# Ethical Question - Republishing to wipe a 1 star review



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

I am curious what people think of the ethics associated with this - 

I wrote a book I was rather proud of which took months of hard work.  I then published it to surprisingly good sales which were ticking along nicely.

Then, one day, a brutal, inaccurate, 1-star review!

From that point, not a single sale.  Despite healthy sales up to that point, no one else had taken the time to leave a review so I was stuck with a single, 1-star review.

I mulled over this for a few months and then thought "stuff it".  I unpublished, went through the book again adding bits and generally trying to improve it (nothing linked to the 1 star review, which was unhelfpul spite only - nothing constructive).

I then republished as a new title and voila, the sales started flowing again - even better than before.

And here is the kicker - I immediate received two glowing 5 star reviews so my book now has a 5 star average.

I try to act ethically in all aspects of my publishing activities so torn over whether this is the right thing to do.  If I paid for reviews like the scammy types do, a single 1 star review wouldn't have hurt me.  However each and every review I get is hard-earned.  The most reviews of any book I have is 15, but most have only 2 or 3.

Curious whether others have done this and what the sense is of whether this is an acceptable type of activity.  I guess the core question I would like to ask is - If you had spent months creating something you were proud of which stopped selling ANY copies due to receiving a single 1 star review, what do you think would be an ethically acceptable way to deal with this?

Anyway, I just thought this made for an interesting discussion...


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

I would have tried to combat the problem by sending out ARCs. Well, just RCs (Review Copies) I guess, cuz it's no longer in advance.

Most authors who get 1 stars see them as brutal, inaccurate, spiteful, and unjustified, but readers have a right to their opinions. The pride and amount of time you put in are irrelevant.

The only way I can see this as being remotely okay was if the book was _non fiction_ and the reviewer was saying you had your facts wrong when you didn't. Cold, hard, verifiable facts only. But even then, it's kind of iffy.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

No, no, no. A thousand times no.

Ethics aside, it's a fool's errand, because everyone gets a one-star review every now and then. 

The best antidote to a one-star review is more reviews. If your book is good, those reviews will not only neutralize the effect of the one-star reviews, you will find that other reviewers will use the comments and reporting functions to call the one-star on its unfairness. (Let them do it...this is not your job, and you want to stay above the fray.)

Now, to get those reviews...

There are other excellent threads on the subject, but a few quick hits:

1) Do a free Kindle giveaway and promote it so that it gets downloads.
2) Consider doing paperback giveaways on Goodreads. I found this helpful, although my approach was a bit labor intensive...I located and targeted giveaway registrants, isolated the ones that had a clear history of reviewing what they read, and offered them a copy, no strings attached.

These two approaches gave my Amazon reviews the critical mass they needed to withstand the occasion dim review.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

"because everyone gets a one-star review every now and then"

But having nothing but a single one-star review can kill a brand new book deader than Ebola. And there are "writers" who know this and deliberately sabotage new releases that way.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

I don't like identifying my books on forums however without pointing to my specific book, it was a comprehensive guide to visiting a city which is often my second home.  I received a 1 star review because the person had a bad experience at the 5 star hotel I recommended as my absolute favourite


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> "because everyone gets a one-star review every now and then"
> 
> But having nothing but a single one-star review can kill a brand new book deader than Ebola. And there are "writers" who know this and deliberately sabotage new releases that way.


Yes this is my point - I have received 1 star reviews before but never the very first review and it completely killed all sales...


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

KelliWolfe said:


> "because everyone gets a one-star review every now and then"
> 
> But having nothing but a single one-star review can kill a brand new book deader than Ebola. And there are "writers" who know this and deliberately sabotage new releases that way.


True. But I still maintain that the best response is to find ways to garner more reviews (even if you have to give away some books to do it), because that not only addresses the current one-star review but also any additional such reviews that may occur.

(Of course, my own sales may not strengthen my case on this, so take it as one perspective.)


----------



## StraightNoChaser (Dec 29, 2013)

Mike_Author said:


> I don't like identifying my books on forums however without pointing to my specific book, it was a comprehensive guide to visiting a city which is often my second home. I received a 1 star review because the person had a bad experience at the 5 star hotel I recommended as my absolute favourite


It sucks, but they had their experience with that hotel and you had yours. It was a valid review, IMO. For all they know, you were being paid to promote the hotel and they were genuinely trying to provide fair warning to other travelers.

Getting more reviews by providing free copies probably would have been a more ethical course of action.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

StraightNoChaser said:


> It sucks, but they had their experience with that hotel and you had yours. It was a valid review, IMO. For all they know, you were being paid to promote the hotel and they were genuinely trying to provide fair warning to other travelers.
> 
> Getting more reviews by providing free copies probably would have been a more ethical course of action.


Agreed. Ethically-which is what you asked-I think that was incorrect to republish. I don't see any reason to doubt that somebody else had a bad experience at your favorite hotel, and that's a reasonable, even helpful comment. It could've benefited other readers to hear about that, and that's who the reviews are for: readers.

In general, I find that arguments along the lines of "I wouldn't have sold any books otherwise" doesn't carry you far in questions of ethics.


----------



## Kathryn Meyer Griffith (May 6, 2013)

Mike
as far as I'm concerned you did the right thing. I believe there are people who put up one stars, especially on a brand new book or audio just to kill their sales...and believe me it does. Been there, had it done to me twice in the last year. New eBook, new audio. And the sales went cold-stone dead UNTIL I got other people to read/listen and got more reviews. I can't believe a person/reviewer doesn't realize exactly what they're doing when they give the FIRST review to an eBook or audio and it's a one star. They know exactly what they're doing (for whatever reason they do it I don't believe it's always an honest review). I don't mind one star reviews on any of my books, and I've had many, but putting a one star for the first review carries a lot more weight in so many ways than for the fifth or fiftieth review. You did what you had to do. I applaud you.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I definitely think it's unethical. It's just kind of slimy to me. I wouldn't do it -- but everyone has to make their own decisions.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

From a practical standpoint, it sounds like you got the result you were looking for. It worked.

I am fascinated that you decided to ask for feedback on this technique, after the fact.  I kinda think you knew what people would really say but maybe you hoped you'd get a round of all's-fair-in-love-and-war validation.


----------



## Keith Soares (Jan 9, 2014)

I have 6 books for sale (3 parts of a novel, 1 volume of that full novel, 1collection of short stories, and 1 stand-alone short story), and from all that I have received only one 1-star review... and it irked me to no end. 

In particular, it said "it's worth a quick read." That is the part I find hard to swallow. My book is worth a read, but not worth more than one star? Ugh.

And what that taught me is this: no one gives rules for what 1-star, 2-star, etc, mean. They mean whatever the reviewer thinks they mean, and that is extremely arbitrary. 

I had another reviewer create a new book listing for my book on Goodreads, then give it 2 stars. I knew it was my book, so I consolidated it with my other editions which had an average rating over 4 stars (I didn't erase the 2-star, I just pulled it in with all the other ratings). End result: the same reviewer came back and gave the other editions 2-star reviews, too, making the whole picture worse, just from one person.

So why bother? Why worry about it?

Yeah, if I felt it killed sales, I'd take action, but that action would like be free giveaways, promotions, attempts to get other (fans) to review, etc. 

In the end, that person legitimately thought you deserved that rating, and we don't get to decide for them, even if we feel they are being overly harsh or are simply dead wrong. My opinion would be to just let it go and move on.

Actually, because you wrote a non-fiction title, and your experience at a certain hotel was quite different from someone else's, perhaps responding to that review (which is generally frowned upon) would have been a good idea in your case...

K.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Kathryn Meyer Griffith said:


> I can't believe a person/reviewer doesn't realize exactly what they're doing when they give the FIRST review to an eBook or audio and it's a one star.


I can believe it, absolutely. Readers don't know or care about what reviews mean to authors. They shouldn't; that's not their job. Their job is to read and then provide honest feedback for the benefit of other readers, and in this case, it sounds to me like that's exactly what happened.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

KelliWolfe said:


> But having nothing but a single one-star review can kill a brand new book deader than Ebola. And there are "writers" who know this and deliberately sabotage new releases that way.


Or it could have been a genuine reader who simply didn't like the book. Sure, it might impact sales if it's the first and only review, but it isn't always that way. I saw a book that had one review, a one star, that went on to sell quite a few copies and receive a lot of other reviews.

One option would have been to make the edits and then respond to the review with a, "Hey, thanks for your comments. I considered your feedback and have made some edits." Otherwise, ignoring it is usually a good practice. Most readers are not going to base their decision to buy on a single review.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

When you buy a book, what reviews do you look at? The five-star or the one star? Because I and just about everyone I know look at the 1 and 2 star reviews to see what's the worst someone has to say, then judge if that's a deal breaker for me or not. I don't NEED to read a 5 star review, I already want to read the book. 1 star reviews SELL books, and some readers are suspect of a book that has none.

I think your sales probably stopped because you fell off the 30 day cliff, your Also Boughts shuffled up, or something else happened you don't know and you automatically linked causation instead of correlation. A single one-star review will not kill your sales all by itself. I have a ton of 32 page Jane Austen fanfics I could link and show you that are still selling ridiculous numbers but have a single one star review. 

Either way, if you continue to do this, people will notice and will say something. Some Amazon reviewers are very vigilant about their reviews, working hard on their ranking etc. If they see an author deliberately unpublishing and republishing over and over again, pretty soon your problem won't be one or two 1-star reviews. It will be an army of them.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> Some Amazon reviewers are very vigilant about their reviews, working hard on their ranking etc.


This is so true. I know a couple people who work hard at building their reviewer rating, and they watch their reviews. Getting a vote from a fellow reader on their review is the equivalent of a writer getting a five star review. It can be a big deal to some people.


----------



## CfaE (Jul 25, 2014)

I'd aim to get more reviews rather than remove any, but not for the reasons that other people have listed. Your product page ranks in Google. That's where a fair few big authors get all their sales from. What makes your product page rank high in Google are the right keywords and social activity--reviews have both those things in them. Googlebot doesn't give a crap what rating you have. It gives a crap how many reviews you have. Keep all your reviews. They're little bundles of ranking juice.

Also, I wouldn't do a free giveaway unless you can handle some 1 stars. Free means the spammers drop by for a 'verified purchase' label. My perma-free has a 1-star from such a spammer, he dropped by on three different accounts. I guess he likes my book for lumping his 1 stars onto.

I'm not going to tell you that you should handle bad reviews or that you have any kind of ethical responsibility to stand around idly while someone spits in your face because that's just too much condescension for me to stomach. Much as people have the right to freedom of speech, you have the right to not allow them to take  dump on your doorstep, which is basically what a malicious 1-star is. It's someone taking a dump on your doorstep.

There are some outrageously fake 1-stars on Amazon. There are sure as hell people who believe that they're 'harming books' by leaving 1-stars, but the reality is that all they're doing is improving your Google rank. Keep the crap. It turns into gold eventually .


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

StraightNoChaser said:


> It sucks, but they had their experience with that hotel and you had yours. It was a valid review, IMO. For all they know, you were being paid to promote the hotel and they were genuinely trying to provide fair warning to other travelers.
> 
> Getting more reviews by providing free copies probably would have been a more ethical course of action.


It was a passing mention of a hotel in a 100 page comprehensive book on an entire city. Because this reader catches staff there on a bad day or whatever, I lose several months of hard work.

From whichever angle I view this, it doesn't seem right or fair.

I have had time to think about this and read some interesting comments however I have decided to toughen up. I need to put food on the table with my writing. This is a victimless action. The 1 star review was of no help to anyone so I don't get the sense that there is anything karmically wrong with this - especially considering I re-wrote and improved on the book as well.

BTW I have tried the whole "review copies" thing before. I think I must have wrote a couple of hundred emails (for a few different books when I started off) and only ever got 1 response. Hence why I felt I was faced with either abandoning months of work or taking action.

I accept that this is going to be a matter of where your own moral compass is pointed or the extent to which you need to rely on writing earnings. Hence why I think this makes for an interesting discussion...


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> From a practical standpoint, it sounds like you got the result you were looking for. It worked.
> 
> I am fascinated that you decided to ask for feedback on this technique, after the fact. I kinda think you knew what people would really say but maybe you hoped you'd get a round of all's-fair-in-love-and-war validation.


Quite the opposite actually - I have been pleasantly surprised by the even toned (apart from being called "slimy") discussion. A fellow forum member who I talk to in real life strongly warned me not to post this topic. The word "pitchforks" was used!! Thankfully this has not been the case


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Mike_Author said:


> Quite the opposite actually - I have been pleasantly surprised by the even toned (apart from being called "slimy") discussion. A fellow forum member who I talk to in real life strongly warned me not to post this topic. The word "pitchforks" was used!! Thankfully this has not been the case


Nah, we don't do pitchforks anymore. We just tase people now. Way more effective.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> From a practical standpoint, it sounds like you got the result you were looking for. It worked.
> 
> I am fascinated that you decided to ask for feedback on this technique, after the fact. I kinda think you knew what people would really say but maybe you hoped you'd get a round of all's-fair-in-love-and-war validation.


^


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

You're just fine, Mike.  That's a silly review.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

The silly ones are the worst.  But I keep them all the same.  I think of each of them as a sword of Damocles.  It reminds me that this perfect little publishing world I've crafted for myself is not entirely in my control.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

I don't quite see the ethical problem here. If readers have the absolute right to leave whatever reviews they like, for whatever reason (and they do, obviously), so authors have the absolute right to unpublish in the light of review comments, revise the book and republish. And what if it were two or three one star reviews? Or twenty? Would you still expect the OP to suck it up?

Having said that, I'm another one who finds one star reviews more useful than five star ones. I'd quite happily buy a book with only one star (depending on what it says). I'm always deeply suspicious of books with reams of glowing five star reviews.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Mike_Author said:


> Curious whether others have done this


Have I done it? No. Have I heard of writers who do? Yes, it happens.


----------



## SugarBear57 (Aug 28, 2014)

vlmain said:


> This is so true. I know a couple people who work hard at building their reviewer rating, and they watch their reviews. Getting a vote from a fellow reader on their review is the equivalent of a writer getting a five star review. It can be a big deal to some people.


Yes. I'm a top reviewer on Amazon (just in the top 10k, not the fanciest lists like the top 10), and I do consider votes like five star reviews as an author. One self published author (of whom I am a rabid fan) upvoted my video review of her contemporary romance novel and left me a short comment to thank me, and it made me happy.

Another self published author downvoted my review, not because the review was angry, but because it was factually inaccurate. I thought that her books were a trilogy, and I said that the 3rd was a good end to the series. She commented to let me know that it wasn't a trilogy. I don't recommend this behavior, as it irritates many of the top reviewers. I may not review any more of her books, because I'm not a fan of downvotes, which are the equivalent of 1 star reviews. The comment would've been enough. I cleaned up the review, though, so maybe it had the desired effect.

In your (OP) shoes, I'd also start sending out free copies. I get offered RCs quite often, just from people pulling my email address from my public profile as a top reviewer. In the last two days, I've gotten three: self-help/career, paranormal suspense, and Christian contemporary romance. It's a good route to take, if you are careful enough to actually find reviewers who want to read books in your genre or subgenre. The first 1 (career) told me that he'd be "honored" if I wrote a review, and that I'd help him on his goal of reaching every college graduate or something like that. I took zero action. The other two put in a small amount of effort, which was nice. Here's a template of an email that would work on me:



> Hi [reviewer],
> 
> I'm [author name], and I found your email through your Amazon profile.
> 
> ...


You'll get at least some bites through this method. The paranormal suspense guy had two good books, and I borrowed both of them via KU. He did have a 7 solid reviews that sounded genuine. They weren't all uniformly 5 stars, either.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I see no problem. The book wasn't selling, you had a single bad review, so you revamped it, reworked things, and republished to see if you couldn't fix what was clearly broken.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Authors *need* one star reviews to balance out the five stars that hopefully come. Having the first review as a one-star is bad news, but every reader is entitled to their opinion - even if they are wrong. One stars don't put me off buying books.

The risk you take with republishing is that somebody who bought your book before will buy it again - realise they've already read it - and give you a one-star review because they feel cheated!


----------



## archaeoroutes (Oct 12, 2014)

I once got a 2 star that was very unjustified. I had explained that people following my walks in remote areas should also have map and compass to support their navigation. This review complained that there weren't paths - it was a walk on Dartmoor and had described it as such.
In the end I left it, but added something to the description that made it even clearer that the walks were in wild places.


----------



## Cheryl Douglas (Dec 7, 2011)

We all get one star reviews. I know it's hard to take, but you just have to suck it up and move on. You can't re-publish every time you get a one star. Well, I guess you could, but I wouldn't advise it.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> I don't quite see the ethical problem here. If readers have the absolute right to leave whatever reviews they like, for whatever reason (and they do, obviously), so authors have the absolute right to unpublish in the light of review comments, revise the book and republish. And what if it were two or three one star reviews? Or twenty? Would you still expect the OP to suck it up?
> 
> Having said that, I'm another one who finds one star reviews more useful than five star ones. I'd quite happily buy a book with only one star (depending on what it says). I'm always deeply suspicious of books with reams of glowing five star reviews.


Not all rights come with an equal and opposite right. In the OP's case, he didn't even alter anything that the negative review commented on, so I don't see how he could possibly claim that he'd addressed the concerns, or that the slate was rightfully wiped clean. I absolutely expect the OP to endure whatever negative reviews come his way.

If reviews are unfair or malicious on their face, there's some recourse through Amazon. Perhaps that doesn't work out as well as it should, but them's the breaks. The flip side of that is that Amazon is clearly ineffective at dealing with dishonest good reviews. Friends and family may be the biggest offenders here, above and beyond issues with buying reviews. And even more than that, many of us feel that reviews/ratings have become inflated to the point that most of them are meaningless. I'm not sure how many people even bother reading 4 and 5 star reviews (as you yourself agree).

In the OP's case, my sense is that the review was earnest, helpful, and accurate. Maybe Amazon could've been persuaded to remove the review because it focused on the hotel, but one reader had an experience completely contrary to the OP's book, and felt that ruined his credibility. I can see the logic. Other readers might agree with that, or they might not. It's a relevant concern and I think the reviewer deserved to air it.

At most, the OP should have either voted it down or thanked the reviewer for her comment and tried to learn more about her negative experience with his recommendation. There could've been an opportunity there. The author of a guidebook recommending lodgings might actually be in a position to _do something_ about a bad experience at a hotel and make it better for his readers. Put aside the author, become who you were born to be. Mike Steves: Travel Authority.

The ethical path is to accept poor reviews, and address their reasonable concerns, if possible. It's wrong to republish to silence your critics.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

The "most helpful" critical review on one of my (now illustrated) books comments that it needs illustrations - the lack of illustrations got me one each 1, 2, and 3 stars. I voted them all as helpful, and now illustrate my books, because I didn't realize that the lack of illustrations was such an issue.

The lead in my blurb says "now with illustrations."

I couldn't find email addresses for any of the low-star reviewers to offer them a free copy of my now-illustrated book, but I did add that to the comments on the review.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Who cares. You are neither breaking Amazon's TOS or the law.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

I can see both sides to this arguement.

On one hand you had decent sales until this one star review and then your book was dead and you couldnt get it going again so you unpublished it, changed it up and republished it and its doing well. Authors do make changes to books and update them, or they change covers etc. Happens all the time. So in that way what you did isnt much different

On the other hand, this was the persons opinion of your work and they have a right to that opinion. Just as you dont like when someone says you can or cant do/write/say something neither is it right to do that to someone else. Just because your books sales stalled didnt mean there werent other avenues to get it going that you may or may not have used.

As for the ethical question... that is up for the individual. What may be ethical for me and my standards may not be for you and your standards. Neither one is wrong just different. So is what you did ethical? only you can decide that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2014)

I'm with Mike for saving his book.
That 1-star review was for a hotel, not his book. That review belonged on a site like Yelp, not a book sales page.

Authors sometimes make changes to their books - different cover, different title, different opening paragraph, plot - etc. that have drawn bad reviews, and republished to get better reviews.

Good for Mike.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

I don't think ethics are the problem.  It's rather the time and energy and effort that one review took from you.  It would have been better applied to positive promotion and/or more writing.  In any case, best luck with your book!


----------



## joyceharmon (May 21, 2012)

Okey Dokey said:


> I'm with Mike for saving his book.
> That 1-star review was for a hotel, not his book. That review belonged on a site like Yelp, not a book sales page.
> 
> Authors sometimes make changes to their books - different cover, different title, different opening paragraph, plot - etc. that have drawn bad reviews, and republished to get better reviews.
> ...


I think I am too, because obviously the person's quarrel was with the hotel. If the one-star came after some higher ratings and wasn't the only review, he could have left it without impacting his sales. But as the ONLY review, and the apparent impact on sales... Well, I'm not going to fault the author for getting out from under that.

One thing I've seen sometimes is that a person will leave a one star review on a book, and in the write-up they don't ping the actual BOOK, but are ticked off at some problem with Amazon, late delivery or something like that. I think that's so unfair to the author, because the review isn't about the book, but it can impact the book sales.

I don't let low reviews impact my book buying habits, though if the rating average is low, I'll hesitate. I buy books based on the blurb. Here's where I do use the low reviews - say I'm reading a book and I'm just not enjoying it. Then I go back to the book page and check out the low reviews. Sometimes these books will have a very high rating average and a lot of raves, but I read what the low reviewers have to say. A lot of times, those reviewers will have the same problems with the book I'm having, and if they indicate the problem is there throughout, I feel free to give up on the book and not finish it.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> That 1-star review was for a hotel, not his book. That review belonged on a site like Yelp, not a book sales page.


Not necessarily. I'm speaking generally, here, not about Mike's book because I haven't read it and didn't see the review, but if a reader comments on something in a book that they feel is inaccurate or misleading (whether it actually is or isn't is irrelevant because it's their _opinion_), their critique could be both about the subject (in this case, a hotel) _and the book,_ which they feel is inaccurate.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

vlmain said:


> Not necessarily. I'm speaking generally, here, not about Mike's book because I haven't read it and didn't see the review, but if a reader comments on something in a book that they feel is inaccurate or misleading (whether it actually is or isn't is irrelevant because it's their _opinion_), their critique could be both about the subject (in this case, a hotel) _and the book,_ which they feel is inaccurate.


Yeah, it gets at credibility. If a guy recommends a hotel to me and it's the same one where I had a negative experience, I start to wonder whether the rest of his advice is valid. It's fair to be concerned about that.


----------



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

Mike_Author said:


> Yes this is my point - I have received 1 star reviews before but never the very first review and it completely killed all sales...


I think the hotel should have got the one star and not the entire book.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Can someone give me an analogy from say 30 years ago, or even 50, that's equal to the 'starring' review system we have now on ebooks and paperbacks? 

Given we were recommended books by our magazines and probably friends...there was no place to get an accumulated rating of the book. If everyone loved a book, and someone didn't, they'd probably still read it, not like it, but the whole world wouldn't know about that one person's opinion. 

Why should the whole world know about 1 person's opinion which may or may not be 'warranted'? That's why I don't see this as a black and white issue. 

To say it's 'fair' that one person can put up a 1 star and that 1 star has a right to be there, and that it's ethical to leave it there, is a bit strange given the wild wild west of selling books. We all want to believe in a just world, but is it 'just' (I may be wrong on the more finite details) to have a 1 star review on your book, and it being the only review, then losing sales as a result?

I think that would have a huge impact on sales, and while it's bad luck, it certainly isn't 'just'. Also, to imply 'just' means that something is has to monitor that 'just-ness'... if the OP unpublishes and republishes, and you assume it's 'injust' or 'unethical', where are those standards written in stone? 

This is a nuanced discussion in my opinion.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> To say it's 'fair' that one person can put up a 1 star and that 1 star has a right to be there, and that it's ethical to leave it there, is a bit strange given the wild wild west of selling books.


Because everyone is entitled to their opinion. Because people have a right to express their opinion. Because to start picking and choosing which reviews stay and which ones go is the equivalent of censorship, and writers, of all people, should be opposed to that (I would think ...but I could be wrong).


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> I think that would have a huge impact on sales, and while it's bad luck, it certainly isn't 'just'. Also, to imply 'just' means that something is has to monitor that 'just-ness'... if the OP unpublishes and republishes, and you assume it's 'injust' or 'unethical', where are those standards written in stone?


Is it ethical to purchase positive reviews?

Is it ethical to create phony accounts and leave positive, or even nuanced reviews on your own work?

Would it be ethical if a tradpub did that for their authors, instead of indies doing it?

Would it be ethical if Amazon did that for authors at their imprints, instead of indies doing it?

Surely reviews aren't a nihilistic, amoral free-for-all. Surely a thing isn't ethically right or ambiguous simply because there's no written prohibition. Unwritten rules are often the most important kind.

To my mind, deleting negative reviews is no different from inventing positive reviews. It's the same thing: you're dishonestly manipulating the rating/review system for your own benefit. It's bad for readers, it's bad for the market, it's bad for the author if that dishonesty becomes known. It's not an accident that we don't know who the OP is, or the title of his book.

An ethic of honesty in reviews is good for most indies, not bad. We're not in a position to manipulate reviews as successfully as tradpub authors, or Amazon authors, or extremely successful authors. We would be in a better position if everything was done above board and ethically. When we go below board in a misguided effort to make up the difference, we risk making things worse for ourselves, and damaging the integrity of ourselves and our colleagues. Excusing what the OP did because it happened to be effective is a short-sighted, unethical stance.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sure. I don't see what that has to do with removing a 1 star review from a book when it's damaging sales AND its the only review that's there so far. 

I don't think this is a discussion about 'censorship'... that would be like calling a molehill a mountain. And that molehill is not a slippery slope because it's only a tiny little bump in the ground. One would have to be pretty uncoordinated to slip on it   Therefore I don't agree that republishing that book is the dark path to cherry picking which reviews are and are not allowed.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sure. I don't see what that has to do with removing a 1 star review from a book when it's damaging sales AND its the only review that's there so far.


So which is it? Are they entitled to voice their opinion, or are they only entitled to voice it so long as it has no potential to influence, or is buried under the positive reviews? You can't have it both ways.



ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> I don't think this is a discussion about 'censorship'... that would be like calling a molehill a mountain. And that molehill is not a slippery slope because it's only a tiny little bump in the ground.


That's exactly what it is. If you are suggesting that it's "not fair" to have a one star review on a book because of its potential to affect sales, that's exactly what we're talking about.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Dolphin said:


> Is it ethical to purchase positive reviews?
> 
> Is it ethical to create phony accounts and leave positive, or even nuanced reviews on your own work?
> 
> ...


But we aren't talking about these things. We're talking about one specific instance of a book being republished because of a 1-star review. I don't understand why these 'questions' relate to the original topic. If you want to have a discussion about these other things, then fine, but to address these extra points is to discuss something entirely different.



Dolphin said:


> We're not in a position to manipulate reviews as successfully as tradpub authors, or Amazon authors, or extremely successful authors. We would be in a better position if everything was done above board and ethically.


Sounds like you're more upset at the people with real power. All business is unfair. Marketing, everything is designed to take advantage of our primitive psychological drives. Is that fair? When we make a decision, many of us aren't aware of all the aspects involved in making that decision, and those decisions are based on subconscious psychological responses. We're not talking objective ethics here, because that assumes everyone plays by these unspoken set of rules that you and I hold so dear. The corporations are completely in charge. They call the shots. They can change the rules at any time.

You said this: "We would be in a better position if everything was done above board and ethically."

I agree. But society is structured to give the rich and powerful more wiggle room when it comes to 'ethics' and 'playing by the rules'. So your desire for this to be 'real', I'm sorry to say, will probably never happen. (Please note I am discussing this as an entirely different idea to the original post, at this point I feel we've moved away from the original discussion).

This conversation started as a specific instance. Now it's about the unfairness that tradpubs, high ranked amazon authors, and other powerful people in this industry, have over us little indie prawns. It doesn't feel good to have less power, I know. We're at the mercy of many uncountable and unrecognisable variables...


----------



## Melly Mack (Jan 2, 2011)

Censorship? This thread has really jumped the shark. By this definition it is also censorship when I took books down on other sites to join Select. I censored all the reviews associated with those other books, good and bad. By this definition it is also censorship to have Amazon take down comments that violate TO. Oh, please. Have a sense of proportion.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

vlmain said:


> So which is it? Are they entitled to voice their opinion, or are they only entitled to voice it so long as it has no potential to influence, or is buried under the positive reviews? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> That's exactly what it is. If you are suggesting that it's "not fair" to have a one star review on a book because of its potential to affect sales, that's exactly what we're talking about.


To answer your replies, given the way they are framed, would be to get drawn back into the 'are you for or against' stance, without any acknowledgement of the grey areas. While it's been fun, I don't see any point in continuing to debate this issue given that when I reply the frame of the argument changes. It is nuanced, it is a grey topic, just as many many ethical topics are.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> But we aren't talking about these things. We're talking about one specific instance of a book being republished because of a 1-star review. I don't understand why these 'questions' relate to the original topic. If you want to have a discussion about these other things, then fine, but to address these extra points is to discuss something entirely different.
> 
> Sounds like you're more upset at the people with real power. All business is unfair. Marketing, everything is designed to take advantage of our primitive psychological drives. Is that fair? When we make a decision, many of us aren't aware of all the aspects involved in making that decision, and those decisions are based on subconscious psychological responses. We're not talking objective ethics here, because that assumes everyone plays by these unspoken set of rules that you and I hold so dear. The corporations are completely in charge. They call the shots. They can change the rules at any time.
> 
> ...


The hypotheticals relate because you're dishonestly manipulating reviews. In all of my hypotheticals and in the OP's case, the ethical principle that's being violated is that reviews are impartial, honest assessments provided by readers for the benefit of other readers. That's what an ethical review is.

If you add a positive review yourself to improve sales, that's unethical. If you remove an honest review simply because it's hindering your sales, that's unethical. There's no difference, because the end result is that readers are being mislead by dishonest reviews. You're violating their trust.

And no, you don't get to make things subjective or situational simply because you don't think that corporations are playing by the same rules as the little guys. I never said that they _do_ the things in my hypotheticals. I asked whether it would be ethical if they did, and I take it from your response that it wouldn't be. If you expect corporations not to bend the rules--and I hope you do, notwithstanding your cynicism on that point--then you shouldn't bend the rules either.

I know that some people are acting unethically, starting with the OP, but they shouldn't be. We shouldn't make things worse by going down that path ourselves. We won't like what happens if reviews become less ethical than they already are.

I don't give a [crap] that some people and some corporate people are more powerful than us. That's fine. It doesn't change the ethics of the situation one bit-just means that we'll lose the arms race if unethical behavior is allowed to be the norm.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Dolphin said:


> The ethical principle that's being violated is that reviews are impartial, honest assessments provided by readers for the benefit of other readers. That's what an ethical review is.


I'm not really addressing the original topic at this point.

Do you believe that all reviews are honest and impartial?

Because I certainly don't.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

OK, friends, let's cool the temperature down a bit. Please try to state your views on this topic without making this all about being outraged, or laying judgments on others whose opinions may differ. If the discussion edges into personal attacks, we'll lock the thread per our forum guidelines.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Harvey, I doubt that Dolphin and I are going to make this personal. It's a passionate debate about ethics. Passion doesn't = irrational, just ask Socrates... he was very passionate  

I don't feel offended in the slightest, do you Dolphin?


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Fair enough. Passion is fine... getting personal is not... but I agree it hasn't crossed that line. Still, my moderator antennae are flashing "yellow alert."


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> Do you believe that all reviews are honest and impartial?
> 
> Because I certainly don't.


No, but they should be, and in many cases where they aren't, Amazon's policy is to remove them. I'll grant that proving that may be another question entirely.

The OP's question was about ethics. Ethically, I don't think we should stray from honest, impartial reviews, and part of that is letting negative ones stand, even if it's bad for short-term business (which it may not be).



ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> I don't feel offended in the slightest, do you Dolphin?


Nope! High fives all around.

I don't blame you for being concerned, Harvey. You're a good Harvey.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

There's something very meta about a moderator stepping in on a discussion that had the words censorship used a few times. Maybe someone smarter and wittier than me can make a quip.

Also, 


Given that "impartial" could be used interchangeably with unbiased... I can't see any reviews being impartial, ever. Unless you're a robot... maybe if a robot left a review. Hrmm...


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> Given that "impartial" could be used interchangeably with unbiased... I can't see any reviews being impartial, ever. Unless you're a robot... maybe if a robot left a review. Hrmm...


Well, impartial in the sense that the reviewer isn't benefiting from the review in some way, and doesn't have a close personal relationship with the author. That's pretty straightforward for the most part.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Having a moderator (well, in Harvey's case, the site owner) step in to remind members that passionate discussion is allowed, just watch the elbows, is not censorship. It's exactly what it was said to be, a request to chill a bit. We appreciate those who understand the kind of civil discourse we want here on KBoards. If you haven't yet, please read our Forum Decorum.

I'll add that the assumption by some posters that the review was or may have been malicious bothers me. We do not know that the review was malicious. And I remind people that the word "Troll" is considered a four letter word here. Don't use it.

On topic: if I read a travel book and disagree with the assessment that the reviewer makes of places I know, that's going to affect my review. I doubt I would make a one star review based on one hotel that I disagreed about...but that's me.

Finally, about the fairness or unfairness of a review affecting sales--I never see anyone saying it's unfair when a five-star review helps sales. Isn't that the name of the game?

Betsy


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Having a moderator (well, in Harvey's case, the site owner) step in to remind members that passionate discussion is allowed, just watch the elbows, is not censorship.


Oh, sorry, I was making a joke, Betsy, I wasn't in the slightest suggesting having moderators is censorship. That would be a world gone topsy-turvy. But in the extreme sense of 'censorship' -- a position I would never take -- any moderating would be considered censorship because the extreme position would assume that any efforts to control what and how people are saying is putting limits on their expression of their opinion.

Hence why I found the intellectual musing of that absurd thought to be amusing.

I find meta-ness in general funny.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> But in the extreme sense of 'censorship' -- a position I would never take -- any moderating would be considered censorship because the extreme position would assume that any efforts to control what and how people are saying is putting limits on their expression of their opinion.


I guess this is what confounds me. In one post, you say you are against censorship and placing limits on a person expressing their opinion, but in another, you're okay with limiting reviews if they have the potential to negatively affect sales. How is it different?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I just want to understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

vlmain said:


> I guess this is what confounds me. In one post, you say you are against censorship and placing limits on a person expressing their opinion, but in another, you're okay with limiting reviews if they have the potential to negatively affect sales. How is it different?


I never said I was against censorshp. If you think the quote I made in reply to Besty says so, then you need to read it again. I said, I would never take an extreme position on censorship. It's an amusing intellectual topic. It does not reflect my views... hence why I said "a position I would never take".


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> No, but they should be, and in many cases where they aren't, Amazon's policy is to remove them. I'll grant that proving that may be another question entirely.


Based on some of the complaints I've seen on this board, it isn't even Amazon's policy to remove reviews that were obviously meant for completely different books.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

PaulLev said:


> I don't think ethics are the problem. It's rather the time and energy and effort that one review took from you. It would have been better applied to positive promotion and/or more writing. In any case, best luck with your book!


This doesn't really make any sense. I spent months writing the book, was selling good numbers, got a 1 star review which stopped sales dead, spent about a day fixing it and now sales are flowing again. So essentially in return for 1 day's work I am now getting the sales generated by months of work. I don't know about you but that is probably the best return on time invested anyone could make.

Also, another poster said I should have contacted Amazon and asked them to take it down. Let me tell you a hilarious story...a few months ago a (clearly disturbed) reviewer gave another book a 1 star review claiming I was someone else (I forget the name that said I was) writing under an alias, because apparently this person (who I clearly am) had a bad reputation as an author! I contacted Amazon and pointed this out, also pointing out that from their side they could clearly see I was not this person, however they said something along the lines of "we don't like to do anything unless it involves abuse" (my words, I've just looked for the reply I got but can't find it).

Before this incident, one of my most hated things was seeing people give 1-star reviews to books for reasons other than the content. For example, Andrew Solomon's beautiful Noonday Demon getting attacked by the "anti-biological psychiatry" crowd or reviews of books by politicians where reviewers use Amazon's review system as a soapbox to rail against the politician themselves and not the book.

As a reader, if I had seen the review of my book, I would have wanted it to be removed, so I will use that thought to comfort me at night


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> I never said I was against censorshp. If you think the quote I made in reply to Besty says so, then you need to read it again. I said, I would never take an extreme position on censorship. It's an amusing intellectual topic. It does not reflect my views... hence why I said "a position I would never take".


Okay, _extreme_ censorship. So, now that we have successfully split that hair, how is suppressing a negative review based on its ability to negatively impact sales not censorship? By doing that, aren't you taking away that reviewer's right to express their thoughts on that book?


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ShayneRutherford said:


> Based on some of the complaints I've seen on this board, it isn't even Amazon's policy to remove reviews that were obviously meant for completely different books.


I think the OP's case was borderline at best, but I do agree that they're not as good as they should be about policing that sort of thing. Two wrongs still doesn't make a right, and I still don't think we wind up with a better world if we just start making the judgment calls ourselves and taking matters into our own hands.

Following on Betsy's point, I've also seen 5 star reviews for the wrong book/series. Hard to get yourself worked up about righting that wrong.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> I think the OP's case was borderline at best, but I do agree that they're not as good as they should be about policing that sort of thing. Two wrongs still doesn't make a right, and I still don't think we wind up with a better world if we just start making the judgment calls ourselves and taking matters into our own hands.


I wasn't talking about the OP's case, per se, just the general way the Amazon reps don't like to remove any reviews, no matter how undeserved they may be.


----------



## Jj2011 (Oct 1, 2014)

If one bad review can destroy ur sales I submit that u didn't really have strong sales to begin with. I would move on and focus more on writing books that will sell than trying to get clever and republishing books.


----------



## Cege Smith (Dec 11, 2011)

If you ask me the question of whether I would consider this practice ethical (which the OP did), my answer would be no. (My Master's is in Ethics in Leadership, so I feel like I have some expertise to have a reasoned opinion on it.)

But at the end of the day, I don't really feel like this is a question of ethics, but a question of someone wanting to feel justified for making a business decision to restart sales given something that appears to be negatively affecting one of his products. I would love to think that our ability to make money and be black/white ethically always perfectly match, but I'd be naive to think that was the case. There are shades of grey everywhere. When it comes to money, I think people are willing to do a lot of things that flag into that grey area- and sometimes far into the black (Wolf of Wall Street, anyone?).

Asking a bunch of people on an internet forum for an ethical judgement call is also extremely intriguing to me as someone mentioned upthread - and is something I'd never do. The decision had been made. The change is already done. Clearly the OP felt this was okay- so my advice would be to sit with it and be okay with it. It's over and done with at this point. Why raise the issue and open yourself up for any judgement at all?


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

Jj2011 said:


> If one bad review can destroy ur sales I submit that u didn't really have strong sales to begin with. I would move on and focus more on writing books that will sell than trying to get clever and republishing books.


Oh dear...I wish to re-submit back to you that I had strong sales that were killed dead by this 1 star review. This is not a subjective point, but one grounded in rigorous empirical analysis (ie - I looked at my KDP report!)

I would also like to submit that books with healthy sales being killed by the first review being a 1 star is not a new or unusual phenomenon.

My original point is not one of strategy, because clearly my strategy has worked and worked amazingly. My original point was one of individual ethics and doing things in the interest of your publishing business that give your own moral compass a tweak and cause you to pause. However at the end of the day I realised that I simply can't afford to lose months of hard work to a single, ill-considered review. Yet, I would never in a million years consider paying for reviews. Each of us have a moral compass pointed in subtly different directions...

One of the things that changed my mind was the fantastic post by an erotica writer in that thread that got locked (regarding 50 shades style books). Sometimes you have to do what you gotta do to put food on the table. I can hardly cry poor but there is a broader principle involved around treating my writing like a business. If a business is losing sales due to a single factor, they must mitigate it. However others would reach a different conclusion and that is my original point - this is a highly subjective topic and therefore a rich vein of discussion on a forum such as this 

Hopefully people can realise how difficult it was to open myself up for scrutiny. I spent the entire day yesterday feeling quite anxious about this but thought it was a worthwhile exercise to enable others to think about it and reach their own conclusions.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

vlmain said:


> how is suppressing a negative review based on its ability to negatively impact sales not censorship?


You have a point, it is censorship, but I don't think all censorship is bad/wrong and should be avoided. And I never said it wasn't censorship to begin with.

The word itself is often used in a negative fashion which is why I wanted to avoid the word altogether. Though I guess it's too late now.

Extreme censorship = bad. Some censorship can be good/neutral/meh (insert others that might apply)

I think it's contextual.

So, stating that, in this particular context with this particular instance (whereby a newly published book has a review that's stopping other people from buying their book and giving it a chance), I don't think that the person republishing their book is a big deal. I don't want that statement to mean I'm fine with all 1-star reviews being removed, because I don't, and that would be a misrespresentation of this particular context argument that I'm making.

This is a grey area.

Black and white statements would be = Never should a 1 star review be removed.

Or,

ALL 1 star reviews should be removed.

Because I don't think either of those two, I consider it a grey area. 
I've developed a kind of apathy over this specific instance of a discussion over censorship of reviews on Amazon...so I consider my contributions to this discussion over.

Who knows what I'll feel on other future threads that are on similar, but different topics... it's contextual, and a judgement call.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

A travel guide is, by definition, is going to be a book full of recommended places to visit within a location and a 100 page travel guide is going to mention many, many different places. However in the case of this travel guide, because a reviewer had a bad experience at one place mentioned within the 100 page travel guide, some believe the reviewer's one bad experience was sufficient reason to leave the travel guide a 1 star review and thus view the reviewer's 1 star review as a legitimate review. That really surprises me and leaves me with some questions for those who see it that way.  

First question - If a 1 star review is legitimate because someone had a bad experience at one of the places mentioned in a 100 page travel guide, the expectation appears to be that everyone who uses the travel guide have a positive experience at everywhere mentioned in a 100 page book. Is it your position that one rude attraction ticket selling clerk, one slow server, one hair in a soup, one slow or late leg of public transportation and/or one unsatisfactory hotel stay is all that is needed to question the credibility of the author and all of the locations mentioned in 100 pages, therefore warranting a legitimate 1 star "beware of this guide" review? 

Second question. If the author omitted a place - be it a reviewer's favorite restaurant, hotel, or a place the reviewer considers one of their "city must visit places" - would that too warrant a one star review? Because after all, how can the author be credible if he/she doesn't know that X restaurant is the best in X city?

Third question - How about if the reviewer had a positive experience at all of the places they visited in the book but overall had a negative feeling about the city itself? Since the author recommended visiting the city, would that be a legitimate and sufficient reason to 1 star the book?


----------



## Cege Smith (Dec 11, 2011)

Someone said:


> A travel guide is, by definition, is going to be a book full of recommended places to visit within a location and a 100 page travel guide is going to mention many, many different places. However in the case of this travel guide, because a reviewer had a bad experience at one place mentioned within the 100 page travel guide, some believe the reviewer's one bad experience was sufficient reason to leave the travel guide a 1 star review and thus view the reviewer's 1 star review as a legitimate review. That really surprises me and leaves me with some questions for those who see it that way.
> 
> First question - If a 1 star review is legitimate because someone had a bad experience at one of the places mentioned in a 100 page travel guide, the expectation appears to be that everyone who uses the travel guide have a positive experience at everywhere mentioned in a 100 page book. Is it your position that one rude attraction ticket selling clerk, one slow server, one hair in a soup, one slow or late leg of public transportation and/or one unsatisfactory hotel stay is all that is needed to question the credibility of the author and all of the locations mentioned in 100 pages, therefore warranting a legitimate 1 star "beware of this guide" review?
> 
> ...


I think what you've just very eloquently highlighted is that reviews are subjective. There's nothing objective about them. Reviews are by their very nature someone's opinion. I just finished a book yesterday. It was a good book. I liked it and it entertained me. However, there was one thing in an early scene that bugged me- I remembered it because it took me out of the story for a couple of minutes- and that book got a 4 star review from me instead of a 5. It's my opinion and my choice to decide what I want to rate it and why. I don't have to justify that decision to anyone else, and it doesn't make my review any less "legitimate" than anyone else who takes the time to leave a review.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As I said earlier, I wouldn't give a book a one-star because I disagreed about one hotel; but that's me.  Nor, as a reader, would I not buy a book because a reviewer gave the book one star because the reviewer disagreed with the author about one hotel.

Betsy


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> Harvey, I doubt that Dolphin and I are going to make this personal. It's a passionate debate about ethics. Passion doesn't = irrational, just ask Socrates... he was very passionate


Indeed he was - would make good material for a novel ...


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Someone said:


> First question - If a 1 star review is legitimate because someone had a bad experience at one of the places mentioned in a 100 page travel guide, the expectation appears to be that everyone who uses the travel guide have a positive experience at everywhere mentioned in a 100 page book. Is it your position that one rude attraction ticket selling clerk, one slow server, one hair in a soup, one slow or late leg of public transportation and/or one unsatisfactory hotel stay is all that is needed to question the credibility of the author and all of the locations mentioned in 100 pages, therefore warranting a legitimate 1 star "beware of this guide" review?


Totally legitimate. A poor hotel stay can ruin an entire trip and set you back a lot more than what you paid for the guidebook that seemingly misled you. The reviewer stated his or her reasons, and other readers can make their own judgments about whether a single bad experience at a hotel is enough to warrant a 1 star, or reason enough for them to steer clear of the book.

This is the position I'd take on your other questions as well. Personally, I'd be less inclined to give a 1 star over something less concrete like "You forgot about Pine State Biscuits," or "Voodoo Donuts is so 2003," or "I got mugged while I was trying to buy some heroin under the Burnside Bridge," but as long as you list your reasons, other readers are free to make their own judgments about _your_ judgments.

That's what reviews are for. I read something, then I share my zany, subjective impressions in the hopes that they'll help you firm up your own zany, subjective impressions.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

Cegesmith
Your 4 star review was based on your reading experiences. The review this thread is discussing is based on the reviewer's hotel stay experience.
You were reviewing the book and didn't like one part of the book. The reviewer OTOH said nothing about the book and instead reviewed the hotel, and a hotel which happens to be one place of many mentioned in a travel guide. You held the author accountable for their writing. This reviewer held the author accountable for their bad experience at the hotel. The rational behind your and the reviewer reviews couldn't be more different.

This isn't a case of an author getting a 1 star review that is based on flaws in the book and isn't a case where a reviewer says, "I didn't like this book because the story does A, does B, and does C".  This is a review that pretty much said, "Out of the many, many places the book recommends, the book recommends Hotel A and I didn't like hotel A because of X, Y, Z so because I had a bad experience at the hotel, the book is trash". 

The review unfairly weighs the book not on any context within the book itself, but instead on one experience at one place out of umpteen places mentioned in the book and lending legitimacy to the review sets an unreasonable, and most likely impossible to meet, standard on travel guides to guarantee only positive experiences at every place in the guides or risk severe punishment. When considering the standard that legitimatizing this review would set, one is hard pressed to argue this 1 star review of a travel guide is a fair review and when one considers the author's data, one is also hard pressed to argue that the unfair review wasn't harming him. And because it is an undoubtedly unfair review that was harming him, it was not, at all, unfair for the author to disregard the review in a manner that prevents him from experiencing further harm.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

It was a fair review, and ethically it doesn't matter that it was harming him.

That's where we disagree.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

ᵹ⃝⃝⃝ᶓ said:


> You have a point, it is censorship, but I don't think all censorship is bad/wrong and should be avoided.


I believe in self-censorship, and honestly, I wish people would practice it more often, myself included. Just because we are free to express our opinions doesn't mean we should. Especially when those opinions could be hurtful. However, that is an entirely different thing than being censored by others. For example, Amazon adopting a policy of removing reviews that could hurt a book's sales. Negative reviews are difficult to accept, but they are a reality we must learn to live with if we choose to make our work available to the public. As difficult as it is, readers have a right to express their opinions, whether we like it or not.

I don't believe there is any such thing as good censorship. I believe the gray area you refer to is not censorship, at all--at least, not by its true definition. There are many examples of situations where people are prohibited from saying things that would not meet the definition of censorship. Yelling, "Fire!" in a theater is one common example. However, when we start suggesting that Amazon should be willing to remove legitimate reviews because they could harm a book's sales, we're heading down a slippery slope. At that point, we might as well get rid of reviews, altogether, but they would be worthless.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Someone said:


> This isn't a case of an author getting a 1 star review that is based on flaws in the book and isn't a case where a reviewer says, "I didn't like this book because the story does A, does B, and does C". This is a review that pretty much said, "Out of the many, many places the book recommends, the book recommends Hotel A and I didn't like hotel A because of X, Y, Z so because I had a bad experience at the hotel, the book is trash".


Most readers are pretty smart, though, and would have probably dismissed such a review. I see reviews like that all the time and I just ignore them.


----------



## Cege Smith (Dec 11, 2011)

Someone said:


> Cegesmith
> Your 4 star review was based on your reading experiences. The review this thread is discussing is based on the reviewer's hotel stay experience.
> You were reviewing the book and didn't like one part of the book. The reviewer OTOH said nothing about the book and instead reviewed the hotel, and a hotel which happens to be one place of many mentioned in a travel guide. You held the author accountable for their writing. This reviewer held the author accountable for their bad experience at the hotel. The rational behind your and the reviewer reviews couldn't be more different.
> 
> ...


If you write a travel guide, someone has experience with the locations in said travel guide, disagrees with the recommendations provided - their opinion isn't legitimate?  And I've used travel guides in the past, and despite having a wealth of information inside of them, due to any number of limitations I am usually only able to get to a few of the locations listed. If any one of those locations wasn't great, that would cause me to question the overall recommendations in the book. Is the only way my opinion legitimate then in your view would be if I visited each and every location and only then could I write a recommendation? Sorry- that doesn't pass my sniff test. My comparison to the book I was read yesterday was simply to say that it doesn't take much to cause a reader to lower their rating on a book, and that every review is subjective based on the reader's perspective. That doesn't make them any less legitimate.

And if we are going to nitpick - the actual issue presented by the OP for discussion wasn't about the legitimacy of the review, but whether what he felt he had to do to mitigate the review was ethical. Turning this into a "was the review legitimate" debate pretty much ensures that no one will ever agree here. Ever.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

In my mind, we are talking apples and oranges. I think many--if not most--of the authors on this site write fiction. The OP wrote a travel guide and recommended a hotel that a reader did not like. Stripping it down to its essence, a travel guide is a book of recommendations and advice. If the reader followed the recommendation or advice and did not have a good experience, I would expect them to comment on the bad recommendation. [I'd be pissed if I had picked up a copy of The ***** Motorist Green Book and there was a recommendation for an excellent hotel smack in the middle of a sun-down town.]

I think it was unethical to re-publish the book in order to dodge the 1 star. I think it's unfair to future travelers who might purchase the book, follow the recommendation, and then have a similar experience with the original reviewer.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

The reviewer was perfectly within his or her rights to leave a 1 star review, for any reason or no reason at all.

The author was perfectly within his rights to remove and republish his book, for any reason or no reason at all.

To me, ethically and every other way, the whole deal is a wash.  

Personally, I would, and have, left the review. Yes, the first and only review being 1 star can definitely kill sales. I speak from personal experience. I've got a title up in exactly that situation; no sales for coming on two years after a 1 star that called the story 'lame and stupid,' expressed 'terrible disappointment' in the author, and complained that the hair color of the woman on the cover did not match the character's hair color in the story.

Yes, I could have pulled and republished at any time over the past two years, but honestly, I'd rather just concentrate on the next thing. YMMV.


----------



## Todd Gunn (Sep 16, 2014)

Quite a good strategy pulling the book and re-releasing it.

Whether treating your writing as a business or a hobby, you want people to read your book.  If it is hobbled by an initial 1-star review it might not gain initial traction.

Of course, the book could gain another one star review on its 2nd release.  That didn't happen in your case, instead it got a couple of 5 star reviews.

I wouldn't even be considering it an unethical move. You have simply responded to market feedback. Sales dropped. You tweaked and then  re-packaged the offering.


----------



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

vlmain said:


> Most readers are pretty smart, though, and would have probably dismissed such a review.


This can't be entirely true if the one star killed sales.


----------



## R.P. Butters (Aug 6, 2014)

I tend to agree that it wasn't the best idea, and that combating it by seeking out additional reviews would have been the better and more ethical option. That said, it's done, so move on and mark this one off as a lesson learned.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm a top 2500 reviewer, or something like that.  I, occasionally, for a variety of reasons, revisit reviews I've written.  Sometimes because I forgot what I said or becasue I want to update it.  I'll note there's nothing to stop the reviewer from going back to the book and noting that his or her review is no longer there--and now indeed becoming an angry reviewer, who could review again and also try to get others to review.  Again, I would probably shrug my shoulders...but not everyone would, and some authors do seem to think reviewers are, by nature, slightly crazed even while they seek out our reviews.   Just sayin'.

Betsy


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'll note there's nothing to stop the reviewer from going back to the book and noting that his or her review is no longer there--and now indeed becoming an angry reviewer, who could review again and also try to get others to review.


That could certainly happen, but the new version of the book now has two 5* reviews to counterbalance the negative, so a 1* review (or even several) is not going to have anything like the impact of that single 1* review.

This has been a fascinating discussion but I'm afraid I still don't quite get the disapprobation for an author who decides to rebrand a product that had become damaged goods. Businesses do this all the time. I don't see why books are in any way different. Authors are not compelled to keep a book available at any or all retailers.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

This is a business - you have a duty to maximize your income.  If you need to repub to do so, so be it.  I'm delighted to see in your case it worked. Until the day you can take sanctimonious internet comments to the bank, do whatever it takes to squeeze every ounce of profit out of your work. 

Ethics are overrated - especially when you are starving.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> This has been a fascinating discussion but I'm afraid I still don't quite get the disapprobation for an author who decides to rebrand a product that had become damaged goods.


It boils down to most authors not considering a single negative review as "damaged goods." I get that the timing was terrible and this one review disproportionately impacted your sales, since it was the first, but there's no reason it should be the last.

A tried and true method of resurrecting your book (in case you get another 1-star), is to drown it out. Start a regular Librarything giveaway every week for two months, for example. Whatever you do, just start spraying around free copies until you get more reviews.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

PaulineMRoss said:


> That could certainly happen, but the new version of the book now has two 5* reviews to counterbalance the negative, so a 1* review (or even several) is not going to have anything like the impact of that single 1* review.
> 
> This has been a fascinating discussion but I'm afraid I still don't quite get the disapprobation for an author who decides to rebrand a product that had become damaged goods. Businesses do this all the time. I don't see why books are in any way different. Authors are not compelled to keep a book available at any or all retailers.


Note that I wasn't addressing the ethics of removing the review by republishing; just the possible consequences.



Betsy


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Note that I wasn't addressing the ethics of removing the review by republishing; just the possible consequences.


I know, and I'm sorry if I smooshed the two concepts together by raising them both in a single post. :-(


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

PaulineMRoss said:


> I know, and I'm sorry if I smooshed the two concepts together by raising them both in a single post. :-(


Not a problem.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

If it worked out and your sales have returned, it was probably the wise thing to do.  Personally, I don't think it's unethical either way.

However, it probably wasn't very wise to post about it here.  Several posters have admitted they won't hesitate to report a fellow author if they believe a wrong has occurred.  I've seen books actually removed from sale by Amazon because of posts on these boards.


----------



## Todd Gunn (Sep 16, 2014)

swolf said:


> However, it probably wasn't very wise to post about it here. Several posters have admitted they won't hesitate to report a fellow author if they believe a wrong has occurred. I've seen books actually removed from sale by Amazon because of posts on these boards.


Seems petty to report someone for that. Or is it a question of ethics?


----------



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

ThePete said:


> just start spraying around free copies until you get more reviews.


Free copies are usually a guaranteed way of getting 1 star reviews


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

It wasn't unethical.

It was within the Amazon Terms of Service.

It was drastic, but it sounds as if it had the desired result.

See, I review a LOT of books and if I read something that I felt so badly about that I felt compelled to leave a one star review on it - especially if it was just fresh and new out of the box, I probably wouldn't bother leaving one at all. Don't say anything if you can't say anything nice is a pretty good rule to live by.

The way I think about is you had this brand new book sitting out there in a display window and somebody took the time to smear a big old smear of snot right across that display window - so that the first thing the next prospective viewer sees is that big old streak of snot - and that's ALL they freaking see.

So you just took the time to clean that window off. I don't see anything wrong with that. You get a couple of five star reviews and then you get a one star - well, that isn't too bad and it won't necessarily cripple that book. But a one-star right off the get-go is apt to ruin the chance of future sales. That does harm to a writer's career and I don't like to do harm to anyone - unless they try and steal the very last beer out of my beer fridge - so I don't like to see anyone doing that sort of harm to ANYONE.

What it boils down to for me is that I have met WAY too many people who use the excuse of "just speaking their own mind" or "just telling like it is" to fart through their mouth all day long. Some of the meanest and nastiest people I have ever meant generally tend to punctuate their sentences with a phrase like "just calling it like I see it."

To heck with it, Mike. This isn't a game and you were protecting your book's reputation. I won't judge you for it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I can't really compare a review that, as far as I know, is an honest one as "a big old smear of snot," Steve.  Gotta disagree with that characterization.

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2014)

There's nothing sacred about an amazon review. Amazon have no problems removing them for no reason. I don't think you're obliged to offer any kind of special courtesy to the reviewer who hated your book. They can always come back and one star you again if they hate it that much.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

This also could be a case of misinterpreting the data.

My cat fell off the porch.
It started raining.
Whenever my cat falls off the porch, he makes it rain.

It is much more likely that the "new book" honeymoon period was over and the book fell back to its natural, unpromoted place in the rankings. Republishing put you back on the "new book" lists and sales returned.  A single one star review about not liking a hotel listed in the book doesn't seem to have the power to stop all prospective customers in their tracks.  Most people who are interested will read a few pages to see if they like it and make their own decision. 

To echo the others... working harder at getting reviews and promoting the books is needed unless you plan to republish the book every 3 months. While someone felt strongly enough to post a review about something they didn't like, it seems no one has felt strongly enough about liking the book to post a positive review.  

Try to find travel bloggers for that city and see if they'll review it for you.


----------



## Someone (Dec 30, 2011)

When authors list their books on blogs, they use links to direct a buyer to a selling store. There is no doubt that a seller sending a buyer to a particular store via a link is the seller recommending a store and the same is true when a seller is selling something in their business partner's store. Obviously just the appearance of a seller's product in a business partner's store is an act of a seller endorsing and thus recommending the business partner's store. One has a choice of where to sell their goods. So if authors feel it is not fair for a reviewer to one star their book because of download problems a reviewer may experience at a business partner's store, why does this perception change when this author mentions a hotel and the reviewer has a bad experience at the hotel? In both instances the author chose the place of business because the vast majority of buyers have positive experiences. However, when these choices go wrong, both are bad experiences as a result of seller recommendation, both are experiences that flux between buyers with most buyers being happy, and both are experiences the author has no control over. And actually, when you think about it, the travel guide author has much less of an association with the hotel than an author has with their retail business partner who sends them a deposit every month.
What is right for the goose is right for the gander.

IDK. I just think when a review is entirely based on the hotel stay, it becomes a review of the hotel and not the book just like the review that complains of download or whatever problems is not a review of the book. The reviewer is reviewing the wrong product. ( okay, I've said that, like, at least 10 times in I don't know how many ways. Where is an editor when I need one? lol )
I did notice some say they would do the same because they see it being a credibility issue. If, after not liking the hotel, someone is still using the guide while on vacation - vacations that have quite a value to people due to both people's limited vacation time and disposable income - then obviously the hotel hasn't impacted author credibility because if one thought the author truly lost credibility, why would they ever continue to use the book during their visit to the city?
I guess I'm looking at it in more of a relative manner - ie how relative a bad experience in a hotel is when the hotel is one of many, many places mentioned in the 100 page guide. IMO when you look at this relative to the information and quality of the book, reviewing solely on a bad hotel stay is weighing the hotel incorrectly.

Regarding if it impacted author sales. I can't equate the impact of a one star on a travel guide as I would on a fiction piece because the internet marketers have devoured the travel category. Because of that, a one star is messaging others that the particular travel guide is just another internet marketing 5 page dealio that is stuffed with whatever to appear longer. When you look at the whole picture, this author is really getting punished for the actions of many, many people and things that are completely out of his control and that he can't change. So considering the circumstances, specifically if you look at what internet marketers have done to travel, it is almost becomes more ethical to republish a high quality guide as the action of republishing it may prevent how many people from getting sucked into junk while they pass up the high quality guide thinking it is junk.
Everything in life is relative.

I appreciate everyone expressing their view on this and especially in such a civil, friendly way. These kind of discussions provide information about other's experiences in our shared retail environment and get us exploring where we see lines. That being said, everyone's line placement is their own decision; it's just nice to hear where others have theirs so, and here it goes again , it is easier to make a decision because you are able make a decision that is relative to your peers.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

EC said:


> This is a business - you have a duty to maximize your income. If you need to repub to do so, so be it. I'm delighted to see in your case it worked. Until the day you can take sanctimonious internet comments to the bank, do whatever it takes to squeeze every ounce of profit out of your work.
> 
> Ethics are overrated - especially when you are starving.


Wow. Ethics schmethics, huh? I'm glad most people don't feel this way.


----------



## MissingAlaska (Apr 28, 2014)

I think the bigger problem is the review system altogether.  When a single erroneous review can kill the sales on a well-written book, that's a problem.  When competing authors can leave these type of reviews, that's a bigger problem (I've had this happen to me - identical review on Amazon and Goodreads that inadvertently outed the author leaving it).  When authors game the system and start leaving their own reviews, that's the biggest problem. 

I don't know what the solution might be. Don't release reviews until there are five or ten of them? Update the review system to rate answers to multiple questions - quality of writing, editing, factual accuracy, story, etc?  Implementing a more complicated review system would certainly be gamed sooner than later.

At some point, you just have to say that these abuses are the cost of doing business and learn to live with them.  While we expect fairness, nothing in life is ever fair.


----------



## archaeoroutes (Oct 12, 2014)

Ironically my lowest starred book is still better selling than those of mine without reviews at all. Perhaps buyers filter out those with no reviews and read the actual reviews with a pinch of salt?


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> When you buy a book, what reviews do you look at? The five-star or the one star? Because I and just about everyone I know look at the 1 and 2 star reviews to see what's the worst someone has to say, then judge if that's a deal breaker for me or not. I don't NEED to read a 5 star review, I already want to read the book. 1 star reviews SELL books, and some readers are suspect of a book that has none.
> 
> I think your sales probably stopped because you fell off the 30 day cliff, your Also Boughts shuffled up, or something else happened you don't know and you automatically linked causation instead of correlation. A single one-star review will not kill your sales all by itself. I have a ton of 32 page Jane Austen fanfics I could link and show you that are still selling ridiculous numbers but have a single one star review.
> 
> Either way, if you continue to do this, people will notice and will say something. Some Amazon reviewers are very vigilant about their reviews, working hard on their ranking etc. If they see an author deliberately unpublishing and republishing over and over again, pretty soon your problem won't be one or two 1-star reviews. It will be an army of them.


I don't even think that usually works anymore now that Amazon owns Goodreads. I unpublished one with a 1 star review because I myself wasn't happy with the story and was sorry I'd published it. The review is still there on Goodreads right along with my more recent stories that do much better. I have no intention of ever republishing that book, but the review is there forever I guess. I should add that if I'd liked the story I'd have never unpublished. I don't pay attention to reviews. There have been too many bestsellers with bad reviews. I don't think they pack as much of a punch as authors think , but maybe in your case where there was only one.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

Someone said:


> IDK. I just think when a review is entirely based on the hotel stay, it becomes a review of the hotel and not the book just like the review that complains of download or whatever problems is not a review of the book. The reviewer is reviewing the wrong product. ( okay, I've said that, like, at least 10 times in I don't know how many ways. Where is an editor when I need one? lol )


Sure, but don't you think the readers are smart enough to know when a review is warranted or not? I believe they are. I have seen many, many reviews that were either for the wrong product, or based on something that had nothing to do with the book (trouble downloading, doesn't like the author's political views, etc). I've seen it all. I have *never* given any weight to those reviews. Most of us are capable of identifying a legitimate review.



Someone said:


> I did notice some say they would do the same because they see it being a credibility issue. If, after not liking the hotel, someone is still using the guide while on vacation - vacations that have quite a value to people due to both people's limited vacation time and disposable income - then obviously the hotel hasn't impacted author credibility because if one thought the author truly lost credibility, why would they ever continue to use the book during their visit to the city?


Indeed. You're right. If they continued to use the guide, then the hotel issue didn't impact the author's credibility--so why would the review of the same be any different?

With regard to the credibility conversation, I was involved in that conversation and would point out that that we were speaking generally, not about this book, specifically.



Someone said:


> I guess I'm looking at it in more of a relative manner - ie how relative a bad experience in a hotel is when the hotel is one of many, many places mentioned in the 100 page guide. IMO when you look at this relative to the information and quality of the book, reviewing solely on a bad hotel stay is weighing the hotel incorrectly.


Well, it was apparently relevant to the reviewer. But again, that may or may not influence other readers. It's hard to say, for sure, because I haven't read the guide and didn't see the review, but I believe most readers can tell between a valid review and a questionable one. It depends on what the review said. For example, let's say someone publishes a travel guide that paints a positive picture of a certain hotel, saying the staff were friendly and the rooms were impeccably kept. Along comes a reviewer who says they stayed there on the recommendation of the author and the staff were rude and the maids never showed up. As a reader, that would not reflect poorly on the writer in my opinion, because I know how quickly the staff at hotels turn over, and I am going to assume that the people who waited on the writer are not the same people who waited on the reviewer.

On the other hand (I'm a Libra, I am compelled to say that), let's say an author describes a hotel as the Four Seasons; a slice of heaven on earth. Along comes a reviewer who says they booked the hotel on the recommendation of the author and that when they arrived, it was more like the Bates Motel, and that when they put their room key into the door, it fell off its hinges, crushing nine of the forty rats who lived in the room--well, that's going to make me question the writer's credibility.

Again, I didn't get to see the review, but I sincerely doubt it had anything to do with the sales decreasing. I think you're giving way too much value to the power of a single bad review, and too little credit to the reader's ability to differentiate between the good and the bad.

JMO


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

ThePete said:


> A tried and true method of resurrecting your book (in case you get another 1-star), is to drown it out. Start a regular Librarything giveaway every week for two months, for example. Whatever you do, just start spraying around free copies until you get more reviews.


Spraying around review copies is a really fast way to get a bunch of one-stars.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Monique said:


> Wow. Ethics schmethics, huh? I'm glad most people don't feel this way.


There's nothing wow about it. The real wow factor would be if you didn't work in the best interest of your business because of some stpid self imposed ethical issue.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

EC said:


> There's nothing wow about it. The real wow factor would be if you didn't work in the best interest of your business because of some stpid self imposed ethical issue.


I don't think I'll ever stop being surprised by it, somehow.


----------



## busywoman (Feb 22, 2014)

I agree with others here.  Counteract it with more reviews.  Go for proof of social validation -- that your book is popular enough that lots of people are reading it.

I am much more likely to pass by a book because it only has two or three reviews, even if they are all positive.  

Whereas I don't hesitate to buy the one that has a few 1-star and 2-star reviews, but fourteen 4- or 5-star reviews.  

Anyway, half the time the 1-star reviews sound unreasonable or partisan anyway.  "Read author Y or Book Z instead of this author." Give readers some credit.  Think we can't tell who that reviewer is working for? Of course we can.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

swolf said:


> If it worked out and your sales have returned, it was probably the wise thing to do. Personally, I don't think it's unethical either way.
> 
> However, it probably wasn't very wise to post about it here. Several posters have admitted they won't hesitate to report a fellow author if they believe a wrong has occurred. I've seen books actually removed from sale by Amazon because of posts on these boards.


Just to reiterate my earlier post - I obtained express permission from KDP so all good on that front...


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2014)

Mike_Author said:


> Anyway, I just thought this made for an interesting discussion...


I don't remove brutal reviews. I just wait for the positive reviews to come in. I received some brutal reviews early on for some of my stuff. But ultimately, my sales weren't harmed by them. For example, I had my best month in August, long after the brutal reviews were posted.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> Spraying around review copies is a really fast way to get a bunch of one-stars.


You know, I hear that from time to time, but I have to disagree. Perhaps the results vary from genre to genre. In sci-fi and political/military thrillers, for example, the feedback from freebies is pretty balanced. Even when the reviews are negative, the reviewer usually gives some detailed pros and cons and not just "this sucked." In my opinion, anything that ropes a potential customer in and keeps them on your product page a little longer increases your chances of making a sale. That's why I believe a detailed, in-depth 1-star review has more value (will sell more books) than a 5-star review just gushing over the book.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

ThePete said:


> You know, I hear that from time to time, but I have to disagree. Perhaps the results vary from genre to genre. In sci-fi and political/military thrillers, for example, the feedback from freebies is pretty balanced. Even when the reviews are negative, the reviewer usually gives some detailed pros and cons and not just "this sucked." In my opinion, anything that ropes a potential customer in and keeps them on your product page a little longer increases your chances of making a sale. That's why I believe a detailed, in-depth 1-star review has more value (will sell more books) than a 5-star review just gushing over the book.


Agree. Although I think a detailed three star review will do better things for your book, we agree on the basic principle.


----------



## Scout (Jun 2, 2014)

Dolphin said:


> Is it ethical to purchase positive reviews?
> 
> To my mind, deleting negative reviews is no different from inventing positive reviews. It's the same thing: you're dishonestly manipulating the rating/review system for your own benefit. It's bad for readers, it's bad for the market, it's bad for the author if that dishonesty becomes known. It's not an accident that we don't know who the OP is, or the title of his book.


^^Exactly^^


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> Although I think a detailed three star review will do better things for your book, we agree on the basic principle.


Oh, hands down. Personally, I only read the 3-stars when I'm shopping for a book. Never give the others a second glance. If a book has no 3-star reviews, I'll skip it entirely. Doesn't matter if there are 1000 5-stars. The only exception being authors I've read before and loved. In which case, price, reviews, blurb, etc... mean nothing. My only question is: paperback or ebook?


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2014)

Adopt no policy that you would not want to see adopted universally.

Ask yourself what would happen to the functionality and usefulness of Amazon if every author republished as a new book after getting a one star review. How trustworthy would the review system be? What would it do to search functionality? What would it do to the new releases list? What would it do to the recommendation algorithms? If your action was adopted by all authors, it would effectively make Amazon useless for readers trying to find books and destroy what little faith they have left in the reviews.


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> May I ask why?


Because the 5 and 1 stars are usually too emotionally charged, one way or the other, and lack detail. Sure, some are in-depth, but I'm too lazy to sift through them all, so I skip straight to the neutral(ish) reviews.


----------



## Heather Hamilton-Senter (May 25, 2013)

JanaOnWheels said:


> May I ask why?


Someone 5 star loving it or 1 star hating it is being extremely subjective and there's no way to know if my experience will match. More considered and detailed middle of the road reviews normally give me more info to base my own purchases on.

However, I prefer to receive 5 star loving it reviews LOL


----------



## ThePete (Oct 10, 2013)

> Ah. But what if the book is too new, and there are no 3* reviews? You might be missing out on an amazing book by limiting your perusal in such a manner.


Oh no doubt, you're right. You'd think as an author myself I'd be more sympathetic!  On the other hand, with my new KU subscription it's no longer a gamble. Sometimes I won't even bother with the reviews if the description is cool.


----------



## Michael McClung (Feb 12, 2014)

> This also could be a case of misinterpreting the data.
> 
> My cat fell off the porch.
> It started raining.
> Whenever my cat falls off the porch, he makes it rain.


There's a technical term for this kind of example: reductio ad absurdum.

While I agree that correlation does not equal causation, I think many here underestimate the possible negative effects of the first review of an unknown author being 1 star. Much depends on genre. Erotica? Meh. Other categories? The consequence can certainly be killed sales.


----------



## S. Shine (Jan 14, 2013)

To me it would all depend on the quality of the review, but I doubt I'll ever go there. I recently got a 1 star review that showed the reviewer:

1] had very limited reading comprehension skills
2] or reviewed the wrong book by accident 
3] or was on some mind altering drugs
4] or, dare I say it, was simply exercising their mean streak

Either way, I'm left with a story with only one review and what a review! Needless to say, because all that takes place within the confinement of this universe is subjected to laws of rhyme and reason, sales really took off ever since. lol  

So, eh, just saying that there may be another reason why sales crashed after OP received that review. At the end of the day, I don't think it is too bad to remove a book to erase a review unless it is a well-crafted review; the only reviews that matter to both reader and writer alike. That would really be crossing the line for me, a definite no-go area.


----------



## tuxgirl (Oct 23, 2014)

One concern is that doing this actually has a few negative consequences for people who purchased the book prior to you republishing it. First, they aren't able to benefit from the updates you made (which they would've received if you had simply updated the file). Also, if the book was lendable, they lost the opportunity to lend it. In addition, they will no longer have a notification if they go to your book's product page, telling them that they've read the book already. 

Honestly, I don't like it when books that I've purchased previously are republished....


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

tuxgirl said:


> One concern is that doing this actually has a few negative consequences for people who purchased the book prior to you republishing it. First, they aren't able to benefit from the updates you made (which they would've received if you had simply updated the file). Also, if the book was lendable, they lost the opportunity to lend it. In addition, they will no longer have a notification if they go to your book's product page, telling them that they've read the book already.


Excellent points, and we should've brought them up pages ago.


----------



## MissingAlaska (Apr 28, 2014)

tuxgirl said:


> One concern is that doing this actually has a few negative consequences for people who purchased the book prior to you republishing it. First, they aren't able to benefit from the updates you made (which they would've received if you had simply updated the file).


Well, actually those who purchased it previously would NOT have received the updated file unless the author begged Amazon AND they agreed to push the revision - which, in my experience, they rarely do. Just like a printed book, once you purchase an e-copy, it is yours as is.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

michaelsnuckols said:


> Well, actually those who purchased it previously would NOT have received the updated file unless the author begged Amazon AND they agreed to push the revision - which, in my experience, they rarely do. Just like a printed book, once you purchase an e-copy, it is yours as is.


I've gotten lots of updates to books I purchased. I expect it does have to be fairly significant changes/fixes for them to push it out. Correcting a handful of typos isn't going to warrant it, anyway. And I also think their policy on this is evolving.

The other way to look at it, of course, is: if the revision is too extensive maybe it _should_ be a whole 'nother book.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

on one of my books, I have a 1-star that complains about the lack of illustrations. The blurb clearly states that this is the illustrated version, and in the author line, I list the illustrator too. But people keep voting that one-star as "most helpful" - don't ask me why.

sometimes people just don't make sense.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

beccaprice said:


> on one of my books, I have a 1-star that complains about the lack of illustrations. The blurb clearly states that this is the illustrated version, and in the author line, I list the illustrator too. But people keep voting that one-star as "most helpful" - don't ask me why.
> 
> sometimes people just don't make sense.


Maybe that reviewer's copy didn't have them for some reason. Maybe he is confused about which version he has.

As to 'helpful' votes: if I'm looking at a book listed as 'illustrated' and I see a review that says there are no illustrations, that is helpful. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing, of course, if it is accurate. This might be a case where a judicious comment is warranted -- assuring prospective customers that it is the illustrated edition as now sold and offering the reviewer a fresh copy that does have the pictures and apologizing for whatever glitch caused him to get the version without.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

originally the book was published unillustrated - it was this review that prompted me to start getting them illustrated. I have 2nd Edition listed under book information. I did post a reply to the one-star saying that it was now illustrated, and I'd love to send her a new copy if she'd get her information to me, but I never heard back.

What I can't understand is why people keep marking that one helpful.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

beccaprice said:


> originally the book was published unillustrated - it was this review that prompted me to start getting them illustrated. I have 2nd Edition listed under book information. I did post a reply to the one-star saying that it was now illustrated, and I'd love to send her a new copy if she'd get her information to me, but I never heard back.
> 
> What I can't understand is why people keep marking that one helpful.


Well, that is silly then . . . . if you have a comment there clarifying. I guess they're not reading it. Not much more you can do, I'm afraid.


----------

