.

Don't forget, those bonuses aren't tied to a genre, but to sales/page reads of any book in the program. So, if you write SF, but a romance scammer has taken a bonus you normally would have qualified for, that's okay? I know a few people in the situation.

As to the thing about it being the "unsuccessful" people doing all the complaining? Really? Do you people not know who most of those who are in the forefront of this? I may not be one of those people, but I hope to be someday. It would be a lot easier if I didn't have to battle the black hat SEO folks.

And I have plenty of time to read a few blog posts and articles, and get my word count for the day, thanks for everyone's concern. _snort_

For those who don't understand the basic issues:

It's not about long books.

It's not about reasonable bonus content.

It's not about hiring ghostwriters.

It's not about having happy readers who pounce on every word you write.

It's about those who have overrun indie publishing with bloated books, books stuffed with ten or more of the same files of individual content, rearranged, sometimes with a "new" story at the end and still ways to get people to click past all the junk they've seen before so the entire book is "read". This is to the tune of about $14 per "read". And before the KENPC was capped at 3K, it was more than that, often $20 or more.

And to think, people used to complain about people getting $1.30 per 10% read, though that was usually laid on the short story writers. Yes, there were scammer then, too, but at least they weren't getting 10% more money. Now the scamming is worse, because there's more money in it.

Now, get this. This isn't about those people who just love a certain author's work, and will happily reread the same content over and over. (This "reshuffling" comes about because you can only be paid once per borrow for content, so somebody re-borrowing your book gets you nothing.) It's about people using incentives -- raffles, other "free" stuff, gift cards and so on -- to get people to click through a book so the full payout is reached.

It's about people who hire click farms to "read" a book completely, to get the full payout. These people have the click farms borrow other author's work in order to mask their behavior, thus getting innocent authors' accounts terminated.

Put limits only on romance, and I'm sure we'll see this crap move on to other genres. It might be a little more work, but on the back end, the payout would still be huge. And that's all that matters to these people. They aren't writers, they aren't publishers, they're black hat marketers who don't care about anyone but themselves. They aren't our friends. They aren't our fellow writers trying to follow a dream and tell our stories. They're cheaters, plain and simple. Don't spare any of them a moment's concern, because they don't have any for you.


----------



## Crime fighters

I agree with everything you said, especially the last paragraph. I don't know how anyone can look at this very specific subset of people with anything other than disgust.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

I think a lot of authors would be able to not only stand aside but support rules that govern the romance genre. I understand the worry that they may invade other genre's but if they do and we already have a way to govern them we can port it over. Personally I'm more focused on fixing the issue of them destroying your genre while insuring your supported than I am of their next scam. Don't fight tomorrow's battle today.

Here are some of my thoughts, please understand I don't know what has been done and that these are only my first impressions.

1: A cap of 750 seems reasonable. While it is longer than what some would recommend it insures that innocent authors are not caught up in the net. And it still inserts a cap that stops the 90%, plus I think it will sooth any worried authors.

2: When a stuffer is found ban their I.P. Address and Bank Account. If your account is terminated, your done anyway so adding the I.P. Address and Bank Account only affects those that are trying to cut around the rules. It shouldn't affect innocent authors anymore than their current bans 'which I think should be overseen by a human being you're able to talk to.'

3: Create a website that lays out your case and the books that are stuffing. Part of the reason why this argument went sidewise is simple ignorance. If I could of gotten a link to a website that outlines the books that are violating the genre and excerpts of the books, as well as the tactics they use, I would of been all about helping. The sooner a man is educated the sooner they can start making good decisions. 

You have a lot of people here who create websites, they might do it for free or at least at a discount. And Wordpress is relatively cheap to get stuffers out of your genre and Amazon listening.

4: Review their books. I'm not saying give them a bad review or to tank their rank. What I'm saying is that you have the legal right to read a book and post a honest review. You also have the right to ask those in the Vine program who have thousands of followers to review them as well. These reviews can be reposted on your website.

5: Start an email program. Once you have a website to educate ask people to email an address in Amazon and in their PERSONAL words to complain and ask for a case to be open. I would be glad to be part of this and I think a lot of other authors would as well.

6: Seek out other people in the romance genre that are reviewers with their own blogs. Again once you have a website you can send them to it and they can decide on their own.

7: Hit Amazon up on Twitter once you have a website to link to. It's easy to dismiss the words of others but with a website with graphs, excerpts and timeline's. Well those are far more convincing.

I see the main problem's to be two pronged. Education, I wasn't aware this was going on and so the talk scared me. If I would of known that you were being hurt, I would of jumped in and tried to help. I would of talked about it across my media and informed those people in my life. The second one is for you to relax away from talking about regulating other genre's until their is a problem. Authors in other genres hear what you say and it scares us. It makes us defensive and instead of looking at you as our tribe we look at you as a lion coming to take our babies. I've written three books, each is over 250,000 words. When a person tells me I have to cut them in half to make them work, I get antsy. When they tell me that I won't get paid for pages after a certain point, I get angry. That's not conducive to getting me to bleed for you.

People will start to listen. People will fight for you. Let us help you and stop scaring me so much, I'm not as young as I used to be. I'd be willing to help with EVERY step I have outlined up to and including putting money into the pot for the website and reviewing the books.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> The second one is for you to relax away from talking about regulating other genre's until their is a problem.


This is a problem in multiple other genres. Romance is definitely the hardest hit. It's hardly the only genre hit, though. Instituting one group of rules for one genre and ignoring the others makes no sense. These should be across-the-board rules. In truth, 750 KENPC is low for some fantasy. 1,000 KENPC is probably better. Then omnibuses, anthologies, boxed sets, etc. should be banned to cut down on abuse. A title can be in KU once. Period. Institute those two things and most of the scammers couldn't afford to stay.


----------



## RPatton

So, I just want to say that there's a huge part of me jumping for joy because the discussion has turned away from "You're either with us or against us" and is back to the valid points that not only should be discussed, but have a relatively decent chance of helping things.

However, this doesn't include behavior and acts happening off of a retailer's site. Bad acts should be called out regardless of who is doing the bad act. It's really not an us or them issue. It's a sustainability issue. And every time someone behaves unprofessionally, it makes it that much more difficult for those behaving professionally to be taken seriously.

I'm going to deliver a dose of realism and it's going to be painful. Correlation is not Causation. Chance probably wasn't removed from the Amazon storefront because of stuffing or compilations or crappy formatting. He was likely removed because he involved Amazon in what amounted to an illegal lottery. That it happened the same time as the 10% bonus rule is correlation, not causation. Do not think of his removal as a "win" because I am fairly certain, in that I would wager my entire back catalog and future catalog on the belief that Amazon didn't remove him for any of the reasons people would like to believe they did. And I get why they want to believe that. It's validation, but it's validation based on a false premise.

Second does of reality, and this one is even more painful. None of us has the connections to actually effect change. You need to be on a first name basis with senior executives. You need to know their kids' birthdays and they need to know your kids' favorite activities. A rep at KDP isn't a connection, it's a contact. And they just don't have the political power of good-will to be able to say, "Hey, this is the way we're going to do this from now on." It would be nice if we did, but this is going to be someone who has been part of the publishing industry for decades, and not as an author, but as an editor at the Big 5 who's transitioned to being an agent or has stepped into the indie sphere. They have the ability to make a few calls and get the ear of someone who will listen.

Third painful reminder of reality, Amazon isn't against compilations, bonus content, or box sets. They just want it advertised as what it is and they won't count those books towards an all-star bonus. You are never going to get them removed from the store, because Amazon doesn't mind them. What they mind is readers not getting what they expect. If they expect a book full of 15 different novels, fine. If they expect a single novel, they shouldn't get 14 more novels. Truth in advertising. Don't do a bait & switch and Amazon is happy.

And finally, the fourth dose of reality. Let's say that there's a page cap for Romance. In theory it's nice. In practice not some much. Women's fiction will get hit with all the romances and miscatting will be a huge problem. If there's a punishment for being in romance (the page cap), but none elsewhere, then people are going to go where there isn't a punishment.

In the interest of not just pointing out the problems or issues, but offering suggestions...

You don't need to install a page cap. You need to install a max payout. Have it cap out at 3.49. Regardless of how many pages, the most an author can get paid is 3.49. This is what a book at 4.99 would earn. There is absolutely no incentive to add extra pages for the extra payout and while authors writing longer books might feel a bit of a pinch, 4.99 seems to be the highest price point with a larger number of authors. Yes, people price at 5.99 and higher, but not as much.

The carrot of maxing out KENPC is gone.

This doesn't solve the actions outside of retailers, but this would at least remove some of the reason for pumping a single book full of additional content.

I'd also like to see borrows count for less in the ranking or even better, create a separate ranking for bought and borrowed (and if a book is in KU it could be in both). But that's pretty much a pipe dream and Select author would lose their collective poop.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

Amanda M. Lee said:


> This is a problem in multiple other genres. Romance is definitely the hardest hit. It's hardly the only genre hit, though. Instituting one group of rules for one genre and ignoring the others makes no sense. These should be across-the-board rules. In truth, 750 KENPC is low for some fantasy. 1,000 KENPC is probably better. Then omnibuses, anthologies, boxed sets, etc. should be banned to cut down on abuse. A title can be in KU once. Period. Institute those two things and most of the scammers couldn't afford to stay.


And this is where you lose people. A 1,000 KEN PC comes out to about a 200,000 word count. None of my books would qualify. If I can't publish what I want, why would I support you? Your cap is about 560 pages in trade paperback. While that would be long in some genres my top 10 books all go above that mark.

Wheel Of Time
Game of Thrones
The Last Four Harry Potter Books
Black Jewels Trilogy

I went to Amazon and went to Fantasy. Not the top 100 but just Fantasy and almost every book was over the cap. My search was only mine. But I recognized Brandon Sanderson, and a few titles I'd been looking at. While the Top 100 are owned by the under 500 page count. Only 6 were boxed sets... Out of a 100. All of them are series I've seen people talk about and all of them have reviews. If this is an issue in the genre, I'm not seeing it.

This is nuanced. But creating a cap that would make it hard for my favorite books to be published can't be good and won't make for a better system. Are you willing to tell authors they can't write the stories they want? Because you think they are too big? So that you can fix a problem they don't see in their genre? You will be gutting some genre's, I know because I read them. Authors will simply not write in them and those authors that suffer through it will turn their back on this discussion and you.

You can't ask for help while saying you don't care. Either its a partnership with respect where we face the world together or its every writer for themselves.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

blubarry said:


> I like the idea of a payment cap better than a page cap. You can still write long but most people who do aren't pricing _that_ much more. I'm happy to take the money, but I never understood paying authors more than what they would make based on how they priced their books.


I like this idea, too, but it makes my head spin trying to marry the price-per-unit of a sale with the price-per-page of a borrowed book, especially when the price-per-page is only worked out weeks after it's registered. Not to mention that half the books in KU would be priced at 99.99.  So I don't think this one will fly.


----------



## Used To Be BH

RPatton said:


> In the interest of not just pointing out the problems or issues, but offering suggestions...
> 
> You don't need to install a page cap. You need to install a max payout. Have it cap out at 3.49. Regardless of how many pages, the most an author can get paid is 3.49. This is what a book at 4.99 would earn. There is absolutely no incentive to add extra pages for the extra payout and while authors writing longer books might feel a bit of a pinch, 4.99 seems to be the highest price point with a larger number of authors. Yes, people price at 5.99 and higher, but not as much.
> 
> The carrot of making out KENPC is gone.
> 
> This doesn't solve the actions outside of retailers, but this would at least remove some of the reason for pumping a single book full of additional content.
> 
> I'd also like to see borrows count for less in the ranking or even better, create a separate ranking for bought and borrowed (and if a book is in KU it could be in both). But that's pretty much a pipe dream and Select author would lose their collective poop.


The maximum payout idea has a lot of merit. At the very least, click farms and bots would have to work a lot harder. The only reason stuffing started in the first place must be that it's a more efficient use of scamming resources to get a $13 payout on one long book that to have to do almost four reads of shorter books to get the same effect. Writers with longer books (above 750 KENP) will lose some of their borrow money, though the payout you propose is higher than what people got under KU 1, and getting rid of the scammers might be worth it, even financially. Moving to a healthier ecosystem will in the long run attract more readers, and at minimum the program will be at less risk of collapsing.

The key selling point for Amazon would that it would be much easier to enforce than some ideas we've seen. That means it might actually happen.

I'm not sure all Select writers would be upset if there were a separate ranking for borrowed books--I wouldn't be if it solved a problem. Amazon, however, would have a problem with it. KU is the only really compelling thing Select has to offer. (Notice how many people in these threads say KU when they mean Select.) If KU books lost some or all of the visibility they get from borrows, I'd imagine that could lead to an exodus from Select. However, if other changes reduced or eliminated scamming, the ranking bump would no longer be as much of an issue. If one thinks of the rankings as a measure of audience size, rather than sales, there's really nothing wrong with a borrow counting the way a sale does. We worry about it because click farms and bots can game borrows. Sales aren't as easy to manipulate, except for incentivized buying or the quick buy-and-return (because returns don't affect ranking).


----------



## Used To Be BH

PaulineMRoss said:


> I like this idea, too, but it makes my head spin trying to marry the price-per-unit of a sale with the price-per-page of a borrowed book, especially when the price-per-page is only worked out weeks after it's registered. Not to mention that half the books in KU would be priced at 99.99.  So I don't think this one will fly.


I agree, but RPatton's original suggestion was not to cap the borrow at the same as the royalty for a read. It was to have flat $3.49 cap on the assumption that most indie books aren't priced more than $4.99. A floating cap based on retail price could be a nightmare.


----------



## RPatton

PaulineMRoss said:


> I like this idea, too, but it makes my head spin trying to marry the price-per-unit of a sale with the price-per-page of a borrowed book, especially when the price-per-page is only worked out weeks after it's registered. Not to mention that half the books in KU would be priced at 99.99.  So I don't think this one will fly.


It's not based on what they are listed at. It's a hard cap of 3.49. No matter if the book is listed at .99 or 9.99, it can never earn more than 3.49 from page reads. It can earn less though. so a book at 1000 KENPC would earn the page rate per page read, up to 3.49. If someone only reads 20 pages, then an author earns 20 page reads. If someone reads all 1000 pages, the author earns 3.49. If someone reads 900, the author earns 3.49. Amazon knows the borrows and the page reads from borrows.

Whether or not it could be practically implemented is another thing. It's basically a hybrid approach to KU 1 and KU 2. Count page reads until the amount hits 3.49, at which point, that's when page reads don't matter. Of course, that causes a problem with all-stars.

However, this has an indirect benefit. With the cap on what a book could earn from a single reader, the benefit from inflating a book's page reads goes away because it no longer can subsidize the inflated ad spends. Without the inflated ad spends to push everyone out of the front page of the top 100, the cost-benefit ratio to underpricing a book. So without the swath of .99 books inflated with additional content, the all-stars threshold would naturally sink. Although it will naturally sink now that compilations and box sets don't count towards all-stars.

Okay, beautiful minding it right now.

Two-pronged. First prong, Amazon already implemented. Compilations and Box sets won't count towards All-stars. So you can put them out, but there's no chance of getting a bonus from them.

Second prong, put a hard cap on what a book can earn, not a flat rate though. So a book still earns per page read, but there's a hard cap at 3.49, which is close to what Amazon pays for a book priced at 4.99. So, even if a book gets inflated, the page reads will never be able to offset the cost of marketing a book with the intent of pushing everyone else out of the marketplace. (If you take a look at Romance as a case-study, this is what happened. Inflated pages subsidized inflated ad spends so that others couldn't afford to advertise, leaving the first pages of the top 100 of romance filled with the books whose authors/publishers spent large amounts of money advertising.)

By removing the two keystones (all books could count towards All-stars, whether compilations or single titles and maxing KENPC to subsidize increased add spends), people will have to work a lot harder to manipulate the system. Not that they still can't, but it's more work.


----------



## David VanDyke

Any cap would be useful, whether by pages or payout. The 3000 cap was useful. A payout cap at the equivalent of a 9.99 retail sale (about 6.99) would be useful, cutting in half the $13-14 possible under the current system, while hitting (I bet) almost no indies at all (who prices an ebook above $20?). The tradpubs get different terms anyway.

Again, even a slightly lower cap would be welcome. 

There's a sweet spot somewhere.  can't believe all these quants at Amazon haven't thought of testing out different caps to find it.


----------



## PhoenixS

blubarry said:


> Considering the reps I've spoken to or met in person, this is 100% true. Many struggle to understand the issues at all and defer to others. You might have a faster response going through a rep than through the KDP dashboard contact page, but that's about it.


KDP employees trawl this board. We've seen action taken against specific people and practices when they were called out here when no action was taken despite the same evidence being sent through the "proper" channels.

Amazon "does" listen, despite how infuriating their inconsistency in acting might be. So speaking out here is often a good way to bring attention to issues and for Amazon to gauge reactions to proposed suggestions and solutions.

Just sayin' ...


----------



## Crime fighters

Isn't a page cap and payout cap the same thing? That being said, I think a payout cap would 'read' better in terms of PR, and would halt any confusion. For example, when a page cap is talked about, there seems to be confusion about what that would mean. Nobody would be advocating to ban books from KU that are longer, they just wouldn't get paid past a certain point. 

Any way you cut it, $3.49 is still a lot of money to earn for something that's nothing more than a borrow from a lobrary.


----------



## EthanRussellErway

I like it. A rising tide lifts all ships.


----------



## Crystal_

RPatton said:


> I'm going to deliver a dose of realism and it's going to be painful. Correlation is not Causation. Chance probably wasn't removed from the Amazon storefront because of stuffing or compilations or crappy formatting. He was likely removed because he involved Amazon in what amounted to an illegal lottery. That it happened the same time as the 10% bonus rule is correlation, not causation. Do not think of his removal as a "win" because I am fairly certain, in that I would wager my entire back catalog and future catalog on the belief that Amazon didn't remove him for any of the reasons people would like to believe they did. And I get why they want to believe that. It's validation, but it's validation based on a false premise.


Most everyone I've discussed CC with agrees his books were removed because of the lottery. But I still see that as a win, because that is the kind of behavior that hurts all authors. An illegal lottery opens Amazon up to legal trouble. If that kind of things continues to happen, Amazon might decide KDP isn't worth the effort, or that authors can't be trusted with current restrictions and tighten the publication process.

It's a win solely because unethical and illegal behavior should be removed from the store. And it's a win because it shows Amazon can actually enforce its rules. And it's a win because it stops a behavior that hurts the industry.

I dislike Chance. I dislike his persona and find his tactics unethical. He's done a lot to screw up romance and he is a spammer (as in he breaks SPAM laws all the time). But that isn't why I was happy to see his books removed.



RPatton said:


> Second does of reality, and this one is even more painful. None of us has the connections to actually effect change. You need to be on a first name basis with senior executives. You need to know their kids' birthdays and they need to know your kids' favorite activities. A rep at KDP isn't a connection, it's a contact. And they just don't have the political power of good-will to be able to say, "Hey, this is the way we're going to do this from now on." It would be nice if we did, but this is going to be someone who has been part of the publishing industry for decades, and not as an author, but as an editor at the Big 5 who's transitioned to being an agent or has stepped into the indie sphere. They have the ability to make a few calls and get the ear of someone who will listen.


Most of us don't have sway as individuals. But reaching out to reps about issues does help push things along. We do have power as a group.

Personally, I don't see a need for a cap if the bonus content rules are enforced (and compilations really do need to be carefully and clearly labeled). When I spoke to a rep, he gave me a hard no on the idea of a cap or the idea of removing box sets from the store. So I don't expect that to happen. But you never know.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crystal_ said:


> When I spoke to a rep, he gave me a hard no on the idea of a cap or the idea of removing box sets from the store. So I don't expect that to happen. But you never know.


Just a point of clarification... I don't believe anyone has seriously advocated for removing box sets from the store, but rather making them ineligible for Kindle Unlimited. As far as the page cap, I think the idea is to limit the number of KU pages they could be paid for. When you talked with the rep, do you know if he/she meant a hard no on no box sets in the whole store, or rather in the kindle unlimited program?

This, I think, is where the idea of a dollar-limit per borrow has a lot of merit. My first choice would be to limit the amount per borrow to the amount the author would earn on a buy -- simply because the current system makes no sense and results in a seriously skewed market. But I'd definitely be receptive to a dollar-cap, because anything that discourages the scamming and stuffing is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Crystal_

MmmmmPie said:


> Just a point of clarification... I don't believe anyone has seriously advocated for removing box sets from the store, but rather making them ineligible for Kindle Unlimited. As far as the page cap, I think the idea is to limit the number of KU pages they could be paid for. When you talked with the rep, do you know if he/she meant a hard no on no box sets in the whole store, or rather in the kindle unlimited program?
> 
> This, I think, is where the idea of a dollar-limit per borrow has a lot of merit. My first choice would be to limit the amount per borrow to the amount the author would earn on a buy -- simply because the current system makes no sense and results in a seriously skewed market. But I'd definitely be receptive to a dollar-cap, because anything that discourages the scamming and stuffing is a step in the right direction.


Oh, sorry, that's what I meant. The rep was very pro box sets in KU.

If the choice is Amazon actually policing content or a cap, the former is so much better for authors. But if the choice is a cap or nothing, I'd much rather have a reasonable cap (something like the $6 or $7 David suggested).


----------



## Michaela Strong

Shelley K said:


> I don't disagree with anything you've said, but you've said this twice now, and it's news to me. I may have missed an update or something, but I can't find where it says box sets aren't eligible for bonuses. It's certainly not on the bonus page I'm looking at. Can you link or point me toward this info please?


I believe it is multi-author box sets that don't qualify for individual bonuses.


----------



## RPatton

Shelley K said:


> I don't disagree with anything you've said, but you've said this twice now, and it's news to me. I may have missed an update or something, but I can't find where it says box sets aren't eligible for bonuses. It's certainly not on the bonus page I'm looking at. Can you link or point me toward this info please?


It was in the first part of the announcement, if you don't comply you won't qualify for bonuses for June and going forward.

I swore it included that books labeled as a compilation wouldn't qualify for the bonus, but I can't find my source. (I know I didn't make it up out of whole cloth, but it's totally possible that I misread it.) Still looking, but I am pretty sure not including compilations in the all-star bonus was part of the end goal.


----------



## Phxsundog

I'll add that it's extremely unclear what exactly Amazon thinks about re-titled collections or compilations. There are still plenty glutting up the Top 100, however authors are receiving compliance notices for collections labeled more clearly than the romance stuffers. There's a chance Amazon is refining policy internally or planning case-by-case actions against the abusive mega-stuffers in romance. However I don't feel 100% confident predicting anything right now.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> My vote goes for a flat fee max, with a per page read minimum.
> 
> Wait. I don't get a vote. Damn you Amazon.
> 
> The only reason Amazon moved to the per page read payment instead of tweaked the per borrow rate anyway was to stop people from having access to borrow information. Otherwise, it would have been so easy to just set a sliding scale rate based on length and say a 25% rule (instead of 10%) to stop a lot of the people who were just publishing shorter books/stories for a quick payout. Instead, they went to all the trouble to put into place an entirely new way to pay, had to update so many old devices and put in so much development time just to find a way to count pages and even more when they realized their current methods were falling short... It's just impossible to deny. They did it ALL to get rid of people having those borrow numbers.
> 
> I think it's insane that there hasn't been a payment cap put into place before now anyway. It's never made sense.


You could well be right, but I don't understand Amazon's motivation in such a case. What difference does it make to Amazon whether we know our borrow numbers or not? There would actually be some advantage to Amazon if we did--then the borrows could be linked to AMS ads that generated them. Omitting that information causes the ads to appear to be performing worse than they are sometimes, and I don't see any upside for Amazon.


----------



## RPatton

Bill Hiatt said:


> You could well be right, but I don't understand Amazon's motivation in such a case. What difference does it make to Amazon whether we know our borrow numbers or not? There would actually be some advantage to Amazon if we did--then the borrows could be linked to AMS ads that generated them. Omitting that information causes the ads to appear to be performing worse than they are sometimes, and I don't see any upside for Amazon.


Customer data is money. The more customer data externally available, the less valuable it becomes. Knowing the borrows made their data less valuable.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

RPatton said:


> It was in the first part of the announcement, if you don't comply you won't qualify for bonuses for June and going forward.
> 
> I swore it included that books labeled as a compilation wouldn't qualify for the bonus, but I can't find my source. (I know I didn't make it up out of whole cloth, but it's totally possible that I misread it.) Still looking, but I am pretty sure not including compilations in the all-star bonus was part of the end goal.


It didn't say anything about box sets, just bonus books.


----------



## Jack Krenneck

RPatton said:


> You don't need to install a page cap. You need to install a max payout. Have it cap out at 3.49. Regardless of how many pages, the most an author can get paid is 3.49. This is what a book at 4.99 would earn. There is absolutely no incentive to add extra pages for the extra payout and while authors writing longer books might feel a bit of a pinch, 4.99 seems to be the highest price point with a larger number of authors. Yes, people price at 5.99 and higher, but not as much.


Obviously, a lot less people price above 4.99 than below it. But that doesn't mean that many, many people don't price above that threshold and would be hit hard by this suggestion. All of my boxed sets are at the 7.99/8.99 mark. Lots of other authors price similarly for a boxed set. Some price at 9.99. There are even authors with single books at 6.99. All of this is just in epic fantasy, one small slice of the store.

The golden rule when solving problems is not to create other problems. Apart from the hit to authors such a low borrow payout would produce (a big enough problem in itself) what else could this trigger? KU already has a low pay out per page, this would probably force more and more authors wide. KU would have less books in it, especially from the top ranks of authors, and therefore consumers would find KU less appealing. This is not a situation amazon wants. And with less readers, income for borrows for _all _authors would probably drop, no matter the length of their books.


----------



## unkownwriter

> You don't need to install a page cap. You need to install a max payout.


No, we had this in KUv1, and Amazon didn't like it, long form authors didn't like it, and now we have the ultimate black hat cheaters competition. Thanks, Amazon. There needs to be a page cap, beyond which no further money will be paid per borrow. I'd say 1K, but I can see where 750 would work.

For a 1K KENPC book, paying out at .0045, that would be 4.50 per full read. Anyone who thinks that isn't enough needs to take a step back and look at what the current situation is doing to honest writers who are simply trying to earn some money. (I love how some excuse bad behavior as a writer trying to support his/her family.)

Again: This would in no way stop anyone from writing books as long as they want. *It would only limit the payout per borrow in KU.* No one has ever, never ever, said that anyone should not be able to write a book the length they want. Never. Ever.


----------



## caitlynlynch

Actually, I think the payout per borrow in KU should be capped at the same price the ebook is for sale for. Might actually stop the 99cent books glutting the market and get authors paid a fair rate for good work.


----------



## 101569

caitlynlynch said:


> Actually, I think the payout per borrow in KU should be capped at the same price the ebook is for sale for. Might actually stop the 99cent books glutting the market and get authors paid a fair rate for good work.


The problem would be then people setting their book at $25+. Some trade pubs get in the teens. If there is no cap on price or payout then people are at the same place they are now.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Let's get rid of the all-star bonus for a start, that takes away 25k worth of incentive, and any author hitting page numbers to get a bonus should be financially happy with what they are getting anyway. When the bonus programme was rolled out it said they may stop paying it in future - so stop.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Crime fighters

P.J. wins.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee

caitlynlynch said:


> Actually, I think the payout per borrow in KU should be capped at the same price the ebook is for sale for. Might actually stop the 99cent books glutting the market and get authors paid a fair rate for good work.


Since the majority of scammers don't get purchases, all that will do is make them move their prices to $9.99.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

_2. Some of us have been pushing for the lower cap for a long long time, but it was never about the length of books - it was always about a Pay-Out Cap based upon a lower KENPC. I prefer a 750 KENPC setting, (which is approximately $3.50 per read through), because it's short enough to have a significant impact on shady-hat shenanigans, and yet long enough to allow for publishing flexibility._

Your flexibility, your way. What you think's right. I don't see any reach out to the authors that are against this. I seem to be running into the same wall and it must be me. I believe in compromise and that a community finds a way to do what's right for all it's members. Instead, I feel that it comes down to simply do it my way or I'll yell at you.

_3. Unlike a page cap, this allows authors to continue to publish box sets and provide as much bonus content as they feel appropriate, because it doesn't affect Pay-Out.* This is especially important for writers who specialize in short fiction.*_

I agree. This was never debated except by one post that I know of.

_4. It allows us the freedom to experiment with formatting and content and promotions and how we tell our stories, without worrying about getting banned._

I have no need for this. Nor do I see a great consensus that this is something people are actually interested in.

_5. Becasue the Pay-Out is set at a 750 KENPC level, it provides authors the flexibility to decide how much over that Cap they want their titles to go. 250 KENPC is about $1.17. So is getting that third novel in the box set worth losing a $1.17? It becomes a marketing decision. And for me, the answer would be Yes, every time. Short-term greed is always the enemy of long-term strategic thinking._

Again your flexibility, your way. What you want. A predetermined number that you decided on because of the books you write. Not the books I write. With no input from other genre's or way's of writing.

_6. Dear Fantasy writers: I don't know why you are so set on the traditional publishing model of the 80s and 90s, one, I might add, that wasn't developed by writers or their marketing teams, but by accountants. Readers have clearly communicated to the market that they are totally fine with shorter books at lower prices and serialized stories/content - this is true across all genres. Of Tolkien's books, only Fellowship goes over the 750 Cap, and just barely at that, 40 pages or so, about 20 cents per read through. The other's are well below. And his publishers were right, LOTR is not a single novel, it really is a trilogy. The reality is that most of these super long books combine a number of shorter novels and side stories (novellas) into a single title. The Stand is another one that should have been a trilogy. It's one story, sure, but not one book. To an extent, these are packaging decisions, not literary choices._

Dear person who I've never met,

I'm not interested in the model of publishing. I'm interested in the books I'd like to write. I'm not writing for your audience but my own. I don't believe that I enjoy a person telling me to basically write shorter books, at a lower price, or to branch out. You keep bringing up Tolkien as a base line. Sorry, but I don't agree with your example. How about Wheel of Time? Game of Thrones? The last three Harry Potter books? Regardless, this argument comes down to you telling me to write it your way or get out of KU. I'm wondering if you'd appreciate that kind of sentiment being directed at you. Would you appreciate someone telling you to write different? That you are behind the times? Or that you need to write their way for you to care about them?

_A 750 KENPC Cap is about 175k words, or somewhere between 500 and 700 actual print pages depending on formatting. I grew up reading series, they're a staple in SFF. I mean, ignoring my preference for tight narratives, I don't get the need or want for super long books from a business perspective, an artistic perspective or a work-flow perspective. I just don't get it. I'm pretty sure the digital world has moved on to a content-based literary model. But that's okay, I don't have get it. You do you. _

350 words per page is a trade paperback, divided by 350 = 500 pages. Appreciate the approval. I know this was intended to be an olive branch but after you just get done insulting the genre I write in, well, lets just say it didn't come off. I mean once you've told someone you don't get why they write, it's artistic merit, and that its old fashioned, what's not to be happy about.

_As for super long TP books, they're not in KU; they have a completely different marketing strategy. Direct comparisons with TP books can only be made on the Store side of Zon. Which means Sanderson and Rowling are irrelevant to this conversation._

Yes, why should we compare to other titles of books that write to market, do well, and are published wide.

_8. The lower Pay-Out Cap will reduce the revenue stream per shady-hat title by 75%.

9. To compensate, they'll have to publish four times as many books (won't that much duplication be noticeable?), which meas their AMS spend will increase by 400%. Is that sustainable?

10. A Pay-Out Cap is pretty much a single line of code. Let's face it, Zon isn't going to put much effort into implementing a workable solution. Any solution needs to be simple. _

Frankly this is supposition. You don't know how much code goes into it. I'm a code monkey on the side, you simply haven't seen it so anything on that front is guess work. You can't predict the new model because it is a new model. All you can do is guess at what they'd do. Your benefits also don't touch anything that I care about and take away things I do. This is a deal that benefits you while cutting into what I love.

_11. And for those on the fence, Romance writers, and a few other genres, have been dealing with this for the last year plus. How is that okay? _

How is it right for you plan to not even once take into account the real concerns of other writers?

_12. Let's also accept the fact that Zon is extremely unlikely to do anything we suggest, but it would be nice to see us get on the same page for once, thinking and planning for a better path for *ALL* of us. And while a lower Cap isn't a perfect solution, it provides the most benefit with the least harm. We even get to keep the All-Star bonuses (of which, I've never remotely qualified for)._

I'll say this again. You don't ask for help while telling people you don't care what they think. The benefit is for things you care about while maiming the things I do.

_I guess it comes down to whether or not cleaning up KU and leveling the AMS playing field is really all that important, if it's worth the sacrifice. I'd be happy to lose a buck or two, or whatever on my box sets if it meant my AMS spend could be competitive again, or if the pop lists were reflective of actual reader preferences again. I'll trade a few short-term pennies for long-term stability any day - we'll all make way more money that way. It's been proven in other industries - it's why the leaders of those industries created standards and certifications, so that manufacturing and services would remain professional and consistent with consumer expectations.

Oh, and it helps out our fellow writers, too. Win - Win. 
_

My pop lists are indicative of what readers enjoy. It's good of you to give up some money, but then you get to keep writing the way you want, its other writers who will have to suffer for this. The writers that have said from the beginning that this wouldn't work for their books.

It's not a Win - Win for this author. In fact I'd lose, but then I'm writing in a way behind the times, with no artistic merit.

This will be my last time on this thread. I offered to help, wanted to compromise, was willing to work with you to actually get a change so that I could help out a genre I neither read nor write in. Since you force me into a binary of your way or their way. I'll say I'm their way.


----------



## Forgettable

.


----------



## David VanDyke

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Since the majority of scammers don't get purchases, all that will do is make them move their prices to $9.99.


Mejor que nada. At least their take would be halved.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Atlantisatheart said:


> Let's get rid of the all-star bonus for a start, that takes away 25k worth of incentive, and any author hitting page numbers to get a bonus should be financially happy with what they are getting anyway. When the bonus programme was rolled out it said they may stop paying it in future - so stop.


I agree with this. A bonus payment makes for a great incentive to 'manipulate' the system.


----------



## Jack Krenneck

It's easy in all this to come up with a solution that works for group A. Or B. Or C. But a true solution is much harder. A true solution will work for everyone from A to Z.

Unless some groups think they're more worthy than other groups, and that friendly fire serves the greater good, and that the end justifies the means.

This is why I think it best to target the scammers directly. They're not authors. They're running a _scam_. A true solution will hone in on them, and them alone.


----------



## 41419

Jack Krenneck said:


> It's easy in all this to come up with a solution that works for group A. Or B. Or C. But a true solution is much harder. A true solution will work for everyone from A to Z.
> 
> Unless some groups think they're more worthy than other groups, and that friendly fire serves the greater good, and that the end justifies the means.
> 
> This is why I think it best to target the scammers directly. They're not authors. They're running a _scam_. A true solution will hone in on them, and them alone.


I agree with this. While removing bonuses might be effective (emphasis on "might") it harms innocent authors. A better solution wouldn't harm any authors playing by the rules. This is why I'm not wild about caps or bonus removal or many of the mooted suggestions.

Really, IMO, it comes down to enforcement rather than rules. We can have all the rules we like, but if Amazon doesn't enforce them, or only does so selectively, then it's kind of pointless dreaming up new ones.

I do understand the argument that a 1000 KENPC limit (or 10% bonus content limit) will curb the worst abuses, but I'd also argue that scammers and cheaters will find away around that roadblock and come up with a new wheeze - as they have done consistently since 2014/5.

Unless there is real will at Amazon to tackle this problem comprehensively, we'll just continue to kick the can down the road. It's no accident that many of the big guys breaking the rules today started as small time scammers pumping out 8-page wikipedia non-fiction books under KU1.


----------



## David VanDyke

Jack Krenneck said:


> It's easy in all this to come up with a solution that works for group A. Or B. Or C. But a true solution is much harder. A true solution will work for everyone from A to Z.


In the real world, that seldom happens. Most solutions are "best that can be done" type of things, which help the majority but disadvantage some minority, for the sake of the common good.

The perfect is often the enemy of the good.


----------



## Used To Be BH

David VanDyke said:


> In the real world, that seldom happens. Most solutions are "best that can be done" type of things, which help the majority but disadvantage some minority, for the sake of the common good.
> 
> The perfect is often the enemy of the good.


I have to agree with this. It's always possible there is no perfect solution, and searching one just results in there being no solution.

In some alternate universe in which Amazon actually cared what we thought and sometimes took our advice, on this topic we'd have no advice to give. We as a community don't seem to be able to reach agreement on what we want, except that we want the scammers stopped--somehow.


----------



## MmmmmPie

David VanDyke said:


> In the real world, that seldom happens. Most solutions are "best that can be done" type of things, which help the majority but disadvantage some minority, for the sake of the common good.
> 
> The perfect is often the enemy of the good.


I agree with this, too. The truth is, Kindle Unlimited has introduced unnatural elements into the book-selling business. Take KU 1.0. Authors were paid $1.35 for a 5-page "book" of useless junk. Take KU 2.0. Authors are being paid $13 for a stuffed collection of previously published ghost-written stories. Under both of these scenarios, payment per borrow far exceeded the natural selling price.

Unfortunately, these incentives have caused honest authors to adjust their businesses accordingly. Under KU 1.0, authors of longer books started breaking up their stories into serials. Under KU 2.0, even honest authors started adding bonus content to compete.

*All of these problems stem from the simple fact that KU has introduced unnatural market incentives that enable authors to earn more from a borrow than from a sale. *I'm sorry to say that this also applies to authors of very long stories. Please don't be angry with me for pointing this out, because I mean no offense. But right now, fantasy authors are enjoying a situation where they can price their books in-line with the natural selling price, say $5.99, but earn much more than that through a borrow. The current system benefits them similarly to how KU 1.0 benefited honest authors of short stories, so I understand and sympathize with the resistance to any page-count limits.

However, the current environment is an unnatural one. It's unsustainable, and thus, it will not last. If you're a fantasy author and your business depends on getting ten dollars a borrow, for example, you're building your empire on some seriously shaky ground. Aside from the scammers, I believe you're the most vulnerable to whatever changes Amazon makes next, and you have my sympathy, because you didn't cause this problem, and you've built your business plans around the current KU system. You've played by the rules, and now you see your livelihood threatened by scammers and honest authors alike -- scammers because they caused this problem in the first place, and honest authors, because we're desperate for something -- anything -- to stop the scamming. It has to be really frustrating, just like it's frustrating for honest romance authors who've been suffering for months due to all the scamming and stuffing.

In truth, it sucks for all of us, because speaking as a romance author, I really do wish there was a way to protect fantasy authors from the garbage going on in romance. Sadly, I think this is unlikely.

I do believe changes are coming. In fact, if I were a betting person, I'd bet that we will see the KU page-limit reduced to 1,000 and/or the elimination of box sets/collections from KU, because for whatever reason, Amazon seems incapable of stopping the scamming in any other way. It really is sad and pathetic, but there we have it.


----------



## bobfrost

People are seriously advocating for amazon to remove all star bonuses?

I bet the vast majority of those things are won by legitimate authors. Do you really want those authors to eat a pay cut?


----------



## MmmmmPie

bobfrost said:


> People are seriously advocating for amazon to remove all star bonuses?
> 
> I bet the vast majority of those things are won by legitimate authors. Do you really want those authors to eat a pay cut?


If the vast majority were won by legitimate authors, Amazon would still be publicizing the winners. Just the fact that they seem reluctant to tell us who's winning these things is a huge red flag. I might be mistaken, and please feel free to correct me, but I don't believe we even know who's winning anymore. If this is the case, I highly doubt that we'd find many legitimate authors on the list.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Avery342

bobfrost said:


> People are seriously advocating for amazon to remove all star bonuses?
> 
> I bet the vast majority of those things are won by legitimate authors. Do you really want those authors to eat a pay cut?


If by vast majority, you are talking about the very lower rungs of the awards, then perhaps you are almost right. I still don't think legitimate authors are in the VAST majority stage, though.

As was said before, if that were the case, Amazon would still have a list of all star available. Now, you can do a search for Kindle all stars and 3000 books will come up. I sorted them by newest release and yes, several of the best known stuffers magically appeared!

But there were honest and very hard working authors sprinkled in too. I'd hate to see Amanda Lee take a pay cut because of stuffers. She's the real deal.

In my mind, the best solution is for Amazon to take a stand on Duplicate Content. Give us a better description of "Differentiated Content", make it one book published ONCE in KU only (with the possible exception of also being put in ONE box set). And then actually, you know, enforce that.

Until they do that, I'm afraid nothing is going to change. Amazon simply doesn't care.


----------



## Crystal_

There's no reason why Amazon would get rid of All Star bonuses. That makes no sense from their POV. Why would they want to discourage the top earning KU authors from staying in KU?

This discussion is going in circles, so I'm going to bounce. We've discussed the idea of the cap to death and there's  no new points on either side. I don't think Amazon is interested in a lower cap and I don't see why that's necessary if they actually enforce the new ToS, but it's hard to know what they'll do. I'd rather have a cap than nothing, but it needs to be high enough to actually encourage people to stay in KU. Three dollars is way too low--that's less than the royalty on a 4.99 title.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

bobfrost said:


> People are seriously advocating for amazon to remove all star bonuses?
> 
> I bet the vast majority of those things are won by legitimate authors. Do you really want those authors to eat a pay cut?


The all star bonus wasn't meant to last, at least, that's what amazon said, and when I was getting them I never counted them into my earnings - they were a BONUS. Take the bonus away and it hurts the stuffers in the pocket, ad spend becomes less. Cut bundles and collections, one book per cover, and they are stuffed.

Big names getting big page reads aren't going to pull out because the bonus is cut. This just spreads the pain over everyone in KU and hopefully kills the KU3 version of their business plan.


----------



## Phxsundog

I think almost everyone here agrees on Amazon enforcing and clarifying the recent rules. Encouraging them to do that is something you can take action on today. Personally I've decided to report every new collection or compilation I see coming from the serial stuffers to [email protected]

This is the email they've given us specifically for reporting scammer related violations. You get a reply back when you write it, unlike filling out the report form on the product page.

Whether doing this gets the collections stuffed with duplicate content taken down or not, I think it sends a message. If enough people do it often enough on these monster bundles then KDP should get the idea quickly that we want this to end by aggressively going after the bad actors or changing policy.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crystal_ said:


> There's no reason why Amazon would get rid of All Star bonuses. That makes no sense from their POV. Why would they want to discourage the top earning KU authors from staying in KU?


Normally, I'd agree, because in a normal market, the top-earning authors would be the most popular. They'd satisfy the most customers. They'd make Amazon the most money. They'd act as a draw to the KU program and to the Amazon store. However...

In today's Kindle Unlimited, the exact opposite is likely true. Recent bonus recipients probably frustrate more customers than they satisfy. They probably _cost _Amazon the most money, because they're leading to over-inflated payouts. They're pushing customers away from not just KU, but also the Amazon store entirely, because they're making it hard for customers to find books they actually want to read.

If Amazon was smart, they'd, at the very least, revamp how they select the All Star bonus recipients so stuffed books were excluded in the calculations.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> I think almost everyone here agrees on Amazon enforcing and clarifying the recent rules. Encouraging them to do that is something you can take action on today. Personally I've decided to report every new collection or compilation I see coming from the serial stuffers to *[email protected]
> *
> This is the email they've given us specifically for reporting scammer related violations. You get a reply back when you write it, unlike filling out the report form on the product page.
> 
> Whether doing this gets the collections stuffed with duplicate content taken down or not, I think it sends a message. If enough people do it often enough on these monster bundles then KDP should get the idea quickly that we want this to end by aggressively going after the bad actors or changing policy.


This is an excellent point. And for any writer who agrees that the stuffing is a problem, but doesn't want to see the program changed, this is a good opportunity to help stop the stuffing before Amazon takes more drastic measures, such as a page-limit. Heck, if nothing else, browse the top 100, or the top 100 in romance. These books aren't hard to find. Start with anything priced at 99-cents and look at the TOC, look at where the excerpt ends, and report the books that violate the rules. If we all work together, maybe we can solve this with minimal disruption to honest authors.


----------



## Crime fighters

You know what? I'm literally at the point where I'm comfortable saying fuck Amazon. So many of us have championed them over the years, going to bat for them because they opened these doors for us. No more. I've seen countless readers fleeing the store and countless authors saying they've had enough. 90% of their problems circle back to this one issue. 

They want to continue doing nothing? They want to continue lining the scammers pockets? Fine. They want to destroy organic visibility and make us pay for placement? Fine. Let them. I'll enjoy watching the goodwill they've developed crumble and it's happening fast. 

None of this is good for writers, readers, or consumers. Readers are pissed they can't find anything they want anymore. Writers are pissed about visibility and watching their genre being destroyed from the inside.


----------



## bobfrost

Phxsundog said:


> I think almost everyone here agrees on Amazon enforcing and clarifying the recent rules. Encouraging them to do that is something you can take action on today. Personally I've decided to report every new collection or compilation I see coming from the serial stuffers to [email protected]
> 
> This is the email they've given us specifically for reporting scammer related violations. You get a reply back when you write it, unlike filling out the report form on the product page.
> 
> Whether doing this gets the collections stuffed with duplicate content taken down or not, I think it sends a message. If enough people do it often enough on these monster bundles then KDP should get the idea quickly that we want this to end by aggressively going after the bad actors or changing policy.


While you're busy scouring the store reporting books that amazon has specifically blessed and allowed in their TOS, I'm going to finish another chapter in my work in progress.

Something tells me writing and building my audience is going to get more done than being upset that amazon is specifically and explicitly allowing compilations in KU.

Even if you succeed and get them to pull their compilations some day, nothing will really come of it. The KU rate won't suddenly jump. Your books won't instantly find traction in the absence of those titles. The people on top will continue to work hard to be on top. I've said it before and I'll say it again: compilations are a "win more" aspect of their publishing efforts. They don't need them to toplist.

The only thing that really makes a difference is fingers on a keyboard banging out words. Actively trying to get amazon to clamp down on us even tighter does us no favors.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Jack Krenneck

Phxsundog said:


> I think almost everyone here agrees on Amazon enforcing and clarifying the recent rules. Encouraging them to do that is something you can take action on today. Personally I've decided to report every new collection or compilation I see coming from the serial stuffers to [email protected]
> 
> This is the email they've given us specifically for reporting scammer related violations. You get a reply back when you write it, unlike filling out the report form on the product page.
> 
> Whether doing this gets the collections stuffed with duplicate content taken down or not, I think it sends a message. If enough people do it often enough on these monster bundles then KDP should get the idea quickly that we want this to end by aggressively going after the bad actors or changing policy.


This is something that I agree with, and may well be some common ground among all of us. Common ground has been a rarity.

_I also see it working._ It's not a way to try to change Amazon's TOS, and complaints against books that don't breach the TOS would be ignored by Amazon and dilute the effectiveness of the complaint mechanism. But multiple and consistent reports to them of books that _clearly _violate their TOS via the method they've designated to do so will surely produce an effect.

And if it doesn't, then at least it would provide a single focus that authors could rally around, publicize and use to encourage reader pressure on Amazon. If they won't act for authors, they may well act for readers.


----------



## unkownwriter

> I'll trade a few short-term pennies for long-term stability any day - we'll all make way more money that way.


Yes. The pay per page might not go up, but there would be more opportunity to actually be seen in the store once the crap was cleaned out. It's like driving with a dirty windshield, think how amazing it is when you wash it.



bobfrost said:


> While you're busy scouring the store reporting books that amazon has specifically blessed and allowed in their TOS, I'm going to finish another chapter in my work in progress.
> 
> Something tells me writing and building my audience is going to get more done than being upset that amazon is specifically and explicitly allowing compilations in KU.
> 
> Even if you succeed and get them to pull their compilations some day, nothing will really come of it. The KU rate won't suddenly jump. Your books won't instantly find traction in the absence of those titles. The people on top will continue to work hard to be on top. I've said it before and I'll say it again: compilations are a "win more" aspect of their publishing efforts. They don't need them to toplist.
> 
> The only thing that really makes a difference is fingers on a keyboard banging out words. Actively trying to get amazon to clamp down on us even tighter does us no favors.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

One has to wonder why what any of us does with our time is so important to you that you continue to exhort us to spend it more productively, as per your fine example. I can multitask. It's an amazing skill and truly a wonder to behold how much I can actually fit into my day on top of writing all the wordz.


----------



## BGArcher

Phxsundog said:


> I think almost everyone here agrees on Amazon enforcing and clarifying the recent rules. Encouraging them to do that is something you can take action on today. Personally I've decided to report every new collection or compilation I see coming from the serial stuffers to [email protected]
> 
> This is the email they've given us specifically for reporting scammer related violations. You get a reply back when you write it, unlike filling out the report form on the product page.
> 
> Whether doing this gets the collections stuffed with duplicate content taken down or not, I think it sends a message. If enough people do it often enough on these monster bundles then KDP should get the idea quickly that we want this to end by aggressively going after the bad actors or changing policy.


Yesterday I saw a lot of people seeming to calm down and make some general suggestions. I'm leery about putting a max payout at $3.50, but sure, some of the ideas yesterday were fine. And then today somebody starts talking about getting rid of all star bonus, and unless I'm misreading you, you're suggesting we should band together, and play mall cop. Someone else mentioned it seems more productive to maybe just write another chapter, and that just seems like the "yes, of course" answer. Amazon moves slowly, but why don't we let them do their job, and we just do ours? Which is namely, writing novels.

A lot of the pushback in this thread seems to be from people who don't get that we're in late stage capitalism, and what do in that arena. I'm not saying I love it, or amazon. I really don't. But instead of complaining about it, or making suggestions that would in general just hurt a lot of perfectly legitimate authors, I'm going to go publish another book. Because that's not negatively effecting other author's, but will positively effect my bottom line. If I saw a book that was obviously spoofing, (see jack run for five hundred pages, and five different versions of the same book with a different cover) of course I would report that. But comb through the top 100 of any list looking for people putting out bundles? That's not just a waste of my time, it feels borderline unethical to me. But you all do you.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## PhoenixS

bobfrost said:


> While you're busy scouring the store reporting books that amazon has specifically blessed and allowed in their TOS, I'm going to finish another chapter in my work in progress.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Every time I hear someone ask why an author is engaging in activity that isn't directly related to writing, I think about those hopefuls who berate literary agents for spending time on social media instead of spending every spare minute they have plowing through their never-ending pile of queries. Usually because the hopeful's own query is buried somewhere in that pile. That always told me more about the motive of the person doing the berating -- who is, you know, also hanging out on social media -- than about an agent taking a break from the grind.

Personally, I've fulfilled my career goals, and I haven't required steering from some anonymous screen name since ... well, never. I also currently have time on my hands, so I can afford that minute it takes to find and report a scambook while listening to a podcast or waiting for a game to load. But thank you for your concern.


----------



## Phxsundog

I have to disagree with Bobfrost. It's not clear whether or not these retitled collections are allowed. If they are, then why are authors with better marked anthologies than the serial stuffers receiving compliance emails? I know at least three people who have.

Another consistent Top 100 romance stuffer also had many of her books pulled for several days this week after calling them compilations. Guess what, the books are back today and they're no longer stuffed. Clearly in her case retitling the stuffed books compilations had serious consequences.

So again, if retitling books collections is completely fine then why is Amazon sending mixed signals with threats and sometimes removals of rebranded bonus books?

Even if you think the collections should be allowed, you have to admit their message so far is confusing and inconsistent.

This is another benefit to reporting these collections, which are reshuffled duplicate content. If enough of us do it then KDP will be forced to clarify or refine what their new policy really is.

If adding collection to the end of a title and stuffing is truly sanctioned by Amazon, then every romance author who doesn't want the stuffers to have an unfair advantage should start doing it.

This isn't the solution I want. Ideally these collections should be banned because they are in many cases 70% or more duplicate content. The same bonus books reordered with a new lead story.

What I think and what Amazon does may be two different things. I'll admit that. I just want a hard answer from Amazon either way and consistent enforcement if the collections are off limits.

Reporting works to take out bad actors and bring others into line. It shutdown Chance Carter and it has also forced several stuffers with abusive formatting to clean up their books. Anyone who wants to see a cleaner Kindle store with more clarity on what the bonus content policy truly is should keep doing it.


----------



## MyraScott

We are not a bloc with any control or influence over a private business.

If half of all indie authors removed all their books from Amazon tomorrow, it would have the effect of removing a swimming pool's worth of water from the ocean.

Your dedicated readers would find your new books wherever you direct them to go but people who aren't as established would be cutting off their own income. And the void left would be instantly filled with all the books that are already there- they might get more attention.

Sure, make yourself heard, lodge your complaints, offer ideas of what you would do if you were in charge... maybe someone from Amazon in a decision-making capacity will see one and be inspired. But you still have to work with things the way they are today or walk away.

Scammers suck. Call me a mall cop if it makes you feel better, but when I find them, I report them. Simple and easy and might help, might not, but it only costs me a few keystrokes. I don't get the _contempt _about reporting scammers- it feels like maybe it strikes too close to home?

When you see bad things going on and you look the other way, you're helping the bad things. If you think Amazon *is *the bad thing, walk away.

The sand worms make the spice. You can get eaten by them or you can learn how to hitch a ride.


----------



## Phxsundog

Right, MyraScott. Some people are overestimating how much time and effort it takes to report high visibility stuffers. A person could easily spend no more than a half hour every week looking at the Top 100 and sending [email protected] a list of ASINs to look at. Save the message as boilerplate language to reuse every time. Done.

I personally focus on the dozen or so megastuffers in romance who consistently rank high. It's most relevant to me and I know these are the stuffers screwing things up the most. I'm not spending hours chasing down every scammer in noir or nonfiction sitting at a 10,000 rank.

It's obvious there are several hundred indie romance authors who care deeply about this issue. I don't think they'd be sacrificing any real productivity spending the same time on reporting that it takes them to knock out a few posts debating bonus content here.

I'll add that Amazon has specifically invited us to report possible offenders. They've given everyone who wrote them on the book stuffing issue over the past few months the Content-Review address and said they welcome the reports.


----------



## bobfrost

If it makes you feel better, go nuts.

Just don’t let yourself and you mood get dragged down into the mud when little to nothing happens. 

I prefer to focus on positive endeavors, but that’s just me. I’m not into author-on-author attacks. Never have been.


----------



## JWright

Well, "bonus content" may be out or on the way out but "compilation" looks to have just taken it's place - just another word for box set.  In a lot of cases things have been made clearer for readers though. Nothing wrong with a box set or collection if readers know what they are getting, but to me these books are stilled "stuffed" but using different words. 

I think no duplicate content in KU would help - although there is plenty of content spinning software that might make it fairly easy to get around that too.  If there was a real no duplicate content rule people could still have box sets or single novels if they wanted to just - just not both at the same time.  You could always release the single novels in a series and then box them up in a set and then have that in KU instead of the single novels and still have the single novels for sale on Amazon or vice versa.  

BobFrost, in the time it took you to write your last post someone could report 1-3 books and like you still have finished their writing for the day, lol.

Whether or not Amazon really enforces things is still not clear but they do appear to at least be listening to some concerns.


----------



## bobfrost

Reporting books and authors for publishing compilations that are specifically allowed by the current TOS.

I wonder what the next scapegoat will be when amazon bans compilations?


----------



## JWright

Personally I think it would be a waste of time to report books that weren't violating the TOS.

Nothing wrong with a good collection - whatever name it goes by, but yes the workarounds didn't take long, lol.  We'll see how long it all lasts.  If people want to have multiple books together and it doesn't deceive the readers then I say have at it.  Some of them still definitely seem "stuffed" but hey I'm not the audience for them.


----------



## Phxsundog

bobfrost said:


> Reporting books and authors for publishing compilations that are specifically allowed by the current TOS.
> 
> I wonder what the next scapegoat will be when amazon bans compilations?


]

Two questions for you:

If they're specifically allowed, then why are they being unevenly pulled from sale while other authors receive compliance emails for clearly marked anthologies?

If they're specifically allowed, then why do you care if they get reported?


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Phxsundog

Pragmatism, yes. I want to add Amazon is making this situation worse over the past few weeks by sending conflicting messages.

No one except Amazon can clarify whether the newly retitled collections stuffed with duplicate content are okay or not. Their existence at high ranks doesn't mean they're kosher while authors with series anthologies are getting hit with emails for bonus content violations.

I think they're not okay but I don't know that for sure. By calling for more reporting I'm doing exactly what Amazon has asked us to do: report these books to [email protected] so KDP itself can determine TOS violations.

I want answers. Reporting is the best way to get them and turns in stuffers if they're breaking TOS. This isn't the only way. If I knew a thousand indie authors were planning to email Bezos the same week asking for clarification on the new policy, I'd join that effort too.


----------



## Crime fighters

she-la-ti-da said:


> Yes. The pay per page might not go up, but there would be more opportunity to actually be seen in the store once the crap was cleaned out. It's like driving with a dirty windshield, think how amazing it is when you wash it.
> 
> Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
> 
> One has to wonder why what any of us does with our time is so important to you that you continue to exhort us to spend it more productively, as per your fine example. I can multitask. It's an amazing skill and truly a wonder to behold how much I can actually fit into my day on top of writing all the wordz.


They've literally admitted to hiring ghostwriters and stuffing. There's a reason they protest too much, tell us we all have better use for our time, and say they can't be bothered to waste time on the matter because they're too successful. Yet here they are again.


----------



## AltMe

I'd like to make a couple of general comments.


1. I'm bored. And have been for days as far as this thread is concerned. The horse is dead, until Amazon actually do something. Flogging it has been reduced to watching grass grow.



2. I notice most of the activity is coming from people who wont show their books. I'm sure you are all writing the next book, but if I cant see your books, I cant see where you truly come from. And without that, in this thread, nothing you say carries any weight. 



Which makes this thread hot air. Just saying.


----------



## Crime fighters

Then don't read it. Don't post in it. Simple.


----------



## AltMe

Crime fighters said:


> Then don't read it. Don't post in it. Simple.


I'm waiting for when Amazon does do something. I'm most likely to hear about it here first.


----------



## bobfrost

Crime fighters said:


> They've literally admitted to hiring ghostwriters and stuffing. There's a reason they protest too much, tell us we all have better use for our time, and say they can't be bothered to waste time on the matter because they're too successful. Yet here they are again.


I've used ghostwriters. I run a publishing company. I write books, I do royalty sharing with other authors, and I have (in the past) bought many ghostwritten books. It's not part of my current business strategy but it was successful in its day. Nothing wrong with that. I'm proud of every book I've published and I've paid people fairly for their work.

I used bonus content on books ages ago when it was allowed, but I have no bonus content on any live title these days, and haven't done a bonus book, box set, or compilation at all this year. I've moved in a more profitable long-term direction in my quest for my next million. I couldn't care less that bonus content is gone.

No conspiracy here. I just happen to enjoy an open and relatively unrestricted publishing environment.

I'm not purely self interested. If you want to clamp things down, I'm not the one who hurts on the tail end of that.

Anyway, I think I'll just step away from the fun for now. There's nothing more for me to say here. Do as you will.


----------



## RPatton

Phxsundog said:


> Reporting works to take out bad actors and bring others into line. It shutdown Chance Carter and it has also forced several stuffers with abusive formatting to clean up their books. Anyone who wants to see a cleaner Kindle store with more clarity on what the bonus content policy truly is should keep doing it.


I just want to make this point again, because I personally feel that it's important to remember that correlation isn't causation.

Chance's account suspension was likely caused because he (inadvertently) caused Amazon to be complicit in a sweepstakes that was in actuality an illegal lottery. I would bet my entire catalog and future catalog that the reason for the removal was because someone in the legal department said, "Oh crud, we can't have this, take it down. Now. Do not pass go, do not collect $200." (Except you can add a bunch more curse words.)

In all probability, Compilations or Collections or Box Sets had nothing to do with the suspension of his account. I don't even think the possibility of review manipulation or incentivized page reads caused the suspension, although I do think it added to the ammunition.

Just because it happened at the same time doesn't mean it's causation.

I also firmly believe that the next baseball bad to the kneecaps from Amazon will be related to external links in book files. It's important to remember that Amazon is a business first and their business encompasses a lot more than KDP. By ascribing our own views on what they should be doing to their reactions, we're ignoring all the other variables that may be (and in this case likely are) the actual catalysts that caused their reaction.

It's like the belief that sugar causes kids to be hyper. All scientific evidence says it doesn't, it's usually the situation surrounding the consumption of the sugar that causes the increased levels of excitement. Correlation is not causation.


----------



## KelliWolfe

The thing is that even if Amazon by some miracle _does_ do something to address this particular problem, the scammers will simply find another way to scam. As long as they can essentially make free money by gaming the KU casino using bots and clickfarmers with free KU subscriptions and cheaply produced content, nothing is going to change. Just as has happened every single other time so far, the scammers will adapt to the new changes far more quickly than the legitimate authors do and end up right back on top. For the most part the only people who truly get hurt when Amazon "does something" is us. That's is how it has played out since the very first days of KU 1.0, when a bunch of us right here on kboards predicted exactly what was going to happen because of the way the system is designed.

The only way it ever stops is if Amazon limits the borrows allowed for each monthly subscription like Scribd did and/or substantially increases the price of a monthly subscription. They aren't going to do either, which means that the scammers have every incentive to keep right on going. It's simple mathematics. If you can get more cash out of the machine than you put in every single time, you keep playing. Amazon doesn't care, because they don't care whether KU ever makes them a dime. KU isn't about making money, it's about bringing people into the store, destroying the market share of their competitors through dirt cheap content and exclusivity, and preventing new competitors from getting any traction.

PS: For those who believe that KU is somehow making money, I suggest you look at how Scribd and the other subscription services have had to limit their offerings in order to keep from going under, especially when it comes to romance and erotica where the readers are particularly voracious. Yet those are by far the two largest components of KU.


----------



## Crime fighters

I see the argument that they will continue finding ways to scam the system. That's true. But in the first iteration of KU, it wasn't this bad. They weren't dominating an entire genre. They were making their money but it wasn't hurting our bottom line or visibility. 

KU2 has a perfect design for scammers. Address that problem and it takes away 90% of their power.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Crime fighters said:


> I see the argument that they will continue finding ways to scam the system. That's true. But in the first iteration of KU, it wasn't this bad. They weren't dominating an entire genre. They were making their money but it wasn't hurting our bottom line or visibility.
> 
> KU2 has a perfect design for scammers. Address that problem and it takes away 90% of their power


The fixed payouts for KU 1.0 were what encouraged the scammers to get into short erotica, which they quickly dominated, and publishing scamlets so scraped content that were read by bot and click farms. KU 2.0 was supposedly implemented to address those issues.

As long as you offer unlimited content for a fixed price, scammers can ALWAYS get more money out of the system than they have to put in. It is a free money machine. It's called math.


----------



## Phxsundog

RPatton, I agree with you on Chance. Probably wasn't stuffing that got him banned. However the hundreds of reports against him helped bring his page manipulation and giveaway to Amazon's attention. Reporting worked in this case to take down a bad actor. It could happen again if the other megastuffers are engaging in further shady practices that come to KDP's attention.


----------



## Crystal_

MmmmmPie said:


> Normally, I'd agree, because in a normal market, the top-earning authors would be the most popular. They'd satisfy the most customers. They'd make Amazon the most money. They'd act as a draw to the KU program and to the Amazon store. However...
> 
> In today's Kindle Unlimited, the exact opposite is likely true. Recent bonus recipients probably frustrate more customers than they satisfy. They probably _cost _Amazon the most money, because they're leading to over-inflated payouts. They're pushing customers away from not just KU, but also the Amazon store entirely, because they're making it hard for customers to find books they actually want to read.
> 
> If Amazon was smart, they'd, at the very least, revamp how they select the All Star bonus recipients so stuffed books were excluded in the calculations.


I'm not a KU superstar, but I'm probably B-list (maybe C+ lol). I made somewhere between 10-20% extra last year from All Star bonuses and I would be much more inclined to go wide if bonuses don't exist. Thinking with my practical, business owner hat, I'm not sure bonuses make a huge difference in my bottom line (I had an especially great month last year and earned the top title and author bonus in the UK and US. I don't see that happening again, but the second tier bonuses are certainly in the realm of possibility. Yay for writing especially long romances), but they're so psychologically enticing. Thinking that I can prove myself one of the top ten authors of the month by earning the 25k. And that I can make an extra 25k if I just advertise my books on Amazon well enough. (or an extra 10k, or 5k, or $2500, plus the UK bonuses). It really encourages high spend strategies, which encourages me to send traffic to Amazon.

There are downsides to KU. Losing a huge upside like All Stars would really discourage big authors from staying in the program. The All Stars are a classic corporate motivation technique and they really do work. I'm not saying they should go because I like them. I'm saying Amazon would be foolish to cut them and I think they know that.

But now I really am out of this thread. Because I see a lot more talking in circles and I think the conversation has become unproductive.


----------



## unkownwriter

> I don't get the contempt about reporting scammers- it feels like maybe it strikes too close to home?


I do. It's because no one wants us to take away the gravy train. It's work and extra money to work around the limits, and it knocks profit off for a while. I'm not specifically accusing anyone, so leave the torches and pitchforks at home, but it makes you wonder why some people are so concerned with what any of us do or don't do. Add to that the ones who invariably pop in and defend the bad actors, or try to turn our eyes away from what they _didn't_ get caught for (supposedly). I don't think any of us worried over this BS really cares why someone is gone, just that they're gone and their buddies are following right on their heels.


----------



## PhoenixS

I've been reporting a long time, so I have some trend data to call on. Here's a thing about reporting that may go unnoticed: Some of us are not simply reporting Top 100 Paid books and authors. We're reporting general practices. We're reporting obvious botting and the services that provide them. We're reporting posts and newsletters that encourage incentivization and other ways to manipulate reviews/rank/sales/borrows. We're reporting multiple box sets that contain multiple iterations of duplicated titles that aren't sitting in the Top 100. 

It's true that correlation doesn't always mean causation. But guess what? Sometimes it does. Let's not forget that. We've seen individual bad actors get slapped down. We've seen a website botting service shut down (yep, a 3rd-party website that Amazon had no contractual relationship with -- we had to get creative with that one  ). We've seen the TOS/T&Cs quietly amended several times to either explicitly forbid or at least strongly suggest a forbidding of specific practices. And we've seen the occasional broad sweep of bad actors booted from the store. Thousands of books gone in a single purge. There's a reason some scammers have left the store or have had to change their practices or spend a lot more money to stay in the game. A casual glance may not surface the results reporting has had, but the trend is there for those in the know.

When it's one person reporting, Amazon backburners the report and doesn't act as fast on it. When multiple people report, they start taking a bit more interest. And when there's a social media or regular media storm that explodes around it, they move faster to crack down. Never, ever, ever as fast as we want them to or as fast as they could move. I'm the first to say how aggravating that is. I rollercoaster through "Amazon doesn't care" and "Well, look at that -- maybe they do care after all," often getting whiplash with the way things move. But adding tweets, FB posts, blog posts, media articles, and other public ways to get the evidence out that's being reported one-on-one always -- always -- helps.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Fantastic! A week ago, I just put out a bundle of books (appropriately labeled and indicated on the cover and in the blurb) and now I get to deal with people reporting me for stuffing.

Some would tell me not to worry since I'm not in KU at all (neither the single books nor the bundle). I wish I could trust people in this rush to "stamp out all the stuffers and scammers!" not to catch me in their nets.

Because I can see that happening. I guess we'll see.


----------



## David VanDyke

Shelley K said:


> Also, in a general reply to other things in this thread. it's pretty amazing that people are willing to take thousands of dollars out of the hands of authors who play by the rules. I'd wager most people who think it would be fine to get rid of bonuses have never been in danger of getting one, because that's an amazing thing to suggest. Take someone else's legitimately earned money away so I can feel things are fairer. I am seriously side-eyeing that entire argument.


I've gotten bonuses, yet I would be fine if they were gone, if that helped level the playing field. Frankly, I never was comfortable with the entire concept of bonuses' effect on the system because it simply expands the top end and incentivizes a cutthroat, winner-take-all approach to competition.

I'll use poker as an analogy. Flat tournament structures (gradual increases in prize money, starting lower in the rankings) generally reward skill. Steep tournament structures, where the prize money is mostly at the top and it goes up faster, generally reward skill less, i.e., luck becomes more of a factor. Cheating is seldom an issue in poker because it's so closely monitored, but imagine if cheating were relatively easy--the extra-big money at the top would incentivize even more cheating than expected.

Another analogy: so-called sin taxes. Taxes on things like liquor and cigarettes, if they get too high, incentivize cheating the system (smuggling from a low-tax place to a high-tax place, fake tax stamps, even fake goods). The more profit there is to be made, the more likely "ordinary people" will cross the line--and those without any compunctions jump for joy as they rake it in.

Yes, the bonuses put money in legit authors' pockets--but the price is too high. It's like saying that it's okay that (say) half the tax dollars on a particular program are wasted or end up in corrupt pockets because the other half is put to good use. Maybe that program needs to be scrapped or reformed wholesale, even if that reduces the income of some.

Every law or regulation burdens the law-abiding citizenry in some way, usually with the goal of eliminating a worse problem.

Bonuses are just that--bonuses, not earnings. They're artificial awards intended for top authors to keep them in the Amazon stable. They're the equivalent of government subsidies to already-profitable big businesses. If the bonuses have the horrible side-effect of rewarding scammers, then maybe the side-effects are not worth it.


----------



## unkownwriter

DonovanJeremiah said:


> Fantastic! A week ago, I just put out a bundle of books (appropriately labeled and indicated on the cover and in the blurb) and now I get to deal with people reporting me for stuffing.
> 
> Some would tell me not to worry since I'm not in KU at all (neither the single books nor the bundle). I wish I could trust people in this rush to "stamp out all the stuffers and scammers!" not to catch me in their nets.
> 
> Because I can see that happening. I guess we'll see.


Oh, for the love of Pete! No one, absolutely no one, is advocating turning people in simply for having a freaking box set! Not a single person! None. Zero. Zip. Nada. What we're talking about is those people who have ten box sets/collections/compilations/whatever they call it, all filled with the same ten books. I just don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.

Again, it's not about bonus content, it's about stuffing books full of junk so they can get to 3K KENPC and then getting people and/or bots/click farms to "read" the books all the way to the tune of a $14 payout, while good little authors like me are hoping someone will read our books for real, with only about 500 KENPC and no cheating. I simply can't see why people can't understand this.

It's not about telling people they can only write books a certain length, but about stopping the massive volumes of junk that people are getting those $14 payouts, plus bonuses. If removing bonuses is part of the solution, you better believe Amazon will drop them and pretend they never existed. Why this doesn't seem like a good idea to everyone, stumps me. The only answer I can come up with is, they depend on the rules being vague and enforcement non-existent, because they're playing that game.

When I was working outside the home (ha), I never, ever depended on getting a bonus to work my budget. I never counted on getting a big tax return to plan in providing for my family. That's extra money that's nice to have, but it can be gone in an instant. I knew people that did, and when the bonus didn't come, the raise was less than they expected, the tax laws changed and they didn't get that big refund, they suffered for it.


----------



## SuzyQ

she-la-ti-da said:


> Oh, for the love of Pete! No one, absolutely no one, is advocating turning people in simply for having a freaking box set! Not a single person! None. Zero. Zip. Nada. What we're talking about is those people who have ten box sets/collections/compilations/whatever they call it, all filled with the same ten books. I just don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.
> 
> Again, it's not about bonus content, it's about stuffing books full of junk so they can get to 3K KENPC and then getting people and/or bots/click farms to "read" the books all the way to the tune of a $14 payout, while good little authors like me are hoping someone will read our books for real, with only about 500 KENPC and no cheating. I simply can't see why people can't understand this.
> 
> It's not about telling people they can only write books a certain length, but about stopping the massive volumes of junk that people are getting those $14 payouts, plus bonuses. If removing bonuses is part of the solution, you better believe Amazon will drop them and pretend they never existed. Why this doesn't seem like a good idea to everyone, stumps me. The only answer I can come up with is, they depend on the rules being vague and enforcement non-existent, because they're playing that game.
> 
> When I was working outside the home (ha), I never, ever depended on getting a bonus to work my budget. I never counted on getting a big tax return to plan in providing for my family. That's extra money that's nice to have, but it can be gone in an instant. I knew people that did, and when the bonus didn't come, the raise was less than they expected, the tax laws changed and they didn't get that big refund, they suffered for it.


But... people are reporting each other for having more than 10% bonus content. I saw a blog where an author was raked through the mud because her book ended at 82%. People are going OFF THE RAILS.

I also heard people are reporting ads for being sexual. So now they are the morality police. Another reason I would never report another author, even though I despise the practice of mega stuffing.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Shelley K said:


> Also, in a general reply to other things in this thread. it's pretty amazing that people are willing to take thousands of dollars out of the hands of authors who play by the rules. I'd wager most people who think it would be fine to get rid of bonuses have never been in danger of getting one, because that's an amazing thing to suggest. Take someone else's legitimately earned money away so I can feel things are fairer. I am seriously side-eyeing that entire argument.


I believe I was the first person to suggest this, so you can aim that side-eye at me. I have had bonus' and I am in danger of getting them in the future, but just as I support getting rid of boxsets from KU, and one cover one book, even though my boxsets are my biggest earners, I think bonus' have done their job.

Bonus' were never guaranteed and shouldn't be treated as part of a business plan, unless (generic) you are a scammer, and then they are what you're aiming for.

I highly doubt that the authors who earn the bonus' are suddenly going to all pull out of KU because they can't guarantee getting wide what they get in page reads per month, but like everyone else, nobody is twisting their arms to stay.

If amazon want to award bonus' then let be it a token gesture of 1k or so, but 25k was always going to get the scummers salivating.


----------



## Phxsundog

SuzyQ said:


> But... people are reporting each other for having more than 10% bonus content. I saw a blog where an author was raked through the mud because her book ended at 82%. People are going OFF THE RAILS.
> 
> I also heard people are reporting ads for being sexual. So now they are the morality police. Another reason I would never report another author, even though I despise the practice of mega stuffing.


You're right about the over-the-line parts of GetLoud reporting on issues that have nothing to do with book stuffing. You see them popping up and going off on tangents when well respected people like David and Suzan Tisdale don't keep the focus on specific abusive stuffers. I'm not saying it's their job to police everything or control this movement either. Only that everyone benefits when there's more focus, and so far the only way it happens is when David or Suzan decide to post about Cassandra Dee, Tia Siren and the rest.

This is why I suggest anyone who wants to do it stick to reporting stuffing violations to [email protected] The pen names that are the worst abusers have already been identified on social media and continue to show up in the Top 100 every few weeks with a new collection or compilation. These pen names are taking the most from the KU pot, grabbing the bonuses with their inflated pages and making marketing painfully expensive for every KU author who doesn't stuff. They're causing well over 80% of the problems in the KU system. I support continuing to put pressure on these large robber barons vs. a legitimately confused author who might have bonus content of 12% because they formatted wrong.


----------



## BGArcher

Phxsundog said:


> You're right about the over-the-line parts of GetLoud reporting on issues that have nothing to do with book stuffing. You see them popping up and going off on tangents when well respected people like David and Suzan Tisdale don't keep the focus on specific abusive stuffers. I'm not saying it's their job to police everything or control this movement either. Only that everyone benefits when there's more focus, and so far the only way it happens is when David or Suzan decide to post about Cassandra Dee, Tia Siren and the rest.
> 
> This is why I suggest anyone who wants to do it stick to reporting stuffing violations to [email protected] The pen names that are the worst abusers have already been identified on social media and continue to show up in the Top 100 every few weeks with a new collection or compilation. These pen names are taking the most from the KU pot, grabbing the bonuses with their inflated pages and making marketing painfully expensive for every KU author who doesn't stuff. They're causing well over 80% of the problems in the KU system. I support continuing to put pressure on these large robber barons vs. a legitimately confused author who might have bonus content of 12% because they formatted wrong.


And you just brought up what I was referring to having an issue with. The over-the-top reporting. That's what I've always had an issue with. Also, philosophically, I think anyone in this thread honestly thinking that CC and cohorts are dead is not looking at the big picture. Of course they're not. He'll come back, (under a different name maybe?) he'll follow the rules just to the edge (would be my guess) and he will once again be at the top of the list in short order because regardless of whether you like his books or not, dude knew how to market. When that happens, I'm curious how those in this thread (and the RWA) will refer to him? Will they be happy that he's now following the rules and still getting all star bonus? Or will they continue to call him a bad actor?

I respect a lot of you in this thread. I've read many of the books in peoples handles, and am stoked that this market (indie) exists at all. It's my principles that make me push back against group-think, namely I get squeamish around author's targeting other authors. I of course want the market to be fair for all authors, and want every single one of you to succeed. Of course bad actors need to go. Like I've repeated, I've reported too. I just am leery when people start putting on the amazon hat instead of the handle your own business hat. Suggestions on eliminating all star bonus, or people saying anyone that hires ghost writers are somehow untoward, or reporting bundles, keywords, and so on.

I leave with this note. It's never been a better, (or easier) time to be an entrepreneur/writer. We all grossly underestimate just how powerful the internet is, and I'm including myself in that. If we are failing or meeting our own expectations, desires, or goals as writer/ entrepreneurs, at the end of the day, that really is on us. If people are truly reporting things because they are trying to make the market that they sell their goods (books) cleaner, I'm all for it. But if doing so makes people think it will in turn make them more money... we'll see in July.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Shelley K said:


> I can side-eye an argument and not the people making it. I simply don't understand the willingness to take bonuses away from people to punish a few cheaters. Do the bonuses incentivize cheating? Sure. The entire structure of KU even without them does.
> 
> The top salesman, the lawyer who made the most for the firm, the problem-solver who saved the company the most money, have always gotten the biggest Christmas bonuses. It's capitalism. Anything that encourages success also gives the small percentage of people who would cheat an incentive to find shortcuts. So you should get rid of the cheaters, not strip incentives away from the achievers.


But as you said, the entire structure of KU incentivizes cheating. So you aren't going to get rid of the cheating. All you can hope to do is make it less profitable and more difficult for the ones doing so. Eliminating the All-Star bonuses would make it much more difficult for them to spend the tens of thousands of dollars on advertising that many of them are burning through every month to get to the top of the heap with mediocre books. As long as they can collect the bonuses they make a profit doing it. Without the bonuses they have to rely purely on borrows/sales revenue, which makes it a much riskier proposition.

All of which is moot. Amazon isn't going to get rid of the bonuses any more than they're going to get rid of KU itself.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Phxsundog

BGArcher said:


> And you just brought up what I was referring to having an issue with. The over-the-top reporting. That's what I've always had an issue with. Also, philosophically, I think anyone in this thread honestly thinking that CC and cohorts are dead is not looking at the big picture. Of course they're not. He'll come back, (under a different name maybe?) he'll follow the rules just to the edge (would be my guess) and he will once again be at the top of the list in short order because regardless of whether you like his books or not, dude knew how to market. When that happens, I'm curious how those in this thread (and the RWA) will refer to him? Will they be happy that he's now following the rules and still getting all star bonus? Or will they continue to call him a bad actor?
> 
> I respect a lot of you in this thread. I've read many of the books in peoples handles, and am stoked that this market (indie) exists at all. It's my principles that make me push back against group-think, namely I get squeamish around author's targeting other authors. I of course want the market to be fair for all authors, and want every single one of you to succeed. Of course bad actors need to go. Like I've repeated, I've reported too. I just am leery when people start putting on the amazon hat instead of the handle your own business hat. Suggestions on eliminating all star bonus, or people saying anyone that hires ghost writers are somehow untoward, or reporting bundles, keywords, and so on.
> 
> I leave with this note. It's never been a better, (or easier) time to be an entrepreneur/writer. We all grossly underestimate just how powerful the internet is, and I'm including myself in that. If we are failing or meeting our own expectations, desires, or goals as writer/ entrepreneurs, at the end of the day, that really is on us. If people are truly reporting things because they are trying to make the market that they sell their goods (books) cleaner, I'm all for it. But if doing so makes people think it will in turn make them more money... we'll see in July.


You have more confidence than I do in Chance Carter being able to easily find a way back in, much less back to the top of the KU ladder. I've always heard Amazon tries to keep out people who experience full account bans. And if they're caught, they get banned again, with no royalties paid. Nothing is impossible. However I can't imagine he'll come back under his Chance Carter alias even if he does have a new account. He'll have to build a new pen name from the ground up, without his real face doing creepy love chats with his readers for sales.

He was an above average marketer with a large ad budget, a willingness to exploit the worst parts of KU like stuffing and below average content. Not some kind of rare genius who can build highly successful brands from nothing. He'd have done it many times over beyond the Chance pen name if that were true.

If Chance manages to return under a new pen name that complies with KDP guidelines, then no, I'd consider him a former bad actor. That's just me. I still wouldn't ever work with him in a million years. Others will feel differently and will want to ensure that anyone banned from KDP stays banned forever. Same goes for the abusive stuffers who have unbundled their bonus books over the past few weeks without resorting to the collections or compilations trick. I'm not scrutinizing their books reporting them for nothing. I won't work with them considering their reputations but they're complying as far as I can see by removing their bonus content. Case closed. Again, that's just me. I know others believe the stuffers should be pursued until they're permabanned and Amazon redistributes their bonuses.


----------



## Jack Krenneck

Shelley K said:


> Anything that encourages success also gives the small percentage of people who would cheat an incentive to find shortcuts. So you should get rid of the cheaters, not strip incentives away from the achievers.


This is so right. Most of the suggestions in this thread harm legitimate authors. It's easy to say get rid of boxed sets, or longer works, or bonuses or to lower the page cap if these things don't hurt you. But it will hurt other authors.

The only solution that will work is to keep an unrelenting focus on the scammers.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Phxsundog said:


> You have more confidence than I do in Chance Carter being able to easily find a way back in, much less back to the top of the KU ladder. I've always heard Amazon tries to keep out people who experience full account bans. And if they're caught, they get banned again, with no royalties paid. Nothing is impossible. However I can't imagine he'll come back under his Chance Carter alias even if he does have a new account. He'll have to build a new pen name from the ground up, without his real face doing creepy love chats with his readers for sales.





Jack Krenneck said:


> The only solution that will work is to keep an unrelenting focus on the scammers.


Except that the scammers often already have multiple (in some cases dozens of) accounts and spread their pen names and such between them precisely so that if one gets banned they can just keep right on going. This isn't something that they just put together as they go. There is an entire underground industry developing tools for these people to make this easy, scripting the processes so they don't have to spend time doing grunt work of creating accounts, scripting AMS ads, scripting stuffed book creation, etc., and using multiple bank accounts to prevent Amazon from being able to grab it all back if they ban the KDP account, and a lot of these people are working out of countries where trying to go after them to legally recover the money is next to impossible.

Going after individual accounts is just playing whack-a-mole. You might get lucky and cause Amazon to nail one, but the scammer will just pop up with more accounts using different cheap, ghostwritten content along the same lines as before and using the same methods to goose those books to the top.

We don't tend to think that way because we're _authors_, but these people are _marketers_. They don't care about individual books or pen names the way that we do. To these people those are just widgets that are ultimately disposable as long as they can keep producing new widgets and marketing them to make big money. I'm sure losing an account that valuable caused "Chance" some angst, but you're crazy if you think he didn't have others waiting on standby and that he isn't funneling brand new ghostwritten books into them right now using the exact same techniques and strategies as before.

The money involved is simply too much for them to stop playing the games. For all practical purposes this is all reward and zero risk for them. We lose a KDP account and it's our livelihood at stake. They lose a KDP account and it's just the cost of doing business.


----------



## Crime fighters

So, the proper thing to do would be to grab the eight of them by their ankles and hang them out to dry in civil court. I'm not counting on Amazon to go through with that, but it's a course of action they could take if they believe they're doing irreparable harm to their store, assuming their own inaction wouldn't be too high a barrier.


----------



## Phxsundog

I'm over 90% confidence Chance Carter didn't have a second KDP account, KelliWolfe. He never expected to get banned and it's not likely he had a Plan B, C or D. Without making this thread about Chance, he was overconfident in what he'd built and that's why he kept pushing the lines with reviews and page manipulation. I'm not going to tell you how I know it but I can assure you his unexpected ban was a terrifying shock to the Top 100 romance stuffers close to him. You raise good points about how hard it can be to permanently lock out scammers. I think the scenario you're describing where scammers go into the market with a consciously high risk of getting banned probably happens at the lower levels. Whether it does or not it's a good reason why we need Amazon to do two things: whack the abusers and close off the weaknesses in KU they exploit. Only doing one leaves the rest open.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Phxsundog said:


> I'm over 90% confidence Chance Carter didn't have a second KDP account, KelliWolfe. He never expected to get banned and it's not likely he had a Plan B, C or D. Without making this thread about Chance, he was overconfident in what he'd built and that's why he kept pushing the lines with reviews and page manipulation. I'm not going to tell you how I know it but I can assure you his unexpected ban was a terrifying shock to the Top 100 romance stuffers close to him. You raise good points about how hard it can be to permanently lock out scammers. I think the scenario you're describing where scammers go into the market with a consciously high risk of getting banned probably happens at the lower levels. Whether it does or not it's a good reason why we need Amazon to do two things: whack the abusers and close off the weaknesses in KU they exploit. Only doing one leaves the rest open.


Maybe you're right about him. I can't say for sure since I don't know him and don't move in those circles. Personally I hope you are, and I hope the others like him are sweating bullets. I just know what I found on the black hats forums while digging up what I could on the scammer/marketer crowd when things started going sideways a while back. I know what they had available then, and they've had a couple of years to make improvements on their systems since. They don't stand still. They're always changing and adapting and trying to stay a step ahead of whatever Amazon is doing. KU is a lot like Prohibition and organized crime. The system created an environment where those guys flourished, and even if a few went to jail, the profits involved were so enormous that the threat of jail didn't deter others. With KU there isn't even the threat of jail time. There's no real threat at all. And as fast as Amazon closes one loophole these guys find half a dozen more, because the financial incentives are huge and the risks are basically nonexistent.

If you're right about "Chance" and he was just someone who liked pushing the envelope until it bled, then he's not the real problem. Those people eventually get shut down by Amazon when they cross too many lines and that's the end of them. But you can get rid of the ones like him and it makes little real difference. It's satisfying as hell, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. It's the "true" scammers that are killing us on Amazon. The ones running a dozen accounts at a time with dozens of pen names and sliding under the radar. because they don't let any single pen draw too much attention. The ones who are hitting legitimate author books with bots to disguise their borrowing activity on their own books. They're not impossible to find if you take the time to look, but it isn't something Amazon is going to build automated detection systems for. It takes a person sitting down at the computer and digging around to detect, and they are never, ever going to do that because that's not how Amazon works.


----------



## PhoenixS

I'll disclose here because these guys are all besties now, and they're exchanging scamming tips the way most of us exchange recipes. I won't be giving away any trade secrets or giving them ideas they won't have already had.

One well-known scammer whose account was banned from KDP last year was allowed to open a small publisher's account outside of KDP under a new LLC. Not through one of the aggregators but directly with Amazon. Books through new pen names from that new account are even allowed in KU. And, because Amazon apparently doesn't share information between its departments, this author, under the same name their banned account was under and with a book previously published in that banned KDP account, was given a Monthly Deal.

So yeah, break TOS and T&Cs in multiple ways, multiple times, get yourself first banned from KU, then get your account terminated, and Amazon not only allows you to continue to sell in the store, but perks you along the way.

Will Chance come back again? As I said...besties. If black hatters think the money is still easier on Amazon than through other endeavors, they'll come back. And Amazon, apparently, will welcome them with open arms.

If KDP/Amazon is serious about cracking down on scamming, IMO they have to first stop enabling and rewarding it.

Really, KDP, if we on the outside can see this stuff this easily, then dealing with scammers can't be rocket science. Besides, Bezos has that rocket science thing covered already.


----------



## unkownwriter

SuzyQ said:


> But... people are reporting each other for having more than 10% bonus content. I saw a blog where an author was raked through the mud because her book ended at 82%. People are going OFF THE RAILS.
> 
> I also heard people are reporting ads for being sexual. So now they are the morality police. Another reason I would never report another author, even though I despise the practice of mega stuffing.


But, having more than 10% bonus content is now not allowed. If the book ends at 82%, then the author needs to look at what they're putting at the end. Self-police, in other words.

People have been reporting for sexual content since... well, since forever. Why that's even tied into this I have no idea. Amazon allowed sexual content, within their vague limits (no incest, no underage, and so on). There are people who want nothing but clean, inspirational type books, with no bad words, no sex, no hint of sex ever happening -- which is odd because their religious text is full of it -- and may they're taking advantage, or maybe it's just coincidence. I'm not on any forums where this is going on, certainly no author forums. But also remember that many of these folks are pushing books with sexual content into categories it shouldn't be. Erotica in just about everything, including children's books and inspirational books, and into nonfiction cats. So, yeah, this needs to be reported.

As to people "going off the rails", we're seeing it here, with people going on and on about how they're going to be reported for stuff, so nothing should be reported. Good grief. All that has been asked -- and by Amazon itself -- is for people to show them the bad actors so they know what's going on. I've not seen anyone here who is so vindictive that they'll report any book. And I remember reading somewhere that reporting books simply to "get" another author ends up with the person doing the reporting being the one in trouble. I wish I could remember where I saw that, but the way Amazon acts, I wouldn't be surprised if someone going "off the rails" on another author got a slap down. Amazon knows who we are, after all. They may not know the biggest scammers, but they darn sure know us.



> The money involved is simply too much for them to stop playing the games. For all practical purposes this is all reward and zero risk for them. We lose a KDP account and it's our livelihood at stake. They lose a KDP account and it's just the cost of doing business.


I agree. Like politics, the money is just too darned good, too enticing, to ignore. That's why these folks are here, because KU is like opening a freaking bank vault and telling people to take what they want. The poor guy just trying to put in his twenty bucks in the Christmas fund, though? Better hold on to your... hat... because Amazon is coming for you!

As to the bonuses being eliminated? I've been saying that for at least a year, as have others. I could see doing them for a while, to get and keep those who could bring readers to the program, but once they became free money for the marketers, they should have long been gone. I don't think everyone at Amazon is stupid, but some things make me wonder what the end game is. We were told readers didn't like all the short stories (especially the erotica), so that had to be pushed down in favor of the novels, but no one ever saw that it was hurting anything. But apparently readers are just fine with the top slots being junk books, the recommendations being more of the same (which may be why the also boughts are down at the bottom of the page now), and the search not bringing up books they like. So, what hurts readers more?



> I'm not going to tell you how I know it but I can assure you his unexpected ban was a terrifying shock to the Top 100 romance stuffers close to him.


It doesn't seem to have moved most of them on to the point of not doing what they've been doing, though. Maybe they think he was an aberration, and Amazon will back down now.

The thing is, I know people who haven't done anything wrong are going to be hurt by Amazon cleaning up KU. I know authors who make good money in KU, and have never done anything shady. I know some who were doing well, but who are struggling because of the scammers. I myself get dinged every time Amazon tweaks something, changes the algos, or whatever, and I certainly don't do anything wrong or against TOS. But I know it's coming, and I know it's going to hurt like heck, but I will bear it if it means the loopholes are closed and the store is cleaned up. Nothing will ever stop the true scammers, but it can be controlled to a point where the program isn't just a free buffet for cheaters.


----------



## Anarchist

Amirite?

lol


----------



## SuzyQ

she-la-ti-da said:


> But, having more than 10% bonus content is now not allowed. If the book ends at 82%, then the author needs to look at what they're putting at the end. Self-police, in other words.
> 
> People have been reporting for sexual content since... well, since forever. Why that's even tied into this I have no idea. Amazon allowed sexual content, within their vague limits (no incest, no underage, and so on). There are people who want nothing but clean, inspirational type books, with no bad words, no sex, no hint of sex ever happening -- which is odd because their religious text is full of it -- and may they're taking advantage, or maybe it's just coincidence. I'm not on any forums where this is going on, certainly no author forums. But also remember that many of these folks are pushing books with sexual content into categories it shouldn't be. Erotica in just about everything, including children's books and inspirational books, and into nonfiction cats. So, yeah, this needs to be reported.


Uh... so I think that the people with books ending at 80% probably NEVER had any bonus content other than author back matter and excerpts and so didn't feel any need to update their files. Also the new rule says ABOUT 10%. I mean this is ridiculous. If you guys don't focus on the mega scammers the message is going to get lost. In fact I think it already is. If this was actually doing something I would be thrilled. But too many legitimate authors are getting raked through the mud over 5%-10% too much when they were never stuffing to begin with. Names of authors who aren't even in KU are getting bandied around. It is ABSURD. I'm only half geartedly observing from a distance but I find it incredibly disturbing.

As for reporting erotic content the one thing I saw on Twitter was not about childrens categories (dear lord, that IS disgusting!) it was a jealous author who was angry that her amazon ads did not get through and wanted to report a steamy romance novel for getting ads through. Meanwhile a cursory look at her covers revealed that the person doing the reporting had very poor judgment in determining what was acceptable for Amazon TOS. Any photo of a male pulling his pants down is a no-no. Couples can be embracing but they shouldn't look like they're about to penetrate. There are ways to skirt the line (from what I'm told bc yes, people in all genres are talking about this particular ninny) and she wasn't doing it. The author who got ads through was a lot smarter.

And yes if you want to see it it's under the same # as the anti book stuffing campaign.

Like I said, off the rails.


----------



## KelliWolfe

PhoenixS said:


> I'll disclose here because these guys are all besties now, and they're exchanging scamming tips the way most of us exchange recipes. I won't be giving away any trade secrets or giving them ideas they won't have already had.
> 
> One well-known scammer whose account was banned from KDP last year was allowed to open a small publisher's account outside of KDP under a new LLC. Not through one of the aggregators but directly with Amazon. Books through new pen names from that new account are even allowed in KU. And, because Amazon apparently doesn't share information between its departments, this author, under the same name their banned account was under and with a book previously published in that banned KDP account, was given a Monthly Deal.
> 
> So yeah, break TOS and T&Cs in multiple ways, multiple times, get yourself first banned from KU, then get your account terminated, and Amazon not only allows you to continue to sell in the store, but perks you along the way.
> 
> Will Chance come back again? As I said...besties. If black hatters think the money is still easier on Amazon than through other endeavors, they'll come back. And Amazon, apparently, will welcome them with open arms.
> 
> If KDP/Amazon is serious about cracking down on scamming, IMO they have to first stop enabling and rewarding it.
> 
> Really, KDP, if we on the outside can see this stuff this easily, then dealing with scammers can't be rocket science. Besides, Bezos has that rocket science thing covered already.


I really wish I could say that this surprises me, but it doesn't. It's why I quit bothering to report any bad behavior on the site a couple of years back. Amazon has zero interest in policing their store or fixing the problems there, and until they do there's no point wasting time trying to do it for them. The people in charge aren't stupid. They know exactly what they're doing and they have their own reasons for allowing it to continue and even flourish.

I have a strong suspicion that the level of scamming is so high and has been so from the very beginning that if Amazon was to eliminate it the KU program would look very, very bad. The people running KU don't want to have their budgets slashed or lose their jobs, so they allow it to continue to keep the gravy train going. Amazon is all about growth, not profits, and so long as those page reads go up every single month all is right with the world and everyone gets their bonus checks at the end of the year. If that means letting the scammers run wild, who cares?


----------



## Desert Rose

she-la-ti-da said:


> But, having more than 10% bonus content is now not allowed. If the book ends at 82%, then the author needs to look at what they're putting at the end. Self-police, in other words.


Which is why it would help to know if things that have always been considered part of a book, even if not part of the main story, are part of that 10%. Because as it stands, I can think of any number of reasons that people might disagree on where the "book" ends and where the "bonus content" begins.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> What's that they say about mob mentality? The gift that keeps on giving.
> 
> And a book stopping at 82% means squat when it comes to bonus content. *Back matter and ads for other books aren't bonus content and anyone who can't see that shouldn't even be in publishing. Gah. Shorter books are going to hit that 10% unreasonably fast if everybody starts going nuts and claiming every little thing is bonus content.*


This. By the time I've included the standard "leave a review and sign up for the newsletter" bit, the excerpt for the next book in the series, the catalog of my other books (there are rather a lot of them), and the About the Author page, I've blown past the limit on anything shorter than 30k words. I've had exactly ONE reader complain about that in the last 7 years, and I know damned good and well that having those things in there sells more of my books. Am I supposed to strip them down and take a big hit on sales because idiots who don't know the difference are out looking for blood?


----------



## Phxsundog

Like a couple others I'm probably bowing out of this thread. Debating the extremists over-reporting people or arguing the scamming is so bad it's impossible to control isn't leading anywhere productive. It's demoralizing and it plays into what the scammers want, which is for us to give up and do nothing.

The serial stuffers are worried. They wouldn't keep creating accounts on Twitter to argue with people all day if they weren't. They wouldn't keep calling David Gaughran and Suzan Tiadale cult leaders and criminals if they thought this campaign was having no impact. One third of the worst offenders wouldn't be unstuffing their books if they weren't feeling pressure to drop the bonus content.

So I'll make one more call to anyone here who wants action to join dozens of level headed romance authors in reporting the worst abusers. If you see a stuffed book hiding under the new collection or compilation label in the Romance Top 100 then please report it to [email protected]

Please consider asking KDP to clarify their new policy. We need to know whether these collections are violating TOS or if Amazon has decided retitling a stuffed book with duplicate content is okay. Thank you.


_edited, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Phxsundog

I may have lied about my last post. Amazon appears to be removing a large number of abusive stuffers' books today. All collections. Including Tia Siren and Cassandra Dee. I take it to be a strong sign these vaguely re-titled collections are not compliant with the new TOS.


----------



## Crime fighters

The hammer is coming down. Hard!


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here

Appears quite a few books that were questionable for TOS violations have been removed. I'm on mobile and can't confirm, but I hear some pretty big names made their voices on the matter heard. 
Top author lists are seeing changes & pulled books. I'm seeing some of the top contemporary romance authors having books removed. 
https://www.amazon.com/author-rank/ref=ntt_dp_kar_B000AP9A6K#1


----------



## Crime fighters

I don't know if we're allowed to name them, but 3 of the 5 most known are gone, along with all their various pen names, as well as a few others.


----------



## Phxsundog

The most abusive stuffers are taking damage. No question. What no one knows for sure is why. Can't say if it's based on specific pen names or accounts. Or if their collections and compilations were determined to be not compliant by KDP. Amazon has removed all their books, whether they were collections or not.


----------



## RPatton

Phxsundog said:


> I may have lied about my last post. Amazon appears to be removing a large number of abusive stuffers' books today. All collections. Including Tia Siren and Cassandra Dee. I take it to be a strong sign these vaguely re-titled collections are not compliant with the new TOS.


I just want to remind people that there might be any number of reasons for a book's removal and again, correlation is not causation.

It's been relatively quiet, but I know of a few people who did some investigating of books that might had questionable formatting. (Most of us are willing to say something hinky looks like its going on, but aren't willing to actually test it out because, well, there are too many conditions outside of our own control). This could be a formatting issue (where if what people learned does what they expect, more than likely inflated KENPC). This could be about alleged review manipulation or incentivized page reads as defined by Amazon. There could be a lot of reasons and to assume that it's A and discounting B, C, D, E, and F is how urban legends are created.

It's a good idea to wait until all of the information is out there (if it even can be) before saying that anything is a certainty. Worst case scenario, the reporting goes into hyperdrive and we see a lot contemporary authors getting nasty emails from Amazon because their bonus chapter and back-matter puts the end of the book at 88% instead of 90%.


----------



## Phxsundog

RPatton said:


> I just want to remind people that there might be any number of reasons for a book's removal and again, correlation is not causation.
> 
> It's been relatively quiet, but I know of a few people who did some investigating of books that might had questionable formatting. (Most of us are willing to say something hinky looks like its going on, but aren't willing to actually test it out because, well, there are too many conditions outside of our own control). This could be a formatting issue (where if what people learned does what they expect, more than likely inflated KENPC). This could be about alleged review manipulation or incentivized page reads as defined by Amazon. There could be a lot of reasons and to assume that it's A and discounting B, C, D, E, and F is how urban legends are created.
> 
> It's a good idea to wait until all of the information is out there (if it even can be) before saying that anything is a certainty. Worst case scenario, the reporting goes into hyperdrive and we see a lot contemporary authors getting nasty emails from Amazon because their bonus chapter and back-matter puts the end of the book at 88% instead of 90%.


I agree. It's wise to not spread readers or jump to conclusions. However I'll add that another book was removed in the past hour from the Top 100 for no other reason I could see than having collection in the title. Unlike the main group of abusive stuffers with many collections, this author only had a single collection that was normally formatted. So far this is the only book in their catalog Amazon took down, unlike the others who lost everything. That makes me think this has something to do with collections and compilations. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

RPatton said:


> I just want to remind people that there might be any number of reasons for a book's removal and again, correlation is not causation.


This is very true, and we have no way of knowing *why* a book is removed. However, several authors have had *all* their ebooks pulled today, which strongly suggests something more fundamental than mislabelled compilations or formatting errors.


----------



## Crime fighters

Four "main' pen names completely pulled, along with all their pen names. This isn't book removal. This is accounts being terminated. There are still a few who I'm sure are very nervous right now. They should be. 

EDIT: Also, I don't think it matters why they were terminated. Whether it was because of the known stuffing, wonky formatting, or because of the often suggested idea they were using click farms. These were bad actors and no matter why, Amazon finally had enough.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Crime fighters said:


> Four "main' pen names completely pulled, along with all their pen names. This isn't book removal. This is accounts being terminated. There are still a few who I'm sure are very nervous right now. They should be.
> 
> EDIT: Also, I don't think it matters why they were terminated. Whether it was because of the known stuffing, wonky formatting, or because of the often suggested idea they were using click farms. These were bad actors and no matter why, Amazon finally had enough.


Not to mention fake reviews. Somebody who is in the top 5 in Contemporary Romance should not have almost 0 Likes or comments on most of their Facebook posts. Heck, I have about 1/10 or 1/20 the Facebook followers of most of these people, and I can easily have 100 Likes on a post about a new book. So who's doin' all the reviewing of these books with apparently no real followers or fans? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. I won't count my chickens, but so far, so good.

I know how many people here still want to say, "There's no proof that stuffing is against Amazon's TOS! If you stand on one foot and close your eyes and twist your neck backwards, you can read the TOS to mean . . ." Don't think so. I'll be very interested to see what happens next.


----------



## Phxsundog

Crime fighters said:


> Four "main' pen names completely pulled, along with all their pen names. This isn't book removal. This is accounts being terminated. There are still a few who I'm sure are very nervous right now. They should be.
> 
> EDIT: Also, I don't think it matters why they were terminated. Whether it was because of the known stuffing, wonky formatting, or because of the often suggested idea they were using click farms. These were bad actors and no matter why, Amazon finally had enough.


It looks a lot like account termination to me but I hesitate to say for sure just yet. We'll know for certain if they don't come back in a few days. Another stuffer in their group had roughly 2/3 of her books pulled last week. They came back a few days later unstuffed. I hope Amazon takes a strict line with the worst offenders and issues bans. I'm happy if this ends stuffing loopholes anyway though.

This is a powerful warning retitling stuffed books collections or compilations isn't safe. The odds it's against TOS just went up dramatically. It isn't clear if collection non-compliance is why these books are being pulled and possibly accounts terminated. Every stuffed collection disappearing supports the idea it has a lot to do with it.


----------



## MmmmmPie

It's heartening to see Amazon acting on this. From what I can see, several authors have been disappeared from Amazon almost entirely. Some additional observations:

-- One top-ranking stuffed book is no longer available for sale, even though it still shows up, and the author's other books (unstuffed from what I can tell) remain for sale.
-- One author who had all of their books pulled a couple of weeks ago is back to stuffing, at least on a few of their books, including their top ranking title (currently ranked in the 500s). Either this person is living on the edge, or they believe they'll be saved by the magic word "compilation." Or maybe, they believe that the danger has passed for them personally.
-- One top-ranking book that was stuffed as of just last night is no longer stuffed.
-- This is a terrific start, but a few authors and books I've been monitoring are still stuffed and still available for sale. Hopefully, Amazon is just working their way down the list.

So it seems we have varying degrees of actions. Some authors had all of their books pulled, whether temporarily or permanently. Some others had only some books pulled. Other books were unstuffed, whether due to a notice from Amazon or because the publishers didn't want to risk it.

A lot of the books that were pulled had the magic word "compilation" in the title. Maybe the word wasn't magic after all. If so, I'm very glad to see it, because let's face it, slapping the word "compilation" on a stuffed collection really didn't solve the problem. 

All in all, this is a good start in restoring the integrity of the Amazon bookstore. I'm just hoping it keeps up.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> Another stuffer in their group had roughly 2/3 of her books pulled last week. They came back a few days later unstuffed.


If you and I are thinking of the same person, she's back to stuffing again, at least on a few of her titles. Maybe she thinks the magic word "compilation" will save her? Or maybe she thinks the danger has passed for her personally? Either way, it's a little discouraging.

*Edit to Add: She's also testing the word "Anthology." Maybe THAT'S the real magic word? Sheesh!


----------



## David VanDyke

Bot farmers quickly realized they could mask (some of) their activity by botting random legit books.

The suspicious side of me wonders whether the black-hatters aren't flooding legit authors with "reports" against their legit box sets and suchlike, to divert attention.


----------



## Phxsundog

MmmmmPie said:


> If you and I are thinking of the same person, she's back to stuffing again, at least on a few of her titles. Maybe she thinks the magic word "compilation" will save her? Or maybe she thinks the danger has passed for her personally? Either way, it's a little discouraging.
> 
> *Edit to Add: She's also testing the word "Anthology." Maybe THAT'S the real magic word? Sheesh!


To me it looks like it's hitting many collections, compilations and other thinly titled stuffed books. Plus the entire catalogs of the worst offenders, including books that were unstuffed. If anyone thought the collection retitling trick would keep them safe then I'm sure they're thinking again today.


----------



## Dpock

David VanDyke said:


> Bot farmers quickly realized they could mask (some of) their activity by botting random legit books.
> 
> The suspicious side of me wonders whether the black-hatters aren't flooding legit authors with "reports" against their legit box sets and suchlike, to divert attention.


I'm guessing this wave of enforcement broke today (6.25) around 2:30 pm PT? There should be reports coming in soon from any innocents caught in the snare.


----------



## unkownwriter

David VanDyke said:


> Bot farmers quickly realized they could mask (some of) their activity by botting random legit books.
> 
> The suspicious side of me wonders whether the black-hatters aren't flooding legit authors with "reports" against their legit box sets and suchlike, to divert attention.


It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were. This is only going to make it harder for Amazon to go through the list, but I think they actually know who the bad actors are, they just didn't want to deal with them before.

By the way, an entire post disappeared from this thread when I tried to respond to it. I didn't see anything against forum decorum, but maybe the author decided they didn't want it here? Weird doings, I thought my computer broke!


----------



## unkownwriter

Well, there you go, Amazon. Way to win back my heart and mind. If you keep it up and if they stay gone. Leave the non-scammers alone and go after the people you know darn well are gaming the system.


----------



## bobfrost

Right now these appear to be suspended accounts, not full terminations (which is why the books can still be accessed, although they don't have price tags).

I suspect the books will be back in a few days without the "compilation" tag, and without extra content, but we'll see what happens.

Frankly, I'm surprised these authors persisted with compilations, especially as time went by. Amazon did seem to condone it (specifically), but I wouldn't have published a compilation in the current climate in KU.


----------



## BGArcher

she-la-ti-da said:


> It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were. This is only going to make it harder for Amazon to go through the list, but I think they actually know who the bad actors are, they just didn't want to deal with them before.
> 
> By the way, an entire post disappeared from this thread when I tried to respond to it. I didn't see anything against forum decorum, but maybe the author decided they didn't want it here? Weird doings, I thought my computer broke!


I was trying to edit it, but hit delete instead! this is what happens when you have two windows open at the same time.

reposting it, I'm thinking of launching a series in the fall that falls more into seasons. (genre is UF) So season one would be five books, season two five books and so on. Each book is it's own thing, but each season would have a big bad so to speak. after each season was done, I was planning on bundling it, and putting that up as well. My question was, under the current rules, would anyone in this thread think that would be an issue. I would clearly label the bundle just that, and the individual books would not break the 10% rule in terms of back continent. (IE I would put a chapter from the next book, and links to my catalog and that's it in it) The bundle of five books would maybe feature a bonus short story, but otherwise, that's that. I figured that way, readers would have an easier time catching up, or if they wanted the cool new bundle, one place to find it.


----------



## Pacman

I've also noticed that they have been extremely helpful for all of my author queries, replying within a day too. Way to go Zon!


----------



## bobfrost

BGArcher said:


> I was trying to edit it, but hit delete instead! this is what happens when you have two windows open at the same time.
> 
> reposting it, I'm thinking of launching a series in the fall that falls more into seasons. (genre is UF) So season one would be five books, season two five books and so on. Each book is it's own thing, but each season would have a big bad so to speak. after each season was done, I was planning on bundling it, and putting that up as well. My question was, under the current rules, would anyone in this thread think that would be an issue. I would clearly label the bundle just that, and the individual books would not break the 10% rule in terms of back continent. (IE I would put a chapter from the next book, and links to my catalog and that's it in it) The bundle of five books would maybe feature a bonus short story, but otherwise, that's that. I figured that way, readers would have an easier time catching up, or if they wanted the cool new bundle, one place to find it.


They seem to be going after people who were specifically trying to get around the bonus-book rule by adding "a compilation" to the tail end of a title on regular standalone releases.

I doubt they'll go after people with "legitimate" bundles or box sets, even in KU, although the KU rules about box sets and bundles may change and that would obviously make a difference.

For example, Hugh Howey has some omnibus packages in KU and I doubt they're in jeopardy.

All of that said, there would be no reason you couldn't launch the bundle as a NON-KU title and put it up for sale, so you could still do most of what you're planning without any real fear.


----------



## TellNotShow

Am I asleep?


----------



## KelliWolfe

There are a LOT of missing catalogs right now. I've been tracing through the Customers Also Bought Items By lists on their author pages and branching down and just... Wow. 

Edit: Based on the very common book styles and cookie-cutter author info, etc. I can't help thinking that this is a handful of accounts with a lot of different pen names. And I'm still seeing some obvious ones that have slipped through. It's certainly a good start, though, and I imagine there are going to be some very happy contemporary and NA authors who see significant jumps when they check their ranks tomorrow.


----------



## sela

Is this real life

I was just reconsidering my plan to release a series in KU. Maybe I will reconsider my reconsideration.


----------



## Hope

Yay for everyone!


----------



## Starry_Knights

What happens to purchased books when Amazon takes them down? Do they disappear off people's devices once they hit a WiFi connection? Or do they get to keep the tainted goods?


----------



## lyndabelle

Wow! Usually the last week of June we see the Zon gearing up for its next big thing that will start July 1. Maybe it will be finally cleaning up the categories and giving us little prawnies a chance again. Still moving out of KU though. Think it was time for me, and I want more money streams and not to just rely on the Zon for income. But it is promising to see something being done. 

But still wondering what will roll out July 1.


----------



## MarilynVix

KelliWolfe said:


> There are a LOT of missing catalogs right now. I've been tracing through the Customers Also Bought Items By lists on their author pages and branching down and just... Wow.
> 
> Edit: Based on the very common book styles and cookie-cutter author info, etc. I can't help thinking that this is a handful of accounts with a lot of different pen names. And I'm still seeing some obvious ones that have slipped through. It's certainly a good start, though, and I imagine there are going to be some very happy contemporary and NA authors who see significant jumps when they check their ranks tomorrow.


Oh, this is good news. I'm hoping that people will be able to find listings and books they want again easier. Maybe we prawns will be able to get back up and noticed again.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Lilly_Frost said:


> What happens to purchased books when Amazon takes them down? Do they disappear off people's devices once they hit a WiFi connection? Or do they get to keep the tainted goods?


The customer always gets to keep the books, no matter what happens to the seller. Amazon doesn't screw with the customers.


----------



## Tymber Dalton

KelliWolfe said:


> The customer always gets to keep the books, no matter what happens to the seller. Amazon doesn't screw with the customers.


Eh, the 1984 debacle a few years back, where they yanked it from people's Kindles.

The irony was thick as sea fog, too.


----------



## David VanDyke

KelliWolfe said:


> The customer always gets to keep the books, no matter what happens to the seller. Amazon doesn't screw with the customers.


Well...

https://boingboing.net/2012/10/22/kindle-user-claims-amazon-dele.html


----------



## Becca Mills

I've merged in a short thread on today's book take-downs/account closures. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## AltMe

kw3000 said:


> Dang, and mere hours ago I had just unclicked the Kindle Select 'renew' buttons. What to do, what to do...





TellNotShow said:


> Am I asleep?


Yes. Stay that way until next month. It wont be until then that we find out how permanent any of this is.


----------



## 75845

Dragovian said:


> Which is why it would help to know if things that have always been considered part of a book, even if not part of the main story, are part of that 10%. Because as it stands, I can think of any number of reasons that people might disagree on where the "book" ends and where the "bonus content" begins.


That is very simple (or should be). The material that is part of a book is something that you read to further explore that book. I love the appendices of the Lord of the Rings. They are long, but I don't see Amazon banning one of the greatest novels of the 20th century any time soon. A 30% extract from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight would count towards bonus content.


----------



## unkownwriter

BGArcher said:


> I was trying to edit it, but hit delete instead! this is what happens when you have two windows open at the same time.
> 
> reposting it, I'm thinking of launching a series in the fall that falls more into seasons. (genre is UF) So season one would be five books, season two five books and so on. Each book is it's own thing, but each season would have a big bad so to speak. after each season was done, I was planning on bundling it, and putting that up as well. My question was, under the current rules, would anyone in this thread think that would be an issue. I would clearly label the bundle just that, and the individual books would not break the 10% rule in terms of back continent. (IE I would put a chapter from the next book, and links to my catalog and that's it in it) The bundle of five books would maybe feature a bonus short story, but otherwise, that's that. I figured that way, readers would have an easier time catching up, or if they wanted the cool new bundle, one place to find it.


Ah, it wasn't me!  To answer your question, legitimate bundles/collections/whatever are not a problem currently. So, as you described it, what you'd be doing is common for those writing serials, as they collect a "season" into one bundle at some point after the end. Clearly labeled, correctly formatted, and with no more than 10% bonus material, and you'd be fine. Unless Amazon decides not to allow such things in KU, that is.

Only four more days until July 1st. I guess we'll see sometime in the next week if some of these accounts stay down, or if things go back to business as usual. The first would be good, the second should be a sign to all that Amazon either has no clue how this stuff is happening, or they simply don't care. I don't know which of those would make me madder, but at least I would know where I stand so I can make business decisions with a better understanding.


----------



## Nate Hoffelder

Lilly_Frost said:


> What happens to purchased books when Amazon takes them down? Do they disappear off people's devices once they hit a WiFi connection? Or do they get to keep the tainted goods?


I still have my two Chance Carter books


----------



## RPatton

I think I am going to make this a standing post...

I doubt, as in I would be willing to bet all of my past and future writing, that these books have been removed for stuffing and using the compilation tag.

As much as people want compilations to be "wrong", they just aren't. At least not in Amazon's eyes. There are a lot of "compilations" out there.

Also, I saw someone throw out that maybe another author got his removed because someone in the stuffer's camp went on a reporting spree. Don't ascribe what you are willing to do to what others are willing to do. Most (not all, but most) subscribe to the mantra, "You do not report someone's book. Ever. No Matter what. You just don't do it. End of discussion." They aren't going to break that mantra now.

But again, the likelihood that this latest round of temporary suspensions has anything to do with compilations and/or reporting books is low to none.


----------



## bobfrost

Almost every single effected penname had a recent compilation on their account that was highly ranked.

There are exceptions, but in at least two of those examples, the penname seems directly connected to one of the suspended pen names that had collections, which leads me to believe they were just other (innocent) pen names on suspended accounts.

Most of those collections were bombarded with one star reviews.

There are compilations still standing but amazon always does this when they block a wave of books.

I think there's too much in common here to ignore RP. Even if amazon is still allowing compilations, clearly they are being targeted in some way.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crime fighters

Get rid of them all. Four big names down, another four to go. 

And none of these pen names were innocent. A pen name can't be innocent when the operator of the pen name is a bad actor / stuffer / scammer. I find it amazing that one of the ones taken down, and who many had identified as belonging to the same person, interacts with each of their own pen names publicly. "So good to see you this weekend". 

What did she do? Look in the mirror?


----------



## bobfrost

Crime fighters said:


> Get rid of them all. Four big names down, another four to go.
> 
> And none of these pen names were innocent. A pen name can't be innocent when the operator of the pen name is a bad actor / stuffer / scammer. I find it amazing that one of the ones taken down, and who many had identified as belonging to the same person, interacts with each of their own pen names publicly. "So good to see you this weekend".
> 
> What did she do? Look in the mirror?


You know what I meant. Those were pennames that weren't using compilations. My point was that they didn't seem to be breaking any rules (whether real or imaginary), so I assume they were connected to accounts that were suspended.

As for two pennames talking to one another, I see no reason why you're so amazed by that. Pennames are personas. They might reflect the creator, but they can also be complete works of fiction. They can have their own personality and talk amongst themselves if the author thinks that's a beneficial thing to do.

I've seen people use pennames in this way successfully as a marketing strategy.


----------



## Elizabeth S.

RPatton said:


> As much as people want compilations to be "wrong", they just aren't. At least not in Amazon's eyes. There are a lot of "compilations" out there.


There are genuine box sets and collections, and then there is what stuffers are calling compilations. Let's not pretend they're the same thing.


----------



## sela

bobfrost said:


> You know what I meant. Those were pennames that weren't using compilations. My point was that they didn't seem to be breaking any rules (whether real or imaginary), so I assume they were connected to accounts that were suspended.
> 
> As for two pennames talking to one another, I see no reason why you're so amazed by that. Pennames are personas. They might reflect the creator, but they can also be complete works of fiction. They can have their own personality and talk amongst themselves if the author thinks that's a beneficial thing to do.
> 
> I've seen people use pennames in this way successfully as a marketing strategy.


That's BS. Sorry Bob. Not going there with you.

If the reader found out they were talking to a man posing as a three other women authors, all of whom talked to her and each other in a conversation, do you think the reader would be happy? I don't think so.

A rule of thumb my daddy taught me: if you have to hide it, if you have to lie about it, you are probably doing something wrong.

On ads on TV the actors must be identified as such. Think about the "I'm a paid non-doctor spokesperson!" fast-talk at the end of the ad when talking about the wonders of the snake oil they're selling.

There is such a thing as truth in advertising.

Look, I use a pen name. It's my initials plus my mother's maiden name. I used it because when I started writing, I was in a very responsible government job and didn't want people snickering behind their hands when I chaired meetings on very serious matters because they knew I wrote erotic romance.  But I never pretended to be what I was not to my readers. When I use a different pen name, I won't talk to my old one and pretend they're two different people. That's crazy and deceptive.

Sorry if that insults authors who do this kind of thing but that's how I see it. YMMV


----------



## Crime fighters

Elizabeth S. said:


> There are genuine box sets and collections, and then there is what stuffers are calling compilations. Let's not pretend they're the same thing.


This.



bobfrost said:


> You know what I meant. Those were pennames that weren't using compilations. My point was that they didn't seem to be breaking any rules (whether real or imaginary), so I assume they were connected to accounts that were suspended.
> 
> As for two pennames talking to one another, I see no reason why you're so amazed by that. Pennames are personas. They might reflect the creator, but they can also be complete works of fiction. They can have their own personality and talk amongst themselves if the author thinks that's a beneficial thing to do.
> 
> I've seen people use pennames in this way successfully as a marketing strategy.


Because I still don't know if we're allowed posting names here, I won't. If the moderators could give a ruling on that matter, I'd appreciate it. It'd be easier to sort through this mess if we could name the ones removed, but I'll abide by whatever.

And no, that's not normal. Not when they use each other as a defense against the other when accusations of wrongdoing are leveled against them. Now, they're gone. Hopefully for good. Maybe they'll enjoy their time off because it seems the two of them (and their cousin) have a lot to catch up on.


----------



## sela

bobfrost said:


> Almost every single effected penname had a recent compilation on their account that was highly ranked.
> 
> There are exceptions, but in at least two of those examples, the penname seems directly connected to one of the suspended pen names that had collections, which leads me to believe they were just other (innocent) pen names on suspended accounts.
> 
> Most of those collections were bombarded with one star reviews from witch hunters calling them scam or stuffed books, and presumably the hunt went deeper than one star bombing.
> 
> There are compilations still standing but amazon always does this when they block a wave of books.
> 
> I think there's too much in common here to ignore RP. Even if amazon is still allowing compilations, clearly they are being targeted in some way.


If the author's account has been suspended, I would expect that all their pen names would be suspended -- not just the name with the offending compilations.

I think that's only just, since it is the author/publisher being suspended, not the pen name.

I don't think compilations are disallowed. I think quickly re-labeling a stuffed book as a "compilation" when it is stuffed with duplicate material also stuffed into other quickly-re-labeled "compilations" is disallowed. I checked some of these stuffers. They re-labeled their stuffed book a compilation but left the other stuffed books as they were, like they just didn't have time to fix their stuffed books or something. Or they hoped that only the most visible book would be noticed. Who can say why?

It's not the compilation that's the infraction.

It's the stuffing book after book with the same duplicate material and switching out the titled work -- and probably incentivizing readers to slide through or page through the book to the end for a full read through credit -- that's the infraction.


----------



## Crime fighters

sela said:


> That's BS. Sorry Bob. Not going there with you.
> 
> If the reader found out they were talking to a man posing as a three other women authors, all of whom talked to her and each other in a conversation, do you think the reader would be happy? I don't think so.
> 
> A rule of thumb my daddy taught me: if you have to hide it, if you have to lie about it, you are probably doing something wrong.
> 
> On ads on TV the actors must be identified as such. Think about the "I'm a paid non-doctor spokesperson!" fast-talk at the end of the ad when talking about the wonders of the snake oil they're selling.
> 
> There is such a thing as truth in advertising.
> 
> Look, I use a pen name. It's my initials plus my mother's maiden name. I used it because when I started writing, I was in a very responsible government job and didn't want people snickering behind their hands when I chaired meetings on very serious matters because they knew I wrote erotic romance.  But I never pretended to be what I was not to my readers. When I use a different pen name, I won't talk to my old one and pretend they're two different people. That's crazy and deceptive.
> 
> Sorry if that insults authors who do this kind of thing but that's how I see it. YMMV


There are four types of people in this industry:

1. Hobbyists: Writers who enjoy writing and don't care about or need to make a living. These are the purest who's only reason for writing is because they love it.

2. Professionals: Writers who intend to make a full-time income off their writing. They are serious about both marketing and craft, while obeying the clear lines of ethics.

3. Business Casuals: Maybe they write their own books. Maybe they don't. Whatever the case, marketing is more important than craft. This is where ethics become blurred but many at this level still manage to be honest people...

AND THEN....

4. The people who were pulled off Amazon yesterday: [publishers] who knowingly and willingly strong-arm Hobbyists, Professionals, and even some business casuals out of the market. They target and use readers as weapons to get to the top, selling the names and addresses of readers to each other.

The conversations in this thread revolve around 'The Plastics'

They don't deserve your empathy or considerations. They don't deserve second chances.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## PhoenixS

Whether some of these authors' books reappear or not, let's be very, very clear: a particular group was nicknamed 'stuffers.' That, however, was not the only way this very particular group being discussed here are/were violating TOS/T&Cs. 

They are/were incentivizing reviews/buys/borrows/reads. They are/were violating Amazon's Giveaway policy. They are/were using 3rd-party sites to further game/scam the system. They are/were using creative coding to game/scam KENPC. They are/were intentionally publishing an unstuffed ebook or print book to get the 'right' page count, then pubbing the stuffed file over that so that real page-count trigger didn't show up in the metadata. They are/were category squatting, and publishing thinly disguised erotica, trying to pass it off as contemporary romance, not even erotic romance. And they are/were doing things illegal in general, such as selling emails, infringing visual copyrights, and indulging in illegal lotteries.

Stuffing is merely the tip of the scam. It's the bit anyone browsing Amazon can see and that anyone can report on. But the act of stuffing itself is not what this particular group of publishers is only being called out on. It's the aggregate of all their intentional scamming/gaming practices.


----------



## Crime fighters

^^^ This, too. 

Stuffing alone isn't the only problem. The entire thing, from top to bottom, is an orchestrated scheme that violates TOS and the law.


----------



## KelliWolfe

PhoenixS said:


> Whether some of these authors' books reappear or not, let's be very, very clear: a particular group was nicknamed 'stuffers.' That, however, was not the only way this very particular group being discussed here are/were violating TOS/T&Cs.
> 
> They are/were incentivizing reviews/buys/borrows/reads. They are/were violating Amazon's Giveaway policy. They are/were using 3rd-party sites to further game/scam the system. They are/were using creative coding to game/scam KENPC. They are/were intentionally publishing an unstuffed ebook or print book to get the 'right' page count, then pubbing the stuffed file over that so that real page-count trigger didn't show up in the metadata. They are/were category squatting, and publishing thinly disguised erotica, trying to pass it off as contemporary romance, not even erotic romance. And they are/were doing things illegal in general, such as selling emails, infringing visual copyrights, and indulging in illegal lotteries.
> 
> Stuffing is merely the tip of the scam. It's the bit anyone browsing Amazon can see and that anyone can report on. But the act of stuffing itself is not what this particular group of publishers is only being called out on. It's the aggregate of all their intentional scamming/gaming practices.


Which underscores what RPatton said earlier, we have no idea exactly what it was that these people got busted for, and stuffing might have had little or nothing to do with it. Phoenix, I don't even want to know how you dug all of this up on them. I only imagine it required lots and lots of showering afterwards to feel clean again.


----------



## bobfrost

sela said:


> That's BS. Sorry Bob. Not going there with you.
> 
> If the reader found out they were talking to a man posing as a three other women authors, all of whom talked to her and each other in a conversation, do you think the reader would be happy? I don't think so.
> 
> A rule of thumb my daddy taught me: if you have to hide it, if you have to lie about it, you are probably doing something wrong.
> 
> On ads on TV the actors must be identified as such. Think about the "I'm a paid non-doctor spokesperson!" fast-talk at the end of the ad when talking about the wonders of the snake oil they're selling.
> 
> There is such a thing as truth in advertising.
> 
> Look, I use a pen name. It's my initials plus my mother's maiden name. I used it because when I started writing, I was in a very responsible government job and didn't want people snickering behind their hands when I chaired meetings on very serious matters because they knew I wrote erotic romance.  But I never pretended to be what I was not to my readers. When I use a different pen name, I won't talk to my old one and pretend they're two different people. That's crazy and deceptive.
> 
> Sorry if that insults authors who do this kind of thing but that's how I see it. YMMV


No need to apologize to me. I was just pointing out that I've seen people use this sort of thing in an effective way.

I think there are absolutely reasons to hide your identity behind a penname (not the least of which being real biases that exist in the reader base which might prevent you from otherwise succeeding in today's market), but I digress. Someone might have multiple pennames talking to each other as a way to recommend each-other's books (so they can leverage all of their various penname fanbases to push a single book from a new pen or an existing pen). It's not all that abnormal for a professional running a small press to do something like this to help push their success as a whole.

At any rate, as a man who only writes under my manly man penname, Buck "Dude" Johnson, and never engages in any such cross-promotion, I won't press the point further.


----------



## PhoenixS

bobfrost said:


> Someone might have multiple pennames talking to each other as a way to recommend each-other's books (so they can leverage all of their various penname fanbases to push a single book from a new pen or an existing pen). It's not all that abnormal for a professional running a small press to do something like this to help push their success as a whole.


So the cool kids today call them successful tactics for running a business?

Gee, and here I always thought those were called sockpuppets.


----------



## Phxsundog

Regarding shady practices, every single one of the suspended accounts belongs to a person who was in Chance Carter's Mastermind. I guess he taught them well. The students were able to outlast their teacher for three weeks before getting hit by Amazon!

It's worth noting who hasn't been suspended yet in this group. There are a few still up who unstuffed their collections just the past day or two. This suggests to me it is the collections, and removing theirs let them narrowly escape before the trap swung shut. Something must have told them continuing to do it was becoming increasingly risky. Meanwhile, their friends didn't listen, and now have to pay the price with KDP.

If the others wind up suspended this week I'll think otherwise. But as of right now it looks like the collection and compilation retitling trick was the final straw for Amazon. KDP wants the bonus content gone. Not just stuffed into a 70% duplicate content book conveniently retitled collection.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

PhoenixS said:


> So the cool kids today call them successful tactics for running a business?
> 
> Gee, and here I always thought those were called sockpuppets.


Yeah and "abnormal" or not, being caught doing so is a really good way to find yourself in the middle of a social media sh** storm.


----------



## bobfrost

PhoenixS said:


> So the cool kids today call them successful tactics for running a business?
> 
> Gee, and here I always thought those were called sockpuppets.


Cross promo between two pennames isn't a scam.

But like I said, not a hill I'm looking to die on.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

bobfrost said:


> Cross promo between two pennames isn't a scam.
> 
> But like I said, not a hill I'm looking to die on.


I think you're confusing actual cross promotion with someone pretending their pen names are separate people and thus hold valid opinions.

Me sending to my email list that my pen name has a new book out isn't a big deal. Me having a conversation with my pen name online, in which my pen name wholeheartedly endorses my stuff as if they were a completely different person = deceptive marketing which ... yes ... is a scam.


----------



## L_Loryn

Crime fighters said:


> There are four types of people in this industry:
> 
> 1. Hobbyists: Writers who enjoy writing and don't care about or need to make a living. These are the purest who's only reason for writing is because they love it.
> 
> 2. Professionals: Writers who intend to make a full-time income off their writing. They are serious about both marketing and craft, while obeying the clear lines of ethics.
> 
> 3. Business Casuals: Maybe they write their own books. Maybe they don't. Whatever the case, marketing is more important than craft. This is where ethics become blurred but many at this level still manage to be honest people...
> 
> AND THEN....
> 
> 4. The people who were pulled off Amazon yesterday: [publishers] who knowingly and willingly strong-arm Hobbyists, Professionals, and even some business casuals out of the market. They target and use readers as weapons to get to the top, selling the names and addresses of readers to each other.
> 
> The conversations in this thread revolve around 'The Plastics'
> 
> They don't deserve your empathy or considerations. They don't deserve second chances.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


This made me laugh out loud.

I love Mean Girls.


----------



## Used To Be BH

bobfrost said:


> Cross promo between two pennames isn't a scam.
> 
> But like I said, not a hill I'm looking to die on.


_Scam_ is a somewhat subjective term. There are behaviors we would all agree on, and others about which we might differ.

Obviously, there are legitimate reasons for having a penname. There are also legitimate reasons for having multiple pennames, particularly if one writes in different genres and wants to keep them separated (though in that case, cross-promotion seems to be defeat the purpose).

I can't offhand think of any trad publishing examples of an author using one penname to promote the work of another penname. For instance, Stephen King could theoretically have endorsed the work of Richard Bachman to get it off to a flying start, but he didn't. Of course, he was trying to keep the fact that he was Bachman a secret, though people eventually figured it out.

Pennames are an established practice. Multiple pennames endorsing each other I would say are not an established practice. How is that any different from inventing a fictional person and having that person praise your book? As far as I can see, it isn't. That's why PhoenixS was comparing it to sock puppets.

When I used to have Facebook launch parties, I had some of the characters in the book interact with the guests. The difference is, in the context everybody knew they were fictional. Had I trotted in some supposedly real people who were in fact fictional and had them give glowing reviews of the book, that would have been an entirely different thing.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

What's interesting about any scandal/major current issue, in Book World or in the rest of life, is that you get such a clear picture of where people's ethics lie. It's been incredible to me, these past couple weeks, how people (and so many people) can actually think certain actions are OK, but--there you go. It's right out there now.


----------



## David VanDyke

This, above.

In any controversial, long thread, there's always at least one person who defends unethical practices, claiming they're ethical.

Now, I completely understand defending someone's RIGHT to do something unethical, if it's legal or allowed. That's not the same as claiming the unethical is, in fact, ethical, merely because it's legal or allowed.

For example, representing pen names as real persons and having conversations between them... Yeesh. Just...yeesh. That's a no-brainer, yet we still see people defending that practice and others. Legal? Sure. Ethical? No way.

And indefensible. I'm constantly appalled by defense of such practices.


----------



## MmmmmPie

I'm really confused about something.  Sometime within the last couple of weeks, a notorious stuffer had their books taken down. A few days later, the books returned, but were no longer stuffed (assuming I'm remembering correctly). Now, the books* are stuffed again. One of these books, dubbed a "Romance Compilation," is in the top 100. 

What is the logic here? Why would you unstuff them, and then restuff them? It seems pretty darn risky in the current environment, unless they're confident they'll be fine.

What am I missing?

*Edit/Additional Note: Not all of her books are stuffed, but about half of them are.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

David VanDyke said:


> For example, representing pen names as real persons and having conversations between them... Yeesh. Just...yeesh. That's a no-brainer, yet we still see people defending that practice and others. Legal? Sure. Ethical? No way.


I'm confused. So I can't write a book using a pen name, and then interact with the readers at all?

I use a pen name. I'm a real person. I have to use a pen name for personal protection reasons. Readers write to me/interact on social media, I can't respond as my real name. All I have is the pen name and face.

And that makes me unethical?

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Avery342

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I'm confused. So I can't write a book using a pen name, and then interact with the readers at all?
> 
> I use a pen name. I'm a real person. I have to use a pen name for personal protection reasons. Readers write to me/interact on social media, I can't respond as my real name. All I have is the pen name and face.
> 
> And that makes me unethical?
> 
> Or am I missing something?


No, that does not make you unethical. If you started a second pen name and brought that name into a conversation with you and your readers saying how great you or your books are--that's unethical.


----------



## MmmmmPie

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I'm confused. So I can't write a book using a pen name, and then interact with the readers at all?
> 
> I use a pen name. I'm a real person. I have to use a pen name for personal protection reasons. Readers write to me/interact on social media, I can't respond as my real name. All I have is the pen name and face.
> 
> And that makes me unethical?
> 
> Or am I missing something?


I think what you're missing is that the discussion revolves around a single person using multiple pen names _and _having Pen Name#1 publicly interact with Pen Name#2 and Pen Name #3, etc. to sway readers' opinions.

--Pen Name#1: "Oh, my God, Pen Name#2, your books are awesome!!!" 
--Pen Name#2: "Wow, thanks Pen Name#1, coming from such an amazing author as yourself, I so appreciate that!
--Pen Name#1: "You know who else is a super-awesome writer? Pen Name#3. I just LOVE her books."
--Pen Name#2: "OMG, Me too!!!!!!"
--Pen Name#3: "Awww, gee thanks, gals, coming from superstars like yourself, that means ever so much..."


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I'm confused. So I can't write a book using a pen name, and then interact with the readers at all?


Not at all. What we were talking about here was having your pen name promote your other stuff / talk to *you* as if they were a real person, acting like they were an independent 3rd party. In the past we've also talked about catfishing your fans ... i.e. pretending to be someone you're not (the opposite sex, a service man etc) to glean personal information off of your readers.

Simply interacting with people isn't predatory. It's how you do it.


----------



## Dpock

DonovanJeremiah said:


> Or am I missing something?


Pretending to be a different gender.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Ooooh! 

I get it. 

I can't imagine why someone would do that. Interacting as one person is exhausting as it is. Creating sock puppets to talk to each other? Who has time for that?

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## boba1823

David VanDyke said:


> For example, representing pen names as real persons and having conversations between them... Yeesh. Just...yeesh. That's a no-brainer, yet we still see people defending that practice and others. Legal? Sure. Ethical? No way.


I don't actually see that as a no-brainer at all. I think the ethical implications are going to depend on context and details of the situation.

The central ethical issue that a typical 'sock puppet' situation raises is that a person is deceptively creating the appearance of a broad(er) consensus of opinion. E.g. one person, rather than stating "I recommend Author Bob's books!" as an individual, pretends to be ten people making the same claim. To the uninformed observer, this claim therefore seems weightier because [human psychology stuff]. So in situations where an author has three or more pen names, and is using two or more of these to hype up a third, then it is reasonable to see that as unethical.

However, in situations where an author is using just _one_ pen name to recommend books by his or her other pen name.. that's much less clear, and personally I find it hard to see what is ethically problematic about it. There's no attempt to create an inflated sense of the general opinion that the books by the second pen name are worth reading - it's just one person offering his or her perspective. Further, it is presumably more or less the truth; the author probably does genuinely endorse the books that belong to his or her second pen name.

This is what may be the most important aspect of the second situation: Giving fans _the whole truth_ - mentioning "Oh and by the way, this is my second pen name!" - is not likely to make them _less_ trusting of the endorsement, but rather, it is likely to make them even more interested. If I'm a fan of Stephen King and he says "Hey, I just read this Bachman fellow, he's pretty good, check out his book," then maybe I will - because I reason that if King likes Bachman, maybe Bachman writes kind of like King, which means maybe I'll like Backman too. Whereas if King just says "I wrote this book under my pen name Richard Bachman, check it out," then I'm much more likely to check it out. It was written by an author that I already like, so the chances of me liking it are much higher than they would be if I merely thought it was an author that Kind recommends.

In any case, I do wonder what the point would be - having multiple pen names, pretending they are in fact different authors, but also cross-promoting between them. I only have one pen name at the moment. Sometime in the future, if I want to try out a very different genre, I'd probably cook up a new one. But.. different genre, so I wouldn't see the point of cross-promoting. I guess if it was a somewhat similar genre - I'm writing Contemporary Romance, so maybe if I ever did a Paranormal Romance (though I don't plan to) - but then I wouldn't see the point of _not_ telling current fans "Hey check out my other pen name if you like PR!"


----------



## MmmmmPie

boba1823 said:


> In any case, I do wonder what the point would be - having multiple pen names, pretending they are in fact different authors, but also cross-promoting between them.


Just thinking out loud, I bet the point is to rake in more All Star bonuses, because the author bonuses are awarded per pen name. If you've already reached the point where Pen Name#1 is getting a top-tier bonus through stuffing, adding a second pen name opens up a second bonus opportunity.

Also, maybe they want to hedge their bets in case a pen name gets taken down for scamming, or is busted by the public or readers for doing something unethical. Or maybe, it's because they're using a big team of ghostwriters and so they're using the pen names to mask how quickly they're releasing new books. For example, if you have one pen name and release a book a week, that might seem odd. But if you rotate the releases among four pen names, each pen name can release a "book" a month without raising reader suspicions.

Thoughts?


----------



## Becca Mills

boba1823 said:


> However, in situations where an author is using just _one_ pen name to recommend books by his or her other pen name.. that's much less clear, and personally I find it hard to see what is ethically problematic about it. There's no attempt to create an inflated sense of the general opinion that the books by the second pen name are worth reading - it's just one person offering his or her perspective. Further, it is presumably more or less the truth; the author probably does genuinely endorse the books that belong to his or her second pen name.
> 
> This is what may be the most important aspect of the second situation: Giving fans _the whole truth_ - mentioning "Oh and by the way, this is my second pen name!" - is not likely to make them _less_ trusting of the endorsement, but rather, it is likely to make them even more interested. If I'm a fan of Stephen King and he says "Hey, I just read this Bachman fellow, he's pretty good, check out his book," then maybe I will - because I reason that if King likes Bachman, maybe Bachman writes kind of like King, which means maybe I'll like Backman too. Whereas if King just says "I wrote this book under my pen name Richard Bachman, check it out," then I'm much more likely to check it out. It was written by an author that I already like, so the chances of me liking it are much higher than they would be if I merely thought it was an author that Kind recommends.


This reasoning makes sense to me, but the idea of doing it still makes me feel all squirmy and skin-crawly and generally mortified. It might be one of those cases where the "feels wrongness" of it has more impact than the actual reasoning. Or maybe it's because the two possibilities you compare -- recommending Bachman while copping to _being _Bachman vs. recommending Bachman while keeping the connection secret -- aren't the only two possibilities. The third option is King just not recommending Bachman at all. Personally, I think that's the route I'd take.


----------



## KelliWolfe

boba1823 said:


> In any case, I do wonder what the point would be - having multiple pen names, pretending they are in fact different authors, but also cross-promoting between them. I only have one pen name at the moment. Sometime in the future, if I want to try out a very different genre, I'd probably cook up a new one. But.. different genre, so I wouldn't see the point of cross-promoting. I guess if it was a somewhat similar genre - I'm writing Contemporary Romance, so maybe if I ever did a Paranormal Romance (though I don't plan to) - but then I wouldn't see the point of _not_ telling current fans "Hey check out my other pen name if you like PR!"


You're thinking like an author and not a black hat marketer. Imagine you're a content mill, churning out vast numbers of ghostwritten books, and you can't stick them all under one pen name because a lot of readers won't go for that. So you create a number of different pen names as brands where you can spread out the books so no individual author looks too prolific and raises questions. You can put out many new releases in a month, rather than just one or two. Some readers are going to be attracted to a given brand because of style or content or whatever. You then try to attract those readers to your other brands with newsletter swaps, multi-pen bundles, personal recommendations, etc. The more of your pen names they're reading, the more money you're making.


----------



## BGArcher

Dpock said:


> Pretending to be a different gender.


No. Sorry, but that's wrong at best and comes off as transphobic. I can be a male writer and have a few female pen names. There is nothing wrong with that. If I use a male pen name to write thrillers, and a female pen name to write cozy mysteries or romance, I am doing nothing wrong, both in terms of store rules, and ethics. As for if I had those pen names co talk to each other, that's a different question, but the argument being made that it is clearly unethical is also not correct.


----------



## BGArcher

KelliWolfe said:


> You're thinking like an author and not a black hat marketer. Imagine you're a content mill, churning out vast numbers of ghostwritten books, and you can't stick them all under one pen name because a lot of readers won't go for that. So you create a number of different pen names as brands where you can spread out the books so no individual author looks too prolific and raises questions. You can put out many new releases in a month, rather than just one or two. Some readers are going to be attracted to a given brand because of style or content or whatever. You then try to attract those readers to your other brands with newsletter swaps, multi-pen bundles, personal recommendations, etc. The more of your pen names they're reading, the more money you're making.


But there's a glaring problem with your logic. If you're hiring ghost writers to write those books, and you as the publisher are editing them and cleaning them up to fit a brand, a brand that readers are clearly reading, you aren't doing anything wrong. You are in effect just what your job described. A publisher. You could make the argument easily that it is entrepreneurship at it's finest. So doing cross brand promotion is just smart marketing, and ethically is 100% on board.

Now, that's only if the books are each following the new rules of the store. But in theory, the lot of you who were happy with the black hatters being taken down should be okay with someone doing this, if it was ever _really_ about the store being fair.


----------



## Dpock

BGArcher said:


> No. Sorry, but that's wrong at best and comes off as transphobic. I can be a male writer and have a few female pen names. There is nothing wrong with that. If I use a male pen name to write thrillers, and a female pen name to write cozy mysteries or romance, I am doing nothing wrong, both in terms of store rules, and ethics. As for if I had those pen names co talk to each other, that's a different question, but the argument being made that it is clearly unethical is also not correct.


Let me clarify: Pretending to a different gender when engaging readers directly, as in emails, tweets, PMs, smoke signals, etc., is a questionable activity. Just using an alternate gender pen with no further reader engagement is fine, but it makes the Author Central bio a bit challenging.


----------



## SuzyQ

Crime fighters said:


> There are four types of people in this industry:
> 
> 1. Hobbyists: Writers who enjoy writing and don't care about or need to make a living. These are the purest who's only reason for writing is because they love it.
> 
> 2. Professionals: Writers who intend to make a full-time income off their writing. They are serious about both marketing and craft, while obeying the clear lines of ethics.
> 
> 3. Business Casuals: Maybe they write their own books. Maybe they don't. Whatever the case, marketing is more important than craft. This is where ethics become blurred but many at this level still manage to be honest people...
> 
> AND THEN....
> 
> 4. The people who were pulled off Amazon yesterday: [publishers] who knowingly and willingly strong-arm Hobbyists, Professionals, and even some business casuals out of the market. They target and use readers as weapons to get to the top, selling the names and addresses of readers to each other.
> 
> The conversations in this thread revolve around 'The Plastics'
> 
> They don't deserve your empathy or considerations. They don't deserve second chances.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


 I'm pretty sure you're missing a whole category of writers who love writing and don't really care about the same ethics or values that you do.

I think it gets pretty dangerous when you start assuming that just because someone is a "real author" they agree with you on everything and vice versa. I.e. Just bc someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're not a real author

Personally I find a lot of the scammy practices being used to get ahead abhorrent but not all of them. 3000 page books? Gross. Successful running ad campaigns? I don't see a problem there. There's a lot of gray areas and we get into trouble when we start making generalizations. I'm happy they're removing people case by case and it seems like they're doing it in the appropriate way. But I don't assume anybody feels the same way I do about literally anything even if we all fall into the category of "legitimate authors"


----------



## Desert Rose

Mercia McMahon said:


> That is very simple (or should be). The material that is part of a book is something that you read to further explore that book. I love the appendices of the Lord of the Rings. They are long, but I don't see Amazon banning one of the greatest novels of the 20th century any time soon. A 30% extract from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight would count towards bonus content.


I actually agree with you on this, but until/unless Amazon clarifies, that's just, like, our opinion, man. And someone with a different opinion may well report a book that places "The End" at the 85% mark and ends the appendices at 92%, with some back matter and a preview chapter of the next book. Their opinion about where the book ends is as valid as ours, absent clarification.

And in the current climate, I do not doubt there are people who will report a book that ends at 89% for having that extra two pages of "bonus content", even if it's all legitimate back matter.


----------



## JWright

Being transphobic is when you discriminate against someone who is transgender.  If you have a female pen name when you are male, that has nothing to do with being transgender. 

Some men masquerade as women on social media and I know that many women would be uncomfortable with that if they found out.  

Some people try to pass themselves off as a lesbian or gay man, and some readers of lesbian or gay male fiction would not be at all happy about it.  Many readers do not like being fooled or lied to. 

Personally, I'm not straight, so I don't pretend to be, either in real life or as a writer.  I wouldn't make up a "straight" pen name myself.  I also wouldn't pretend to have a cat named Chester or pretend I was baking cinnamon rolls when I wasn't, no matter how harmless it might seem.  I don't lie to my readers.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

JulesWright said:


> or pretend I was baking cinnamon rolls when I wasn't.


Good plan, because Pepperidge Farm remembers.


----------



## KelliWolfe

BGArcher said:


> But there's a glaring problem with your logic. If you're hiring ghost writers to write those books, and you as the publisher are editing them and cleaning them up to fit a brand, a brand that readers are clearly reading, you aren't doing anything wrong. You are in effect just what your job described. A publisher. You could make the argument easily that it is entrepreneurship at it's finest. So doing cross brand promotion is just smart marketing, and ethically is 100% on board.
> 
> Now, that's only if the books are each following the new rules of the store. But in theory, the lot of you who were happy with the black hatters being taken down should be okay with someone doing this, if it was ever _really_ about the store being fair.


I never said it was unethical. I was merely explaining why these people would want to use multiple pen names within the same genre and cross-promote them. The black hat part comes in when they begin using very questionable means to promote their books, cross-promote, get reviews, generate bogus page reads, etc.


----------



## JWright

No, I would feel lied to and wouldn't appreciate it one bit.

Obviously men can write great female characters and vice versa. Gay people can write great straight characters and vice versa. So no need to lie. If so, you are trying to get some extra community love that you don't deserve. Be a straight person who writes great queer characters. I don't want someone passing themselves off as someone they are not.

So, if someone tries to pass themselves off as a lesbian who really isn't and I found out, I wouldn't read any more of their books. If other people wanted to, that is their choice.



BGArcher said:


> writing romance novels for an LGBTQ audience while not being queer is not lying to them, or making a fool of them. You're not lying to them when you create a persona and stick to it, for that pen name. If you write books your audience loves, it shouldn't matter. That's kind of the whole point of being a good writer in the end. The ability to jump into other view points, other people and tell compelling stories from their points of view, or about them. If you're calling that lying, then literally all writers are liars.


----------



## BGArcher

KelliWolfe said:


> I never said it was unethical. I was merely explaining why these people would want to use multiple pen names within the same genre and cross-promote them. The black hat part comes in when they begin using very questionable means to promote their books, cross-promote, get reviews, generate bogus page reads, etc.


Fair enough. No offense meant.


----------



## Crime fighters

Nobody is saying AD campaigns are unethical, with the exception of the ones stealing copyrighted photos and videos for their Facebook ads. It's a part of the larger discussion, though. The problem isn't the ads. It's how they get the money to spend on the ads, raising costs for everyone else. The only reason they can bid so damn high is because of $13 payouts per read. It's a piece of the Pyramid. 

People keep taking what they want from a conversation and twisting it. I'm not sure what purpose it serves other than to confuse.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

David VanDyke said:


> Now, I completely understand defending someone's RIGHT to do something unethical, if it's legal or allowed. That's not the same as claiming the unethical is, in fact, ethical, merely because it's legal or allowed.


Correct

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you are right to do it.


----------



## RPatton

Crime fighters said:


> People keep taking what they want from a conversation and twisting it. I'm not sure what purpose it serves other than to confuse.


Everyone is doing this across the board. Not one person or one opinion, but everyone.


----------



## Crystal_

David VanDyke said:


> This, above.
> 
> In any controversial, long thread, there's always at least one person who defends unethical practices, claiming they're ethical.
> 
> Now, I completely understand defending someone's RIGHT to do something unethical, if it's legal or allowed. That's not the same as claiming the unethical is, in fact, ethical, merely because it's legal or allowed.
> 
> For example, representing pen names as real persons and having conversations between them... Yeesh. Just...yeesh. That's a no-brainer, yet we still see people defending that practice and others. Legal? Sure. Ethical? No way.
> 
> And indefensible. I'm constantly appalled by defense of such practices.


While I find all of these practices unethical, I don't think you can say "there's always someone defending unethical behavior." There's always someone defending behavior you personally find unethical. But they may have a different take. We aren't lawyers. We don't have a code of ethics we have to follow. There isn't any standard set of ethics for writers.

We aren't going to agree on everything. Some people here think reporting other authors is wrong. Others think it's the only way to create change. Lots of authors who were using bonus books believed they were fine. Others thought it was cheating. Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## BGArcher

JulesWright said:


> No, I would feel lied to and wouldn't appreciate it one bit.
> 
> Obviously men can write great female characters and vice versa. Gay people can write great straight characters and vice versa. So no need to lie. If so, you are trying to get some extra community love that you don't deserve. Be a straight person who writes great queer characters. I don't want someone passing themselves off as someone they are not.
> 
> So, if someone tries to pass themselves off as a lesbian who really isn't and I found out, I wouldn't read any more of their books. If other people wanted to, that is their choice.


I'm sorry you were feeling lied to, (in this hypothetical scenario) but just because you feel it's that way doesn't mean it is a lie. I find it odd that you get to decided what an author does or does not deserve, (again in this hypothetical scenario).


----------



## JWright

I said if others wanted to read the books that would be their choice - so you obviously didn't read my whole post. So if someone isn't really a lesbian and the pen name says they are a lesbian that's not a lie? How is that not a lie?

If no one had a problem with it then no one would need to lie. I think that's telling right there.

I'm white. I'm not going to pass myself off as an African American writer. I think that would be totally wrong.  However, I could have African American characters in my books.

We obviously have a difference in opinion as to what is okay and not okay.



BGArcher said:


> I'm sorry you were feeling lied to, (in this hypothetical scenario) but just because you feel it's that way doesn't mean it is a lie. I find it odd that you get to decided what an author does or does not deserve, (again in this hypothetical scenario).


----------



## BGArcher

Crystal_ said:


> While I find all of these practices unethical, I don't think you can say "there's always someone defending unethical behavior." There's always someone defending behavior you personally find unethical. But they may have a different take. We aren't lawyers. We don't have a code of ethics we have to follow. There isn't any standard set of ethics for writers.
> 
> We aren't going to agree on everything. Some people here think reporting other authors is wrong. Others think it's the only way to create change. Lots of authors who were using bonus books believed they were fine. Others thought it was cheating. Etc., etc., etc.


I haven't agreed with everything you've posted in this thread, but I 100% agree with this statement. To take it a step further, there's a lot of talk about ethics and what's fair in this thread. It also seems fairly obvious that a lot of it seems to come from people who are jealous of others success, regardless of the ethics of how they got there.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

BGArcher said:


> It also seems fairly obvious that a lot of it seems to come from people who are jealous of others success


And there comes the jealousy card. Sorry, but it's both overplayed and completely bogus. There are plenty of full-time writers on this board, many of whom are arguing against these practices. We don't go out of our way to target or attack each other. Instead we celebrate each other's successes ... except when those successes are obtained via questionable methods. Why? because those methods harm us all. They paint the entire industry in a bad light.

That doesn't make us jealous. That makes us concerned citizens of our chosen industry.


----------



## Becca Mills

BGArcher said:


> I haven't agreed with everything you've posted in this thread, but I 100% agree with this statement. To take it a step further, there's a lot of talk about ethics and what's fair in this thread. It also seems fairly obvious that a lot of it seems to come from people who are jealous of others success, regardless of the ethics of how they got there.


Giving one another the benefit of the doubt as to motivation is the KBoards way.


----------



## BGArcher

Rick Gualtieri said:


> And there comes the jealousy card. Sorry, but it's both overplayed and completely bogus. There are plenty of full-time writers on this board, many of whom are arguing against these practices. We don't go out of our way to target or attack each other. Instead we celebrate each other's successes ... except when those successes are obtained via questionable methods. Why? because those methods harm us all. They paint the entire industry in a bad light.
> 
> That doesn't make us jealous. That makes us concerned citizens of our chosen industry.


And again, I'm not talking about the policy's we've all agreed in are bad, or that Amazon has now changed their policy's about and we are all agreeing to stick to. Those points have been made, over and over again. I'm talking about then people adding things in like having ghost writers, or a publishing company is somehow unethical. Or writing as a female or male (or whatever gender you decide to write under.) Or putting a cap on payout on K.U.


----------



## Becca Mills

BGArcher said:


> I'm talking about then people adding things in like having ghost writers, or a publishing company is somehow unethical. Or writing as a female or male (or whatever gender you decide to write under.) Or putting a cap on payout on K.U.


Positions we are going to assume are all genuine and not motivated by jealousy.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

JulesWright said:


> I'm white. I'm not going to pass myself off as an African American writer. I think that would be totally wrong. However, I could have African American characters in my books.
> 
> We obviously have a difference in opinion as to what is okay and not okay.


JK Rowling

Robert Galbraith


----------



## BGArcher

Becca Mills said:


> Positions we are going to assume are all genuine and not motivated by jealousy.


Fair enough. Should I just delete those past comments? I in no way want to breach the rules of the forum


----------



## Becca Mills

BGArcher said:


> Fair enough. Should I just delete those past comments? I in no way want to breach the rules of the forum


No need to delete. Just keep the KB Way in mind going forward.


----------



## Crime fighters

On the topic of gender, nobody is advocating against creating a persona of the opposite gender. There's a clear-cut difference between hiding your identity to sell books because of market expectations in genre as opposed to someone abusing that identity, which is what people are referring to. In romance especially, readers and authors have been burned one too many times by people using these identities to solicit conversations and personal matters they never would have shared elsewise.

If you're going to sell a persona, it's wise to keep distance from your readers and to disclose the truth to authors if you're building a budding friendship. If you claim to be something you're not and readers find out, they're not going to be happy. Whether that makes it unethical, well there's room to debate that, but if you're appropriating the identity of a minority, then absolutely you've crossed a line and I hope you manage to avoid being caught.

Some of the people we're talking about in this thread have actually been honest about the fact that their names are personas. I can at least respect that if I respect nothing else they do.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## BGArcher

Becca Mills said:


> No need to delete. Just keep the KB Way in mind going forward.


Good reminder, thanks


----------



## SalomeGolding

One of the persons who is taking the hardest line in this thread, and in other similar threads, is one of the most successful indie writers on Kboards and perhaps just generally speaking.

Some people are just straight-arrow, black and white, with a heightened sense of morality. They believe what they believe, regardless of whether or not personal gain is involved.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## KelliWolfe

BGArcher said:


> And again, I'm not talking about the policy's we've all agreed in are bad, or that Amazon has now changed their policy's about and we are all agreeing to stick to. Those points have been made, over and over again. I'm talking about then people adding things in like having ghost writers, or a publishing company is somehow unethical. Or writing as a female or male (or whatever gender you decide to write under.) Or putting a cap on payout on K.U.


Just to clarify a bit, a lot of these issues have come up before in similar discussions many, many times. For the most part people here have agreed that these things are not unethical _on their own_, even if a lot of us don't personally care for things like content mills because in most cases we find they both provide a poor customer experience through poor writing and the bargain basement pricing based on cheap content tends to drive prices in general lower. And while these practices in isolation aren't unethical, they are often coupled with unethical behavior as has been amply demonstrated in this topic. A lot of the statements people have made here about these ancillary matters were due to those many, many prior discussions, but without the context included.

I personally have no problem with content mill publishers - provided that they behave with the same business ethics that we would expect of any individual author. Unfortunately we have seen time and time again that most of them do not. I have absolutely no problem with a man creating a female pen name to write romance, because female romance readers are extremely prejudiced against male romance writers and the vast majority of them would never buy his books. I do however have a big problem with a male romance writer using a female pen name to interact with his readers to solicit very personal information about their sex lives and experiences. Which we know has happened.

These reactions are driven by distaste for the lengths that some people claiming to be members of our profession go to while defending their actions as perfectly reasonable. And anger at the blowback that inevitably lands on the rest of us when the distributors and readers discover them and react.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here

I think it's good that some big name authors have taken notice, and I think it made a difference. As for how it's being handled now by Amazon, it's a good first step, hopefully one of many to keep the KU program attractive to readers and viable for authors.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## David VanDyke

DonovanJeremiah said:


> I'm confused. So I can't write a book using a pen name, and then interact with the readers at all?
> 
> I use a pen name. I'm a real person. I have to use a pen name for personal protection reasons. Readers write to me/interact on social media, I can't respond as my real name. All I have is the pen name and face.
> 
> And that makes me unethical?
> 
> Or am I missing something?


Yes, you're missing something. We're talking about one pen name talking to another pen name (both owned by the same real person) as if the pen names were real people.

This is a pen name. I talk to my fans all the time using this pen name. It's not a secret that it's a pen name. But that's not whet we're referring to. We're referring to trying to make the fans believe two or more pen names are each real people with real opinions--basically sock puppets--generally for the purpose of trying to make it seem as if a bunch of authors are in agreement.

Think infomercial, where the "interviewer" and every "guest" ends up gushing over the product--none are real guests or interviewers.


----------



## Saffron

I think this is very welcome. David Graughan tweeted about it the other day. I was wondering though, If you wanted to put two books into one, or make up a trilogy, is that now prohibited?


----------



## David VanDyke

Dpock said:


> Let me clarify: Pretending to a different gender when engaging readers directly, as in emails, tweets, PMs, smoke signals, etc., is a questionable activity. Just using an alternate gender pen with no further reader engagement is fine, but it makes the Author Central bio a bit challenging.


This.

Given that we have a society where names are only loosely sex- or gender-related (Captain Michael Burnham, anyone?), merely sticking a name on a book that obscures sex or gender is IMO not unethical, and is a time-honored practice. It's up to the reader to judge or not.

Explicitly claiming to be ANYTHING you're not--racially, sexually, background-related (stolen valor, anyone?) ranges from ethically suspect to utterly wrong. That's 101.


----------



## Phxsundog

Saffron said:


> I think this is very welcome. David Graughan tweeted about it the other day. I was wondering though, If you wanted to put two books into one, or make up a trilogy, is that now prohibited?


Nobody knows for sure until the dust settles. However since there's been no mass purge of boxed sets or new directive from Amazon about it, I think the safest thing to do is title it a series and make sure everything is labeled crystal clear. Be sure the titles of all three books are on the cover, whether it's three dimensional or flat. List all titles in the blurb. If you're not one of the big abusers under KDP's scrutiny, and you're not simply sticking the word collection or compilation onto what used to be a stuffed book, you should be fine. I don't feel good calling anything safe with total certainty but we should have a better idea in another week or two how legitimate anthologies in KU should be presented.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals

> writing romance novels for an LGBTQ audience while not being queer is not lying to them, or making a fool of them. You're not lying to them when you create a persona and stick to it, for that pen name. If you write books your audience loves, it shouldn't matter.


If it "shouldn't matter" then a writer won't need to pretend to be a lesbian if they're a straight man. The reality is that it _does_ matter. Community is an issue and people want to support writers from their community.


----------



## Becca Mills

I've edited a few posts to curtail continued discussion of the "jealousy" idea while hopefully leaving people's main points intact. Let's please move on from that now.

ETA: Edited a few words from a post I didn't notice earlier.


----------



## JWright

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> If it "shouldn't matter" then a writer won't need to pretend to be a lesbian if they're a straight man. The reality is that it _does_ matter. Community is an issue and people want to support writers from their community.


Yes, agreed, and especially where it has been much harder to find stories that represent you and where publishing hasn't always been open to everyone. For a straight male to masquerade as a lesbian is off putting to me to say the least. However, if a straight man writes a great book with awesome lesbian characters then I am all for it!

Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. are all still very much with us.

Women historically wrote under male pen names because women were not taken seriously and/or not deemed to be suited to be writers or practically any other profession. Even today, a woman writing under a male name is not equivalent to a male writing under a female name because sexism is still very much alive and well. So yes either way it can be done, but I don't think it's exactly the same thing myself and there are different ramifications and considerations to be accounted for.

Also, if I were to write a heterosexual romance, I would use a female pen name (I'm female so that is consistent). I wouldn't claim to have a husband or in any way claim to be something I wasn't. I'd just have a bio where everything was true and not embellish or try to be something I wasn't. I wouldn't take a real personal approach on social media or a newsletter. I'd keep everything about myself very low key and focus on the books and characters I wrote about.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## MmmmmPie

JulesWright said:


> Even today, a woman writing under a male name is not equivalent to a male writing under a female name because sexism is still very much alive and well. So yes either way it can be done, but I don't think it's exactly the same thing myself and there are different ramifications and considerations to be accounted for.


I respectfully disagree. While I think it's wrong for male authors to use their female pen names to engage in creepy behavior (such as sharing fantasies, etc.), I don't believe in double standards. In my opinion, it's either wrong for everyone or right for everyone. If a woman can use a male pen name in traditional male markets, a man should be able to use a female pen name in a traditionally female market.

I'm saying this as a female romance author. To hold men to a different standard seems unfair to me, and I don't feel comfortable advocating such a policy. That being said, some of these stuffers go way overboard, inventing fake personas, fake pictures, fake life-stories, etc. That's taking it too far, IMO. But I'd also disapprove of a female doing the same thing, such as pretending to be a former Navy Seal while writing action adventure stories.


----------



## unkownwriter

You can have a pen name, and respond to emails or whatever without revealing who you really are. That's not the problem. The problem, which has been explained over and over again to the point we're all going to be arrested for beating dead horses, is that some people have gone too far and are interacting with readers on a far more personal level. Far, far more personal. It's nasty, it's disturbing (especially to women), and it shouldn't be done.

For the record, I think J K Rowling went too far in her bio for her male pen name, in that she claimed military service and other things she did not have. To me, that's overstepping. Veterans in particular don't like people claiming to have served who didn't. I'm a veteran, I know.


----------



## RPatton

JulesWright said:


> Yes, agreed, and especially where it has been much harder to find stories that represent you and where publishing hasn't always been open to everyone. For a straight male to masquerade as a lesbian is off putting to me to say the least. However, if a straight man writes a great book with awesome lesbian characters then I am all for it!
> 
> Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. are all still very much with us.
> 
> Women historically wrote under male pen names because women were not taken seriously and/or not deemed to be suited to be writers or practically any other profession. Even today, a woman writing under a male name is not equivalent to a male writing under a female name because sexism is still very much alive and well. So yes either way it can be done, but I don't think it's exactly the same thing myself and there are different ramifications and considerations to be accounted for.
> 
> Also, if I were to write a heterosexual romance, I would use a female pen name (I'm female so that is consistent). I wouldn't claim to have a husband or in any way claim to be something I wasn't. I'd just have a bio where everything was true and not embellish or try to be something I wasn't. I wouldn't take a real personal approach on social media or a newsletter. I'd keep everything about myself very low key and focus on the books and characters I wrote about.


That is your choice. However, some people want to write under a pen, create a mostly true bio that is surface oriented and like writing behind a curtain. They don't want their world outside of writing to meet with their writing world. Just because it is different from how you would do it, doesn't make it wrong or less valid.

I think the biggest problem I am having with this thread is that it's all or nothing. Very few people are willing to say, "Hey, your way might not be my way, but keep on moving." Instead, they are saying, "Your way isn't my way, therefore it is inherently wrong."

As of right now, I think most people believe the excessive use of bonus content that is duplicated ad nauseum is at the very least exploitative and bad for the marketplace. It's when we start narrowly defining behavior as right or wrong based on our own personal value system that we get into trouble.

And for the record, it has nothing to do with pretending. Do you honestly believe that every writer who wrote a Nancy Drew book was a woman? The author is as much a brand and persona and the creator of that brand or persona should be allowed to dictate that brand. Now, when they start to interact in a personal way with readers under that persona I will raise an eyebrow and probably question their integrity. But writing a fictionalized bio under a fake name with an image that is clearly not human, doesn't warrant criticism.


----------



## JWright

I wasn't saying males couldn't use female pen names but I don't think it's the same thing. Sexism is alive and well and men need to be careful about cozying up to women in personal ways that could feel violating to some. But just using a pen name itself doesn't do that.

And no I don't think a female or male writer should claim military service when they haven't done so. I think that's wrong.



MmmmmPie said:


> I respectfully disagree. While I think it's wrong for male authors to use their female pen names to engage in creepy behavior (such as sharing fantasies, etc.), I don't believe in double standards. In my opinion, it's either wrong for everyone or right for everyone. If a woman can use a male pen name in traditional male markets, a man should be able to use a female pen name in a traditionally female market.
> 
> I'm saying this as a female romance author. To hold men to a different standard seems unfair to me, and I don't feel comfortable advocating such a policy. That being said, some of these stuffers go way overboard, inventing fake personas, fake pictures, fake life-stories, etc. That's taking it too far, IMO. But I'd also disapprove of a female doing the same thing, such as pretending to be a former Navy Seal while writing action adventure stories.


----------



## JWright

RPatton said:


> That is your choice. However, some people want to write under a pen, create a mostly true bio that is surface oriented and like writing behind a curtain. They don't want their world outside of writing to meet with their writing world. Just because it is different from how you would do it, doesn't make it wrong or less valid.
> 
> I think the biggest problem I am having with this thread is that it's all or nothing. Very few people are willing to say, "Hey, your way might not be my way, but keep on moving." Instead, they are saying, "Your way isn't my way, therefore it is inherently wrong."
> 
> As of right now, I think most people believe the excessive use of bonus content that is duplicated ad nauseum is at the very least exploitative and bad for the marketplace. It's when we start narrowly defining behavior as right or wrong based on our own personal value system that we get into trouble.
> 
> And for the record, it has nothing to do with pretending. Do you honestly believe that every writer who wrote a Nancy Drew book was a woman? The author is as much a brand and persona and the creator of that brand or persona should be allowed to dictate that brand. Now, when they start to interact in a personal way with readers under that persona I will raise an eyebrow and probably question their integrity. But writing a fictionalized bio under a fake name with an image that is clearly not human, doesn't warrant criticism.


If you will notice I wrote what "I" would do. I also choose as a reader to not read writers trying to pass themselves off as something they are not. So if others want to do something different that is their choice.


----------



## RPatton

BGArcher said:


> And again, I'm not talking about the policy's we've all agreed in are bad, or that Amazon has now changed their policy's about and we are all agreeing to stick to. Those points have been made, over and over again. I'm talking about then people adding things in like having ghost writers, or a publishing company is somehow unethical. Or writing as a female or male (or whatever gender you decide to write under.) Or putting a cap on payout on K.U.


That was me who recommended a payout cap. One based on the royalty of what looked to be the highest price with the significant enough density (4.99). I could see capping it royalty rate of 5.99.

So once a book hit 4.19 worth of page reads per reader, it wouldn't count any more page reads. (Hurk, correcting this to correspond with my original post - it would still count pages, but you would no longer earn more money for those additional page reads.) If this is more than a book would earn as a sale and a lot more than what a book earned for a borrow, it was sort of a compromise. I wasn't saying everyone needs to support this, I was merely responding to the criticism that no one was offering reasonable alternatives.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals

> Yes, agreed, and especially where it has been much harder to find stories that represent you and where publishing hasn't always been open to everyone. For a straight male to masquerade as a lesbian is off putting to me to say the least. However, if a straight man writes a great book with awesome lesbian characters then I am all for it!


I will say one thing based on a couple of books I metaphorically threw across the room. (Metaphorically as I'm not busting a good kindle voyage!) If you're a dude and you're going to write lesbian sex scenes, you damned well better know something about female anatomy. Not only was I sure one guy wasn't a woman, but I am pretty sure he's never even met one.


----------



## 101569

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> I will say one thing based on a couple of books I metaphorically threw across the room. (Metaphorically as I'm not busting a good kindle voyage!) If you're a dude and you're going to write lesbian sex scenes, you damned well better know something about female anatomy. Not only was I sure one guy wasn't a woman, but I am pretty sure he's never even met one.


Rofl!!!!!!

Has sooo. His mom is upstairs right now making him a sandwhich!


----------



## JWright

Speaker-To-Animals said:


> I will say one thing based on a couple of books I metaphorically threw across the room. (Metaphorically as I'm not busting a good kindle voyage!) If you're a dude and you're going to write lesbian sex scenes, you damned well better know something about female anatomy. Not only was I sure one guy wasn't a woman, but I am pretty sure he's never even met one.


Lol, yes don't bust your Voyage! And seriously, you can often tell in one glance just by looking at the book and description that it was not written by or for lesbians.

And may I dare say that some heterosexual women may have similar concerns. I'm sure there are men who can write good romance, but... could be some legit reasons for some of the wariness out there.


----------



## KelliWolfe

JulesWright said:


> Lol, yes don't bust your Voyage! And seriously, you can often tell in one glance just by looking at the book and description that it was not written by or for lesbians.
> 
> And may I dare say that some heterosexual women may have similar concerns. I'm sure there are men who can write good romance, but... could be some legit reasons for some of the wariness out there.


I cannot tell you how many times in the years since I joined kboards that I've seen men trying to publish romance when they've never cracked a romance novel and haven't the faintest clue what the genre is about. The common misconception that romance is easy to write draws in people looking to make a quick buck without doing any research, and by far the worst offenders seem to be male. The romance readers know this, and so when they see a male name on the cover their immediate reaction is to pass it by. It sucks for the men out there who do write good romance because they've got a hard slog uphill to gain any readership. But it's an understandable reaction.


----------



## JWright

Yes, definitely. I have no doubt there are men who write good romance and some others make it tougher for them, but I can't blame readers for being wary either.

I think it's obvious that women can write really good male characters and men can write good female characters in any genre, but also that readers don't like being burned. I am not a big lesbian romance reader but I do read some, and yes I am wary to read one by a straight man but it doesn't mean a man couldn't write a good one or if I heard that it was good that I wouldn't read it and enjoy it.

So I can see the use for pen names, but I just don't want to be fooled by a fake persona. Other readers might be more forgiving than me.

Meanwhile in content-stuffing land, I did just notice that a couple of the big stuffers - some of their books have the dog page now but some of their books are still showing as unavailable. So things seem to be in flux.



KelliWolfe said:


> I cannot tell you how many times in the years since I joined kboards that I've seen men trying to publish romance when they've never cracked a romance novel and haven't the faintest clue what the genre is about. The common misconception that romance is easy to write draws in people looking to make a quick buck without doing any research, and by far the worst offenders seem to be male. The romance readers know this, and so when they see a male name on the cover their immediate reaction is to pass it by. It sucks for the men out there who do write good romance because they've got a hard slog uphill to gain any readership. But it's an understandable reaction.


----------



## 101569

KelliWolfe said:


> I cannot tell you how many times in the years since I joined kboards that I've seen men trying to publish romance when they've never cracked a romance novel and haven't the faintest clue what the genre is about. The common misconception that romance is easy to write draws in people looking to make a quick buck without doing any research, and by far the worst offenders seem to be male. The romance readers know this, and so when they see a male name on the cover their immediate reaction is to pass it by. It sucks for the men out there who do write good romance because they've got a hard slog uphill to gain any readership. But it's an understandable reaction.


The first thing I hope for when I see a guy writing a romance novel is a book from the male perspective. These are written so infrequently that when done we'll they are some of my favorites. Why don't male writers think to do this. There are very few guys that truly understand what a woman thinks, but so many women that would love to know what a guy is thinking. 
Why pretend to be something your not and instead work to your strengths. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## KelliWolfe

I have seen readers complain about pure male POV books on blogs and forums because it's harder for them to identify with the female character. Dual POV is much more popular, although there are a few people doing well with male-only POV like Lauren Blakely, mostly in erom or very steamy romance. I believe that was Chance's forte as well.


----------



## Crystal_

idontknowyet said:


> The first thing I hope for when I see a guy writing a romance novel is a book from the male perspective. These are written so infrequently that when done we'll they are some of my favorites. Why don't male writers think to do this. There are very few guys that truly understand what a woman thinks, but so many women that would love to know what a guy is thinking.
> Why pretend to be something your not and instead work to your strengths. Just my 2 cents.


I don't think romance readers want any old male perspective. There are plenty of books written by men about the male perspective, but they aren't usually written in a way that makes the men appealing.

Romance heroes have a really idealized perspective. The way the perspective is idealized varies greatly, from guys who are obsessive to the point of law breaking stalker to guys who are sweetly broken to guys who are funny and over the moon in love, but they are certainly idealized.

Gender roles are a huge thing in romance and there's a lot of room for us to improve. Romance heroes are only allowed to show vulnerability in certain ways, but that is a conversation for another day.


----------



## AuthorX

she-la-ti-da said:


> You can have a pen name, and respond to emails or whatever without revealing who you really are. That's not the problem. The problem, which has been explained over and over again to the point we're all going to be arrested for beating dead horses, is that some people have gone too far and are interacting with readers on a far more personal level. Far, far more personal. It's nasty, it's disturbing (especially to women), and it shouldn't be done.
> 
> For the record, I think J K Rowling went too far in her bio for her male pen name, in that she claimed military service and other things she did not have. To me, that's overstepping. Veterans in particular don't like people claiming to have served who didn't. I'm a veteran, I know.


J K Rowling is a fiction writer. Pen names are fiction.

I don't understand why people expect that anonymous names on the internet or books that are clearly labeled as fiction are supposed to have any ounce of truth. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting catfished on Social Media every day. Hundreds of Thousands (or maybe more) pen names have made-up fake bios. And 'til this day, most people have no idea who those pen names really are.

I will say this with the warning that I don't and have never interacted with my readers on a personal level. I don't ask them personal questions or anything like that... But how does it harm anyone if another author does? If a reader feels that an author is getting personal, they can simply disengage. They are (I assume) adults. And any adult with who was raised with even the most basic education should know that a.) they are talking to stranger they've never met, and b.) they're under no obligation to talk to anyone on a personal level.

Sometimes it seems like people hold readers to such a low bar... Like they aren't adults capable of knowing that they don't have to engage with strangers and trapped in a system that they can't walk away from. Are readers really that stupid that they automatically assume that they personally know someone because they've read a bio an authors bio? Let's give readers an ounce of credit here... Only the dumbest of the dumb should know that everything they see on the internet and in a book isn't true.


----------



## caitlynlynch

A while back, I read a book by one of the biggest stuffers who disappeared in the recent purge. I was reading it for market research, wondering what was in this book which had it in the Top 100 on Amazon.

(Naive little me didn't know bookstuffing was even a thing back then).

I was 100% convinced that this purportedly female pen name, who claimed to be a lawyer in New York, was male and has literally no clue how female anatomy worked. Either that or the book's heroine was actually MEANT to have hips with 360% rotation like a Barbie doll.

Also, definitely not a lawyer considering the medical malpractice by a 'doctor' in the book, but that's small potatoes in comparison to the rest.


----------



## JWright

Yes, I've had people with fake Facebook accounts try to befriend me, been lied to on dating sites, etc.  I don't like fake authors anymore than any of that.  So if you aren't who you say you are I don't want to read your books.  If it's a female name with a low key bio that doesn't try to get personal with me and I enjoy the book fine - whether you are male or female doesn't really matter.  You start embellishing and making stuff up, then I'd rather not read you.  And it does matter to me when you try to pass off as someone in a minority group that you are not a part of, or to pass yourself off as having served in the military.  There's probably some other stuff too. I'm a reader as much as a writer and I do have opinions on what and who I want to support and spend my time reading.  

My main genre is epic fantasy.  Two of my favorite authors are Brandon Sanderson and N.K. Jemisin.  I don't really think their gender, race or sexual orientation really matters in terms of me enjoying their books although I'm sure it informs their work just like all of our own personal experiences do. 

I personally am never going to put out a huge chunk of my personal life on the internet - including any author stuff - bio, social media, newsletter, but what I will share is going to be real. If you want to do something different, go for it.  I don't really get those who like to hang out in the gray areas getting upset.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

I think my disconnect with all this pen name talk is that I simply don't care about authors' personal lives all that much. I don't care how much they watch hockey, or if their personal life is filled with excitement and adventure of hot air balloon rides and epic visits to foreign lands, or if they simply kick up their heels at the end of the day and binge watch Miss Fisher Mysteries.

All I care about is when is the next book due out because I want to read more. 

There was an author I was following. He put out two books and I devoured both of them. I waited and waited for the third book. Years went by with no third book. I thought he was pulling a GRRM and it was just tough coming out and getting down. As a fellow author, I could empathize with that.

Finally, one evening years later, I decided to see if the third book was out yet and uncovered he suffered from severe depression and if I read it right lost the contract with the publisher because he couldn't deliver the third manuscript. 

It saddened me to read that and I certainly felt for him. I hope he got help and was on the road to getting back on his feet again. That was the one time I actually cared about an author's life. I'm still very glad he didn't blast that all over his social media. Selfishly, all I wanted was the next book.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

AuthorX said:


> Sometimes it seems like people hold readers to such a low bar... Like they aren't adults capable of knowing that they don't have to engage with strangers and trapped in a system that they can't walk away from. Are readers really that stupid that they automatically assume that they personally know someone because they've read a bio an authors bio? Let's give readers an ounce of credit here... Only the dumbest of the dumb should know that everything they see on the internet and in a book isn't true.


It's very easy to say "nobody in their right mind should get taken in by those Nigerian scams anymore", but people still do every day.

You can't view the entire internet through your own eyes. There are people out there who simply want to believe / trust that when someone says something is real that it is.

That's the danger. People can easily be catfished into believing someone else is their friend or cares for them. I don't follow too much romance, but I've seen some author groups. There can be a deeply personally connection there, and try as you might, you will get absolutely pounced on if you dare go in there and suggest that author is fake / phony / or only cares about them as dollar signs ... even if it's the most true thing in the world.


----------



## unkownwriter

> If a reader feels that an author is getting personal, they can simply disengage.


Sure they can, and many do. But many people are very trusting, so when their "bestie" starts asking them about how many times they achieve orgasm, and do they do "it" while reading their books, since it's another woman it's probably okay to talk about it. And then you find out it's some guy pretending to be a woman, pretending to be your friend, using you to get some kind of thrill for themselves? Then yeah. Too far.

It's easy to be fooled by people, especially on the Internet where you can lie better than a politician and most people wouldn't know what was the truth. That doesn't mean I disparage readers. Hell, I am a reader. I happen to be more cynical than most, but I've been hurt by experts, so I learned to see it coming.

I really love how someone can take a perfectly rational statement and turn it around. Not. It's trying to disparage those of us who speak out against the bad actors. I don't like Hilary Clinton, therefore I'm a misogynist. Or I hate feminists. No, I don't like her because she's not worthy. She's earned it, believe me. So has Trump and probably 90% of the people in Washington. (Sorry to use politics, but it's the closest thing I could recall to refute some statements.)

It's like I read someone defending Chance, saying he has to support his family, why are we so mean? He probably panicked when Amazon did something about reviews. HUH? I'd bet most of us have someone to support, if only ourselves, and none of us are too happy when we see some random crap from Amazon that shakes up our world. But you know what? The vast majority of us don't immediately turn to stuffing, incentivizing people to read to the end of a book, much less giving details on how to do it, or break Federal laws on contests. And this didn't happen overnight, people, this has been going on for a while.

Stop excusing people from their bad behavior. It doesn't matter if it was the stuffing, or not, Amazon is buckling down and it's going to be a bumpy ride. Get yourself right, if you're not, or pay the piper. And stop trying to turn this on us, the ones who want indie publishing to be a good thing, not a black hat nightmare.


----------



## AuthorX

Rick Gualtieri said:


> It's very easy to say "nobody in their right mind should get taken in by those Nigerian scams anymore", but people still do every day.
> 
> You can't view the entire internet through your own eyes. There are people out there who simply want to believe / trust that when someone says something is real that it is.
> 
> That's the danger. People can easily be catfished into believing someone else is their friend or cares for them. I don't follow too much romance, but I've seen some author groups. There can be a deeply personally connection there, and try as you might, you will get absolutely pounced on if you dare go in there and suggest that author is fake / phony / or only cares about them as dollar signs ... even if it's the most true thing in the world.


The difference between Nigerian scams and a pen name is that is that Nigerian scams are actively harming people. I've seen no evidence of authors using fictional pen names to harm people. There can be an emotional connection between readers and authors using pen names, but until I see an author extorting or abusing people via a fictional pen name, I see no harm.

What's funny is that I'm guessing 100% of people in this board have read a book by an author under a pen name and just don't know it. I'd totally understand if an author was using a pen name to lure people to their house or something of that nature, but we all walk into a book with full knowledge that the name on the cover is nothing but a set of letters from someone we nothing about. And even if we have seen the author at book signings or videos, we don't know that the author actually even wrote the book. It could just has well been ghostwritten by their personal assistant.

Pen names are legal. We might not agree with the way some authors portray themselves on their fictional pen names, but we don't have to agree. Everyone has a different moral compass. Everyone has different moral and religious views, different views on sex, race, etc. And that's part of what makes writing great... Every book is different and every writer is different. We don't have the right to not be offended, but we do have the right to walk away or not engage.

Until I see someone who actively harming people or doing something illegal or against a book platform's TOS, it is wrong to shame them, just because you disagree with them. If you really think people are unaware that many of their favorite authors are just pen names, just make pen name awareness day or something. I don't know if anyone would care though, because most readers just want to be fed good content.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

AuthorX said:


> The difference between Nigerian scams and a pen name is that is that Nigerian scams are actively harming people. I've seen no evidence of authors using fictional pen names to harm people. There can be an emotional connection between readers and authors using pen names, but until I see an author extorting or abusing people via a fictional pen name, I see no harm.


I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or simply not reading what's being said here.

NOBODY (or at least not a lot) is saying pen names are wrong or illegal.

What people are saying is that using a pen name in a deceptive or catfishing way is harmful. Ie pretending to be a female when you're really a male and asking your readers for deeply personal information based on the deception that you're just like them.

And fine, you haven't seen it happen. That's cool. I've never seen a live giant squid, but I believe they exist.

Even if it's rare, we've already had people on this board confess they've done it.


----------



## 101569

AuthorX said:


> The difference between Nigerian scams and a pen name is that is that Nigerian scams are actively harming people. I've seen no evidence of authors using fictional pen names to harm people. There can be an emotional connection between readers and authors using pen names, but until I see an author extorting or abusing people via a fictional pen name, I see no harm.
> 
> What's funny is that I'm guessing 100% of people in this board have read a book by an author under a pen name and just don't know it. I'd totally understand if an author was using a pen name to lure people to their house or something of that nature, but we all walk into a book with full knowledge that the name on the cover is nothing but a set of letters from someone we nothing about. And even if we have seen the author at book signings or videos, we don't know that the author actually even wrote the book. It could just has well been ghostwritten by their personal assistant.
> 
> Pen names are legal. We might not agree with the way some authors portray themselves on their fictional pen names, but we don't have to agree. Everyone has a different moral compass. Everyone has different moral and religious views, different views on sex, race, etc. And that's part of what makes writing great... Every book is different and every writer is different. We don't have the right to not be offended, but we do have the right to walk away or not engage.
> 
> Until I see someone who actively harming people or doing something illegal or against a book platform's TOS, it is wrong to shame them, just because you disagree with them. If you really think people are unaware that many of their favorite authors are just pen names, just make pen name awareness day or something. I don't know if anyone would care though, because most readers just want to be fed good content.


I don't really care if the person is male, female, or even human that writes the book I read. As long as its a good read, I'm happy. I have always understood that the names on a book aren't always peoples real names even as a child. I don't care who writers are as people, but then I don't follow them tweet them or check to make sure they ate breakfast and their cat didn't steal their knitting. Be whoever you want to be when writing a book. Once you hit social media that is a different story. People believe what you are telling them to be true. The more you relate to them the more they feel they are getting to know you better. That is the purpose of social media. People have made social media into a marketing forum, but it wasn't created with that intent (maybe). When you portray yourself as something you aren't, you are betraying people's trust. Whether that's the way you view it or not. Does it usually matter. Probably not unless its a touchy/emotional topic for people. Do I care that you told me that you had toast for breakfast, but really had a full English. Nope. On the other hand if you are talking about something emotionally poignant. I care because it matters. No faster way to alienate a person then they feel betrayed by someone. 
Does it matter to me? As an author it should. The last thing I want to do is risk alienating my readers. That seems to be the fastest way to kill a career. We can moralize it all we want, but it doesn't matter what we think either way it matters what they feel. So risk total annihilation if its worth it to you.


----------



## Elizabeth S.

There was recently a husband and wife team who pretended to be a bisexual man. They created a whole persona and even a kid for him, iirc. They used that persona to get a foothold in MM romances. They also had a Patreon where people could support them.

Just one example of someone doing this and actively harming people. Look up the controversy if you want all the details; saying anything further here is probably beyond the scope of these forums.

There's also a white man who pretended he was Asian early in his career to get a foothold in the comic book industry. These things actively hurt other creators.

Something being legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Catfishing and appropriating aren't any more ethical just because an author is the one doing them.


----------



## Justawriter

AuthorX said:


> J K Rowling is a fiction writer. Pen names are fiction.
> 
> I don't understand why people expect that anonymous names on the internet or books that are clearly labeled as fiction are supposed to have any ounce of truth. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting catfished on Social Media every day. Hundreds of Thousands (or maybe more) pen names have made-up fake bios. And 'til this day, most people have no idea who those pen names really are.
> 
> I will say this with the warning that I don't and have never interacted with my readers on a personal level. I don't ask them personal questions or anything like that... But how does it harm anyone if another author does? If a reader feels that an author is getting personal, they can simply disengage. They are (I assume) adults. And any adult with who was raised with even the most basic education should know that a.) they are talking to stranger they've never met, and b.) they're under no obligation to talk to anyone on a personal level.
> 
> Sometimes it seems like people hold readers to such a low bar... Like they aren't adults capable of knowing that they don't have to engage with strangers and trapped in a system that they can't walk away from. Are readers really that stupid that they automatically assume that they personally know someone because they've read a bio an authors bio? Let's give readers an ounce of credit here... Only the dumbest of the dumb should know that everything they see on the internet and in a book isn't true.


I think she went too far in the bio too. A bio is talking about a real person, not a character. A real person wrote that book and to say that person had military experience when they didn't, to me crosses the line. I'm also not a fan of authors using stock photos as their bio pic. I've seen some of the scammers doing that, the men pretending to be women who use a stock photo and totally fake bio. If you want to have any kind of a relationship with your readers, I think it's hard to do that if its based on lies.


----------



## AuthorX

Rick Gualtieri said:


> What people are saying is that using a pen name in a deceptive or catfishing way is harmful. Ie pretending to be a female when you're really a male and asking your readers for deeply personal information based on the deception that you're just like them.


The moment you create a pen name, you are catfishing and being deceptive, since you're claiming an identity of a fictional entity that isn't your true identity. It's not at all harmful to do this, but according to your claim, it is.

I did see the posts about a romance author who was supposedly male who wrote under a female pen name and sent emails to his readers asking silly questions like when their first orgasm was. Was it ethical to do this? Of course not... Was it even necessary? Probably not. Whether it was wrong or not is in the eye of the beholder, but he didn't do anything illegal.

But claiming that people were harmed because of something like this is reall over-the-top. I'm certain that a lot of readers were butthurt or offended that they told some guy about their sex life but _harmed_? Lol... Anyone who responded to him did so with full knowledge that they were responding to someone they had never met. I'm certain that a lot of readers were butthurt and maybe even mad at themselves for blindly thinking they knew someone they never met, but no one was actually _harmed_.

Being deceived, butthurt, offended, etc. doesn't constitute harm, and trying to say that every time someone gets angry or has a boo-hoo moment is harm is setting a dangerous precedent.

Let me put it in perspective for you here. If I went on a date with someone whom I thought was a woman (due to outward appearances), and during that date, that person asked me personal details about myself. If I share those personal details with that person, and later on during the date, someone whispers in my ear, "You know that's a man, right?" Does that mean that I was harmed? Of course not. It means I was deceived. It means I am butthurt, and maybe even a little embarrassed that I talked to man as if she were a woman. It means that the person I went on a date with probably should have revealed to me that she was a man prior to going on a date with me, _but she was under no obligation to do so_. Nothing harmful or illegal happened, and the only person I have to blame is myself. You know what? I'll know better next time...

And that's a real life scenario where there are actual physical dangers associated with being deceived. We're on here talking about fictional books from fictional pen names of people in fictional places that readers will never meet. If it weren't for other authors trying to impose their own personal ethics onto other authors, readers would probably never know who the real identity of their pen names are unless the owner of those pen name chose to divulge that information.

I 100% agree with you that some authors disregard ethics when they create certain pen names, and I also disagree with authors (under pen names or not) requesting deeply personal information from their readers. But just because I disagree with what they do, doesn't mean people are being harmed.


----------



## Anarchist

AuthorX said:


> I don't understand why people expect that anonymous names on the internet or books that are clearly labeled as fiction are supposed to have any ounce of truth. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting catfished on Social Media every day.


I used to have a female friend who was laughably gullible. She followed the same pattern: she'd meet a guy, proclaim how nice he was, and ask my opinion. I'd usually say "_he's probably just trying to get in your pants_."

She'd dismiss my opinion, go out with the guy, and come crying because he bailed after they'd had sex.

Some people trust everything they hear and everyone they meet. It's bizarre.



AuthorX said:


> Being deceived, butthurt, offended, etc. doesn't constitute harm, and trying to say that every time someone gets angry or has a boo-hoo moment is harm is setting a dangerous precedent.


This.


----------



## David VanDyke

Sorry, AuthorX, you're conflating two obviously different things, and definitely different degrees.

1) A traditional, non-unethical pen name's purpose is to provide simple, noninteractive harmless cover persona for an author who'd rather not be a public figure--for whatever reason.

2) The unethical part comes in when the real author brings that persona to life by interacting with people _with the purpose of gain _, whether that gain is monetary or personal/emotional. The examples cited clarify the principle--trying to market a book by having different pen names talk it up, and using a pen persona to worm its way into someone's personal life that would otherwise be inaccessible. There are no doubt other examples.

The fact that 1 is okay does not make 2 okay.

The fact that 2 is bad does not make 1 bad

You said "The moment you create a pen name, you are catfishing..."

That's where you've gone wrong. Maybe you don't understand the common definition of catfishing:" To lure (someone) into a relationship by means of a fictional online persona." Only be twisting the definition of "relationship" to its breaking point could merely having an ordinary pen name be considered "catfishing". Ask 100 literate people that question: "Does creating a pen name constitute catfishing?" and I'd be shocked if you got even one serious "yes" answer.


----------



## KelliWolfe

I don't think it's so much that these readers are gullible people; I think a lot of them are just desperate to connect to someone who they feel understands them and their experiences. There is a sense among many of them that because you wrote something that they connected with on a deeply emotional level that you get them and share a connection. At least it seems to be the case with romance readers where the novels tend to deal with very intimate emotions and situations. I don't have enough experience writing outside that realm to know if it's true for other genres or not. But I can tell you that I've had readers tell me ALL kinds of things that I would never dream of telling a perfect stranger. This has been in unsolicited fan mail, and some of it gets personal to the point of being disturbing - there are a lot of damaged people out there. I have since removed my email from my books and largely limit interactions to my Wordpress blogs where everything is public and it's safer for everybody. But this connection they feel makes it very easy for the unscrupulous to take advantage.


----------



## boba1823

As we're already off on a tangent (and I'm having deja vu ), I thought I might as well bring up an earlier question that is also tangentially related - and that maybe recent developments have shed greater light upon:

What are the implications of this whole debacle for the Romance market in particular?

I recall, maybe a year ago or so, looking at the Amazon bestseller list for Romance and wondering, Is _this_ what most Romance readers really like? At that time, the 'stuffer' type authors were even more prominent on the list than they have been recently; I started noticing maybe six months ago that the list was changing, with books from Amazon imprints and trad pubs more frequently appearing. In any case, it struck me as strange. Especially because Amazon's top Romance list looked _really_ different from B&N or Kobo, and the kinds of Romance books that tended to show up on the NYT and USA Today bestseller lists.

I have no doubt that _some_ readers like books of this sort. The 'stuffer' variety, that is. But the situation is so nutso confusing that I hardly know what to think beyond that. Do the stuffers get their books to the top of the list because there are in fact hordes of readers who love them - more than readers who like what would generally be regarded as the higher quality types of Romance? Or are the stuffers just supremely good at reaching their niche of the reading market through expert and intensive marketing? (And on a related note: How much are they _really_ earning from page reads per average borrow to fund this marketing? Some critics cite the potential maximum payout of $13 as if that's the average per borrow, which seems.. implausible in most any scenario. Surely precious few actual readers are reading 3000 pages, especially when 90%+ of those are coming from the same titles that have been stuffed into the author's last dozen releases. How much 'click to the back' type trickery is still going on, and how much does that impact the average?) Or are the rankings the result of even more nefarious activities, e.g. botted borrows and reads? If so, do these account for 10 percent of borrows? 50 percent? More?

Yeah, I'm late to the game and it probably shows  But the stuffer type books are just.. pretty much bewildering to me. I started out reading a mix of some of the classic Romance authors (Woodiwiss etc.) and random stuff from the Harlequin lines. I always thought that books from the Harlequin lines pretty much represented the low end of Romance: inexpensive books for people who liked to read a lot and weren't super picky about quality. From what I've read, many of them aren't all that good. (There are some pretty good ones mixed in there, though.) But almost none of them are really _terrible_. Now, I admit that I haven't read a huge selection from the stuffers, but I've read some. And.. wow, were they bad. Like are-you-sure-this-is-a-Romance? bad. Like 10x more text describing bodily fluids than text focused on anything emotional, bad. But maybe nowadays, that kind of bad is.. good? Hopefully this is something that will become clearer if Amazon continues to take action against the extra-naughties and creates a more level playing field.


----------



## AuthorX

David VanDyke said:


> Sorry, AuthorX, you're conflating two obviously different things, and definitely different degrees.
> 
> 1) A traditional, non-unethical pen name's purpose is to provide simple, noninteractive harmless cover persona for an author who'd rather not be a public figure--for whatever reason.
> 
> 2) The unethical part comes in when the real author brings that persona to life by interacting with people _with the purpose of gain _, whether that gain is monetary or personal/emotional. The examples cited clarify the principle--trying to market a book by having different pen names talk it up, and using a pen persona to worm its way into someone's personal life that would otherwise be inaccessible. There are no doubt other examples.
> 
> The fact that 1 is okay does not make 2 okay.
> 
> The fact that 2 is bad does not make 1 bad
> 
> You said "The moment you create a pen name, you are catfishing..."
> 
> That's where you've gone wrong. Maybe you don't understand the common definition of catfishing:" To lure (someone) into a relationship by means of a fictional online persona." Only be twisting the definition of "relationship" to its breaking point could merely having an ordinary pen name be considered "catfishing". Ask 100 literate people that question: "Does creating a pen name constitute catfishing?" and I'd be shocked if you got even one serious "yes" answer.


I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one. Pen names have been used for indirect personal and financial gain and have been for centuries, not only because people don't want to be public figures. Just because people use pen names to get their books in front of more eyes, doesn't mean that they're doing something bad.

Here's a good reference of well-known women who've taken on male pen names so that their books would be taken more seriously:

http://www.webdesignschoolsguide.com/library/10-famous-females-who-used-male-pen-names.html

A quick quote about one of the mentioned authors:



> Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin: Born in Paris in 1804, Dupin is known in history almost solely by her male pseudonym George Sand. Her first novel Indiana was published in 1832 under this pen name as well as every subsequent publication that followed. Sand wrote dozens of novels and memoirs as well as several works of literary criticism and political discussion. Interestingly, Sand's adoption of male qualities did not stop with her male pen name. Sand made a significant stir during her time for wearing men's clothing in public and smoking tobacco in public (two activities that women during this time were not permitted to do). Sand's fame has lived on through history with several references in modern culture and several different portrayals in film.


For centuries women wrote under men's pen names so that more people would read their books. Nowadays, a lot of men write romance under female pen names so that women take their books seriously and women still write under male-dominated genres with male pen names so that their books are taken more seriously.

The only reason this is getting attention now is due to the #cockygate #tiffanygate #bookstuffers and other unrelated things that are causing a firestorm in the author community. Authors are obviously very upset at the idea that they may be facing financial harm due to this, and people are using the heat from the firestorm to somehow shove their personal/ethical disagreement with pen names into the same scamming and TOS violations box, which makes absolutely no sense.

Again, I'll reiterate that I don't think it's ethical to ask readers that you've never met personal/sexual questions about their life, whether you're writing under a pen name or not. I find it creepy. But my ethical viewpoints don't matter... They're just my opinions that would equally be unethical for me to force down someone else's throat. And writing under any pen name you choose and assuming any identity you choose for fictional writing has been commonplace since well before any of us were born. Indeed, it is a different world now that we live in a world where we engage with each other on Social Media... But as adults with brains, we should know better than to share our whole lives with just someone just because they have a female pen name, male pen name, or a picture that we like on the internet.

If/when an author actually commits a crime by using a pen name or actually does cause harm to someone by use of a pen name, my opinion may change. But as far as I know, there has never been anyone hurt by use of a pen name. I feel like a lot of people are looking at pen names as a gateway drug to murder or sexual exploitation, when in reality, people are just going the pen name rout so that people of whatever genre take their books more seriously. Some authors do take the roleplaying too far (in my opinion), but so long as the readers love reading their books, that should be all that matters. Readers can vote with their feet when they feel that an author crosses the line, and readers shouldn't be divulging personal information to any strangers in the first place.


----------



## MyraScott

AuthorX said:


> If/when an author actually commits a crime by using a pen name or actually does cause harm to someone by use of a pen name, my opinion may change. But as far as I know, there has never been anyone hurt by use of a pen name. I feel like a lot of people are looking at pen names as a gateway drug to murder or sexual exploitation, when in reality, people are just going the pen name rout so that people of whatever genre take their books more seriously. Some authors do take the roleplaying too far (in my opinion), but so long as the readers love reading their books, that should be all that matters. Readers can vote with their feet when they feel that an author crosses the line, and readers shouldn't be divulging personal information to any strangers in the first place.


I don't know if you really are just so stuck on this that you refuse to understand the argument, or you are purposefully fighting behind a straw man.

No one is saying pen names cause crimes. No one is saying pen names shouldn't be used, even if they imply a person entirely different from yourself.

People ARE saying, over and over and over, that using your Asian woman pen name as a white man to farm your social media for kinky stories or build pseudo personal relationships IS WRONG.

If you think that using your super fakey-fake pen name to create a persona and trick people into sharing intimate details with you and create a cult-like following of emotionally manipulated readers is fine and dandy, tell us why.

But try not to post yet another "pen names are not bad" post because no one cares. We don't think pen names are bad.


----------



## Dpock

I think this thread has derailed.


----------



## SalomeGolding

MyraScott said:


> I don't know if you really are just so stuck on this that you refuse to understand the argument, or you are purposefully fighting behind a straw man.
> 
> No one is saying pen names cause crimes. No one is saying pen names shouldn't be used, even if they imply a person entirely different from yourself.
> 
> People ARE saying, over and over and over, that using your Asian woman pen name as a white man to farm your social media for kinky stories or build pseudo personal relationships IS WRONG.
> 
> If you think that using your super fakey-fake pen name to create a persona and trick people into sharing intimate details with you and create a cult-like following of emotionally manipulated readers is fine and dandy, tell us why.
> 
> But try not to post yet another "pen names are not bad" post because no one cares. We don't think pen names are bad.


----------



## AltMe

Dpock said:


> I think this thread has derailed.


Quite an epic highjack I thought.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Well, gotta do something to kill the time until we find out more about why Amazon did what they did with those accounts, and whether the bans/suspensions will remain in place. And it's not a complete derailment since it does go towards the behavior of some of the people who owned the accounts in question.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Kindle Unlimited. The KU readers tend to be much more forgiving of mediocre quality books than people shelling out $4.99 or more per title are. It's like a Chinese buffet place. The food may not be quite as good as at the restaurant down the street, but it's still going to be full of people there for the all-you-can-eat deal.

Reminds me of the old John Pinette standup bit. "You go now! You here _four hour_!!! _Four hour_!!! You go home now!" Which is basically what the Scribd guys said to the romance readers there...


----------



## Dpock

KelliWolfe said:


> find out more about why Amazon did what they did with those accounts, and whether the bans/suspensions will remain in place.


I'm sure some of those accounts are now in arbitration and, if successful, will return. I think Amazon's main goal was to cut the head off the snake.

I noticed a few "proper" box-sets in several newsletters this morning. Their marketing appeal echoes the stuffers and sets are priced at $0.99. As long as each box-set holds non-redundant content, they're in the clear. I don't know that the expense of having six or eight new ghostwritten stories for each box-set really sets them back. They'll still make loads in KU. There's plenty of incentive for them to continue.

Until box-sets are taken out of KU stuffers will persist, but they'll become known as, what? Boxers? They probably won't have the same success topping the ranks, but it will probably kill box-set opportunities for truly independent indies.


----------



## Phxsundog

I'm not too worried about boxed sets taking over the way stuffed books hiding under the collection label did. The main group of stuffers already tested boxed sets months ago when they were at their height. Several of them published sets with 3D covers and proper labeling. In every case the sets ranked far below what could do with stuffed books hidden under single titles. There's plenty to debate about boxed sets in KU. However they don't worry me like the collection and compilation retitling trick did before the hammer fell. It looks like the market is far less eager to pick up a properly labeled boxed set than a mess of stuffed content disguised as a single book.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Phxsundog said:


> It looks like the market is far less eager to pick up a properly labeled boxed set than a mess of stuffed content disguised as a single book.


From what I can tell from my own test and time in the market, box set buyers are, at least partially, a separate (and likely) smaller audience. The idea behind a properly labeled box set is you're offering an alternative method to buy for those who are specifically searching for that stuff. The stuffers got greedy and wanted their massive sets to be front and center for everyone, regardless of whether customers wanted them.


----------



## AuthorX

MyraScott said:


> People ARE saying, over and over and over, that using your Asian woman pen name as a white man to farm your social media for kinky stories or build pseudo personal relationships IS WRONG.
> 
> If you think that using your super fakey-fake pen name to create a persona and trick people into sharing intimate details with you and create a cult-like following of emotionally manipulated readers is fine and dandy, tell us why.


Before I respond to these two points, let me first say that I don't have an Asian woman pen name, nor have I ever asked people for intimate details of anything, so your pronouns are completely wrong.

And direct answers to your points:

1.) I believe that pretending that you're someone else _to build a psuedo-personal relationship_ and/or 'farming kinky stories' is wrong.

2.) I believe that tricking people into giving you intimate details for whatever reason, whether you're doing it on a pen name or your real name, is wrong.

I thought I pretty much clarified that in my previous posts, but I know that sometimes things can get past readers when they are emotionally charged about a subject. Hopefully it's very clear for you now.

Let's also make it *very clear to you* that this discussion has not only been about psuedo-personal relationship building, farming kinky stories, or asking for kinky details. It has involved the broader topic of people using pen names that do not reflect their true identity and engaging with their readers as their pen name's persona. Just because a man uses a female pen name to write romance doesn't mean he is doing it for kinks. Just because a woman uses a man's pen name to write suspense doesn't means she is misleading the masses. Just because a straight white female writes a book about a Latino gay men, doesn't mean she has created a manipulative plan to mislead minorities and the LGBTQ community. The vast majority of pen names are simply writing books and using that identity to have a broader appeal to the genre's readers.

Hopefully, I don't have to clarify that stance anymore. It is starting to derail the thread.


----------



## JWright

The book stuffers want to be able to release a new novel or even a short story but max out on page reads and regurgitate old stuff over and over again.  Single new novels sell the best so they found a clever way to package it to try to get the best of all worlds - which is deceptive to the reader who thinks they are getting a new book.  

If it had just been legit box sets from the beginning then no one would have a problem with it.

I also don't think readers are going to read the same stuff over and over again so the stuffers have to be getting illegitimate page reads because there would be no reason to have the same stuff in books over and over again if not that many legit readers are going to keep reading it. 

And as Phoenix and others have pointed out, many of the stuffers are also doing lots more than just stuffing - including illegal activities.


----------



## Crystal_

boba1823 said:


> As we're already off on a tangent (and I'm having deja vu ), I thought I might as well bring up an earlier question that is also tangentially related - and that maybe recent developments have shed greater light upon:
> 
> What are the implications of this whole debacle for the Romance market in particular?
> 
> I recall, maybe a year ago or so, looking at the Amazon bestseller list for Romance and wondering, Is _this_ what most Romance readers really like? At that time, the 'stuffer' type authors were even more prominent on the list than they have been recently; I started noticing maybe six months ago that the list was changing, with books from Amazon imprints and trad pubs more frequently appearing. In any case, it struck me as strange. Especially because Amazon's top Romance list looked _really_ different from B&N or Kobo, and the kinds of Romance books that tended to show up on the NYT and USA Today bestseller lists.
> 
> I have no doubt that _some_ readers like books of this sort. The 'stuffer' variety, that is. But the situation is so nutso confusing that I hardly know what to think beyond that. Do the stuffers get their books to the top of the list because there are in fact hordes of readers who love them - more than readers who like what would generally be regarded as the higher quality types of Romance? Or are the stuffers just supremely good at reaching their niche of the reading market through expert and intensive marketing? (And on a related note: How much are they _really_ earning from page reads per average borrow to fund this marketing? Some critics cite the potential maximum payout of $13 as if that's the average per borrow, which seems.. implausible in most any scenario. Surely precious few actual readers are reading 3000 pages, especially when 90%+ of those are coming from the same titles that have been stuffed into the author's last dozen releases. How much 'click to the back' type trickery is still going on, and how much does that impact the average?) Or are the rankings the result of even more nefarious activities, e.g. botted borrows and reads? If so, do these account for 10 percent of borrows? 50 percent? More?
> 
> Yeah, I'm late to the game and it probably shows  But the stuffer type books are just.. pretty much bewildering to me. I started out reading a mix of some of the classic Romance authors (Woodiwiss etc.) and random stuff from the Harlequin lines. I always thought that books from the Harlequin lines pretty much represented the low end of Romance: inexpensive books for people who liked to read a lot and weren't super picky about quality. From what I've read, many of them aren't all that good. (There are some pretty good ones mixed in there, though.) But almost none of them are really _terrible_. Now, I admit that I haven't read a huge selection from the stuffers, but I've read some. And.. wow, were they bad. Like are-you-sure-this-is-a-Romance? bad. Like 10x more text describing bodily fluids than text focused on anything emotional, bad. But maybe nowadays, that kind of bad is.. good? Hopefully this is something that will become clearer if Amazon continues to take action against the extra-naughties and creates a more level playing field.


IMO, it's a combination of both. There is a voracious readership for sexy books and many of those readers are less quality sensitive. A lot of them are in KU or only willing to buy .99 books. But, remember, people buy books based on their packaging, not their content. People don't know how good a book is until they read it. Yes, the Look Inside is there, but IME, most readers don't check it before they buy or borrow.

With appealing packaging and a lot of marketing, you can move a lot of units of a commercial book, even if it's not very good. With a stuffed book, a lot of readers will skip to the next story to give that a chance. Then the next. The next. Which is how a lot of these people got massive pages.

But there certainly are readers who are less discriminating who enjoy these sexy books.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Crystal_ said:


> With a stuffed book, a lot of readers will skip to the next story to give that a chance. Then the next. The next. Which is how a lot of these people got massive pages.


That's a good (and sobering) point. Under this scenario, the poor writing might actually be contributing to their success.


----------



## 101569

Here's my perspective on collections and box sets, I would bet its fairly similar to many romance readers. 

I love box sets and collections of authors I enjoy.  I don't pick up a boxset/collection from an unknown author and just binge on them. I will buy/try out one or 2 of their regular books before I waste my time on a boxset/collection. I don't also just pick up a boxset/collection because it's a bestseller whereas I used to pick up a single title that way.


----------



## PhoenixS

Let me say up front that until recently I managed a couple of dozen single-author box sets in KU (and still have a few of my own). And that I managed an additional 3 dozen multi-author box sets and another dozen single-author boxes before KU. As an author and publisher, I love box sets.

Box sets and collections are not the culprits. The publishers pushing out stuffed content are. The publishers who aren't necessarily pushing out stuffed content but who are gaming, scamming and pivoting at every turn are the culprits. These are the folk who are incentivizing buys/borrows/reads/reviews. These are the people gaming the Giveaway program. These are people incentivizing preorders (offering free books in exchange for proof-of-order). There is nothing wrong with 99 cent box sets (or sets at any price). There is much wrong with the way SOME box sets are being "marketed" across all genres. Black hat techniques for any reason, any single title, any stuffed book, any compilation or any box are practices that harm (in the legal sense) any author sticking to the rules.

If the stuffers regroup, come back under the auspices of Amazon (although if that happens, pretty sure that will raise another stink), and publish box sets using completely white hat practices, then more power to them. Personally, I doubt they will. Black hatters rarely change their hats.


----------



## SalomeGolding

Crystal_ said:


> IMO, it's a combination of both. There is a voracious readership for sexy books and many of those readers are less quality sensitive...


This is my take. It's both.

Yes, many people actually do like these books. It's the quick-and-dirty, cheap fast food version of the romance novel. There will always be a huge market for cheap fast food.

But yes, the crafty and scammy tactics did help to overstate their popularity on Amazon.


----------



## Becca Mills

Dpock said:


> I think this thread has derailed.


Not a derailment, as things seem to have remained civil, but gone off down a side line, for sure. I'll see if I can clip out the material on catfishing and merge into to the long, rich thread on pen names and catfishing we had a few months ago, which is here: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,259658.0.html. Not sure I can do that, though -- as I recall, the forum software wouldn't let me split threads the last time I tried -- so I'll also just suggest we try to keep this thread focused on Amazon's new rules and actions, and on their affects on authors and the sales environment. Even if I can't merge this material into the older catfishing thread, it can still be revived if folks want to continue discussing the issue.


----------



## BGArcher

Becca Mills said:


> Not a derailment, as things seem to have remained civil, but gone off down a side line, for sure. I'll see if I can clip out the material on catfishing and merge into to the long, rich thread on pen names and catfishing we had a few months ago, which is here: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,259658.0.html. Not sure I can do that, though -- as I recall, the forum software wouldn't let me split threads the last time I tried -- so I'll also just suggest we try to keep this thread focused on Amazon's new rules and actions, and on their affects on authors and the sales environment. Even if I can't merge this material into the older catfishing thread, it can still be revived if folks want to continue discussing the issue.


Can I just say as a derail that you've done a kick butt job as a moderator and kept the trains running on time so to speak? Thanks for helping keeping it civil, and being leniate when some of us get a tad spicy  (i'm totally including myself in this category).


----------



## Becca Mills

BGArcher said:


> Can I just say as a derail that you've done a kick butt job as a moderator and kept the trains running on time so to speak? Thanks for helping keeping it civil, and being leniate when some of us get a tad spicy  (i'm totally including myself in this category).


Thank you, BGArcher. That's nice to hear. 

Looking back through the thread, I'm not sure where the conversation could be split. We seem to have flowed naturally from which authors' books had been taken down > the idea that some of them might be multiple pen names published under the same account > the issue of an author's multiple pen names promoting one another's books > how readers might react to finding out an author is nothing like their pen name persona > using other-gender, other-race, or other-sexuality personae > using pen names to catfish readers > what are ethics, anyway? And I participated in that moving-off process myself!  Let's chalk it up to "that's just how conversation goes sometimes" and try to get back on track.

Again, the existing catfishing thread can be revived. 

Edit: Couldn't resist adding another step, once I thought of it.
Edit: Also, I see JRTomlin has started a thread on pen names and ethics just today: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,264589.0.html.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Just because people use pen names to get their books in front of more eyes, doesn't mean that they're doing something bad.


As my Granny used to say, Lord God Almighty. I don't know that a single person has said pen names in themselves are bad. But the way some have used them, in skeevy, skin-crawling ways (which have been talked about in various author communities since, well, years ago), _is_ bad. People have pointed this out over and over, and yet you persist in putting words in our mouths that were not spoken. You've passed the point of beating a dead horse to now crushing its bones. Let's just stop, shall we? Poor horsey.

To recap: Scamming bad. Vile use of anonymity bad.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

I had a Marketing professor in business school, former naval officer, whose advice was, "Never do anything in business that you wouldn't want to see printed in the paper." Pretty easy to follow. That's my own line. 

It doesn't work on people without consciences who can't feel shame, of course. I'm guessing a fair percentage of scammers in any field fit into that category. (And yeah, those people are often charming and delightful in person. That's actually another clue.) But it's helpful for folks on the fringe, wondering whether Tactic X is shady or not. 

Which doesn't mean you can't have a pen name. It's about the actions you take under that pen name. Are you OK with them if Amazon finds out? If your mom finds out? If your kids find out? If not--you're on the wrong side of the line. 

Pretty simple, really.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18

Crystal_ said:


> IMO, it's a combination of both. There is a voracious readership for sexy books and many of those readers are less quality sensitive.


I agree with this, but Romance readers aren't the only ones IMO who aren't quality sensitive. I also read mysteries and thrillers and westerns, and some of what's on recommended by Amazon and bestseller lists is really poorly written. Maybe it's an overall trend in modern books? Last night I read a cozy mystery by a favorite author. It's traditionally published and it really needed another editing pass. It actually had things like referring to a character by one name throughout and then all of a sudden a different name for the character popping up once. Since you can reliably change a character's name with a Find and Replace pass in any word processor, how does that even happen? Right before that was a regular mystery that ended not with a cliffhanger but with several plot threads just abandoned.

Readers like me are partially to blame, I guess. I'll buy and read the next mystery by the favorite cozy author in spite of the lessening quality of editing. But I won't read more by the mystery author who left the plot holes.


----------



## Crystal_

ellenoc said:


> I agree with this, but Romance readers aren't the only ones IMO who aren't quality sensitive. I also read mysteries and thrillers and westerns, and some of what's on recommended by Amazon and bestseller lists is really poorly written. Maybe it's an overall trend in modern books? Last night I read a cozy mystery by a favorite author. It's traditionally published and it really needed another editing pass. It actually had things like referring to a character by one name throughout and then all of a sudden a different name for the character popping up once. Since you can reliably change a character's name with a Find and Replace pass in any word processor, how does that even happen? Right before that was a regular mystery that ended not with a cliffhanger but with several plot threads just abandoned.
> 
> Readers like me are partially to blame, I guess. I'll buy and read the next mystery by the favorite cozy author in spite of the lessening quality of editing. But I won't read more by the mystery author who left the plot holes.


Oh yeah, I'm sure. But I can't speak to other genres as I only really know romance.

I know I've lowered my standards a lot in what I watch (all the police procedurals), because I watched so much of the A-list stuff already. It's hard to find great genre work in any medium. So often, entertainment value and production value and narrative skill don't go hand in hand. (A TV show might look beautiful and have great acting but also have clunky plotting, for example). At least, not in the types of stories I enjoy.

My taste in TV really helps me understand the average reader. I'm much pickier with books, and only read about one or two a month, because reading is a really intense experience for me. I will read stuff that isn't 10/10 for me for research, but it's pure torture wheras I'm fine with 7/10 TV.


----------



## SalomeGolding

she-la-ti-da said:


> As my Granny used to say, Lord God Almighty. I don't know that a single person has said pen names in themselves are bad.


Hahaha. Reading the same post, I was going to respond with "Lord Have Mercy", which is another grandmother / mother saying.

But I refrained.

People and their straw men.


----------



## unkownwriter

SalomeGolding said:


> Hahaha. Reading the same post, I was going to respond with "Lord Have Mercy", which is another grandmother / mother saying.
> 
> But I refrained.
> 
> People and their straw men.


LOL Our Grannies where some amazing women, weren't they? Mine was about 4'9", as delicate as fine china, generous and loving, but you didn't cross that woman.

And yes, the straw man arguments follow threads like these like bees flock to nectar.


----------



## Dpock

This morning I received a newsletter from a now banned stuffer (I subscribed to their mailing list for research purposes). The gist of the newsletter was to claim they "had no idea" why their books were no longer available on Amazon, and "they were working with Amazon" every day to get the issued resolved.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Dpock said:


> This morning I received a newsletter from a now banned stuffer (I subscribed to their mailing list for research purposes). The gist of the newsletter was to claim they "had no idea" why their books were no longer available on Amazon, and "they were working with Amazon" every day to get the issued resolved.


The favorite catch phrase of both convicts and relatives asking me to fix their pc: "I didn't do nuthin!"


----------



## 101569

Rick Gualtieri said:


> The favorite catch phrase of both convicts and relatives asking me to fix their pc: "I didn't do nuthin!"


I'm pretty sure until I take a hammer to it I really didn't do anything!


----------



## Not any more

KelliWolfe said:


> I don't think it's so much that these readers are gullible people; I think a lot of them are just desperate to connect to someone who they feel understands them and their experiences. There is a sense among many of them that because you wrote something that they connected with on a deeply emotional level that you get them and share a connection. At least it seems to be the case with romance readers where the novels tend to deal with very intimate emotions and situations. I don't have enough experience writing outside that realm to know if it's true for other genres or not. But I can tell you that I've had readers tell me ALL kinds of things that I would never dream of telling a perfect stranger. This has been in unsolicited fan mail, and some of it gets personal to the point of being disturbing - there are a lot of damaged people out there. I have since removed my email from my books and largely limit interactions to my Wordpress blogs where everything is public and it's safer for everybody. But this connection they feel makes it very easy for the unscrupulous to take advantage.


In this public forum, I don't see very many deep, introspective dives, but I hope that people realize how true this is. As Kelli says, I think it's probably more common in romance and books that explore relationships, feelings, and mental states, but occasionally I'll get a fan mail from someone who connected with something in one of my books.

You see the same thing on social media. If all you ever see are your spouse and kids, and maybe a few people at church once a week, the person who reaches out to you through the internet can become very real and very important. When we write something, it's not just about the money. Some people are actually touched by our words and our ideas.


----------



## Dpock

Rick Gualtieri said:


> The favorite catch phrase of both convicts and relatives asking me to fix their pc: "I didn't do nuthin!"


Though it's not the case with the author I mentioned above, I have learned of one innocent who had a book taken down (their account wasn't suspended). This was due to a loose association rather than a TOS violation. I don't understand it well enough to explain further, though I suspect it involved newsletter swaps.

In either case, I do hope Amazon has committed to an arbitration process.


----------



## Phxsundog

Dpock said:


> Though it's not the case with the author I mentioned above, I have learned of one innocent who had a book taken down (their account wasn't suspended). This was due to a loose association rather than a TOS violation. I don't understand it well enough to explain further, though I suspect it involved newsletter swaps.
> 
> In either case, I do hope Amazon has committed to an arbitration process.


If we're thinking of the same person, I think the author who lost this book had it published under a small publisher's account who was running it. It's this account that got in trouble. This small publisher wasn't an abusive stuffer but had a few books that possibly weren't labeled quite right for the new bonus guidelines. If there was no wrong doing then I hope Amazon lets this account go.

The publisher had also done newsletter swaps with the abusive stuffers in the past. Probably unknowingly or innocently. So association causing a few extra suspensions is possible here. Many of these newsletter swaps were being coordinated through the Bookclicker service owned by Chance Carter. Bookclicker is used by scammers and legitimate authors unfortunately. Another good reason to stay far far away from anything Chance is involved with. He's been permanently banned by KDP and since many of his closest associates were the megastaffers, it's possible Amazon is looking at any traffic from businesses related to him.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> (Chance Carter has)... been permanently banned by KDP and since many of his closest associates were the megastaffers, it's possible Amazon is looking at any traffic from businesses related to him.


If so, this is very good news. But how certain are you of this? Is this official? Also, do you have any insight on the stuffers who are still operating? It seems like there was a one-day purge, and then possibly business as usual. I can't help but wonder if/when the other shoe will drop. Sadly, if the remaining masterminds/stuffers are allowed to continue, they'll only benefit from the loss of their fellow stuffers.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Dpock said:


> Though it's not the case with the author I mentioned above, I have learned of one innocent who had a book taken down (their account wasn't suspended). This was due to a loose association rather than a TOS violation. I don't understand it well enough to explain further, though I suspect it involved newsletter swaps.


I was just being a [email protected]$$. I understand that Amazon uses nukes to catch flies, and likely there's some innocents caught in the web.

As usual, all we can do for now is hope Amazon sorts out the wheat from the chafe - reinstates those who deserve it and bans those who equally deserve it.


----------



## Dpock

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I was just being a [email protected]$$.


No, that's not what I thought. It just prompted an afterthought.

I think the fact that Amazon only took down the innocent's book and not the author's account shows they're being a little more discriminating now.


----------



## viper9826

Chance Carter profile may be down but looks like he might be back up under [redacted]. Even bold enough to use his own pic which has been compared on twitter. Brass balls is all I can say.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Phxsundog

The small publisher I'm thinking of who managed the book in trouble oversaw books for several authors. So yes, multiple pen names potentially caused the issue, or any of one of them that took down the full account. I agree if any names crossed a line with KDP then that would be enough to get the whole account suspended. Unfortunately several authors are hurt in this case because they trusted their books to this publisher to put them on the account. It's reasonable to believe several criteria goes into Amazon suspending certain books and accounts. However it's hard to believe the extreme stuffing and collection retitling used by many of the names suspended isn't part of it. Even if it isn't the only reason they're down.

The pen name Viper listed is not Chance Carter. I haven't seen credible proof anywhere he's returned. The pen name posted belongs to another publisher running several other names and has a public record distinct from Chance. This is a case where bad rumors are circulating based on wrong assumptions.


----------



## boba1823

Phxsundog said:


> The pen name Viper listed is not Chance Carter. I haven't seen credible proof anywhere he's returned.


I agree that it's best not to publicly speculate about this sort of thing, and risk damaging the reputation of innocent authors/publishers.

The reality of things, of course, is that it's fairly easy for a person whose account has been banned from Amazon to return with a new account that, for all practical purposes, will not be traced back to the original banned account. Or to have multiple accounts all along, just in case. (For obvious reasons, I'm not going to lay out the steps.) So any given person whose account is banned for whatever reason may well come back under a new account in the future.

This is what makes it so important for Amazon to develop some kind of mechanism for preventing bad behaviour, rather than just (occasionally, and after long delay) going after individual bad actors.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Please, please, please, stop ignoring that there are other variables that are more likely to be the cause than excessive bonus content.


I don't think most of us are saying this, but none of us really know, not even you, so if we want to discuss the scammers, the stuffers, the botters, the illegal lottery runners, the review buyers, or whatever, it's really none of your concern. Don't want to keep seeing this topic? SOB Scroll on by.

Why does this matter so much to you, anyway? It's not like the pitchforks are being waved dangerously close to anyone's family jewels, we're trying to discuss something that's of importance to our careers. We aren't Amazon, as far as I know none of us has any pull with the company, and whatever they do, it will likely be done with little regard to what we say here.

I swear, the concern shown by some people for folks who are playing a dirty game. SMH


----------



## Becca Mills

Regarding the post I edited above, which identified an author as supposedly being Chance Carter's new pen name ... FYI for newer members, we don't call out people that way here. Those who have pretty clearly been targeted for action by Amazon are something of a gray area, and we're talking in the smoky caves about just where the naming-names line should be drawn with that group. But accusing an identifiable individual based on rumors circulating on Twitter? I feel confident in saying that will never be okay here. Please refrain.


----------



## 39416

About how many stuffers have been removed now? Ball park figure?


----------



## AltMe

kw3000 said:


> I get that cynicism isn't the best lens through which to view things, but I have to say, I don't doubt for a second that any and all nefarious parties that have been "thrown out" of KDP are all still operating under other accounts and names. Without any real way for Amazon to prevent that, and with all that money still ripe for the taking in KU, I can't see any apparent way of keeping them out. It's just a never-ending cycle, isn't it?


This I dont get.

What happened to needing a tax file number? Surely these can be verified? Surely checking they are not reused on multiple accounts is not difficult to do?

KDP made a big deal of getting tax information from me when I signed up. Why isn't that being used to ensure 1 tax file number, 1 account?

What am I missing?


----------



## CassieL

TimothyEllis said:


> This I dont get.
> 
> What happened to needing a tax file number? Surely these can be verified? Surely checking they are not reused on multiple accounts is not difficult to do?
> 
> KDP made a big deal of getting tax information from me when I signed up. Why isn't that being used to ensure 1 tax file number, 1 account?
> 
> What am I missing?


That companies have their own tax ID numbers and these people can start up as many companies as they want.


----------



## JWright

I think most people understand that many of the stuffers do other things besides stuffing that can get them in trouble - they pretty much go hand in hand.  Maybe some have strictly been using stuffing and no other shady tactics but anyway pretty sure most people get it.

I don't really follow Romance so I could be wrong but I looked at a couple of best seller charts for Romance sub-categories and they looked a lot more legit to me without the 2,000+ page stuffed monstrosities.  I hope that's true. 

Some of them sure did have a lot of nerve to do all they did and rank that high in the romance charts.  I think it would be a lot safer if you want to scam and use questionable and/or illegal tactics to keep a lower profile.  I don't think for a second that those who do lose their accounts can't easily just set up a new corporation and everything else and be back and business, but they might hesitate to try and be so visible and take over the charts and hog the All Star bonuses.  I don't know.  We'll see.  

I know Amazon hates using humans, but they could at least get a college intern to watch the top of the Romance charts for anything shady or have a contact person at least.  It might help to at least guard against the worst offenders taking away the top of the charts.  I know they were informed long ago and just need to act, but maybe going forward if they were more proactive about it they wouldn't end up with such a mess. Wishful thinking I know.


----------



## Crystal_

RPatton said:


> I know for a fact (confirmed) that they are looking at connections that might go back at least two years and it's account based. So even if it was under a different pen name, or happened so long ago you barely remember that one cross promo you might have done for some holiday, there's a good chance someone got tasked with combing through your account for evidence of what they are looking for. (Which isn't excessive use of bonus content.)


If this is true, then calling out bad actors immediately and publicly needs to be a more accepted practice. Lots of people did swaps with Chance and other masterminds because they were ignorant of their shady business practices. If engaging with bad actors puts your account in the cross-fire, then we need to make sure everyone knows who bad actors are.

I know I did swaps with plenty of the mastermind types even though I disagreed with the way they did business. AFAIK, they weren't doing anything against the rules at the time, but they could easily have been engaging in shady stuff on the DL. I cut those swaps awhile back, after some of Chance's bad actions were brought to my attention on a Kboards post (I think it was the skip to the back epilogues, but I'm not sure).


----------



## KelliWolfe

JulesWright said:


> Some of them sure did have a lot of nerve to do all they did and rank that high in the romance charts. I think it would be a lot safer if you want to scam and use questionable and/or illegal tactics to keep a lower profile. I don't think for a second that those who do lose their accounts can't easily just set up a new corporation and everything else and be back and business, but they might hesitate to try and be so visible and take over the charts and hog the All Star bonuses. I don't know. We'll see.


It has been conjectured in other topics about this that there are a lot of scammers who do exactly this - they have a fairly large number of accounts with a bunch of books in them, but they never generate enough reads/borrows on any given book to attract unwanted attention. They never hit the top lists and stay buried low enough in the ranks that it would take some serious effort to find them. I discovered a whole lot of these back when the computer generated books first started showing up, and there's no reason to think that they're still not using similar tactics, just with extremely cheap ghostwritten books rather than computer generated ones so they're harder to spot. The computer generated ones didn't really pop out at anyone until some of the scammers got greedy and generated so many borrows that the books started hitting the top lists. It was much the same with the scamlets back in KU 1.0. A handful of scammers get too greedy and start drawing attention to themselves, and the nail that sticks up the highest gets hammered.


----------



## AltMe

Cassie Leigh said:


> That companies have their own tax ID numbers and these people can start up as many companies as they want.


The companies need directors, and these have to be real people. All it takes is a rule a company cannot have a director or office holder who is a banned person, when applying for a KDP account. Nor can they appoint a banned person and keep their account active.

But I guess this needs a real person to make the connections and do the due diligence. So Amazon wont do it.

So, (dons combat armour) companies cannot submit to KU. Problem solved.


----------



## GeneDoucette

TimothyEllis said:


> The companies need directors, and these have to be real people. All it takes is a rule a company cannot have a director or office holder who is a banned person, when applying for a KDP account. Nor can they appoint a banned person and keep their account active.
> 
> But I guess this needs a real person to make the connections and do the due diligence. So Amazon wont do it.
> 
> So, (dons combat armour) companies cannot submit to KU. Problem solved.


I work in banking, and I promise you, it's MUCH more complicated and difficult to really know who is benefiting from a business. And banks can ask a whole lot more questions than Amazon can. Amazon could put a whole team on the it, and they wouldn't know.

Here's just one way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_owner


----------



## JWright

KelliWolfe said:


> It has been conjectured in other topics about this that there are a lot of scammers who do exactly this - they have a fairly large number of accounts with a bunch of books in them, but they never generate enough reads/borrows on any given book to attract unwanted attention. They never hit the top lists and stay buried low enough in the ranks that it would take some serious effort to find them. I discovered a whole lot of these back when the computer generated books first started showing up, and there's no reason to think that they're still not using similar tactics, just with extremely cheap ghostwritten books rather than computer generated ones so they're harder to spot. The computer generated ones didn't really pop out at anyone until some of the scammers got greedy and generated so many borrows that the books started hitting the top lists. It was much the same with the scamlets back in KU 1.0. A handful of scammers get too greedy and start drawing attention to themselves, and the nail that sticks up the highest gets hammered.


Yes, I think if someone would want to scam that would be the way to go - stay low key and use software. Not that I want that of course, but making yourself so visible you are going to fall sooner or later. If nothing else Amazon doesn't like to be embarrassed. There have been articles in Forbes and other well-known publications about Amazon ignoring the problem lately. I'm not sure if that did it, but anyway at least they look like they are doing something.

To be so visible the way some have been - takes a lot of nerve. Amazon could have stopped it long ago but since they didn't the Masterminds just kept going. I think taking down a few of the big pen names might help to clean things up at the top, but that could be wishful thinking on my part. And if more goes underground I have no idea how that affects the rest of us. More illegal page reads for one thing.


----------



## boba1823

kw3000 said:


> Without any real way for Amazon to prevent that, and with all that money still ripe for the taking in KU, I can't see any apparent way of keeping them out. It's just a never-ending cycle, isn't it?


I don't know, I'm kind of surprised, really, that the Zon doesn't have some more sophisticated _automated_ measures for some of this in place.

Surely it can't be that hard to come up with a nifty little algorithm that is adequately good at detecting stuffed books. Assuming Amazon can come up with a clear definition of what constitutes stuffing, anyway. It certainly shouldn't be hard to run a check against content that has previously been published through KDP, even if it has since been removed (the mosaic stuffing approach).

Of course, as I see it, the matter of stuffing _in isolation_ is kind of.. meh. It's not allowed now, which is fine by me - but there's still a pretty big difference between an author getting extra page reads on a stuffed book due to readers who are legitimately reading all those bonus books, and an author who is getting extra page reads due to click-to-the-back trickery or other more nefarious things. I'd think that some of this kind of stuff should be even easier to detect - again, just using automated measures. Especially considering that Amazon doesn't usually seem to be too worried about the occasional false positive.

I don't mean to imply that it would be super simple - I couldn't program checks like this. But Amazon has some clever folks who do some pretty impressive stuff, so.. you'd really think they could figure it out. Makes one wonder how much they care. Though maybe because of recent events, they're starting to care. We can hope


----------



## KelliWolfe

TimothyEllis said:


> The companies need directors, and these have to be real people. All it takes is a rule a company cannot have a director or office holder who is a banned person, when applying for a KDP account. Nor can they appoint a banned person and keep their account active.
> 
> But I guess this needs a real person to make the connections and do the due diligence. So Amazon wont do it.
> 
> So, (dons combat armour) companies cannot submit to KU. Problem solved.


Most are probably incorporating in states where that information can be kept private (New Mexico, Delaware, Wyoming, Nevada...). KDP could require that the information be disclosed before opening an account, but there may be legal reasons why it isn't feasible for them to do so. Or like plagiarism, they just don't care enough to bother with doing anything about it until they absolutely have to.


----------



## KelliWolfe

boba1823 said:


> I don't know, I'm kind of surprised, really, that the Zon doesn't have some more sophisticated _automated_ measures for some of this in place.
> 
> Surely it can't be that hard to come up with a nifty little algorithm that is adequately good at detecting stuffed books. Assuming Amazon can come up with a clear definition of what constitutes stuffing, anyway. It certainly shouldn't be hard to run a check against content that has previously been published through KDP, even if it has since been removed (the mosaic stuffing approach).
> 
> Of course, as I see it, the matter of stuffing _in isolation_ is kind of.. meh. It's not allowed now, which is fine by me - but there's still a pretty big difference between an author getting extra page reads on a stuffed book due to readers who are legitimately reading all those bonus books, and an author who is getting extra page reads due to click-to-the-back trickery or other more nefarious things. I'd think that some of this kind of stuff should be even easier to detect - again, just using automated measures. Especially considering that Amazon doesn't usually seem to be too worried about the occasional false positive.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that it would be super simple - I couldn't program checks like this. But Amazon has some clever folks who do some pretty impressive stuff, so.. you'd really think they could figure it out. Makes one wonder how much they care. Though maybe because of recent events, they're starting to care. We can hope


How would an automated system be able to tell the difference between a legitimate boxed set and a stuffed book? The ones I've looked at don't appear to be that different internally, but this isn't something I've spent a lot of time digging into.


----------



## boba1823

TimothyEllis said:


> The companies need directors, and these have to be real people. All it takes is a rule a company cannot have a director or office holder who is a banned person, when applying for a KDP account. Nor can they appoint a banned person and keep their account active.


There are - and I'm really glad for this - relatively simple ways for a person to own and operate a business (effectively) anonymously. Having an attorney establish an LLC as a registered agent and file as the nominee director, etc. Certain entities will know who you are, namely the IRS and generally also your bank, but they aren't sharing that with Amazon. I'm not on any public records for my company, and Amazon doesn't know who I am - for my KDP account, anyway. (Not that I'm doing any nefarious - I just don't particularly trust Amazon to keep my information secure.)

It's a fairly thin veil of anonymity, of course. If Amazon files a lawsuit against a company, the officers/owners will probably be revealed. But that's not going to help much when it comes to _new_ accounts, created by someone who was previously banned.


----------



## AltMe

KelliWolfe said:


> How would an automated system be able to tell the difference between a legitimate boxed set and a stuffed book? The ones I've looked at don't appear to be that different internally, but this isn't something I've spent a lot of time digging into.


They put in place cross checkable rules.

Each book in the there should be labeled a certain way with the series and book number, which can be bot checked with your series page. If not there, or the xcheck fails, book is not accepted into KU.


----------



## MyraScott

Crystal_ said:


> If this is true, then calling out bad actors immediately and publicly needs to be a more accepted practice. Lots of people did swaps with Chance and other masterminds because they were ignorant of their shady business practices. If engaging with bad actors puts your account in the cross-fire, then we need to make sure everyone knows who bad actors are.
> 
> I know I did swaps with plenty of the mastermind types even though I disagreed with the way they did business. AFAIK, they weren't doing anything against the rules at the time, but they could easily have been engaging in shady stuff on the DL. I cut those swaps awhile back, after some of Chance's bad actions were brought to my attention on a Kboards post (I think it was the skip to the back epilogues, but I'm not sure).


I think this is really important. The loudest voices out there insist they aren't doing anything wrong and they convince people to join them, pay them to market their books and pretty much snare them into the wider web of their influence... which seemed pretty "safe" for years as Amazon didn't take action. The bad actors pointed to their "success" as proof that everything was just fine.

Now a lot of people who would not have knowingly put their accounts in jeopardy are likely to get caught up in the cleaning process- people who honestly didn't know anything fishy was going on and are stunned that they have been identified as "breaking TOS".

When everyone praises a promoter or service but no one shines a light on the actual process or questions the "results"... innocent people get hurt because all they saw was glowing testimonials and happy authors. These discussions aren't "being mean" they are about smart business.


----------



## KelliWolfe

RPatton said:


> I also want to throw this out there, but a quick disclaimer first. _Keep it in mind that this is _my _mind wandering along a steam of what-ifs and probably isn't even likely._ There is no real evidence to support any of this, just a lot of hypothetical ideas. The more I think about the way LitRPG and RH in Romance got so thoroughly hit with the removal of page reads, _and_ that the known focus of the group who seems hardest hit by account suspensions were RH authors, I have to wonder (and this is admittedly pure conjecture) whether some of those authors had branched into LitRPG because it is a growing market that is actively looking for new reads. So, again another conjecture on my part, if even 2 or 3 of these authors facing an account termination based on manipulated page reads, and since it looks to be account level as opposed to pen name or book level, if those accounts interacted with LitRPG authors, did they inadvertently infect the LitRPG community?


It's possible, but remember that they got into romance because they could generate content cheaply and the audience is huge and full of voracious readers who often consume multiple books a week. Unless they could garner the same kind of readership in LitRPG without having to spend a lot more on content, it wouldn't be cost effective for them. They'd make more money just developing more pen names in different romance subgenres. I don't think we've seen any of them hit the subgenres like Regency yet, because the readers are far more finicky about the content they'll accept than in contemporary or NA. I would be very surprised if LitRPG isn't the same.


----------



## Becca Mills

RPatton said:


> I also want to throw this out there, but a quick disclaimer first. _Keep it in mind that this is _my _mind wandering along a steam of what-ifs and probably isn't even likely._ There is no real evidence to support any of this, just a lot of hypothetical ideas. The more I think about the way LitRPG and RH in Romance got so thoroughly hit with the removal of page reads, _and_ that the known focus of the group who seems hardest hit by account suspensions were RH authors, I have to wonder (and this is admittedly pure conjecture) whether some of those authors had branched into LitRPG because it is a growing market that is actively looking for new reads. So, again another conjecture on my part, if even 2 or 3 of these authors facing an account termination based on manipulated page reads, and since it looks to be account level as opposed to pen name or book level, if those accounts interacted with LitRPG authors, did they inadvertently infect the LitRPG community?


Phoenix's recent hypothesis on incentivized readers suggests a mechanism by which a subgenre could be contaminated by just a few bad apples. See here and here.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Becca, what gets me most from reading through those links and drilling down through them to David's blog is that Amazon still can't catch multiple carriage returns between paragraphs for KENPC purposes. After all of their supposed tweaks to make KENPC more accurate, and still in June 2018 all some idiot has to do to artificially increase her page count is add those extra breaks between the paragraphs. There isn't a freakin' rolleyes emoji big enough to cover that one. If they can't catch something that simple, how can we expect them to do anything even moderately complex without screwing it up six ways from Sunday?


----------



## KelliWolfe

RPatton said:


> It's not multiple carriage returns. It might look like that, but I don't think it is. A few people ripped into the HTML and came away with the belief that this wasn't just a cosmetic formatting thing.


That makes me feel a little better. Not much, but a little.


----------



## Becca Mills

KelliWolfe said:


> Becca, what gets me most from reading through those links and drilling down through them to David's blog is that Amazon still can't catch multiple carriage returns between paragraphs for KENPC purposes. After all of their supposed tweaks to make KENPC more accurate, and still in June 2018 all some idiot has to do to artificially increase her page count is add those extra breaks between the paragraphs. There isn't a freakin' rolleyes emoji big enough to cover that one. If they can't catch something that simple, how can we expect them to do anything even moderately complex without screwing it up six ways from Sunday?


It's almost like, in designing the entire system, it didn't occur to Amazon that people would try to cheat. Nothing seems to have been developed from the ground up with an eye to resisting abuse, so they're constantly being caught on the wrong foot and playing catch up. Dunno. It's hard to understand. I've thought before that KDP might just be terminally under-resourced compared to other segments of the company.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Becca Mills said:


> It's almost like, in designing the entire system, it didn't occur to Amazon that people would try to cheat. Nothing seems to have been developed from the ground up with an eye to resisting abuse, so they're constantly being caught on the wrong foot and playing catch up. Dunno. It's hard to understand. I've thought before that KDP might just be terminally under-resourced compared to other segments of the company.


Is it that, or is it just that they simply don't care unless it starts becoming enough of a public issue that it might start causing subscribers to leave? We know the program exists as a way to get people into the store, and generating money isn't really part of the equation for them. The fact that they've been willing to pay out millions of dollars in bogus page reads to scammers for years without batting an eyelash is a compelling argument for that. And we only see the tip of the iceberg with the obvious ones who stand out. There's no telling how many more are keeping their heads and book ranks down and quietly raking in thousands of dollars per account every month. But it's easily in the millions of dollars every single month just from what we see. They know it's happening. They can't _not_ know, because they have eventually had to deal with it several times when it got so egregious that it was getting reported on websites that a significant number of people pay attention to. But they don't do anything until after that point, so it really doesn't seem like they care about the activity or the money at all.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Where am I showing any concern for an individual or group of publishers? My concern is for the information being spread. Please do not rely on ad hominem attacks. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am defending any group or individual, just trying to bring additional views to the discussion. If you don't want to engage in an actual discussion and just want an echo chamber, that's your choice. I'm not forcing anyone to read my posts, or even agree with them. I don't call out people who don't agree with me, I try to listen with an open mind.


I'm listening to the discussion, and what I'm seeing are people with opinions and thoughts and personal feelings being told that what we've been seeing couldn't possibly be right, so we should shut up. That's not discussion, that's repression. If that's not what you mean to get across, you might want to look back over your posts here with a different eye.

If my opinion is an echo chamber, then so be it. That tends to happen when like-minded folk discuss issues. I'm not some newb who doesn't know how this stuff works. I've been around for a long time, have a strong mind and am fully capable of looking at things and deciding what I think. As a woman, I've had my share of people telling me what I need to listen to, what I should think, and how I should act. You aren't the first, by any means, and won't be the last, but realize you have no, zero, nada, pull with me.

And thanks for the suggestion not read your posts. Wouldn't that just reinforce your opinion that I'm an echo? But, feel free to ignore my posts.



KelliWolfe said:


> Becca, what gets me most from reading through those links and drilling down through them to David's blog is that Amazon still can't catch multiple carriage returns between paragraphs for KENPC purposes. After all of their supposed tweaks to make KENPC more accurate, and still in June 2018 all some idiot has to do to artificially increase her page count is add those extra breaks between the paragraphs. There isn't a freakin' rolleyes emoji big enough to cover that one. If they can't catch something that simple, how can we expect them to do anything even moderately complex without screwing it up six ways from Sunday?


I think they could tell this was going on. A bunch of folks lost KENPC on the last tweak (and the ones before). I know I did, because when I put some stuff back in KU, I lost from two to nine pages (they're shorts). I'd kept up with my KENPC, so I wasn't guessing. Absolutely nothing about the stories had changed in any way.

So, they could see these page manipulation things, but suddenly they stopped doing it? Why would that be? It doesn't make any sense. Yet, if multiple people are suddenly adding spaces/returns, using large fonts, extra page breaks and so on, why isn't Amazon's own formatting -- which they've said before is set up to catch these things -- not stopping it?

Frankly, I'm starting to think they're just outright lying about stuff and randomly changing things, for whatever reason. Maybe to keep us jumping through hoops that are sometimes lined with fire. Maybe the bots are rebelling. Like Kelli said, maybe they just don't care until it becomes something they can't ignore. If that's the case, expect a couple of Band-aids, then back to business as usual.


----------



## PhoenixS

There are, of course, true innocents -- or at least innocents who've unwittingly engaged in or with bad behavers -- being caught up. But there are also a number of folk loudly proclaiming to be innocent who aren't -- whether that means they're operating under black hats or 'merely' a darker shade of gray.

There have also been a handful of non-romance authors whose accounts have been recently terminated. The non-romance ones I know about are justified, imo, and I hope there are still many, many more to come.


----------



## unkownwriter

Yeah, you know that old saying about people in prison, everybody's not guilty. What's the percentage of that being likely? Innocent people get caught up in Amazon's net, but from what I see, they tend to get their accounts straightened out. Might take a few days, and be a huge pain in the butt, but it does happen.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Plenty of us have families to support and are doing this as our day job, and are not cheating. Excuses aren't reasons. That argument doesn't fly, and it isn't why those folks are stuffing and scamming. It's spelled G-R-E-E-D. They'll be off doing something else shady if this doesn't work out for them anymore. 

Life's hard. Sometimes you have to go get a job because you can't sell enough books. That's always been true. Nobody's entitled to make a living at writing fiction. I finished my third book the day before I went into the hospital for a week. It's my happiest book, even though I wasn't making ANY money at the time, because I wrote it on 8 Vicodin a day. Right now, I'm writing a book with a herniated disk in my spine, because I have a family AND because I love writing. It hurts like a bandit. We all have problems. We all have issues. No excuse for crappy behavior and stealing.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Ken, a whole lot of these people gloat about what they do on the private forums while whining about why they do it in public. "It's for the children!!! *sniffle sniffle*" Most of them care about absolutely nothing but how they can make as much money as they can as quickly as possible, without the slightest question as to the means and no qualms about how their actions might impact anyone else. They don't care. They don't care about their readers. They don't care about other writers. They don't care if what they're doing is immoral or even illegal - until they get caught. The only thing they care about is raking in gobs of cash through fair means or foul. It's greed, plain and simple.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Who you are isn't what you say, it's what you do. If you do shady stuff, you're shady. 

Too black & white? Could be. Everybody has their own standards. But I've been in that spot since I started publishing--near the top, but not at the highest level. Believe me, I know ALL about fear and anxiety and thinking it'll all disappear the same way it appeared, dreading the slip down that mountain. It's a motivator to work harder and write better and keep improving, because others have upped their game, and "good enough" isn't good enough anymore. I reject it as an excuse for shady behavior.


----------



## unkownwriter

Usedtoposthere said:


> Who you are isn't what you say, it's what you do. If you do shady stuff, you're shady.


Yes, this.

Don't give people an out for their bad behavior. I've been so low on money as to literally not have two pennies I could come up with. Seriously, would be under a bridge in a box if I didn't have my sons working. We were scraping by, doing without, and hoping like heck the car could make it to payday. And it wasn't an option to do something shady, scammy or whatever to make money.

Don't let these people fool you. They don't deserve your sympathy. They don't deserve you thinking for one minute they do this out of fear. That's a load of bull puckey.


----------



## Dpock

viper9826 said:


> Chance Carter profile may be down but looks like he might be back up under [redacted]. Even bold enough to use his own pic which has been compared on twitter. Brass balls is all I can say.


I did get a chance to view the link before it was redacted and have to agree it looked fishy. The author bio line-up perfectly with the tone of CC's marketing ("Hey Beautiful"). But while fishy it could also be a copycat cashing in.

I have no doubt CC and others will be back. My question is, will they be able to use their back catalogs? If not, they really will be starting from square one, meaning a possible boon to ghostwriters.


----------



## Not any more

"I have kids to feed" has been an excuse for theft going back to Genesis. It's a great plot device, but the attempted justifications for situational ethics wore thin on these boards years ago. When someone looks me in the face and says, "I'm more important than you are, and I don't care if you starve, so I'll steal from you," then I'm going to push back. Not a single excuse, justification, or rationale for unethical and/or illegal behavior holds water.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## anniejocoby

kw3000 said:


> On the multiple-carriage return/html formatting thing, whatever it is people are doing to pad books:
> 
> I've noticed there are 500 page books in sci-fi categories where reviewers will complain that the story, in their opinion, was too short. I was like, 500+ pages is too short? Then you read other reviews and find folks complaining that there's a lot of spaces between paragraphs or words and this sort of thing with the formatting that winds up padding the page stats.
> 
> All I can do is shake my head. But then, I hear some of these bestsellers in interviews and they talk about being full-time writers and they talk about having families etc.
> 
> Leads me to thinking about what a lot of these authors are going through in their own minds and in their lives. I think a lot of them feel pressure to keep the money rolling in because they have mouths to feed and health coverage to pay for, etc etc.
> 
> So, I guess when it comes to gaming the formatting to pad page counts and when it comes to stuffing and the like, I imagine a lot of it comes from fear. These people have bills to pay and no day job. I can imagine a lot of top sellers are scared to death of not making enough and having to go back to a day job and not being able to provide. That kind of visceral fear can lead people to doing things they might normally agree are less than ethical or run contrary to their character entirely.
> 
> Which is not to say I condone their actions. I don't. I wish they wouldn't engage in these nefarious practices because they hurt others by doing so, and those others have bills and worries and fears of their own as well. But I understand how some of these authors might feel put between a rock and a hard place even if that isn't the rational, objective fact on the ground. I mean, instead of gaming the system you can work a day job, you can also be a top seller without the funny business and accept that you'll make a little less.
> 
> There's no rationalizing with fear, however. And how do you rationalize with someone who, while maybe not admitting they're living in fear to you or to themselves, might go on and on about how they're "living the dream"? What do you say to that? Are you going to get through to them or have them listen, much less agree, if you try to throw cold water on how they're bringing in a living by asking them to stop hurting others with their less than ideal practices?
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is, I understand why some of those I observe at the top of some of these sales charts are doing what they're doing. I just wish they didn't feel so afraid in the first place or perhaps didn't allow that fear of being unable to meet their bills to drive them to do these things. I'm wishing for the impossible probably.
> 
> But getting back to Amazon's efforts to reign any/all of this in:
> 
> Really, so long as that fear exists, I'm not certain you're ever going to be able to stop people from doing unethical things in an attempt to squeeze more money out of the system. Fear can be every bit as powerful a motivator as greed. Perhaps more. There's no algorithm for that.


Fear that they can't feed their families? That's the excuse you're coming up with for what these losers were doing? Come on. From what I understand, they were making a million or more a year. Chance has been in the game since 2015. His pen name, Abby Weeks, has been in the game since 2014. I would imagine he's probably cleaned up millions. If they can't live off of what they scammed out of the KDP system for the rest of their lives, then that's on them. I know that if I had just one million dollar year, I would personally be set for life. It wouldn't be sailing around the world, living in a beach house set for life, but I know that I would never be on the streets with that kind of money, either.

Nope, not buying it. It was good old-fashioned greed.

I do understand that there is a certain mental illness that some super-rich people suffer from in that they literally cannot keep from attaining more and more and more and more, no matter who gets stepped on. It's a bottomless pit that can never be satisfied for some of those people. If anything, that might be what those scammers suffer from.

At any rate, I'm not crying for any of them. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle

TimothyEllis said:


> The companies need directors, and these have to be real people.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So, (dons combat armour) companies cannot submit to KU. Problem solved.


Nope.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. said corporations are creatures of statute and have the same rights to do business as people. That also means businesses can own other businesses. It's right there in 1 U.S.Code §1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1). That would open Amazon up to litigation.

Good luck trying to convince large publishers that their multinational corporate overlords' owners' real names and ITINs, EINs, or SSNs need to be on all the paperwork.

Also, some of us like not receiving stalker mail from our readers. Putting your real name in public documents is publicly searchable forever. Yes, there are legal ways to avoid this.


----------



## Rose Andrews

Usedtoposthere said:


> Plenty of us have families to support and are doing this as our day job, and are not cheating. Excuses aren't reasons. That argument doesn't fly, and it isn't why those folks are stuffing and scamming. It's spelled G-R-E-E-D. They'll be off doing something else shady if this doesn't work out for them anymore.
> 
> Life's hard. Sometimes you have to go get a job because you can't sell enough books. That's always been true. Nobody's entitled to make a living at writing fiction. I finished my third book the day before I went into the hospital for a week. It's my happiest book, even though I wasn't making ANY money at the time, because I wrote it on 8 Vicodin a day. Right now, I'm writing a book with a herniated disk in my spine, because I have a family AND because I love writing. It hurts like a bandit. We all have problems. We all have issues. No excuse for crappy behavior and stealing.


AMEN to that! I'm sorry about your herniated disk and hope you are able to get proper care. Feel better soon. 

Going back to a day job is the reality. Unfortunately, I have to go back to one after my son returns to school in August. I've been interviewing for a really good job and we'll see what happens. But even though it's a really good opportunity, I don't want to do it! I rather be at home, taking care of my house and writing stories. But I don't make enough to help out with family income so back to the daily grind I go.

C'est la vie. A hungry family is NOT an excuse to scam.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle

kw3000 said:


> Gee, it's almost as if people are jumping on a point I haven't made and are using it to make a point I don't disagree with without actually taking into consideration what I've actually said, in full and in context. This must be the internet or something.
> 
> Good gravy, I have not said "it's okay for people to cheat because they have families to feed". I have said I get that it can be a motivating factor that leads them to committing negative acts, and I'm not sure how you combat it. There is a difference there if you care to see it.
> 
> I've also said I completely am against committing said acts. Full stop. And I've also said it's not excusable. And to reiterate, I'm not saying that fear is definitively why they're doing it, I'm saying I could see it as a potential reason. And I recognize what a powerful motivator that can be and I'm wondering if there's any way to get through to these folks. I don't understand what's wrong with saying this.
> 
> I get that this is a subject that raises people's hackles, but a little appreciation of nuance would be nice.


It's almost as if trying to discuss topics dispassionately is enough to label people as enabling scammers...

When the thread about the arbitration came up (NOT a lawsuit!), several people calmly and rationally tried to point out that Amazon is at fault, the ToS was vague, the KENPC pot doesn't take from one person and give to another, etc. The amount of derision and scorn was way over the top. I salute RPatton and others for staying engaged with the amount of vitriol thrown at them.

Welcome to our world. Just know that the angriest voices do not speak for all of us, and I don't think you should have to repeat the fact that you are not in favor of cheating in order to be not dogpiled, much less acknowledged.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

The last couple of posts bring this scene from the Simpsons to mind:  

Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?

Fat Tony: Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

Bart: No.

Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?

Bart: Uh uh.

Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?

Bart: I guess that's okay.

Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

kw3000 said:


> Not sure what this has to do with anything I've said. Clearly, stealing for any reason is a crime and is inexcusable. What I've been saying is if fear is the motivating factor behind why someone would steal bread or cigarettes and re-sell them for a profit, I wonder how you can get through to these people to stop doing it since the thing motivating them to do it is so powerful.


Less what you said and more the "I have a family to feed" excuse.

I understand. There's a human behind every one of these scammers, stuffers, and /or whatever. While I think some of them are definitely dirty scoundrels who'd sell their own mother for a buck, I have to think it's not all.

Like you, I can understand fear. I don't excuse it, but I can very much understand it.


----------



## Starry_Knights

kw3000 said:


> Gee, it's almost as if people are jumping on a point I haven't made and are using it to make a point I don't disagree with without actually taking into consideration what I've actually said, in full and in context. This must be the internet or something.
> 
> Good gravy, I have not said "it's okay for people to cheat because they have families to feed". I have said I get that it can be a motivating factor that leads them to committing negative acts, and I'm not sure how you combat it. There is a difference there if you care to see it.
> 
> I've also said I completely am against committing said acts. Full stop. And I've also said it's not excusable. And to reiterate, I'm not saying that fear is definitively why they're doing it, I'm saying I could see it as a potential reason. And I recognize what a powerful motivator that can be and I'm wondering if there's any way to get through to these folks. I don't understand what's wrong with saying this.
> 
> I get that this is a subject that raises people's hackles, but a little appreciation of nuance would be nice.


There's a guy at work who's a professional slacker. He comes to work and spends all day doing things to keep from doing his job. He spends more effort not doing his job than he would if he just did his job. Two or three times over, probably. And it's really annoying, because it causes others to have to work much harder to do their jobs because he's either not getting the work done or taking a short cut that costs one of us a lot of extra effort to remedy.

I think some of the others might wonder, like I do, why people smart enough to game the system in such devious and brilliant ways don't use their smarts in a legit way that doesn't hurt other people. If they want to be lazy, great. Laziness is the mother of invention. But it seems like all the work they do to manage all these shenanigans could just as easily go towards making a good living doing something that doesn't harm others.

They obviously know covers, blurbs, and ads. They could easily run services to provide that to authors, and they could even farm that work out and just manage those services if they don't want to dirty their hands actually doing something--I mean, they either know how to do those things themselves or find people who do. Why not do that and be a kind of hero to authors who aren't good at that part of it? If it's just as easy to do something good and something bad, but you choose to do bad, I have to think it's just that you enjoy doing bad things. Sort of like the slacker at work. I finally figured out that he just enjoys causing problems. It's hard to feel sympathy for people like that, no matter how many starving kids they do or don't have.

I understand worrying about paying the bills, I really do. I've had to pay for many a ramen noodle with pennies I've rolled and toted to the grocery store. But if they're so afraid they feel they have to cheat to stay on the hamster wheel, maybe that isn't the right profession. That sort of pressure is just asking for ulcers and a heart-attack.


----------



## Not any more

Puddleduck said:


> Honestly, I think some people don't even stop to think whether what they're doing is ethical or not. They just see that they can do something to make easy money, so they do it, without considering ethics, legality, or consequences.


Yeah, I've seen the argument that scamming KU isn't hurting other authors and Amazon can afford it. I've seen the same argument applied to shoplifting and a lot of other schemes. Those same people always scream bloody murder when they get caught and have to pay the piper.


----------



## KelliWolfe

A lot of these people were scammers before KU came along. They were in click fraud, ad scams, online sales fraud, review fraud, and things like that. They jumped into KU because it is high reward-low risk. It's easy to make a lot of money quickly, it tends to be difficult to get caught, and the consequences if you get caught are essentially nonexistent because you aren't scamming CUSTOMERS who will complain to law enforcement because they lost their money. They have a great deal of support from people producing turnkey scripts and software to manage their many KU accounts and books and AMS ads who also work in other gray if not black hat areas of software. The ones at the bottom are just as eager to break the rules as the ones at the top, and pay thousands of dollars for access to the guru's methodologies and software.  

While I'm sure there are some normal, everyday people out there doing things to cheat the KU system, very few of them are operating on anything like this level. They aren't professionals and they aren't the problem. They aren't the ones who are raking in millions of dollars every month and using click farms to generate page reads on OUR books to disguise their activities.

The longer this goes on and the deeper we see it going without Amazon doing anything effective to combat it other than nuking a few high profile accounts, the more convinced I am that the scamming is so big a part of the monthly page reads that Amazon simply can't afford to let anyone know how bad it really is. And they can't do anything to fix the problem because page reads would drop so much that the cat would be out of the bag.


----------



## Not any more

kw3000 said:


> Yes, that's basically what I'm getting at. I can try to understand why people do what they do without endorsing it. In that understanding I'm wondering if there's a way to get through to people to not commit those acts because it seems like a lot of other methods haven't worked.
> 
> I'm also concerned because I'm not certain what Amazon can do in the face of this either. If there isn't something algorithmically that can be done, maybe getting through to the human on the other side of the terrible act can be a way to bring about the positive changes we'd like to see. I understand I'm probably pipe dreaming, but it'd be nice to figure out a way to really clean things up.


I think I'm a little more cynical about human nature than you are. Amazon needs to clean things up instead of just playing whack-a-mole and pretending they're doing something. If that requires blowing up KU and implementing a system very different than the present one, then I'll bite my tongue and ride it through. But that is going to take a little more imagination than they've displayed so far.



kw3000 said:


> Gee, it's almost as if people are jumping on a point I haven't made and are using it to make a point I don't disagree with without actually taking into consideration what I've actually said, in full and in context. This must be the internet or something.
> 
> <snip>
> I get that this is a subject that raises people's hackles, but a little appreciation of nuance would be nice.


Ken, I completely understand what you're saying, and why. I just think you're bending over backwards to be kind to people who don't deserve it. While I have a teeny-tiny bit of sympathy for the author who thinks they need to cheat to get past the $200/month mark, those buying new BMWs know exactly what they're doing and could give a rat's @--


----------



## MyraScott

Greed is certainly powerful, but there's a definite thrill that comes from gaming the system for some of these people. It's not even about the money after a certain point, it's about being "smarter than everyone else."

Once you've fed those kids steak and lobster and bought them a toy store for every holiday, it's not about survival. There's a thrill they get from getting other people to pay for their life.

It's why getting rid of these actors is like playing whack-a-mole... there's never enough money to walk away. It's the thrill of finding a new exploit and watching it succeed, then playing your pipe to lure others into doing the same thing. It's power.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## sela

kw3000 said:


> On the multiple-carriage return/html formatting thing, whatever it is people are doing to pad books:
> 
> I've noticed there are 500 page books in sci-fi categories where reviewers will complain that the story, in their opinion, was too short. I was like, 500+ pages is too short? Then you read other reviews and find folks complaining that there's a lot of spaces between paragraphs or words and this sort of thing with the formatting that winds up padding the page stats.
> 
> All I can do is shake my head. But then, I hear some of these bestsellers in interviews and they talk about being full-time writers and they talk about having families etc.
> 
> Leads me to thinking about what a lot of these authors are going through in their own minds and in their lives. I think a lot of them feel pressure to keep the money rolling in because they have mouths to feed and health coverage to pay for, etc etc.
> 
> ...
> 
> Really, so long as that fear exists, I'm not certain you're ever going to be able to stop people from doing unethical things in an attempt to squeeze more money out of the system. Fear can be every bit as powerful a motivator as greed. Perhaps more. There's no algorithm for that.


Ken, I think you are being far too generous to the scammers.

Hey, I've seen my sales fluctuate wildly. I'm the sole support of my two sons, with no help from their feckless dad. One of them has Asperger's and may take a long time to find his way to being independent. The other is still experimenting and relies on mom for a place to live because he doesn't earn enough $$ to live by himself. So I am the breadwinner and everyone relies on me. It's stressful to be in that position.

HOWEVER -- scamming is scamming. It's unethical. If I ever have to, I'll get a job as a Walmart greeter before I'll try black-hat scams to make big money.

Instead, I look at those who are crushing it and try to emulate them.

We all make choices on how to act. I chose not to break the TOS and scam despite the stress of supporting myself and my sons on my own.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Usedtoposthere said:


> Right now, I'm writing a book with a herniated disk in my spine, because I have a family AND because I love writing. It hurts like a bandit. We all have problems. We all have issues.


Me too. If you're not allergic to it, try rubbing a smidge of castor oil over that part of the spine - takes away the pain from most pains and sprains for at least six hours - works like a charm - just don't use too much in one go cos you'll get the **~**.


----------



## Rose Andrews

KelliWolfe said:


> A lot of these people were scammers before KU came along. They were in click fraud, ad scams, online sales fraud, review fraud, and things like that. They jumped into KU because it is high reward-low risk. It's easy to make a lot of money quickly, it tends to be difficult to get caught, and the consequences if you get caught are essentially nonexistent because you aren't scamming CUSTOMERS who will complain to law enforcement because they lost their money. They have a great deal of support from people producing turnkey scripts and software to manage their many KU accounts and books and AMS ads who also work in other gray if not black hat areas of software. The ones at the bottom are just as eager to break the rules as the ones at the top, and pay thousands of dollars for access to the guru's methodologies and software.
> 
> While I'm sure there are some normal, everyday people out there doing things to cheat the KU system, very few of them are operating on anything like this level. They aren't professionals and they aren't the problem. They aren't the ones who are raking in millions of dollars every month and using click farms to generate page reads on OUR books to disguise their activities.
> 
> The longer this goes on and the deeper we see it going without Amazon doing anything effective to combat it other than nuking a few high profile accounts, the more convinced I am that the scamming is so big a part of the monthly page reads that Amazon simply can't afford to let anyone know how bad it really is. And they can't do anything to fix the problem because page reads would drop so much that the cat would be out of the bag.


I agree with all of this. It's a shame, really, because KU (in its purity) is a decent program. It kind of seems like we're past the point of no return--I'm going to go as far out and say that taking KU out entirely might be the only way to get rid of the scammers for good. And that sucks, since many authors rely on KU. In a way, it's good that KU still works for legitimate authors but it's appearing to hurt more than not. It'll be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Dpock

Meanwhile...

I just cruised through several Romance Top Lists. They're looking a lot cleaner and more importantly, price-points are less focused at $0.99.

I've also noticed several keywords in my AMS campaign with some romance crossover have been costing a lot less. I hope that keeps up.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Rose Andrews said:


> I agree with all of this. It's a shame, really, because KU (in its purity) is a decent program. It kind of seems like we're past the point of no return--I'm going to go as far out and say that taking KU out entirely might be the only way to get rid of the scammers for good. And that sucks, since many authors rely on KU. In a way, it's good that KU still works for legitimate authors but it's appearing to hurt more than not. It'll be interesting to see what happens.


KU is fundamentally broken. Because of the unlimited borrows, it is _*always*_ possible to extract more money from the system than goes in. Always. It's like a slot machine that is guaranteed to give you back five dollars for every dollar you put in it, every single time. All you have to do is figure out where the break-even point is - for a $9.99 subscription with page reads paying $0.0045 per page, that's about 2220 pages, which isn't just a whole lot, especially if you can pad your page counts and you've got the same content appearing multiple times in KU in stuffed books. Everything past that is profit.

Put up twenty 200 page books and have someone "read" them using a sub you bought them and you've made $20 for your $10 investment. There are plenty of romance readers who can burn through that in a month, so it wouldn't even stand out. These people have many, many accounts with many pen names with many books each per account. It adds up quickly. And of course it's even better if you can convince people who are already paying for subscriptions to read your books. 500 people reading one of your 200 page books gets you about $450. So you announce a contest where one lucky reader will win a $100 Amazon gift card - provided that they can prove that they actually read the book. You still made $350 without having to pay for all of the subscriptions.

You can see how easy it would be to scale this up. Instead of having twenty 200 page books you have 20 accounts each with 20 pen names each with 20 individual books which you then bundle AND stuff into other books so the same content appears multiple times so you get paid over and over and over again for the same books being "read" by the same subscribers.

But as long as the content available to a subscriber every month is unlimited, there will always be a way to game the system so you can pull more out than you have to pay in. Always. There is no way to fix that. That's just math. Getting rid of stuffed books and even box sets won't stop it, because the scammers were already making tons of money before they started with those. It was just a way for them to make *more*. The basic problem is still the same.


----------



## 101569

KelliWolfe said:


> KU is fundamentally broken. Because of the unlimited borrows, it is _*always*_ possible to extract more money from the system than goes in. Always. It's like a slot machine that is guaranteed to give you back five dollars for every dollar you put in it, every single time. All you have to do is figure out where the break-even point is - for a $9.99 subscription with page reads paying $0.0045 per page, that's about 2220 pages, which isn't just a whole lot, especially if you can pad your page counts and you've got the same content appearing multiple times in KU in stuffed books. Everything past that is profit.
> 
> Put up twenty 200 page books and have someone "read" them using a sub you bought them and you've made $20 for your $10 investment. There are plenty of romance readers who can burn through that in a month, so it wouldn't even stand out. These people have many, many accounts with many pen names with many books each per account. It adds up quickly. And of course it's even better if you can convince people who are already paying for subscriptions to read your books. 500 people reading one of your 200 page books gets you about $450. So you announce a contest where one lucky reader will win a $100 Amazon gift card - provided that they can prove that they actually read the book. You still made $350 without having to pay for all of the subscriptions.
> 
> You can see how easy it would be to scale this up. Instead of having twenty 200 page books you have 20 accounts each with 20 pen names each with 20 individual books which you then bundle AND stuff into other books so the same content appears multiple times so you get paid over and over and over again for the same books being "read" by the same subscribers.
> 
> But as long as the content available to a subscriber every month is unlimited, there will always be a way to game the system so you can pull more out than you have to pay in. Always. There is no way to fix that. That's just math. Getting rid of stuffed books and even box sets won't stop it, because the scammers were already making tons of money before they started with those. It was just a way for them to make *more*. The basic problem is still the same.


The math has always bothered me. I know their are plenty of people that don't get their moneys worth in reads each month, but I bet there are many of us that get way more. I figured it out for my reading style. Im reading on a bad week only about 5-7 books on a week were I have plenty of time 20+ a week. Let's say the average voracious reader in romance keeps it down to 1 book a night including weekends which I bet they read a few more than that but lets call it 30 books at an average of 300 ish KNEP they are generating a little over $40 in revenue for authors, but only paying 9.99 or less. On a month I've read enough books to generate over $180 in revenue for authors. Now know I know the average reader doesn't consume that much but I am sure there are quite a few of us that do. How are they making any kind of money here?


----------



## sela

idontknowyet said:


> The math has always bothered me. I know their are plenty of people that don't get their moneys worth in reads each month, but I bet there are many of us that get way more. I figured it out for my reading style. Im reading on a bad week only about 5-7 books on a week were I have plenty of time 20+ a week. Let's say the average voracious reader in romance keeps it down to 1 book a night including weekends which I bet they read a few more than that but lets call it 30 books at an average of 300 ish KNEP they are generating a little over $40 in revenue for authors, but only paying 9.99 or less. On a month I've read enough books to generate over $180 in revenue for authors. Now know I know the average reader doesn't consume that much but I am sure there are quite a few of us that do. How are they making any kind of money here?


I suspect that Amazon doesn't look at KU as a money-making scheme in and of itself. It's a doorway to the Everything Store. It gets readers with credit cards to join up, and because they spend less on eBooks (mostly indie) because of their $9.99 all you can eat menu, they can spend those extra dollars elsewhere in the store. Maybe buy a Prime membership and spend even more.


----------



## KelliWolfe

idontknowyet said:


> The math has always bothered me. I know their are plenty of people that don't get their moneys worth in reads each month, but I bet there are many of us that get way more. I figured it out for my reading style. Im reading on a bad week only about 5-7 books on a week were I have plenty of time 20+ a week. Let's say the average voracious reader in romance keeps it down to 1 book a night including weekends which I bet they read a few more than that but lets call it 30 books at an average of 300 ish KNEP they are generating a little over $40 in revenue for authors, but only paying 9.99 or less. On a month I've read enough books to generate over $180 in revenue for authors. Now know I know the average reader doesn't consume that much but I am sure there are quite a few of us that do. How are they making any kind of money here?


They aren't making money. It isn't about making money and never has been. It's about getting people into the store where they buy other goods, and denying content to the other retailers through exclusivity. That's Amazon 101. Amazon isn't about making money - they have always been about increasing market share at the expense of every other consideration. Think about what Scribd had to do to stop bleeding red a couple of years back - they had to drastically reduce the amount subscribers could borrow _and_ eliminate huge swaths of romance and erotica from their catalog. But what are the two biggest categories of books in KU? Does anyone honestly think KU has been making money with scammers like the ones we've been discussing in here raking in millions of dollars every month from bogus page reads? And those are just the ones that we know about because they got greedy and stuck their heads up. For every one of them there are hundreds, possibly thousands more keeping a low profile and raking in a few thousand on each account they have. How can they possibly be making money with that going on?


----------



## David VanDyke

kw3000 said:


> But then, I hear some of these bestsellers in interviews and they talk about being full-time writers and they talk about having families etc.
> 
> I think a lot of them feel pressure to keep the money rolling in because they have mouths to feed and health coverage to pay for, etc etc.


Politely: Bullpuckey.

Mouths to feed and health coverage to buy takes far less than what these guys (gender-neutral) were pulling down. They were (are?) pulling down 6 figures PER MONTH. That's not keeping the kids in Cheerios and diapers. That's "Whee! I just bought a seven-figure house and a Lambo" territory.

Do not, please weep for the black hats. The deserve no sympathy.



kw3000 said:


> In saying to someone who's chosen the wrong path, 'I empathize', I'm not saying I want to get down in the muck with them, nor am I excusing away their harmful practices. I recognize the damage they've done and are doing. But again, I am saying with a motivation as powerful as fear, how do you get through to those who would harm the rest of us by doing what they're doing? Maybe I'm looking for hope here, I don't know.


There's justifiable fear, and there's cowardly fear. Justifiable fear would be, as you say, fear of the kids going hungry or un-doctored. Cowardly fear is fear of losing a premium lifestyle, or losing unearned/stolen status, or fear of actually working hard for the "success."

I'd bet you large sums of cash money NONE of the black-hatters are motivated by justifiable fear.


----------



## David VanDyke

kw3000 said:


> Gee, it's almost as if people are jumping on a point I haven't made and are using it to make a point I don't disagree with without actually taking into consideration what I've actually said, in full and in context. This must be the internet or something.
> 
> Good gravy, I have not said "it's okay for people to cheat because they have families to feed". I have said I get that it can be a motivating factor that leads them to committing negative acts, and I'm not sure how you combat it. There is a difference there if you care to see it.
> 
> I've also said I completely am against committing said acts. Full stop. And I've also said it's not excusable. And to reiterate, I'm not saying that fear is definitively why they're doing it, I'm saying I could see it as a potential reason. And I recognize what a powerful motivator that can be and I'm wondering if there's any way to get through to these folks. I don't understand what's wrong with saying this.
> 
> I get that this is a subject that raises people's hackles, but a little appreciation of nuance would be nice.


You said you "empathize" with these scum. That's more than a factual understanding of the situation. They deserve no empathy.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Becca Mills

Folks, tussling over the exact nature, extent, and origin of someone's grotesquerie and turpitude isn't really a KBish conversation -- it generates name-calling, piling on, gratuitous allusions to RH (amazing how those keep popping up), and other stuff we don't really want. 

If there are no more stuffing-related developments to report and no concrete strategies or impacts to discuss, it's probably best to put a bow on this thread and stick it under the tree for future generations' Googling pleasure.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

kw3000 said:


> I don't think there is an excuse for nefarious behavior. I'm only saying fear can be a motivating factor and that I understand how it can cause some folks in KU to take part in these non-ethical activities.


Some people are motivated to steal to put food on the table for their children. Some beg for the same reason. Some steal to get money for drugs. Some people scam pensioners out of their life savings by selling them fraudulent services. It's usually the scammers who do it for greed.


----------



## spellscribe

I think there’s a pretty generous sliding scale in regards to both the intention of the publisher and the lengths they go to. For every stuffed-ghostwritten-bottled-incentivised book out there, there are probably one hundred that fall just barely on the wrong side of the TOS line. Single infractions. Small ones. But still, books that cheat the system in some way. 

I have no doubts there are cheaters making no money. 5heyre trying but they haven’t cracked it. Others make a little. Some do ok honestly and just fudge the line to give them a little extra. And they probably have every motivation you can imagine, from Ferrari’s to, yes, food on the table. 

Wrong is wrong, but I agree with the sentiment that EVERYTHING has to be considered in order to shut it down effectively.


----------



## 39416

Becca Mills said:


> Folks, tussling over the exact nature, extent, and origin of someone's grotesquerie and turpitude isn't really a KBish conversation


"grotesquerie"?

Guess you saw my last query letter...


----------



## unkownwriter

LilyBLily said:


> I don't think it's fear at all. Remember in "The Godfather" how the family laughed at the son who wanted to fight for his country? They thought of him as a sap. That's how all crooks view honest people: saps, patsies, idiots, and so on.
> 
> We've had plenty of people come here and basically suggest we're idiots to write our own books, too.


We'v had this, and the "I can't see any other way to feed my family except to join the cheaters." thing, too. And the "If it wasn't okay, Amazon would have stopped it." malarkey. And the "The readers love these books!" crowing.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## 101569

Did anyone else notice that there are a lot more naked men chests in the best seller list?


It's starting to look more like I would expect it to filled with actual authors I recognize. There are a few books in there that still might be stuffed or were previous stuffers, but over all wow there is a huge difference.


----------



## PhoenixS

The excuses of the gray hatters I'm seeing range from "bonus [let's just read that as 'stuffed'] books are expected these days" to "I'm blocking you because even though I'm associating with scammers and using some/many of their illegit practices, I myself am not a scammer, so don't insinuate that I am one."

The first excuse places blame on the customer. The second shifts the conversation.



Becca Mills said:


> Folks, tussling over the exact nature, extent, and origin of someone's grotesquerie and turpitude isn't really a KBish conversation -- it generates name-calling, piling on, gratuitous allusions to RH (amazing how those keep popping up), and other stuff we don't really want.
> 
> If there are no more stuffing-related developments to report and no concrete strategies or impacts to discuss, it's probably best to put a bow on this thread and stick it under the tree for future generations' Googling pleasure.


For me, the outrage over stuffing is not confined to just the Top 100 All-Star Bonus earners. It's for everyone who's out there knowingly engaging in gaming and/or outright scamming. To that end, there are other pockets of folk who continue to game/scam beyond the Top 100 romance stuffers. In fact, one of those non-romance authors tightly associated with a certain practitioner this past week had their catalog of 50+ books pulled down. Those tactics at least should be able to be called out here, even if (or especially because) they are the same tactics as have been discussed before. Folk who are skirting the rules across genres are now sharing their tactics, their people and their lists, and cross-pollinating their way across not just the KU landscape or even the Amazon landscape, but infecting the other platforms as well.

I consider the fact of that 50+ book catalog by a fairly recognizable indie name being taken down to be a 'further impact'. As many of us have said over and over in this thread, 'stuffing' is shorthand for a myriad of shady tactics, and isn't confined 'only' to stuffing. Is the timing of this author's takedown coincidental with the high-profile romance stuffers coming down? If we can't talk about some of this, we may never be able to ferret out the linking threads.

And if we want to talk just the actual act of stuffing, we can point to the hundreds of legacy-type stuffed box sets that are still being published in subgenres such as mail-order brides. These boxes and their authors/publishers have been slapped back and decimated over time by Amazon, so they are no longer dominating the free and paid charts as they once were, but they're still raking in a goodly amount of passive KU money by the sheer numbers of them under each publisher account. Yet Amazon is letting them persist, taking the classic 'out of sight, out of mind' approach. Like many of the authors using bots to claw their way to the top ranks, Amazon apparently thinks that simply slapping them back off the charts is enough to take attention off of them.


----------



## Used To Be BH

WasAnn said:


> Honestly, since we all know KU isn't about bringing in first level profits, meaning the actual KU subscriptions aren't meant to be a profit making venture, then it must bring profit elsewhere...which is in data collection and the Everything Store. Profit may not be defined as immediate dollars, but also as future dollars. Most of us agree on that too. So what's going on must be bringing something to those ventures. Must be, or else they'd stop it. Yet they aren't.
> 
> Amazon is doing token acts meant to make it seem like they care about this problem, yet those acts are, in essence, entirely useless and often wrongly aimed. Even the wrongly aimed acts have a message. That message is, "Be careful how hard you push us, because we'll axe some of you." It keeps us quiet, treading lightly, fearful of being the next honest author caught in a net we shouldn't even be near. It keeps us dolphins fearful of going near the tuna.
> 
> So what are they actually gaining by allowing all the scammers? Well, the rubes who are reading and being manipulated into false reads to get into contests and such must be giving something that makes it worth it. Is it just their massive orders of toilet paper and leggings? Probably some of that, but also they're providing data, which is highly salable. Also, the more they "share posts," which feature said scammy author, the more they bring in new members to the fold, who may incidentally read a few books, but who will also buy leggings and TP and provide data.
> 
> More importantly, such scammy things don't happen on iTunes and B&N and Kobo, so the lure of scammy contests and illegal lotteries *removes* anyone susceptible to such lures from those ecosystems, eventually getting them so used to Amazon that they don't go back. It doesn't matter that they never make much in the way of money other than leggings and TP and data...they also don't make money for the other venues.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


There's no question that Amazon hasn't done all it can to address scamming. That said, I think referring to the steps that have been taken as _token_ might be a bit harsh. It sounds to me like a pretty major shift involving a lot of bad actors. The changes some people have noted in the bestseller lists are something we haven't seen before, at least not to this extent.

I think there's some danger in assuming that everything that happens must be something Amazon intended to happen. That Amazon in general wants more market share and more data is undeniable. That Amazon is specifically encouraging scamming to draw more people into the ecosystem? I doubt that. I have to wonder if people participating in illegal lotteries and, as has been suggested, flipping through the same content on purpose to get their partner in crime more pages read credit, are really people who are going to make good customers. (That's almost like a store encouraging shoplifters to come to a brick-and-mortar store on the theory that more bodies in the store are always better. Someone who doesn't know where the line is or doesn't care strikes me as being more likely to give Amazon a headache--fake reviews, return scams, etc.)

We don't have any evidence that that subset is really contributing that much to Amazon in terms of revenue or data. What they are doing is creating a situation that will sooner or later generate bad press for Amazon--and we know Amazon doesn't want too much bad press. Their previous regulatory actions are almost all reactive, following articles in national publications. Anyone can figure out that scammers, even if they try to fly under the radar, are creating an atmosphere in which future scandals are inevitable.

Amazon may sometimes do the wrong thing on purpose, but I think it's much more often that it tries to use algorithms too much and real people not enough. It's also that it grew very fast and didn't always adapt its structure to that growth. Things like having KDP, Author Central and Createspace continue to use three different sets of HTML rules in product descriptions for years isn't the behavior of a criminal mastermind--it's just plain carelessness. So is having KDP Print, which we now Amazon wants to succeed, roll out with glacial slowness, taking months to incorporate even the most basic features. So much happens on Amazon that looks as if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, I tend to think some of the problems are faulty infrastructure problems rather than deliberate policy.


----------



## KelliWolfe

PhoenixS said:


> For me, the outrage over stuffing is not confined to just the Top 100 All-Star Bonus earners. It's for everyone who's out there knowingly engaging in gaming and/or outright scamming. To that end, there are other pockets of folk who continue to game/scam beyond the Top 100 romance stuffers. In fact, one of those non-romance authors tightly associated with a certain practitioner this past week had their catalog of 50+ books pulled down. Those tactics at least should be able to be called out here, even if (or especially because) they are the same tactics as have been discussed before. Folk who are skirting the rules across genres are now sharing their tactics, their people and their lists, and cross-pollinating their way across not just the KU landscape or even the Amazon landscape, but infecting the other platforms as well.


How well would their tactics even work outside of KU? I mean, I could see them trying in the other stores, but when you have to rely only on sales rather than page reads it gets a lot harder to game the system. The whole reason things like stuffing, padding, and botting work is because of the structure of KU. Without that most of their techniques are worthless or even counterproductive.


----------



## PhoenixS

KelliWolfe said:


> How well would their tactics even work outside of KU? I mean, I could see them trying in the other stores, but when you have to rely only on sales rather than page reads it gets a lot harder to game the system. The whole reason things like stuffing, padding, and botting work is because of the structure of KU. Without that most of their techniques are worthless or even counterproductive.


Think broader: gifting, reviews, incentivizing buys of the same title across multiple platforms...


----------



## KelliWolfe

PhoenixS said:


> Think broader: gifting, reviews, incentivizing buys of the same title across multiple platforms...


Gifting and incentivizing could work, but it's going to be far more expensive anywhere outside of Amazon because the customers are going to be paying full cover price rather than borrowing "free" books. Even if they keep their prices at 99 cents they'd have to spend many, many times more money for far lower returns than in KU. Readers outside of Amazon aren't as price conscious and tend to be warier of bargain basement books, and reviews don't seem to matter as much. On B&N, for example, they're essentially a joke. They're more than welcome to try, but I think they're going to be throwing a lot of money away to little purpose. Especially since the other retailers tend to pay a lot more attention to what goes on in their bookstores than Amazon does and have fewer qualms about nuking accounts that break their TOS.

Let them burn their money that way. I'll have a Coke.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

WasAnn said:


> We see action on the botted books, the bot-based borrows, the things that don't have a customer in the loop the most. That's telling. The scammers who have real customers that they swindle or lure or ensnare are generally dealt with only when the pitchforks start coming out amongst us masses.


Ohhhhhhhhhhh... {Lightbulb moment} Now I get it.


----------



## MyraScott

WasAnn said:


> No company this on target and tightly wound would let something this crazy happen over such a long period of time if they didn't calculate that it benefited them.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## lilywhite

David VanDyke said:


> They deserve no empathy.


Every human being deserves empathy (which is different from sympathy). Empathy is simply _understanding_, and IMO we could all stand to have a bit more of it.

I hate scammers more than anything, and idgaf that CC is probably gonna lose his fancy new house, but I definitely empathize with seeing a big ol' money-making opportunity out there and deciding to grab it. I haven't done it, because I was raised better than that. (To quote my grampa for the hundredth time, "Character is what you do when no one is looking.")

But when I'm scraping for extra freelance jobs that take up time I want to spend on writing? When I'm making hundreds per month, but the people who hire me for ads/launch consulting or editing are making 5 and even 6 figures? Yeah, I get why the scammers do it. Absolutely.


----------



## KelliWolfe

P.J. Post said:


> Oh, I think you might be surprised just how much big companies don't care about stuff - which is not the same thing as being inept. I agree with you, they know exactly what they're doing, and for that matter - what they're not.


It's like plagiarism in KDP. Oh, they could certainly do something about that if they wanted to. It wouldn't be technically difficult or even that expensive to implement. But why bother? If the plagiarist isn't caught, Amazon makes their cut from any sales. If someone brings it to their attention they simply pull the book and claw back and keep _all_ the money from the sales, not just their usual 30-65% cut. There's absolutely no incentive for them to do anything to stop it, so they don't.


----------



## lilywhite

Lynn Is A Pseudonym said:


> This is a great post. We haven't always agreed on things in the past, but I can definitely agree with you on this.


Thanks, Lynn. There's always common ground somewhere.


----------



## Becca Mills

I understand that people are outraged at what's happening within KU, but there are limits to the way and extent that outrage can be vented here. 

Posts that focus on helping people understand the situation on a factual level, brainstorm possible solutions, or figure out how to mitigate the impact of all this on their own careers are great. But subjecting an identifiable person or group of people to relentless, repetitive opprobrium (piling on) or using slurs/insults to refer to them is not welcome here. It doesn't matter what a person or group has done; they still have to be spoken to and/or about in civil terms. There are no exceptions. When these basic rules aren't followed, threads get locked, and there's less opportunity to share concretely helpful ideas and information.

KBoards threads are on the first page or two of Google results for "book stuffing," "KENP manipulation," "KDP bonus content," "KU page-reads," "KU and click farms," "KU botting," "KDP account suspended," and countless of other search strings. The threads that rank high for major searches tend to be monsters like this one -- those that break a thousand posts. That means mega-threads are the ones people seeking info find most easily. When invective gets a thread like this one locked, later important developments will have to be addressed in new threads. Those threads are less likely to go big and rank high in search results. That means valuable information shared in them will be harder to find and may have less impact.

This thread is currently on the first page of Google results for "kdp bonus content." If a small group of people get the thread locked because they feel they must indulge their desire to call the masterminds this name or that, and Ann, Betsy, and I do not continue to have the time to edit it all out, then that group of people will deny others the opportunity to share info and ideas in what is likely to remain a highly visible location for years to come. That's counterproductive. So please, help us keep threads like this one open by policing your own tone and language.


----------



## unkownwriter

I can understand why people do the scamming, but I also have no empathy for them for doing so. No sympathy, either. So if someone wants to walk with eyes wide open into something that's going to earn them disgust and hatred and whatever else comes along, they can suck it up.

People seeing this thread need to know that what is happening in indie publishing is wrong. They need to know the details of what happens, how it happens and what Amazon is doing about it. If we can't say so, then what's the point of all of this? Might as well only have threads talking about how wonderful everyone is, with rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## KelliWolfe

she-la-ti-da said:


> I can understand why people do the scamming, but I also have no empathy for them for doing so. No sympathy, either. So if someone wants to walk with eyes wide open into something that's going to earn them disgust and hatred and whatever else comes along, they can suck it up.
> 
> People seeing this thread need to know that what is happening in indie publishing is wrong. They need to know the details of what happens, how it happens and what Amazon is doing about it. If we can't say so, then what's the point of all of this? Might as well only have threads talking about how wonderful everyone is, with rainbows and unicorns.






 Thinking of adding that to my sig. The ten hour loop might be better.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

It's a weird world when "common decency" isn't offended by lying, cheating, and scamming, but is somehow offended by pointing out that lying, cheating, and scamming is going on. I think people who follow the rules SHOULD be pissed off when people cheat and it comes right out of the pockets of those following the rules. I don't understand not calling that out because ... we're nice? Because "nuance?" (I don't get the nuance. You're cheating, but you're not cheating as MUCH as other people, so you haven't been caught yet? Or ...?)


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Shelley K said:


> Common decency is offended by a post that hopes a specific author is attacked online by so many people it breaks them down, and maybe so much they self-harm. I don't care how a right a person thinks they are about scamming and cheating and KU economics. That's [expletive]ing disgusting.


I guess I don't know about that. The only people I've seen personally named lately are the leader of this particular group, somebody else whose name is out there because of a lawsuit (which is public), and the person who tried to copyright a term and harmed other authors by asking Amazon to yank their books.

People who are harmed by cheaters and the other issues listed above have faced real-life consequences also, including mental health issues and serious financial worries. I try not to follow author-specific drama, so I'm sure there may be things out there I don't know about. Otherwise, my sympathy and empathy are generally reserved for victims, not perpetrators. If I do something wrong and get called out (which has happened), that's on me.

The story of the two psychiatrists comes to mind. They're walking down the street when they see a woman lying, beaten, on the ground. One of them says to the other, "The man who did this needs our help!"


----------



## KelliWolfe

Shelley K said:


> Common decency is offended by a post that hopes a specific author is attacked online by so many people it breaks them down, and maybe so much they self-harm. I don't care how a right a person thinks they are about scamming and cheating and KU economics. That's [expletive]ing disgusting.


How about when the scammers getting their books yanked start trying to dox the people reporting them? That's the level of individual we're talking about here. *Hoping* that something bad happens to someone is a far cry from actually *doing* something that can cause harm in real life. But we're not allowed to call them what they actually are, because it's uncivil.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Shelley K said:


> You added this after I quoted you, but I want to respond. First, I don't think that's the complete story, but that's hardly important. Second, it implies some ugly and untrue things about me.


I'm sorry; that wasn't personal or aimed at you. It's not a story; it's just an apocryphal thing, an anecdote, a wry comment I read on the tendency to focus more on bullies than victims. Sometimes it seems like we care more about the mental state of those who perpetrate these kinds of activities than those who are harmed by them, and I think that's a mistake.


----------



## GeneDoucette

Shelley K said:


> Common decency is offended by a post that hopes a specific author is attacked online by so many people it breaks them down, and maybe so much they self-harm. I don't care how a right a person thinks they are about scamming and cheating and KU economics. That's [expletive]ing disgusting.


I'm confused every time I see comments like this one. This isn't happening on the board you're posting it to and it isn't being perpetrated by the people here, so far as I know. I'm not sure what the point is, other than to go 'what a shame'. The implication is that some kind of action should be taken to either, A: stop the bad behavior you describe (which, i don't know how any of us can do that) or B: not cheer and/or participate in the calling out of black-hat behavior at all.

If the argument is, it's not actually bad behavior, we have 45 pages of comments hashing that out.

If the argument is, we shouldn't call out the bad actors because there are possible unintended negative outcomes that are apparently SO bad, they outweigh the value of calling them out in the first place, then I think you're exaggerating and approaching this in a way that isn't reasonable.

If the argument is, we can somehow stop the unintended consequences of which you speak, then again, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## MmmmmPie

A few years ago, a waitress at a local restaurant was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot. The perp was another woman. When she was caught, she gave a very sad story about how she needed the money to buy Christmas gifts for her kids. The local newspaper did a story about it, and as a result of the publicity, this robber was inundated with gifts for her children. The robber was mostly excused, because the gun wasn't loaded, and she was "only doing it for the children."

As for the waitress who was robbed? She was also a young mother. She was so traumatized by the experience that she quit her job and surprise, surprise, also had a hard time buying Christmas gifts for her kids. But no one seemed to care.

I'm sorry to say that this is a true story. The point is that we all have our challenges -- kids to support, food to put on the table, parents to look after, etc. etc. etc. I agree with UsedToPostHere and others that it's important to remember that these cheaters had the same choices we did. Even if their accounts were shut down permanently, they've gotten away with far too much. In reality, their ill-gotten gains should be clawed back and distributed to the honest authors who played by the rules.

We live in a very empathetic society. I just wish there we showed more empathy for the victims as opposed to the perps.

Also, as indie authors, I think it's important that we show clear disdain for the unethical among us. If we police our own and condemn bad behavior, it lets readers know that we have standards that we're willing to help enforce, as much as we're able, anyway.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

I'm not sorry to say that I don't feel sorry for the guilty in all of this. Actions have consequences and they ave to deal with them. As a consequence of what's been going on and amazon p*ss poor attempt at cleaning up it's own dirty laundry real authors are suffering.

Ad spend up so high that some authors can't afford to pay to play. The new attempt to get naked guy covers out of romance has led to a reinstatement of genuine PNR book covers being turned down for ads, and the word is that some ads are being turned off and authors warned that they won't get new ones on those 'kinds' of covers. I hate to think what that will do for PNR back catalogs, and all because those 'players' filled every category they could with their sleazy ads just to wipe out other authors.

I'm sure they haven't spared a moments thought in the last few years for the money they've cost other authors, for the careers they've killed off, or for the families with less food on the table. If they want to play the victim card and cry wolf now, well I'm past caring.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Seriously, it isn't like book stuffing is all they were doing. Just to make it clear, there was also

Category manipulation
Botting and clickfarming to boost ranks and generate phony page reads
Review fraud
Outright plagiarism
Republishing the same content multiple times into KU by pushing M/F, M/M, and F/F versions with a simple search and replace
Publishing mirrors of posted fanfic into KU
Burying titles in stuffed books enrolled in KU that are available through other distributors
Sending books to ARC teams with explicit instructions NOT to leave reviews that weren't positive
Incentivizing borrows/reads through giveaways (many of which were never fulfilled)

That's not exhaustive. We've covered other things in here already. They've been up to their eyeballs in flagrant TOS violations. Many of them are selling online courses for thousands of dollars telling other people how to do the exact same things. So, what do you call people who cheat and scam as a matter of course without seeming to possess the slightest hint of morality or ethics?

And the worst part is that Amazon has known exactly what was going on from the beginning - because quite a lot of people with access to Amazon reps and management provided them evidence documenting it - and they did precisely nothing about it. Instead they cut innocent indie writers' page reads by 50%, threatened them, banned their accounts, rank-stripped them, and yanked their reviews. All while giving these people All Stars bonuses month after month after month. There are some choice names for _that_, too. But I'll forbear so Becca doesn't have to snip.


----------



## sela

I don't like scammers and cheaters. I've made that clear on this board. 

But I also think, from reading the twitter feed on #GetLoud and the other associated tags, that some authors have gone way overboard in their response to scammers and cheaters. 

There is a viciousness and vindictiveness that I just don't get. I don't like scammers, but I'm a humanist and believe that we should treat lawbreakers and cheaters and scammers like human beings with basic rights. It may feel good on a visceral sense to see someone brought down low after they cheated their way to the top and benefitted at the rest of our expenses, but it's more important to me to see the scamming and cheating end due to good policy and a just consequence meted out. At the same time, while I don't like vigilante justice, I understand that when the authority doesn't police the rules properly, the public often feel there is no other recourse but vigilantism. When that happens, you know the system has failed. 

If someone is proven to have cheated and scammed, they should get their books pulled and account terminated. End of story. No need to chase them down and dox and shame and the take out the pitchforks.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche


----------



## unkownwriter

Something that happened on other sites is not the subject of this thread. To my knowledge, no one here has advocated for anyone to do harm to themselves. We seem to want them to lose their accounts and be permanently banned, but that's pretty much it. So talking about something someone somewhere said or maybe said or did a rah-rah post about is being a bit disingenuous. Not saying that stuff is right, but it's not here. Fight that battle elsewhere.

I have a tremendous amount of empathy. Far too much, really. But I can't seem to find any for people who come into indie publishing with the goal of getting every last penny out of it, no matter who they hurt. You want empathy? Go whine to them about having some for us, the people who aren't doing anything wrong.

Meanwhile, pink fluffy unicorns are dancing on rainbows. I'm in my happy place.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Howdy! I don't post here very often, but I've been a self-published author and have been involved in its associated services and forums for some years now (pre KU1). For the record, I don't use bonus books at all (I have this crazy desire to get paid for my work) and never have.

What bothers me about what is happening is that the sense of proportion is gone. The uglier attacks may not be happening here on a moderated forum, but some of the people who are _supporting and encouraging_ the mob mentality are most definitely here--they know who they are.

Amazon's recent (as in I think today might be its one-month anniversary) shift to discourage bonus books is a good move. I imagine it will bring down AMS advertising costs and encourage a more level playing field for All-Stars Bonuses, but let's be real: 99% of us are never going to see those bonuses and aren't spending $100+ a day in advertising (and so weren't affected one iota by all of the bonus-ing going on to begin with). All of the updated guidelines in the world aren't going to change that. And neither will people who take advantage of the new guidelines and start tacking "A Collection" on the end of all of their books. Some folks seem to think that readers are lonely, misguided morons. They aren't--they're still looking for quality content, and producing that content would be a wiser use of our time as opposed pointing fingers at each other.

To my knowledge, there has been _one_ actual transgression by an author in the last month (as in, illegal or against posted platform guidelines) that likely lead to an account ban: an author used an illegal lottery as a means to manipulate their reviews.

Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled that Amazon has decided to put some actual policy in black-and-white. I'm just less thrilled with the egg on our faces.

Anyway, back to work.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Crime fighters

I don't think you're understanding the complexity of the issue. Whether or not anyone has a chance for All Star bonuses is irrelevant. The environment that has been created stifles the visibility of legitimate authors. This is done by pushing other books off lists, spending unholy amounts on ads (that they can only afford to do because of the high page count that results in astronomical income), raising the costs for authors who simply can't compete. 

I know that in the last week, my ads have dropped to very reasonable levels. It's speculation to say it's because of the hammer of Amazon, but there is correlation there.


----------



## KelliWolfe

SalaciousStories said:


> What bothers me about what is happening is that the sense of proportion is gone. The uglier attacks may not be happening here on a moderated forum, but some of the people who are _supporting and encouraging_ the mob mentality are most definitely here--they know who they are.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


Actually, what the scammers in question have been doing has been well-documented for close to two years by people like David Gaughran. It isn't opinion, it isn't speculation. It's documented fact. Several people including myself have listed the things that they have been caught doing. They engaged in a large number of activities that are all in violation of the KDP and KU TOS, the documentation is posted on numerous websites by the various people who found it, and it has been provided to Amazon many, many times by a lot of different people.



> Amazon's recent (as in I think today might be its one-month anniversary) shift to discourage bonus books is a good move. I imagine it will bring down AMS advertising costs and encourage a more level playing field for All-Stars Bonuses, but let's be real: 99% of us are never going to see those bonuses and aren't spending $100+ a day in advertising (and so weren't affected one iota by all of the bonus-ing going on to begin with). All of the updated guidelines in the world aren't going to change that. And neither will people who take advantage of the new guidelines and start tacking "A Collection" on the end of all of their books. Some folks seem to think that readers are lonely, misguided morons. They aren't--they're still looking for quality content, and producing that content would be a wiser use of our time as opposed pointing fingers at each other.


Most of us aren't worried about All-Star bonuses. We're worried about our books getting hit by these people's bots/click farms when they attempt to muddy the waters around their rank manipulation and borrowing. A lot of innocent people have been penalized by losing 50% of their page reads, had account suspensions, and even their accounts banned because of this. We're worried about the category manipulation that makes it increasingly difficult for readers to find our books. We're worried about the top lists being filled with books that have gotten there by rank manipulation and incentivized borrowing rather than on their own merits, thus denying those positions of higher visibility to books that actually deserve to be there. We're worried about the lack of visibility in AMS ads due to them spending tens of thousands of dollars they didn't actually earn every month on those ads, driving the CPC prices to the stratosphere and making it impossible for own ads to show up.



> To my knowledge, there has been _one_ actual transgression by an author in the last month (as in, illegal or against posted platform guidelines) that likely lead to an account ban: an author used an illegal lottery as a means to manipulate their reviews.


Amazon has suspended or banned a whole slew of high profile accounts, including a number of top 100 authors, in the past few days. And those are just the high profile ones that we know about.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

About 200 people lost their accounts, from what I have heard. An awful lot of names are gone. 

I lost All Star bonuses big time. But more importantly, I and so many others lost visibility. Visibility is king, queen, and prince in this deal. I do not mind losing visibility to people who write more appealing books than I do. I resent losing to people who cheat.


----------



## Dpock

SalaciousStories said:


> Some folks seem to think that readers are lonely, misguided morons. They aren't--they're still looking for quality content


Speaking broadly, a fair share of the market couldn't care less about quality content.

In theory, a Svengali-like author with no moral center and savvy marketing skills who recognized this spectrum of the market could make a killing. This isn't a crime or breach of Amazon's TOS. There are plenty of "indies" pursuing the low-end of the market, and many of them use unsavory though legal marketing techniques (because they work). They only became a problem for the general indie population when they "legally" exploited Amazon's opaque TOS regarding bonus content.

I enjoy pointing a finger as much as the next guy, but the issue has never been about "character". It's always been about Zon's vague terms regarding bonus content. Though a little more fine-tuning is required, the new 10% ruling has delivered a serious challenge to stuffers, who are now testing the new boundaries in real time.

Several of those Twitter hashtags mentioned above are useful for following fresh developments. Here seems to be a good place to have opinions about them.

_Re your last paragraph, recommending hashtags you find helpful is fine, but please don't import controversies from Twitter, in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Thanks! - Becca
P.S. If "them" points at "developments," not "hashtags," never mind!  _


----------



## Lilpenguin1972

I've been keeping up with #getloud. Not voraciously, so I may have missed something. Most people posting, from what I have seen, are authors and readers calling out bookstuffers and scammers.

Anyway, [the bad stuff is] not happening here. At all. So probably shouldn't be brought up.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Hoop

You all seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that Amazon adds a "bonus" amount to the pot each month. An amount that is different, month to month.
Why do they do that?
TO MAKE THE PAYOUT THE EXACT AMOUNT THEY WANT IT TO BE.

Getting rid of all the people you consider to be "scammers" isn't going to suddenly boost your payout to .010 per page because their page reads are no longer in the pool.
You could remove EVERY KU author except for the #GetLoud crowd and guess what the payout would be?
WHATEVER AMAZON WANTS IT TO BE.

They have done extensive testing and experimenting to find out the exact range of payout that authors will accept without jumping ship in droves. They add a "bonus" to the pot to keep the payout in that exact range. Every few months they raise it a few tenths of a penny to make the fence-sitters decide to stick it out a little while longer. And then they bring it back down so they're not hemorrhaging as much money.

Accusing people of scamming, spreading rumors, thinking up new things to report people for, reporting accounts, and working diligently to get your competitors banned WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR PAYOUT because Amazon adjusts the monthly pot to make the payout exactly what they want it to be.

Your time is better spent writing another book and publishing it. And then another, and then another.
I see people posting this #GetLoud stuff full of speculation and accusation _all day long_ here on Kboards, and my thoughts invariably lead to "If they're actually publishing authors, how do they have so much time to spend on these sites? When do they actually, you know, _write books_?"
You might want to ask yourself that. After you remind yourself that removing a few million page reads from the KU "pool" will NOT make the per-page payout go up at all, because Amazon decides what the payout will be; the number of page reads does NOT determine what the payout will be.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## sela

Hoop said:


> You all seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that Amazon adds a "bonus" amount to the pot each month. An amount that is different, month to month.
> Why do they do that?
> TO MAKE THE PAYOUT THE EXACT AMOUNT THEY WANT IT TO BE.
> 
> Getting rid of all the people you consider to be "scammers" isn't going to suddenly boost your payout to .010 per page because their page reads are no longer in the pool.
> You could remove EVERY KU author except for the #GetLoud crowd and guess what the payout would be?
> WHATEVER AMAZON WANTS IT TO BE.
> 
> They have done extensive testing and experimenting to find out the exact range of payout that authors will accept without jumping ship in droves. They add a "bonus" to the pot to keep the payout in that exact range. Every few months they raise it a few tenths of a penny to make the fence-sitters decide to stick it out a little while longer. And then they bring it back down so they're not hemorrhaging as much money.
> 
> Accusing people of scamming, spreading rumors, thinking up new things to report people for, reporting accounts, and working diligently to get your competitors banned WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR PAYOUT because Amazon adjusts the monthly pot to make the payout exactly what they want it to be.
> 
> Your time is better spent writing another book and publishing it. And then another, and then another.
> I see people posting this #GetLoud stuff full of speculation and accusation _all day long_ here on Kboards, and my thoughts invariably lead to "If they're actually publishing authors, how do they have so much time to spend on these sites? When do they actually, you know, _write books_?"
> You might want to ask yourself that. After you remind yourself that removing a few million page reads from the KU "pool" will NOT make the per-page payout go up at all, because Amazon decides what the payout will be; the number of page reads does NOT determine what the payout will be.
> 
> _Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


The vast majority of indies following this issue are not spending all their time posting about it. We are writing our books. I have a book at my editors, I'm revising another book right now, and I have a book in the queue waiting for me to get to finish, and I have a book in the planning stage. So I'm sure most of us _are_ writing. I peek in to see what's being discussed in my down time.

We're concerned because this is our livelihood and this is our community. Of course we care if there are people scamming and cheating. We care if their cheating is distorting the Amazon bestsellers lists through botting, stuffing, fraudulent page reads, purchased/manipulated reviews, etc. just the way people care should care about the unethical behaviour in their workplaces and communities.

Some people may be over-invested in this issue but their behavior does not negate the valid concern the rest of us have for our community and the health of our industry.

Yes, KU will be however Amazon wants it to be. We just want the competition to be fair and the bestsellers lists to reflect the books that readers most want to buy/borrow and read and not those books whose publishers are best able to manipulate the KU system and scam the most money.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## ShayneRutherford

Jack Krenneck said:


> This is so right. Most of the suggestions in this thread harm legitimate authors. It's easy to say get rid of boxed sets, or longer works, or bonuses or to lower the page cap if these things don't hurt you. But it will hurt other authors.
> 
> The only solution that will work is to keep an unrelenting focus on the scammers.


But boxed sets with content that's also available as single titles shouldn't be allowed in KU anyway. I've already seen a way that scammers can incentivize tons of borrows from people who've already read the other books and get them to skip through much of the content. People doing that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed to profit from skeevey practices at the expense of others, but they are. So either way, someone is getting hurt.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Crime fighters said:


> The environment that has been created stifles the visibility of legitimate authors. This is done by pushing other books off lists, spending unholy amounts on ads (that they can only afford to do because of the high page count that results in astronomical income), raising the costs for authors who simply can't compete.


Does it though? Aside from the costs of AMS/Facebook advertising, which I agree are much higher than years past (and these days only arguably useful in the first place), I haven't noticed any major disadvantages to new authors. Everyone starts from the same place--it's not like any one of us immediately found success when we walked in the door (and the majority never find it at all). Even if we were lucky, it required learning, reinvestment, sacrifices, etc. The door for new authors is just as open as it ever was and the readership just as hungry.



Crime fighters said:


> I know that in the last week, my ads have dropped to very reasonable levels. It's speculation to say it's because of the hammer of Amazon, but there is correlation there.


Yep, advertising costs are definitely down at the moment. Could be due to the recent account suspensions, could be a result of summer just usually being a little more lean for advertising expenses in favor of the more lucrative ROI in the fall and summer months.


----------



## Becca Mills

KelliWolfe said:


> And the worst part is that Amazon has known exactly what was going on from the beginning - because quite a lot of people with access to Amazon reps and management provided them evidence documenting it - and they did precisely nothing about it. Instead they cut innocent indie writers' page reads by 50%, threatened them, banned their accounts, rank-stripped them, and yanked their reviews. All while giving these people All Stars bonuses month after month after month. There are some choice names for _that_, too. But I'll forbear so Becca doesn't have to snip.


snipsnipsnip 










On a more serious note, there's a rhetorical turn I think tends to happen when moderators here step in to limit name-calling and so forth. It goes something like this:

Moderator: Hey, you can't call these authors "weasels."*
Other Members: You're suppressing our speech in a way that keeps us from uncovering essential truths.
*_Chosen because I don't think anyone actually has called them "weasels," and I'm not trying to call out any particular poster, here. Imaginatively fill in your edited-out epithet of choice, if you like._

But labeling the this group of authors "weasels" doesn't give us any new facts, or offer an explanation for a process we don't understand, or attempt to predict what might happen next, or suggest a protective measure we could take, or do anything else that actually moves the ball of understanding/assistance forward.

Portraying a basic requirement of civil discourse, such as not calling people "weasels," as a oppressive act that destroys the forum's ability to collectively uncover truth is not convincing to me. All the stuff that makes you think someone is a "weasel"? You can talk about that stuff and why you think such behavior is wrong. The measures Amazon should/should not take to end those activities or lessen their impact? You can talk about those. Actions we can take as authors to better navigate this difficult sales environment? No problem -- go to town. Warning signs that could help people identify authors it might be better not to collaborate with? Go ahead and lay 'em out. The algorithms Amazon may be using to identify problems? Let's reverse-engineer them. Genres that might be targeted in the future, and why? Brainstorm away! And so much more. The list of things that _can _be talked about is vast and substantive.

Our calls for civil conversation are about mode and manner, not substance: don't call people rude names, no matter how much you hate them; be satisfied with knocking someone down instead of doing that and then grinding them into dust as well; don't employ a tone of cutting sarcasm, aggression, ridicule, etc.; don't use profanity; etc. These prohibitions focus mostly on the way things are said rather than on the substance. If your positions are well founded, their substance should be enough to get the rest of us to share your view of things.

TLR: With just a few exceptions, you can find a way to convey anything in a way that meets the requirements of our Forum Decorum.


----------



## SalaciousStories

KelliWolfe said:


> Actually, what the scammers in question have been doing has been well-documented for close to two years by people like David Gaughran.


Yes, I've seen some of the "documentation" in question, which is almost entirely based on speculation. Verifiable facts matter. Regardless of what has been happening for two years, what those who are using bonus books have been doing has been fine with Amazon for 23 months of that period. There are definitely bad actors out there who are using click farms to read books, and those click farms are reading legitimate books (even those containing bonus material) to mask themselves.



KelliWolfe said:


> It isn't opinion, it isn't speculation. It's documented fact.


I must have missed those entries. In terms of verified bad behavior from any of the accounts that I've seen, the only instance that is verifiable is the one I mentioned before: the illegal lottery and the review manipulation. All others are based on questionable evidence, hearsay, or opinion.



KelliWolfe said:


> Several people including myself have listed the things that they have been caught doing. They engaged in a large number of activities that are all in violation of the KDP and KU TOS, the documentation is posted on numerous websites by the various people who found it, and it has been provided to Amazon many, many times by a lot of different people.


Just to be clear, no one has been "caught" doing anything aside from the instance previously mentioned. Much of what I _have_ seen has been based on nonsense fearmongering, ignorance about how page-read technology works, Amazon's monitoring abilities, opinions about Amazon's guidelines, opinions about author publishing tactics, etc.



KelliWolfe said:


> Most of us aren't worried about All-Star bonuses. We're worried about our books getting hit by these people's bots/click farms when they attempt to muddy the waters around their rank manipulation and borrowing. A lot of innocent people have been penalized by losing 50% of their page reads, had account suspensions, and even their accounts banned because of this. We're worried about the category manipulation that makes it increasingly difficult for readers to find our books.


Those are legitimate concerns. The issue is that authors who are offering bonus books (which seems to be the major rallying cry/complaint behind #getloud) aren't necessarily _engaging_ in those practices, and _actual_ scam books that I _have_ seen are nowhere near the top 100 (or anywhere close). They're almost entirely gibberish--they'd fool exactly no one. Innocent authors are definitely being affected by click farms as they attempt to camouflage themselves, and innocent authors are _also_ being affected by the subsequent witch hunt by other authors. _Both_ are tragic and unfortunate, but the latter could have been avoided.



KelliWolfe said:


> We're worried about the top lists being filled with books that have gotten there by rank manipulation and incentivized borrowing rather than on their own merits, thus denying those positions of higher visibility to books that actually deserve to be there.


And how does one verify that these books deserve to be there or not? I assume that someone is looking at actual borrow and sales numbers before making a determination like that? Also, what is incentivized borrowing? How would that even work? Also, who makes the determination of which books are more "deserving" to take their place? And what is _that_ based on exactly?



KelliWolfe said:


> We're worried about the lack of visibility in AMS ads due to them spending tens of thousands of dollars they didn't actually earn every month on those ads, driving the CPC prices to the stratosphere and making it impossible for own ads to show up.


I doubt very seriously that books written specifically for clickfarms would be using AMS ads. The whole idea of those books is that they stay hidden. So I assume what you're talking about is books that contain bonus content, and I don't understand how they would be spending money they didn't actually earn (assuming that they're following Amazon's current guidelines), and I don't understand how anyone would get information about a specific ad spend without being able to see the account of the author in question. Ads _do_ seem to be less expensive as of late, which _could_ be a result of Amazon enforcement actions, or it could be a result of the summer just usually being slower in terms of ad spending overall.



> Amazon has suspended or banned a whole slew of high profile accounts, including a number of top 100 authors, in the past few days. And those are just the high profile ones that we know about.


Yep, although it's more fair to say that several _pen names_ have been removed. It's hard to say how many total KDP accounts are affected, but I have certainly seen a pile of speculation on the subject.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Jack Krenneck

ShayneRutherford said:


> But boxed sets with content that's also available as single titles shouldn't be allowed in KU anyway. I've already seen a way that scammers can incentivize tons of borrows from people who've already read the other books and get them to skip through much of the content. People doing that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed to profit from skeevey practices at the expense of others, but they are. So either way, someone is getting hurt.


Readers love boxed sets, whether to buy or borrow. For that reason Amazon loves them too -- and given that they run the show...boxed sets likely aren't going anywhere.

You suggest that boxed sets should go because scammers _may _use them. If you read upthread, you'll see posts where scammers have apparently experimented with boxed sets but discarded them because it didn't work.

Most of all, _scammers _are the problem rather than legitimate authors. Solutions will involve directly targeting them (as Amazon seems to be doing quite well at the moment) and not burning legitimate authors with an untargeted scorched earth policy.


----------



## ShayneRutherford

Jack Krenneck said:


> Readers love boxed sets, whether to buy or borrow. For that reason Amazon loves them too -- and given that they run the show...boxed sets likely aren't going anywhere.
> 
> You suggest that boxed sets should go because scammers _may _use them. If you read upthread, you'll see posts where scammers have apparently experimented with boxed sets but discarded them because it didn't work.
> 
> Most of all, _scammers _are the problem rather than legitimate authors. Solutions will involve directly targeting them (as Amazon seems to be doing quite well at the moment) and not burning legitimate authors with an untargeted scorched earth policy.


I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with boxed sets, or that the should go anywhere. But I do think that if the singles are in KU then the boxed set shouldn't be, in order to avoid double dipping on page reads.


----------



## DaniO

Hoop said:


> You all seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that Amazon adds a "bonus" amount to the pot each month. An amount that is different, month to month.
> Why do they do that?
> TO MAKE THE PAYOUT THE EXACT AMOUNT THEY WANT IT TO BE.
> 
> Getting rid of all the people you consider to be "scammers" isn't going to suddenly boost your payout to .010 per page because their page reads are no longer in the pool.
> You could remove EVERY KU author except for the #GetLoud crowd and guess what the payout would be?
> WHATEVER AMAZON WANTS IT TO BE.
> 
> They have done extensive testing and experimenting to find out the exact range of payout that authors will accept without jumping ship in droves. They add a "bonus" to the pot to keep the payout in that exact range. Every few months they raise it a few tenths of a penny to make the fence-sitters decide to stick it out a little while longer. And then they bring it back down so they're not hemorrhaging as much money.
> 
> Accusing people of scamming, spreading rumors, thinking up new things to report people for, reporting accounts, and working diligently to get your competitors banned WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR PAYOUT because Amazon adjusts the monthly pot to make the payout exactly what they want it to be.
> 
> Your time is better spent writing another book and publishing it. And then another, and then another.
> I see people posting this #GetLoud stuff full of speculation and accusation _all day long_ on Kboards, and my thoughts invariably lead to "If they're actually publishing authors, how do they have so much time to spend on these sites? When do they actually, you know, _write books_?"
> You might want to ask yourself that. After you remind yourself that removing a few million page reads from the KU "pool" will NOT make the per-page payout go up at all, because Amazon decides what the payout will be; the number of page reads does NOT determine what the payout will be.
> 
> _Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


No one seems to be ignoring that to me. People are talking about visibility, the cost of ads and KU bonuses. I think most people in this thread would agree you're likely correct to assume the page read amount won't change.

One of the non-romance authors caught up in this says his account was terminated and he is no longer allowed to publish on the platform. He also said they haven't told him why. He publishes in LitRPG and UF.

If that's true, that's scary. I absolutely want the people gaming the system to be stopped, but I don't like the idea of Amazon banning accounts without stating a reason.

Dpock I don't think this thread needs to be another thread that debates what's quality content. I'm sure I've read millions of threads like that. (Maybe a slight exaggeration but I'd really like this thread to stay open).

Edited to remove weird symbols.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Atlantisatheart

There are click farms and then there are click farms. We've already seen evidence of that PA telling fans how to flick through to the back of a mega-book to help the author out, so yeah, click farm, but with real readers doing the dirty work. 

Quality material? What readers want to read and not what they are incentivized to click through. I love the argument that readers want to read the same book over and over again just because it's there - no, we might be authors, but we're readers first and foremost, and I can count on one hand the books I would re-read.

PPP going up? That would be nice, but that isn't what any of this is about. It's already been stated and answered on the thread multiple times. Amazon are cheap, we get it. Move on already.

Do the scammers have real fans? Obviously, they got them to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them - but the question is, do the scammers have enough real readers to take them to the top and keep them sticky without manipulation and get the bonus payments without the stuffing, page flicking (as per the PA) dodgy competitions, and ad spend that they couldn't afford without cheating? I'll say no, but we will find out soon because there are still multiple authors left standing and we'll see where they are in a few months and what real readers want to read.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

C_Writes said:


> One of the non-romance authors caught up in this says his account was terminated and he is no longer allowed to publish on the platform. He also said they haven't told him why. He publishes in LitRPG and UF.


Part of the problem there is that the wolves are mingling with the sheep. Nobody is coming forward and saying "Drats! Foiled again by you meddling kids."

Everyone is proclaiming their innocence, meaning - once again - the bad players are hurting other legitimate authors and making it hard to tell who has done what or anything at all right now.

And Amazon is being very coy in their language. You're gone because of "KU manipulation", which could be any of a thousand things.

It really is a sad state for anyone accidentally caught up in this (or who maybe teamed with the wrong person for a promo), because if you're the one drowning man/woman in a sea full of people screaming the same thing at the lifeguard, how are you supposed to have any hope of rescue?


----------



## unkownwriter

> Most of the suggestions in this thread harm legitimate authors.


And the scamming doesn't? Oh, please. That argument has been posed and knocked down already. As has the one about us spending our time in more productive ways, not believing we'll suddenly get a bazillion dollars per page reads, readers love this stuff, and let's not call a spade a spade. I'm not swayed, and neither are most people here. Speaking of spending one's time more productively, why not stay away from this thread and do whatever it is you need to be doing, because lecturing me is a waste of _your_ time. (Collective you, not singling anyone out individually.)

_Edited with a warning: taunting the mod team will get you placed on post approval. I am not amused. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## 101569

Dpock said:


> Speaking broadly, a fair share of the market couldn't care less about quality content.


This very much bothers me. As a reader I would spend HOURS looking for quality content. All I could find were the stupid naked man chest books.

I think the fact that so many of the stuffed(naked man chest books) disappeared but were replaced with books by authors that write quality content speaks for itself. People want good books we just couldn't find them in the sea of stuffed garbage.


----------



## GeneDoucette

Becca Mills said:


> snipsnipsnip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a more serious note, there's a rhetorical turn I think tends to happen when moderators here step in to limit name-calling and so forth. It goes something like this:
> 
> Moderator: Hey, you can't call these authors "weasels."*
> Other Members: You're suppressing our speech in a way that keeps us from uncovering essential truths.
> *_Chosen because I don't think anyone actually has called them "weasels," and I'm not trying to call out any particular poster, here. Imaginatively fill in your edited-out epithet of choice, if you like._
> 
> But labeling the this group of authors "weasels" doesn't give us any new facts, or offer an explanation for a process we don't understand, or attempt to predict what might happen next, or suggest a protective measure we could take, or do anything else that actually moves the ball of understanding/assistance forward.
> 
> Portraying a basic requirement of civil discourse, such as not calling people "weasels," as a oppressive act that destroys the forum's ability to collectively uncover truth is not convincing to me. All the stuff that makes you think someone is a "weasel"? You can talk about that stuff and why you think such behavior is wrong. The measures Amazon should/should not take to end those activities or lessen their impact? You can talk about those. Actions we can take as authors to better navigate this difficult sales environment? No problem -- go to town. Warning signs that could help people identify authors it might be better not to collaborate with? Go ahead and lay 'em out. The algorithms Amazon may be using to identify problems? Let's reverse-engineer them. Genres that might be targeted in the future, and why? Brainstorm away! And so much more. The list of things that _can _be talked about is vast and substantive.
> 
> Our calls for civil conversation are about mode and manner, not substance: don't call people rude names, no matter how much you hate them; be satisfied with knocking someone down instead of doing that and then grinding them into dust as well; don't employ a tone of cutting sarcasm, aggression, ridicule, etc.; don't use profanity; etc. These prohibitions focus mostly on the way things are said rather than on the substance. If your positions are well founded, their substance should be enough to get the rest of us to share your view of things.
> 
> TLR: With just a few exceptions, you can find a way to convey anything in a way that meets the requirements of our Forum Decorum.


Becca--

I don't disagree with this, but I wanted to add that it has an impact in both directions.

We've seen this several times on this thread: someone comes in and says something along the lines of the following--

--i have seen horrible things on #getloud, you'll have to trust me because forum rules prevent me from linking to them but TRUST ME

--people may not be doing these things here, but there are people--I can't name them because of forum rules--egging them on. I can't link to this because of forum rules.

--those people KNOW WHO THEY ARE, which justifies my posting about it here, because while I can neither name them nor in any way prove what I'm saying is true because of forum rules TRUST ME IT'S TRUE.

We're allowing, in these posts, for the accuser to entirely dictate the definition of 'egging on', and the supposed 'horrible things' that 'unnamed people' are doing. With full transparency, we might see that what they call egging on is what we call valid calling out of black-hat behavior, and what they call horrible behavior is someone tweeting that they heard from someone else that somebody told them in a private facebook group that someone said they should kill themselves. And now the person who called out the black hat is somehow responsible for that, based on someone else's exceedingly lax standards of proof.

But we can't have that conversation, because the people posting things like this can hide behind the same forum rules that prevent someone like David from coming on here and posting detailed evidence.


----------



## PhoenixS

SalaciousStories said:


> Yes, I've seen some of the "documentation" in question, which is almost entirely based on speculation. Verifiable facts matter. Regardless of what has been happening for two years, what those who are using bonus books have been doing has been fine with Amazon for 23 months of that period. ...
> 
> I must have missed those entries. In terms of verified bad behavior from any of the accounts that I've seen, the only instance that is verifiable is the one I mentioned before: the illegal lottery and the review manipulation. All others are based on questionable evidence, hearsay, or opinion.
> 
> Just to be clear, no one has been "caught" doing anything aside from the instance previously mentioned. Much of what I _have_ seen has been based on nonsense fearmongering, ignorance about how page-read technology works, Amazon's monitoring abilities, opinions about Amazon's guidelines, opinions about author publishing tactics, etc.
> ...
> And how does one verify that these books deserve to be there or not? I assume that someone is looking at actual borrow and sales numbers before making a determination like that? Also, what is incentivized borrowing? How would that even work? ...
> 
> I doubt very seriously that books written specifically for clickfarms would be using AMS ads. The whole idea of those books is that they stay hidden. ...
> 
> _Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


I respect the fact that you personally may not be able to see how the scams work. Maybe you've been taking your own advice and have kept your head down focusing on your own writing and your own business, so you truly have no idea about what's going on.

However, please do not dismiss that others might actually have in-hand evidence about the practices we're calling out. We have screenshots, we have newsletters, we have moles in groups reporting out (with screenshots).

How do scammers incentivize borrows? By offering multiple high-dollar prizes in private FB groups with 1000s of 'readers' with KU accounts who have been lured there with the promise of easy prizes, then requiring entry in the form of (early on) a single screenshot of the last page of the title borrow or (later on) a screenshot of an image buried in the middle of a title plus another of a second image buried near the back. Just think: 1000 people (out of the 2-3K in the group) paging through a 3000-page box set or stuffed compilation returns $12-13,000. Offer 20 $100 gift cards, totalling $2000, and you're $10-11,000 to the good, plus those 1000 borrows alone catapult your title to the Top 100. Without a single person needed to even actually read the book. Which has generally launched with 150-200 incentivized 5-star reviews.

Many of these people are using many different tactics, not just botting, which Amazon is actually getting a fairly good handle on. Bots and 3rd-world clickfarms are old school. Still in use, but no longer exclusively what the cool kids are using. The scamming landscape is an evolving one. Looking up from our writing every once in a while helps us keep up with the changing face of our business.

Is there evidence of all the tactics being called out? Of course. Has it all been shared publicly? I can say I have shared exactly one screenshot publicly myself (which I directed specifically to the person in question so they would know evidence existed around a particular tactic that had been shared with KDP) ... while I have dozens of my own plus access to 100s more that others have shared with me. Has the evidence been turned over to KDP? Of course.

Were these things not against KDP rules 1 year ago or 2 years or however many? Of course they were.

When KDP finally began enforcing its rule that a book in KU had to be published exclusively by the account publishing it, and cracked down on box sets violating that rule, that rule had been in the terms for at least 2 years, according to the Wayback Machine. But when KDP decided to act, it was a sweep and purge.

Is everyone who's calling out and reporting being diligent? No. Are some folk stating opinions only? Yes.

Are the majority of folk acting on facts and evidence? Yes.

Is KDP acting on provided evidence plus whatever historical evidence they have archived on us all? Yes.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere

The entire population of the sponsored products on my books changed overnight after the day the Mastermind group’s books went down. Literally overnight. All gone. If you sell well in Contempoarary Romance, the removal of these folks is a major change, and you are probably well advised to pay attention to the landscape of your product pages and react to it, because there is finally some opportunity out there. It is up there in importance with writing the next book. Fortunately, many of us can do more than one thing in a day. . (Though barely, in my case.)

And a big huge thank you to David and Phoenix, who spent two years collecting their evidence and did not give up at the third, fourth, or twentieth yawn from Amazon. Nevertheless, they persisted. My involvement has been only a few calls and emails with my KDP rep to express my concern. 

And yes, I have seen a lot of those screenshots myself, and have heard from people in those groups. The stuff was not that well hidden.


----------



## Not any more

Usedtoposthere said:


> And yes, I have seen a lot of those screenshots myself, and have heard from people in those groups. The stuff was not that well hidden.


If you don't brag about how you filled your swimming pool with dollars, it's hard to find new disciples who will pay you for the "secret sauce". The thing about the people involved with these shady practices is they truly don't expect the gold mine to last. Selling their "secrets to success" is just one more way to make hay while the sun shines. And many of the newbies that pay for their "wisdom" don't know any better. So when hundreds or thousands are engaged in a shady practice, it tends to take on an air of "it's okay. Amazon doesn't stop it." Which helps to disguise the full-blown robber baron actions by the top offenders. And I guess when your mind works that way, they seem to be flexible enough to adapt to whatever half-measures Amazon takes to curtail their activities.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

brkingsolver said:


> And many of the newbies that pay for their "wisdom" don't know any better. So when hundreds or thousands are engaged in a shady practice, it tends to take on an air of "it's okay. Amazon doesn't stop it." Which helps to disguise the full-blown robber baron actions by the top offenders. And I guess when your mind works that way, they seem to be flexible enough to adapt to whatever half-measures Amazon takes to curtail their activities.


This is why it's so important to continue to hammer the point home - especially to the newbs - that you're a business owner now. Amateur hour is over. Learn the law, the rules, and TOS. And be mindful of whose advice you take, where you spend your marketing dollars, and who you ultimately get in bed with. If your gut is telling you something feels hinky, then dig deeper before you act on any of it.


----------



## SalaciousStories

PhoenixS said:


> I respect the fact that you personally may not be able to see how the scams work. Maybe you've been taking your own advice and have kept your head down focusing on your own writing and your own business, so you truly have no idea about what's going on.


Actual work does take precedence, but I'm active in other communities and make it a point to educate myself before I jump into a conversation. Suffice to say, I've seen what both sides have to offer.



PhoenixS said:


> However, please do not dismiss that others might actually have in-hand evidence about the practices we're calling out. We have screenshots, we have newsletters, we have moles in groups reporting out (with screenshots).


I've seen quite a bit of it. Let's just say that I find that most of it leaves a _lot_ to be desired when it comes to provably demonstrating _anything_. It seems more like that its purpose is to reinforce positions that folks already have.



PhoenixS said:


> How do scammers incentivize borrows? By offering multiple high-dollar prizes in private FB groups with 1000s of 'readers' with KU accounts who have been lured there with the promise of easy prizes, then requiring entry in the form of (early on) a single screenshot of the last page of the title borrow or (later on) a screenshot of an image buried in the middle of a title plus another of a second image buried near the back. Just think: 1000 people (out of the 2-3K in the group) paging through a 3000-page box set or stuffed compilation returns $12-13,000. Offer 20 $100 gift cards, totalling $2000, and you're $10-11,000 to the good, plus those 1000 borrows alone catapult your title to the Top 100. Without a single person needed to even actually read the book. Which has generally launched with 150-200 incentivized 5-star reviews.


I've seen and heard reports of similar things over the years, and they almost always amount to nothing, except when the account suddenly vanishes one day because Amazon busts them for rank manipulation. Amazon's abilities to track, process, and red-flag data improve every day, because they usually break everything else on the site when they tweak it. So while I agree that the practice you're talking about is pretty grimy, the subset of people taking advantage of it (and their overall effect) is minuscule, and the data "exposed" by the cloak-and-dagger crowd almost entirely speculative. The vast majority of the common complaints I've seen around this angle are that _everyone_ who includes bonus material must somehow, some way be involved with rank manipulation (and/or must be some type of scammer), which just isn't the case.



PhoenixS said:


> Many of these people are using many different tactics, not just botting, which Amazon is actually getting a fairly good handle on. Bots and 3rd-world clickfarms are old school. Still in use, but no longer exclusively what the cool kids are using. The scamming landscape is an evolving one. Looking up from our writing every once in a while helps us keep up with the changing face of our business.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


As long as there are systems, there will be those who nefariously subvert those systems in novel ways. But there will _also_ be those who position themselves to use the system as-is to their best advantage (which frankly, is good business). One does not equal the other, and creating/supporting that false equivalency is as unethical as anything the actual scam artists are doing. You and I can personally disagree with the tactics used by the "best advantage" crowd, but in their case it is the _system itself_ that is the problem (in this case Amazon), not the individual(s).



PhoenixS said:


> Is there evidence of all the tactics being called out? Of course. Has it all been shared publicly? I can say I have shared exactly one screenshot publicly myself (which I directed specifically to the person in question so they would know evidence existed around a particular tactic that had been shared with KDP) ... while I have dozens of my own plus access to 100s more that others have shared with me. Has the evidence been turned over to KDP? Of course.


I would make the argument that Amazon is able to police their own platform when it suits them to do so, but it remains an imperfect platform. Scam artists are the _least_ unfair thing about it, and yet seem to be the thing receiving the most attention. It's a shame that the focus of all of the saber-rattling is so narrow and that all of the finger-pointing and name-calling in the community isn't going to breed a strong enough union to positively change things in a lasting way for anyone.



PhoenixS said:


> Were these things not against KDP rules 1 year ago or 2 years or however many? Of course they were.


Just to be clear, you're talking about rank manipulation specifically? Bonus content in any amount up to the KENPC limit was fine up until a month ago, and continues to be if properly labeled. (And just for the record, I don't personally like it, but I'm also not going to call someone a "scammer" if they choose to do it--it's the system that is broken, after all).



PhoenixS said:


> When KDP finally began enforcing its rule that a book in KU had to be published exclusively by the account publishing it, and cracked down on box sets violating that rule, that rule had been in the terms for at least 2 years, according to the Wayback Machine. But when KDP decided to act, it was a sweep and purge.


You mean those who were enrolling books in KU and then publishing collections containing those books on other platforms? If so, then yep, and it's an ongoing thing, thankfully.



PhoenixS said:


> Are the majority of folk acting on facts and evidence? Yes.


Based on what I have seen, aside from a couple of very specific instances, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I've seen many authors lumped in with the "scammer" crowd who don't belong (or at least who don't belong based on available evidence against them). Could be that I'm missing something, but even though I'm a cynical cuss, I do attempt to give people the benefit of the doubt. One of my biggest problems with the whole thing is those times when someone _is_ roped in on shaky evidence, there's no attempt at pushback from anyone involved. It just becomes more chum in the water. _How_ the scam artists among us are identified, and the ethics involved in the process, is more important than them being identified in the first place.



PhoenixS said:


> Is KDP acting on provided evidence plus whatever historical evidence they have archived on us all? Yes.


If I were a betting man (and I am), I would go all-in that they care a lot less about our evidence than their own.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

As a betting woman (on my books), or call it an investing woman, I've found that what matters most is figuring out whom to believe. Who's credible. Who's levelheaded. I've been doing this gig, and doing very well at it, for six years in September, and Phoenix Sullivan is a voice I'll always listen to. More importantly, the legit, NYT-bestselling authors of my acquaintance in the tier above me respect her just as much. 

Considering that, as I said, my ENTIRE list of sponsored products was replaced overnight on 26 books and four boxed sets, and that the (large) group busted was the group David and Phoenix were pointing out to Amazon, I'd call that one more pretty good piece of evidence. Others can believe what they want, but as somewhat of a veteran at this biz--know who's credible. Know the names they're publishing under. Know how their books do. Know their history of calling the shots correctly or otherwise. When you've found those people, listen to them.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Dpock said:


> Speaking broadly, a fair share of the market couldn't care less about quality content.


I don't find that to be the case. I mean, I wish they'd like _my_ quality content _more_, but I can't exactly blame 'em for liking what they like either, but I don't think that readers want garbage. Trashy, sure! But not garbage.



Dpock said:


> In theory, a Svengali-like author with no moral center and savvy marketing skills who recognized this spectrum of the market could make a killing. This isn't a crime or breach of Amazon's TOS. There are plenty of "indies" pursuing the low-end of the market, and many of them use unsavory though legal marketing techniques (because they work). They only became a problem for the general indie population when they "legally" exploited Amazon's opaque TOS regarding bonus content.


In theory, _anything's possible._ 



Dpock said:


> I enjoy pointing a finger as much as the next guy, but the issue has never been about "character". It's always been about Zon's vague terms regarding bonus content. Though a little more fine-tuning is required, the new 10% ruling has delivered a serious challenge to stuffers, who are now testing the new boundaries in real time.


Just to be clear, the terms aren't particularly vague. 10% of a book can be bonus content unless labeled as a collection. I personally don't like it and don't do it, but I'm not going to go around using words like "stuffer" or "scammer" just because someone takes an advantage that I won't.

I totally agree about the fine-tuning and suspect that some of the recent account suspensions are basically Amazon pulling books and telling people to explain themselves. Ideally, box sets/collections wouldn't be allowed in KU at all, but with all of the community division lately, it seems unlikely to me that such common-sense changes will be the rallying cry for unification and targeted lobbying. Better to target a handful of relatively meaningless bad actors, he grumbled.



Dpock said:


> Several of those Twitter hashtags mentioned above are useful for following fresh developments. Here seems to be a good place to have opinions about them.


Heck yeah! And who doesn't love rigorous debate?


----------



## Usedtoposthere

RPatton said:


> Sal's been doing this for a lot of years. And though we might not always agree, he's probably one of the more ethical publishers I know.
> 
> What he's trying to point out. And it's a fair observation, is that blind faith is never good. It's okay to question the entirity of someone's argument or just a few points, but no one should think that they can say the words, "This is what I know, so you you just have to trust me" and expect everyone to trust them. That's just not going to happen.
> 
> Since all this happened, I have seen things posted by the GetLoud group (and some of the people who are raised as heroes in this thread have posted them) that were heavily edited, meaning it wasn't the original conversation or content, but had been manipulated to confirm the narrative. Knowing through my own personal experience that manipulated items were being touted as evidence, all evidence has been tainted in my eyes. So, yes, I will think critically about things and that includes the amount of influence any one publisher has with KDP.
> 
> That all said, I have the utmost respect for Phoenix and I am more than likely to trust her than to not. But some of what has been touted in this thread goes both ways. If you hang around with people who do bad acts, regardless of the intention, the less credible you become. The more someone someone unconditionally defends someone or idea, the less credible they become. So when Phoenix says she has files of evidence, i don't doubt that, but I do question the context of the evidence and how much of it is completely objective and not shaped to fit a narrative.
> 
> _Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


I guess we all make choices, and live with them. My advice wasn't as much for that poster as it was for new folks starting out. Know who you're listening to. Know their history. Know the people they associate with. Be CAREFUL, because it's your account that's at risk.

I'm not on Twitter much and haven't seen any of the conversation there. Personally, I'll keep doing my thing and reacting to the market and the rules as they are, coloring within the lines, telling Amazon when I get too disgusted with the way folks are flouting the TOS. I've found, as much as Amazon has changed stuff over the years, that I'm not as affected as I might be, because I didn't try to take advantage of the temporary opportunity that came before. Hopefully this will be similar. I am wholeheartedly glad that people I consider black hats have been at least temporarily slapped back, but am under no illusions that they, or somebody similar, won't pop up again. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy the added visibility and make decisions in light of it, while it lasts.

ETA: My guess is that if you're not actually in Contemporary Romance or New Adult Romance, you haven't been nearly as aware of what's been going on, because until recently, it was confined to our genre. But for people in those genres, those folks have been a tidal wave. A train wreck for the genre and its readers. It's so great to see real, long-term author names in my Sponsored Products now--books that my own readership would pick up instead of "not in a million years" books that they are not buying. My Sponsored Products, in other words, now look much more like my alsobots. Surely, that should be how it works.


----------



## BGArcher

Basically, it would do a lot of people good to listen to Gary Vanerychuck about building business and worry less worry about a group of grey hat marketers that were busted. I imagine he'd have a lot of words (half of them would be colorful cursing) about where people's focus would be. One of his basic thesis is that as soon as you start to really focus on what others are doing you've already lost. Now, before people jump on me about telling people to mind their own business, but i'm not. i'm simply saying the mob mentality is something to watch for.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere

None of the people telling us not to worry our pretty heads about what black hat marketers have been doing are in romance, I notice. Easy for you to say. It's not your income. It's not your bonus. It's not your genre. It also probably wouldn't matter much if your books were ranked in the millions. If you made $100 on your books and now you're making $50. What if you were making $10K and now you're making $3K thanks to loss of visibility and ad space? Or $60K, and now you're making $20K? You tend to notice. It tends to have an effect. Or having to switch genres, because you can't get visibility in the genre you love? That has happened to a number of romance authors since this group took over and expanded.

I love the romance genre. It has hurt to see it so polluted. I'm not writing to anybody at this point, because those folks are, thankfully, gone. But once the next group starts up (because romance is a voracious genre and KU is too easy to game), I'll be writing to KDP again and pointing it out, yeah. Because I, too, have a family and a house and a lifestyle I have built by writing good books and presenting them well, and I'm damned if I'll let everything [be taken] from me without a fight.

And as others have said--this isn't Twitter. I don't know why people would be calling folks out for what other folks said on Twitter. 
_(^^ Exactly -- WHOA in a nutshell. - Becca)_

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## KelliWolfe

According to Amazon's TOS, there is a 30% revision/new content requirement before a book is considered differentiated enough to be considered a new book and given a new ASIN. This is common knowledge in both the erotica and erom communities, where it is done regularly.The mirrors being published by the authors in question using the simple search-and-replace for names and body parts did not meet this criteria. I have done mirrors myself and I know that they often require substantial revision because you can't just blindly substitute M/M and F/F for M/F. But that's not what these people were doing, and the readers roasted them for it in the reviews. It was simply another ploy to get the same content into Kindle Unlimited multiple times, as they were doing with the stuffing.

These are not "gray hat" marketers. They deliberately published the same content into KU multiple times, attempting to hide it by mirroring under different pen names and stuffing. They included works in their stuffed books which were available through other sales channels. They manipulated ARC reviews. They manipulated reads and borrows by incentivizing readers with giveaways. Etc., etc., etc. People like David Gaughran have been documenting the scammers' actions on their blogs for going on two years now. Just because you haven't bothered to look for it doesn't mean that the evidence isn't out there.

_Edited. Quote was deleted in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## BGArcher

Usedtoposthere said:


> None of the people telling us not to worry our pretty heads about what black hat marketers have been doing are in romance, I notice. Easy for you to say. It's not your income. It's not your bonus. It's not your genre. Yeah, it probably doesn't matter as much if your books are ranked in the millions. If you made $100 on your books and now you're making $50. What if you were making $10K and now you're making $3K thanks to loss of visibility and ad space? Or $60K, and now you're making $20K? You tend to notice. It tends to have an effect. Or having to switch genres, because you can't get visibility in the genre you love? That has happened to a number of romance authors since this group took over and expanded.
> 
> I love the romance genre. It has hurt to see it so polluted. I'm not writing to anybody at this point, because those folks are, thankfully, gone. But once the next group starts up (because romance is a voracious genre and KU is too easy to game), I'll be writing to KDP again and pointing it out, yeah. Because I, too, have a family and a house and a lifestyle I have built by writing good books and presenting them well, and I'm damned if I'll let everything [be taken] from me without a fight.
> 
> And as others have said--this isn't Twitter. I don't know why people would be calling folks out for what other folks said on Twitter.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


A ton of wrong assumptions in here. Like that I don't write in romance.

_Quote and post edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## PhoenixS

SalaciousStories said:


> Just to be clear, you're talking about rank manipulation specifically? Bonus content in any amount up to the KENPC limit was fine up until a month ago, and continues to be if properly labeled. (And just for the record, I don't personally like it, but I'm also not going to call someone a "scammer" if they choose to do it--it's the system that is broken, after all).


Bonus content has always been allowed. Stuffed content has not. I'm not going to rehash this debate as there are pages and pages on it on this board already.



> You mean those who were enrolling books in KU and then publishing collections containing those books on other platforms? If so, then yep, and it's an ongoing thing, thankfully.


Not at all what I was referencing. I'm talking about the multi-author box sets where an author has their single title in KU under their own publishing account, and then that same single title in a box set in KU under another publisher's account.



> If I were a betting man (and I am), I would go all-in that they care a lot less about our evidence than their own.


If that's the case, then it should be clear that the people being reported don't have anything to worry about if Amazon is the first, last, and only arbiter. Whether or not you saw the evidence against all the other publishers whose accounts have been closed other than Chance's, Amazon must have racked up enough evidence on their own to shut them down. And it's just coincidence they were the same names we've had evidence against as well, and that the shutdowns occurred at the same time as a groundswell of publicity and public outcry over the infringers.

Although, yes, others beyond those who've been reported have been shut down too. Because Amazon can see connections beyond what we can see -- when they care to look.

I am strongly against folk calling others out on speculation only. I pretty much stay off of Twitter, so I'm not as versed as what's going on in that arena.

In any case, folk are absolutely free to agree or disagree with me. I can be wrong too. But I'm quite careful about what evidence I have in hand before calling anyone out. And I actually call very few folk out publicly, save for the especially egregious bad actors or those I'm in the same room with who are trying to convince others their hands are spotless. Or the occasional public post -- usually on David G's blog since I have no platform of my own -- about scamming practices in general. Otherwise, my correspondence is typically direct with Amazon. Because I'm not in this for public approval, and in the end, Amazon's eyes and ears are the only ones that really matter.


----------



## SalaciousStories

PhoenixS said:


> Bonus content has always been allowed. Stuffed content has not. I'm not going to rehash this debate as there are pages and pages on it on this board already.


I'm not sure what the debate even _is_ since the former is mentioned in Amazon guidelines as being fine (with associated limits and caveats) and the latter is a matter of personal opinion and isn't relevant.



PhoenixS said:


> Not at all what I was referencing. I'm talking about the multi-author box sets where an author has their single title in KU under their own publishing account, and then that same single title in a box set in KU under another publisher's account.


According to Amazon's current guidelines, assuming that the books in the boxset were licensed properly, the box set is appropriately labeled, and all of the books are exclusive to Amazon, it'd be fine, the same way it'd be fine for an author to publish a collection of their _own_ works for inclusion in KU. I would _love_ for KU to disallow box sets all together, but as it stands, I'm not sure why it bears mentioning.



PhoenixS said:


> If that's the case, then it should be clear that the people being reported don't have anything to worry about if Amazon is the first, last, and only arbiter. Whether or not you saw the evidence against all the other publishers whose accounts have been closed other than Chance's, Amazon must have racked up enough evidence on their own to shut them down. And it's just coincidence they were the same names we've had evidence against as well, and that the shutdowns occurred at the same time as a groundswell of publicity and public outcry over the infringers.


To my knowledge, Chance has been the only account termination, and he was terminated because of the illegal lottery he was running. It's my understanding that a handful of others have been suspended pending investigation which may or may not be related, which means they might be back or they might not. If they're actually _guilty_ of something, I won't lose any sleep. My entire point is that "evidence" gathered based on opinion and speculation and not facts, that which is itself a conflict of interest, and that which does not infringe on Amazon's guidelines as written is immediately suspect, so I would hope that the due diligence was taken to remove bias. Otherwise, those offering it are ethically the same as the scam artists they're attempting to combat. It's the flip side of the same "ends justify the means" logic that scammers themselves use to justify their _own_ behavior.

The integrity of the "evidence" being gathered in unrelated cases is dubious at best. Misinformation is rampant. And yet there is no corrective action, no distancing language, no return to "response" from "reaction". It's extremely troubling to see, will have lasting ramifications, and I'm afraid will be the only legacy that anyone remembers. And the cost of it all? A handful of accounts that'll be replaced with other, similar accounts in a matter of weeks or months.



PhoenixS said:


> In any case, folk are absolutely free to agree or disagree with me. I can be wrong too. But I'm quite careful about what evidence I have in hand before calling anyone out. And I actually call very few folk out publicly, save for the especially egregious bad actors or those I'm in the same room with who are trying to convince others their hands are spotless. Or the occasional public post -- usually on David G's blog since I have no platform of my own -- about scamming practices in general. Otherwise, my correspondence is typically direct with Amazon. Because I'm not in this for public approval, and in the end, Amazon's eyes and ears are the only ones that really matter.


I'm happy to hear it--being responsible when we're adversely affecting the businesses (and lives) of our contemporaries is never a bad thing. I just wish others who have associated themselves with what you're doing were following your good example.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Did Amazon share with you the reason Chance was terminated? If not, how do you know? And how do you know whether accounts were suspended or terminated? From what I know, Amazon's communication has talked about manipulation of KU, and that's it. Genuinely curious how you would know these things.


----------



## SalaciousStories

KelliWolfe said:


> According to Amazon's TOS, there is a 30% revision/new content requirement before a book is considered differentiated enough to be considered a new book and given a new ASIN. This is common knowledge in both the erotica and erom communities, where it is done regularly.The mirrors being published by the authors in question using the simple search-and-replace for names and body parts did not meet this criteria. I have done mirrors myself and I know that they often require substantial revision because you can't just blindly substitute M/M and F/F for M/F. But that's not what these people were doing, and the readers roasted them for it in the reviews. It was simply another ploy to get the same content into Kindle Unlimited multiple times, as they were doing with the stuffing.


Just FYI, there is no mention of a "30% revision/new content requirement" in Amazon's TOS or in any of the content guidelines. The genesis of the "30%" thing was that someone back in the day heard from someone whose cousin talked to an Amazon drone at some point and the drone said that 30% was the magic number. We all knew it was total nonsense even back then, but it seemed reasonable so we all just sort of went with it. It's a self-publishing game of telephone. Or an urban legend! 

To my knowledge, the only thing Amazon says is their content guidelines is this:

*We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:

Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store*

But there's no specifics of what "significantly differentiated" means. Personally, I don't write mirrors for the same reason I don't include bonus books: I think it's all ultimately self-defeating in the long run. But could the argument be made that two books with nearly identical content written for two totally different audiences based on an interpretation of that vague guideline? Absolutely. And Amazon _could_ have made the change in the guidelines at some point--it's been a long time since I actually went looking for it. If you can find it, please post it.



KelliWolfe said:


> They deliberately published the same content into KU multiple times, attempting to hide it by mirroring under different pen names and stuffing.


Publishing the same content again and again in KU is not against the rules, unfortunately. Maybe one day. Mirroring is fine assuming Amazon signs off on the differentiation, which I imagine customers would complain at the top of their lungs about (and probably why the practice has been on the decline for a long time). And stuffing is fine up to 3000 KENPC as long as the book is properly labeled. Those are all facts, and opinions don't change them any more than opinions make authors taking advantage of those practices "scammers". _Are some_? Maybe. Are they automatically? No.



KelliWolfe said:


> They included works in their stuffed books which were available through other sales channels.


Okay, that one's a major no-no for sure. But it's also really stupid to try and pull it off considering Amazon is constantly scouring the internet for them and will happily pull a book if it even pops up on a _pirate_ site. Like, if there actually was a SkyNet, it would be Amazon's KU hunting algorithm becoming sentient and destroying as all.



KelliWolfe said:


> They manipulated ARC reviews. They manipulated reads and borrows by incentivizing readers with giveaways. Etc., etc., etc.


That stuff is all terrible, but it's also really hard to prove without seeing the admin panel(s) of the account(s) involved.



KelliWolfe said:


> People like David Gaughran have been documenting the scammers' actions on their blogs for going on two years now. Just because you haven't bothered to look for it doesn't mean that the evidence isn't out there.


I've seen a _lot_ more opinion than I have cold, undeniable facts. For what it's worth, I share many of those opinions. I think authors should publish single titles in KU and sell box sets at full price outside the program. I think that if someone needs a gift card to read a book, it wasn't that great a book to begin with. I think that mirroring is lazy (the irony being that it's a huge pain in the tail end to mirror a book, even _with_ find-and-replace).

But out of all of the things I think, the one I think the hardest is that we owe each other better than what I've seen lately.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Positive

KelliWolfe said:


> Seriously, it isn't like book stuffing is all they were doing. Just to make it clear, there was also
> 
> Category manipulation
> Botting and clickfarming to boost ranks and generate phony page reads
> Review fraud
> Outright plagiarism
> Republishing the same content multiple times into KU by pushing M/F, M/M, and F/F versions with a simple search and replace
> Publishing mirrors of posted fanfic into KU
> Burying titles in stuffed books enrolled in KU that are available through other distributors
> Sending books to ARC teams with explicit instructions NOT to leave reviews that weren't positive
> Incentivizing borrows/reads through giveaways (many of which were never fulfilled)


I think this is a very generalized accusation of what the "scammers" are doing. You have no evidence that each of the authors whose books were removed from the store engaged in every single one of these activities. And from what I've seen on twitter, other authors are reporting them for doing it all. This is the problem when people start to comment without having evidence. The more you hear it, the more it becomes a (false) truth. For example, the arbitration in April was about click farms, so now all scammers are accused of using click farms. One author had an issue that their ghostwriter had sold them reused content, now all scammers are accused of plagiarism. Another author was found to republish MM/FF/MF versions of the same story, now all scammers are accused of doing the same. CC's case was all about incentivizing reviews, so now all scammers are accused of incentivizing reviews, etc, etc, etc.

So please be very careful when you so loosely throw around general accusations while having absolutely no evidence. It's just not fair and we are all human beings.


----------



## Positive

Atlantisatheart said:


> There are click farms and then there are click farms. We've already seen evidence of that PA telling fans how to flick through to the back of a mega-book to help the author out, so yeah, click farm, but with real readers doing the dirty work.
> 
> Quality material? What readers want to read and not what they are incentivized to click through. I love the argument that readers want to read the same book over and over again just because it's there - no, we might be authors, but we're readers first and foremost, and I can count on one hand the books I would re-read.
> 
> PPP going up? That would be nice, but that isn't what any of this is about. It's already been stated and answered on the thread multiple times. Amazon are cheap, we get it. Move on already.
> 
> Do the scammers have real fans? Obviously, they got them to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them - but the question is, do the scammers have enough real readers to take them to the top and keep them sticky without manipulation and get the bonus payments without the stuffing, page flicking (as per the PA) dodgy competitions, and ad spend that they couldn't afford without cheating? I'll say no, but we will find out soon because there are still multiple authors left standing and we'll see where they are in a few months and what real readers want to read.


This is my point exactly. Here you are accusing "all scammers" of engaging in the activity of this one author who has evidence against him. I would love to see the evidence you have to back up your point that "all scammers" do not have real fans and are asking their fake fans to click through their books. If you don't have the evidence, then please keep your point to the one author who was found to be incurring in these activities. And again. I'm no fan of his, but there is no evidence that he asked his fan to engage clicking through his book.


----------



## BGArcher

Positive said:


> I think this is a very generalized accusation of what the "scammers" are doing. You have no evidence that each of the authors whose books were removed from the store engaged in every single one of these activities. And from what I've seen on twitter, other authors are reporting them for doing it all. This is the problem when people start to comment without having evidence. The more you hear it, the more it becomes a (false) truth. For example, the arbitration in April was about click farms, so now all scammers are accused of using click farms. One author had an issue that their ghostwriter had sold them reused content, now all scammers are accused of plagiarism. Another author was found to republish MM/FF/MF versions of the same story, now all scammers are accused of doing the same. CC's case was all about incentivizing reviews, so now all scammers are accused of incentivizing reviews, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> So please be very careful when you so loosely throw around general accusations while having absolutely no evidence. It's just not fair and we are all human beings.


Thnk you, this is the sort of level headed take I've been looking for in this thread.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Usedtoposthere said:


> Did Amazon share with you the reason Chance was terminated? If not, how do you know? And how do you know whether accounts were suspended or terminated? From what I know, Amazon's communication has talked about manipulation of KU, and that's it. Genuinely curious how you would know these things.


In Chance's case, it's the only thing there _was_, so I feel it's a logical assumption to make. Authors running illegal lotteries without proper language and methodology in place will swing the FTC over to pry into things in a heartbeat (and that's before taking the review manipulation into account). I seriously doubt they bothered for one second to look at anything else, but I'll concede that they _could_ have. I will also say that _without_ that lottery, Chance would likely still be around today, but that's just another logical assumption.

As far as the other cases, the jury is still out. Manipulation of KU is the line of the day for them, but to my knowledge from what I've seen from those affected, they've been temp banned (suspended) pending an investigation. It could be some accounts were terminated and not others, but it seems strange that Amazon would temporarily ban some and permanently ban others. Usually they don't care about so much context, so I imagine that Amazon is making them all sign statements of intent or something. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened. We'll see, I 'spose.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Positive said:


> This is my point exactly. Here you are accusing "all scammers" of engaging in the activity of this one author who has evidence against him. I would love to see the evidence you have to back up your point that "all scammers" do not have real fans and are asking their fake fans to click through their books. If you don't have the evidence, then please keep your point to the one author who was found to be incurring in these activities. And again. I'm no fan of his, but there is no evidence that he asked his fan to engage clicking through his book.


Where did I say these authors didn't have real fans? Read it again; I make a point of saying they have fans. So, if you're going to call me out on something, at least read the post and get it right.


----------



## Not any more

Ah, I see this thread has finally degenerated to the point where no more useful information is to be gained. Everything is wonderful in this best of all Amazon worlds and the one scammer has been banned. Nothing to see here, kids. Just move along.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

SalaciousStories said:


> In Chance's case, it's the only thing there _was_, so I feel it's a logical assumption to make. Authors running illegal lotteries without proper language and methodology in place will swing the FTC over to pry into things in a heartbeat (and that's before taking the review manipulation into account). I seriously doubt they bothered for one second to look at anything else, but I'll concede that they _could_ have. I will also say that _without_ that lottery, Chance would likely still be around today, but that's just another logical assumption.


[snipped]

Wow, that's quite a . . . breathtaking assumption. As you say, I guess we'll see. There's only one thing that matters, in the end: what Amazon thinks its TOS mean, and what they're wiling to enforce.


----------



## KelliWolfe

I never said they were all doing each and every single one of those things. All of them were stuffing. All of them were doing one or more of the other things in that list, or other things that have been discussed further back in the topic.

Honestly, I'm sick of arguing with apologists for these people. They made a personal decision to either outright violate the TOS or else skate as close to the bleeding edge as they possibly could to rake in massive profits. In some cases Amazon had already slapped people down for the same behavior and that was public knowledge in the author communities. Now they've been slapped down as well. This is not the first time by any means that top 100 authors have gotten their accounts suspended or banned for pushing the edge of the TOS envelope. They got away with it for a while because Amazon chose to look the other way. But as always, when it gets to the point where the more mainstream sites start picking up on that kind of activity, Amazon stops the music and some people find out that their chairs are gone.

If they didn't do anything wrong, they'll probably get their account bans/suspensions lifted. If the accounts remain banned but they are legitimate authors publishing books that readers truly want to read - rather than simply being parasites exploiting the flaws in the KU system to make a bunch of money off of poor-quality books commissioned from the cheapest ghostwriters they could find on Fiverr - then they'll republish their catalogs on the other sales channels and make brand new fortunes there. And make all of us eat our words in the process.

Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath on that one.


----------



## Positive

KelliWolfe said:


> According to Amazon's TOS, there is a 30% revision/new content requirement before a book is considered differentiated enough to be considered a new book and given a new ASIN.


Wow. This certainly does bring new information to the table. David and Phoenix have always said that NO duplicate content was allowed. So it would be great if you could please share the screen shot of the TOS that specifies a 30% of duplicate content is allowed. All I can find is this:

Disappointing content
We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:

Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
Content that is freely available on the web (unless you are the copyright owner of that content or the content is in the public domain). For more information, you can refer to the sections titled "Illegal and Infringing Content" and "Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content" in the Content Guidelines.
Content whose primary purpose is to solicit or advertise
*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
Content that is too short
Content that is poorly translated
Content that does not provide an enjoyable reading experience
Bonus content that appears before a book's primary content

So it does seem that some degree of duplicate content is allowed, contrary to public opinion. The TOS just say that a book needs to be "significantly differentiated" from another book. So perhaps 30% of new content in a book is indeed enough to make it "significantly differentiated."


----------



## Crystal_

BGArcher said:


> Basically, it would do a lot of people good to listen to Gary Vanerychuck about building business and worry less worry about a group of grey hat marketers that were busted. I imagine he'd have a lot of words (half of them would be colorful cursing) about where people's focus would be. One of his basic thesis is that as soon as you start to really focus on what others are doing you've already lost. Now, before people jump on me about telling people to mind their own business, but i'm not. i'm simply saying the mob mentality is something to watch for.
> 
> _Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


I don't see why people can't call out behavior that isn't explicitly forbidden by the ToS. If readers or authors don't like the practice of mirroring, they can call it out. (I can't imagine any reader who would be okay with a mirrored story that wasn't disclosed).

Racist books aren't against the ToS, but that doesn't mean people can't call those out. It's the same idea. People disagree with a practice, so they're calling it out. There's a big difference between pointing to a public Amazon page or two--to items that are intended to be visible and for sale-- and between posting private information online.

I'm sure there are people on Twitter who are putting out personal attacks. There are people engaging in mob mentality who are engaging in bad behavior. And there are scammers and shady marketers engaging in bad behavior. Neither behavior makes the other right.

It doesn't matter how awful people on Twitter are behaving. Shady behavior is still shady behavior.

It doesn't matter how shady some marketers are heaving. Personal attacks are still not okay.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## GeneDoucette

brkingsolver said:


> Ah, I see this thread has finally degenerated to the point where no more useful information is to be gained. Everything is wonderful in this best of all Amazon worlds and the one scammer has been banned. Nothing to see here, kids. Just move along.


You can set your watch by it, can't you?


----------



## Positive

KelliWolfe said:


> I never said they were all doing each and every single one of those things. All of them were stuffing. All of them were doing one or more of the other things in that list, or other things that have been discussed further back in the topic.


When you say, "this is what the scammers are doing," and present a list, it comes across as if you mean that all scammers are doing everything in the list. It's not just you, it's a lot of people making the same generalized comments.



KelliWolfe said:


> Honestly, I'm sick of arguing with apologists for these people.


I never said I was taking their side. I was only pointing out how every "scammer" is being accused of incurring in every offense without the relevant evidence being presented by the accuser.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Positive said:


> When you say, "this is what the scammers are doing," and present a list, it comes across as if you mean that all scammers are doing everything in the list. It's not just you, it's a lot of people making the same generalized comments.
> 
> I never said I was taking their side. I was only pointing out how every "scammer" is being accused of incurring in every offense without the relevant evidence being presented by the accuser.


I don't think anyone has actually been doing that. But there are quite literally hundreds of pen names associated with them, we can't be sure of how many separate accounts those belong to, and there's a long list of things that they've been doing. That makes it rather difficult to be specific about every single one of them in every single post. Plus we're generally not *allowed* to refer to specific authors/pens in terms of "calling them out" on kboards, which is why you won't see a lot of the proof documented here since it would point back to individual pen names that could be used to identify them.

These people worked in close association with each other, used the same tactics as a group - even if every single one of them didn't use every single tactic - and all got their accounts suspended/banned at the same time. I don't see a real problem with talking about them in the aggregate.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## DaniO

SalaciousStories said:


> In Chance's case, it's the only thing there _was_, so I feel it's a logical assumption to make. Authors running illegal lotteries without proper language and methodology in place will swing the FTC over to pry into things in a heartbeat (and that's before taking the review manipulation into account). I seriously doubt they bothered for one second to look at anything else, but I'll concede that they _could_ have. I will also say that _without_ that lottery, Chance would likely still be around today, but that's just another logical assumption.
> 
> As far as the other cases, the jury is still out. Manipulation of KU is the line of the day for them, but to my knowledge from what I've seen from those affected, they've been temp banned (suspended) pending an investigation. It could be some accounts were terminated and not others, but it seems strange that Amazon would temporarily ban some and permanently ban others. Usually they don't care about so much context, so I imagine that Amazon is making them all sign statements of intent or something. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened. We'll see, I 'spose.


This is your opinion. You don't know that's why his account was terminated. And I know at least one other account has been terminated so as much as some people want to believe it was the FTC breach that caused his account to be banned I think it goes deeper and there are other reasons. Reasons people are posting and speculating about on this thread.

As a separate note and general comment:
No one on this thread has said personal attacks are okay, but we can speculate on why people have been suspended or banned. If you really believe it's only because of the contest and nothing else is happening, then that's fine. Other people can see patterns, listen to other posters and come to there own conclusions.

This is a big deal and could have far reaching consequences. It's not gossip or hating successful authors. It's being concerned and informed about issues that affect our business.

_Edited in keeping with our "WHOA" policy. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Becca Mills

Positive said:


> Wow. This certainly does bring new information to the table. David and Phoenix have always said that NO duplicate content was allowed. So it would be great if you could please share the screen shot of the TOS that specifies a 30% of duplicate content is allowed. All I can find is this:
> 
> Disappointing content
> We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:
> 
> Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
> Content that is freely available on the web (unless you are the copyright owner of that content or the content is in the public domain). For more information, you can refer to the sections titled "Illegal and Infringing Content" and "Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content" in the Content Guidelines.
> Content whose primary purpose is to solicit or advertise
> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
> Content that is too short
> Content that is poorly translated
> Content that does not provide an enjoyable reading experience
> Bonus content that appears before a book's primary content
> 
> So it does seem that some degree of duplicate content is allowed, contrary to public opinion. The TOS just say that a book needs to be "significantly differentiated" from another book. So perhaps 30% of new content in a book is indeed enough to make it "significantly differentiated."


You can take a look at some of the responses KB members have gotten from KDP in response to queries about "significantly differentiated" content and decide for yourself what level of duplication you're comfortable with:


https://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,253912.msg3537700.html#msg3537700 (Usedtoposthere)
https://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,259578.msg3612900.html#msg3612900 (dgaughran)
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262307.msg3649632.html#msg3649632 & http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262307.msg3649635.html#msg3649635 (PhoenixS)
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,262307.msg3651423.html#msg3651423 (Shelley K)

You'll notice that Phoenix was told that she could not include the same short story at the back of all the books she published because that would be duplicate content: "you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication." So for that rep, even a short story was too much material to repeat.

In contrast, the rep Shelley spoke to refused to say even entire novels could not be repeated: Shelley: "Can a book that I have already published (in KU, as I said) be used in its entirety as bonus content for another book published in KU? For instance, if I have already published Book A, when I publish Book B, which is a unique title, can I add the previously published Book A as bonus content at the end of Book B?" Rep: "Your first question isn't really a yes or no. Because, you may not include content that disrupts the reading experience. If the material you are planning to use does not, then yes. The final decision will be up to the review department."

So ... yeah.

Note: All the above responses predate the 10% bonus content rule.

I have no idea where the 30% thing comes from. I don't think I've personally seen that in any posted responses.


----------



## Becca Mills

Anyone who impugns another member's motivations for posting will be banned from further participation in the thread. This matter is not up for discussion here in the thread. Feel free to PM me or one of the other moderators.

Posts have been deleted.

ETA: If you think a particular member does not merit fair engagement, the forum software offers an "ignore" feature.


----------



## MyraScott

Positive said:


> When you say, "this is what the scammers are doing," and present a list, it comes across as if you mean that all scammers are doing everything in the list.


It doesn't actually. This is what people who like to argue against straw men do.

"You said you don't like puppies, so clearly you think people should eat dogs. I am against that!"

When you extend the argument _past_ what someone actually said _to make it worse_, sure, it's inflammatory and gets a lot of attention, but you are no longer debating with the person who didn't make the statement you claim they did. You are fighting a boogeyman you made up and pretending you are fighting the person who made you mad.

A stronger argument is to actually debate what people said, not projecting your fears as if they actually spoke them.

It would be seriously cool if we could have a discussion without people arguing things no one said or even meant. I guess the threads would be shorter then...


----------



## Atlantisatheart

This information has come to my attention;

The people who contacted Amazon after their accounts were yanked are getting this message in return. 

“Thank you for providing additional information to consider related to your KDP account. In response to your request, we reviewed your account again and have decided to terminate your account. Under the Terms and Conditions, Amazon reserves the right to terminate our agreement with you and your access to our programs at any time and for any reason. We intend to pay the outstanding royalties. Please note that our terms and conditions prohibit you from opening new accounts and you will not receive future royalty payments from additional accounts you create.”

So, it would appear that a lot of these people are no longer suspended, but gone for good.


----------



## Dpock

Atlantisatheart said:


> "Thank you for providing additional information to consider related to your KDP account. In response to your request, we reviewed your account again and have decided to terminate your account. Under the Terms and Conditions, Amazon reserves the right to terminate our agreement with you and your access to our programs at any time and for any reason. We intend to pay the outstanding royalties. Please note that our terms and conditions prohibit you from opening new accounts and you will not receive future royalty payments from additional accounts you create."


Hmm... Are you paraphrasing?


----------



## PhoenixS

SalaciousStories said:


> According to Amazon's current guidelines, assuming that the books in the boxset were licensed properly, the box set is appropriately labeled, and all of the books are exclusive to Amazon, it'd be fine, the same way it'd be fine for an author to publish a collection of their _own_ works for inclusion in KU. I would _love_ for KU to disallow box sets all together, but as it stands, I'm not sure why it bears mentioning.


As it happens, this is not opinion, but as I laid it out -- multi-author boxes in KU published under one account and a single title in it also in KU published under another account -- is a violation of the TOS. Amazon let it ride for 100s of boxes for 2 years (verifiable through the Wayback Machine). Then Amazon did a sweep and purge and began enforcing that particular clause. I brought it up as an example that just because Amazon has not been enforcing a particular rule, it doesn't mean that not following that rule isn't a violation, nor does it ensure that Amazon won't begin enforcing that rule at some point in the future.

It's a bit troubling to me that when presented with a practice that violates TOS terms, you misinterpret it twice, make the assumption I'm wrong, and deem the practice "fine."

"1 Exclusivity. When you include a Digital Book in KDP Select, you give us the exclusive right to sell and distribute your Digital Book in digital format while your book is in KDP Select. During this period of exclusivity, you cannot sell or distribute, or give anyone else the right to sell or distribute, your Digital Book (or a book that is substantially similar), in digital format in any territory where you have rights."
_= From the current T&Cs for KDP Select_
https://kdp-eu.amazon.com/agreement


----------



## PhoenixS

Atlantisatheart said:


> This information has come to my attention;
> 
> The people who contacted Amazon after their accounts were yanked are getting this message in return.
> 
> "Thank you for providing additional information to consider related to your KDP account. In response to your request, we reviewed your account again and have decided to terminate your account. Under the Terms and Conditions, Amazon reserves the right to terminate our agreement with you and your access to our programs at any time and for any reason. We intend to pay the outstanding royalties. Please note that our terms and conditions prohibit you from opening new accounts and you will not receive future royalty payments from additional accounts you create."
> 
> So, it would appear that a lot of these people are no longer suspended, but gone for good.


As it happens, when I was tooling through the TOS/T&Cs for the quote in my last post, I happened to see the document was updated on May 24, 2018. Main update was to Section 4.2, which currently reads:



> 4.2 Account Information; No Multiple Accounts. You must ensure that all information you provide in connection with establishing your Program account, such as your name, address and email, is accurate when you provided it, and you must keep it up to date as long as you use the Program. You may maintain only one account at a time. If we terminate your account, you will not establish a new account. You will not use false identities or impersonate any other person or use a username or password you are not authorized to use. You authorize us, directly or through third parties, to make any inquiries we consider appropriate to verify account information you provide. You also consent to us sending you emails relating to the Program and other publishing opportunities from time to time.


The timing of tweaks to that clause seems rather coincidental...imo.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Author pages are being taken down from the store.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Atlantisatheart said:


> This information has come to my attention;
> 
> The people who contacted Amazon after their accounts were yanked are getting this message in return.
> 
> "Thank you for providing additional information to consider related to your KDP account. In response to your request, we reviewed your account again and have decided to terminate your account. Under the Terms and Conditions, Amazon reserves the right to terminate our agreement with you and your access to our programs at any time and for any reason. *We intend to pay the outstanding royalties.* Please note that our terms and conditions prohibit you from opening new accounts and you will not receive future royalty payments from additional accounts you create."
> 
> So, it would appear that a lot of these people are no longer suspended, but gone for good.


The bolded bit surprises the hell out of me. I've never heard of them paying royalties on an account they've terminated like this. I'm not doubting the legitimacy of your post, Atlantis. Just pointing out that it's not their usual approach. Maybe their legal team suggested it as a way to get these guys to go away without having a whole bunch of them dragging it into arbitration?


----------



## MmmmmPie

Atlantisatheart said:


> Author pages are being taken down from the store.


Interesting. By any chance, do you know if these are author pages of those whose books were pulled down last week? Or, are we talking a new round of disappearances? Thanks for any info!


----------



## Becca Mills

GeneDoucette said:


> Becca--
> 
> I don't disagree with this, but I wanted to add that it has an impact in both directions.
> 
> We've seen this several times on this thread: someone comes in and says something along the lines of the following--
> 
> --i have seen horrible things on #getloud, you'll have to trust me because forum rules prevent me from linking to them but TRUST ME
> 
> --people may not be doing these things here, but there are people--I can't name them because of forum rules--egging them on. I can't link to this because of forum rules.
> 
> --those people KNOW WHO THEY ARE, which justifies my posting about it here, because while I can neither name them nor in any way prove what I'm saying is true because of forum rules TRUST ME IT'S TRUE.
> 
> We're allowing, in these posts, for the accuser to entirely dictate the definition of 'egging on', and the supposed 'horrible things' that 'unnamed people' are doing. With full transparency, we might see that what they call egging on is what we call valid calling out of black-hat behavior, and what they call horrible behavior is someone tweeting that they heard from someone else that somebody told them in a private facebook group that someone said they should kill themselves. And now the person who called out the black hat is somehow responsible for that, based on someone else's exceedingly lax standards of proof.
> 
> But we can't have that conversation, because the people posting things like this can hide behind the same forum rules that prevent someone like David from coming on here and posting detailed evidence.


Gene, I will look through the thread for material that would fall into WHOA* territory. Anything that gets too deep into particular controversies playing out on Facebook or Twitter may well not pass muster for discussion here for that reason. We're also not found of hearsay when it comes to specific and significant matters. If you see material that might be problematic for these reasons, please report it to the moderation staff.

Speaking more generally about assertions that can be neither supported or refuted with concrete evidence due to our (or other sites') rules, I think I, as a member, would probably respond that there is no proof and can be no proof, due to KB's rules, so the issue can't be fruitfully discussed here ... and then ignore it. I mean, working with what you say above, I don't think it's the case that "We're allowing, in these posts, for the accuser to entirely dictate the definition of 'egging on', and the supposed 'horrible things' that 'unnamed people' are doing." Rather, one person (or several people) is making claims about _what they think_ "egging on" is, etc. Those views need not be elevated beyond "something one member thinks." No one person has the power to dictate terms here, really.

*For those unfamiliar with our WHOA rule, it stands for "what happens on Amazon [stays on Amazon]." It was developed in connection with the Amazon discussion forums, but applies to all sites. The basic idea is that we don't want to import controversy from other sites, so issues that start elsewhere should play out there rather than being brought to KB.


----------



## SeanHinn

BGArcher said:


> Basically, it would do a lot of people good to listen to Gary Vanerychuck about building business and worry less worry about a group of grey hat marketers that were busted.


Well, I for one am grateful beyond words to the diligent members of the indie community who have sacrificed their time and energy to root out bad actors. Phoenix, DG, and all the rest. I don't agree with 100% of their proposed remedies, but there is no arguing that they have made a difference for legitimate authors. That time and effort is a sacrifice made for the rest of us.

One acts ethically or one does not, and an ethical person does not try to stick a toe over the line. They avoid it completely, because their nature compels them to do so. I have zero sympathy for someone who flirts with fire and gets burned. Write books, market them, and if you're good at those two things, you'll earn a great living in this business. If someone needs to wander into the "grey areas" to succeed, they don't belong in the business, and I am overjoyed to see them go.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Phxsundog

MmmmmPie said:


> Interesting. By any chance, do you know if these are author pages of those whose books were pulled down last week? Or, are we talking a new round of disappearances? Thanks for any info!


Yes, the author pages 404ing are for the authors suspended last week. Same ones David Gaughran and many other articles have drawn attention to publicly. There's a lot of evidence and rumors suggesting these temporary bans are turning permanent. Which means Amazon has decided to take the strictest line it can on this group caught manipulating their system.


----------



## SalaciousStories

PhoenixS said:


> As it happens, this is not opinion, but as I laid it out -- multi-author boxes in KU published under one account and a single title in it also in KU published under another account -- is a violation of the TOS. Amazon let it ride for 100s of boxes for 2 years (verifiable through the Wayback Machine). Then Amazon did a sweep and purge and began enforcing that particular clause. I brought it up as an example that just because Amazon has not been enforcing a particular rule, it doesn't mean that not following that rule isn't a violation, nor does it ensure that Amazon won't begin enforcing that rule at some point in the future.
> 
> It's a bit troubling to me that when presented with a practice that violates TOS terms, you misinterpret it twice, make the assumption I'm wrong, and deem the practice "fine."
> 
> "1 Exclusivity. When you include a Digital Book in KDP Select, you give us the exclusive right to sell and distribute your Digital Book in digital format while your book is in KDP Select. During this period of exclusivity, you cannot sell or distribute, or give anyone else the right to sell or distribute, your Digital Book (or a book that is substantially similar), in digital format in any territory where you have rights."
> _= From the current T&Cs for KDP Select_
> https://kdp-eu.amazon.com/agreement


Apologies, Phoenix--you're right. I stand corrected. I think I had the previous brouha from like...maybe a year ago in my head? The one where the box set publisher absconded with royalties? Anyway, the TOS changes you mention predate even that. I didn't recall any subsequent sweep, but if they're enforcing their TOS as written, that's always a good thing.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

SalaciousStories said:


> I'm not sure I'm following. At no point did I create or imply equivalency between being against scammers and being abusive on Twitter. One can be against scammers and not be abusive. I mean, who isn't against scammers? I said that there was a lot of abusive behavior occurring on the platform (and elsewhere) under the _pretense_ of being against scammers, but which is in reality is a witch hunt which has so far been allowed to run unchecked by those who originated it in the first place. If evidentiary rules were in place in the beginning, they're out the window now. And that sort of thing is far more dangerous and unethical than any scam artist.


Obviously, the evidence is there or the others wouldn't have been banned. I don't think it's us that has egg on our faces, do you?


----------



## Becca Mills

SalaciousStories, we have a rule here at KBoards known as WHOA. You can see it explained in my post a few above. In keeping with that rule, whatever drama is playing out on Twitter and Facebook should not be introduced here. If you're concerned about what you're seeing on those other platforms, please pursue the matter there, where supporting materials can actually be referenced. I'll be trimming some posts to remove references to controversies on other sites.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Atlantisatheart said:


> Obviously, the evidence is there or the others wouldn't have been banned.


Very little about what is going on is obvious to me. Hence the questioning.



Atlantisatheart said:


> I don't think it's us that has egg on our faces, do you?


Oh, absolutely. Collectively, we all do. While I'm totally down with those who are deserving getting the axe, I'm less down with many of the things that have sprung up around it.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Becca Mills said:


> SalaciousStories, we have a rule here at KBoards known as WHOA. You can see it explained in my post a few above. In keeping with that rule, whatever drama is playing out on Twitter and Facebook should not be introduced here. If you're concerned about what you're seeing on those other platforms, please pursue the matter there, where supporting materials can actually be referenced. I'll be trimming some posts to remove references to controversies on other sites.


Apologies, Becca. In the future, I will consider KBoards to be an island.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

As I've said before--it doesn't matter what I think Amazon should do, what you think Amazon should do, what the world thinks Amazon should do. Not much point in the endless discussions of it IMHO, because Amazon cares about theeeess much for our considered opinions on How They Should Do It. Whatever people said or didn't say here, on  Twitter, or wherever else, I doubt it had  a lot of effect on Amazon's decisions, except in the collective--that the situation finally got enough media attention to make them look bad, OR (more likely) that customers complained about the content in KU and their difficulty in finding what they wanted. 

The TOS aren't what you think they are or what I think they are. They're what Amazon thinks they are, and what matters is always and only how Amazon interprets them. We disregard the warning shots across the bow (and they're always there) at our peril.


----------



## Becca Mills

SalaciousStories said:


> Apologies, Becca. In the future, I will consider KBoards to be an island.


Thank you, and what an apt metaphor. We all know what happens to the unique ecosystems of small islands when a bunch of invasive mainland species show up.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Becca Mills said:


> Thank you, and what an apt metaphor. We all know what happens to the unique ecosystems of small islands when a bunch of invasive mainland species show up.


They make a fortune charging the tourists for overpriced, watered-down drinks with little umbrellas in them?


----------



## Becca Mills

KelliWolfe said:


> They make a fortune charging the tourists for overpriced, watered-down drinks with little umbrellas in them?


Hehe. Was thinking more in terms of ...










... a ship full of Twitter controversies coming to put an end to ... well, maybe I should've picked a different endemic island species. We aren't *that* defenseless.


----------



## AltMe

Becca Mills said:


> SalaciousStories, we have a rule here at KBoards known as WHOA. You can see it explained in my post a few above. In keeping with that rule, whatever drama is playing out on Twitter and Facebook should not be introduced here. If you're concerned about what you're seeing on those other platforms, please pursue the matter there, where supporting materials can actually be referenced. I'll be trimming some posts to remove references to controversies on other sites.


What about those of us who dont use Twitter, and are not seeing anything on Facebook?

We rely on this thread to tell us what is going on.

If you ban reporting of what is going on elsewhere, some of us will only see the incessant arguing here, and never anything of what is actually happening. Which makes this thread pointless!

People should be able to report what is going on elsewhere.

I keep reading this thread to find out what is going on. If you wont allow that, what is the point?


----------



## Becca Mills

TimothyEllis said:


> What about those of us who dont use Twitter, and are not seeing anything on Facebook?
> 
> We rely on this thread to tell us what is going on.
> 
> If you ban reporting of what is going on elsewhere, some of us will only see the incessant arguing here, and never anything of what is actually happening. Which makes this thread pointless!
> 
> People should be able to report what is going on elsewhere.
> 
> I keep reading this thread to find out what is going on. If you wont allow that, what is the point?


People can report stuff that's happening in other places (though hopefully not in a way that breaks those other places' own rules). But if there's some controversy in some other place, we don't want that fight to become our fight. Those interested in doing battle over the matter can go to the other place and get into the fight there.

The WHOA rule has been in place since well before I joined KB in 2012.

ETA: If you want to see what's being said under the #getloud (or any other) hashtag on Twitter but don't have a Twitter account, you can do a site-specific Google search on the hashtag, like this:_ site:twitter.com #getloud_. All the hashtagged tweets will be compiled for you under a single URL, and you can read them.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Phxsundog said:


> Yes, the author pages 404ing are for the authors suspended last week. Same ones David Gaughran and many other articles have drawn attention to publicly. There's a lot of evidence and rumors suggesting these temporary bans are turning permanent. Which means Amazon has decided to take the strictest line it can on this group caught manipulating their system.


Thanks for the response! If this turns out to be the case, it seems like a great development for honest authors and publishers. Still, I can't help but wonder at some of the pen names that remain, especially those who have apparently decided that stuffing is okay as long as they slap the word "collection" onto the title and/or cover. This seems like a pretty big loophole that Amazon will need to close if they're serious about the 10% bonus content rule.

I guess only time will tell.


----------



## MmmmmPie

As several of us have commented on, New Adult Romance has been hit especially hard by the scamming and stuffing activities. On June 1, when Amazon's 10% bonus content policy was announced, I pulled some data on the top 100 new adult list. Now, a month later, I pulled data from the list again. Here's the comparison.

*New Adult Romance Top 100: June 1, 2018*

PRICING
50 Books Priced at 99 Cents
Avg. Price: $2.39
Median Price: $1.49

PAGE COUNTS
19 books didn't have page-counts listed.
Avg. Page Count: 497 (among the 81 books that had page counts)
Median Page Count: 351

_Additional Notes:
Of these 100 "top" books from June 1, eight were purged and are no longer available. 
This deprived eight other (non-cheating) books of all-important visibility and income.
These eight books claimed the following spots on the new adult list: 1, 3, 13, 20, 21, 25, 35, 51. This means that 20% of the top 20 didn't belong there. 
Three authors were responsible for the eight purged books. One author had four titles. Another author had three. And the final author had one. _

*New Adult Romance Top 100: July 1, 2018*

PRICING
41 Books Priced at 99 Cents
Avg. Price: $2.62
Median Price: $2.99

PAGE COUNTS
11 books didn't have page counts listed.
Avg. Pages: 361 (among the 89 books that had pages counts listed)
Median Page Count: 301

_Additional Notes:
Of these 100 "top" books from July 1, two are still using the word "collection" to inflate their pages. Both of these books are in the top ten of the new adult bestseller list._

_*A Note About Page Counts: *The page-count data is likely only partially accurate due to the fact that scammers will often mask the page-counts of their stuffed ebooks by linking to the corresponding non-stuffed paperback._


----------



## Ros_Jackson

The category search Kindle Store : Kindle eBooks : Romance : "compilation" has been interesting to watch recently. I think it rose to just over 300 books after the policy was announced, before falling again once books/authors began being removed. It's at 261 books today. However, it's not a definitive measure of how many have gone, because people can retitle their books quickly.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Very interesting, Pie. And now we get to wait and see what the next big thing is going to be. Romance supernovels that make GRRM's books look puny? If you're pulling in six figures a month and spending a thousand dollars a day on FB ads, doubling or even tripling your spend on ghostwritten content is negligible in comparison. I need popcorn.


----------



## Phxsundog

KelliWolfe said:


> Very interesting, Pie. And now we get to wait and see what the next big thing is going to be. Romance supernovels that make GRRM's books look puny? If you're pulling in six figures a month and spending a thousand dollars a day on FB ads, doubling or even tripling your spend on ghostwritten content is negligible in comparison. I need popcorn.


I'm not considering this a realistic worry myself. Finding reliable ghostwriters who can do 150-200K word books for rock bottom rates seems much easier said than done. Even if it's possible, it's going to snowball all the problems the shady content mills were already having: bad reviews thanks to storylines having no cohesion and shifting character names, lack of editing making huge errors more grating to the average reader, adding to production time. Maybe a few will try but I just don't see them cranking out jumbo sized books every two weeks like they were before.


----------



## PhoenixS

@Becca: Are we allowed to name names of those whose accounts have actually been terminated, not just suspended?


----------



## Dpock

PhoenixS said:


> @Becca: Are we allowed to name names of those whose accounts have actually been terminated, not just suspended?


It would be interesting to see a list. If a pen's page now returns a 404, it's not editorializing to mention it.


----------



## KelliWolfe

There's still at least one good-sized stuffer left. Kinda surprising. You'd think that anyone with the sense to be able to pour pee out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel would have unpublished everything by now, at least until the uproar died down. Guess they're trying to rake in as much last-minute cash as they can before they go the way of the others.


----------



## MmmmmPie

I agree that it would be useful to see a list of pen names that have been terminated. 

Also, aside from the account-suspensions (and subsequent terminations), has there been any new activity regarding account suspensions of terminations? As far as I can tell, there hasn't. It makes me wonder, does this mean that the stuffers who remain are safe? It also makes me wonder if compilations are allowed. If so, this seems like a huge loophole.


----------



## Becca Mills

PhoenixS said:


> @Becca: Are we allowed to name names of those whose accounts have actually been terminated, not just suspended?


We've been discussing the naming-names question, which someone else raised upthread more generally, but I'm not sure a conclusion has quite been reached. Will check when everyone's awake tomorrow.


----------



## caitlynlynch

Becca Mills said:


> We've been discussing the naming-names question, which someone else raised upthread more generally, but I'm not sure a conclusion has quite been reached. Will check when everyone's awake tomorrow.


I'm personally of the opinion that having a centralised list SOMEWHERE would be quite useful to the author community as a whole. If for no other reason, to be aware of persons who may not be of an ethical calibre one would wish to associate with in future, should they make a comeback in some way.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

caitlynlynch said:


> I'm personally of the opinion that having a centralised list SOMEWHERE would be quite useful to the author community as a whole. If for no other reason, to be aware of persons who may not be of an ethical calibre one would wish to associate with in future, should they make a comeback in some way.


What we each do with such a list would be up to us, but I'd think a list like this should be presented with no editorials - Ie presumption of guilt. Just a list of names whose accounts have been suspended, nothing more.


----------



## unkownwriter

brkingsolver said:


> Ah, I see this thread has finally degenerated to the point where no more useful information is to be gained. Everything is wonderful in this best of all Amazon worlds and the one scammer has been banned. Nothing to see here, kids. Just move along.


Yeah, we're cycling around to (mostly) new/newish members all telling us not to believe the evidence of people who have proven themselves to be champions of ethical behavior in indie publishing.



> Honestly, I'm sick of arguing with apologists for these people.


Seriously. It's like, one pops up, another disappears, then we get to start all over. Same script, different user name. It's interesting what you can find when you do some searching on user profiles. Just sayin'. I deleted a link, so as to not be calling out anyone in particular, but any member can look at someone's profile and see where they've posted.

Back to the purpose of this thread, if accounts are being pulled that belong to the [rule-breakers], then that's good. Hopefully Amazon will be watching for the content to come sneaking back (because there are ways to get around account termination).

As to people on the lower end of the pay scale using gray or black hat techniques to make more money? Sure, I'm going to allow that some do. But, really? If some shmuck makes an extra $20 a month, it's not exactly hurting other authors the way that [guy/gal] making $20K and up is. Be serious.


_edited, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Anarchist

Personally, I'm against revealing terminated account names.

There's too much risk of permanent damage to those names, and the reputations of those who own them.

It seems safer to simply discuss unacceptable practices on KBoards and let other properties expose presumed bad actors.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Anarchist said:


> Personally, I'm against revealing terminated account names.
> 
> There's too much risk of permanent damage to those names, and the reputations of those who own them.
> 
> It seems safer to simply discuss unacceptable practices on KBoards and let other properties expose presumed bad actors.


In contrast, I'm against hiding information that could be incredibly important to unsuspecting, ethical authors. One reason the Masterminds became so dominant in the first place was because they engaged in newsletter swaps and cross promotions with authors who played by the rules. If only those authors had any inkling of the kind of people they were dealing with, they might've been better able to protect themselves, their genre, and their readers.

As far as damaging their reputations, these terminated pen names did that to themselves.

Your logic, while probably coming from the best of places, reminds me of Pride & Prejudice, where Jane Bennett suggests that there's no reason to reveal Wickham's true character to the townspeople, because perhaps Wickham was eager to be a better person. And we all know how that ended up.

All of this begs the question...Who is more deserving of protection? Those who prey on others? Or those who might fall victim to them?


----------



## boba1823

caitlynlynch said:


> I'm personally of the opinion that having a centralised list SOMEWHERE would be quite useful to the author community as a whole. If for no other reason, to be aware of persons who may not be of an ethical calibre one would wish to associate with in future, should they make a comeback in some way.


I would imagine that _when_ said stanky-apples return (because I'm sure they will), it will be under new names. It's one thing for the content mill types to drop one pen name and spin up another when readers have soured to it - keeping the connection secret isn't really essentially in that case - and quite another thing when we're talking about coming back from a banned Amazon account.

Realistically, the only effective way to avoid associating with those types - and I'm sure there are many more than just the ones who have already met the business end of Zon's hammer - is to stick with known good apples.

Or just don't associate with other authors. I don't. My newsletter is all about me, me, and me


----------



## PhoenixS

I'm very, very much hoping that Amazon's May 24 tweaks to the TOS/T&Cs verbiage around terminated accounts was done in order to have better recourse for dealing with banned authors/publishers who attempt a come-back under a different penname or LLC.

We've seen folk trying to come back via aggregators who got slapped back.

We've seen folk who re-formed under new LLCs, and who came back under small-pub, non-KDP accounts -- even under the same author names and book titles that were banned from KDP.

If Amazon Legal is on top of its game, then the new T&Cs verbiage should give Amazon an unequivocal way to shut down the ones who've already resurfaced and to quickly shut down any that resurface in the future.
_____

Also, there are a couple of non-romance accounts that have been pulled. One in urban fantasy with over 50 books that, by the author's own admission, was terminated yesterday. In an interesting turn, he also says ACX is holding his audiobooks to the original terms, but ACX will not be offering them for sale. I don't know if he has a royalty split with the narrators, but that would suck for the narrators if he does. And another reason for anyone who's contemplating any kind of relationship with an author -- whether short- or long-term -- to do their due diligence. Of course, if nothing exists publicly on someone, then due diligence won't turn anything up...


----------



## AltMe

Puddleduck said:


> Personally, I also would prefer if people actually named the bad actors rather than constantly talking around them as if we all already knew who they were. How else can we be truly warned away from them? I don't participate in Facebook or Twitter or other places writers gather, so if people don't name them here, I'm unlikely to see them and know what anyone's talking about. It's quite frustrating to always be reading, "You know that one person? Of course, we all do. Well, you definitely shouldn't associate with them."


I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, I dont like the idea of naming anyone.

On the other hand, presumably all these people now banned are building up wide, and trying to figure out how to game there, or building a way of getting into Amazon again.

And on the gripping hand, lots of people who associated with these people innocently, got burned. If we dont know who these people are, how can we avoid having any dealings with them?

I'm not on twitter. My FB footprints is currently very small. I hear nothing about who is who, and what they do.

I hate it, but I'm inclined to think there needs to be a register, easily findable by any author, new or old, where the scammers and the scams are listed, and particular things to avoid are spelt out specifically. (eg. Promo sites and courses run by known scammers). It needs as many verification points as it can be set up with to avoid naming the wrong names, but it seems we really need to know who these people are, just so we can avoid them, and thus avoid being tainted by them. Because just a whiff of taint, is all Amazon needs to nuke you. And its so damned easy to be tainted.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

This is why I mentioned a list and a list only.  State the facts - ie. names of those whose accounts have been terminated - nothing more.  The second you spin it in any way, it becomes something else and can easily grow into a monster beyond our control.  But at the same time, as others have mentioned, knowledge is power.  I happen to know people - good authors - who have either done or considered doing promos with some of the banned names, and it wasn't out of any desire to game the system. It was because they didn't know the baggage associated with that name.  

For the ringleaders out there, those who broke the rules willingly, often, and encouraged others to do the same ... I'm happy to see them gone. I will show them the door with a smile on my face.  But I really don't want to see any legit authors get caught up in the ban-hammer, all because of one honest mistake.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Does it really help at this point? The accounts are gone and it's not like these people were publishing under their own names. The pens and the books under them are gone. There's not anything to even go look at once you have the names to get that "Aahhhh, that's what they were doing," moment if you haven't been keeping up.

I'm sure the people who were deeply involved in trying to get those accounts banned are watching the other sales channels closely in the unlikely event that some of them try to go wide, but the odds of them doing that when there's easier money to be made elsewhere are slim. Most likely they're already hard at work behind the scenes on the next major KU scam, because there's more money there and it's much, much easier to get. And all these people are about is quick and easy money. Why waste your time and risk your money in a real casino when there's one right across the street that's rigged in your favor so you can't lose?


----------



## Crystal_

Rick Gualtieri said:


> This is why I mentioned a list and a list only. State the facts - ie. names of those whose accounts have been terminated - nothing more. The second you spin it in any way, it becomes something else and can easily grow into a monster beyond our control. But at the same time, as others have mentioned, knowledge is power. I happen to know people - good authors - who have either done or considered doing promos with some of the banned names, and it wasn't out of any desire to game the system. It was because they didn't know the baggage associated with that name.
> 
> For the ringleaders out there, those who broke the rules willingly, often, and encouraged others to do the same ... I'm happy to see them gone. I will show them the door with a smile on my face. But I really don't want to see any legit authors get caught up in the ban-hammer, all because of one honest mistake.


I agree. A list of pulled pen names is a fact. With Amazon's lack of transparency, any facts we can get are a good thing.

If other people don't find the information useful, they can ignore it.


----------



## Dpock

Crystal_ said:


> I agree. A list of pulled pen names is a fact. With Amazon's lack of transparency, any facts we can get are a good thing.


This is key. Only with the facts, including the pens of the terminated accounts, can we do a proper analysis. It won't omit speculations, but those speculations will be limited to known offenders only.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

I agree with the majority who say that a list is in the communities best interest. 

These people have had no qualms about duping other authors to do swaps and hand over access to their email lists, so I can see them picking on up and coming indy authors and either pulling the strings or co-authoring with them in some way. 

It's not just pen names, but real names that need to be outed so that nobody works with them ever again.


----------



## Crime fighters

KelliWolfe said:


> Does it really help at this point? The accounts are gone and it's not like these people were publishing under their own names. The pens and the books under them are gone. There's not anything to even go look at once you have the names to get that "Aahhhh, that's what they were doing," moment if you haven't been keeping up.
> 
> I'm sure the people who were deeply involved in trying to get those accounts banned are watching the other sales channels closely in the unlikely event that some of them try to go wide, but the odds of them doing that when there's easier money to be made elsewhere are slim. Most likely they're already hard at work behind the scenes on the next major KU scam, because there's more money there and it's much, much easier to get. And all these people are about is quick and easy money. Why waste your time and risk your money in a real casino when there's one right across the street that's rigged in your favor so you can't lose?


I think it does matter. And here is why; once you know who a few of them were, the rest are easy to spot. Seriously, when I first heard of what was going on, it took me ten minutes to find a list of 16 names, over half of them are gone now. In the following wweeks my months, I discovered that my instincts were right about the rest.

One of the aggravating things is how easy they were to spot, and how little Amazon seemed to care. I have quite a few author friends who associated with and did promotions with some of these people last fall. It's one of the reasons they were able to get such a foothold, because they used successful authors to thrust them to the top.

I'm not advocating a witch hunt. I think if a list of names is allowed, we should absolutely ensure that we don't publicly speculate about others who haven't been terminated. There are a few that are still doing this in plain sight, and I wish we could talk about them but that's not how Kboards operates. I understand why. I can know with certainty the names of people still scamming the system, but based on what's happening on Twitter, others aren't so careful.


----------



## Crime fighters

Atlantisatheart said:


> It's not just pen names, but real names that need to be outed so that nobody works with them ever again.


This would be dangerous. I happen to know four of their real names (not from doxxing, either. For as smart as these people tend to be, they have been sloppy with covering their real identities). I'm not going to share those names with anyone, ever because it serves no purpose. They're not operating under their real names.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Crime fighters said:


> This would be dangerous. I happen to know four of their real names (not from doxxing, either. For as smart as these people tend to be, they have been sloppy with covering their real identities). I'm not going to share those names with anyone, ever because it serves no purpose. They're not operating under their real names.


Agreed. Doxing is sinking to their level. This is a game that needs to be played and won via the high road.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Y'all want to start a site where you list the people you suspect of misbehavior, go right ahead.

It ain't happenin' here.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Crime fighters said:


> This would be dangerous. I happen to know four of their real names (not from doxxing, either. For as smart as these people tend to be, they have been sloppy with covering their real identities). I'm not going to share those names with anyone, ever because it serves no purpose. They're not operating under their real names.


They aren't going to be using their pen names when dealing with co-author payments. What if these guys come back as publishers? How many authors will get sucked in before the jig is up and everyone gets banned?


----------



## Anarchist

Ann in Arlington said:


> Y'all want to start a site where you list the people you suspect of misbehavior, go right ahead.
> 
> It ain't happenin' here.


Whew. That's good to hear.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Atlantisatheart said:


> They aren't going to be using their pen names when dealing with co-author payments. What if these guys come back as publishers? How many authors will get sucked in before the jig is up and everyone gets banned?


They're probably not going to be using their real names on those, either. You can open up a bank account under a DBA, or it's pretty trivial to create an LLC with hidden directors to operate under, which they'd most likely need to do at this point to open new accounts on Amazon anyway.

For all we know these same people have been involved in the scamming going back to KU 1.0. They just change accounts as the old ones are banned and figure out a new loophole. Since most of the high-level scamming has had the black hat internet marketer types in it up to their eyeballs from the very beginning, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. As long as the program is paying out at the rate that it does for so little effort on their parts, they're not just going to go away.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Puddleduck said:


> Not suspect. Know. That's the difference we're trying to highlight. No one wants to start naming people based on speculation. But when there's hard evidence of bad actors that legit authors should avoid, it's frustrating and unhelpful when people constantly talk around them but never name them so those of us not already in the know can avoid them. I think of the person sometimes referenced as "RH" who was talked about a lot at various points, while she was still doing her thing, and it was said to avoid her but without any information that would allow newbie authors to identify her and therefore know who to avoid. What's the point of even warning people, then?


I guess the point is that kboards is a discussion forum first and foremost. A place like, say, Writer Beware, is more a repository for bad actors in the industry.


----------



## Dpock

Ann in Arlington said:


> Y'all want to start a site where you list the people you suspect of misbehavior, go right ahead.


No one suggested that.


----------



## Crime fighters

Ann in Arlington said:


> Y'all want to start a site where you list the people you suspect of misbehavior, go right ahead.
> 
> It ain't happenin' here.


It's not "suspect". There's plenty of proof. Mountains of evidence of everything from gaming the system to threatening the lives of other authors, which actually transpired on this very forum and nothing was done about it. I take it the moderators have reached an official decision on the matter, and we will respect that even if we don't agree with it.

If people want names, please see David G's blog. I won't link to it because I'm not sure if that would be a violation of the rules. It's not a comprehensive list, but it'll give you an idea of what to look out for. Authors need to be able to protect themselves, so if you're at all worried, please do some digging.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Puddleduck said:


> Not suspect. Know. That's the difference we're trying to highlight. No one wants to start naming people based on speculation. But when there's hard evidence of bad actors that legit authors should avoid, it's frustrating and unhelpful when people constantly talk around them but never name them so those of us not already in the know can avoid them. I think of the person sometimes referenced as "RH" who was talked about a lot at various points, while she was still doing her thing, and it was said to avoid her but without any information that would allow newbie authors to identify her and therefore know who to avoid. What's the point of even warning people, then?


There's already been talk about the full list going up in other places, Puddleduck, and it will be widely shared - real names and pen names, and if it's not done on a site like this then I suspect it will also include a lot of associate names as well - that'll be the downside. Without moderation of that list then things are going to get very ugly for a lot of people.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Ann in Arlington said:


> Y'all want to start a site where you list the people you suspect of misbehavior, go right ahead.
> 
> It ain't happenin' here.


Unless I'm mistaken, this wasn't the suggestion. Wasn't the suggestion to list the pen names/accounts that have been terminated/404'd by Amazon?


----------



## Starry_Knights

Crime fighters said:


> It's not "suspect". There's plenty of proof. Mountains of evidence of everything from gaming the system to threatening the lives of other authors, which actually transpired on this very forum and nothing was done about it.


Wow, I had no idea it'd reached that level of ugliness.


----------



## KelliWolfe

I dunno. Maybe it is a good idea to be more public about it. Especially when people like Chance show up on kboards to try to entice members into participating in their projects - which I believe a fair number of people did without fully realizing what was going on until David jumped in. Others knew and went along anyway because they were watching these people destroy their livelihoods and it became a "join or die" kind of thing.


----------



## Crime fighters

Lilly_Frost said:


> Wow, I had no idea it'd reached that level of ugliness.


People are free to to make their own judgments about what transpired, and the men involved said they were joking, but saying you are making enough money to hire a hitman to shut someone up isn't a joke in my book, especially when it's aimed at a woman.


----------



## MmmmmPie

RPatton said:


> But instead of authors feeling the strike from KDP, KDP felt the strike from both Legal and Compliance. The terminated accounts were not swept up by an algorithm or bots, they were all examined closely and KDP, under the scrutiny of other departments, took action. They removed all wiggle room.


This makes a lot of sense. I could see a scenario where KDP is running like a somewhat independent operation, but then the bad publicity hits, and suddenly Amazon's legal team gets involved. In a way, it's shocking that it's taken so long. For a while now, this has seemed like a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen.


----------



## Crystal_

Crime fighters said:


> It's not "suspect". There's plenty of proof. Mountains of evidence of everything from gaming the system to threatening the lives of other authors, which actually transpired on this very forum and nothing was done about it. I take it the moderators have reached an official decision on the matter, and we will respect that even if we don't agree with it.
> 
> If people want names, please see David G's blog. I won't link to it because I'm not sure if that would be a violation of the rules. It's not a comprehensive list, but it'll give you an idea of what to look out for. Authors need to be able to protect themselves, so if you're at all worried, please do some digging.


I don't think a list needs to include speculation. It can simply be a list of pen names with pulled accounts. We don't have to guess why Amazon pulled the accounts, just that they did. I don't see any reason not to create such a list. The pen names themselves are public information. Everyone with good memories who pays attention notices certain names no longer showing up.


----------



## Dpock

KelliWolfe said:


> Especially when people like Chance show up on kboards to try to entice members into participating in their projects -


Someone else whose initials involved letters of the alphabet also found candidates here for her boxset schemes.

Maybe this is not the place for ruthless analysis of fraudsters sullying our primary platform (Amazon). That's fine.

Someone with more wherewithal could set up an alternate forum using Proboards for free (just not FB please). There are behaviors on Amazon I've often questioned or wished to better understand. It's difficult to do without naming the book or author in question. This is just as true for judging another author's success.

Another recent thread here announced new scams afoot. They're hard to examine without knowing the perpetrators.


----------



## JWright

Anyone who comes back to KU and tries to lure other writers into things will have to do so under a new name and be very careful about it since Amazon has made it clear they are not allowed to come back under a new name.

A list somewhere - obviously can't be kboards - of accounts with 404 pages might give some people a better idea of the extent of the problem and some of the bad players, but it is kind of hindsight in retrospect.  Maybe someone with knowledge who could write an account of what went on and how people got lured in might be more useful.  It might help people what to be aware of in the future, although maybe not because the tactics might be completely different. It probably would have to be published somewhere else than here. 

The whole thing about stuffing is pretty classic.  People claiming over and over how Amazon was fine with it and how people love free books.  Well, the people who got their accounts shut down were doing a lot more than stuffing so that might not have factored much if at all into why they got terminated, but anyone who stuffs or stuffed in the past is doing something that other people who have done illegal stuff do - so I think that's very risky.  It's one of the ways people made so much money by having books with tons of pages and it's something lots of other writers are upset about and what is very visible.  

I think anyone who is still stuffing now might as well have a sign on their forehead "Investigate me too Amazon."

Also, I think anyone who claims to know why or why not an account was terminated is just speculating.  Amazon isn't specific enough for anyone to know. 

I think writers need to be careful about the tactics they use, the box sets they participate in, the newsletters they swap with, the advertising channels and sites that they use.  Do your due diligence.


----------



## Crime fighters

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think a list needs to include speculation. It can simply be a list of pen names with pulled accounts. We don't have to guess why Amazon pulled the accounts, just that they did. I don't see any reason not to create such a list. The pen names themselves are public information. Everyone with good memories who pays attention notices certain names no longer showing up.


Agree.


----------



## Ava Glass

How about running evidence of account termination by the mods privately first?

Reporting an account termination is not defamation if it really happened.

What about if/when Amazon takes bad actors to arbitration? There will be news articles at that point. News articles with real names. What then?


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Becca Mills

Give me 15 minutes to catch up, and I'll reopen this ...


----------



## Becca Mills

What a great discussion, folks. Y'all are raising many of the issues and viewpoints that occur to us as well. FYI, we have not had a chance to come to a decision on this. One of us is tied up with some real-life stuff at the moment and hasn't been able to be online much.

As Ann said, the idea of naming people who are _suspected _of wrongdoing is a non-starter. That's exactly what we want to avoid. Even within legal systems, which have expensive trials with experts and established evidentiary standards and so forth, later exoneration is not all that uncommon. We want to be very, very careful in situations where someone could be subjected to public vilification that turns out to be undeserved or not fully deserved. There's a significant difference between private sites, some of which feel comfortable allowing more speculative content, and sites like KBoards, whose raison d'etre is public discussion. We really are about information that is already public or that one of our members chooses to make public because the info is about them. So the question is whether a group of individuals who have already been moved against in a public way by a reputable entity (ahem ... <severe look> ... no jokes about whether Amazon is a "reputable entity," please) can be discussed here by name.

It's worth noting that some of the benefits people have mentioned above would only accrue if _suspected _individuals were named before Amazon took action. It was _before_ the recent account suspensions that people were at risk of newsletter swaps with authors who've now been suspended, for instance. The possibility we've been discussing in the smoke-filled caves -- allowing named discussion of those whose accounts have been suspended -- would not have helped protect people earlier. The possible benefit of being able to discuss the account-suspended individuals by name isn't really about having some sort of list, IMO; it'd just be a bit easier to talk about the matter if anonymity didn't have to be maintained.

At any rate, we'll keep discussing it and hopefully come to a conclusion. For now, please hold off.


----------



## Anarchist

Becca Mills said:


> Even within legal systems, which have expensive trials with experts and established evidentiary standards and so forth, later exoneration is not all that uncommon. We want to be very, very careful in situations where someone could be subjected to public vilification that turns out to be undeserved or not fully deserved.


QFT


----------



## MmmmmPie

Something to consider... This has been a KU problem, which means that these pen names have been exclusive to Amazon. Now, their Amazon accounts have been terminated. If these names can't publish on Amazon, odds are pretty good that they'll soon be publishing their books wide, if only to squeeze some more juice out of their prior investments. 

It's true that without the rank boost from borrows and inflated payments from stuffing, they'll have a much harder time of it, but that doesn't mean that they can't do some damage to wide authors and other marketplaces. I'm sure their wheels are turning, even as we speak.

IMO, we can't say, "Oh, they're gone from Amazon, so there's no need to publish the names." These guys don't give up that easily.

That being said, if the names aren't published, please (whoever) add me to the list of people who would really like to know by private message, if only to protect myself.


----------



## SalaciousStories

I agree that a list of pen names removed would be useless. Pen names are the Kleenex of self-publishing--utterly disposable.

And calls to doxx people are just grossly unethical, regardless of the guidelines they've transgressed on. Lest we all forget, two parties know the reason for an account removal: Amazon and the removed individual (and even then, sometimes it's just Amazon and the removed individual is left in the dark). Anything and everything else is purely speculative. Speculation can be actionable when it becomes defamatory, which isn't where I'd want _my_ time and money spent.


----------



## K&#039;Sennia Visitor

If anyone is interested I just created a new proboards forum. Anyone is welcome to go there to create your bad actors lists, share evidence, do whatever you wish to do that is not allowed here. If no one wants to use it, no biggie. But it's there if you want. 

http://indieauthorhaven.freeforums.net/


----------



## MyraScott

SalaciousStories said:


> And calls to doxx people are just grossly unethical, regardless of the guidelines they've transgressed on. Lest we all forget, two parties know the reason for an account removal: Amazon and the removed individual (and even then, sometimes it's just Amazon and the removed individual is left in the dark). Anything and everything else is purely speculative. Speculation can be actionable when it becomes defamatory, which isn't where I'd want _my_ time and money spent.


Who called to doxx people? Why would you even suggest that?

(Whipping up the flames of outrage over something no one said...)


----------



## Crime fighters

MyraScott said:


> Who called to doxx people? Why would you even suggest that?
> 
> (Whipping up the flames of outrage over something no one said...)


Asking for real names isn't doxxing but I assume that's what the was referring to. There is absolutely no harm that can come to anyone for publishing a list of people removed from the store, and yet some people want to continue protecting them? Why?


----------



## RPatton

MyraScott said:


> Who called to doxx people? Why would you even suggest that?
> 
> (Whipping up the flames of outrage over something no one said...)


Actually someone did mention posting real names and pen names. So yes, doxxing was brought up.

There are reasons people use pen names and to disrespect their want for privacy because you suspect them of possibly, maybe doing something bad according to your own personal standards is dangerous.

If people think that there aren't a slew of quiet people reading these threads and taking notes of who they will do business with in the future, they're mistaken. The members of the list of publishers I won't do business with isn't just limited to those who cross my line of ethics with regards to publishing. It includes several names of authors who cross my line of ethics with regards to how they comport themselves on social media and within communities.



Crime fighters said:


> Asking for real names isn't doxxing but I assume that's what the was referring to. There is absolutely no harm that can come to anyone for publishing a list of people removed from the store, and yet some people want to continue protecting them? Why?


No one is protecting an individual. We are protecting abstracts, like the right to privacy, and the right to not be falsely accused because for whatever reason someone has decided you are a scammer because your bonus content hots the 12% mark.


----------



## SalaciousStories

MyraScott said:


> Who called to doxx people? Why would you even suggest that?
> 
> (Whipping up the flames of outrage over something no one said...)





Atlantisatheart said:


> It's not just pen names, but real names that need to be outed so that nobody works with them ever again.


There's one.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Crime fighters said:


> Asking for real names isn't doxxing but I assume that's what the was referring to. There is absolutely no harm that can come to anyone for publishing a list of people removed from the store, and yet some people want to continue protecting them? Why?


Asking for/attempting to extract and then publishing someone's real name or other information that the individual might not want shared is exactly what doxxing is.

As I mentioned above, you don't know why any accounts affected were ultimately removed. None of us do. We suspect. But suspicion entitles us to publish their real personal information into some sort of directory? Thanks, but no thanks. For what it's worth, I'd call foul if someone decided they wanted to publish _your_ personal information based on a suspicion of something, too.

*Edited to include full quote for context and additional commentary.*


----------



## Ava Glass

RPatton said:


> No one is protecting an individual. We are protecting abstracts, like the right to privacy, and the right to not be falsely accused because for whatever reason someone has decided you are a scammer because your bonus content hots the 12% mark.


I thought the particular question being debated right now is whether terminated accounts should be reported in this forum using the associated pen names.

Amazon has already taken action at that point.


----------



## Becca Mills

Ava Glass said:


> I thought the particular question being debated right now is whether terminated accounts should be reported in this forum using the associated pen names.
> 
> Amazon has already taken action at that point.


That's right. I think several of the suspended authors' names have already been mentioned in the thread and left in place, for one reason or another. What remains is the fairly limited question of whether to continue referring to the rest of them as "these authors" (or whatever) or to allow more specific identification.

The names that have already been mentioned have not really continued to be discussed, so I'm not sure the issue is all that significant, really, whichever way it gets decided. With the author pages 404ing, I think the pen names are more or less relics?

At any rate, what's for sure is that fighting over the matter will get the thread locked. So please don't. 

Edited to insert a missing word.


----------



## Crystal_

Is someone creating a list of removed pen names? I could really go for that. I'm not organized enough to have all that info handy.

Again, no editorializing, just reporting which pen names are no longer on Amazon


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Doxing in its true form is done for malicious reasons - there's nothing malicious about warning people that these people could likely ruin your life and career. These people are crying wolf too loudly now.

As for the two thinly veiled threats which amount to the grand sum of - see you in court - they'd have to prove that they didn't get banned for nefarious reasons and open up their practices to a forensic team, the spider's web would be exposed, and that would be worth paying for. The upside to any kind of a court case would be that, not only would the names be widely out there, but that Amazon couldn't just sweep their bad practices under the rug by paying off these guys to go away, and these guys couldn't keep going around threatening people to keep quiet - and that includes their minions.


----------



## sela

I think that, far better than posting a list of pen names that have had their accounts terminated, it would be good to post a list of scams and how they were carried out as a warning for new authors who may not understand the TOS and how some tactic is breaking them. I see new authors suggesting actions that contravene or break the TOS frequently and it's purely because they don't know that they consider it. They don't read the TOS so they don't know what is considered breaking them or unethical. Review swaps, for example.

So, while I am against doxxing the scammers, I am not against using the pen names of those who have had their accounts terminated as part of explaining the various scam and how they were carried out -- for educational purposes. In fact, it would be a service to the community to show the whole sordid business with screen shots that would illustrate how the TOS were contravened and how the ill-gotten gains were got -- and the consequences.

I know most of us feel hesitant to dox these scammers. I do as well. I have seen how some people can go over the line into harassment when dealing with this issue. We've seen the damage from a lawsuit to some of our members. Discretion is the better part of valour, so the saying goes.

However, this is a business and we are all business people even if we think of ourselves as artists first. If we were involved in the restaurant business (or any other business) instead of indie publishing and our competitor was found to be violating bylaws etc, such as buying expired foods and violating food safety handling and health regs, and their restaurant's license was suspended, their names are public and their violations would be posted on the restaurant door for the world to see. So while I don't advocate doxxing these scammers, it's interesting to me why we think indie authors should be treated differently than any other business person violating ethics and regulations, etc. 

Food for thought.


----------



## Dpock

Crystal_ said:


> Is someone creating a list of removed pen names? I could really go for that. I'm not organized enough to have all that info handy.
> 
> Again, no editorializing, just reporting which pen names are no longer on Amazon


I haven't seen a vetted list but if you look at the various relevant hashtags floating around the Twitterverse you'll see the same pens mentioned frequently. But the information arrives so spastically it's hard to make use of it or know what's credible. And of course, there's little restraint when it comes to editorializing.

I just happened to have subscribed to several of the now suspended "authors" newsletters. They're fairly brazen in both their avowals of innocence and continued support of pens still bending TOS, which they promote daily.

I've picked up that women's fantasy is a new target (among others. Historical romance keeps coming up). In women's fantasy, I saw lots of recently released books resembling the stuffer's usual MO, but I don't know the category well enough (let's say at all) to know if it's currently being infested. Several of the books I opened (Look Inside) had triple spacings, 16pt or higher fonts, etc., the usual telltale signs of KU gaming.

The thing is, these "people", and there are LOTS of them, are heavily networked and supportive of each other. Their newsletters, even with their accounts are suspended, still reach zillions of readers. Whatever they have in their pipelines, they have the support they'll need to make a big impression.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

sela said:


> I think that, far better than posting a list of pen names that have had their accounts terminated, it would be good to post a list of scams and how they were carried out as a warning for new authors who may not understand the TOS and how some tactic is breaking them. I see new authors suggesting actions that contravene or break the TOS frequently and it's purely because they don't know that they consider it. They don't read the TOS so they don't know what is considered breaking them or unethical. Review swaps, for example.
> 
> So, while I am against doxxing the scammers, I am not against using the pen names of those who have had their accounts terminated as part of explaining the various scam and how they were carried out -- for educational purposes. In fact, it would be a service to the community to show the whole sordid business with screen shots that would illustrate how the TOS were contravened and how the ill-gotten gains were got -- and the consequences.
> 
> I know most of us feel hesitant to dox these scammers. I do as well. I have seen how some people can go over the line into harassment when dealing with this issue. We've seen the damage from a lawsuit to some of our members. Discretion is the better part of valour, so the saying goes.
> 
> However, this is a business and we are all business people even if we think of ourselves as artists first. If we were involved in the restaurant business (or any other business) instead of indie publishing and our competitor was found to be violating bylaws etc, such as buying expired foods and violating food safety handling and health regs, and their restaurant's license was suspended, their names are public and their violations would be posted on the restaurant door for the world to see. So while I don't advocate doxxing these scammers, it's interesting to me why we think indie authors should be treated differently than any other business person violating ethics and regulations, etc.
> 
> Food for thought.


I'd be interested in the scams. I could care less about the names but the scams would be pertinent information that could stop others from being taken advantage of. Although I'd rather it be on another thread.


----------



## TaraCrescent

sela said:


> However, this is a business and we are all business people even if we think of ourselves as artists first. If we were involved in the restaurant business (or any other business) instead of indie publishing and our competitor was found to be violating bylaws etc, such as buying expired foods and violating food safety handling and health regs, and their restaurant's license was suspended, their names are public and their violations would be posted on the restaurant door for the world to see. So while I don't advocate doxxing these scammers, it's interesting to me why we think indie authors should be treated differently than any other business person violating ethics and regulations, etc.
> 
> Food for thought.


This isn't the same thing. In the case of restaurants, there is a public inspection process, and restaurants that violate that process are reported *by the inspecting body, which has an obligation to be neutral, not by a competing restaurant.* What's being suggested in this thread (by some people, not everyone) is more synonymous with a competitor posting their speculations about why the restaurant was shut down, without any corroboration by the inspecting body.

If Amazon were to make public a list of who was shut down and why, that's one thing. But other writers speculating? We might have a really good sense of why Amazon shut down some people's accounts, but at the end of the day, we don't know.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Atlantisatheart said:


> Doxing in its true form is done for malicious reasons - there's nothing malicious about warning people that these people could likely ruin your life and career. These people are crying wolf too loudly now.


I wasn't aware doxxing had a true form or that there was a non-malicious, totally ethical version. You learn something new every day!

Seriously though, in what universe are a handful of removed authors coming back for revenge, or whatever scenario justifies doxxing them? To my knowledge, they ruined zero people's lives or careers while they were actually active. Getting removed from Amazon gives them life-and-career-ruining powers? I'm not buying it.

But okay, I'll bite. In the however unlikely scenario that a removed author was hell-bent on revenge, knowing their real name does what in the context of the internet? My name's Nate. But I could tell you it's whatever I want, and it wouldn't be hard to set up something convincing, either. The point is that avoiding bad actors is the same whether you know specifically who they are or not: use caution and common sense, exercise due diligence, and question reputation. Doxxing just ethically brings us down, regardless of the "good" reasons.


----------



## Not any more

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> I'd be interested in the scams. I could care less about the names but the scams would be pertinent information that could stop others from being taken advantage of. Although I'd rather it be on another thread.


This.


----------



## Crystal_

Dpock said:


> I haven't seen a vetted list but if you look at the various relevant hashtags floating around the Twitterverse you'll see the same pens mentioned frequently. But the information arrives so spastically it's hard to make use of it or know what's credible. And of course, there's little restraint when it comes to editorializing.
> 
> I just happened to have subscribed to several of the now suspended "authors" newsletters. They're fairly brazen in both their avowals of innocence and continued support of pens still bending TOS, which they promote daily.
> 
> I've picked up that women's fantasy is a new target (among others. Historical romance keeps coming up). In women's fantasy, I saw lots of recently released books resembling the stuffer's usual MO, but I don't know the category well enough (let's say at all) to know if it's currently being infested. Several of the books I opened (Look Inside) had triple spacings, 16pt or higher fonts, etc., the usual telltale signs of KU gaming.
> 
> The thing is, these "people", and there are LOTS of them, are heavily networked and supportive of each other. Their newsletters, even with their accounts are suspended, still reach zillions of readers. Whatever they have in their pipelines, they have the support they'll need to make a big impression.


Yeah, you can't take people's word for it. When people were outed for using stolen images in their FB ads, they claimed innocence. Even if they were unaware their hired help was using stolen images, they are still responsible for the stolen images used under their ad accounts.

Women's fiction > fantasy is a difficult category because it's very easy to accidentally keyword into it. I refuse to stop using stuff like "Cinderella fantasy" in my keywords, because they are perfectly apt keywords, but that puts me in women's fiction > fantasy. There's another debate as to whether or not sexy romances can also be women's fiction, but I'm not having it today. / sidebar.


----------



## sela

TaraCrescent said:


> This isn't the same thing. In the case of restaurants, there is a public inspection process, and restaurants that violate that process are reported *by the inspecting body, which has an obligation to be neutral, not by a competing restaurant.* What's being suggested in this thread (by some people, not everyone) is more synonymous with a competitor posting their speculations about why the restaurant was shut down, without any corroboration by the inspecting body.
> 
> If Amazon were to make public a list of who was shut down and why, that's one thing. But other writers speculating? We might have a really good sense of why Amazon shut down some people's accounts, but at the end of the day, we don't know.


Fair enough.

It's not government with a public process of inspection, etc. where the public expects restaurants to follow the regs and statutes and for the officials to make sure premises are inspected fairly and infractions are fixed.

But it is business, and what our fellow business people do affects us. The fact that Amazon is not very open about its process and selectively enforces its TOS, changing them at their whim (which is their right of course) means that the rest of us are often operating blind when it comes to collaborating with other authors or using the services of various providers, promoters and advertisers.

If we kept quiet because we don't want to step on each other's toes, people will be forced to find out the hard way if someone is a bad actor or operating in good faith.

Posting the pen names of those with their accounts terminated is not perfect, but because we don't live in a perfect world, it may be the only way we can protect ourselves and educate others. If Amazon won't be open and transparent about its processes, it seems to fall to authors to educate ourselves and maybe that means talking openly about pen names that have had their accounts suspended or terminated and try to understand why and to be aware of what they were doing.

I'm not talking about posting the names and addresses of authors. I don't see the merit in that and think it would be harmful because there are nuts out there. I've had a run in with one myself and it is scary. I'm talking about showing what the scammers were doing so new authors can understand and make sure they aren't getting sucked in by these scammers or doing anything hinky themselves.

For the past two years, I've been trying to study the top books in the romance genre as part of my business plan so I can understand what readers want. It's been a fool's errand since many of those top books were there because the publishers cheated their way to the top. They variously paid for reviews, stuffed their books with duplicate content to maximize KENP, incentivized readers to turn pages to the end for unearned KENP, had illegal lotteries to convince readers to turn pages for unearned KENP, used nefarious formatting to pad KENP, encouraged readers to skip to the back for a prize, etc. and may have botted their way to the top.

In other words, the market was not working as it should have because of these bad actors. They got money for months and months and months that they did not earn. Amazon even paid them all star bonus month after month to add insult to injury.

But I agree we have to be careful in how we handle any kind of public discussion of this issue.


----------



## KelliWolfe

sometimes you just have to proceed on the best information you have. Amazon isn't going to give us any insight into what happened. The scammers certainly aren't. But we have our own accounts and incomes to protect. The actions of the scammers in KU have caused a lot of damage, and not just in potentially lost revenue and bonuses from boosting their books to the top of the heap. The botting has caused innocent people to lose 50% of their page reads, caused suspensions, and even account bans. A number of people have pulled or are considering pulling their books out of KU as a result because of the risks.

At the point where they start screwing with other people's accounts and livelihoods, the time to play nice and give every possible freakin' benefit of the doubt is over. And it's *always* the same black hat internet marketer types who start this garbage, every single time there's a major scam busted up in KU. They get busted, so they change their tactics around a bit and come back with new accounts. First it was ghostwritten short erotica and scamlets in KU 1.0, heavily botted. Then it was the computer generated and scraped books for KU 2.0, also heavily botted because the books weren't readable and they were hitting the top lists. And now this. And within a couple of months they'll be right back with some new way to exploit the loopholes.

Every time they pull this crap, innocent people get hurt either directly by their actions like the botting, or because of the fallout when Amazon is forced to finally do something and starts flailing around with a sledgehammer. Amazon isn't going to keep them out of KU and protect our accounts for us. Amazon refuses to police their own system until they're forced to when it gets so out of hand that it's getting bad publicity on mainstream sites. So maybe it's time to start collecting this information somewhere we all have access to it and we are better informed about what's going on, and maybe be more proactive about keeping an eye out for the kinds of behavior we've seen again and again. No one else is going to do it for us, that's for sure.


----------



## Phxsundog

I'm also tired of the excuses and support publishing the banned pen names, but not real names, publicly. For anyone in the know, it was extremely frustrating catching these publishers doing dirty things for the last 6-12 months, and then watching them dish out nonsensical damage control. So I decided to put together a quick summary.

Stolen ad images: They claimed it was their ad manager, a cheap Upwork hire, who took the images. Then they left them running for months and mostly continued to use the same guy. They took zero responsibility and refused to offer compensation or an apology to the photographers and models who had their pictures stolen. One was even a random couple who had their engagement photos scrapped off the open internet by this ad manager without permission to use in Facebook ads.

Daily newsletter spam: It's technically allowed and opt-in so why not send readers Bookclicker recommendations every single day? Sometimes multiple times per day? Sometimes when authors complained about winding up on their lists, too, despite never signing up, and people reported their lists were so segmented the emails would just keep coming and they could never get off no matter how many times they unsubscribed?

Rank stripping and clickfarmed borrows: Another thing they denied. It's not like they knowingly bought clickfarmed borrows and then got caught and rank stripped last summer. Even though the Mastermind authors and their close friends were maybe 80% of the authors stripped in the first big wave Amazon did a year ago. I realize a lot of innocent authors have gotten hit by this since, which is wrong. You can bet your bottom dollar the first rank stripping purge included many scammers who were using borrow services to spike their rank.

Playing fast and loose with giveaways: Chance Carter. Say no more. They were happy to hand out gift cards and prizes with no regard for the law or Amazon TOS.

Legal threat bullying: Time and time again, as soon as their names were mentioned publicly with direct evidence of what they were doing (not just accusations), an anonymous account would come charging in on social media warning people they'd get sued if they kept talking about them openly. These accounts often had silly sounding names like Law and Order and dropped a lot of scary sounding legal words to sound official. Eventually, after the June 1st blowup hit, people stopped ignoring their threats. It didn't stop the stuffers and scammers from continuing to make them, though. Before their fake accounts went radio silent, they made implied threats to several GetLoud people by messaging them with their own names and home addresses.

Contempt for romance readers: Here's why real names are relevant sometimes. One of the big stuffers got outed. It turns he was a major Kindle internet marketing guru who'd done Youtube interviews and sold master courses for several years. In at least one of these interviews, he was caught laughing at how dumb romance readers are and was proud of the fact that he'd never read a romance novel while earning tons of money off publishing in the genre. He aggressively erased the internet marketing material under his real name as links were posted and discussed in major romance author communities.

Formatting hacks: They mangled their books with abusive spacing between paragraphs, huge fonts and other nasty formatting tricks. They didn't care whether or not it created a bad reader experience, which it did because they were getting a growing number of bad reviews over formatting. They only stopped due to the social media outcry plus punishment by Amazon.

Collections retitling denial: Several of them came out loudly the day after Amazon published its June 1st policy change, swearing up that retitling a stuffed book a collection or compilation was just fine. They said anyone who warned otherwise was dead wrong. It's unclear whether the retitling loophole was ever safe and it still isn't clear because Amazon continues to send mixed signals about it. Claiming that they had official word from KDP that it was sanctioned was reckless and dangerous to the entire indie community when Amazon's stance on collections has never been clarified.

Breach after breach of trust, TOS, and common decency is why I think their pen names should be posted, so other unknowing indie authors can protect themselves from these predatory publishers. The indie community should know who they are in case they ever surface again. If any of these pen names shows up with a new KDP account, they should be immediately reported to [email protected] so KDP can review their records and keep them banned.


----------



## AltMe

Phxsundog said:


> I'm also tired of the excuses and support publishing the banned pen names, but not real names, publicly. For anyone in the know, it was extremely frustrating catching these publishers doing dirty things for the last 6-12 months, and then watching them dish out nonsensical damage control. So I decided to put together a quick summary.
> 
> Stolen ad images: They claimed it was their ad manager, a cheap Upwork hire, who took the images. Then they left them running for months and mostly continued to use the same guy. They took zero responsibility and refused to offer compensation or an apology to the photographers and models who had their pictures stolen. One was even a random couple who had their engagement photos scrapped off the open internet by this ad manager without permission to use in Facebook ads.
> 
> Daily newsletter spam: It's technically allowed and opt-in so why not send readers Bookclicker recommendations every single day? Sometimes multiple times per day? Sometimes when authors complained about winding up on their lists, too, despite never signing up, and people reported their lists were so segmented the emails would just keep coming and they could never get off no matter how many times they unsubscribed?
> 
> Rank stripping and clickfarmed borrows: Another thing they denied. It's not like they knowingly bought clickfarmed borrows and then got caught and rank stripped last summer. Even though the Mastermind authors and their close friends were maybe 80% of the authors stripped in the first big wave Amazon did a year ago. I realize a lot of innocent authors have gotten hit by this since, which is wrong. You can bet your bottom dollar the first rank stripping purge included many scammers who were using borrow services to spike their rank.
> 
> Playing fast and loose with giveaways: Chance Carter. Say no more. They were happy to hand out gift cards and prizes with no regard for the law or Amazon TOS.
> 
> Legal threat bullying: Time and time again, as soon as their names were mentioned publicly with direct evidence of what they were doing (not just accusations), an anonymous account would come charging in on social media warning people they'd get sued if they kept talking about them openly. These accounts often had silly sounding names like Law and Order and dropped a lot of scary sounding legal words to sound official. Eventually, after the June 1st blowup hit, people stopped ignoring their threats. It didn't stop the stuffers and scammers from continuing to make them, though. Before their fake accounts went radio silent, they made implied threats to several GetLoud people by messaging them with their own names and home addresses.
> 
> Contempt for romance readers: Here's why real names are relevant sometimes. One of the big stuffers got outed. It turns he was a major Kindle internet marketing guru who'd done Youtube interviews and sold master courses for several years. In at least one of these interviews, he was caught laughing at how dumb romance readers are and was proud of the fact that he'd never read a romance novel while earning tons of money off publishing in the genre. He aggressively erased the internet marketing material under his real name as links were posted and discussed in major romance author communities.
> 
> Formatting hacks: They mangled their books with abusive spacing between paragraphs, huge fonts and other nasty formatting tricks. They didn't care whether or not it created a bad reader experience, which it did because they were getting a growing number of bad reviews over formatting. They only stopped due to the social media outcry plus punishment by Amazon.
> 
> Collections retitling denial: Several of them came out loudly the day after Amazon published its June 1st policy change, swearing up that retitling a stuffed book a collection or compilation was just fine. They said anyone who warned otherwise was dead wrong. It's unclear whether the retitling loophole was ever safe and it still isn't clear because Amazon continues to send mixed signals about it. Claiming that they had official word from KDP that it was sanctioned was reckless and dangerous to the entire indie community when Amazon's stance on collections has never been clarified.
> 
> Breach after breach of trust, TOS, and common decency is why I think their pen names should be posted, so other unknowing indie authors can protect themselves from these predatory publishers. The indie community should know who they are in case they ever surface again. If any of these pen names shows up with a new KDP account, they should be immediately reported to [email protected] so KDP can review their records and keep them banned.


Why isn't all this documented and stickied to the top of the forum?

Author 101: Don't touch these people, and don't use these services. Under penalty of Amazon nuking you.

I have to wonder if such a list existed, if those proclaiming their innocence after being nuked, wouldn't find something on the list they did without realizing it was a no-no.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

TimothyEllis said:


> Why isn't all this documented and stickied to the top of the forum?
> 
> Author 101: Don't touch these people, and don't use these services. Under penalty of Amazon nuking you.
> 
> I have to wonder if such a list existed, if those proclaiming their innocence after being nuked, wouldn't find something on the list they did without realizing it was a no-no.


Even if it was, there would be a dozen new accounts created coming in to argue why it was wrong, and then we'd end up with 50 more pages of FUD


----------



## KelliWolfe

TimothyEllis said:


> Why isn't all this documented and stickied to the top of the forum?
> 
> Author 101: Don't touch these people, and don't use these services. Under penalty of Amazon nuking you.
> 
> I have to wonder if such a list existed, if those proclaiming their innocence after being nuked, wouldn't find something on the list they did without realizing it was a no-no.


From what RPatton has said, they each engaged in the same rather long list of actions that outright violated TOS or were deep down in the dark parts of the gray areas, or their accounts wouldn't have been banned.

For once it looks like Amazon did a surgical strike instead of pursuing their usual method of using a sledgehammer on anything that even looked suspicious. The only accounts we've seen or heard of vanish were all closely associated with the Mastermind group. There haven't been dozens of smaller unrelated authors loudly complaining about their accounts getting banned as collateral damage. Which very much makes it sound to me like RPatton is right on the money. This wasn't a simple matter of stuffing, and it wasn't innocent. A group of highly interconnected very big names all got their accounts nuked at once and no one else (or at least no one that we've heard of) was touched? Yeah, they were doing a lot more than just stuffing and it wasn't innocent.

[Edited to fix RPatton's name. Should not post before the 3rd cup of coffee.]


----------



## SalaciousStories

I sort of feel like a "list of scams" would be more instructional to people looking for shortcuts (and building on that research) than educational for people looking to protect themselves. I mean, there is a pile of information published about things like phishing scams, but it doesn't stop people from routinely falling for them. And a list of pen names involved is meaningless since I seriously doubt an actual scam artist would continue to trade under the same name (plus not all accounts affected _are_ actual scam artists, so their inclusion on such a list seems overly punitive).

A smarter play I think would be a list of things people could do to _actually_ protect themselves and/or ethical/legal best practices when it comes to publishing so folks aren't implicated in something due to ignorance as opposed to malice (which is something that I think happens more often than not).


----------



## Not any more

From what I can tell with a quick scan, only one major stuffer remains. 2500 page books containing multiple books that are published under their own titles and each containing all the other books by that author. Teflon-coated, I guess.


----------



## Crime fighters

Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Hugo Boss was innocent. How could he have known that Theo James didn't give him permission to use that video as an ad?


brkingsolver said:


> From what I can tell with a quick scan, only one major stuffer remains. 2500 page books containing multiple books that are published under their own titles and each containing all the other books by that author. Teflon-coated, I guess.


There are at least four major stuffers still active. They might have pulled back on the number of books stuffed, but they're a part of the 'cabal'. Note that a few of them are on IF and BF still. I've refused to join promos because of their inclusion.


----------



## KelliWolfe

dezburke said:


> *These people do NOT deserve to be protected any longer by the author community. By protecting them, we're taking away the protection of all the other authors. They're not like us. They're internet marketers. They have run KU for over a year by intimidation and dirty tactics. They never learn their lesson either, so don't think they'll come back reformed because they won't.*


This needs to be hammered home until it sinks in. These people are not *writers*. They are not even content mill publishers. They are scammers from the black hat internet marketers. They do not care about books or readers at all. The only thing they are interested in is bilking huge amounts of money from KU. They're willing to steal content and burn legitimate authors' accounts to the ground. These are the same kind of people (if not actually the same individuals) who pushed scamlets in KU 1.0 and the mass-produced scraped/computer generated books early in 2.0. The current mess is simply the latest iteration in a long line of their KU scams. As soon as they can figure out a new angle and get new accounts up and running they will be back to do it all over again.


----------



## RPatton

Crime fighters said:


> Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Hugo Boss was innocent. How could he have known that Theo James didn't give him permission to use that video as an ad?
> There are at least four major stuffers still active. They might have pulled back on the number of books stuffed, but they're a part of the 'cabal'. Note that a few of them are on IF and BF still. I've refused to join promos because of their inclusion.


And this is where spouting assumptions is dangerous. Let's not give them super powers... This supposed cabal, which it isn't, this is just a group of people who exploited the weaknesses in a system to their advantage, broke apart quite some time ago and authors did attempt to distance themselves.

And please please please, can we stop throwing around wild accusations and using emotion based verbiage to rile people up? Every single time this conversation becomes a reasonable discussion, someone comes in and tosses out rhetoric that pushes reason out the window. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think it was coming from the authors being accused of bad acts because it completely derails any progress.



KelliWolfe said:


> This needs to be hammered home until it sinks in. These people are not *writers*. They are not even content mill publishers. They are scammers from the black hat internet marketers. They do not care about books or readers at all. The only thing they are interested in is bilking huge amounts of money from KU. They're willing to steal content and burn legitimate authors' accounts to the ground. These are the same kind of people (if not actually the same individuals) who pushed scamlets in KU 1.0 and the mass-produced scraped/computer generated books early in 2.0. The current mess is simply the latest iteration in a long line of their KU scams. As soon as they can figure out a new angle and get new accounts up and running they will be back to do it all over again.


What? No. They absolutely have a right to privacy. Just because they're a bad actor doesn't mean we can justify behaving badly in return. We can try, but that just makes us a bad person.

Regardless of that, Ann has already spoken. If people are so interested in creating a hit list, they should do it on another site. Because that is exactly what any list is. It gives implicit permission to behave badly and is so open to abuse it makes me genuinely frightened for anyone whose name might be on said list.


----------



## Crime fighters

Question to Moderators: hypothetically, if there's a video from one of the people we are talking about in this thread, would we be allowed to post it?? In no way is it doxxing, andthis person is still operating today. These are all words from his own mouth, his own admissions of guilt as he slyly discusses how much money he is making off these scams.


----------



## Dpock

Crime fighters said:


> Question to Moderators: hypothetically, if there's a video from one of the people we are talking about in this thread, would we be allowed to post it?? In no way is it doxxing, andthis person is still operating today. These are all words from his own mouth, his own admissions of guilt as he slyly discusses how much money he is making off these scams.


Hypothetically, if such a video existed, I wouldn't mind receiving the link in a PM.


----------



## Crime fighters

Let it be known that RPatton continually attempts to shut down conversations, and is the loudest voice here for protecting these people. If I were a conspiracy theorist.... Please. If anyone here is working on behalf of the black marketers, it's not the people speaking the loudest. 

That's ridiculous. Insane. Asinine. Incredulous. The very thing you accused me of, you are now doing, which shows your unbrrakable code of ethics bends to suit your arguments. 

And yes, I said cabal, because I was commenting on the previous post, which used the word. Deal with it. And you'll also note that conversation about a terminated list hasn't been shut down, though we know your opinion on the matter as well.


----------



## Crime fighters

And something else, RPatton, you can continue selling this narrative that they're not all connected, but it's a false narrative. It's on tape. It's on YouTube. It's talked about from their own lips.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Crime fighters said:


> Let it be known that RPatton continually attempts to shut down conversations, and is the loudest voice here for protecting these people. If I were a conspiracy theorist.... Please. If anyone here is working on behalf of the black marketers, it's not the people speaking the loudest.
> 
> That's ridiculous. Insane. Asinine. Incredulous. The very thing you accused me of, you are now doing, which shows your unbrrakable code of ethics bends to suit your arguments.
> 
> And yes, I said cabal, because I was commenting on the previous post, which used the word. Deal with it. And you'll also note that conversation about a terminated list hasn't been shut down, though we know your opinion on the matter as well.


RPatton is one of the people who has clearly and repeatedly stated exactly what they were doing and why their accounts were being banned - and that they deserved it. The fact that she doesn't think that it's a good idea to go after them by posting their personal information is a separate issue. There's probably not much point in that because they're going to do what they can to conceal their true identities; my objection earlier was to the way people insist on treating them like they're members of the indie writing community - because they're not. They're scammers who just happen to use books as a means to scam.


----------



## Crime fighters

BTW, I'm not actually accusing RPatton of being involved with them. My comment was in direct response to his/her thinly veiled accusation.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

RPatton said:


> And this is where spouting assumptions is dangerous. Let's not give them super powers... This supposed cabal, which it isn't, this is just a group of people who exploited the weaknesses in a system to their advantage, broke apart quite some time ago and authors did attempt to distance themselves.
> 
> And please please please, can we stop throwing around wild accusations and using emotion based verbiage to rile people up? Every single time this conversation becomes a reasonable discussion, someone comes in and tosses out rhetoric that pushes reason out the window. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think it was coming from the authors being accused of bad acts because it completely derails any progress.
> 
> What? No. They absolutely have a right to privacy. Just because they're a bad actor doesn't mean we can justify behaving badly in return. We can try, but that just makes us a bad person.
> 
> Regardless of that, Ann has already spoken. If people are so interested in creating a hit list, they should do it on another site. Because that is exactly what any list is. It gives implicit permission to behave badly and is so open to abuse it makes me genuinely frightened for anyone whose name might be on said list.


I laughed out loud when I read this, so there is that!

It has been interesting to read a couple of people consistently minimizing and defending these banned publishers. It does make thinking people wonder why, I suspect. I found it particularly interesting when the other publisher of this duo confidently asserted that only one author had been caught, that only the illegal lottery mattered to Amazon, and that the whole thing was basically much ado about nothing. Later on, he said that talking about people *whose accounts had been terminated by Amazon for wrongdoing* was inviting a lawsuit for defamation.

Guys. Their accounts are closed and they are banned. We have all followed what has happened since last September or so, if we are in romance. Our livelihoods and our genre have been harmed. It probably is not going to work anymore to tell us nobody is doing anything against TOS, these guys are just good marketers, we are just jealous, Amazon does not care, etc. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Amazon has eaten their pudding. We are really starting to wonder what your interest is in excusing their actions.

Until, of course, they return in their next incarnation under the names of their wives or their kids. I suspect that what they do next will be equally shady and equally against TOS and the interests of whatever genre they target and its authors. I hope Amazon will act faster next time, but I will not hold my breath.

ETA: I do not see how a list of pen names of banned authors is in any way unethical, but I also do not see what good it does. When they come back, they will use different names. I do think a list of scams would be helpful to new authors. It amazed me last year when romance authors jumped into those newsletter swaps. Red flag territory all the way. I said then and I will say now: cross promoting is like sleeping with somebody. You are sleeping with everybody they have ever slept with. STDs, guys. Now and in the future: be very careful whom you jump into bed with.


----------



## Crime fighters

dezburke said:


> I used the word "cabal" since it was used numerous times when other authors messaged me with their support back in December. I don't know where the term originated from. I had never heard it before December. We know they all worked together. Several of them were part of a box set which hit the USA Today bestseller list. Someone in the group was running Facebook ads for the box set with stolen images too. I did not post on Facebook about this because I wasn't 100% sure which individual author ran the ads. If there was an innocent person in that box set, then there is a possibility they'll get stung by the actions of this group too eventually. The issue about the stolen images isn't over. This is another reason why pen names should be posted.


Five of the people involved in that compilation have had their accounts terminated. There are a few known baddies that remain, a few questionable ones, and a few who are probably innocent and didn't know any better. I feel bad for those people who might get caught up in something they didn't intend. These people were allowed to get a foothold in the genre, and develop relationships with unknowing authors because of silence.


----------



## MmmmmPie

RPatton said:


> Just because they're a bad actor doesn't mean we can justify behaving badly in return. We can try, but that just makes us a bad person.


Oh, so if someone hits you, you're a "bad person" if you hit them back? How convenient.

If someone defrauds you and your customers, and the policing organization (Amazon in this case) shuts down the stores of the bad actors, you're a "bad person" for wanting to list the "businesses (pen names)" that were shut down? How convenient.

This sort of logic seems a like a lovely way to ensure that bad actors will continually run roughshod over good, decent people who are brow-beaten into silence, whether by threats, intimidation, or some sort of twisted guilt trip.

Personally, I'm deeply offended by your statement. Wanting to warn future potential victims does not make me a bad person. Wanting to see these pen names exposed as a warning to other outlets and readers does not make me a bad person. Wanting to shed some light on the cockroaches in the corner does not make me a bad person.

But of course, it would be awful convenient for the scammers if we all accepted this premise, wouldn't it?


----------



## Anarchist

In my opinion, RPatton's efforts in this thread have been heroic.

He has somehow managed to remain levelheaded and objective despite the emotional, hyperbolic rhetoric lobbed in his direction.

Bravo.


----------



## Crystal_

Crime fighters said:


> Let it be known that RPatton continually attempts to shut down conversations, and is the loudest voice here for protecting these people. If I were a conspiracy theorist.... Please. If anyone here is working on behalf of the black marketers, it's not the people speaking the loudest.
> 
> That's ridiculous. Insane. Asinine. Incredulous. The very thing you accused me of, you are now doing, which shows your unbrrakable code of ethics bends to suit your arguments.
> 
> And yes, I said cabal, because I was commenting on the previous post, which used the word. Deal with it. And you'll also note that conversation about a terminated list hasn't been shut down, though we know your opinion on the matter as well.


RPatton isn't shutting down discussion. She's expressing her beliefs about privacy and how we should conduct ourselves online. You don't have to agree with her to see that.

Personally, I think people who have done illegal things should be outed to proper authorities, not to the public at large. Report the copyright infringement to Amazon, to the models and photographers, etc.; report the connection of the pen name and the shady actions publicly; don't connect pen name and legal name publicly.

I can understand why people feel otherwise, but I don't think it's appropriate to doxx someone unless it's the only option (say, someone is in imminent danger if you don't, like if someone made a threat of violence using their pen name. Then, yeah, report the hell out of that).

I think it's a different story of someone is already using their legal name as a persona (if they're selling marketing classes, for ex), because then they've already accepted that kind of attention.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Let's not turn this into a witch hunt ... which is precisely what the twitter stuff has been accused of.  We should keep in mind that the only people we should have an issue with are those who are gaming the system or suspected of gaming the system.  Everything else is simply an opinion of what should or could be done (including nothing), and arguing with someone - who otherwise has no fingers pointed at them - that their opinion is wrong is 1) kind of pointless, and 2) liable to get this thread locked (imho).  

ETA if there is indeed a cabal or mastermind group or whatever they call themselves, I have little doubt that the thing they want most to see is us arguing with each other and turning the spotlight away from them.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

I think that is is hard for authors outside the romance genre to comprehend how much damage this group has done to the genre and its authors. Being told to quiet down about it now, not even to mention the pen names whose parent accounts have been *banned* by Amazon, is pretty galling. (For anybody who does want to know some of the names these people used and what they did, David Gaughran's blog is a good start.) 

The effect on romance from August 2017 on was pretty startling, and their activities were pretty blatant. If they target other genres next time around, I suspect some folks will have an "Oh, huh" moment of realization as they watch their publishing world change around them. I hope these people are gone for good, off to another corner of the Internet, but, boy, I sure do doubt it.


----------



## Crime fighters

Crystal_ said:


> RPatton isn't shutting down discussion. She's expressing her beliefs about privacy and how we should conduct ourselves online. You don't have to agree with her to see that.
> 
> Personally, I think people who have done illegal things should be outed to proper authorities, not to the public at large. Report the copyright infringement to Amazon, to the models and photographers, etc.; report the connection of the pen name and the shady actions publicly; don't connect pen name and legal name publicly.
> 
> I can understand why people feel otherwise, but I don't think it's appropriate to doxx someone unless it's the only option (say, someone is in imminent danger if you don't, like if someone made a threat of violence using their pen name. Then, yeah, report the hell out of that).
> 
> I think it's a different story of someone is already using their legal name as a persona (if they're selling marketing classes, for ex), because then they've already accepted that kind of attention.


Again, my comment was in response to his/her bullshit insulation. For clarity, I have never suggested doxxing someone. The people calling for real names are doing so because it's been said that information publicly exists, which it does. Knowing that information isn't doxxing. That information is known because they've packaged it in YouTube success stories and courses that teach you how to scam the system.

I'm not advocating that we publish a list of every name, even if proof exists that the people IM SPECIFICALLY talking about are bad actors. There are privacy issues I'm concerned with as well due to well-meaning people falsely accusing someone, but a list of terminated accounts without editorial comments isn't harming anyone. It's facts, nothing more. The accounts were terminated. Why? For those of us that have been following this closely, we know why.

Equating wanting to know who the bad actors are to the actual bad actors is a stretch not worthy of being considered level-headed, as Anarchist stated.


----------



## RPatton

Crime fighters said:


> BTW, I'm not actually accusing RPatton of being involved with them. My comment was in direct response to his/her thinly veiled accusation.


So I want to clarify and I am not going to edit my original post, because I firmly believe in what you put out there should stay out there.
I didn't mean to accuse. I realize now, as I read back, that it looks like that, but it wasn't my intention. It just seems that there are people who come in from all sides and play on emotions and it derails a conversation. I was wrong for quoting you as I didn't intend to single you out. It just gets frustrating that as soon as there is a forward movement, the thread gets dragged back into the muck.

I think we both know of the two who were mostly likely swept into it and stepped away and distanced themselves. Just because of that former association, should they be labeled as a scammer when they more or less got swept up into it?

For that matter, I have ties with at least two of those publishers, but it was from almost two years ago. Does that mean I should be added to that list? I'm not in KU, but I was then. Are you (general) going to call me a scammer?

This is my concern. When it becomes easy to throw someone's name on a list just because they disagree with you and lead a vendetta against them, it is dangerous. And each time a group comes after someone who might not be pure as the driven snow (I had one book in KU for a time with a single bonus novel that made up less than 50% of the entire book), but is otherwise pretty unimpeachable, they lose what credibility they had achieved and turn people away.



Anarchist said:


> In my opinion, RPatton's efforts in this thread have been heroic.
> 
> He has somehow managed to remain levelheaded and objective despite the emotional, hyperbolic rhetoric lobbed in his direction.
> 
> Bravo.


I think you. But just to add a little levity to this... Last I checked I had breasts and a uterus, but hey, that could have changed since then


----------



## Dpock

Rick Gualtieri said:


> ETA if there is indeed a cabal or mastermind group or whatever they call themselves, I have little doubt that the thing they want most to see is us arguing with each other and turning the spotlight away from them.


I think we all end up forming casual alliances with other authors (newsletter swaps, etc.). No harm in that. We're not plotting to subvert Amazon's TOS.

Alliances that do plot to cheat the system are definitely cabals, and their collusive newsletters are like club rosters. They promote each other exclusively (always the same covers, copy, target audience).

I doubt they're laughing at the attention they're receiving here. They don't want to be in the spotlight. Their operating manuals instruct them to be under the radar as much as possible (their greed often screws that bit up).

I believe we need to stay ahead of them, which means turning the spotlight to full power. If we see encroachments into new categories or new gimmicks intended to fraudulently game KU, we should feel free to report it.


----------



## boba1823

Usedtoposthere said:


> I think that is is hard for authors outside the romance genre to comprehend how much damage this group has done to the genre and its authors.


Also hard to comprehend for newbies like me who just started looking into publishing around the heyday of those types. I just checked and, sure enough, Aug. 2017 is when I was first seriously looking into publishing and joined the board here. In effect, I never even knew a publishing world without those sorts around. Though even back then I always felt that _something_ strange was going on, based on the Romance bestseller list for Amazon.

Are things today more or less back to how they were back in the before time? The situation is probably still developing, I realize, but based on say the past week or so?


----------



## Crime fighters

RPatton said:


> So I want to clarify and I am not going to edit my original post, because I firmly believe in what you put out there should stay out there.
> I didn't mean to accuse. I realize now, as I read back, that it looks like that, but it wasn't my intention. It just seems that there are people who come in from all sides and play on emotions and it derails a conversation. I was wrong for quoting you as I didn't intend to single you out. It just gets frustrating that as soon as there is a forward movement, the thread gets dragged back into the muck.
> 
> I think we both know of the two who were mostly likely swept into it and stepped away and distanced themselves. Just because of that former association, should they be labeled as a scammer when they more or less got swept up into it?
> 
> For that matter, I have ties with at least two of those publishers, but it was from almost two years ago. Does that mean I should be added to that list? I'm not in KU, but I was then. Are you (general) going to call me a scammer?
> 
> This is my concern. When it becomes easy to throw someone's name on a list just because they disagree with you and lead a vendetta against them, it is dangerous. And each time a group comes after someone who might not be pure as the driven snow (I had one book in KU for a time with a single bonus novel that made up less than 50% of the entire book), but is otherwise pretty unimpeachable, they lose what credibility they had achieved and turn people away.
> 
> I think you. But just to add a little levity to this... Last I checked I had breasts and a uterus, but hey, that could have changed since then


The problem I was having is that we had that PM conversation a few weeks back where I apologized to you so the comment on the surface struck a chord with me that honestly irritated me. Miscommunication happens though and in a thread that's prone to combustion, things get lost. So again, to your point, because of the way we have seen things get twisted elsewhere, I'm against publishing a list of "known" scammers.

We can disagree about the merits or dangers of posting a list of terminated accounts. I certainly have enough clarity on the issue to know that a connection to a bad actor doesn't make that person a bad actor. I've talked to many people who have been duped by them, including with mailing list swaps. There are potentially 100 names that are all circumventing TOS on a mass scale. My focus has always been on 13 names and I don't go around sharing those names blindly, whether they are pen names or real names. As for the rest of them? The ones I suspect of running afoul but without proof? I don't pay them any attention.

I think what gets lost here, with our anonymity, is that there are various ways in which authors attack this issue. I think your concerns are more directed at the people who cast a wide net without caution, as has been seen on Twitter occasionally. Where I'm coming from, the people I talk to, we have vetted every source of information so we're not blindly or carelessly wrangling people.

I also don't see a downside of posting a video made by one of the black hats. It's a public video. It's not our fault he uses his real name and outlines his cavalier attitude towards the way in which he earns his millions. The same for the woman selling access to a MM group, and selling a list of 50,000 emails to those who sign up for her course. She herself talks about this MM group in a publicly available video. I don't think it's wrong to share screenshots of the "joking" death threat by two authors, one of them CC himself.

But what we do agree on is being careful about sharing a list of names not terminated by Amazon. I don't think that should be done because some things can't be put back in the bottle. I get why people want those names but without a vetted list with proof, accusations can ruin lives. The potential terminated list? I don't understand the reasons for keeping it hidden.

I also don't


----------



## Atlantisatheart

I agree with Crime Fighters. Nobody was calling for a list of people who weren't banned.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

(posts a list of all the authors on Amazon and labels it "People who could potentially be banned")


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Rick Gualtieri said:


> (posts a list of all the authors on Amazon and labels it "People who could potentially be banned")


The conversation, though, is about authors who WERE banned. I love you, Rick, but this is minimizing. These people really did cross the line in so many ways, and they really did harm so many authors. Geniunely good longterm romance authors with followings saw their sales dwindle as these folks took over visibility in the genre by means that ultimately got them banned. (In other words, yeah, they really were that bad.) I know it's hard to see from where you sit, but if you'd been standing on the scorched earth--yeah.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Usedtoposthere said:


> The conversation, though, is about authors who WERE banned. I love you, Rick, but this is minimizing. These people really did cross the line in so many ways, and they really did harm so many authors. Geniunely good longterm romance authors with followings saw their sales dwindle as these folks took over visibility in the genre by means that ultimately got them banned. (In other words, yeah, they really were that bad.)


Oh I know. Just injecting a bit of dipsh** levity.

Believe, I'm in favor of naming accounts who have been banned.

Likewise, I very much want to keep the pressure on those who are continuing to scam the system, or are planning on rising again to scam some more. This industry is a dream come true for me - I mean, heck, telling stories and entertaining people for a living, who would have ever guessed? - and I am the last person who wants to see it left in tatters by the digital equivalent of claim jumpers.


----------



## Becca Mills

I've seen KBoards get knocked for not allowing the tough conversations. We do allow them, but not at expense of our core values. One of those is that we give people the benefit of the doubt as to motivation. We don't accuse one another of being trolls or fifth columnists here. So long as people are speaking civilly, we continue to engage with them on the levels of ideas and information. If someone appears to be participating in a disingenuous way, we report and move on rather than engaging, so as not to derail conversation and get the thread shut down. The moderators will look at the material and decide, and that decision is final. These are some of the basic ground rules for using this platform to shed public light on an issue. Which is why I said upthread that anyone impugning another member's motives for posting would be removed from the thread.



she-la-ti-da said:


> Seriously. It's like, one pops up, another disappears, then we get to start all over. Same script, different user name. It's interesting what you can find when you do some searching on user profiles. Just sayin'. I deleted a link, so as to not be calling out anyone in particular, but any member can look at someone's profile and see where they've posted.





RPatton said:


> If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think it was coming from the authors being accused of bad acts because it completely derails any progress.





Crime fighters said:


> Let it be known that RPatton continually attempts to shut down conversations, and is the loudest voice here for protecting these people. If I were a conspiracy theorist.... Please. If anyone here is working on behalf of the black marketers, it's not the people speaking the loudest.





Usedtoposthere said:


> It has been interesting to read a couple of people consistently minimizing and defending these banned publishers. It does make thinking people wonder why, I suspect.


I hate to ban from the thread some of the people who clearly care most passionately about the issue, but seriously, no more of this. No matter how angry this situation makes you, the sort of thing I've quoted above is not okay here. KBoards is a place to talk about this matter (and others) _with people who totally disagree with you_. I know some people are more comfortable speaking with the like-minded. I feel that way myself about certain issues, so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. But if that's how you feel about this particular issue, then this isn't the place to talk about it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Oh I know. Just injecting a bit of dipsh** levity.
> 
> Believe, I'm in favor of naming accounts who have been banned.
> 
> Likewise, I very much want to keep the pressure on those who are continuing to scam the system, or are planning on rising again to scam some more. This industry is a dream come true for me - I mean, heck, telling stories and entertaining people for a living, who would have ever guessed? - and I am the last person who wants to see it left in tatters by the digital equivalent of claim jumpers.


I know you think so! That's why I said something. It's so easy for people who haven't seen this happen to think, "Amazon being overzealous again, swinging the hammer for somebody's mistake." It really has been a big deal, and even though I'm still doing fine (although less fine), it's been hard to watch the damage being done.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Becca Mills said:


> I've seen KBoards get knocked for not allowing the tough conversations. We do allow them, but not at expense of our core values. One of those is that we give people the benefit of the doubt as to motivation. We don't accuse one another of being trolls or fifth columnists here. So long as people are speaking civilly, we continue to engage with them on the levels of ideas and information. If someone appears to be participating in a disingenuous way, we report and move on rather than engaging, so as not to derail conversation and get the thread shut down. The moderators will look at the material and decide, and that decision is final. These are some of the basic ground rules for using this platform to shed public light on an issue. Which is why I said upthread that anyone impugning another member's motives for posting would be removed from the thread.
> 
> I hate to ban from the thread some of the people who clearly care most passionately about the issue, but seriously, no more of this. No matter how angry this situation makes you, the sort of thing I've quoted above is not okay here. KBoards is a place to talk about this matter (and others) _with people who totally disagree with you_. I know some people are more comfortable speaking with the like-minded. I feel that way myself about certain issues, so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. But if that's how you feel about this particular issue, then this isn't the place to talk about it.


Rebuke acknowledged and accepted. Moving on to write a book.  What I need to be doing anyway.


----------



## Becca Mills

Usedtoposthere said:


> Rebuke acknowledged and accepted. Moving on to write a book.  What I need to be doing anyway.


Could you please write mine while you're at it? I seem to have a little trouble with that bit.


----------



## Crime fighters

RE; Becca, I wasn't actually accusing RPatton of anything; my point was that we shouldn't be inducing motives upon other people. I had previously done that very thing to RPatton a few weeks back and we squashed the issue in PM's, so I was taken aback by the comment. Again, that's been squashed upthread. 

I know intent is less important than how something is read, and I take responsibility for not accurately getting my point across, which wasn't to accuse RPatton of shady dealings but rather point out that we had both agreed to refrain from such activity.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Becca Mills said:


> Could you please write mine while you're at it? I seem to have a little trouble with that bit.


I'm waitin' on neurosurgery. If I get my own written in the fog I'm in, it'll be a miracle.  Reason I'm distracting myself by being testy here.

(It'll be even more of a miracle if it makes sense.)


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Usedtoposthere said:


> I'm waitin' on neurosurgery. If I get my own written in the fog I'm in, it'll be a miracle.  Reason I'm distracting myself by being testy here.
> 
> (It'll be even more of a miracle if it makes sense.)


Sorry to hear you'll be having surgery . Hope all goes well. Will be sending positive thoughts


----------



## KelliWolfe

Usedtoposthere said:


> The conversation, though, is about authors who WERE banned. I love you, Rick, but this is minimizing. These people really did cross the line in so many ways, and they really did harm so many authors. Geniunely good longterm romance authors with followings saw their sales dwindle as these folks took over visibility in the genre by means that ultimately got them banned. (In other words, yeah, they really were that bad.) I know it's hard to see from where you sit, but if you'd been standing on the scorched earth--yeah.


Don't forget the people who lost all those page reads and had their accounts suspended or banned because of the bots/click farms used by the scammers to generate borrows and page reads. That activity puts a target on anyone with books in KU or with permafrees, and it is still going on unabated. The ones who got banned are just the visible tip of of a very large iceberg.


----------



## David VanDyke

RPatton said:


> I think you. But just to add a little levity to this... Last I checked I had breasts and a uterus, but hey, that could have changed since then


Given the current state of gender-as-choice, I'd give him/her/it/them a pass.

***

I'll cast my vote in favor of posting/outing pen names. Pen names are a public face, like the name of a company. They are a brand. They are fair game, if something is proven/factual. I.e., "the Joe Smith pen name and associated account(s) has been banned." Not, "Joe Smith, which has been banned, is owned by Jane Doe of 123 Main Street, Anytown, Australia."

We have little choice than to rely on Amazon making sure the person behind the pen name(s) doesn't sneak back into the tent.


----------



## Becca Mills

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Sorry to hear you'll be having surgery . Hope all goes well. Will be sending positive thoughts


Same here ... yikes.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Becca Mills said:


> Same here ... yikes.


Sorry it has made me testier than normal! I'm trying to write a happy book, dammit! (More Vicodin--stat!)

And yeah, I took some between posts, which is why I'm apologizing now.  It makes me sleepier but nicer.

Thanks for the well-wishes. Sorry to derail. I am off to edit! (Prelude to writing. We hope.)


----------



## Ava Glass

RPatton said:


> This is my concern. When it becomes easy to throw someone's name on a list just because they disagree with you and lead a vendetta against them, it is dangerous. And each time a group comes after someone who might not be pure as the driven snow (I had one book in KU for a time with a single bonus novel that made up less than 50% of the entire book), but is otherwise pretty unimpeachable, they lose what credibility they had achieved and turn people away.


Banned pen names. The question is about banned pen names. It's not about real names, nor those who have not had visible action taken against their accounts. Please stop muddying the discussion.

Why is a list of banned pen names so scary that people are throwing up straw men to deflect discussion of it?


----------



## RPatton

Becca Mills said:


> I hate to ban from the thread some of the people who clearly care most passionately about the issue, but seriously, no more of this. No matter how angry this situation makes you, the sort of thing I've quoted above is not okay here. KBoards is a place to talk about this matter (and others) _with people who totally disagree with you_. I know some people are more comfortable speaking with the like-minded. I feel that way myself about certain issues, so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. But if that's how you feel about this particular issue, then this isn't the place to talk about it.


Absolutely, and the reason I didn't edit my original post was because if I had, it would have made crimefighter come across negatively. Upon rereading my post, I definitely saw what I wrote in a new light. However, in this case, I think it was good for others to see that two people with differing opinions on how to proceed but fundamentally similar views on what we believe to be ethical hash it out and do it in what I would consider a rather professional manner.

That post came from frustration, and while that it no way excuses the behavior, I hope it at least offers some insight.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Ava Glass said:


> Banned pen names. The question is about banned pen names. It's not about real names or those who haven't had visible action taken against their account. Please stop muddying the discussion.
> 
> Why is a list of banned pen names so scary that people are throwing up straw men to deflect discussion of it?


I just don't understand the point? Like, practically speaking, what does a list of fundamentally disposable names tell anyone? I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely curious. What is the logic behind this?


----------



## RPatton

Ava Glass said:


> Banned pen names. The question is about banned pen names. It's not about real names or those who haven't had visible action taken against their account. Please stop muddying the discussion.
> 
> Why is a list of banned pen names so scary that people are throwing up straw men to deflect discussion of it?


That might be how you and others perceive this as, but there have been references to listing real names (granted that one ultimately got shut down, but it was mentioned) and including those who weren't banned, but still considered to have associations with those banned accounts. I've said it several times. I have a tie to one of those banned pen names and at least another account (if not a few more, I am not sure and quite frankly I don't really want to go digging). When the banned pen names are listed, what's next? It's super easy to justify adding those with current associations. And then suddenly people are listing anyone who was in a promotion with or a swap with them. And next thing you know, my pen is on the list and I haven't ad any engagement with them in a year and a half when I completely distanced myself from any appearance of working with.

I'm as scared of a published list as I am of any retaliation from the banned accounts.

Plus, I honestly don't trust people in general. Considering how some people have historically behaved (no one in this thread) under the guise of protecting others, I am frightened that a public list unintentionally gives permission for people to behave badly towards others. And yes. Hitting someone back after they hit you, is wrong. You don't hit people. Period. Whatever they are doing doesn't justify retaliation.

I'm not adverse to a curated list, like writerbeware, where there is at least a process in place to mitigate some potential problems. But a public list posted on a public forum open to anyone and everyone scares the bejeesus out of me.

I do think a list of exploits that are currently being used would be beneficial, but not with names linked. It would then be up to the individual to decide whether they wanted to engage with a publisher who may or may not engage in such behavior.


----------



## Crime fighters

SalaciousStories said:


> I just don't understand the point? Like, practically speaking, what does a list of fundamentally disposable names tell anyone? I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely curious. What is the logic behind this?


These people didn't work inside a vacuum. I have 20-40 mutual friends with many of them. More than being simply a list, if we are allowed to refer to them by name, and show examples of what they were doing, it's educational. Beyond that, perhaps some here had indirectly worked with them. They could go back into their own histories and see if there was any crossover. A lot can be learned with just names, even if it only fits two purposes;

1. So we can stop discussing the topic vaguely
2. So we can be more apt to appropriately make decisions for our own businesses based on the evidence

RPatton knows of people who were affected by these people. She's worried of a target being placed on their backs, which I can agree with but at the same time, I'm sure those people would have appreciated being warned in advance.


----------



## Ava Glass

dezburke said:


> When she threatened to sue me, I started digging into the backgrounds of everyone who used a stolen image without permission. I went back years. These people do NOT deserve to be protected any longer by the author community. By protecting them, we�re taking away the protection of all the other authors.


I remember this. Some in the author community said the image theft should have been brought privately to the publishers so they could--no exaggeration--get back to making money.

There's a culture of silence in some author communities that allows this sort of thing to thrive. That culture must be challenged.


----------



## Ava Glass

RPatton said:


> That might be how you and others perceive this as, but there have been references to listing real names (granted that one ultimately got shut down, but it was mentioned) and including those who weren't banned, but still considered to have associations with those banned accounts. I've said it several times. I have a tie to one of those banned pen names and at least another account (if not a few more, I am not sure and quite frankly I don't really want to go digging). When the banned pen names are listed, what's next? It's super easy to justify adding those with current associations. And then suddenly people are listing anyone who was in a promotion with or a swap with them. And next thing you know, my pen is on the list and I haven't ad any engagement with them in a year and a half when I completely distanced myself from any appearance of working with.
> 
> I'm as scared of a published list as I am of any retaliation from the banned accounts.
> 
> Plus, I honestly don't trust people in general. Considering how some people have historically behaved (no one in this thread) under the guise of protecting others, I am frightened that a public list unintentionally gives permission for people to behave badly towards others. And yes. Hitting someone back after they hit you, is wrong. You don't hit people. Period. Whatever they are doing doesn't justify retaliation.
> 
> I'm not adverse to a curated list, like writerbeware, where there is at least a process in place to mitigate some potential problems. But a public list posted on a public forum open to anyone and everyone scares the bejeesus out of me.


A few pages back, I suggested mod approval before a name goes on the list. It would take care of a lot of this. I can think of a couple of posters here who could compile and present the info in their sleep.


----------



## JWright

I do think they would just change names but on the other hand I do strongly believe anonymity plays right into their hands.  

I also think Crime fighters makes good points that some people may have been inadvertently caught up in certain associations with them and could at least in retrospect know about that, if they don't already.  That could help them moving forward to recognize questionable players and tactics. 

A list of pen names that aren't there anymore is just that. You can go to Amazon and see if you get the 404 page or not.  Someone could make pen names up that never existed but that's not hard to check either.

Also, there is a good possibility that some of them had extra accounts already in the event they might get banned.  If I was going to be so visible and audacious I think I would have a Plan B ready ahead of time.  So knowing the actors could help to identify patterns of "new" players on the block.

I'm still not sure if it's super useful to have a list, but I'm more inclined to be in favor than against.  It doesn't necessarily need to be on kboards.

It's a good thing people remained persistent on the issue, that is for sure.  Amazon acts when it wants to, but when the issue doesn't go away and it extends into the wider arena of public information, they are more inclined to do something.


----------



## RPatton

Ava Glass said:


> A few pages back, I suggested mod approval before a name goes on the list. It would take care of a lot of this. I can think of a couple of posters here who could compile and present the info in their sleep.


Yes. And I can only think of one who I completely trust to remain objectively fair. Meaning they would do it equally across the board.

And right now, I am not being critical, just offering another potential concern. Who judges the criteria for that list. Because frankly, until the TOS explicitly stated that bonus content had to be limited to 10% or less, authors who added bonus content to remain competitive were maligned by the very people who I believe you would want curating that list.

Just because we don't like something and think it shouldn't be included, doesn't mean that someone engaging in that behavior deserves a scarlet letter.


----------



## Ava Glass

RPatton said:


> Yes. And I can only think of one who I completely trust to remain objectively fair. Meaning they would do it equally across the board.
> 
> And right now, I am not being critical, just offering another potential concern. Who judges the criteria for that list. Because frankly, until the TOS explicitly stated that bonus content had to be limited to 10% or less, authors who added bonus content to remain competitive were maligned by the very people who I believe you would want curating that list.
> 
> Just because we don't like something and think it shouldn't be included, doesn't mean that someone engaging in that behavior deserves a scarlet letter.


Again: banned pen names. That's what this is about. That's the criteria for the list.


----------



## Crime fighters

In the summer of 2016, I placed an entire book at the back of another. I'm not sure when I pulled the title, but there are plenty of people who did the same thing without ill intent. Most people realized what was happening and edited titles while the black hats tripled down. Outside of a few bad seeds on Twitter, I don't think anyone here is trying to vilify someone who had, at one point, stuffed a book. 

And remember, that's not nearly the only thing they were doing. A notorious stuffer, still on Amazon, was notorious for putting her new content at the back of the book instead of the front. With her association with the others, what she's doing isn't a mistake or accident. 

I get the concern being grouped in with something, but I think that's happening regardless of a list.


----------



## KelliWolfe

RPatton said:


> Yes. And I can only think of one who I completely trust to remain objectively fair. Meaning they would do it equally across the board.
> 
> And right now, I am not being critical, just offering another potential concern. Who judges the criteria for that list. Because frankly, until the TOS explicitly stated that bonus content had to be limited to 10% or less, authors who added bonus content to remain competitive were maligned by the very people who I believe you would want curating that list.
> 
> Just because we don't like something and think it shouldn't be included, doesn't mean that someone engaging in that behavior deserves a scarlet letter.


Possibly not. I have no problems with either legit box sets in KU nor including bonus content at the back of an enrolled book - provided that it is actual bonus content. But inserting the bonus books into the back of each and every one of your other books (across pens and accounts) in a blatant attempt to get multiple page reads by individuals for the same content in KU goes way above and beyond that. It was obvious to pretty much everyone why it was being done and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with making their readers happy. When the click-to-the-end links and instructions to readers to page through while watching TV came out, it was just confirmation of what everyone already had a good idea of what was going on in the first place. Technically it might have been allowed, but it was certainly violating the spirit of how KU works if not the letter of the TOS at the time they started doing it. The vast majority of us didn't feel the need to follow in their footsteps because a) it would have felt like cheating and b) because it makes zero sense as a publisher - unless you're gaming KU to get paid multiple times for the same content by the same reader. If people really thought they'd get more money doing that, everyone would have been doing it a long, long time ago.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it deserves a scarlet letter.


----------



## Ava Glass

SalaciousStories said:


> I just don't understand the point? Like, practically speaking, what does a list of fundamentally disposable names tell anyone? I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely curious. What is the logic behind this?





Crime fighters said:


> These people didn't work inside a vacuum. I have 20-40 mutual friends with many of them. More than being simply a list, if we are allowed to refer to them by name, and show examples of what they were doing, it's educational. Beyond that, perhaps some here had indirectly worked with them. They could go back into their own histories and see if there was any crossover. A lot can be learned with just names, even if it only fits two purposes;
> 
> 1. So we can stop discussing the topic vaguely
> 2. So we can be more apt to appropriately make decisions for our own businesses based on the evidence
> 
> RPatton knows of people who were affected by these people. She's worried of a target being placed on their backs, which I can agree with but at the same time, I'm sure those people would have appreciated being warned in advance.


This. I'm sure authors considering doing business with a certain promoter/box set coordinator would appreciate knowing Amazon banned her a year or two ago.

Also, to help threads like this: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,264806.0.html


----------



## G.L. Snodgrass

Question.

If I am aware of someone plagiarizing my book. Am I allowed to name them?

If so, Why is that OK but naming people we know were banned is not OK? They were both breaking the rules?

On the other side.

If we list pen names of banned people. What about the people that were using the same name (It happens). Which Jane Smith do we avoid? Could innocent people be ostracized because they shared the same pen name?


----------



## MmmmmPie

Ava Glass said:


> Again: banned pen names. That's what this is about. That's the criteria for the list.


I feel the need to chime in and repeat this, since the conversation keeps getting muddied. The idea is to list pen names that Amazon has 404'd. It's pretty cut and dry and requires zero speculation. A pen name was either shut down by Amazon or it wasn't. It's really not that complicated. For those who are saying, "Why bother, because it wouldn't be that useful anyway?", I'd respectfully suggest that if it's no big deal, why hide the names?


----------



## Becca Mills

G.L. Snodgrass said:


> If I am aware of someone plagiarizing my book. Am I allowed to name them?


Probably not. Instances of plagiarism should be handled by filing a DMCA notice with Amazon (or wherever the plagiarizer is trying to sell your work). If there was a particular choice/factor you think caused your book to be more vulnerable to being plagiarized, you might create a thread about that choice/factor to warn others. For instance, some people consider making a PDF version of your book available via the sales sites that permit PDFs unwise because it may be a bit easier for a would be plagiarizer to grab your material. That sort of thing could be useful to share.


----------



## SalaciousStories

Crime fighters said:


> These people didn't work inside a vacuum. I have 20-40 mutual friends with many of them. More than being simply a list, if we are allowed to refer to them by name, and show examples of what they were doing, it's educational. Beyond that, perhaps some here had indirectly worked with them. They could go back into their own histories and see if there was any crossover. A lot can be learned with just names, even if it only fits two purposes;
> 
> 1. So we can stop discussing the topic vaguely
> 2. So we can be more apt to appropriately make decisions for our own businesses based on the evidence
> 
> RPatton knows of people who were affected by these people. She's worried of a target being placed on their backs, which I can agree with but at the same time, I'm sure those people would have appreciated being warned in advance.


I guess I just don't get the idea of a name offering anything to the discussion of the methods. I mean, if their name was "Blackhat McScamsterson", it'd be relevant because we'd all go "Hmm, we probably should have seen that coming", but otherwise, I don't see the relevance in the discussion of the methods. Like, the methods are clear without the name. No vaguery necessary. The name doesn't make the methods _more_ clear unless I'm missing something on a fundamental level.

The crossover argument makes sense to an extent, but any true scam artists are going to pull up their tents and come back later as something/someone else, so the best we can say is "I talked to that person once." or "I designed a cover for that person." or "I ran a Facebook party for that person." I mean, that's helpful in the context of healing after a betrayal, but the overall concept of "being more cautious/exercising due diligence with those we do business with" holds true without the names attached. There's also the added concern of "guilt by association" where something like a screenshot of a conversation with a removed pen name makes totally innocent parties less trustworthy through no real fault of their own because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or decided to do business with someone without a full accounting of the person's methods.

The bottom line is that people know the ethical way to do business--most folks don't need it spelled out, and I think that those that do fall into two groups: people who are ignorant of things like the guidelines and legalities of the business and need guidance on best practices to succeed (as opposed to a list of bad behaviors to avoid), and those who would use a discussion of specific black hat practices as research to improve upon them. I just the think the list of best practices would ultimately serve the community more positively in the long run.



MmmmmPie said:


> I feel the need to chime in and repeat this, since the conversation keeps getting muddied. The idea is to list pen names that Amazon has 404'd. It's pretty cut and dry and requires zero speculation. A pen name was either shut down by Amazon or it wasn't. It's really not that complicated. For those who are saying, "Why bother, because it wouldn't be that useful anyway?", I'd respectfully suggest that if it's no big deal, why hide the names?


I don't know if I'd characterize it as "hiding" anything. They're just not particularly relevant/can be potentially problematic in the discussion of the methods involved for the reasons I mention above.


----------



## Crime fighters

On the flip side, those of us who have a network within the community know the names. We're not Side-eying people who were caught up in the mess because they didn't know better. In that regard, many of us here all ready know who the bad actors are. It's the newest authors to publishing that are harmed by the lack of information. If the argument is that a list of 404'd authors doesn't help anything, then why is it so bothersome? We know that innocent authors were victimized (for lack of a better word) by the trust that was placed in these people. To insinuate that everyone connected to them is a bad actor as well isn't something I believe is going to happen because it hasn't happened yet in the many circles I'm a part of who know not just who the 404'd are, but know who the remaining ones are as well.

Everyone will be coming at this from a different point of view, and that's fine. We have people from different genres who look at the situation differently, and we all seem to be agreeable that these people have crossed ethical lines. So the intention of my question isn't to infer motive.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Phxsundog

I think posting the pen names is relevant for several reasons: to protect newer authors from getting preyed on or accidentally emulating these people as Crime Fighters said, to immediately make sure they get reported if they ever publish under these names again with new KDP accounts, and to help people who weren't following them in romance to understand what they looked like.

And what I mean by "looked like" is everything from strategies, trends, cover styles, blurb structure, list behavior and so on. No one or two things in isolation by itself says "bad guy" but when a person has looked at even half a dozen of these abusive stuffer pen names, it becomes clear awfully fast how eerily similar they were. You could have a list with a dozen or so characteristics to look for, and when all the boxes were ticked by a pen name and their books, usually you'd found a scammer.

But how can anyone see any of their books if Amazon has 404ed them? Thankfully Goodreads preserves everything like a time capsule. If you have the pen names, you can go over there, pull up the books, and see the patterns. You'll see characteristics like stuffing every book to the page limit, writing blurbs the same way down to sometimes borrowing exact lines from each other, covers produced by the same two designers, daily or more newsletter spam often set up through Chance Carter's Bookclicker, publishing every two weeks on average, hitting the same trends on a coordinated release schedule, using the same ad managers and high spend strategies and also using the same fake author personas that often went well beyond a vague biography. They'd create fake lives and families to better interface with their readers.

Again, I don't mean every single one of these things in publishing is bad. It's certainly not uncommon for lots of romance authors to share the same cover designer for example. It's more like when you look at the banned names, sift through their catalogs, you quickly start to see they all did the same things in mass like it came right from a manual. These weird surface signs were symptoms of a much deeper disease lurking underneath. There are still several of them operating who haven't been banned, and if the banned ones reappear, you can bet they'll do the same things again because they don't know how to do anything different. They're assembly lines and so unoriginal they don't know any different.

They all learned from common internet marketer sources and never had a deep understanding of the romance genre beyond how to best game KU and fit pieces together like marketable covers and blurbs. This causes them to recycle the same strategies and exterior look that made them easy to catch once you knew what to look for, and would make future bad actors just as easy to see once you know what to look for.


----------



## Crime fighters

Agreeing with the statement above. I understand it can be easy to come to false conclusions when doing your own search, but I sat down for ten minutes, browsed Amazon and came up with over a dozen names I suspected of being bad actors. Ten minutes. Every single one of those names have been confirmed. That's not to say that someone else will use that same caution, and that's where the more dangerous parts are liable to surface. 

Something deeply problematic about this entire situation is how normalized these people became. Unknowing authors would look to the Romance Bestsellers and maybe begin to believe they needed to emulate the successful ones. Sometimes that can work. Many times it doesn't, because these books don't survive without serious and continued investment. 

The slope is slippery, but it's just as slippery in reverse. List or no list, both are unpleasant situations.


----------



## Dpock

Crime fighters said:


> but I sat down for ten minutes, browsed Amazon and came up with over a dozen names I suspected of being bad actors. Ten minutes. Every single one of those names have been confirmed.


Are you referring to the past? Or you just did a search?



> Unknowing authors would look to the Romance Bestsellers and maybe begin to believe they needed to emulate the successful ones.


There ya go. That's what other posters were referring to when commenting about the damage done to romance. Over a year ago during my research phase, I looked at all the genres, including romance. Many of the rising "romance" authors at the time have since been busted, but they influenced many newbies researching the market from mid-2017 on. Many here have been advised to "read the best sellers in the genre" to learn the market. Six months ago, that advice would have led a newbie romance author to Chance Carter.

That couldn't happen today. But which of the current or rising stars today of any genre achieved their status by suspicious means? That would be good to know.


----------



## Crime fighters

Dpock said:


> Are you referring to the past? Or you just did a search?
> 
> There ya go. That's what other posters were referring to when commenting about the damage done to romance. Over a year ago during my research phase, I looked at all the genres, including romance. Many of the rising "romance" authors at the time have since been busted, but they influenced many newbies researching the market from mid-2017 on. Many here have been advised to "read the best sellers in the genre" to learn the market. Six months ago, that advice would have led a newbie romance author to Chance Carter.
> 
> That couldn't happen today. But which of the current or rising stars today of any genre achieved their status by suspicious means? That would be good to know.


I was referring to the past. I think there are still unknown or lesser known bad actors but I haven't interested myself to research further because I do think the further you get away from the lists, the more you run into people who were following trends.


----------



## Becca Mills

Someone named the UF author PhoenixS mentioned in the other thread. If that sort of thing happens here, this thread will also be locked, and it won't reopen. 

Please do not ruin other people's ability to talk about these matters by posting names that, quite frankly, anyone could dig up by dedicating a few hours to Facebook and Twitter. I know because I did so myself when this issue heated up in June.


----------



## unkownwriter

Definition of cabal:



> A cabal is a small group of people united in some close design, usually to promote their private views of or interests in an ideology, state, or other community, often by intrigue and usually unbeknownst to those outside their group.


Becca, thanks for quoting my post, I think a few folks might have missed it. I stand by what I wrote, but I will refrain from risking the cattle prod.


----------



## AltMe

Becca Mills said:


> Someone named the UF author PhoenixS mentioned in the other thread. If that sort of thing happens here, this thread will also be locked, and it won't reopen.
> 
> Please do not ruin other people's ability to talk about these matters by posting names that, quite frankly, anyone could dig up by dedicating a few hours to Facebook and Twitter. I know because I did so myself when this issue heated up in June.


The trouble is, you just established exactly how any thread can be shut down by those who dont wish to be named, or anyone protecting them. Name a name, thread locked. Discussion ended. Celebrate.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Then we'd definitely know who the minions are.


----------



## Becca Mills

TimothyEllis said:


> The trouble is, you just established exactly how any thread can be shut down by those who dont wish to be named, or anyone protecting them. Name a name, thread locked. Discussion ended. Celebrate.


I suppose so, Tim. But really, the "withheld" info is so easily available ... for me, Occam's Razor undercuts the idea that someone's gunning to bring the thread down.


----------



## AltMe

Becca Mills said:


> I suppose so, Tim. But really, the "withheld" info is so easily available ... for me, Occam's Razor undercuts the idea that someone's gunning to bring the thread down.


Only if you know where it is. I don't. Wouldn't even know how to look for it either.

I'd much rather see a summary of it somewhere. But if people just need to post a name to get discussion stopped, we'll never get it.

Depends which definition of the Razor you use. There appear to be several versions now.

And the simplest answer to someone posting a name after being told not to, is because it was deliberate to see if you would carry through with your threat to close the thread. And this only benefits one group of people.


----------



## PhoenixS

For those of you who think banned authors or their books won't show up on Amazon again... well, I have a sure-fire way to hit Top 10 in the store, and I'll sell you the secret for only $500. Step right this way.

There is an author right now whose KDP account was terminated last year. They have republished in a non-KDP account under an umbrella company (an LLC with a proxy attorney address in Wyoming _[edited state]_, one of a handful of states which allows even out-of-state folk to set up such LLCs), and are using their same pen name and book titles as were in their terminated account. Oh, and they had a Kindle Monthly Deal in June under their same banned name and with a book that was previously pubbed in their banned account.

If their books can still resurface while their personal account remains terminated, I suspect there are a number of recently banned authors who might also resurface in a similar way.

Unless Amazon tweaking its language around terminated accounts in its T&Cs on May 24 was part of a premeditated plan to ensure banned folk stay banned. And that it's both retroactive and progressive.

Because rewarding banned authors and books is a new low, even for Amazon...


----------



## Becca Mills

TimothyEllis said:


> Only if you know where it is. I don't. Wouldn't even know how to look for it either.
> 
> I'd much rather see a summary of it somewhere. But if people just need to post a name to get discussion stopped, we'll never get it.
> 
> Depends which definition of the Razor you use. There appear to be several versions now.
> 
> And the simplest answer to someone posting a name after being told not to, is because it was deliberate to see if you would carry through with your threat to close the thread. And this only benefits one group of people.


I guess? I honestly struggle to see significant benefit. Two of the pen names were reported earlier in the thread. The info's just sitting there. I mean, what can one do with those two names? Dunno. I really doubt the people who owned the terminated accounts are quailing at the thought of having those pen names mentioned here when they've already been named six ways from Sunday elsewhere. Far be it from me to deny the AWESOME POWER OF KBOARDS (<-- used my James Earl Jones voice there) but ... you know. I sort of am doubting it, in this case.


----------



## Crystal_

Becca Mills said:


> Someone named the UF author PhoenixS mentioned in the other thread. If that sort of thing happens here, this thread will also be locked, and it won't reopen.
> 
> Please do not ruin other people's ability to talk about these matters by posting names that, quite frankly, anyone could dig up by dedicating a few hours to Facebook and Twitter. I know because I did so myself when this issue heated up in June.


I don't really understand this argument. If the names are so easy to find that anyone can do it, then what's the harm if they're posted or linked to here?

I have an idea of most of the pulled names bc I follow my genre pretty closely, but I don't think people who follow romance less closely deserve to be less informed.


----------



## The one with all the big dresses on the covers

As someone who rarely comments on these sorts of threads but always follows them, I just wanted to say that I am completely in favor of a list of banned pen names. (Just banned names. No speculation. No associations. Just sharing something that is an indisputable and public fact.) The reality is that we are not all equally capable of going and finding this information for ourselves, and as someone who's rarely in the know, it's always frustrating to read these threads full of "oh, we all know who they are. We all know who we're talking about." Because the reality is that we *don't* all know. And it seems ridiculous that we should all spend hours digging around trying to find information when someone who already knows could just post a list. In fact, we're far more likely to end up in speculation territory or wrongly impugning someone if we're left to our own devices. 

So, in summary, as someone who has been involved in the past (in minor ways) with publishers who turned out to be bad actors purely because I legitimately DID NOT KNOW there was anything to be cautious of in their case, I would like to know who Amazon has now removed. Even if that only allows me to understand any unknowing connections or involvement in the past. Because even those of us who are naturally cautious and absolutely committed to ethical behavior in all aspects of our life can end up getting involved with unethical players when the involvement in question isn't itself unethical and therefore doesn't raise any red flags. But that doesn't mean that won't have consequences later, especially once Amazon starts banning accounts.


----------



## sela

Dpock said:


> Hypothetically, if such a video existed, I wouldn't mind receiving the link in a PM.


I would like to be added to the list of people receiving a link via a PM.


----------



## Becca Mills

Crystal_ said:


> I don't really understand this argument. If the names are so easy to find that anyone can do it, then what's the harm if they're posted or linked to here?


There may in fact be no harm; I'm not sure.

We try to adhere to our own guidelines, regardless of what other sites may be doing. A piece of information could, hypothetically, be very widely available and still not be something we want here.

I'm not going to make the call on this one my own. The team needs to discuss it, and at the moment, someone's not available.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

Crystal_ said:


> I don't really understand this argument. If the names are so easy to find that anyone can do it, then what's the harm if they're posted or linked to here?
> 
> I have an idea of most of the pulled names bc I follow my genre pretty closely, but I don't think people who follow romance less closely deserve to be less informed.


Because at some point, the lawsuits are going to start flying. It's only a matter of time before someone has their name falsely dragged through the mud. I don't blame Kboards moderators for being careful. I would be too.


----------



## Guest

MelanieCellier said:


> As someone who rarely comments on these sorts of threads but always follows them, I just wanted to say that I am completely in favor of a list of banned pen names.


The problem I can see is that "banned" names don't stay banned, so what would be the point? It's already been shown that some of the "banned" individuals are straight back using LLCs (as Phoenix mentioned up thread) or other non-KDP methods to get back into the Amazon store. It isn't really a "banning" so much as a time out in the naughty corner then straight back at it.

Personally I think a far more valuable discussion would be around best practices or how to do your research/due diligence before you become involved (newsletter swaps, cross promo etc) with another author to minimise your own exposure to risk.


----------



## ill do it

TimothyEllis said:


> Only if you know where it is. I don't. Wouldn't even know how to look for it either.
> 
> I'd much rather see a summary of it somewhere. But if people just need to post a name to get discussion stopped, we'll never get it.
> 
> Depends which definition of the Razor you use. There appear to be several versions now.
> 
> And the simplest answer to someone posting a name after being told not to, is because it was deliberate to see if you would carry through with your threat to close the thread. And this only benefits one group of people.


It might be the simplest answer to you, but that doesn't make it true. I was the one who got the thread locked. I already apologized to PS. I thought it was silly we can speculate all over the place about the CEO of B&N, which IMO is barely relevant to indie publishing and the struggles we face, but we can't talk openly about a cancer in the community that's causing real damage. Someone kind enough to take the time explained it better to me. I didn't understand what does and doesn't make someone a public figure.



Tilly said:


> *The problem I can see is that "banned" names don't stay banned, so what would be the point?* It's already been shown that some of the "banned" individuals are straight back using LLCs (as Phoenix mentioned up thread) or other non-KDP methods to get back into the Amazon store. It isn't really a "banning" so much as a time out in the naughty corner then straight back at it.
> 
> Personally I think a far more valuable discussion would be around best practices or how to do your research/due diligence before you become involved (newsletter swaps, cross promo etc) with another author to minimise your own exposure to risk.


I get what you're saying, and that's important too. However, what you said is kind of the reason the information should flow freely. The fact that bad actors can return so easily makes them look less guilty of wrongdoing and blackhat-ery to the untrained eye. Look at how people who have been around these boards for years interact with the fresh faces in all these contentious threads that spring up. You could look at that and see sock puppets arguing with people who know better. I think some people see it that way, and they may not be wrong on all counts, but I don't. I see people who know better arguing with people who don't. We forget what it's like when you're inexperienced, a little more naive, a little more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. If we can only pass along knowledge in the abstract to the people who don't know better, I'm not confident they're going to know it when they see it. Specific examples are better, but then again, this is not my forum. I'm just a guest, and a naughty one at that.


----------



## David VanDyke

SalaciousStories said:


> I just don't understand the point? Like, practically speaking, what does a list of fundamentally disposable names tell anyone? I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely curious. What is the logic behind this?


They aren't fundamentally disposable. They are brands. They have (artificially enhanced) value. Wiping out the brand that broke too many rules is like breaking up or bankrupting a company. One of the main purposes is to eliminate that brand as a draw, because it is fundamentally corrupted. Think Enron. Make sure the people owning that brand cannot profit anymore from that brand. If they want to try to re-enter the game with their black hat tactics, they will at least have to start again from zero.


----------



## Crystal_

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Because at some point, the lawsuits are going to start flying. It's only a matter of time before someone has their name falsely dragged through the mud. I don't blame Kboards moderators for being careful. I would be too.


Certainly, this can be an issue when making accusations. But a list of names that now return 404 pages is fact. There are no accusations there. There's no standing for a lawsuit.


----------



## Hoop

I love all the snippy little reminders to focus on the issue, being banned pen names (and whether someone should make a list of them), and quit muddying the waters.

On a thread whose title is AMAZON ACTIONS and AMAZON TAKING ACTION.
Hint: Making up your own little list of people doing things you don't like is not the topic; Amazon doing things is the topic. Who is muddying the waters, again?


_edited, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Phxsundog

Amazon did take action. They terminated at least half a dozen fixtures in the Top 100 for the past year who were caught doing things KDP didn't like. That's highly relevant to this thread.

Meanwhile we still have no good answer from KDP about where bonus content fits into the equation. Only that anything that doesn't resemble a clearly labeled boxed set has become extremely high risk. I'm not saying the collections retitling trick with stuffed books alone is what caused these bans but it may have been one among several factors. We don't really know and that's frustrating for anyone who wants to figure out how exactly the new bonus content policy applies to all anthologies.


----------



## DaniO

Hoop said:


> I love all the snippy little reminders to focus on the issue, being banned pen names (and whether someone should make a list of them), and quit muddying the waters.
> 
> On a thread whose title is AMAZON ACTIONS and AMAZON TAKING ACTION.
> Hint: Making up your own little list of people doing things you don't like is not the topic; Amazon doing things is the topic. Who is muddying the waters, again?


It isn't "Making up your own little list of people doing things you don't like".

It's a list of accounts Amazon has terminated. Thus, relevant to the tile of the thread. It's a list of Amazon's actions. I'm not sure how you could argue it isn't directly related, Hoop.

Becca - Personally, I wouldn't have known the non-romance author caught up in this if a friend hadn't told me. I don't think the information is widely available. I'm in lots of Facebook groups and read David's blog but didn't see that name mentioned. I completely understand not wanting to post names here though if it opens the forum up to legal action.


_edited quoted post, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Ava Glass

Hoop said:


> I love all the snippy little reminders to focus on the issue, being banned pen names (and whether someone should make a list of them), and quit muddying the waters.
> 
> On a thread whose title is AMAZON ACTIONS and AMAZON TAKING ACTION.
> Hint: Making up your own little list of people doing things you don't like is not the topic; Amazon doing things is the topic. Who is muddying the waters, again?


I guess you mean me. Hi!!

Like the posts above me reminded you, it is about Amazon's actions. Publishers doing things Amazon didn't like. That's what "banned pen names" means. Looking for pen names, and finding a bunch of doggie 404s.

Did you think "banned" means "banned from Kboards" or something?


----------



## Ava Glass

C_Writes said:


> It isn't "Making up your own little list of people doing things you don't like".
> 
> It's a list of accounts Amazon has terminated. Thus, relevant to the tile of the thread. It's a list of Amazon's actions. I'm not sure how you could argue it isn't directly related, Hoop.


I had trouble making sense of the argument, and I could only come up with the explanation that Hoop believes "banned" means something other than "KDP account termination."

Because this most certainly isn't about "making up" lists.


----------



## Avery342

[quote author=PhoenixS)

If their books can still resurface while their personal account remains terminated, I suspect there are a number of recently banned authors who might also resurface in a similar way.

Unless Amazon tweaking its language around terminated accounts in its T&Cs on May 24 was part of a premeditated plan to ensure banned folk stay banned. And that it's both retroactive and progressive.

Because rewarding banned authors and books is a new low, even for Amazon...
[/quote]

I agree, but I do have one comment. If the bad actors have to use a non-KDP account, then they can't be in KU, right? If that is true, then I can't see this particular group using that tactic. KU was where the profit was for them.

Now setting up another KDP account (or using an alternative account already locked and loaded) -- that I can see happening. In fact, I'm quite sure that the Diamond man (don't want to have the thread locked by naming) has already done that.

Yes, they have to start from scratch, but still... Banned just doesn't seem to have the same meaning for scammers that it has for us.

Just saying.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

Avery342 said:


> I agree, but I do have one comment. If the bad actors have to use a non-KDP account, then they can't be in KU, right? If that is true, then I can't see this particular group using that tactic. KU was where the profit was for them.
> 
> Now setting up another KDP account (or using an alternative account already locked and loaded) -- that I can see happening. In fact, I'm quite sure that the Diamond man (don't want to have the thread locked by naming) has already done that.
> 
> Yes, they have to start from scratch, but still... Banned just doesn't seem to have the same meaning for scammers that it has for us.
> 
> Just saying.


Not to go into details, but if Phoenix is talking about who I think, then yes they're still in KU. They don't draw from the same pool as us or have the same bonus opportunities, but they still managed to get back into KU.

Not saying the folks we're talking about here can do that, mind you. Amazon has changed the language on their TOS enough to make me hope they're closing this particular back door, but more than one way into KU does exist.


----------



## Avery342

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Not to go into details, but if Phoenix is talking about who I think, then yes they're still in KU. They don't draw from the same pool as us or have the same bonus opportunities, but they still managed to get back into KU.
> 
> Not saying the folks we're talking about here can do that, mind you. Amazon has changed the language on their TOS enough to make me hope they're closing this particular back door, but more than one way into KU does exist.


How does one politely say that bites? Here is hoping Amazon has closed that door firmly behind them, but then again--it's Zon so I'm betting they'll be back.

At least Romance is getting a little bit of a respite from them.


----------



## Not any more

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Because at some point, the lawsuits are going to start flying. It's only a matter of time before someone has their name falsely dragged through the mud. I don't blame Kboards moderators for being careful. I would be too.


Ditto. I would love to see the list, but I'm not posting it on my web site. My pockets aren't deep enough.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

brkingsolver said:


> Ditto. I would love to see the list, but I'm not posting it on my web site. My pockets aren't deep enough.


You can technically sue anyone for just about anything. Doesn't mean you have a case.

Putting a list up and editorializing it might potentially be poking the tiger. But going after a simple "names that have had their books removed from Amazon" list, well IANAL, but I think that would qualify for some state's anti-SLAPP laws.


----------



## MyraScott

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Not to go into details, but if Phoenix is talking about who I think, then yes they're still in KU. They don't draw from the same pool as us or have the same bonus opportunities, but they still managed to get back into KU.
> 
> Not saying the folks we're talking about here can do that, mind you. Amazon has changed the language on their TOS enough to make me hope they're closing this particular back door, but more than one way into KU does exist.


If it's the person I'm thinking of, she was recently selling a "course" that gave the "secret to being in KU and wide at the same time."

It's not that a person is selling their own books again that is so offensive, it's the way they take advantage of every loophole to make money including taking money from unsuspecting authors to teach them to exploit as well.

"It's not an exploit if the software lets you do it!" cried every cheater ever.

Well, you can wipe your eyes with that statement when your account is banned...


----------



## SalaciousStories

David VanDyke said:


> They aren't fundamentally disposable. They are brands. They have (artificially enhanced) value. Wiping out the brand that broke too many rules is like breaking up or bankrupting a company. One of the main purposes is to eliminate that brand as a draw, because it is fundamentally corrupted. Think Enron. Make sure the people owning that brand cannot profit anymore from that brand. If they want to try to re-enter the game with their black hat tactics, they will at least have to start again from zero.


I don't think the analogy you're going for really fits the situation. Folks who got themselves removed from Amazon are not major corporations with the accompanying baggage or expensive infrastructure. And even in the context of a corporation, brands *are* fundamentally disposable. Corporations are constantly rebranding--merging with or acquiring one another, updating or reinventing themselves, etc.

The brand behind an author or a publisher is even *more* fundamentally disposable. Sure, you can take away a pen name, but every shred of the underlying inventory, infrastructure, and support sysytem remains intact. Their skills (whether the focus is writing or marketing), are intact. Their mailing list is intact. Their books are intact (aside from some extremely minor alterations to the covers and interior text). Their website is intact, and can easily be tied to another domain. Their relationships with designers, ghostwriters, editors, each other etc--all intact. All that has changed is an identity that they plucked out of thin air in the first place. Within a week (depending on the size of the catalog), a brand new pen name could be up and running, and it'd almost be like nothing ever happened. And that's for someone who is above board, completely ethical, and is just rebranding themselves.

The sad reality is that people who have had their accounts removed, if they are the malicious sort, the hurdles to getting up and running again don't even need to be approached at a run.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Rick Gualtieri said:


> You can technically sue anyone for just about anything. Doesn't mean you have a case.
> 
> Putting a list up and editorializing it might potentially be poking the tiger. But going after a simple "names that have had their books removed from Amazon" list, well IANAL, but I think that would qualify for some state's anti-SLAPP laws.


That's the problem, though. If you have deeper pockets, you don't have to have a case. Best case scenario: anti-SLAPP works and/or the case gets dismissed on a summary judgment motion. (The judge dismisses the case on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence and/or legal grounds for the plaintiff to have any change of prevailing.) Even in a case like that, the defendant will have spent months and accumulated thousands of dollars in legal fees. In the case of anti-SLAPP, as someone pointed out in another thread, you may or may not recover all of your legal fees. Then there's the matter of collecting those fees, which may involve seeking an enforcement order (more legal fees).

Even if you have deep enough pockets not to worry about legal fees, the stress can still be terrible. Even JK Rowling had a hard time writing during the time she was being falsely accused of and sued for plagiarism.

All of that said, authors who want to avoid getting accidentally caught up in someone else's shady practices need to know who those bad actors are. Is Victoria Strauss still active? She used to expose a lot of scams. I know Writer Beware bit the dust some time ago.

KBoards has made it clear it does not wish to become that kind of website, and we need to respect that. I'm hoping that such necessary discussions can find a home somewhere, though.

Meanwhile, as someone mentioned upthread, it is important to discuss red flags that may be indicative of a scam. Not everyone knows what those are.


----------



## Starry_Knights

sela said:


> I would like to be added to the list of people receiving a link via a PM.


Ditto. I've been trying to figure out who the UF/LitRPG author is as I also write in the fantasy genre, but Google, Facebook, and Twitter haven't been forthcoming. Maybe I'm not looking for the right things.


----------



## PhoenixS

Here's another wrench in the argument: Some banned authors can have books pubbed under other publisher accounts and/or have cowritten books pubbed under their cowriters' accounts that persist. Or if they have audiobooks or print that are not pulled -- only their KDP account is terminated -- then their author page will still be up with those books.

A list of strictly 404'd authors wouldn't surface those banned author accounts. So, false negatives would be an issue. Someone may say the account is terminated; someone else will point out that the author page is still there.

Noobs and not-so-noobs checking out authors need to be sure to check the mix of titles on an author's page.


----------



## sela

There is a top 100 romance author with dozens and dozens of books published, that has simply re-titled her books, retitled the covers, and published them wide, while the originally titled books are in KU. The blurb is the same and the look inside shows that the first page is the same. 

So unless this author has a special publisher deal with Amazon that allows them to publish wide and in KU, this seems to be a new scammer tactic, or one that people have done for a long time but no one has noticed. 

UGH.

I lose rank on Amazon because I publish my books wide but don't use tactics that break the KU TOS by also publishing them in KU. 

Who says cheaters never prosper?


----------



## Usedtoposthere

TrixieB said:


> Another issue is the fact some of the banned authors and their associates are running author promo services separately. I would guess 99.9% of authors booking these services do not know who is behind them. I've done it myself before I knew better. They're everywhere.


This is why I only use standard newsletter promo services, the ones that have been around. BookBub when I can get it, Fussy Librarian, Robin Reads, FreeBooksy. They still work, and I've never heard of anybody getting in trouble with Amazon after those kinds of promos. Too many dodgy get-rich-quick people out there, especially for new authors who don't know the names.

And I totally agree about the point made yesterday (maybe by you, Sela? Can't remember) that new authors in romance would have looked at those Top 100 folks and thought, "This is what's selling in romance." No. It wasn't, and it isn't. People have said to me over the years, "I don't want to write jerk heroes." You do NOT HAVE to write jerk heroes, broken heroes, damaged heroes, whatever you want to call it, to succeed in romance. It is STILL a big tent, and there's a great big huge market out there that wants stories about people who don't have to work their way to decency.

i just want to take this opportunity to send that out there into the writing space to all the would-be romance authors. This is a disservice done to both authors and readers, because it's made it so much harder for romance readers to find the books they're looking for beneath the tsunami of brooding alphaholes.

ETA: Yes, there is a market for brooding alphaholes. If that's the romance you want to write, go for it. But if it isn't--know that there's a great market for that, too. And not nearly as many shady actors clogging up the top spots! Shady actors (who are often guys) seem to focus their efforts on books about shady guys. Almost like they think that's what women want. Hmmm....


----------



## KelliWolfe

SalaciousStories said:


> I don't think the analogy you're going for really fits the situation. Folks who got themselves removed from Amazon are not major corporations with the accompanying baggage or expensive infrastructure. And even in the context of a corporation, brands *are* fundamentally disposable. Corporations are constantly rebranding--merging with or acquiring one another, updating or reinventing themselves, etc.
> 
> The brand behind an author or a publisher is even *more* fundamentally disposable. Sure, you can take away a pen name, but every shred of the underlying inventory, infrastructure, and support sysytem remains intact. Their skills (whether the focus is writing or marketing), are intact. Their mailing list is intact. Their books are intact (aside from some extremely minor alterations to the covers and interior text). Their website is intact, and can easily be tied to another domain. Their relationships with designers, ghostwriters, editors, each other etc--all intact. All that has changed is an identity that they plucked out of thin air in the first place. Within a week (depending on the size of the catalog), a brand new pen name could be up and running, and it'd almost be like nothing ever happened. And that's for someone who is above board, completely ethical, and is just rebranding themselves.
> 
> The sad reality is that people who have had their accounts removed, if they are the malicious sort, the hurdles to getting up and running again don't even need to be approached at a run.


Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!!! They're not beaten and they're not gone. They're simply reorganizing for the next round. They'll be back with new accounts and new names and new loopholes to exploit before the end of the summer. And they'll rise very quickly when they do because this past round they built up massive mailing lists that they can exploit. They're not starting from scratch.

I do think the threat of lawsuits is a hollow one. You can't file lawsuits using pen names or fake identities, and lawsuits mean discovery. The last thing any of these people want is to actually have to do anything in the light of day and risk exposure. They don't want their real identities getting out, and they certainly don't want to risk having to provide evidence that could potentially reveal more of their activities that we aren't even aware of.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Their mailing lists are compromised insofar as every author and interested party has signed up to these bad actors and so when we suddenly get mail from an unknown author then we'll know they are back and the names they are using this time. If one of their shady friends sends one out as a swap, eyes will be watching what happens.

Once reported to amazon that these guys are back with new names it's then up to amazon what to do about it, but the social media stink that will ensue, if nothing is done, should make amazon take action. 

The same with their books. You can change the characters names and a few other things, but a lot of authors have read these books. All folks need to do is check the new suspects and they'll be discovered.

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. All new books? Start a new, clean list? Take over another genre. I think we'll all be watching the sudden rise and rise of newbies in future.


----------



## Dpock

Atlantisatheart said:


> Their mailing lists are compromised insofar as every author and interested party has signed up to these bad actors and so when we suddenly get mail from an unknown author then we'll know they are back and the names they are using this time.


Two suspended/terminated pens are using their mailing lists (using their suspended pen names) to promote stuffer pals still operating on Amazon, including one with a bonus stuffed book weighing in at 2005 pages published June 16 ranked currently at 1285 in romance>holidays.

Perhaps as far as they're concerned, they've hit a minor road bump, not a dead end.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Dpock said:


> Two suspended/terminated pens are using their mailing lists (using their suspended pen names) to promote stuffer pals still operating on Amazon, including one with a bonus stuffed book weighing in at 2005 pages published June 16 ranked currently at 1285 in romance>holidays.
> 
> Perhaps as far as they're concerned, they've hit a minor road bump, not a dead end.


Yep, but that's not making them any money, and they're going to want to get back on the money train as soon as they can.

What are they going to do, send out an email declaring a name change? That would be dumb.
Recommend a new author? That would be dumb. Even if they recommended ten at a time, it's easy to watch and figure out which one is them.
The list is busted.

They either start from scratch or get nailed.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Oh, I have faith in their ability to think up new schemes. 

And in Amazon’s ability to ignore them for as long as they can.


----------



## Dpock

Atlantisatheart said:


> Yep, but that's not making them any money, and they're going to want to get back on the money train as soon as they can.


I suspect in the two cases mentioned they're promoting their non-terminated pens, perhaps spread among various LLCs.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Atlantisatheart said:


> Yep, but that's not making them any money, and they're going to want to get back on the money train as soon as they can.
> 
> What are they going to do, send out an email declaring a name change? That would be dumb.
> Recommend a new author? That would be dumb. Even if they recommended ten at a time, it's easy to watch and figure out which one is them.
> The list is busted.
> 
> They either start from scratch or get nailed.


Credit where credit is due, these guys are marketers and know exactly how to analyze a genre and figure out how best to build a pen name and persona that appeals to its readers. It won't take them long to ramp back up even if they do start over from scratch. They've still got back end infrastructure to build on, and since Amazon said they'd be paying royalties they'll have money to fund advertising and promos. They'll go right back into romance because it's a huge genre filled with voracious readers who love KU. No doubt they'll do some things differently and be a bit more careful - at least at first. They're not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but they are arrogant and greedy which is why they keep getting caught in the various KU scams. It would be quite easy for them to sail along under the radar if they'd just keep a slightly lower profile, but whatever they bring in is never enough so they keep pushing harder and harder to make more every month and they also just love having a rockstar image that the marks eat up.

The only real question is how will they change up their tactics to make it harder to detect them this round?


----------



## RPatton

Atlantisatheart said:


> Yep, but that's not making them any money, and they're going to want to get back on the money train as soon as they can.


They've monetized the mailing lists. So they are actual promotional mailing lists, but not advertised as such. What do you think BookClicker did? Instead of focusing on the one bad guy and how awful they are, focus on the act. When you focus on the name or group, it dilutes the power of the message. When you focus on the act, all the usual defenses will wash right off.

It's not about jealousy (I hate that counter-argument, it's infantile and complete deflection), it's about the act. And even if you aren't selling the list of emails outright, you are selling the use of your list and haven't informed your readers.


----------



## Alan Petersen

Usedtoposthere said:


> Oh, I have faith in their ability to think up new schemes.
> 
> And in Amazon's ability to ignore them for as long as they can.


Not even a new scheme, just re-launch with a new name. Same scheme.  If Amazon really wanted to send a message they would sue a few of these people and clawback ill-gotten royalty payment. Amazon/KDP has all their real information so they could do it. But, naaa.


----------



## Becca Mills

C_Writes said:


> Becca - Personally, I wouldn't have known the non-romance author caught up in this if a friend hadn't told me. I don't think the information is widely available. I'm in lots of Facebook groups and read David's blog but didn't see that name mentioned. I completely understand not wanting to post names here though if it opens the forum up to legal action.


It was news to me too, until I saw Phoenix mention it earlier in this thread.

To be clear, nothing in our rules prevents someone who is aware of such a situation from posting something like this (the details in the following are invented):

Hey everyone, I've noticed the account closures seem to have spread outside romance. An urban fantasy author seems to have had their account closed. Before the closure, they were publishing at the rate of about 20 books/year, with a total of between 75 and 100 published books. I'm not sure what might've led to the closure. They were not stuffing their books, so far as I noticed. 

Or, if you do have a sense of what may have led to the closure, you can share relevant *factual* details *you personally* observed, such as surprisingly large book file size, heavy-on-the-white-space interior formatting, etc. But don't make accusations or pass along hearsay/rumor. Give ranges rather exact numbers on books published, dates, rate of publication, etc. (as in the invented example above), to protect anonymity. Don't mention the person's gender, since being a man is a woman-dominated genre makes one stand out, and vice versa.

Reports like that are fine and have been made here for years. They get the basic news out about important developments while protecting the anonymity of the author in question. If the point is to foster basic awareness of a new development, such a report will do the job. But please do make a good-faith effort to protect the person's identity. If you're in doubt about a particular piece of information, leave it out.

Those reading the report should not attempt to ferret out the person's identity in the thread, like a game of twenty questions, or something. We also don't particularly want to see public requests that someone PM the info. If you want to PM someone yourself and ask if they'd be willing to share what they know, that's your choice (and it's their choice whether or not to reply), but putting an open request for PM spillage out there on a thread pushes against the spirit of our rules.

Still waiting on a decision on the question of mentioning the names of the specific individuals in the most recent round of closures, but in the meanwhile, hopefully the above provides some helpful clarification of the "standard" approach.


----------



## David VanDyke

SalaciousStories said:


> I don't think the analogy you're going for really fits the situation. Folks who got themselves removed from Amazon are not major corporations with the accompanying baggage or expensive infrastructure. And even in the context of a corporation, brands *are* fundamentally disposable. Corporations are constantly rebranding--merging with or acquiring one another, updating or reinventing themselves, etc.
> 
> The brand behind an author or a publisher is even *more* fundamentally disposable. Sure, you can take away a pen name, but every shred of the underlying inventory, infrastructure, and support sysytem remains intact. Their skills (whether the focus is writing or marketing), are intact. Their mailing list is intact. Their books are intact (aside from some extremely minor alterations to the covers and interior text). Their website is intact, and can easily be tied to another domain. Their relationships with designers, ghostwriters, editors, each other etc--all intact. All that has changed is an identity that they plucked out of thin air in the first place. Within a week (depending on the size of the catalog), a brand new pen name could be up and running, and it'd almost be like nothing ever happened. And that's for someone who is above board, completely ethical, and is just rebranding themselves.
> 
> The sad reality is that people who have had their accounts removed, if they are the malicious sort, the hurdles to getting up and running again don't even need to be approached at a run.





KelliWolfe said:


> Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!!! They're not beaten and they're not gone. They're simply reorganizing for the next round. They'll be back with new accounts and new names and new loopholes to exploit before the end of the summer. And they'll rise very quickly when they do because this past round they built up massive mailing lists that they can exploit. They're not starting from scratch.


Author brands exist. There is a sliding scale. The scammers' author brands may not be as strong as Coke or Apple, but they do exist.

Allow me to argue by extreme, for illustration. James Patterson is probably the top author brand in the world. If the James Patterson brand were wiped out by some form of legal action and/or by a Weinstein/Cosby-level scandal, Patterson (the person) would lose 95% of his revenue overnight. Rebuilding by whatever means would take time and effort, and would represent a big hit. Possibly, depending on the finances, Patterson would never come back.

Extreme example, sure. Yet, in the sliding scale of business brands, the black-hatters do have brands. Real readers were, at the end of the day, reading stuff they liked, even if it was ghostwritten and stuffed and all that. Getting that brand wiped out is not nothing, even if it's not enough. IMO everything that can be done to burden, inconvenience and deter the scammers is a good thing.

I'm not arguing that it puts an end to the problem--but it at least damps down one fire, and that's how you put out a conflagration--one fire at a time.


----------



## David VanDyke

Atlantisatheart said:


> Their mailing lists are compromised insofar as every author and interested party has signed up to these bad actors and so when we suddenly get mail from an unknown author then we'll know they are back and the names they are using this time. If one of their shady friends sends one out as a swap, eyes will be watching what happens.
> 
> Once reported to amazon that these guys are back with new names it's then up to amazon what to do about it, but the social media stink that will ensue, if nothing is done, should make amazon take action.
> 
> The same with their books. You can change the characters names and a few other things, but a lot of authors have read these books. All folks need to do is check the new suspects and they'll be discovered.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. All new books? Start a new, clean list? Take over another genre. I think we'll all be watching the sudden rise and rise of newbies in future.


This


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

David VanDyke said:


> Author brands exist. There is a sliding scale. The scammers' author brands may not be as strong as Coke or Apple, but they do exist.
> 
> Allow me to argue by extreme, for illustration. James Patterson is probably the top author brand in the world. If the James Patterson brand were wiped out by some form of legal action and/or by a Weinstein/Cosby-level scandal, Patterson (the person) would lose 95% of his revenue overnight. Rebuilding by whatever means would take time and effort, and would represent a big hit. Possibly, depending on the finances, Patterson would never come back.
> 
> Extreme example, sure. Yet, in the sliding scale of business brands, the black-hatters do have brands. Real readers were, at the end of the day, reading stuff they liked, even if it was ghostwritten and stuffed and all that. Getting that brand wiped out is not nothing, even if it's not enough. IMO everything that can be done to burden, inconvenience and deter the scammers is a good thing.
> 
> I'm not arguing that it puts an end to the problem--but it at least damps down one fire, and that's how you put out a conflagration--one fire at a time.


Kind of like spraying ants whenever you see them, because you can't find their nest. You may be spitting against the tide, but you're pushing back where you can, little by little hopefully making your house inhospitable to them.


----------



## David VanDyke

KelliWolfe said:


> Credit where credit is due, these guys are marketers and know exactly how to analyze a genre and figure out how best to build a pen name and persona that appeals to its readers. It won't take them long to ramp back up even if they do start over from scratch. They've still got back end infrastructure to build on, and since Amazon said they'd be paying royalties they'll have money to fund advertising and promos. They'll go right back into romance because it's a huge genre filled with voracious readers who love KU. No doubt they'll do some things differently and be a bit more careful - at least at first. They're not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but they are arrogant and greedy which is why they keep getting caught in the various KU scams. It would be quite easy for them to sail along under the radar if they'd just keep a slightly lower profile, but whatever they bring in is never enough so they keep pushing harder and harder to make more every month and they also just love having a rockstar image that the marks eat up.
> 
> The only real question is how will they change up their tactics to make it harder to detect them this round?


Arguing this way is like claiming the criminals will always find a way to commit crimes, so why bother busting them or working against them.

Every experienced author here on KBoards gets the fact that criminals will crim and scammers will scam. That's their wheelhouse. Like many problems, the best we can do is push for control, suppression and management of scamming, rather than throwing up our hands (or trying to convince others to throw up their hands) and accepting the situation.


----------



## MClayton

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Because at some point, the lawsuits are going to start flying. It's only a matter of time before someone has their name falsely dragged through the mud. I don't blame Kboards moderators for being careful. I would be too.


This was exactly my thought, too.


----------



## Crystal_

KelliWolfe said:


> Credit where credit is due, these guys are marketers and know exactly how to analyze a genre and figure out how best to build a pen name and persona that appeals to its readers. It won't take them long to ramp back up even if they do start over from scratch. They've still got back end infrastructure to build on, and since Amazon said they'd be paying royalties they'll have money to fund advertising and promos. They'll go right back into romance because it's a huge genre filled with voracious readers who love KU. No doubt they'll do some things differently and be a bit more careful - at least at first. They're not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but they are arrogant and greedy which is why they keep getting caught in the various KU scams. It would be quite easy for them to sail along under the radar if they'd just keep a slightly lower profile, but whatever they bring in is never enough so they keep pushing harder and harder to make more every month and they also just love having a rockstar image that the marks eat up.
> 
> The only real question is how will they change up their tactics to make it harder to detect them this round?


I don't think these particular marketers will be able to make bank without bonus books. The few masterminds who are still around are ranking much, much lower now. They'll have to push into even more illegal territory.

I'm not worried.


----------



## KelliWolfe

David VanDyke said:


> Arguing this way is like claiming the criminals will always find a way to commit crimes, so why bother busting them or working against them.
> 
> Every experienced author here on KBoards gets the fact that criminals will crim and scammers will scam. That's their wheelhouse. Like many problems, the best we can do is push for control, suppression and management of scamming, rather than throwing up our hands (or trying to convince others to throw up their hands) and accepting the situation.


That wasn't at all what I meant. All I'm saying is that they'll be back and they're not stupid. They'll change things up enough so that they're harder to spot. That doesn't in any way imply that we shouldn't keep looking for them. They will trip themselves up eventually, and the sooner they're spotted and reported the sooner they'll get shut down again. As someone who has been targeted by the scammers' bots/click farms, believe me that I am _very_ interested in seeing them slapped down hard and fast by Amazon because I don't want my account at risk.

My only concern is that given the way that this round has played out that they'll either start reporting other authors themselves for camouflage and to cry wolf so much that Amazon slacks off, or that some "hunters" will start reporting innocent people out of overzealousness.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Of course, they'll report other authors. What's new? They spread the love with everything else they've done. People got rank stripped and page stripped, and it's why a lot of people hate them so much. The more they come after decent authors the more authors will push back. 

It's also the reason why a lot of us have a presence wide now. I've taken two pen names wide and kept one in KU. Nobody can really rely on amazon to bring home the money anymore.


----------



## unkownwriter

It seems all of this is having an effect Amazon didn't want, in that so many of us are going wide rather than risk KU. If nothing else prompted them to act, you'd think it would be this. They want all the authors and all the books and all the money. They don't get that if we go wide. Maybe it's not enough to make a difference, but I'm seeing a growing movement away from KU, and I don't even see all the boards.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

she-la-ti-da said:


> It seems all of this is having an effect Amazon didn't want, in that so many of us are going wide rather than risk KU. If nothing else prompted them to act, you'd think it would be this. They want all the authors and all the books and all the money. They don't get that if we go wide. Maybe it's not enough to make a difference, but I'm seeing a growing movement away from KU, and I don't even see all the boards.


On the private boards and chat rooms that I'm on for six-figure authors, we're all hedging our bets in one way or another and going wide has become the general consensus. Any trust between authors and Amazon was busted a while back over page flip, and all the other issues we have discussed here many times.

I think the final straw came for a lot of us when people started losing 50% of pages and being banned for something out of their control, and something that is down to Amazon not policing KU properly. By not dealing with scammers and stuffers, they have allowed innocent authors to suffer and it's incomprehensible that they have punished innocent authors for Amazon's incompetence. Why should we pay amazon twice for having our books in store? A cut of our royalties is what we signed up for, but no exposure without a hefty ad spend is just going too far. I'd rather pay for advertising to send people anywhere BUT Amazon now.

I do think that the movement of bigger authors taking some of their books wide that has forced Amazon to look at itself. People can say losing a few books/authors here and there doesn't matter, but it depends on who is pulling out and they know who makes them how much and who brings the readers in and let's face it, no matter how high the scammers/stuffers get in the charts it's a lot of fake reads and that means if amazon wants to keep around its magic PPP number then it has to cough up more money every month so more authors don't walk away.

The way they run KU has to change or there won't be any real readers left. Do they even know how many new sign-ups are fake or do they just use that figure to pretend that KU is a big success with the CEO?


----------



## KelliWolfe

After this last blowup that almost certainly involved legal and others coming in to ask them exactly WTF was going on in their little demesne, you have to wonder if the guys running KDP are going to start paying closer attention so they don't end up exploring other employment opportunities elsewhere. 

I pulled all but one pen out of KU in June. It's to the point where it isn't worth the risk with all the botting going on.


----------



## Crime fighters

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think these particular marketers will be able to make bank without bonus books. The few masterminds who are still around are ranking much, much lower now. They'll have to push into even more illegal territory.
> 
> I'm not worried.


Can confirm. I only see 15 titles in the top 100 (down from at least 30 a few weeks ago). Yes, they're still around, and yes a few of them are now putting out box sets instead of "collections", and yes, a few of them still have 2000 page books. Hoping Amazon takes another swing of that hammer soon because there's a few left that really deserve it.


----------



## Crystal_

she-la-ti-da said:


> It seems all of this is having an effect Amazon didn't want, in that so many of us are going wide rather than risk KU. If nothing else prompted them to act, you'd think it would be this. They want all the authors and all the books and all the money. They don't get that if we go wide. Maybe it's not enough to make a difference, but I'm seeing a growing movement away from KU, and I don't even see all the boards.


Talk about going wide happens everyone Amazon changes something or messes sonething up. I don't know if that talk leads to action, but I don't think there's more of it now than at other times.

I don't see people going wide in mass, but I'd love to be wrong about that.


----------



## David VanDyke

Going wide may not be a mass result, but it tends to be permanent. Not that many come back to KU after the effort of going wide. Or they go wide by series, which has the same issue: once you establish a readership wide, you don't want to squander it by going back to KU with those books. So, it tends to be a one-way street.

I predict that eventually, wide will be seen as the goal, and KU will be mostly a stepping-stone for new authors, aside from some legit big ones who make bank with the bonuses.


----------



## unkownwriter

I'm seeing people I trust moving away from KU, or being prepared to do so. And not little algae like me, but some big sellers. They may not be totally out, but they're moving that way.

In the end, this is all on Amazon. Yes, SEO crooks took advantage, that's what they do, but people have been warning Amazon from the beginning what would happen, especially if they didn't put people on the watch who knew what to look for. It's not like people like David and Phoenix and others haven't been showing them over and over how the scammers are working the program, with links and names and everything. It's not that hard to understand, despite what some might like to claim.

I can understand having a somewhat... fluid... TOS, so you can use it against people who find the cracks, but at some point you have to put eyeballs on the offenders and take action. And you need to understand that they won't take it lying down, but will simply find new loopholes. Exhibit #1, KUv1. Exhibit #2, KUv2. Soon to be Exhibit #3, KUv3.

Renaming something a collection, compilation or now a box set isn't complying with the rules, it's the new way of getting around them. Which is why my prediction is further caps on payouts, no "bonus" content in KU and only single titles.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter

Dpock said:


> Hypothetically, if such a video existed, I wouldn't mind receiving the link in a PM.


Yup, me too.


----------



## jb1111

KelliWolfe said:


> Credit where credit is due, these guys are marketers and know exactly how to analyze a genre and figure out how best to build a pen name and persona that appeals to its readers. It won't take them long to ramp back up even if they do start over from scratch. They've still got back end infrastructure to build on, and since Amazon said they'd be paying royalties they'll have money to fund advertising and promos. They'll go right back into romance because it's a huge genre filled with voracious readers who love KU.


Another thing to remember is one thing about human nature that seems to be prevalent: People do like NEW things. New artists. And sometimes new authors. What's to say some "new" hot romance author comes up with well crafted writing and the slick covers that genre is used to? With a 'new' hot, catchy name? With the same types of story lines?

Along with the money to promote it via AMS ads?


----------



## KelliWolfe

Crystal_ said:


> Talk about going wide happens everyone Amazon changes something or messes sonething up. I don't know if that talk leads to action, but I don't think there's more of it now than at other times.
> 
> I don't see people going wide in mass, but I'd love to be wrong about that.


I doubt that there will be a mass exodus because I don't really think a lot of indies keep up with these things. But the ones who do pay attention to what's going on are seeing Amazon punishing innocent authors just for being targeted by bot farms used by the scammers, something they have absolutely no control over. We've seen this kind of behavior before with Amazon sending nastygrams over books that are up on pirate sites while enrolled in KU, and with yanking books because of the "copyright ransom" schemes. But this is the first time that they've threatened _accounts_ over something we have no control over, and too many authors have had half their page reads yanked in punishment for something that they didn't do. At some point people take a long, hard look and start thinking, "Is it really worth the risks to stay in KU?" and it sounds like a whole lot of them are saying no.


----------



## David VanDyke

jb1111 said:


> Another thing to remember is one thing about human nature that seems to be prevalent: People do like NEW things. New artists. And sometimes new authors. What's to say some "new" hot romance author comes up with well crafted writing and the slick covers that genre is used to? With a 'new' hot, catchy name? With the same types of story lines?
> 
> Along with the money to promote it via AMS ads?


If that were a general principle, then new authors would tend to dominate. But they don't. We talk endlessly here about how to break in and build up, not "how easy it is to break in but hard to stay."


----------



## KelliWolfe

David VanDyke said:


> If that were a general principle, then new authors would tend to dominate. But they don't. We talk endlessly here about how to break in and build up, not "how easy it is to break in but hard to stay."


It's just as hard to stay. A whole lot of formerly successful writers have softly and silently vanished away since I started. Their sales dried up, or they got tired of the endless slog uphill while the distributors threw rocks down on their heads, or they burned out trying to sustain too a high release rate... We don't hear about them much here because they don't generally show up to post about it. They save it for their private author groups if they talk about it at all. But it happens all the time.


----------



## David VanDyke

KelliWolfe said:


> It's just as hard to stay. A whole lot of formerly successful writers have softly and silently vanished away since I started. Their sales dried up, or they got tired of the endless slog uphill while the distributors threw rocks down on their heads, or they burned out trying to sustain too a high release rate... We don't hear about them much here because they don't generally show up to post about it. They save it for their private author groups if they talk about it at all. But it happens all the time.


Yes, people drop out or drop back all the time.

And people break in all the time.

But between the two, it's harder to break in, easier to stick around and build on what you have. That's self-evident. Arguing by exception only proves exceptions exist. The slope is the slope.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Bill Hiatt said:


> I know Writer Beware bit the dust some time ago.


I did not know that . What a pity . They were excellent for researching shady vanity publishers.


----------



## DonovanJeremiah

Bill Hiatt said:


> I know Writer Beware bit the dust some time ago.


Did they?

MAY 9, 2018
TRADEMARK SHENANIGANS: WEIGHING IN ON #COCKYGATE


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot

Writers Beware is still very much around. The most recent post on FB was July 2. Victoria Strauss is still fighting the good fight.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

SevenDays said:


> Writers Beware is still very much around. The most recent post on FB was July 2. Victoria Strauss is still fighting the good fight.


That's good to know   Must have been fake news that they closed


----------



## Dpock

Thread seems to have drifted a bit... Anyway, via their newsletters and repackaging schemes (I note many stuffers are foregoing the usual 3-D boxset covers and using a square, flat image with multiple books featured), it's clear bonus stuffers are not giving up. One might even get the impression there's collusion going on via back channels. 

In many cases, they're sticking with single title covers and planting bonus content in chapter headings -- unless the new trend in romance is 1000 page tomes.

Despite this, the top lists are looking cleaner. The question is for how long? Common wisdom said boxsets don't do as well as single titles, but maybe they do with massive ad spends, $0.99 price-points, and review inflation.


----------



## jb1111

David VanDyke said:


> If that were a general principle, then new authors would tend to dominate. But they don't. We talk endlessly here about how to break in and build up, not "how easy it is to break in but hard to stay."


But we're not talking about newbie authors. We're talking new authors with a long track record of success in the field.

That's why I wouldn't eliminate the possibility of some of the top authors who got booted returning in some way and still making money in publishing.

They already have that expertise.


----------



## RPatton

Dpock said:


> Thread seems to have drifted a bit... Anyway, via their newsletters and repackaging schemes (I note many stuffers are foregoing the *usual* 3-D boxset covers and using a square, flat image with multiple books featured), it's clear bonus stuffers are not giving up. One might even get the impression there's collusion going on via back channels.
> 
> In many cases, they're sticking with single title covers and planting bonus content in chapter headings -- unless the new trend in romance is 1000 page tomes.
> 
> Despite this, the top lists are looking cleaner. The question is for how long? Common wisdom said boxsets don't do as well as single titles, but maybe they do with massive ad spends, $0.99 price-points, and review inflation.


Bold is mine.

The 3D box is not usual. It's not the norm. Fairly certain iBooks soon to be Apple Books won't take them, not sure about Kobo or BN. However what is the norm is a single cover with images from the different books.

I have a few box sets out there and not a single one uses the 3D graphic. Mostly because I don't like it. It's great for a mock up, but I don't like it for a store.

While I really do appreciate your intentions, I worry that this is just going to drum up the Tastes Great - Less Filling arguments again. Amazon has said compilation and boxed sets are fine. They are policing the 10% bonus content pretty closely from what I've heard. I can say with confidence (but with minimal evidence) that compilations had absolutely nothing to do with the account terminations. The accounts that were terminated had compilations, sure, but there are just as many accounts not terminated who have compilations (and some are getting dinged by Amazon for having books with over 10% bonus content).

Compilations are likely not going to be removed from KU, so I'm not sure further complaints would be as effective as say focusing those efforts on clearer labeling. Imagine a box, like the series box. You check it if it's a box set. If you put a book and don't check that box, it gets kicked back to draft. But complaining about the pricepoints (which I too hate) or that they've switched up covers, seems to be grasping at straws.


----------



## Used To Be BH

DonovanJeremiah said:


> Did they?
> 
> MAY 9, 2018
> TRADEMARK SHENANIGANS: WEIGHING IN ON #COCKYGATE


I stand corrected. I was thinking about a different one, whose name escapes me at the moment, that faded away.


----------



## Used To Be BH

David VanDyke said:


> Going wide may not be a mass result, but it tends to be permanent. Not that many come back to KU after the effort of going wide. Or they go wide by series, which has the same issue: once you establish a readership wide, you don't want to squander it by going back to KU with those books. So, it tends to be a one-way street.
> 
> I predict that eventually, wide will be seen as the goal, and KU will be mostly a stepping-stone for new authors, aside from some legit big ones who make bank with the bonuses.


Whether wide is permanent depends on how successful on author is with it. I have seen people try for a few months and then return to KU because wide wasn't working for them. Certainly, though, if wide works for someone, it's hard to imagine an author wanting to dump a good thing at the other stores in favor of what KU is now.

The strongest writers in terms of fan loyalty tend to be a success in wide, partly because many readers will follow them. Ironically, those are the very writers Amazon should have done everything in its power to hold onto. "Mass exodus" may be the wrong term in the sense that new writers often fall into KU simply because it's there, so absolute numbers may not decline. Perhaps "quality exodus" would be a better term as those most capable of carrying their readership with them bail out. The exceptions, as you point out, will be writers doing too well in KU to want to take the chance on a different business model. I suspect they'd also do well wide, but maybe not as well, if only because their current performance is so great. I'd be hesitant in that position to make the jump unless I had to.


----------



## Dpock

RPatton said:


> Bold is mine.
> 
> The 3D box is not usual. It's not the norm. Fairly certain iBooks soon to be Apple Books won't take them, not sure about Kobo or BN. However what is the norm is a single cover with images from the different books.
> 
> I have a few box sets out there and not a single one uses the 3D graphic. Mostly because I don't like it. It's great for a mock up, but I don't like it for a store.
> 
> While I really do appreciate your intentions, I worry that this is just going to drum up the Tastes Great - Less Filling arguments again. Amazon has said compilation and boxed sets are fine. They are policing the 10% bonus content pretty closely from what I've heard. I can say with confidence (but with minimal evidence) that compilations had absolutely nothing to do with the account terminations. The accounts that were terminated had compilations, sure, but there are just as many accounts not terminated who have compilations (and some are getting dinged by Amazon for having books with over 10% bonus content).
> 
> Compilations are likely not going to be removed from KU, so I'm not sure further complaints would be as effective as say focusing those efforts on clearer labeling. Imagine a box, like the series box. You check it if it's a box set. If you put a book and don't check that box, it gets kicked back to draft. But complaining about the pricepoints (which I too hate) or that they've switched up covers, seems to be grasping at straws.


The 3D cover is the norm in terms of visual presentation, though what constitutes the "norm" I'm not sure (51%?). The flat, square image featuring multiple titles is new to me (which I admit isn't saying much). Their publication dates all appear recent -- perhaps a coincidence. As they comply with new labeling and content guidelines, there's no reason to get in a huff.

But what's interesting is these active players are enjoying the support of non-active players (authors with suspended/terminated accounts), who are promoting them daily in their newsletters. Why?

In the end, I don't think the new 10% rule hurts stuffers. What it's really done is force them to become legitimate. By "legitimate", I'm referring only to their storefront strategies, not their other methods, which could involve botting, review inflation, category manipulation, etc.

The only way to undermine their new legitimacy is for Amazon to remove boxsets/compilations/collections from KU.

(iBooks and Apple Books are irrelevant to the bonus book discussion.)


----------



## KelliWolfe

Dpock said:


> In the end, I don't think the new 10% rule hurts stuffers. What it's really done is force them to become legitimate. By "legitimate", I'm referring only to their storefront strategies, not their other methods, which could involve botting, review inflation, category manipulation, etc.


As long as they are allowed to be paid for the same customer "reading" the same content multiple times because the same books are stuffed into their compilations over and over and over again, I refuse to call the practice legitimate. It may technically be allowed by the TOS as it stands, but it's a blatant attempt to circumvent the principle of KU that you get paid ONCE when a given customer reads your book. It doesn't matter what they put on the cover, it's still an attempt to get those multiple payouts.



Dpock said:


> But what's interesting is these active players are enjoying the support of non-active players (authors with suspended/terminated accounts), who are promoting them daily in their newsletters. Why?


That's a very, very good question. And it's also a strong indication that the ones whose accounts were banned haven't given up. They're just warming up for the next round.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Dpock said:


> The 3D cover is the norm in terms of visual presentation, though what constitutes the "norm" I'm not sure (51%?). The flat, square image featuring multiple titles is new to me (which I admit isn't saying much). Their publication dates all appear recent -- perhaps a coincidence. As they comply with new labeling and content guidelines, there's no reason to get in a huff.
> 
> But what's interesting is these active players are enjoying the support of non-active players (authors with suspended/terminated accounts), who are promoting them daily in their newsletters. Why?
> 
> In the end, I don't think the new 10% rule hurts stuffers. What it's really done is force them to become legitimate. By "legitimate", I'm referring only to their storefront strategies, not their other methods, which could involve botting, review inflation, category manipulation, etc.
> 
> The only way to undermine their new legitimacy is for Amazon to remove boxsets/compilations/collections from KU.
> 
> (iBooks and Apple Books are irrelevant to the bonus book discussion.)


I have difficulty imagining Amazon doing that. Some things, like category manipulation, I think will be addressed at some point.

Truth in advertising is something, so just getting the books labeled properly is a victory, albeit perhaps a small one. What Amazon might be willing to do would be to set guidelines for anthologies and box sets, so that some random collection of materials wouldn't qualify. The problem is that such guidelines would require human intervention to enforce--and we know how reluctant Amazon is to invest in that. It might be easier to get a once-per-title in KU box sets or compilations restriction. That would prevent the shenanigans Kelli Wolfe is referring to.


----------



## Crystal_

Dpock said:


> The 3D cover is the norm in terms of visual presentation, though what constitutes the "norm" I'm not sure (51%?). The flat, square image featuring multiple titles is new to me (which I admit isn't saying much). Their publication dates all appear recent -- perhaps a coincidence. As they comply with new labeling and content guidelines, there's no reason to get in a huff.
> 
> But what's interesting is these active players are enjoying the support of non-active players (authors with suspended/terminated accounts), who are promoting them daily in their newsletters. Why?
> 
> In the end, I don't think the new 10% rule hurts stuffers. What it's really done is force them to become legitimate. By "legitimate", I'm referring only to their storefront strategies, not their other methods, which could involve botting, review inflation, category manipulation, etc.
> 
> The only way to undermine their new legitimacy is for Amazon to remove boxsets/compilations/collections from KU.
> 
> (iBooks and Apple Books are irrelevant to the bonus book discussion.)


Nah, box sets don't sell as well as new titles. They just don't. You can tell by looking at the rankings of these new box sets and comparing them to the stuffed titles people were releasing previously. I think there are one or two of these box sets in the top 100 vs the usual 20 or so stuffed single titles. I'm sure some of that is removed accounts, but a lot is lack of interest in box sets. Even when a huge author like Alexa Riley releases a box set, with new content, it sells a fraction of what a new title sells.


----------



## Dpock

Crystal_ said:


> Nah, box sets don't sell as well as new titles. They just don't. You can tell by looking at the rankings of these new box sets


Maybe times are changing. There's a boxset sitting at #49 storewide. In New Adult, boxsets are ranking at #79, #129, #141, #145, #411 and #450. I don't know the metrics by which a former stuffer judged their success, but those ranks aren't shabby. Frankly, they're better than my own.


----------



## Phxsundog

The stuffers will continue to aggressively do everything they can for extra pages. For now they've moved onto normal looking boxed sets with 3D covers. This is the safest way to deal with any uncertainties about the compilation-collection retitling trick they were using before. And let me be clear there are still major uncertainties. There's no proof anywhere I've seen that Amazon ever said tacking collection or compilation onto the end of a standard stuffed title, and then slipping it onto the cover in tiny lettering, is acceptable. On the contrary, more than a few authors have received compliance warning emails for collections labeled this way. Others have heard a much stricter tone from KDP reps on the phone when they bring up this issue, and these reps explicitly say retitling stuffed books as collections or compilation doesn't meet the labeling requirements for a real anthology. I wouldn't bet on what exactly Amazon considers acceptable for compilations but it's interesting that the last few stuffers are backing completely off them. The few who were left are removing their extra books and stripping the collection part off their titles over the past week. Their last minute voluntarily removal (or removal of stuffed content) is also the only thing that appears to have saved several in the most abusive stuffer group from full termination. Granted there's probably more to the terminations than just stuffing. However the big catalogs of poorly retitled collections may have made many of them an easy target to investigate and group together when KDP decided to use the nuclear option. They clung to their stuffed collections to the bitter end and it may have been the final straw.

Right now Amazon continues to send mixed signals about collections. The only thing that seems truly safe is a clearly labeled boxed set or series. Anything else is a dangerous risk with no good answer from KDP.

As for the newsletters a few posters have noticed, yes, many of them are automated weeks in advance with PAs and through the Bookclicker marketplace owned by Chance Carter. Many of the terminated stuffers are still making $50-200 per newsletter mention for other authors and they spam their emails daily. Bookclicker continues to monetize aggressive newsletter spam in romance. No surprises there. Why anyone would want their books recommended by [those known to have been] banned by Amazon is another question I couldn't begin to answer. Except for authors who bought slots in [their] newsletters far in advance and are just letting them run.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## RPatton

Phxsundog said:


> As for the newsletters a few posters have noticed, yes, many of them are automated weeks in advance with PAs and through the Bookclicker marketplace owned by Chance Carter. Many of the terminated stuffers are still making $50-200 per newsletter mention for other authors and they spam their emails daily. Bookclicker continues to monetize aggressive newsletter spam in romance. No surprises there. Why anyone would want their books recommended by [those known to have been] banned by Amazon is another question I couldn't begin to answer. Except for authors who bought slots in [their] newsletters far in advance and are just letting them run.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


I had a visceral reaction when I read this. Not that you wrote it, but what you said and the truth of those words.

So there's a great study that was done years ago and is still done today because the correlations are so spot on it's almost predictive of future events. It's the famous Marshmallow study. Offer a kid one marshmallow now and stick it in front of them. Then tell them they can eat it now. Or they can wait and when the researcher comes back, if there's still a marshmallow there, the kid gets two. The kids who wait for two end up performing better on SATs and in college (more likely to graduate), more likely to be employed, and they earn more than their friends who eat the marshmallow right away.

Is it so important to get all those page reads now that they don't think about what will happen a month from now? Six months from now? Two years from now? Amazon has a long memory and I would much rather eat the cost of the promotion than put a giant sign on my back that says, "just shoot me now."

And that doesn't even bring up the fact that as an author, you (general you) have a responsibility to follow best practices and that includes promoting your books through newsletters that are above board. Most of the newsletters on BookClicker aren't advertised as being monetized and those subscribers aren't necessarily signing up for what they're getting. Claiming that the readers _love_ getting newsletters filled with books that the owner of said newsletter sold spots for, doesn't change the fact that doing so may be against the CAN-SPAM act.

I have trouble reconciling why people do the things they do. But then, I've seen a lot of stupid things this past week, so I don't know why it surprises me to think that stupidity can't be found in the author community.


----------



## Crystal_

Dpock said:


> Maybe times are changing. There's a boxset sitting at #49 storewide. In New Adult, boxsets are ranking at #79, #129, #141, #145, #411 and #450. I don't know the metrics by which a former stuffer judged their success, but those ranks aren't shabby. Frankly, they're better than my own.


They're fine ranks, but they're much worse than comparable Mastermind ranks for single titles.

But I don't see any issue with Masterminds putting out clearly labeled box sets. If readers want that, and know what they're getting, what's the problem?


----------



## Dpock

Crystal_ said:


> They're fine ranks, but they're much worse than comparable Mastermind ranks for single titles.
> 
> But I don't see any issue with Masterminds putting out clearly labeled box sets. If readers want that, and know what they're getting, what's the problem?


There is no problem, at least currently. In a month or two, if the top lists become dominated by boxsets, people might take another view.

For now it's wait and see.


----------



## PhoenixS

There is nothing wrong with clearly labeled box sets that are not filled with stuffed/undifferentiated content. And there is nothing wrong with legit marketing practices to promote those titles. I've put together and managed ~60 boxes. I have nothing against them and love(d) to promote them.

But if the box sets are nothing more than regurgitated, stuffed content that are being propped up by incentivized reviews/buys/borrows/reads, then nothing has changed save for a bit of lost visibility. I don't really care if they're ranking #20 or #200 or #2000. If they're in the lists at all because of black hat methods, they don't belong there. 

Out of Top 100 sight is not out of mind.


----------



## J. Tanner

RPatton said:


> So there's a great study that was done years ago and is still done today because the correlations are so spot on it's almost predictive of future events. It's the famous Marshmallow study.


OT: Just read about this test being suspect for a while, and debunked recently: 
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/


----------



## KelliWolfe

PhoenixS said:


> There is nothing wrong with clearly labeled box sets that are not filled with stuffed/undifferentiated content. And there is nothing wrong with legit marketing practices to promote those titles. I've put together and managed ~60 boxes. I have nothing against them and love(d) to promote them.
> 
> But if the box sets are nothing more than regurgitated, stuffed content that are being propped up by incentivized reviews/buys/borrows/reads, then nothing has changed save for a bit of lost visibility. I don't really care if they're ranking #20 or #200 or #2000. If they're in the lists at all because of black hat methods, they don't belong there.
> 
> Out of Top 100 sight is not out of mind.


It does make them a lot harder to find and report. Especially if they're on new accounts that are keeping a low profile and spreading out page reads over very large numbers rather than fewer high profile books.

But greed and arrogance will always win out in the end. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## Crystal_

PhoenixS said:


> There is nothing wrong with clearly labeled box sets that are not filled with stuffed/undifferentiated content. And there is nothing wrong with legit marketing practices to promote those titles. I've put together and managed ~60 boxes. I have nothing against them and love(d) to promote them.
> 
> But if the box sets are nothing more than regurgitated, stuffed content that are being propped up by incentivized reviews/buys/borrows/reads, then nothing has changed save for a bit of lost visibility. I don't really care if they're ranking #20 or #200 or #2000. If they're in the lists at all because of black hat methods, they don't belong there.
> 
> Out of Top 100 sight is not out of mind.


Hmm, I think it's a huge difference if blackhat methods are ranking in the top 100 vs in the 1000s, because the better they're ranking, the more visibility they're stealing from other authors. Blackhat methods are always a problem, but they're a bigger problem the "better" they're doing.

Not that these current bundles are blackhat. If these Masterminds have really cleaned up their act and decided only to publish following the ToS, that's great. If not, then hopefully they'll get taken down in the next wave of account terminations.


----------



## Dpock

Crystal_ said:


> If these Masterminds have really cleaned up their act and decided only to publish following the ToS


Not all have gotten on board the straight and narrow train. In New Adult, which seems to be a prime target, there are several books published after June 25 as single titles harboring bonus content. They're being "monitored", as reviews such as the following illustrate:



> The first book ends at 29%
> The second book ends at 57%
> The third book ends at 94%
> after the third short novel ends, It is six chapters of an older novel from XXXXXX, and it continues with more notes, etc. I use to love my kindle subscription when I first got it. Now, I absolutely hate it. These are not books. The writing is horrible, foolish, lazy. Just an easy way to make money and steal from honest authors.


----------



## Phxsundog

There's signs several survivors of the group are already back to aggressively miscategorizing their books. They retreated from the practice for a couple weeks after the bans but it didn't last long. This has always been a lesser issue against everything else that was going on. Now it's one of the last tools they seem to have for giving their books artificially high visibility. I realize the line with categorizing romances can be very subjective. But as usual they trip the line that would make most authors say C'mon. These [publishers] jump around categories that don't fit their books far more often than any author or publisher trying to provide a good reader experience. Today there's a couple of their new erotic romance bad boy boxed sets dropped into Inspirational. Plus what looks like a few single novels that were never stuffed in Romance Collections? How weird. It's obvious they're after the #1 bestsellers flag and will dump their books into any categories they think they can get away with to have it.

This is why it's good to keep vigil and call them out when they overstep. The instant they think the heat is off and no one is looking, they're right back to bending the rules any way they can.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

J. Tanner said:


> OT: Just read about this test being suspect for a while, and debunked recently:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/


Thanks for this. Oddly, I was going to quote that test on another subject. (Delayed gratification is a worthwhile attribute - especially where sex is concerned  )


----------



## EllieDee

Any wisdom for someone planning to put out a collection of short stories, and hopefully a collection of poetry later this year?  

The short story collection is especially making me paranoid because yes, they could technically be published individually but I'm 'stuffing' them into the same scrivener file.  The title and blurb will reflect that it's a collection of shorts, but will Amazon count that as 'book stuffing' and bring the hammer down on me?  But I'm not in KU, so maybe Amazon won't be as strict about it?  

I don't know what to do!  I just want to put out something book length, 40-50k, for the reader experience.  And the higher percentage of $, of course.  

Sorry if this question has already been addressed (I skimmed this thread for answers but jeez, 58 pages)


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

EllieDee said:


> Any wisdom for someone planning to put out a collection of short stories, and hopefully a collection of poetry later this year?
> 
> The short story collection is especially making me paranoid because yes, they could technically be published individually but I'm 'stuffing' them into the same scrivener file. The title and blurb will reflect that it's a collection of shorts, but will Amazon count that as 'book stuffing' and bring the hammer down on me? But I'm not in KU, so maybe Amazon won't be as strict about it?
> 
> I don't know what to do! I just want to put out something book length, 40-50k, for the reader experience. And the higher percentage of $, of course.
> 
> Sorry if this question has already been addressed (I skimmed this thread for answers but jeez, 58 pages)


The only wisdom I have about collections of short stories is that they don't sell very well


----------



## AltMe

EllieDee said:


> Any wisdom for someone planning to put out a collection of short stories, and hopefully a collection of poetry later this year?
> The short story collection is especially making me paranoid because yes, they could technically be published individually but I'm 'stuffing' them into the same scrivener file. The title and blurb will reflect that it's a collection of shorts, but will Amazon count that as 'book stuffing' and bring the hammer down on me? But I'm not in KU, so maybe Amazon won't be as strict about it?
> I don't know what to do! I just want to put out something book length, 40-50k, for the reader experience. And the higher percentage of $, of course.


If you don't put it in KU, there shouldn't be a problem. It's KU where the problem lies.

If you do put it in KU, which if they dont exist as shorts, is probably worth while doing (depending on genre), you need to give it a theme name (blahblah anthology), describe the theme in the blurb with each story getting its own blurb after, and depending on how many there are, list them on the cover as well. But as original stories, not published elsewhere, I doubt you'll hit any problem.

The poetry shouldn't see any problem at all. But treat it the same way. XXXXXX, poetry anthology.


----------



## unkownwriter

It wouldn't be named anything anthology, because it's by the same author. It's a collection. This is not what stuffing means, which should be clear from this thread, and others. I have a few out myself, and I haven't had any issues. (Yet.)

As long as it's only one book, not one of several with the same content, clearly labeled as a collection, and not given any black hat boosts, it should be fine. Providing Amazon doesn't decide to not allow collections, anthologies and box sets in KU. As noted, these things don't do well, especially poetry, but if you want to put one up, and the rules allow it, go for it. Maybe you'll be the exception to the general experience.


----------



## EllieDee

Thanks for weighing in, everybody. You're probably right that Amazon _shouldn't_ have a problem with my collections. Which is not to say that they won't smack my account anyway, justified or not, but that's a separate issue.



> The only wisdom I have about collections of short stories is that they don't sell very well


Probably true! But I've got them lying around on my hard drive, so what the hell


----------



## RPatton

J. Tanner said:


> OT: Just read about this test being suspect for a while, and debunked recently:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/


Well crud. That's my goto study since it was applicable everywhere. Zimbardo did a Ted Talk about delayed gratification and about being future or present centric. Well worth the listen/watch if you have the time. Granted he based that lecture on that marshmallow study.

I'll probably still say I want my two marshmallows later instead of one today, but I might have to start adding an asterix


----------



## Lydniz

I'm kind of glad the marshmallow theory has been disproven, because if you'd tried it on me when I was five I'd have eaten the marshmallow before you'd even finished explaining the test to me.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot

Lydniz™ said:


> I'm kind of glad the marshmallow theory has been disproven, because if you'd tried it on me when I was five I'd have eaten the marshmallow before you'd even finished explaining the test to me.


As an adult, I would still grab the marshmallow and stuff it into my mouth as a little snack while they were explaining the test.

I really love marshmallows. Except not American marshmallows. I'm not sure these pillows of sadness and corn syrup can be called marshmallows.


----------



## Ava Glass

There's also non-Western cultures to factor into the marshmallow test.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/07/03/534743719/want-to-teach-your-kids-self-control-ask-a-cameroonian-farmer


----------



## MmmmmPie

If, as various people have reported on this thread, the remaining stuffers are getting more creative in order to fly under the radar, Amazon will eventually institute some sort of payout cap, whether by price or by pages. IMO, it's only a matter of time, because the lure of 13 bucks a borrow is simply too tempting for unethical publishers to ignore.

Regarding romance authors going wide, a quick look at Kobo will give you an idea of how many top romance authors have said goodbye to Kindle Unlimited. For my latest release, I skipped Kindle Unlimited entirely. Sure, my rank stinks compared to what it was in KU, but my _Amazon earnings_ are higher, and I'm spending a lot less time and energy on advertising. Right now, I don't see myself returning to KU again, not even if Amazon removes the exclusivity requirement.


----------



## unkownwriter

The latest thing with making the stuffed books look like box sets is only going to end up with a further reduced cap on payouts, and also no bundles/collections/box sets in KU. What the scammers come up with next could make a good drinking game, if you're into that. If I was the drinking sort, I'd already be comatose from calling this.


----------



## Phxsundog

New update to KDP language today specifically aimed at what they're calling multi-work books:



> If you're publishing multiple stories as one book, ensure the contents of your book are accurately reflected both in the title field and on the cover, by including terms such as "Boxed Set," "Bundle," "Collection," "Compilation," or "Series." Stories that are part of a series must be in sequential order within a book and collections of individual stories must have all stories listed in the metadata.
> 
> Collections of works and numbered series may include content you've previously published in your catalog. However, in order to provide an optimal customer experience, the same content may not be excessively reutilized across multiple books. We consider "excessive" any amount of content repetition that would create a poor shopping or reading experience.


It sounds like the door is now closed on duplicating content beyond normally labeled series and themed boxed sets. Probably one time. If the ex-stuffers had big plans to start recycling the same books in boxed sets over and over again, Amazon has gotten ahead of them for once. Anyone who wants to push the lines is welcome to find out what KDP considers "excessive." I don't think any normal author wants to take the gamble.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Good to hear. Tapping foot, waiting to hear how stuffing is still, somehow, OK with Amazon and always was, that that wasn't why authors lost their accounts, et cetera. 

As you say, I'm sure it'll be tested, because people who do this kind of stuff always test the limits. They find out where the edge is by seeing at what point they go over it, and counting on Amazon's slowness to act. Appetite for risk and all that. Better them than me.


----------



## Dpock

Phxsundog said:


> Anyone who wants to push the lines is welcome to find out what KDP considers "excessive." I don't think any normal author wants to take the gamble.


I don't know. That _"We consider "excessive" any amount of content repetition that would create a poor shopping or reading experience"_ seems pointlessly vague, like they're not sure what even they mean by it.

But I agree. I wouldn't want to be the one who finds out.


----------



## kcmorgan

Dpock said:


> I don't know. That _"We consider "excessive" any amount of content repetition that would create a poor shopping or reading experience"_ seems pointlessly vague, like they're not sure what even they mean by it.
> 
> But I agree. I wouldn't want to be the one who finds out.


No, it's purposely vague. It means they can enforce the rule whenever they want, however they want. They do the same thing with their definition of "obscenity". The rule is basically, "you know what we mean", which means they can delete what they want. Amazon has a tendency to leave themselves as much wiggle room as possible.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

kcmorgan said:


> No, it's purposely vague. It means they can enforce the rule whenever they want, however they want. They do the same thing with their definition of "obscenity". The rule is basically, "you know what we mean", which means they can delete what they want. Amazon has a tendency to leave themselves as much wiggle room as possible.


I figure it means: most of us will assume that means "a stand-alone book and one box set", while a few come in here every now and again to argue that they personally don't find 20 to be excessive and neither does Amazon (until such time as Amazon does).


----------



## KelliWolfe

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I figure it means: most of us will assume that means "a stand-alone book and one box set", while a few come in here every now and again to argue that they personally don't find 20 to be excessive and neither does Amazon (until such time as Amazon does).


Isn't that how it always works?


----------



## Crystal_

Phxsundog said:


> New update to KDP language today specifically aimed at what they're calling multi-work books:
> 
> It sounds like the door is now closed on duplicating content beyond normally labeled series and themed boxed sets. Probably one time. If the ex-stuffers had big plans to start recycling the same books in boxed sets over and over again, Amazon has gotten ahead of them for once. Anyone who wants to push the lines is welcome to find out what KDP considers "excessive." I don't think any normal author wants to take the gamble.


I don't know. The language is intentionally vague. It could mean one. It could mean ten. I have an idea of what excessive is, but it might be different than yours.


----------



## RPatton

Usedtoposthere said:


> Tapping foot, waiting to hear how stuffing is still, somehow, OK with Amazon and always was, that that wasn't why authors lost their accounts, et cetera.


Seriously? Where did I ever say that stuffing was okay. I called it excessive and aggressive use of bonus content, but I never said it was okay. What I said is that the authors whose accounts were terminated, didn't get terminated because they stuffed a bunch of books with excessive bonus content. It started with the removal of one author's book because of what amounted to an illegal lottery, which led to his account being terminated, then to other authors closely tied to him getting their accounts suspended and then terminated. (And the author who everyone claimed was an innocent victim, was likely as involved with the tom-foolery as the others, just under a different pen name.) Not to mention all the suspension letters specifically said manipulation.

If this was ever primarily about stuffing, then they would have included the duplicate content clause when they changed the bonus content clause and a lot more authors would have had their accounts terminated.


----------



## Ann in Arlington

RPatton -- not sure what you read in the post you quoted that made you think the poster was talking about you specifically? I saw it as a general comment that, while this latest development is good news, there are very likely going to be people who put the language through a series of calisthenics to show that it doesn't really mean what most people think it does.

I don't think anyone outside of Amazon KNOWS why certain accounts were terminated or suspended. We can all speculate about it, and some may be pretty much on the mark. It's reasonable to me, for example, to assume that bad stuff flies under the radar until someone sticks his head out of the foxhole, to mix a metaphor. If that's what happened with the illegal contest within the book, and it lead Amazon to look more closely at a whole bunch of other stuff, and other people, well, I don't think anyone is arguing that's a bad thing?

I also think people aren't all using the word "stuffing" to mean the same thing, and that's a big part of the confusion in this thread.


----------



## sela

Stuffing:

1) duplicated content available elsewhere on Amazon 
2) that is not labeled properly in the book's metadata
3) that creates a bad customer experience

So, I imagine by this measure, one could create a boxed set of a series, then include those books in a collection of _all_ your books (a meta-collection for example), and then you could probably do special collections that were theme-based (first in series, themes that are particular to your genre, etc.)

A simple repetition of the same 30 books in collection after collection, merely reordered, with different titles, content not labeled in metadata, and especially with incentivized links intended to game the KU system would not be kosher.

Am I missing anything?


----------



## Desert Rose

Phxsundog said:


> Anyone who wants to push the lines is welcome to find out what KDP considers "excessive." I don't think any normal author wants to take the gamble.


Typical Amazon circular logic. Disappointing content is content which disappoints. Excessively published is any number of times which is excessive. I know they love their wiggle room, but sometimes I just wish they'd give a concrete answer rather than making us figure out "how long is a piece of string".


----------



## JWright

I think Amazon does keep things vague to use to their advantage, and maybe for legal purposes too, but I also can see some logic in it.  The set number of times a piece of content is published doesn't tell the full story.  

There is one writer I have read in KU where I have read single books of a series, and then sometimes get the box set of several books in the series and she also has had samplers where the first book in several series are boxed together so people can try them out.  I in no way feel there is anything wrong with this and as a reader I clearly know what I am getting and can skip the books I have already read if I want to while still getting something new. I don't feel she is trying to publish the same stuff over and over - each one serves a different purpose and the reader is in no way fooled.  On the other hand, someone could bury the same story 3 times in 3 "books" or "compilations" in a way where it isn't clear what I am getting or thinking I'm getting a long novel when in fact there is a bunch of short stories I've already read before. So there could be a big difference in reader experience even though they technically had some of the same material published the same number of times.  

If the "stuffers" wanted to just give people large box sets with clearly marked content they could have done that from the very beginning.  Obviously, there are reasons why they didn't. 

It does make it difficult to follow the TOS, however, when things are so vague.


----------



## Dpock

sela said:


> Am I missing anything?


No, but Amazon is missing an opportunity to clarify its terms.

When it gets down to tackling the "bonus stuffers" gaming KU, Amazon could simply mandate the following publication guidelines for KU eligibility:

Single Titles May Be Published:

1. In a "Collected Works Edition" which include all or simply selected titles from a single author (revised as more books are added or substracted). One "Collected Works" only per author.

2. In "Series Collections", which may include titles from "Collected Works" editions.

3. As "Single Titles" (obviously).

With those guidelines, a single title could only be published three times (or twice if not part of a series).

Amazon needs to nix everything else. As it is, stuffers are now doing "romance compliations" bound only by the niches they serve rather being individual titles in a connected series.


----------



## Crystal_

sela said:


> Stuffing:
> 
> 1) duplicated content available elsewhere on Amazon
> 2) that is not labeled properly in the book's metadata
> 3) that creates a bad customer experience
> 
> So, I imagine by this measure, one could create a boxed set of a series, then include those books in a collection of _all_ your books (a meta-collection for example), and then you could probably do special collections that were theme-based (first in series, themes that are particular to your genre, etc.)
> 
> A simple repetition of the same 30 books in collection after collection, merely reordered, with different titles, content not labeled in metadata, and especially with incentivized links intended to game the KU system would not be kosher.
> 
> Am I missing anything?


Yes. We've all agreed that reordered content is against the rules for months. However, bonus books were okay until the recent changes. They are now against the rules.

The latest change limits bundles in an unspecific way. Reordered bundles were already against the ToS, so I don't really see why we're still taking about them.


----------



## caitlynlynch

Amazon have taken another mighty swing with the banhammer. Over 100 more authors are gone from the store, including several known stuffers who missed being scooped up in the last round.


----------



## Hope

caitlynlynch said:


> Amazon have taken another mighty swing with the banhammer. Over 100 more authors are gone from the store, including several known stuffers who missed being scooped up in the last round.


How do you know it's over 100?


----------



## caitlynlynch

Hope said:


> How do you know it's over 100?


The unconfirmed number I have been given, by a source I am declining to name, is a lot closer to 200, actually. I've spent the last hour checking on a number of authors and books previously identified as in breach of ToS and a LOT of them are gone.

In compliance with KBoards policy, I'm not naming names, but at least one BIG name in the Bad Boy Romance genre is gone, plus a fantasy author who was inside the Top 100 authors on Amazon just last week.


----------



## Hope

caitlynlynch said:


> The unconfirmed number I have been given, by a source I am declining to name, is a lot closer to 200, actually. I've spent the last hour checking on a number of authors and books previously identified as in breach of ToS and a LOT of them are gone.
> 
> In compliance with KBoards policy, I'm not naming names, but at least one BIG name in the Bad Boy Romance genre is gone, plus a fantasy author who was inside the Top 100 authors on Amazon just last week.


Okay, I was just wondering. Thanks.


----------



## RPatton

It's probably more accurate to say pen names. Several authors swept up could have multiple pen names so it looks s though 200 have been removed when it's really a fraction of that number.


----------



## caitlynlynch

RPatton said:


> It's probably more accurate to say pen names. Several authors swept up could have multiple pen names so it looks s though 200 have been removed when it's really a fraction of that number.


Let's call it author profiles then, if you want to be specific. With no way to know what pen names belong to which marketing mastermind, for the most part, we can't know how many KDP accounts have been hit. Or whether they will STAY gone.

That said, as far as I know, nobody who was swept up in the last round is back in KU. Though some authors have books back up, they seem to be wide or at least not in KU and are possibly published through an aggregator such as D2D.


----------



## MmmmmPie

caitlynlynch said:


> Amazon have taken another mighty swing with the banhammer. Over 100 more authors are gone from the store, including several known stuffers who missed being scooped up in the last round.


Interesting. It begs the question... Were these latest accounts banned as a result of anything they've done recently? Or is Amazon playing catch-up on longstanding investigations? I realize we'll never know, but it's struck me as strange that pen names would still stuff after so many stuffers have been banned.

(Yes, I realize that we haven't established that stuffing alone causes the ban hammer to come down. It just seems odd to me that anyone would risk it in the current environment.)


----------



## caitlynlynch

MmmmmPie said:


> Interesting. It begs the question... Were these latest accounts banned as a result of anything they've done recently? Or is Amazon playing catch-up on longstanding investigations? I realize we'll never know, but it's struck me as strange that pen names would still stuff after so many stuffers have been banned.
> 
> (Yes, I realize that we haven't established that stuffing alone causes the ban hammer to come down. It just seems odd to me that anyone would risk it in the current environment.)


Unknown as to why they are gone, for stuffing or otherwise. The big name in 'bad boy romance' I personally confirmed is gone was definitely a major stuffer and one of CC's insiders, though I believe they'd done their best to clean up all titles in the last few weeks. The Top 100 fantasy author who I'd never heard of before I was told he got taken down (but then I don't read much fantasy), I couldn't tell you. He's been named in another KBoards thread and I've seen (very legit) authors panicking and saying 'if HE'S gone, I can't risk having all my eggs in one basket - I'm going wide' so I'd have to assume he was a non-stuffer and may have lost his account for other reasons which we will likely never know.

I follow on Twitter a reader (NOT an author) who has elected to do some investigating of current bookstuffers and still, even today, is posting DAILY finds of stuffed books on Amazon with not even the faintest attempt to conceal what the author is up to. Yes, the very top of the charts is looking a lot cleaner, but there are plenty of people who seem to think Amazon won't look deep enough to find them.

I cannot find any rhyme or reason to Amazon's decisions. There are several major 'former' stuffers out there who have hastily cleaned up and are carrying on as though nothing ever happened, and others who cleaned up but got banhammered. Still more who haven't bothered cleaning up and are still stuffed to the gills!


----------



## Ros_Jackson

MmmmmPie said:


> Interesting. It begs the question... Were these latest accounts banned as a result of anything they've done recently? Or is Amazon playing catch-up on longstanding investigations? I realize we'll never know, but it's struck me as strange that pen names would still stuff after so many stuffers have been banned.
> 
> (Yes, I realize that we haven't established that stuffing alone causes the ban hammer to come down. It just seems odd to me that anyone would risk it in the current environment.)


I expect there's going to be a lag as stuffers take a while to catch up with the new reality. Some of them may have been on holiday, or experiencing life events that meant they're out of the loop. Some may have dozens of books and may need to take a while to format them. The formatters may be backlogged...


----------



## unkownwriter

I have to admit, I was shocked at one author who is gone (except for audio, and as we've seen, that will likely go soon). Several books in the top 100 of SF, big accolades. And gone.

I really don't care why these people are gone, so long as they stay gone. Amazon needs to make sure they can't slip their books back in under new titles, covers and pen names. I'm sure some think that's harsh, but these people haven't spared one second worrying about what they were doing to self publishing or other authors, and I'm not worrying about them. Walmart is probably hiring where they live. Or maybe the local car wash.


----------



## KelliWolfe

MmmmmPie said:


> Interesting. It begs the question... Were these latest accounts banned as a result of anything they've done recently? Or is Amazon playing catch-up on longstanding investigations? I realize we'll never know, but it's struck me as strange that pen names would still stuff after so many stuffers have been banned.
> 
> (Yes, I realize that we haven't established that stuffing alone causes the ban hammer to come down. It just seems odd to me that anyone would risk it in the current environment.)


The black hat internet marketing types typically set up multiple accounts. They don't rely on just one, in case it gets shut down. Given the large number of accounts involved in this sweep, I would bet that a whole lot of them are accounts that Amazon was able to link to people who had already been banned. Not much point in trying to keep them going since the marketers know they're tainted and Amazon was probably going to find them eventually. Leave them running on autopilot and get a little more money out of them while the BHM are figuring out their next play.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

she-la-ti-da said:


> Several books in the top 100 of SF, big accolades. And gone.


I think it definitely disproves the popular theory that some authors are too big for Amazon to boot.

Some might think "Amazon is stupid to do this. They make them a lot of money." Personally, I'm of the mindset that nature abhors a vacuum. Others will rise to fill those spaces.


----------



## Dpock

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I think it definitely disproves the popular theory that some authors are too big for Amazon to boot.
> 
> Some might think "Amazon is stupid to do this. They make them a lot of money." Personally, I'm of the mindset that nature abhors a vacuum. Others will rise to fill those spaces.


For now, at least, KU gaming has been dealt a serious blow. Many of the victims of yesterday's sweep still had uncamouflaged stuffed books on their shelves and in a sense were asking for it.

I'm not sure where they can go next. The triple-spacing, large font schemes have been largely disproven as effective in manipulating KENP.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Dpock said:


> For now, at least, KU gaming has been dealt a serious blow. Many of the victims of yesterday's sweep still had uncamouflaged stuffed books on their shelves and in a sense were asking for it.
> 
> I'm not sure where they can go next. The triple-spacing, large font schemes have been largely disproven as effective in manipulating KENP.


Human ingenuity is boundless. However, if Amazon stays interested in the issue, there is hope that a new, widespread scheme may have more difficulty emerging.

This is the first time I can recall Amazon staying interested in something like this beyond little, sporadic moments. Am I wrong, or is this the first example of sustained attention on this kind of problem?


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West

No one makes Amazon so much money Amazon can't live without them. And if an author is in KU, any sales revenue would have to be balanced against KU payouts and bonuses. 

People keep saying it can't be fought. It can, it costs money. You have to take it to arbitration or mediation etc. And then see if there's any hard proof. Downside is I believe all you can win are damages up to the amount of royalties owed if I remember the contract right and Amazon can't be forced to reinstate you.

Being in business for yourself comes with little to no protections. You have to solve your own distribution problems if a distributor doesn't want to work with you.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Dpock said:


> For now, at least, KU gaming has been dealt a serious blow. Many of the victims of yesterday's sweep still had uncamouflaged stuffed books on their shelves and in a sense were asking for it.
> 
> I'm not sure where they can go next. The triple-spacing, large font schemes have been largely disproven as effective in manipulating KENP.


I would imagine that they found a bug/loophole in the KENPC system that makes it effective, otherwise they wouldn't bother doing it. Just like the "click to the back" link issue was supposedly fixed, but apparently isn't on a lot of devices including many of the newer ones.

Rest assured that they will be back. They're not going anywhere when they know they can scam 5-6 figures a month out of KU. They'll come up with some new approach and probably be back at it before back to school starts.


----------



## AltMe

KelliWolfe said:


> when they know they can scam 5-6 figures a month out of KU.


Will they though?

I would have thought if there were any other ways of scamming KU, they would already be using them. Why use a single method of scamming, when 2 will suffice? Or better yet, 10.


----------



## KelliWolfe

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> No one makes Amazon so much money Amazon can't live without them. And if an author is in KU, any sales revenue would have to be balanced against KU payouts and bonuses.
> 
> People keep saying it can't be fought. It can, it costs money. You have to take it to arbitration or mediation etc. And then see if there's any hard proof. Downside is I believe all you can win are damages up to the amount of royalties owed if I remember the contract right and Amazon can't be forced to reinstate you.
> 
> Being in business for yourself comes with little to no protections. You have to solve your own distribution problems if a distributor doesn't want to work with you.


I would imagine that this is exactly why Amazon went ahead and paid the outstanding royalties to the original accounts that were banned in June. There's nothing for the account holders to take to mediation. They were paid, and the KDP TOS explicitly states that Amazon can terminate accounts at their discretion whenever they feel like it. If this latest round was mostly sweeping up duplicate accounts they don't have to pay out anything because those are expressly disallowed by the TOS. Again, nothing to mediate.

As others have said, it sounds like Amazon legal has been the guiding hand behind these account bans. We've all seen how the KDP group responds to issues, but this has been very targeted and they've been dotting their i's and crossing their t's. Note how quickly the TOS changes went through right along with the bans. None of this is normal behavior for KDP, which usually flails around like a pack of drunken howler monkeys.


----------



## PhoenixS

Bill Hiatt said:


> This is the first time I can recall Amazon staying interested in something like this beyond little, sporadic moments. Am I wrong, or is this the first example of sustained attention on this kind of problem?


Sustained attention, yes, but only because they didn't sweep everyone up in the first hoovering. That's actually the odder thing. Amazon has done HUGE purges in the past. Tens of thousands of scambooks gone in one fell swoop.

Wait. What? Some of you haven't heard about those previous sweeps? That's because no dolphins were caught up to protest their capture, and none of the author/publishers who were caught had any support system to cry to.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

KelliWolfe said:


> As others have said, it sounds like Amazon legal has been the guiding hand behind these account bans. We've all seen how the KDP group responds to issues, but this has been very targeted and they've been dotting their i's and crossing their t's. Note how quickly the TOS changes went through right along with the bans. None of this is normal behavior for KDP, which usually flails around like a pack of drunken howler monkeys.


Yes, indeed. Incisive and thorough and sustained. Lovely to see. Here's hoping this momentum is maintained. It does make one feel a little more comfortable being in KU, knowing that someone is awake and on watch at KDP HQ.


----------



## AltMe

PaulineMRoss said:


> Yes, indeed. Incisive and thorough and sustained. Lovely to see. Here's hoping this momentum is maintained. It does make one feel a little more comfortable being in KU, knowing that someone is awake and on watch at KDP HQ.


And seems to be using a sniper rifle now, instead of a gattling gun.


----------



## KelliWolfe

TimothyEllis said:


> Will they though?
> 
> I would have thought if there were any other ways of scamming KU, they would already be using them. Why use a single method of scamming, when 2 will suffice? Or better yet, 10.


How do we know that they aren't? All we see are the ones who get to the top lists because they're greedy. We have very little insight into what goes on in the lower ranks because they're essentially invisible. All we're seeing is the tip of the iceberg. For every account that gets banned there are probably a thousand that are still quietly collecting a few hundred dollars a month each for their operators. That's how the majority of the scamlet and fake books worked, until a few of the scammers got too greedy and botted their books into the top lists and people realized what was going on. It's largely the same people, or people using the same tactics, who keep right on plugging along because it's FREE MONEY. It's too good to pass up. As long as KU continues to operate the same way, they're not going to stop. There's no reason for them to. It's not like they're going to jail or get fined if they get caught. They just get a few accounts shut down. There is literally no downside for them. So they'll keep coming back again and again and again. Why wouldn't they?

Edit: I am 100% convinced that *at least* 20% of the page reads in KU every month are due to bots. I would not be at all surprised if those numbers are significantly higher. I think more and more people are starting to get the same idea. And I'm betting that the loss of those hundreds of high ranking accounts from June doesn't even cause a blip in July's page reads.


----------



## unkownwriter

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I think it definitely disproves the popular theory that some authors are too big for Amazon to boot.
> 
> Some might think "Amazon is stupid to do this. They make them a lot of money." Personally, I'm of the mindset that nature abhors a vacuum. Others will rise to fill those spaces.


Hopefully those who are worthy will take the top spots, rather than the scammers, schemers and cheaters.



> As others have said, it sounds like Amazon legal has been the guiding hand behind these account bans. We've all seen how the KDP group responds to issues, but this has been very targeted and they've been dotting their i's and crossing their t's. Note how quickly the TOS changes went through right along with the bans. None of this is normal behavior for KDP, which usually flails around like a pack of drunken howler monkeys.


This is so true. I think that arbitration thing they won a while back was a test. Make sure their ducks were lined up, then start wiping accounts. Monies owed were paid, so nothing for anyone to do legally.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

TimothyEllis said:


> And seems to be using a sniper rifle now, instead of a gattling gun.


Lol! I had to look up the Gatling gun (very early machine gun, for anyone else who doesn't know).


----------



## AltMe

PaulineMRoss said:


> Lol! I had to look up the Gatling gun (very early machine gun, for anyone else who doesn't know).


Yeah. Sprayed bullets all over the place.


----------



## matthewsylvester

MarkParragh said:


> Why LitRPG in particular? Is there something about the way they do things in that niche?
> 
> Or is that just where you hang out?


A lot of LitRPG authors have been hit with reads being removed. The issue is that LitRPG authors are mostly KU readers. So people get a load of reads, very quickly if theyre lucky. And they're being hit hard, across both large and small authors. So some are removing their books as soon as they can.


----------



## katrina46

TimothyEllis said:


> Will they though?
> 
> I would have thought if there were any other ways of scamming KU, they would already be using them. Why use a single method of scamming, when 2 will suffice? Or better yet, 10.


I imagine they are using more than one way. It just hasn't become common knowledge yet. They have entire black hat forums dedicated to coming up with new ways.


----------



## AltMe

katrina46 said:


> I imagine they are using more than one way. It just hasn't become common knowledge yet. They have entire black hat forums dedicated to coming up with new ways.


I'm also wondering if those forums have been infiltrated by Amazon, and they know exactly who to target now. Or some of the people who went in expecting one thing and found another before leaving, are collaborating with Amazon.

The change from nuking to surgical strikes is a big one.


----------



## David VanDyke

TimothyEllis said:


> Will they though?
> 
> I would have thought if there were any other ways of scamming KU, they would already be using them. Why use a single method of scamming, when 2 will suffice? Or better yet, 10.


The house doesn't have to be impossible to burgle. The house just needs to be a hard enough target for the burglars to go elsewhere.

Scammers are lazy at heart, just like most criminals. They will gravitate toward the easiest scam. That's why KU became so thoroughly infected--it was too easy to scam. Making it more secure and harder will be like bars and locks and gates and alarms--they don't stop the truly determined, but they convince many to go elsewhere--and that also makes it easier to identify the real burglars.


----------



## 101569

PaulineMRoss said:


> Lol! I had to look up the Gatling gun (very early machine gun, for anyone else who doesn't know).


They are incredibly cool to watch fired live at least. They weren't as noisy as I expected them to be.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

PaulineMRoss said:


> Lol! I had to look up the Gatling gun (very early machine gun, for anyone else who doesn't know).


Oh, dear. I knew what it was. Does that make me ancient?


----------



## AltMe

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Oh, dear. I knew what it was. Does that make me ancient?


No. Well read.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

TimothyEllis said:


> No. Well read.


----------



## jb1111

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Oh, dear. I knew what it was. Does that make me ancient?


Don't worry; the US B-52H Stratofortress bomber (some of which are still used by the USAF) had a form of Gatling gun in the tail position. I don't think they do anymore, but they did as late as the 1980's or 1990's. I think a couple other ground attack aircraft (the A-10 for example) use a form of Gatling gun also.


----------



## Neil Carstairs

jb1111 said:


> Don't worry; the US B-52H Stratofortress bomber (some of which are still used by the USAF) had a form of Gatling gun in the tail position. I don't think they do anymore, but they did as late as the 1980's or 1990's. I think a couple other ground attack aircraft (the A-10 for example) use a form of Gatling gun also.


The AC-130U Spooky gunship currently carries a gatling gun as well as Bofors cannon and howitzer (apologies for going off-topic)


----------



## Elizabeth S.

matthewsylvester said:


> A lot of LitRPG authors have been hit with reads being removed. The issue is that LitRPG authors are mostly KU readers. So people get a load of reads, very quickly if theyre lucky. And they're being hit hard, across both large and small authors. So some are removing their books as soon as they can.


LitRPG has also been hit hard with the marketing-first writers who jump from trend to trend and tend to employ less-than-savory tactics. Once urban fantasy started getting overcrowded, a lot of them jumped to LitRPG/gamelit because it was a small niche with hungry readers.


----------



## ........

TimothyEllis said:


> I'm also wondering if those forums have been infiltrated by Amazon, and they know exactly who to target now. Or some of the people who went in expecting one thing and found another before leaving, are collaborating with Amazon.
> 
> The change from nuking to surgical strikes is a big one.


I think Amazon has been following the threads.

There are boxsets.

Authors in those boxsets got together and co-wrote sometimes. Author A and B write some books.

Boxset publisher got banned.

Much later, Author A got banned. Co-author B got banned. Author C got banned.

Just following the threads through the boxsets has produced a list of authors I'm occasionally keeping an eye on.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

........ said:


> I think Amazon has been following the threads.
> 
> There are boxsets.
> 
> Authors in those boxsets got together and co-wrote sometimes. Author A and B write some books.
> 
> Boxset publisher got banned.
> 
> Much later, Author A got banned. Co-author B got banned. Author C got banned.
> 
> Just following the threads through the boxsets has produced a list of authors I'm occasionally keeping an eye on.


This is the real deal. The things going on all seem to have one origin point. Make up your own mind on what you believe and how this affects you. Personally I've decided that I'm only going to deal with those I know and trust. That means trusting to people running services that provide full transparency and only doing box sets with those I personally trust and read.


----------



## RPatton

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> This is the real deal. The things going on all seem to have one origin point. Make up your own mind on what you believe and how this affects you. Personally I've decided that I'm only going to deal with those I know and trust. That means trusting to people running services that provide full transparency and only doing box sets with those I personally trust and read.


You still have to be very careful of services. I now a few have changed hands and gone from someone I respect to someone who, well, I definitely don't respect. Do your due diligence with promo sites and unless you know exactly who owns that service and they have no problem telling you if they are or ever have published on Amazon, I'd run away as fast as I could. For them, this means I stick with the super professional sites. Sure I might pay more for the promotions, but I know that they are reputable.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## AltMe

WasAnn said:


> So, how did Amazon get into those places to find out? It's sort of creepy to think about.


One wonders if the big B and the Big Z play golf together.


----------



## Used To Be BH

WasAnn said:


> Let's hope you're right Shelley K!
> 
> A certain number inside those boxes were and are a part of the inner circle...sometimes referred to as the cabal (LOL). Some of those are even now publishing under a new "publisher" and are back on Amazon. The funny part is the publisher looks legit on the web, and even takes submissions, so it's fairly scary knowing how many might stumble into that web. Looking at the papers registering the business shows shells. So...
> 
> But, that makes me wonder something else.
> 
> *If* Amazon started at the boxsets and dug down further, then how much access does Amazon have to our third party involved lives? Those inner circles talked on closed FB pages, offline, secret chats, and email. The shell corp is two layers deep. Some of the tactics were organized entirely via FB groups that are closed. Those of us who knew something was fishy couldn't even get in to see what was really going on. So, how did Amazon get into those places to find out? It's sort of creepy to think about.


It could be creepy, but it doesn't have to be. if you know about the shell corp, then Amazon could conceivably find out. It's also possible a member of the secret group who felt burned might give info to Amazon. That doesn't mean Amazon has the capability of probing into secret groups.


----------



## Felix R. Savage

"Whatever happens, we have got
The Gatling gun, and they have not."

-- Bezos misquoting Belloc to shareholders


----------



## C. Gockel

Shelley K said:


> I think it's more likely a case that some people who were in boxsets arranged by the person who got banned were also doing other things to run afoul of Amazon, while most people involved were not, outside whatever shenanigans were going in relation to the sets.


I agree. Otherwise we would see more bannings.

To the people who have been in the box sets, I say, go and sin no more.

- Me, misquoting Jesus.


----------



## unkownwriter

I hope these aren't the last accounts terminated, and that they stick. Amazon should be doing a search for known content, and stopping these people from uploading the books through another service or person/publisher. At least if the books come back that way, they can't be in KU, at least. That's the whole point of the crookedness, to game KU. <----- Pay attention to that, Amazon lurkers.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## PhoenixS

WasAnn said:


> Hate to tell you this, but some of the books from that publisher ARE in KU.


That publisher is in a non-KDP publishing program that allows books to be in KU and wide. Books through it that are in KU have a different pay structure and are not paid out of the KDP KU pot.

That said, I haven't seen books with this publisher by pennames that have been banned from KU return to KU. At least not yet. (I have, however, seen a banned author's book that was in her banned account get a Kindle Monthly Deal in June. Amazon slipped big time on that one.) However, if the owners of those banned pennames were to write new books under or put their old ones under a new penname, then all bets are off.

Then again, on May 24, KDP updated its TOS to specifically strengthen language around authors/publishers who've had their accounts terminated not being allowed back through other accounts. I don't think the timing of that update, followed the next week by the change to the bonus content language, followed by 2 rounds of mass account terminations in romance, followed by another round of terminations in UF/LitRPG/RH/Harem was coincidence. I think Amazon laid the pre-emptive legal groundwork to keep the banned authors/publishers from returning. Because Amazon anticipates them trying.

My guess is that for the previously banned authors who've found a way to game their way back onto Amazon, it's just a matter of time...


----------



## Atlantisatheart

Has their been another round of bans, or did I miss a big one along the way?


----------



## unkownwriter

> My guess is that for the previously banned authors who've found a way to game their way back onto Amazon, it's just a matter of time...


That's my hope. Amazon seems to have finally quit playing around with these people and have gotten serious about stopping the scamming/TOS violations.


----------



## Patrick-Stew

I keep thinking they're going to ban me soon. It's unfounded paranoia (isn't paranoia always unfounded?). I can't think of having done anything wrong... My bonus content is always the first chapter of the next book in the series - definitely less than 10%. I haven't participated in any forms of promotion other than AMS, I don't have boxset bundles, or strange links, or requests for reviews in exchange for anything. I did have 390k page reads deducted in May due to "illegitimate activity" which wasn't fun, although Amazon did say my account was still in "good standing". 

I suppose my point is, as great as it is that Amazon are taking action, sometimes innocent people get caught up. And the stress of not knowing what might happen next is... well, it's stressful!


----------



## unkownwriter

It's stressful for those of us who don't make lots of money, too. Before, Amazon was pretty nonchalant about removing accounts, but now I think they've gotten some actual eyes on the problem and have managed to fix things that before left us all vulnerable. Someone finally came along and realized they were actually really screwing up messing with the "little" guys, most of whom weren't doing anything wrong, while the "big fish" were basically stealing them blind.

Since this current stuff started, I don't think there's been any authors actually banned without cause. I think a lot of people are claiming innocence, and a lot of cleaning up of KU is hitting people who were victims of the botting and other "cover" practices, but those page reads weren't real. All in all, things seem to be helping those of us who don't play the scam game. We should be happy. In the long term, this is going to help us in many ways.


----------



## Patrick-Stew

she-la-ti-da said:


> It's stressful for those of us who don't make lots of money, too. Before, Amazon was pretty nonchalant about removing accounts, but now I think they've gotten some actual eyes on the problem and have managed to fix things that before left us all vulnerable. Someone finally came along and realized they were actually really screwing up messing with the "little" guys, most of whom weren't doing anything wrong, while the "big fish" were basically stealing them blind.
> 
> Since this current stuff started, I don't think there's been any authors actually banned without cause. I think a lot of people are claiming innocence, and a lot of cleaning up of KU is hitting people who were victims of the botting and other "cover" practices, but those page reads weren't real. All in all, things seem to be helping those of us who don't play the scam game. We should be happy. In the long term, this is going to help us in many ways.


I am of course supportive of what Amazon are doing. For me, it's more of a worry of being accidentally banned before being reinstated later. I'm not a "big" author. If my books were to disappear for two weeks, in terms of discoverability, it would be a huge loss.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

What Annie said. Likewise, I don't buy excuses of new copyright software being tested, as - at most - that should affect individual books, not whole author accounts. 

The thing is, if you're not doing anything funky ... i.e. you're writing good books, formatting them so they look nice (not for maximum KENP), and marketing via legitimate methods (including AMS), I personally wouldn't lose too much sleep on what might happen.  Keep doing as you're doing, keep your nose clean, and keep your eyes open when looking for new marketing ventures. 

OTOH, if you either are currently messing around with grey or black hat tactics, or have in the past, then I probably would be seriously nervous in hoping that the angel of Amazon death doesn't turn my way.


----------



## AltMe

Rick Gualtieri said:


> angel of Amazon death


Sounds like a Steven King novel.


----------



## Ava Glass

https://empireflippers.com/listing/44862/

Someone is looking to cash out.

Twitter speculation is that it's a [ETA: possibly not-banned] member of Tiffanydude's mastermind group.

Quoting extensively in case the listing disappears. Apologies in advance to your scrolling fingers.



> This listing is for a Kindle Direct Publishing by Amazon business created in November 2013 in the romance niche. While most of the revenue comes from selling 100+ ebooks, the business also has 20+ print books and 10+ audiobooks, providing multiple income streams on Amazon. A USA Today Bestselling Author pen name is included in the sale. The books are highly rated and the business has very strong year on year growth.
> 
> The business regularly receives KDP All-Star Bonuses ($) which Amazon awards to books and authors that are read the most. There is also a small Amazon Associates affiliate income on their own products gained from Facebook ads. The target audience is adult females. The Seller has recently started translating books into foreign languages. This is a large area of potential growth as Kindle is scaling quickly overseas.
> 
> The Seller spends time each week studying the market and overseeing the content creation. The business has a planned content schedule which is carried out by in-house writers and launches 2 to 3 books per month. The team, based in various locations in the US, includes two writers, an editor, and an assistant who takes care of promotions and customer service. Currently, the Seller takes care of social media and email promotion, though this could be outsourced.
> With two branded websites, an email list of over 70K+ subscribers, and several social media channels in place for the brands and authors, this business has been set up with expansion in mind. The email list subscribers receive daily newsletters and some automated sequences and segmentation are in place. The business also has multiple Advance Reading Copy teams that get early access to read the books and leave hundreds of honest reviews.
> 
> The Seller wants the new owner to be successful and will offer support as needed until they feel comfortable and knows all the ins and outs of the business. Part of this training will include the process to bring on more writers and create more books. This can include creating new pen names and also having them co-author with the business's existing best-selling authors to capitalize on the established popularity.
> 
> The process for creating and shipping the physical books is very straightforward and takes only about 15 minutes. The Seller simply uploads the book files and covers using an Amazon subsidiary, and once approved, the books are listed on Amazon.com. Amazon takes care of all the logistics such as shipping and returns. It is a similar process for the audiobooks.
> 
> *The Seller has another business in the author promotion niche, is aware of the non-compete, and does not feel that there is a conflict that would compete with this business in any way.
> 
> *We've decided to use a 10-month average of net profit for the valuation because we felt that a 12-month average did not accurately represent the current state of the business.





> *Start Date*
> 13th of November, 2014
> 
> *Assets Included in the Sale*
> 
> 
> 155 ebooks
> 25 print books
> 14 audiobooks
> Kindle Publishing Account
> Branded Author Domains
> Author Facebook profiles - combined 30K+ followers
> An author Facebook group - 1K+ members
> An author Instagram - 500+ followers
> Amazon Associates account
> Employee relationships
> 
> *Work/Skills Required/Day to Day*
> 
> The Seller currently spends around 15 hours per week:
> Studying the market
> Overseeing the content creation
> Making sure all team members are on the same page and doing everything they're supposed to
> Managing the Facebook group for fans and sending out newsletters daily (which could easily be outsourced)





> *Monthly Revenue:* $172,927
> *Monthly Net Profit:* $83,269
> *Asking Price:* $2,498,084
> *Multiple: *30x


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## David VanDyke

Wow, caveat emptor. 

1. If this "business" still had lots of upside, they wouldn't be selling. Note the graph's incipient drop.

2. If it's what it looks like, will the seller disclose that they were terminated by Amazon? And that it was likely against-TOS techniques that sustained its original profitability?

3. Who's to say any of this is even accurate?

4. If it is, the graph shows an amazing increase in revenue in the last 12 months or so, far more than is likely using legit techniques.

5. If accurate, the lack of print and audiobooks (for someone who could easily afford them) is telling. A real author with that much legit revenue would monetize every possibility in order to reinvest profits, IMO.


----------



## Ava Glass

Amazon is limiting bonus content to 10%, and possibly barring multi-work titles from receiving bonuses (from what I've read, Mark Dawson apparently wasn't the only person who heard that at RWA).

Buyer beware. I'd bet a Diet Coke that revenue won't be the same in the future, lol.

Also, what happens if the buyer's newly acquired account is terminated due to something the seller did in the past? I'm just hypothetically speaking based on those recent account bans.


----------



## Ava Glass

David VanDyke said:


> 2. If it's what it looks like, will the seller disclose that they were terminated by Amazon? And that it was likely against-TOS techniques that sustained its original profitability?


Not all of that group got the axe. I can think of three big ones off the top of my head who still have accounts. People believe this is one of the not-banned members.


----------



## unkownwriter

Always looking for the payout, is my opinion. If there's anyone with this kind of money to toss around, maybe they should seriously think again about investing in more reliable things. What sold last year might not sell tomorrow. Heck, what sells _today_ might not sell tomorrow!

As I don't know who this is, it's not like I'm trying to bring someone down, so no need for pearl clutching. Potential buyers won't be swayed by anything I have to say. lol


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Not an author but I wouldn't think a KDP account can be 'sold'? But what do I know? My son and my husband both know my passwords for my regular customer account so that if I keel over, they can still access the books if they want them.


----------



## PhoenixS

Ava Glass said:


> https://empireflippers.com/listing/44862/
> 
> Someone is looking to cash out.
> 
> Twitter speculation is that it's a [ETA: possibly not-banned] member of Tiffanydude's mastermind group.


You know, there's one author I'm thinking of who fits the profile with the number of books currently pubbed. Their account was recently suspended, then restored. BUT, they've been kicked out of Select. No mention of KU in the listing other than the All-Stars bonus, which also neglects to mention the KU aspect of it. Wouldn't it be funny if they're selling their account? One not able to put books into KU?



Ann in Arlington said:


> Not an author but I wouldn't think a KDP account can be 'sold'? But what do I know? My son and my husband both know my passwords for my regular customer account so that if I keel over, they can still access the books if they want them.


A non-terminated account can be switched over, so it's mechanically do-able. No idea how Amazon would feel about it, though.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

If anything this shows just how much money some of the masterminds were pulling in. Is it any wonder things went so corrupt?


----------



## Ava Glass

PhoenixS said:


> You know, there's one author I'm thinking of who fits the profile with the number of books currently pubbed. Their account was recently suspended, then restored. BUT, they've been kicked out of Select. No mention of KU in the listing other than the All-Stars bonus, which also neglects to mention the KU aspect of it. Wouldn't it be funny if they're selling their account? One not able to put books into KU?
> 
> A non-terminated account can be switched over, so it's mechanically do-able. No idea how Amazon would feel about it, though.


The person hinted at in certain tweets never left AFAIK, and still is in KU. The FB group and Instagram numbers do fit for that person.


----------



## OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow

I find the entire this disgusting on several levels. As a writer who loves the art I find this gaming the system, false accounts, selling pen names, and the several layers of excrement to be ... a diseased perversion. I know the arguments for these practices but I also know wrong when I see it. And this is wrong.

I might not get anyone to agree with me. But I'm not trying to. I do know I will never work with someone like this. Befriend someone like this. Or buy a book knowingly from a person who engages in these practices. I might never be a good author but I can always be a good man.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri

OnlyTheGrotesqueKnow said:


> I find the entire this disgusting on several levels. As a writer who loves the art I find this gaming the system, false accounts, selling pen names, and the several layers of excrement to be ... a diseased perversion. I know the arguments for these practices but I also know wrong when I see it. And this is wrong.
> 
> I might not get anyone to agree with me. But I'm not trying to. I do know I will never work with someone like this. Befriend someone like this. Or buy a book knowingly from a person who engages in these practices. I might never be a good author but I can always be a good man.


Oh, I don't doubt you'll find people to agree. I would say maybe add "willingly work with" to the above, though. Some of these folks are crafty and can appear legit when they want to, and there are plenty of us who want to think the best of people we just met.

Aside from that, though, I get it. I don't want to personally associate with people who engage in these activities and I certainly don't want my business connected in any way to them.


----------



## Crystal_

If you look at the specific number of Instagram followers and FB group members and the dates of rising earnings, it really points to one particular MM like romance author who had their first hit in December last year.

This person has done really well with their pen name, but they haven't proven themselves able to thrive with the new rules. Even if they are legit (big if), I'd guess earnings will drop by 50-75% without bonus books.

I could be wrong though.


----------



## memememe

Is it ok to request a PM for who folks think this author is? I'm curious, and not to mention, wondering how someone could build a business like this (legitimately) in 6 months! 

I've never managed to get a handle on advertising


----------



## Becca Mills

memememe said:


> Is it ok to request a PM for who folks think this author is? I'm curious, and not to mention, wondering how someone could build a business like this (legitimately) in 6 months!
> 
> I've never managed to get a handle on advertising


Thanks for asking, memememe. No, we don't want public requests for PMs.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## TinyChickadee

Business is business. We have no idea why someone would want to sell their pen-name. I would do it if I was in a position where I could no longer work and I needed the money to support myself, or an immediate family member, through a life threatening or terminal illness. Having been an invalid for a year and a half and unable to work, I am very wary of judging someone who could be in a similar situation. Survival becomes the #1 goal. I love my work, I love my fans, and I am passionate about putting out good books - but if it's between my survival and keeping my family housed and hanging onto my pen-name? Nope, the pen-name will be sold along with other important assets.

In the end, this is a business. You can love your business, and have poured your heart and soul into your business, and still need or want to sell it for life reasons such as the birth of a child that requires care, a family member falling ill, a divorce... or a business partnership breaking up and an inability for one partner to buy out the other. To me this is no different than selling a publishing company - except the brand being sold is a specific author/pen-name.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Well, business is just business if all your books are written by ghostwriters, anyway.  I cannot imagine you would feel huge personal ties. 

Timing and the ten-month reporting are darned suspicious. Not to mention any number of other things, like why you would give up a cash cow paying you about $1500 an hour on a steady basis for a fifteen-hour week. IF you foresaw that cash flow continuing. Pretty ridiculous. Caveat emptor.


----------



## PhoenixS

***********

Comment removed to protect content and data from the over-reaching TOS of new forum owner VerticalScope.

VerticalScope claims rights to any content posted to this site as theirs to disseminate beyond this site in any way they see fit.

Read the Terms of Service, both before AND after you've registered. At the time of this post, the new, more egregious TOS is available to read only after you've registered.

KBoards was purchased by VerticalScope 7.5 years and 4000 posts after I joined. VerticalScope will not allow that existing content to be permanently deleted, despite the fact I did not and do not agree to granting the new owners the rights to my content. 

***********


----------



## AltMe

PhoenixS said:


> It's about this particular why.


Even if $1500 an hour isn't sustainable, and it comes down to $150 an hour, this is still enough to make most authors drool.

Even if you didn't add another book, basic marketing could keep decent money flowing in potentially for the rest of this person's life, and their kids'. No need to spend 15 hours a week on it. An hour here and there would be enough. A day here and there once or twice a year to update to changes in how things work.

When I go gaga and cant write any more, even $150 a day is going to keep me off social security.

I get someone might be giving up something they have no emotional stake in, but the residuals on 155 books over decades is not small potatoes, and doesn't need much effort to keep going indefinitely. 2.5 mill in the hand is one thing, but even $150 a day for the rest of your life is worth keeping. And 155 books selling 1 book a day each, is going to be much more than that.

Edit: I wonder where the 2.5 mill amount came from? Is this what the books cost to get written and put out there? Or is this wishful thinking based on presented figures and established this is what this income is worth to buy algorithms?


----------



## PhoenixS

TimothyEllis said:


> Even if $1500 an hour isn't sustainable, and it comes down to $150 an hour, this is still enough to make most authors drool.


But there's that darn $2.5M that has to be earned back. At $150 per hour, even at a continued 15 hours per week, that's $9000 per month. At that rate, the investment won't earn out for 23 years. And that's without figuring in new books or ad spend or inflation or the loss from unrealized interest on $2.5M vs interest gained on $9K per month. And this account was spending about 60% of their revenue on putting out new books and on ads. Likely on gifting and incentives, too. That was about $80-90K per month back before (presumably) Amazon clarified its policies. In what's likely niche categories where there's little guarantee that the market for those books (assuming there's an organic one there now) will be there next month or next year. Especially if the books can't be in KU.

If they can't be, then the $25K per month bonus on the author account plus another few thousand for individual title bonuses just in the US (and some of the mastermind authors were also making inroads into Germany and gaining bonuses there) can't be earned. So, conservatively, that would be $30K per month in bonuses that would come off the top, as well as money from pages read (probably 50% conservatively) that would be cut completely, while expenses would at best remain the same, or likely even increase since sales would be harder to get. So, peddling harder for less return. Instead of $80K per month profit, you'd be getting $25K. And it would take you 8.5 years to recoup your $2.5M, plus another year to recover the lost interest and inflation adjustment, IF the market held and if the biz was sustainable month on month. And that's best case. That's a pretty big gamble. There's not even physical inventory to declare a loss on if (or, more realistically, when) things go south fast.

Ebooks may be forever, but ebook sales aren't. And the more the market is flooded with good books, the harder it will be to sustain catalog sales for the next 5 or 10 years, much less into our children's lifetimes.


----------



## AltMe

PhoenixS said:


> But there's that darn $2.5M that has to be earned back.


I was talking the opposite. Why sell, when its a residual income with little time needed, and you can go on to the next best thing, leaving it ticking over behind you.

Selling is a quick bang, but at that price, anyone in the know is going to balk. Cashing out as someone said, but it needs a mug to buy. Whoever does buy it, I have a bridge over Sydney harbour I'd love to sell you.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Why sell, when its a residual income with little time needed, and you can go on to the next best thing, leaving it ticking over behind you.


Because it won't be ticking over behind you? Maintaining sales is going to require a constant influx of money for ads, new covers, updating blurbs and so on. For the most part, a book is yesterday's news, of interest but quickly losing ground to today's news.

There's also a constant influx of new books by other people, which means it's increasingly difficult to maintain ranks, get sales/page reads, and even increase all of this. If the potential buyer doesn't have the same skill at managing a business, with employees, doing effective marketing and writing new books that will keep the catalog growing, they likely won't have the same results. Two and a half million dollars invested in a business as risky as publishing? P T Barnum had a saying for that.


----------



## jb1111

Usedtoposthere said:


> Well, business is just business if all your books are written by ghostwriters, anyway.  I cannot imagine you would feel huge personal ties.
> 
> Timing and the ten-month reporting are darned suspicious. Not to mention any number of other things, like why you would give up a cash cow paying you about $1500 an hour on a steady basis for a fifteen-hour week. IF you foresaw that cash flow continuing. Pretty ridiculous. Caveat emptor.


The graph showing income going back to January 2016 is available. All you have to do is click "All". So there are two years of income shown. The page states that the author started their business in Nov 2013 or Nov 2014 (depending on which section of the page you look at), so perhaps before Jan 2016 the income was much lower.

In Jan 2016 their net profit was $12,000. Their lowest monthly net income that year was $5,600. Their net profit for all of 2016, the first year shown in the graph, was $100,300.

That's apparently not gross revenues, which I would hazard a guess was a bit more than that.

Someone else here mentioned no print or audiobooks, but the page states there are "20+ print books and 10+ audiobooks".

I don't see anyone with as much rudimentary knowledge of the business as is exhibited here on KB paying $2M for the business. $2M seems a bit high, if one looks at the two-year graph. $2M for a $100K/yr business in a field that changes like publishing does? I can't see it going for that high a price.

Edit to Add: Looking over the page, with all the data, it is an interesting glimpse inside one of the operations. 155 eBooks, two writers, 70,000 on the email list, branded websites, etc. A lot went on to build that publishing empire.


----------



## AltMe

she-la-ti-da said:


> If the potential buyer


I'm NOT talking about a buyer! I'm talking about the current owner NOT selling.


_edited, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


----------



## Justawriter

It's interesting too that they list monthly income as 172k when there was only one month at that level, and only one other month above 100k. First half of the year was considerably lower. Since this is likely all stuffing income and other shenanigans, now that the faucet has been turned off, they are looking to cash out. They won't be able to keep hitting these levels anymore, so why not get it all in one lump sum? I can't imagine anyone actually paying this though.


----------



## unkownwriter

TimothyEllis said:


> I'm NOT talking about a buyer! I'm talking about the current owner NOT selling.
> 
> 
> _edited, PM if you have questions -- Ann_


Chillax, bruh. lol It wouldn't matter, still going to have to spend to maintain or grow.


----------



## Phxsundog

Anyone else noticed terminated romance publishers returning to KDP in large waves? No, they can't stuff anymore. However the 99 cent KU books climbing into top ranks by names that have only been around since late July or August are growing by the week. It's too obvious. The covers and blurbs are identical to their old style. Many romance authors report increased competition and a big hike in email spam coming from pen names no one has heard of. Books are appearing all over email promo sites with covers just like Chance Carter's old Mastermind group. They're back under new accounts and Amazon isn't catching them.

What do we do about this? Report suspicious accounts to KDP? We can't name names here obviously. That's not what I'm asking. I'd like to figure out how we communicate this to Amazon if these publishers are returning and hiding links to their old banned accounts? It's a big mistake to leave this alone. If this group gets left to do what they do, they'll be scamming KU again with click farms and bad formatting rapidly. If they aren't already....

It's a huge failure of KDP to ban this group for illicit activities two months ago, only to have some of them back again and in a position to receive KU bonuses in a matter of weeks. This needs to be brought to Amazon's attention immediately before they take over KU a second time and ruin it for honest authors.


----------



## RPatton

Phxsundog said:


> What do we do about this? Report suspicious accounts to KDP? We can't name names here obviously. That's not what I'm asking. I'd like to figure out how we communicate this to Amazon if these publishers are returning and hiding links to their old banned accounts? It's a big mistake to leave this alone. If this group gets left to do what they do, they'll be scamming KU again with click farms and bad formatting rapidly. If they aren't already....
> 
> It's a huge failure of KDP to ban this group for illicit activities two months ago, only to have some of them back again and in a position to receive KU bonuses in a matter of weeks. This needs to be brought to Amazon's attention immediately before they take over KU a second time and ruin it for honest authors.


This is being discussed elsewhere in more detail, however the general consensus is to put all the gathered evidence together via screen shots and links then send it all to [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]

I know that a lot of information has already been sent to Amazon and some of the people involved are getting frustrated with Amazon's slow response time.


----------



## PhoenixFromTheAshes

Others have reached out to specific Amazon execs, too. In general, though, it feels like another round of media attention is needed to get Amazon's attention.


----------



## RPatton

PhoenixFromTheAshes said:


> Others have reached out to specific Amazon execs, too. In general, though, it feels like another round of media attention is needed to get Amazon's attention.


Seconding this. Hope was raised when there was a response to a questionable publisher. Since that publisher is now back, and not even doing a good job of covering their tracks, among several others, that hope was dashed. One of the problems right now is that no one is certain, even when going to a specific executive, that the information is actually getting to someone who can and will make a difference.

The current optics, between the recent article about people paying off Amazon employees regarding reviews and such and KDP's current lack of visible response, is that someone or ones within the halls of KDP are assisting some of these publishers. With some of the gathered evidence that I have seen, it would easily hold up in a court of law, so why it doesn't hold up in KDP is confusing.

My only concern is that the focus stays on the publishers whose publishing privileges have been revoked and doesn't expand to anyone and everyone who doesn't fit into one person's conceived definition of an "author".


----------



## Phxsundog

Positive signal today that KDP is giving new attention to KU scammers. Three big names in romance from Chance's Mastermind group are banned. None of the new accounts from terminated publishers have been taken down yet. Probably a matter of time though as more people are noticing and reporting them.


----------



## PhoenixFromTheAshes

Sweet news!

Looking forward to more soonest.


----------



## TexasGirl

But there was a fourth who was NOT a Mastermind person.


----------



## RPatton

TexasGirl said:


> But there was a fourth who was NOT a Mastermind person.


If we're thinking of the same person, they used a lot of swaps. There's a chance they got dirty by association if everything else was completely clean.


----------



## PhoenixFromTheAshes

I'm not certain who you're referencing, TexasGirl, but the 4th author I now know about (along with her non-romance pen name that's been hit too) _appeared _to be capitalizing for at least the last 6 months on the mastermind group and their tactics.

I only ever had circumstantial evidence myself, but when I first saw it back then, it broke my heart to think she might be engaging with them. I knew this author a few years ago, and know first-hand she's a very talented writer on her own who came up from the rank-and-file in the early days.

Maybe she didn't go darkside, and her account will be restored. Maybe. If she's innocent, I certainly hope so. But if she's not...

A reminder that we all need to practice safe sales out there.


----------



## theymightbewriters

As a newly successful Romance writer (top 200 in Kindle store! ), I'm curious what these shady tactics are? I'm afraid of doing something wrong and getting banned...lol. 

All I do is release in a series (no extra content other than a teaser for the next book), fb ads, a little ams, and some email promos. 

Am I safe?


----------



## Phxsundog

theymightbewriters said:


> As a newly successful Romance writer (top 200 in Kindle store! ), I'm curious what these shady tactics are? I'm afraid of doing something wrong and getting banned...lol.
> 
> All I do is release in a series (no extra content other than a teaser for the next book), fb ads, a little ams, and some email promos.
> 
> Am I safe?


To name a few tricks: clickfarming, incentivized buy schemes, ghost stuffing (putting two or more barely connected books into the same volume and pretending it's one story), abusive email spamming, participating in spam rings, illegal giveaways or participating in any promotions using the same tactics. The last one is easy for a newbie author to wander into through no fault of their own. Caution should be in the front of everyone's mind going forward. It's critical like never before. Only book promotions by promo sites with long track records or ones owned by credible, transparent people.

The fourth romance ban a few mentioned here is just sad. This author always produced high quality content and had a popular organic following. She probably got hit due to association with real scammers and KU criminals. I hope she's able to get a second chance with Amazon because she's not cut from the same cloth as the Warrior Forum blackhat scammers who are causing this year long tragedy in romance. Take it as a strong warning. Every author now needs to be extremely careful what promotions they book and who they associate with. If anyone seems like a sketchy internet marketer promoting mass email spam or promising impossible results or mass producing low quality ghosted books, run away. This isn't to say ghostwriting is always bad. However large numbers of low grade ghostwritten romance novels is often a sign of other shady behavior. Your whole career could be at stake if you associate or run promotions with such authors.

Many honest romance authors interested in maintaining the integrity of KU by keeping the blackhats out are quietly sending the new pen names owned by terminated publishers to KDP. This is not a witch hunt. Total proof has been found that the Masterminds terminated during the summer are returning under new accounts. They're using proxy services and new account details to mask their accounts from Amazon. Their second accounts were banned in some cases but many come back a week or two later again for attempt number three or four. Many of them are already farming, ramping up their email spam and publishing books with bad formatting for inflated page reads. They'll make a mess for Amazon and honest romance authors all over again if they aren't stopped. None of this proof will be posted here because there's no need to make them smarter (and it's against Kboards rules). Long term many hope Amazon will take these publishers to court for KU manipulation and multiple attempts to skirt KDP bans with new accounts. They won't stop until they face severe consequences. Amazon should seek to claw back every penny these blackhats stole from KU and financially empty them so they no longer have the means to repeatedly attack KU. See David Gaughran's article today for more https://davidgaughran.com/2018/10/09/kindle-unlimited-scamming-cheater-magnet/


----------



## theymightbewriters

How can you really protect yourself re: email promos? 

If I sign up for Red-feather Romance/Bargain Booksy/Fussy Librarian/etc. I have zero say in the other people being featured/recently featured in the email. Looking at also-boughts seems like a pretty crazy way to determine a ban.

I for instance, have 3 of those who were banned in mine, not because I'm in league with them, but because they were incredibly prolific romance "authors" with a ton of books and sales.  

I've pretty much devoted the last year of my life to this endeavor. I would be destroyed if it all was taken away as some kind of "false-positive".

DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying Amazon shouldn't take action against authors violating the TOS. Simply that I hope they know what they are doing.


----------



## Phxsundog

theymightbewriters said:


> How can you really protect yourself re: email promos?
> 
> If I sign up for Red-feather Romance/Bargain Booksy/Fussy Librarian/etc. I have zero say in the other people being featured/recently featured in the email. Looking at also-boughts seems like a pretty crazy way to determine a ban.
> 
> I for instance, have 3 of those who were banned in mine, not because I'm in league with them, but because they were incredibly prolific romance "authors" with a ton of books and sales.
> 
> I've pretty much devoted the last year of my life to this endeavor. I would be destroyed if it all was taken away as some kind of "false-positive".
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying Amazon shouldn't take action against authors violating the TOS. Simply that I hope they know what they are doing.


It's not easy. I have nothing but sympathy for real authors and publishers who get trapped in bad promotions unknowingly. But to ignore the growing danger would be a mistake. The best way to protect yourself comes down to researching who you're booking with promotions with as much as possible. Ask a few questions. Do the lists have a long track record of promoting authors without issue? Do you know who owns them? Can you find out? Do known author brands use these services? Or do the books they're promoting all appear to be by new, low quality or sketchy pen names? I wish I had a better answer. I'll guess all the places you specifically mentioned are fine. They'd be on my credible promo list. Everyone's will look different. We don't have to all agree on what services seem safe or credible or not. It's more important authors start asking these questions rather than wandering into a bad promotion without enough information.


----------



## PhoenixFromTheAshes

theymightbewriters said:


> If I sign up for Red-feather Romance/Bargain Booksy/Fussy Librarian/etc. I have zero say in the other people being featured/recently features in the email. Looking at also-boughts seems like a pretty crazy way to determine a ban.


Amazon doesn't rely on alsobots. They can track granularly from where clicks are coming.

Successful free runs used to result in the occasional innocent author being rankstripped, but just for the book targeted. Not even all their books were rankstripped. And certainly not an account ban. Once Amazon's algos 'learned' better (or got tweaked), the number of innocents getting hit with rankstrips decreased drastically.

The number of successful books by innocents on the paid side getting stripped has always been very low. And again, that's not even suspension, much less termination.

Using established, fully transparent, completely public promoters that pass Phxsundog's interview questions is probably 'safe.'

However, anyone doing newsletter swaps or other promo with the bad-boy masterminds or other nefarious blackhatters likely needs to worry. Many of those newsletters push subscribers to do things against the general TOS (meaning the readers are engaging in violating the TOS, as well as the author/publisher incentivizing the behaviors).

In the past, we've had authors come here swearing up and down they'd done nothing -- nothing! -- and Amazon had banned them. Only to discover they were using bots, incentivizing buyers/borrows/reviewers, or engaging in another of the myriad other tactics blackhatters routinely use.

So, since we don't know you, your books or all your tactics, no one here can say whether you're safe or not. All we can do is note the tactics that we know are safe and those that aren't.


----------



## theymightbewriters

PhoenixFromTheAshes said:


> Amazon doesn't rely on alsobots. They can track granularly from where clicks are coming.
> 
> Successful free runs used to result in the occasional innocent author being rankstripped, but just for the book targeted. Not even all their books were rankstripped. And certainly not an account ban. Once Amazon's algos 'learned' better (or got tweaked), the number of innocents getting hit with rankstrips decreased drastically.
> 
> The number of successful books by innocents on the paid side getting stripped has always been very low. And again, that's not even suspension, much less termination.
> 
> Using established, fully transparent, completely public promoters that pass Phxsundog's interview questions is probably 'safe.'
> 
> However, anyone doing newsletter swaps or other promo with the bad-boy masterminds or other nefarious blackhatters likely needs to worry. Many of those newsletters push subscribers to do things against the general TOS (meaning the readers are engaging in violating the TOS, as well as the author/publisher incentivizing the behaviors).


I did swap a couple times with Alice Ward. Her PA contacted me, I looked at her Amazon page and though "Wow this person is successful, this person must have a really engaged audience" lol. Other than that, I don't think I've swapped with anyone too nefarious, at least I hope not.

I guess I should just stop swapping? I don't really have a full proof way of knowing who's legit or not.

Also Are ARC's bad? I'm giving them an early copy of the book and asking for a review? I read this was standard practice. Is that not the case?

Also I have DEFINITELY seen people who are now banned advertise on the aforementioned email promo sites...I guess I just have to hope Amazon knows what they are doing.

I don't know how to prove I'm not some some nefarious scammer other than my facebook receipts for $4500 for $7000 in sales last month, and that people seem to really like my books


----------



## Crystal_

theymightbewriters said:


> How can you really protect yourself re: email promos?
> 
> If I sign up for Red-feather Romance/Bargain Booksy/Fussy Librarian/etc. I have zero say in the other people being featured/recently featured in the email. Looking at also-boughts seems like a pretty crazy way to determine a ban.
> 
> I for instance, have 3 of those who were banned in mine, not because I'm in league with them, but because they were incredibly prolific romance "authors" with a ton of books and sales.
> 
> I've pretty much devoted the last year of my life to this endeavor. I would be destroyed if it all was taken away as some kind of "false-positive".
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying Amazon shouldn't take action against authors violating the TOS. Simply that I hope they know what they are doing.


You don't need to worry about using promo sites with a long history of legitimacy. If you're not sure, don't use it.

With swaps, if you're not sure if an author is above board, don't swap. Most of us did swaps with people who turned out to be shady. It was just a huge thing for awhile. I don't think it's a career ender but you're better safe than sorry. Don't engage with people who aren't above board, period.


----------



## KindleSinner

Usedtoposthere said:


> I thought they'd moved on to jewelry now...


Now that you’re in the jewelry business yourself, have your thoughts changed on this?

Thanks!


----------

