# Starred Reviews Should be Disabled for 1st-Time Reviewers



## Stacey Cochran (Jun 2, 2009)

I've been writing reviews on Amazon regularly since 1999. Over the years, I've seen Amazon make so many great moves to improve the health and vibrancy of its community I'm proud to call this site one of my favorite spots on the internet.

Over the years, Amazon has instituted strategies to ban spammers and flamers and trolls, and most folks would agree these are good steps. A few years back, Amazon instituted a policy whereby you either had to have an established review history or had to have purchased a product to write a review. This largely eliminated folks who would create a bogus account only to write abusive reviews.

Later Amazon instituted the "Report Abuse" button, which relies on community votes to ban and remove abusive comments and reviews. Again, it was another ingenious improvement that has helped improve the strength of the Amazon community.

This brings me to my current suggestion.

I believe that a policy should be established that removes the option to write one- and two-star reviews from posters who have no established review history.

It only seems fair that to write a review that is totally demeaning that you have some established ethos or credibility.

Too many folks are able to "purchase" a Kindle book for free, have that count as a purchase, and then write a slanderous review. Yet, I've noticed that for a number of these "reviewers" they have no previous review credits and their reviews are essentially abusive in nature.

I would suggest removing the option to designate "stars" for reviewers who have less than five reviews to their credit. In place of 1-5 stars for these reviewers, there could be a designation that they're a "New Amazon Reviewer."

What are your thoughts?


----------



## sierra09 (Jun 20, 2009)

I actually understand what you mean. While I'm sure that not every item on Amazon agrees with every buyer, etc I have seen more 1-2 star reviews or reviews that were made with just the intent on being abusive. I saw one once where the bad review really didn't even match the product.

Your suggestion is a very good one.


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

Stacey Cochran said:


> I've been writing reviews on Amazon regularly since 1999. Over the years, I've seen Amazon make so many great moves to improve the health and vibrancy of its community I'm proud to call this site one of my favorite spots on the internet.
> 
> Over the years, Amazon has instituted strategies to ban spammers and flamers and trolls, and most folks would agree these are good steps. A few years back, Amazon instituted a policy whereby you either had to have an established review history or had to have purchased a product to write a review. This largely eliminated folks who would create a bogus account only to write abusive reviews.
> 
> ...


I haven't studied or even thought much about this problem of reviews. But wouldn't one solution be to allow the author to answer any negative review? The mere fact that a person has a history of many reviews doesn't guarantee competence. That person may still write a slanderous, insulting, unjustified review.

This is a complex and difficult subject and I will be most interested in what other, more knowledgeable folks have to say about it. Undoubtedly, there are some books that are so bad that they merit slander. But how Amazon protects both readers and authors even-handedly remains a puzzle--at least to me.


----------



## liannallama (May 29, 2009)

My first Amazon review ever (and only review for about 4 years) was a 1-star review. It was for a book that I didn't even buy (my DH got it for me). I still stand by what I said and I think my review was valid. I posted it mostly to warn people who were considering buying that particular edition. My review was not about the author or writing but the printing itself and I was highly disappointed that DH paid so much for a product that looked like dot-matrix print and such poor font quality. I hope I set expectations for anyone who might have paid full price for the book so they would not be let down like I was. You can see what I wrote here: http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Casement-Dave-Duncan/product-reviews/075924362X/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R2D6POG4MCYEFB

Maybe I should have been banned from writing this and then more people could have gotten sucked into buying a poor quality document.

Thankfully, the book is now available on Kindle so I can get and read the whole series printed in beautiful e-ink!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

sigrosenblum said:


> I haven't studied or even thought much about this problem of reviews. But wouldn't one solution be to allow the author to answer any negative review?


People -- including the author -- can comment on reviews. And an author who thoughtfully responds to politely critical comments in the reviews are doing exactly the right thing. It's a two-edged sword, though. There was one book that was given a fair, but not 5 star review. The reviewer admitted it wasn't generally her kind of book, and had some concerns with some of the editing/grammar choices. The review was actually very well written, and essentially said it was o.k. but not for her. The author responded with a very catty comment about how the reviewer had bad grammar herself and had nerve to pick on grammar in the book. I was still undecided about the book on reading the review; I decided against it when I read the author comment.

But, on balance, discerning readers can tell 'troll' reviews from honest reviews. It's probably best for authors to ignore those 'cause it's most likely exactly what the reviewer wants.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

sigrosenblum said:


> I haven't studied or even thought much about this problem of reviews. But wouldn't one solution be to allow the author to answer any negative review? The mere fact that a person has a history of many reviews doesn't guarantee competence. That person may still write a slanderous, insulting, unjustified review.
> 
> This is a complex and difficult subject and I will be most interested in what other, more knowledgeable folks have to say about it. *Undoubtedly, there are some books that are so bad that they merit slander.* But how Amazon protects both readers and authors even-handedly remains a puzzle--at least to me.


First of all, no book deserves "slander," which in itself is a nasty and vicious act. There's a vast difference between expressing the poor quality of a book and slandering it.

In general, it's a no win situation for authors to respond to such things. If they are so clearly unfair, then you have to presume that most customers are smart enough to figure that out as well. An author may respond to rational, possibly merited criticism, but if the criticism is so mean or way off base that you want to strangle the person who posted it, you're better off abstaining from comment because people will more likely look down upon you as the author for your anger at a negative than at the person who provoked you.

Why isn't the review system set up so that if a review and/or a reviewer gets a certain percentage of negative votes, the review gets looked at or deleted and the reviewer sanctioned or banned. The kind of trolls we're talking about are pretty easy to spot, and they could almost be dealt with through some automated triggers built into the code.


----------



## BP Myers (Jun 7, 2009)

Stacey Cochran said:


> Too many folks are able to "purchase" a Kindle book for free, have that count as a purchase, and then write a slanderous review.


One wonders if they'd paid a reasonable price for the work, reflecting the time and effort the author put into it (and assuming it wasn't worth exactly what they paid - nothing) whether they'd be less inclined to leave a scathing review.

But I've seen lots of A-list authors who get top price for their books get scathing reviews of the one- and two-star variety as well. Though I may disagree with them, provided the review is well-written and regardless whether they've written others, it probably adds to the discussion.

PS: The written review could not be "slanderous."


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

Greg Banks said:


> First of all, no book deserves "slander," which in itself is a nasty and vicious act. There's a vast difference between expressing the poor quality of a book and slandering it.
> 
> In general, it's a no win situation for authors to respond to such things. If they are so clearly unfair, then you have to presume that most customers are smart enough to figure that out as well. An author may respond to rational, possibly merited criticism, but if the criticism is so mean or way off base that you want to strangle the person who posted it, you're better off abstaining from comment because people will more likely look down upon you as the author for your anger at a negative than at the person who provoked you.
> 
> Why isn't the review system set up so that if a review and/or a reviewer gets a certain percentage of negative votes, the review gets looked at or deleted and the reviewer sanctioned or banned. The kind of trolls we're talking about are pretty easy to spot, and they could almost be dealt with through some automated triggers built into the code.


Good thoughts, Greg. But when I "endorsed" slander, I was exaggerating for comic effect. Slander--to speak literally--is a crime.


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> People -- including the author -- can comment on reviews. And an author who thoughtfully responds to politely critical comments in the reviews are doing exactly the right thing. It's a two-edged sword, though. There was one book that was given a fair, but not 5 star review. The reviewer admitted it wasn't generally her kind of book, and had some concerns with some of the editing/grammar choices. The review was actually very well written, and essentially said it was o.k. but not for her. The author responded with a very catty comment about how the reviewer had bad grammar herself and had nerve to pick on grammar in the book. I was still undecided about the book on reading the review; I decided against it when I read the author comment.
> 
> But, on balance, discerning readers can tell 'troll' reviews from honest reviews. It's probably best for authors to ignore those 'cause it's most likely exactly what the reviewer wants.


Thanks, Ann. You see how little I know?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

sigrosenblum said:


> Good thoughts, Greg. But when I "endorsed" slander, I was exaggerating for comic effect. Slander--to speak literally--is a crime.


It's also a 'spoken' defamation of character. . . .written, it's libel.

Perhaps we should move down to the Grammar Peeves thread. . .


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> It's also a 'spoken' defamation of character. . . .written, it's libel.
> 
> Perhaps we should move down to the Grammar Peeves thread. . .


Ann, if we are getting legalistic here (friendly smile) then "truth is a perfect defense" against both. Thanks to both you and Greg for your take on this knotty subject. I should really learn more. But there are only so many hours...


----------



## maxfactor (Feb 6, 2009)

As you can tell, I'm not one to write a review. I'm usually a lurker. Once in a great while I feel the "passion" to write one but I think I'm too dramatic, rathen than constructive. I tend to write to the author. The idea of limiting my stars would be offensive to me. Whether or not I've written a review before, or even paid for the literature, has absolutely no relevance on my opinion. That would be like telling me I should only stick to the KB beginner board cause I haven't contributed anything. I love this board and love my Kindle. I appreciate everyone who takes the time to answer questions and I refer everyone I know to this board. I think anyone who wants to review should be able to. People who completely slam, or are rude to authors don't matter anyway. It's one thing to say you don't like a book and why. It's another to say that the author has no business writing at all.


----------



## Stacey Cochran (Jun 2, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> People -- including the author -- can comment on reviews. And an author who thoughtfully responds to politely critical comments in the reviews are doing exactly the right thing. It's a two-edged sword, though. There was one book that was given a fair, but not 5 star review. The reviewer admitted it wasn't generally her kind of book, and had some concerns with some of the editing/grammar choices. The review was actually very well written, and essentially said it was o.k. but not for her. The author responded with a very catty comment about how the reviewer had bad grammar herself and had nerve to pick on grammar in the book. I was still undecided about the book on reading the review; I decided against it when I read the author comment.
> 
> But, on balance, discerning readers can tell 'troll' reviews from honest reviews. It's probably best for authors to ignore those 'cause it's most likely exactly what the reviewer wants.


Ann, your response is one of the most articulate I've read on this topic. I have chosen to never respond directly to an attack (no matter how well-intended) on the quality of my writing. I don't know... I've just seen authors do that using the "Comment on this Review" feature and it always seemed a little petty to me... and other times it turned in to a flame war.

That said, I've gotten some downright mean reviews of CLAWS the past week or two... reviews that critiqued aspects of the writing that are just simply inaccurate (incorrect pronoun usage, bad grammar, etc.) and I've been tempted to respond.

However, I haven't and won't because of the above-stated reasons.

It just seems like a flawed system where someone can create a bogus account just to write one nasty review. And trolls on Amazon are smart enough nowadays to attack seemingly legitimate aspects of the writing, even if it's completely fabricated.

I think a good compromise would be to designate such newbie reviewers simply a "New Amazon Reviewer" and disable the starring function for them until they've earned a few helpful votes or written X number of reviews.

Doesn't that seem reasonable? Or am I way off base?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

It's not a bad idea... Not only to remove malicious 1 or 2 star reviews, but also to keep people from creating accounts to post glowing 5-star reviews for themselves or their friends.


----------



## BP Myers (Jun 7, 2009)

Stacey Cochran said:


> That said, I've gotten some downright mean reviews of CLAWS the past week or two... reviews that critiqued aspects of the writing that are just simply inaccurate (incorrect pronoun usage, bad grammar, etc.) and I've been tempted to respond.


I think you are guilty of the crime of being . . . human.

Took a moment to read the reviews in question and found not a single review that attacked "you," but some did question aspects of the writing. But even the less flattering reviews said the book started out really good, and the "worst" review said that even with the problems, they couldn't stop reading . . .

Think you need to take a step back, re-read the reviews as if they were written about someone else, and then go back to the manuscript to see if there isn't perhaps a glimmer of truth in at least some of what they're saying.

But whatever you do, do NOT respond unless it's with a thank you, and a sincere one at that. Whatever you think of them, these are your readers. They are worth more than gold.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Is it just me, or does Amazon seem to be showing favoritism to certain authors? Or are they merely being inconsistent? You can visit the sales page of nearly any book with a number of reviews on Amazon and you'll find unwarranted negative reviews. I am a stalwart supporter of allowing readers to have their say even if it is a negative review, especially since negative reviews can sometimes be the most helpful of all.

In the case of reviews that are clearly out of bounds and fabricated, I think those reviews should be removed altogether. In fact, some of the authors I know who have written brilliant books have had their books attacked by trolls who have not read the book but are on a mission to destroy the author. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Amazon does not remove these reviews, even when it is clear that they are written only to smear a book.

There is an author who had caught the ire of some readers for his questionable promotional tactics. Incidentally, when I clicked on the link to visit the author's sales page, his book had negative votes on his reviews as well as comments on his 5 star reviews. Lo and behold a day later, the negative votes are gone as well as the comments. What happened?

According to one reader who reviewed the author's book, the author changed his ASIN# in order to get rid of her negative review. I didn't even know this was possible. But somehow this author has found a way to lose his negative votes and comments. It is obvious that this could not happen without Amazon's help. This author is gaming the system to sell his book and Amazon is allowing him to do it. This is one of the most egregious things I've seen yet on Amazon. I understand the beef about the 1 star reviews. But this situation is no less offensive to me. Seems to me that if all authors whose book is sold on Amazon have to "take their medicine" and live with negative reviews, why is this author being protected when Amazon has made it clear that they are not in the business of removing negative reviews or comments even when it is clear that said reviews have no merit?

After having joined in several worthy campaigns to join forces with other authors to help remove the fake reviews and bogus book discussions by trolls on Amazon (and to no avail I might add) why is Amazon protecting a book that has had legitimate dissenting reviews? This is the height of hypocrisy and infuriates me to end. I do not know the author personally, but I did read the discussions that took place a few days ago on Amazon forum where said author blasted several people for scrutinizing his unethical marketing practices (hiding behind an alias to sell his book and attacking the readers who didn't enjoy his book). I am confused by this situation because authors who have not tried to deceive people to read their books (and have written brilliant books) have had their works unfairly attacked by trolls while this author continues to operate at will using questionable practices to not only promote but write his books. This situation really has my brain in a knot.


----------



## hackeynut (Dec 16, 2008)

It is sort of a tough job, especially when Amazon is probably getting thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of reviews posted every day on a number of books and other items.  I'm not sure cutting down the start ratings for first time reviewers is the answer.

Lets face it, any of us wh review at Amazon probably started because we read one book that got a strong reaction out of us.  For me it was "In the Dark of the Night" by John Saul, quite possibly the worst book I've ever read by a major author.  I had to share my one star review with the world because the book pissed me off that badly.


I looked back at the reviews of only books since that first review can came up with numbers.

5*- 3
4*- 4
3*- 5
2*- 1
1*- 1

Which I think is a fairly decent spread.  And honestly, I tend to give books I dislike 3's if I think someone else may enjoy them.  There are problems with the review system, but Amazon hasn't bothered to fix the problem of people one starring an item because they didn't get it from the marketplace or they think the price is too high or they just want people to read it.

You have to take all reviews with a grain of salt.  I hated the English Patient, but it won best picture.  What do any of us know?


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

Reviews are basically opinions -- to tell someone that their opinions do not count unless they are of a "suitable" (i.e. 3 star or above) nature would seem, to me, not to be all that conducive to garnering a true picture of what the readers feel about a particular book.

From a reader's perspective, I've read a number of the authors participating in this thread, and I've read most of the reviews of their works -- and I've yet to see one that is totally and completely out of line. I've seen a number (1 star, 5 star and in between) that I may not necessarily agree with -- but I do see them as being viable personal opinions -- just what, IMHO, a review _should_ be.

Amazon provides suitable methods for dealing with reviews that are totally out of line, slanderous or libelous. No further restriction is needed. By attempting to limit the 1 and 2 star reviews all you will really accomplish is to force the system from a 5 star process to a 3 star process. To try and tell a reader that their opinion shouldn't count is pretty presumptuous on the part of an author.

Bottom line is give your readers some credit -- even the new ones -- if someone has gone to looking at the reviews then there is ALREADY some interest there -- most readers are intelligent enough to recognize reviews that are out of line. Let's face it, we've all seen academy award movies we though stunk and ones panned by the critics that we loved -- it'll be no different with books.


----------



## Rhiathame (Mar 12, 2009)

I thought about this over the last day or so and wanted to share my 2 cents. I would not be happy if I was not allowed to submit a starred review unless I had a proven track record. I am a fairly busy gal and as such I have to feel fairly strongly about a product (book or other) in order to take the time to post a review because when I do, I put some thought into it. As such I might not have enough of a track record to qualify to submit a starred review. When I do review products I tend to be constructive and not vindictive for products that I don't think measured up and on the other side of the coin, I try not to be overly gushing when I think a product is great.

I do however understand where you are coming from. I am not sure that there is a solution but honestly, I don't think restricting the ability to review is the right one. It seems to me from reading reviews, that most people can tell when some one is being vindictive or the review is "staged". I don't know what the answer is though.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Rhiathame said:


> I thought about this over the last day or so and wanted to share my 2 cents. I would not be happy if I was not allowed to submit a starred review unless I had a proven track record. I am a fairly busy gal and as such I have to feel fairly strongly about a product (book or other) in order to take the time to post a review because when I do, I put some thought into it. As such I might not have enough of a track record to qualify to submit a starred review. When I do review products I tend to be constructive and not vindictive for products that I don't think measured up and on the other side of the coin, I try not to be overly gushing when I think a product is great.
> 
> I do however understand where you are coming from. I am not sure that there is a solution but honestly, I don't think restricting the ability to review is the right one. It seems to me from reading reviews, that most people can tell when some one is being vindictive or the review is "staged". I don't know what the answer is though.


Riathame,

In Amazon's defense, I believe they feel the same way you do. It's not that hard to tell if a review has merit or not. It's up to the consumer to use the review as a means to help them decide on purchasing an item. Discretion (and the power) still lies with the consumer not the reviewer.


----------



## Stacey Cochran (Jun 2, 2009)

BP Myers said:


> Think you need to take a step back, re-read the reviews as if they were written about someone else....
> 
> But whatever you do, do NOT respond unless it's with a thank you, and a sincere one at that. Whatever you think of them, these are your readers. They are worth more than gold.


Yours is sage advice, BP. I think you're absolutely right.


----------



## Stacey Cochran (Jun 2, 2009)

Tip10 said:


> Bottom line is give your readers some credit -- even the new ones -- if someone has gone to looking at the reviews then there is ALREADY some interest there -- most readers are intelligent enough to recognize reviews that are out of line. Let's face it, we've all seen academy award movies we though stunk and ones panned by the critics that we loved -- it'll be no different with books.


Your review of The Colorado Sequence is one of my favorite reviews. You pointed out the positive, pointed out some things that could work better, and came to a fair and balanced conclusion that was mostly hopeful.

And the last name/first name issue is definitely something I need to get straight in my writing.

I mean, that's good advice. I wish all readers could give good, solid, constructive feedback like this.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

Stacey Cochran said:


> Your review of The Colorado Sequence is one of my favorite reviews. You pointed out the positive, pointed out some things that could work better, and came to a fair and balanced conclusion that was mostly hopeful.
> 
> And the last name/first name issue is definitely something I need to get straight in my writing.
> 
> I mean, that's good advice. I wish all readers could give good, solid, constructive feedback like this.


Thanks, I try to call them as I see them. Glad it was helpful. 
Its a very good story -- a little polish and it'll easily slide into the great story category -- Claws is on the list but the list is sooo long anymore (and growing ever longer faster than I can read 'em) -- there are a number of very good indies out here that I never knew about PK (Pre Kindle), you included.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2009)

Actually, as a reviewer, I personally would like the option to not use stars at all.  I think the star system is imperfect because it is used incorrectly.  For example, in my mind, 3 stars would be an average book.  It's a GOOD book.  It does what it is suppose to do.  A 4 star would be exceptional.  And 5 stars is a masterpiece.  But to others, 3 stars is crap and anything remotely "good" is 4 or 5 stars.  I sometimes find myself having to give 4 stars when I really meant "3.5" because you HAVE to assign something.  

I'd like the chance to not have to leave a star rating and let the review speak for itself.


----------



## Stacey Cochran (Jun 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Actually, as a reviewer, I personally would like the option to not use stars at all. I think the star system is imperfect because it is used incorrectly. For example, in my mind, 3 stars would be an average book. It's a GOOD book. It does what it is suppose to do. A 4 star would be exceptional. And 5 stars is a masterpiece. But to others, 3 stars is crap and anything remotely "good" is 4 or 5 stars. I sometimes find myself having to give 4 stars when I really meant "3.5" because you HAVE to assign something.
> 
> I'd like the chance to not have to leave a star rating and let the review speak for itself.


I feel the exact same way. When I write a review, I usually draft it in Word and then copy-and-paste it over to Amazon. Sometimes this will take a day or two of tweaking to get it just right.

By the time I upload it to Amazon, I just wish the whole star issue wasn't even there and only the words of the review mattered.

Let readers decide from what a review says, rather than some arbitrary star-rating system that 80% of us ignore anyways (because it's so flawed) when reading a review.


----------



## sigrosenblum (Dec 22, 2008)

Tip10 said:


> Reviews are basically opinions -- to tell someone that their opinions do not count unless they are of a "suitable" (i.e. 3 star or above) nature would seem, to me, not to be all that conducive to garnering a true picture of what the readers feel about a particular book.
> 
> From a reader's perspective, I've read a number of the authors participating in this thread, and I've read most of the reviews of their works -- and I've yet to see one that is totally and completely out of line. I've seen a number (1 star, 5 star and in between) that I may not necessarily agree with -- but I do see them as being viable personal opinions -- just what, IMHO, a review _should_ be.
> 
> ...


Much of this strikes me as sound. It prompted me to reflect on how I buy books on Amazon. And, quite often, I discount negative reviews that don't have a solid ring to them.

As David Ogilvy, the advertising genius, said: The consumer is not a dope. She is your wife! Perhaps we authors ought to trust readers more. They can tell the sensible from the silly.


----------



## back2nature (Jun 15, 2009)

Very interesting subject. Here's my two cents worth. When looking over books to buy, I absolutely always read over the reviews to see other readers thoughts about the book. I also do that for most anything I am thinking of buying, whether it's a book, a pair of shoes, a vacuum, or a HDTV. That's the power of the internet, that we didn't have in the old days, being able to search for reviews at the touch of our fingertips. But one thing I know, that people's opinions are like noses, everyone has one. Whatever is being reviewed, there are always going to be some people that will hate the product and give a negative review. Always. That, I take into consideration. In my mind, I may toss those opinions out. If the reviewer becomes mean, I will not consider his review at all. I will look at the majority of the opinions and see how many people were actually happy with the book (or product). Also, what they had to say may help me decide if it's the type of book I am interested in. After considering their reviews, I may also try something that I may not normally get.

I understand not wanting to have any negative reviews, you've put a lot of hard work into it, but as far as reading books go, everyone has a different taste. Gladly, that's why there are so many books out there to choose from. We may read a book that is not our cup of tea, but someone else absolutely loves it. That's okay. We are all different people. I believe we readers are smart and can weed out the nasty reviews from the decent reviews.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> Actually, as a reviewer, I personally would like the option to not use stars at all.


Same here. I am uncomfortable with the star rating system, but I use it in my reviews because I have no choice.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

> According to one reader who reviewed the author's book, the author changed his ASIN# in order to get rid of her negative review. I didn't even know this was possible. But somehow this author has found a way to lose his negative votes and comments. It is obvious that this could not happen without Amazon's help.


Kevis,

This is neither a trick or some sort of collusion with Amazon. It simply means that the author deleted the old edition of his book and published a new edition, which would automatically create a new ASIN. It is the potential negative side effect of being able to publish a book directly through Amazon. If one were publishing from a third party company, such changes would be essentially impossible. But if you're publishing through Amazon's services, you can pretty much delete a book whenever you want for any reason, including to shake bad reviews.


----------



## sierra09 (Jun 20, 2009)

Hmm, I'll have to look into that. I accidently created a new edition instead of a revision and have not been able to get Createspace or Amazon to delete the one I had to retire to allow for the new one.

I do agree that the star system doesn't seem always fair. Because there's no way to include a rating in between a 3 and a 4 or so forth.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

sierra09 said:


> Hmm, I'll have to look into that. I accidently created a new edition instead of a revision and have not been able to get Createspace or Amazon to delete the one I had to retire to allow for the new one.
> 
> I do agree that the star system doesn't seem always fair. Because there's no way to include a rating in between a 3 and a 4 or so forth.


Actually, you bring up a good point. I think the book in question was a Kindle book. One can do as I said for Kindle books, but it is harder with other books, as pretty much everything ever listed stays listed. The retired edition should at least show out of print or something eventually, though, I'd think.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Greg Banks said:


> Kevis,
> 
> This is neither a trick or some sort of collusion with Amazon. It simply means that the author deleted the old edition of his book and published a new edition, which would automatically create a new ASIN. It is the potential negative side effect of being able to publish a book directly through Amazon. If one were publishing from a third party company, such changes would be essentially impossible. But if you're publishing through Amazon's services, you can pretty much delete a book whenever you want for any reason, including to shake bad reviews.


Greg,

Thanks for enlightening me. I was of the belief that an author could request Amazon to remove one's Kindle book. I didn't realize that power lied with the author. I also wouldn't think that Amazon would allow authors to engage in this practice without impunity. I think I've lost even more respect for that author now that I know how he got rid of his negative reviews. What is interesting to note is that he didn't lose his two 5 star reviews. I'm guessing this must mean that he is the author of his own 5 star reviews as well.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

> I'm guessing this must mean that he is the author of his own 5 star reviews as well.


Not necessarily. It could mean his book found new readers, or that some previous readers re-posted their reviews.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

rjkeller said:


> Not necessarily. It could mean his book found new readers, or that some previous readers re-posted their reviews.


RJ, you are correct that he could have gotten his previous readers to repost their reviews. But one of the accusations that led to the author creating the new edition of his book was that he was posting his own reviews in the first place. Now that the negative comments and votes are gone from his only 2 5 star reviews, this leads me to believe that there may be truth to the accusations. Now I have to wonder if the other accusations about him cutting and pasting text from other books off of the internet to write his books are also be true.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

> I was of the belief that an author could request Amazon to remove one's Kindle book. I didn't realize that power lied with the author.


You can't remove the book from DTP, but all one has to do is uncheck the box next to the price in DTP in order to remove it from Amazon. As for "allowing" authors to do this sort of thing, Amazon has empowered the Kindle self publishers with the ability to directly control their content, so they can't possibly monitor that sort of thing in general, and certainly not in any way in which they'd know who was republishing for legitimate reasons and who was not.


----------



## redshift1 (Jun 20, 2009)

Due to "Astro Turfing" Amazon's reviews are no longer valid or reliable.  Multiple reviews from the same IP address should be prohibited and reviews should be limited to actual Amazon customers who purchased the specific product. One of the authors who uses these dishonest methods has a new
book released in the last month, it already has 30-40 phony "could not put it down read it in one night" reviews. 

Amazon, knowing that reviews can drive sales seem unwilling to upset the apple cart.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

This is an interesting topic!

Although I'm not sure it should be implemented, I like the suggestion that all stars would be disabled for a first time reviewer, even the five star. It's obvious to me that when there is only one review, it's frequently either by the author (I've seen that) or by a FOA (friend of Author), and so is as meaningless as a negative review can be by someone who just wants to be spiteful.

As for the bad reviews, I think it's worth noting that people are more likely to take action when they hate something than when they love something. When I was at my TQM (Total Quality Management) classes, they said we only needed one survey question for customers: "What Did I Do Wrong?" People are more than happy to tell you, LOL! So there may be people moved to review a product because they found it so dreadful. (I'm talking about all products, not just books.)

In the Accessories Board, we've been discussing the situation where Oberon changed the buttons on their Kindle Covers based on feedback that people didn't like them. Turns out maybe that was skewed, it was just that the people who liked the buttons never thought to tell Oberon. So, while there are no doubt people who want to cause trouble, not all one review people would be troublemakers, maybe they're just human.

Good discussion!

Betsy


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> Here is an interesting situation:
> 
> I received a request from someone wanting to send me a free book to get a review posted on Amazon. I agreed because the book sounded like something I would like to read.
> 
> ...


I think your system is a fair one and exactly like my own. I just finished reading a book for an author this morning that I am supposed to write a review for. However, I didn't enjoy the book and would be forced to write a 2 star review. So instead of posting a negative review, I am sending an email to the author to let her know my feelings. If the author still wants me to post my review, then I will do so. But at least she isn't being blindsided with a bad review especially when its obivous that she wanted to receive a positive one.

On the other hand, I prefer to get honest reviews and if a reader doesn't like my book, they have every right to post a negative review whether it's a 1 or 2 star review. I don't mind getting a bad review so long as it isn't a personal attack. In fact, I find that the negative reviews are the ones that I learn the most from. I think every author could use a dose of humility every now and then to keep them on their toes. I feel sorry for the authors who can't take a negative review, because I can't see how they expect to grow if they think everything they write is perfect.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

RedAdept,

I think your points are absolutely valid. An author cannot realistically think he/she can put out a book for the public to read and not face some kind of criticism. What is interesting to note is that you mention that you understand that stylistic preferences are different than sloppy writing and bad grammar. Authors would do well to learn from such insight from their readers especially since the reason why a reader goes through the trouble of investing their precious time into reading a book is to enjoy themselves. Criticism only usually occurs when something interferes with their enjoyment of the story. A wise author will take that criticism and use it as fuel to improve their books.


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

If I purchased a book I want the option to review it and give it how ever many stars I want, period.  I don't want any limitations on either my opinion or rating.

The quality of my opinion will determine whether anyone pays attention to it or not.  As a purchaser, I always read the 1 and 2 star reviews.  If they are a bunch of one liners like this book sucked or this book cost more than $9.99 @#!^&! Amazon, I ignore them.  If the review is detailed and points out flaws in the book and why that particular reviewer didn't care for the book, yeah I will weight that opinion with the glowing opinions.


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

I've only ever given one review on Amazon so far, admittedly as much through laziness as through feeling somewhat "unworthy" (not really the word I want, but it'll do) to write reviews that will do a book justice most of the time, combined with "why bother" for books that have lots of reviews already.

But I'd hate to think that my one book review would not have been worthy of meriting the 5 stars I gave it, just because it was my first, and so far only, book review. In fact, my first, and so far only, book review is still listed on the left hand side of said book as one of the 3 "most helpful" reviews with a whopping 4 (LOL) recommends to it, out of 29 total reviews. I'm kinda proud of that.

Mike deserved to get my first, and so far only, book review on In Her Name (Omnibus Edition).


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I just gave an author interview to Stacy Cochran at Onlinebookreview.org, where I discussed the power of the reader review (which is different than of course the traditionally sought review). Allow me to repost that small section here.

"*ONLINE BOOK REVIEW*: What are your thoughts regarding online books and today's emerging writer?

*EDWARD C. PATTERSON*: I encourage writers to write and, if their book is ready for prime time, to publish. Statistics state there's some 100,000 titles published annually in the US, so a tidal wave of new unknown authors won't make those that are out there less new or more unknown. This industry is not one that has competition. For every book a reader selects, there isn't a loser among the non-selected. The winner is the reader. Yeah! Readers not only have a wider and more cost-effective selection of titles, they also have more power than the old fashion acquisition editor does. In traditional publishing, the first obstacle for authors was getting through to that great rubber reject stamp wielding editor who sat in a room filled with in-boxes and slush piles. Now, it is the reader that commands the success of an author. If the readers embrace a book, regardless of quality (some things never change), it'll take off. Buzz is more important than cocktail meetings at Sardis. Bookshelves in Barnes & Noble are a side dish, while Oprah's couch is a lottery ticket. Emerging writers must do something that they may not have even considered before, but they must now consider it. They must write a novel that engages a reader (just one) enough that that reader will return to your next book and tell someone else about your work. It's a mighty obligation. With Indie publishing we no longer have that rubber stamp of rejection. We have the indelible public label of an Amazon reader book review. *Five stars or one-star*, it is more rewarding or damning than any rejection letter a writer can hang on the proverbial wall of shame and regret."

Thanks again, Stacey
Edward C. Patterson


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Bumped, because we seem to be bumping a lot of old threads today, and I thought this one might be fun.


Fred,
Are you having fun? I am so gonna tell MOM that you are being mean to me.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Bumped, because we seem to be bumping a lot of old threads today, and I thought this one might be fun.


You couldn't find an older one to reanimate?


----------



## C. Michael Wells (Feb 26, 2014)

vrabinec said:


> This was the oldest one that had the potential to stir up something good. I'm waiting for telracs to come in here and blow the thread up.


I will henceforth remember you as Necro Bump. Would probably work as a pen name if you'd like it. I promise I wont use it. Here, I was all about to reply to a post and bam, another dead post has risen. Its Lazerus day around here.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

I skimmed through all the replies on this thread and one thing I didn't see mentioned.

People review things OTHER THAN BOOKS.

Kind of narcissistic of us to think of purchases and reviews only in terms of books.  People buy items from Amazon every day, and often--usually if the item is either very good or very bad--they want to leave a review and share their experience with others.  Why should that be limited?  If I'm looking at something that I might buy, I want meaningful comments and opinions on the product.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> This was the oldest one that had the potential to stir up something good. I'm waiting for telracs to come in here and blow the thread up.


I am waiting on MOM to get you.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Bumped, because we seem to be bumping a lot of old threads today, and I thought this one might be fun.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Killing Locking thread as OP is no longer active here and cannot respond to comments. Thanks for understanding.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------

