# Konrath defends fake reviews



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

http://www.jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/enough-already.html

My thoughts. This may be the first time I disagree with Konrath. Of course it's "ok" to to post a one-star review on Amazon because Amazon allows it. But that argument is weak. What people are upset about is the intent of the person who posts a one-star review to try and hurt another competing author. Or the person who buys reviews to try and sell more books. Sure, it's "legal" because Amazon allows it happen, but that doesn't make it ok.

We're allowed to be upset about intent. Intent to harm or to not play fairly.


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

*sigh* 
I'm tired of the mindset that leaving a 1star review must be because the reviewer is jealous, malicious, or a jerk. 
Some reviewers leave them because *gasp* _they didn't like the book_. 
No agenda. Just using the review system the way it's set up. Giving their opinion.

You don't want all 5 stars because it's suspicious. 
A 1-star review gives your reviews credibility.
You should never leave a 1 star because it's malicious.
You shouldn't leave a 5-star review because it looks suspicious. 
Poor books will be sunk by bad reviews. 
Good books will be raised up by good reviews.

How is the review system supposed to WORK if no one will use it the way it's supposed to be used? 
Leave a review based on your opinion of the book, and the reasons you did or didn't like it. Rate it on a scale of 1 to 5. 
How is that wrong? How is that hard to understand?

Am I missing something?


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Agreed. There is absolutely no excuse to post a bad review just to harm another author. The mindset behind an act like that is pitiful beyond belief. The only reason for a poor review is a poor book, period.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

Konrath seems to be missing a crucial difference, one so huge I'm not sure how he _can _be missing it. People who give fake reviews are *lying *- they're saying, "I read this and loved it," when they didn't. (There are, I'm sure, some paid reviewers who actually do read the book, and actually do love it. But, at least in the case of services like the one in the NY Times article, the author is paying them to lie, even if the end result actually ends up being honest. Intent matters.) People who give one-star reviews are giving their honest impressions of the book. (And if they're not - for example, in the case of the author who was giving other authors in his genre intentionally malicious one-star reviews - they're as bad as the fake five-star reviewers.)

Either that, or he sees leaving a negative review of a book you didn't like as being as unethical as paying someone to lie about your book. If that's the case, we're simply in disagreement. I don't see giving negative reviews as unethical.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

There must be a lowest score, if not an F, then a D.  If scoring were reduced to thumbs up or thumbs down, think of how bad that would be much of the time.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

Intent is everything. That needs to be clear or a discussion like this gets us nowhere.

If I give someone a five star rating, it's because the book blew me away. If I ding it with a one star review, I read it and was disappointed. 

If I were to do either of the above to either puff up my own book, or diminish someone elses, it is unethical, an abuse of the review system.

That part isn't rocket science. Sorting out the honest reviews from the sock puppet nonsense is, of course, another matter. Just need to have care with the assumptions.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

The thing is, leaving one star reviews on books that directly compete with your own book is not allowed on Amazon, according to their Review Guidelines.

It's not allowed. If you do it, using a sock puppet, you are still breaking Amazon rules.

Sorry if Konrath wants to defend it. It's still not allowed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2012)

You know what? I think Konrath needs to take his own advice and get over himself. That has to be one of the most ridiculous justifications for fake reviews I have ever read.

So because Amazon allows real customers to state negative opinions, it is acceptable to create a fake account, pretend to be someone else, and post fake reviews? 

And it isn't fraud because nobody was hurt? Huh? It wasn't harm on the level of murder, and therefore nobody has a right to complain? Is murder the standard for bad behavior now? I mean, so long as nobody losing an eye, it is fair to do? Is THAT Konrath's argument?

For someone who thinks the rest of us are overreacting, he sure doth protest a great deal.


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Sigh.  The bigger issue for me is Konrath doesn't get to one week rant about wanting people to get over the whole reviews issue and stop talking about it and the next week, oh yeah, want to talk about it.

When he stops insisting on being the exception to every rule, including his own, I'll pay more attention mmkay?


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Stop talking about it! Really, stop it! I mean it now, we are not to talk about it anymore.

Wait, where are you going? I want to tell you some more to stop talking about it.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

I agree with Joe - people who leave fake reviews suck but so what? As a reviewer I don't leave 1-star reviews because if a book is that bad I quit reading, toss it, and forget about it. As a writer I've gotten a fair number of 1-star reviews. Some have been instructive, some are not. My favorite 1-star reviews are the ones given because the book is a novella instead of a full-length novel, even though the Product Description clearly states it is a novella and gives a page count. I read 1-star reviews and if they say, "this book sucked, I hated it" I ignore them but if it is substantive then I factor that into my decision.

I am also not upset by "sock puppets" and bought reviews. They rarely tell me anything persuasive that I didn't find out from the sample. I think it's all a tempest in a teapot. People are always going to try to find a way to game the system, whatever the system is. There's too much to do to worry about jerks.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jimkukral said:


> http://www.jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/enough-already.html
> 
> My thoughts. This may be the first time I disagree with Konrath. Of course it's "ok" to to post a one-star review on Amazon because Amazon allows it. But that argument is weak. What people are upset about is the intent of the person who posts a one-star review to try and hurt another competing author. Or the person who buys reviews to try and sell more books. Sure, it's "legal" because Amazon allows it happen, but that doesn't make it ok.
> 
> We're allowed to be upset about intent. Intent to harm or to not play fairly.


I think he is much less defending fake reviews than attacking the people who are forming a group and writing that NSPHP letter/petition to attack specific other writers.

It is quite an over-reaction to three specific authors being named for having either bought reviews or faked them and I have to wonder why it is so extreme. And the same authors who wrote the "petition" ignore the fact that there is little difference in that and doing "fake" blurbs recommending a novel you've never read--which most of the authors who signed the letter had done. All a bit hypocritical to in my point of view.

And yes, here we are talking about it again when we were all tired of the subject two weeks ago. No more for me. I'm done.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Stop talking about it! Really, stop it! I mean it now, we are not to talk about it anymore.
> 
> Wait, where are you going? I want to tell you some more to stop talking about it.


And here I've been trying to tell myself to stop reading about it! (And I'm helpless. I can refrain from commenting, but I can't refrain from reading the comments.)


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2012)

Only those ones used to defend fake reviews so much who also do it, but wasn't caught yet. I just checked Konrath's reviews and already spotted few "I review only Blake Crouch or Konrath books with 5 stars" reviewers. So I'm not surprised on his attitude at all. Its very easy to spot fake ones if you know what to check in reviews.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)




----------



## R.A. Hobbs (Jun 6, 2011)

Oooh!  Dancing chimps! *happy claps*


----------



## Lissie (May 26, 2011)

Victorine said:


> The thing is, leaving one star reviews on books that directly compete with your own book is not allowed on Amazon, according to their Review Guidelines.
> 
> It's not allowed. If you do it, using a sock puppet, you are still breaking Amazon rules.
> 
> Sorry if Konrath wants to defend it. It's still not allowed.


Do you have a link for that - I can't see where its forbidden here http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-reviews-guidelines I have given genuine 1 star reviews to other books in my niche because I thought they were appalling, I did that to save the readers - not to promote my own books


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Dalya said:


>


But I don't want to


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Lissie said:


> Do you have a link for that - I can't see where its forbidden here http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-reviews-guidelines I have given genuine 1 star reviews to other books in my niche because I thought they were appalling, I did that to save the readers - not to promote my own books


It's on the page you're linking to.

*What's not allowed*

Promotional content:
• Advertisements, promotional material or repeated posts that make the same point excessively
• _Sentiments by or on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product *or a directly competing product* _(including reviews by publishers, manufacturers, or third-party merchants selling the product)


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

As an author I would not leave a review about anyone's book.  It's a simple conflict of interest and like all conflicts of interest it will lead to something bad.  When I worked for Dell, we were told not to discuss, recommend or bad mouth competitor's products with customers because of this conflict.  I create books.  I am not going to post to the internets that author X's book will give you herpes or author B's book is like a chocolate orgasm.  It will bite you in the ass later no matter what you say.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> It's on the page you're linking to.
> 
> *What's not allowed*
> 
> ...


I have spoken directly with Amazon on this. Books in the same genre are not competing products in the same way one desktop computer is to another, for example. People compare computers and buy the ONE that they like and has the best customer feedback. With books, they will likely buy both if they have good feedback. They don't buy just one. So, I think this is not correct. As an author, you can still be a reader - and as such, you may continue to post honest, ethical reviews.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm very confused by Mr. Konrath's opinion of one star reviews.  Does he seriously believe all are of a malicious type where the motive behind the reviewer is to ruin the book based solely upon some ulterior motive?  Some reviews with low stars can be considered constructive criticism from an unbiased source, but that entirely depends on the content of the comment they leave.


----------



## Lissie (May 26, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> It's on the page you're linking to.
> 
> *What's not allowed*
> 
> ...


That's a lot more specific - I'd say that means I can't comment on a book that ranks for "travel safety tips" - for example - but I still comment on a book about say Bangkok travel. Also I've never seen any direct connection between me reviewing and me as author- Amazon doesn't link them if you click thru on reviewers you don't find the author


----------



## Lissie (May 26, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I have spoken directly with Amazon on this. Books in the same genre are not competing products in the same way one desktop computer is to another, for example. People compare computers and buy the ONE that they like and has the best customer feedback. With books, they will likely buy both if they have good feedback. They don't buy just one. So, I think this is not correct. As an author, you can still be a reader - and as such, you may continue to post honest, ethical reviews.


Thank you that's helpful - and very true - I wouldn't like to say how many travel books I still buy and read LOL


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I have spoken directly with Amazon on this. Books in the same genre are not competing products in the same way one desktop computer is to another, for example. People compare computers and buy the ONE that they like and has the best customer feedback. With books, they will likely buy both if they have good feedback. They don't buy just one. So, I think this is not correct. As an author, you can still be a reader - and as such, you may continue to post honest, ethical reviews.


I agree insofar that I don't think fiction in the same genre is necessarily in competition. One person will probably buy many more. Non-fiction can be quite different, though, especially with very niche topics. If someone wants to learn how to speak French and the author of one French grammar book gives another one a one-star review, I think the reviewer has a definite competing interest. It just looks and feels different to me.

Personally, I wouldn't do it under any circumstances, non-fiction or fiction. Sharing my opinion isn't important enough for me to be willing to give the impression I'm trying to undercut a title similar to mine.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Dalya said:


>


Da-da-da dant -da da dant da-da

Step right up! See the dancing chimps and the bearded lady! Watch the amazing Eisler & JaK A** Circus thrill you.

Popcorn! Popcorn!


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I happen to agree that books in my same genre are not competition for me. However, those people creating sock puppet accounts and leaving one star reviews on other books DO believe they are stomping down the competition and bolstering up their own book.

The fact is, some websites will not advertise your book if you have less than 4.0 star average. So it DOES matter if people leave you fake one star reviews to take you out. I can hurt sales in that way. It could also sway a buyer, although I don't know how much that happens.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I'm very confused by Mr. Konrath's opinion of one star reviews. Does he seriously believe all are of a malicious type where the motive behind the reviewer is to ruin the book based solely upon some ulterior motive?


I'm not defending this post, which I generally disagree with, but I don't think this is quite what he's saying. He said:



> Every one of those millions of reviewers who trashed a book deliberately did it to harm that book's sales. That's the whole point of a one star review. Someone yelling to the world "Don't buy this!"


He wasn't saying there is necessarily an ulterior motive, but rather that the point of a one-star review is to warn readers away. Which is true, as far as it goes. No one leaves a one-star review to encourage others to buy it. A one-star review is more like a blinking warning light intended to steer others away from substandard writing.

However, I disagree with him that this is a "crappy" thing to do. (That is not quite the word he used.) Nor is it necessarily "mean." Some books are really, truly, genuinely bad. I mean, _bad _bad. So bad they make my seven-year-old's writing look good. _That _bad. And it's not "mean" to try to warn other readers of that fact, IMHO.

The thing is that I think Konrath is seeing things from the writer's POV, and he therefore perceives bad reviews as a deliberate unkindness. But reviews aren't really for writers. They're for readers. And as such they need to be honest. Indeed, if they're not honest, the system eventually becomes worthless... which is more or less the problem we keep coming back to.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

To summarize: blah blah I'm Konrath blah blah listen to me blah blah if you don't I'll verbally harass you in the comments and call you names blah blah blah I'm right blah blah blah


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> • Sentiments by or on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product


There have been a number of discussions here about competition. Some claim our books are not competing. I disagree and contend the books do compete. But I'd suggest reliance on this condition would imply an acknowledgement that books do indeed compete.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> That's silly. In one case they're an author saying that you should read this other author's book, in the other they're an author *PRETENDING TO BE A READER* saying that you should read their own book or shouldn't read another author's books in their genre.
> 
> If they were posting reviews on their own books or other people's books with their real names, you might have a point. *THEY* know what they're doing is wrong, which is why they don't use their real names.


The blurb writing authors are saying they have read the book and recommending it. Very RARELY is this the truth. They're lying and lying this as supposed EXPERTS.

I consider the blurbs worse, if anything.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> To summarize: blah blah I'm Konrath blah blah listen to me blah blah if you don't I'll verbally harass you in the comments and call you names blah blah blah I'm right blah blah blah


Also "crankiness blah blah orneriness blah blah pinhead blah blah strawman argument blah blah pathetic legion of jealous pinheads blah blah get off my lawn".

And to think, there were six hours once, about two years ago, when I cared the slightest bit what he thought about _anything_. Old shame. Old shame...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

George Berger said:


> Also "crankiness blah blah orneriness blah blah pinhead blah blah strawman argument blah blah pathetic legion of jealous pinheads blah blah get off my lawn".
> 
> And to think, there were six hours once, about two years ago, when I cared the slightest bit what he thought about _anything_. Old shame. Old shame...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> To summarize: blah blah I'm Konrath blah blah listen to me blah blah if you don't I'll verbally harass you in the comments and call you names blah blah blah I'm right blah blah blah


Quote the times in that thread he has "harassed" the people there--including the ones who disagree with him. Or are you saying he doesn't have the right to make an argument ON HIS OWN BLOG. Amazing how easy it is to try to trash the reputation of someone you disagree with, Krista, and you're doing pretty good at in effect name calling yourself. Not that he cares, since he takes pride in being considered irascible.

Edit: Blech. Silly defending someone who is perfectly capable of defending himself if he wants to and I do NOT want to be drawn further into this argument. I'll be back tomorrow--not in this thread. Leaving seems to be the only way to stay out of this argument since I obviously don't have enough self-control to not read the thread and respond.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Quote the times in that thread he has "harassed" the people there--including the ones who disagree with him. Or are you saying he doesn't have the right to make an argument ON HIS OWN BLOG. Amazing how easy it is to try to trash the reputation of someone you disagree with. Not that he cares, since he takes pride in being considered irascible.


His entire reputation is built upon orneriness. I'd hate for him to feel that his reputation has faded in the last few years to just someone no one cares about anymore.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> His entire reputation is built upon orneriness. I'd hate for him to feel that his reputation has faded in the last few years to just someone no one cares about anyone.


Ornery and harassing are two different things.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Anyone who thinks this does not have my respect: "Cheating, in my opinion, is throwing a game or paying off an umpire. It isn't taking a performance enhancer when the athlete is working his ass off anyway."

Justifying cheating "because you're working hard" is BS.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

We don't have the original article (off his blog) where Konrath began being "ornery" at people who disagreed with him. It was the one where Blake Couch and others posted. I read that one before this blog post.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Monique said:


> Anyone who thinks this does not have my respect: "Cheating, in my opinion, is throwing a game or paying off an umpire. It isn't taking a performance enhancer when the athlete is working his *ss off anyway."
> 
> Justifying cheating "because you're working hard" is BS.


*nod* I didn't have a lot of respect for his online persona as it was, but this was way off in the deep. Though, at least we can comfort ourselves that *he* would never do it. He just is OK with it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Harassment is not a necessary condition for orneriness.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> There have been a number of discussions here about competition. Some claim our books are not competing. I disagree and contend the books do compete.


I agree. As a reader, I have a fixed amount of money in my budget for new books. That means I have to choose Book X over Book Y in my genre of choice. Yeah, I'm going to buy additional books in the future and I might very well buy Book Y six months down the road. However, the pool of available books is always growing. My disposable book income might not grow. It might shrink. It's highly possible and more than probable I'll never buy Book Y.

Books, like any other form of property, compete. I can't see how that can be parsed in any other way. We don't buy all the brands of toothpaste on the market, do we?

Putting on my other hat as a writer, that means I've chosen to never write a negative review of other books in the genres I also write in. I sure have wanted to, from time to time. I will, though, write positive reviews. If a book is excellent, then people need to hear about it, regardless of the book being in one of my genres.

At any rate, everyone has to decide all that for themselves...


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

George Berger said:


> Also "crankiness blah blah orneriness blah blah pinhead blah blah strawman argument blah blah pathetic legion of jealous pinheads blah blah get off my lawn".
> 
> And to think, there were six hours once, about two years ago, when I cared the slightest bit what he thought about _anything_. Old shame. Old shame...


For his next performance, he shall pull out a chair and yell at it for a bit...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

anne_holly said:


> For his next performance, he shall pull out a chair and yell at it for a bit...


I would buy Konrath books if it guaranteed him doing this!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I do think calling for FTC investigations is over the top and unnecessary, when it comes to issues like this.

So I was all prepared to make a silly comment about Konrath disagreeing with Julie.

Then I read Konrath's blog post a little more in-depth, and this is my response to Joe K:


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

TexasGirl said:


> But I don't want to


Let's not go there.........


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

That's the worst, most poorly constructed set of arguments I've seen from him. Not even good as sophistry goes. The holes are too huge to ignore, even if you are a Konrath fan.


----------



## SuseHocking (Sep 11, 2012)

Wow! I'm new to all this so I had no idea how much 'politics' is involved in this world.

*Runs away and buries head in sand*

I guess I should have known. It happens in every field, so why would this be any different?


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Monique said:


> Anyone who thinks this does not have my respect: "Cheating, in my opinion, is throwing a game or paying off an umpire. It isn't taking a performance enhancer when the athlete is working his *ss off anyway."
> 
> Justifying cheating "because you're working hard" is BS.


Agreed. Last time I checked, we are all working out beeps off for what little we have.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

Dalya said:


>


More of the above please.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

*sigh*

Writers must always, it seems, go off into fits of drama about something.

Who cares?  

If you ask the average reader on the street, they've not heard of this so-called controversy.  Nor do they probably care.  The dynamic trio in question did not sell a bunch of books because of reviews: fake, paid-for or not.  They sold a bunch of books because they...wrote good books.  Study after study has been done revealing what prompts a person to buy a book.  Reviews rank FAR down the list.  So odds are those guys go little to no benefit from their review shenanigans.

And they certainly did not hurt anyone.

So why the outcry and the (false?) screams of moral outrage?

I'm with Joe on this one.  Sheesh, people, drop it already.  It's really not worth the energy spent.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Actually, the average reader on the street probably already thinks authors make up a lot of their 5 star reviews.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> I have spoken directly with Amazon on this. Books in the same genre are not competing products in the same way one desktop computer is to another, for example. People compare computers and buy the ONE that they like and has the best customer feedback. With books, they will likely buy both if they have good feedback. They don't buy just one. So, I think this is not correct. As an author, you can still be a reader - and as such, you may continue to post honest, ethical reviews.


I agree. In another thread someone equated "competing genre books" with some other product (TV? cellphone? can't remember). But that comparison didn't work because buying books is not an "either/or" proposition; consumers can and do buy many books.

Oh, and I also agree w/ Michael Kingswood that this is hoo-ha only a "big deal" in the author community; the average reader neither knows nor cares about this so-called controversy.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I gotta say - I cringe when I see writers saying stuff like Jena. There's a lot of readers on KB, and several have already expressed their thoughts about it being a BIG FREAKING DEAL, either publicly or privately.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I gotta say - I cringe when I see writers saying stuff like Jena. There's a lot of readers on KB, and several have already expressed their thoughts about it being a BIG FREAKING DEAL, either publicly or privately.


Yes, it's a "BIG FREAKING DEAL"...... to us authors. To our sense of honor, and the respect of our peers. But in the eyes of a majority of our readers, not so much. Just trying to put it in perspective.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am a reader and it disgusts me. But what I think is just as bad, is this talk about how readers don't care when authors cheat and commit fraud. 

I also have a hard time having respect for authors that keep trying to brush this under the rug. I am starting to think that maybe the reason is that some don't want their reviews looked at too closely. So the talk starts how this is no big deal and yadda yadda. 

The more these excuses are being made, the more I am looking at the reviews. 

And trust me, readers are talking about this and taking notes. Don't tell me I and others here are not average readers. Most of you don't cater to the average readers. You cater to ebook readers, many who hang out on the web, on forums, on blogs. 
We readers might be a lot more savvy than some of you think here.

I am actually really disappointed at how this is being treated by some of the authors here.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Jena H said:


> Yes, it's a "BIG FREAKING DEAL"...... to us authors. To our sense of honor, and the respect of our peers. But in the eyes of a majority of our readers, not so much. Just trying to put it in perspective.


That's what I'm trying to explain to you....the majority of KB is *READERS*.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Atunah said:


> We readers might be a lot more savvy than some of you think here.


QFT. We also talk amongst ourselves, and review fraud has been a lively Happy Hour conversation lately.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

StaceyHH said:


> QFT. We also talk amongst ourselves, and review fraud has been a lively Happy Hour conversation lately.


I get PMs and emails on it from a number of readers.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I get PMs and emails on it from a number of readers.


Some reader blogs are talking about this review mess, too. (If I had a brain I'd remember the links.) I think readers, when this kind of information is made evident to them, do care. The vacuum lost its seal a long time ago...

Readers are making book-buying decisions from 1 to 30 times a month; reviews play at least _some_ part in that decision making. It's only logical they'd be concerned about the source and veracity of those reviews. And I have no doubt honesty/dishonesty in the reviewing process affects their decision about the books they buy and the authors who write them. IMHO (But then as a couple of teenagers in my family constantly advise me--I know nothing.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Actually, the average reader on the street probably already thinks authors make up a lot of their 5 star reviews.


I'd be surprised if many even thought about it.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Atunah said:


> I am a reader and it disgusts me. But what I think is just as bad, is this talk about how readers don't care when authors cheat and commit fraud.
> 
> I also have a hard time having respect for authors that keep trying to brush this under the rug. I am starting to think that maybe the reason is that some don't want their reviews looked at too closely. So the talk starts how this is no big deal and yadda yadda.
> 
> ...


Bolded for emphasis. I agree. Most of the readers who don't care about phony reviews also don't care about my books, since they haven't heard about indies or small pubs, either. The Amazon/GoodReads crowd, and the ones who frequent ebook blogs and forums, are a good deal more informed than many assume, in my opinion, and I think that's the lion's share of the readers I come across. (Not to mention the bloggers and review site folks we seek out.)

And, on top of that, I might add, ebook authors are also, often, ebook readers, so why wouldn't their displeasure count at all?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

All I know is that a) I didn't buy any reviews b) I deleted the books by people I know bought reviews c) I would stop buying books of people who thought this was OK, but I'd run out of authors to read.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> All I know is that a) I didn't buy any reviews b) I deleted the books by people I know bought reviews c) I would stop buying books of people who thought this was OK, but I'd run out of authors to read.


I don't think too many KBers "think this was OK." Almost universally, people think sock-puppet reviews or trashing others' books is dirty pool, low-class, etc. But I also think that to a large degree these discussions are preaching to the choir, as great majority of writers on this board wouldn't or haven't taken part in this type of behavior.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Fake reviews aren't okay. They're also something it seems to me to be impossible to prevent. If there's nothing that can be done about it, there's not much point in fretting.

I hope the people bothered by the whole issue are equally as bothered by the naming, shaming and petition-signing going on. You know, I never cheated on my spouse or my taxes, but when people got caught doing it I didn't run around signing petitions naming those who did, comdemning their ULTIMATE EVIL and saying that I _SWEARZ_ I never did it myself. Are we all 8 years old?

The whole stupid things reminds me of grade school, when the teacher would announce that someone's pencil box was stolen and 10-12 kids would feel the need to thrust their hands into the air and shout "I DIDN'T DO IT, NOT MEEEE!"


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I left a one star review on Amazon once.  I would have give the book a minus score if I could have, because it was utter junk.  It wasn't a fiction book, though, it was an expensive Japanese study guide that didn't even have the correct pronunciation guide in it.

I don't review indie books as a rule just because I would need to give out a lot of one stars and it would make me look like a hater.  Plus, I don't like to upset an author who has more than likely just got overeager and published four or five years before his/her writing was good enough.  The first couple of books I wrote many years ago would have got rightly canned if I self-published them.  Plus, judging from some of the behaviour on writer forums - the Amazon one in particular - any bad reviews I left would have put me at the mercy of a backlash of hater reviews.  Better to stay out of it altogether.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hey everyone! Look!










Baby kittens!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Hey everybody... Weird Al!


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Sort of talking from somewhere between author and reader here.

Reviews aren't the most important thing about promoting a book, whether they're genuine or not. I don't know what the most important thing about promoting a book _is_, but I've got ten (genuine) five star reviews, and my level of sales has not exactly been picking up with each one. More to the point, I never buy a book based on Amazon reviews. I just don't care what some other Amazon customer thinks of a book, because the internet being what it is, the balance of probability is that they're a gibbering moron, or in the case of a top 1,000 reviewer, a self-important moron. Personal recommendations from trusted friends sway me, or from drunk people at parties, but very little else.

But none of this is really the point. Faking reviews is _wrong_. It's _lying_. It *is* fraud in a moral sense, even if you can quibble about legal technicalities (which requires such a level of contortion that you have to question the conscience of anyone quibbling).

And we know that people do all sorts of dishonest things in all sorts of walks of life. Is Stephen Leather's use of sock puppets as reprehensible as the behaviour of bankers in the years leading up to the credit crunch? Probably not, but that's not really the point either.

We apply higher standards to writers because through their books, they tell us how to live, how to love, how to behave. They're supposed to be distilling the essence of truth and love on to the page, not industriously rigging website's search algorithms to shift more units. If it was the publishers doing this (and publishers _are_ also doing it), many of us probably wouldn't be so bothered. As it is, it feels like a betrayal. Is this idealistic and naive of me? Probably, but I don't really care.

And as I've mentioned SL, it's worth remembering that fake reviews are the tip of an iceberg full of evidence which points to a great deal more unpleasant behaviour, including cyberbullying and even impersonating other writers.

I'd never heard of Konrath prior to this. I will certainly never read any of his books.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Or give this article a read, how fake reviews allegedly build fake books by fake authors--an entire fake ecosystem.

http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2012/09/worse-than-paying-for-online-reviews/


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> Or give this article a read, how fake reviews allegedly build fake books by fake authors--an entire fake ecosystem.
> 
> http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2012/09/worse-than-paying-for-online-reviews/


Interesting post, thanks for the link, Scott.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Or give this article a read, how fake reviews allegedly build fake books by fake authors--an entire fake ecosystem.


This *looks* like stuff that's swiped off the net or someplace else. Surely Amazon will remove it eventually?


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

I tend to perceive things simply: those who fake reviews are scum. Those who come up with pseudo-intellectual justifications for why faking reviews is acceptable, are also scum. This for me therefore includes alleged 'legend in his own mind' Konrath. There's no wiggle room for fraud and lying - not when it comes to writing novels and wanting readers to trust ones reviews, both good and bad.

I'm repulsed by the talentless and greedy who clearly have no self respect or ethics yet want to be seen as 'genuine' writers. By their works shall ye know them, to paraphrase some or other well-known book 

The word for authors who fake reviews is: scum. They bring everyone else into disrepute. Case closed. I don't care if they say they have six months to live because of cancer, or they're supposedly donating money to a hospital, or they're allegedly trying to raise kids. Their justifications and lengthy blogs 'explaining' their positions are just gibberish spouted by greedy scum hoping to defraud the readers.

Readers should boycott any author who sides with review-faking. No exceptions. *The 'writers' who fake reviews are clearly demonstrating that they think readers are stupid.* In that case, why give those people insulting you, any of your money?

Show some solidarity by avoiding any books by authors appearing to side with the review fakers.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> Or give this article a read, how fake reviews allegedly build fake books by fake authors--an entire fake ecosystem.
> 
> http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2012/09/worse-than-paying-for-online-reviews/


Just WOW!

This blog's findings confirms what I've always suspected, I live in perpetual midnight--under a rock.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

My brother is a lawyer for one of the world's largest oil companies. Whenever he tells people what he does, eyebrows rise and he is put on the defensive. One of the reasons why I am _not _a lawyer is because I want a job I can be proud of. This fake review scandal is like a massive oil spill across all of our reputations. I want it cleaned up and I want protections in place so the ecosystem doesn't get fouled up again.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ian Fraser said:


> Readers should boycott any author who sides with review-faking. No exceptions. *The 'writers' who fake reviews are clearly demonstrating that they think readers are stupid.* In that case, why give those people insulting you, any of your money?


sigh...can't I just continue to buy books that interest me and meet my vetting criteria? Do I really have to keep a list? Does everything have to be a cause? Can't I just read for enjoyment? I've already got a couple Konrath books. The one I read was OK. It didn't excite me enough to make me want to buy more....

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> sigh...can't I just continue to buy books that interest me and meet my vetting criteria? Do I really have to keep a list? Does everything have to be a cause? Can't I just read for enjoyment? I've already got a couple Konrath books. The one I read was OK. It didn't excite me enough to make me want to buy more....
> 
> Betsy


No, because you don't vet books the way people here want you to


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> No, because you don't vet books the way people here want you to


I know. For instance, I've been told quite firmly several times that I should sample; that it's foolhardy not to. Sorry, don't have that much time. (I think it's a ploy to get me away from my moderating duties here on KB... )

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> (I think it's a ploy to get me away from my moderating duties here on KB... )


*sidelong glance*

Crap. You found us out.


----------



## Robert A Michael (Apr 30, 2012)

On one hand, I can see Konrath's point. His initial point is to criticize people who over react. The problem is, he falls into the same trap. He and Barry seem to do this a lot. It becomes hypocritical, really. And the points he makes to support his original point are weak, lame, and marginal. Oh, and plain wrong. His justification for LYING, STEALING, CHEATING, and UNETHICAL behavior falls flat EVERY TIME. His justification boils down to: everyone sins, so it is ok. Oh, and it is wrong for someone else to point out other people's sin. In that he is staunch.

The problem with that viewpoint is that in Konrath's world, anarchy and lawlessness is preferable to what he sees as over-righteousness. His world view is skewed, but I usually give him some leeway. Lying is still wrong, no matter how you paint it. Stealing other people's work or livelihood is still wrong, regardless of my religious world view. Cheating the system to increase my sales is still wrong, even if Konrath tries to justify it away. Unethical behavior that involves taking advantage of a system or harming the reputation of others is still wrong, even if (or especially because) it benefits me.

Now, for a lynch mob to gather to try to create rules, to push an anti-whoever agenda, to solicit Amazon to remove books, ban books, etc. is still an over-reaction. Despite that, it is also their right to do so. It is also, coincidentally, Konrath's right to criticize their actions. I give him that. However, I can not jump on his crazy train of justifying the original actions. I fall in the middle. Yup, they did something heinous. Let's get on with our lives, and do what is right in ours. Self-righteousness, whether from the attackers of those three authors, or from Konrath/Eisler, is still unattractive and self-serving. Romans 12 says: "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.* If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.* Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God," [NASB Romans 12:17-19, bold face mine].


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> Just WOW!
> 
> This blog's findings confirms what I've always suspected, I live in perpetual midnight--under a rock.


Guess I've been under that same rock with you. Holy moly.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> My brother is a lawyer for one of the world's largest oil companies. Whenever he tells people what he does, eyebrows rise and he is put on the defensive. One of the reasons why I am not a lawyer is because I want a job I can be proud of. This fake review scandal is like a massive oil spill across all of our reputations. I want it cleaned up and I want protections in place so the ecosystem doesn't get fouled up again.


You picked the wrong industry.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

The entire "gamification" concept is really what we have to worry and think about here. I've seen it from 16-years of working in the Internet marketing/seo business. The trap is that you become so consumed with trying to "game the system" that you stop doing what you need to do to really be successful. So instead of writing great books, you spend time/money on fake reviews.

It's a slippery slope, and usually one adopted by first-time, unseasoned people who believe, or were taught, that there's a "gold rush" happening and if they could just "do this and that" they'll be rich without really having to do the work.

When all that really happens is that the guru who told them how to do it gets rich, and they never make it because they tried to short cut. Unfortunately, a few of them do make it work and break though and have success, so everyone else thinks they can do it to. You can't, statistically. 

Get back to writing. Quit worrying about "gaming" anything. You will lose that battle. Amazon/Google are smarter than you, and will continue to be.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The trap is that you become so consumed with trying to "game the system" that you stop doing what you need to do to really be successful. So instead of writing great books, you spend time/money on fake reviews.


Locke seems to have found a balance. He wrote a bunch of books, people liked them, and he played the system. I suspect many will try to follow his example.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I know. For instance, I've been told quite firmly several times that I should sample; that it's foolhardy not to. Sorry, don't have that much time. (I think it's a ploy to get me away from my moderating duties here on KB... )
> 
> Betsy


Heh. I don't sample either. Yeah, I use reviews so I don't have to sample, because I have an unfortunate tendency to sample, then read the book anyways even if the sample is bad, because of that compulsive finishing thing, which I'm getting better at avoiding. 

The thing that bothers me the most about this JAKrant is his conflating fraudulent (lying, fake) reviews with unfavorable reviews.

As a reader, who uses reviews as my primary vetting process, I want all the stars. If I'm interested in a book, I want to know what the spread is. (Disclaimer: I use Goodreads reviews, rarely Amazon, so I am utterly uninterested in "verified purchasers," and what the stars do to sales rankings.) If I don't already know before I head to the bookstore (or buy the K-version,) I pull up GR on my phone and take a quick peek.

Here's an example:

_Beautiful Ruins_ by Jess Walter

I picked this up last month on the strength of the reviews by people whose reading habits I am familiar with. (Seattle Mystery Bookshop, JB and Fran,) Reviewers I recognize carry more weight with me, and their ratings were very good. The spread is great, with most of the reviews falling solidly in the 4-star range with a 3.9+ overall rating. Next I check one star reviews. In this example, none of the 1-star reviews say much of anything of substance, so now I know it's probably a good bet for me. Book acquired.

And here's another example:

_Blackout_ by Connie Willis. I like sci-fi, love time travel, so this seemed like a safe pick from the blurb. Willis is a big name in her genre, what could go wrong? I checked the overall rating: 3.8+ so that's good. Then reviews - the reviewers I'm familiar with give it mixed scores - there's a 1-star in there, and he points out a number of things that are pet peeves of mine... maybe not a good match? I hit the 1-star page. This one is a bit different than the 1-stars for _Beautiful Ruins_. Rather than the generic "did not like," I get quite a bit of information about why the book doesn't work. Turns out (I did try to read it after all, she won the Hugo,) the same things that tanked it for those articulate 1-star reviewers, tanked it for me.

The 1-star reviews are (or can be) helpful and informative. As a consumer of words, I WANT them. I write them. I read them.

And I resent the comparison to the fake, lying, and cheating reviews. I resent the accusation that 1-star reviews are "a sh**y, mean thing to do." That 1-star reviews/reviewers are "stupid," "biased," and "have an agenda." I resent that he claims that 1-star reviews aren't any different from 'cowardice,' that warning other readers about a badly written book is "being a d*ck," and that reviewers who write them are "malicious" and "pinheads."

And I especially resent that every time one of these blogs or topics come up, I see writers come out of the woodwork self-righteously declaring that they would NEVER give 1-star reviews to anyone, because they know how hard it is to write a book. They say things like "trashing the author," "attacking the author," use words like "vitriol," "jealous" and "stupid," and insinuate that reviewers who post an unfavorable review are mean, little (small minded), and angry at life, or that "they can't write" so they bully others. (Most of this stuff is easily found just in the comments on that blog alone, but I've seen it everywhere, including in the comments of many articulate 1-star reviews.)

So while I certainly wouldn't read works by JAK based on all the ridiculousness he has injected into the self-pub system, I am also taking mental notes regarding those who express the above opinions, and view reviewers (me) who would note a negative opinion as "jealous," or "angry," or "bullies." There are so many books, it's very easy to steer clear, and not feel like I'm missing out at all.


----------



## Katy (Dec 16, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> And I resent the comparison to the fake, lying, and cheating reviews. I resent the accusation that 1-star reviews are "a sh**y, mean thing to do." That 1-star reviews/reviewers are "stupid," "biased," and "have an agenda." I resent that he claims that 1-star reviews aren't any different from 'cowardice,' that warning other readers about a badly written book is "being a d*ck," and that reviewers who write them are "malicious" and "pinheads."
> 
> And I especially resent that every time one of these blogs or topics come up, I see writers come out of the woodwork self-righteously declaring that they would NEVER give 1-star reviews to anyone, because they know how hard it is to write a book. They say things like "trashing the author," "attacking the author," use words like "vitriol," "jealous" and "stupid," and insinuate that reviewers who post an unfavorable review are mean, little (small minded), and angry at life, or that "they can't write" so they bully others. (Most of this stuff is easily found just in the comments on that blog alone, but I've seen it everywhere, including in the comments of many articulate 1-star reviews.)
> 
> So while I certainly wouldn't read works by JAK based on all the ridiculousness he has injected into the self-pub system, I am also taking mental notes regarding those who express the above opinions, and view reviewers (me) who would note a negative opinion as "jealous," or "angry," or "bullies." There are so many books, it's very easy to steer clear, and not feel like I'm missing out at all.


*applause*


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> Or give this article a read, how fake reviews allegedly build fake books by fake authors--an entire fake ecosystem.
> 
> http://thefutureofpublishing.com/2012/09/worse-than-paying-for-online-reviews/


So is he saying the Artisian Bread book that I receive Amazon junk mail for ALL THE TIME is real? I would lump it in with the fakes.  Let this be a lesson: All you who bake, stop making bread. The market will dry up, and the xylophone section will get clogged instead.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

StaceyHH said:


> And I resent the comparison to the fake, lying, and cheating reviews. I resent the accusation that 1-star reviews are "a sh**y, mean thing to do." That 1-star reviews/reviewers are "stupid," "biased," and "have an agenda." I resent that he claims that 1-star reviews aren't any different from 'cowardice,' that warning other readers about a badly written book is "being a d*ck," and that reviewers who write them are "malicious" and "pinheads."
> 
> And I especially resent that every time one of these blogs or topics come up, I see writers come out of the woodwork self-righteously declaring that they would NEVER give 1-star reviews to anyone, because they know how hard it is to write a book. They say things like "trashing the author," "attacking the author," use words like "vitriol," "jealous" and "stupid," and insinuate that reviewers who post an unfavorable review are mean, little (small minded), and angry at life, or that "they can't write" so they bully others. (Most of this stuff is easily found just in the comments on that blog alone, but I've seen it everywhere, including in the comments of many articulate 1-star reviews.)
> 
> So while I certainly wouldn't read works by JAK based on all the ridiculousness he has injected into the self-pub system, I am also taking mental notes regarding those who express the above opinions, and view reviewers (me) who would note a negative opinion as "jealous," or "angry," or "bullies." There are so many books, it's very easy to steer clear, and not feel like I'm missing out at all.


Yes yes this. You are able to put into words much better what I am trying to say.

To me they are intimidation tactics used to make people feel bad about not liking a book.

I can't believe I read all the comments on that blog. I have no clue really who that Konrath is, other than I keep seeing his blog rants posted here over and over. I can't believe anyone has any respect for what he said there. And those that are patting his back on that blog and agreeing with him. Wow, I thought I have seen it all.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> And I especially resent that every time one of these blogs or topics come up, I see writers come out of the woodwork self-righteously declaring that they would NEVER give 1-star reviews to anyone, because they know how hard it is to write a book.


I am not arguing with your post, but I do want to point out that some writers don't give one-star reviews, not because they know how hard it is to write a book, but because they think it's a conflict of interest or against Amazon's rules or even just for fear of retribution. I don't review anything at all (except old kids' books, which are not even remotely in competition with what I write!) for a combination of these reasons.

Totally agree with you, though, as I said further up the thread-- I think it's silly to say it's "mean" to give books one-star ratings. One-star books deserve one-star reviews. The fact that you and I may not agree on what a one-star book is doesn't mean we aren't each entitled to our opinion. And if you give one of my books one star because you think it sucks, well, that's your right, and it doesn't mean you can't write or you're just jellus of my super-amazing-speshul-snowflake-talent or whatever. It just means you think my book sucks.


----------



## MartinGibbs (Jun 20, 2011)

ChristinePope said:


> Guess I've been under that same rock with you. Holy moly.


... and I'm under the one just next door. I don't really want to come out, either.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Locke seems to have found a balance. He wrote a bunch of books, people liked them, and he played the system. I suspect many will try to follow his example.


Whether one emulates Locke's incomplete system (in his book) or his complete system that includes fake reviews being bought...

...one has to keep in mind that some elements cannot be duplicated.

1) Not everyone can write as fast as he can and therefore have a minimum of five books ready to cross-sell, once the fake reviews hit.

2) Not everyone has books that are good enough that people would keep buying them, no matter how many fake reviews he bought.

I'm *not* defending the purchase of fake reviews.

I am saying, like any other "secret to success," one must first have a half-decent product, and lots of it, to offer.

Not everyone has that/can do that.

Locke's books may not be filet mignon... they might be literary equivalents of Big Macs.

But Big Macs sell well, not because they're the best-made, best-tasting burgers, but because they're "good enough" and readily available almost everywhere.

Of course, rumor has it McD's was using "Billions and billions served" as a marketing line a little bit before they'd actually sold "billions and billions."

And then they had that pesky practice of advertising, tricking kids into demanding their parents take 'em to McD's because a clown was their mascot and they had playrooms, and....

I'm sorry... what were we talking about?  LOL

Anyway, point is, if McD's had the clown and playrooms and such, and they only had 1 location and could only fry up 100 burgers a day at most, and they were all made of dog food... McD's never would have taken off.

But having a half-decent burger, the ability to make a lot of 'em, and a plan for rapid expansion of locations, were all necessary elements to reach billions and billions sold. Take away the half-decent burger, and nothing else matters...

The parallel with Locke is, his books are like the Big Mac of entertainment literature. They're full of action and humor; they're quick, fun reads; they contain colorful characters, and the editing is usually passable (though not great).

In other words, his books are "good enough" to appeal to those looking for light entertainment. And he puts out 4-6 of them a year.

So, once can argue till they're blue in the face that Locke cheated/took shortcuts by buying reviews, and I'll agree. They can claim he didn't share "all the tricks in his bag" in his how-to-sell-ebooks tome, and that's pretty obvious.

But what one cannot say is that ANYONE who buys 300 fake 5-star reviews will automatically sell like Locke sold.

Because not all of us can write at his pace.

And not all of us could write well-enough, or with enough broad appeal, to succeed at that level when writing at that pace.

Not all writers have equal amounts of talent.

And sometimes, talent doesn't matter as much as we all think it ought to.

I know great, highly-skilled writers who hardly sell at all.

And great-selling writers who could stand to sit in a few more critique circles.

And... above and beyond ALL of this...

...there's a bit of wisdom from someone who never faked her reviews, did everything right, and is the real thing... Amanda Hocking... who once wrote this, or something close to it:

"You can never predict who readers will embrace and who they won't."

She was referring to the fact that she felt J.R. Bryan was a writer she felt had more skill than her, but whose sales at that point hadn't risen near her level, if I recall correctly.

So, there's that, too. Readers _en masse_ decide they like someone's work, and none of the other elements really add up to much.

So to summarize my point: One could perfectly emulate all of Locke's actions, and still not get his results.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Ian Fraser said:


> The word for authors who fake reviews is: scum. They bring everyone else into disrepute. Case closed. I don't care if they say they have six months to live because of cancer, or they're supposedly donating money to a hospital, or they're allegedly trying to raise kids. Their justifications and lengthy blogs 'explaining' their positions are just gibberish spouted by greedy scum hoping to defraud the readers.


It's a fake review, not a murder.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Whether one emulates Locke's incomplete system (in his book) or his complete system that includes fake reviews being bought...
> 
> ...one has to keep in mind that some elements cannot be duplicated.


It takes a lot of talent to duplicate his complete system, and I question how many people have it. It's much more than writing. So I expect many to try, and few to succeed. Like many things we have seen in the growth of independent eBooks, the Falacy of Composition rules.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2012)

shelleyo1 said:


> It's a fake review, not a murder.


And again I ask, is murder the measuring stick for all actions? So long as nobody dies, nobody should ever complain about any bad behavior or take steps to neutralize it? Pretty much the opinion of Konrath and others is, so long as nobody dies, *nobody has a right to care* if some author gets successful by lying, cheating, and undermining the entire system. Any author who cares whether or not readers are getting screwed over is overreacting because "nobody died."    So what if the Amazon forums are full of hundreds of threads by readers complaining about fake reviews, because hey, those aren't "normal" readers anyway and besides, _nobody died_. So what if there are threads in various Goodreads group forums about fake reviews and whether or not to "allow" indies to join some groups because, hey, _nobody died_. So what if there are conversations going on between readers at Shelfari over how to spot fake reviews because they don't count as "normal" readers anyway and besides, _nobody died._ So what if this whole fiasco provides more ammo to those who like to look down their noses at indies as hacks because, hey, _nobody died_.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Ian Fraser said:


> The word for authors who fake reviews is: scum. They bring everyone else into disrepute. Case closed. I don't care if they say they have six months to live because of cancer, or they're supposedly donating money to a hospital, or they're allegedly trying to raise kids. Their justifications and lengthy blogs 'explaining' their positions are just gibberish spouted by greedy scum hoping to defraud the readers.
> 
> ...
> 
> Show some solidarity by avoiding any books by authors appearing to side with the review fakers.


Wow, demagogue much?

What you're basically saying is, anyone who disagrees with you even a little bit should have their career killed, regardless of whether THEY fake reviews or not?

There's a song for that kind of attitude:






One can disapprove of a marketing tactic and still enjoy a writer's WORK.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*puts moderator hat on*

Julie, chill. No one is saying not to care, though people have that right; just that there are degrees and what one person feels is an appropriate degree of response may not be the same as yours.

*takes hat off*

For example, I don't intend to turn my book purchases into a crusade against authors who have faked reviews, spoken about fake reviews, thought about fake reviews or not cared about fake reviews.  Others may respond differently.

Personally, I think the appropriate response, if one feels called to take action, is to call out a fake review when one sees it.  On Amazon.  Where readers will see the comment on the review. 

My .02 worth as a reader.

Betsy


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

T.L. Haddix said:


> I WANT!!!!


Me too. I just love cats, that picture is so awesome!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

On these boards, I don't recall anyone saying anything like, "Hey! Fake reviews, two for $5! What a great idea!"

No one. That I've seen.

The disagreement has been about, "What's an appropriate response to those who do use fake reviews?"

Just that. Individual responses vary, and can.

But all this vitriol over those who don't agree with the "let's string 'em up, along with anyone who defends them" mob mentality?

It's a bit much. (I refer you again to the Taylor Swift and Glee videos.)

And now... THIS...


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Pretty much the opinion of Konrath and others is, so long as nobody dies, *nobody has a right to care* if some author gets successful by lying, cheating, and undermining the entire system.


I think the problem here is this: people get ahead of other writers by lying, cheating and undermining the review system, but no-one gets real success by doing that unless they're also writing books that readers want to read. Sure, they can sell some awful books by posting fake reviews, but they'll gain a reputation for doing so and they'll never find millions of people lining up to buy them because they'll never create the word of mouth they need to reach that level.

So on the one hand it's slimy behaviour, but on the other hand people like Locke are just getting their books in front of the readers who want to read them. Hence those readers don't care and we can't justify turning up on his doorstep with burning torches and typewriters.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Pretty much the opinion of Konrath and others is, so long as nobody dies, nobody has a right to care if some author gets successful by lying, cheating, and undermining the entire system.


I have yet to see anyone deny the right to care or express an opinion. Disputing the ideas contained in an opinion is not a denial of the right to care or express those ideas.



> I agree that there should be consequences, but there are three big problems with the whole concept - who gets to decide what those consequences are, who gets to decide who is guilty and who isn't, and who enforces said consequences?


That's a question that has been answered many times for many products over many years. The market decides. Consumers decide. They decide with their dollars.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> And now... THIS...


Ahh... Beauty and innocence do exist. Behold the proof.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

T.L. Haddix said:


> The bolded part - I agree in principle. In practice, not so much. Who knows which reviews are fake and which ones aren't? I can only imagine the nightmare that would result if vigilante authors went and did this. And the potential for lawsuits.


I agree completely. Frankly, I think there will always be fake reviews. And I think there are reviews that people are labelling as fake that are real and vice versa.

But, there are people who say that they can tell fake reviews with certainly and that "something must be done." Well, outing those allegedly fake reviews by commenting on them would (a) let the readers know that the reviews are believed to be fake and (b) let the readers know that there are indie authors who believe in the integrity of the system. So, I say to those folks, this is a solution.

Of course, there will be trouble when a real review is labelled as fake, and there will be retaliation from authors who have reviews of their books labelled as fake...so maybe it's not a practical solution...but it is a solution.

Meanwhile, I'm going to keep buying books that appeal to me and reading them and writing reviews that may or may not seem fake to people who vet reviews. 

Betsy


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I haven't read Konrath's blog about this, but if he does indeed defend fake 1-star views, them I'm disappointed. I wrote a blog on Sunday about the telegraph.com article naming RJ Ellroy as the culrpit who used fake identitites to trash and offer 1-star reviews to rivals like Ian Rankin and Stuart MacBride. Ellroy also gave himself 5-stars and referred to his own work as "maginificent genius", the article said.

I agree with other comments that there is a huge difference between a 1-star review that shows the reviewer's actually read the book and gives reasons for their opinion, and a 1-star review that's clearly intended to malign the author, and shows that the reviewer hasn't actually read the book. There's also a difference between poorly written and well thought out reviews, regardless of the rating. Amazon reviews run the whole gamut. I leave it up to readers to decide who to follow and how they spend their dollars.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> But, there are people who say that they can tell fake reviews with certainly and that "something must be done." Well, outing those allegedly fake reviews by commenting on them would (a) let the readers know that the reviews are believed to be fake and (b) let the readers know that there are indie authors who believe in the integrity of the system. So, I say to those folks, this is a solution.


That's an interesting idea. But I'd say it would demand the involvement of the author in the comments. If he stands accused, it's reasonable for him to answer the accusations. Considered as a whole, I wonder if it's all worth it.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And again I ask, is murder the measuring stick for all actions? So long as nobody dies, nobody should ever complain about any bad behavior or take steps to neutralize it? Pretty much the opinion of Konrath and others is, so long as nobody dies, *nobody has a right to care* if some author gets successful by lying, cheating, and undermining the entire system. Any author who cares whether or not readers are getting screwed over is overreacting because "nobody died."    So what if the Amazon forums are full of hundreds of threads by readers complaining about fake reviews, because hey, those aren't "normal" readers anyway and besides, _nobody died_. So what if there are threads in various Goodreads group forums about fake reviews and whether or not to "allow" indies to join some groups because, hey, _nobody died_. So what if there are conversations going on between readers at Shelfari over how to spot fake reviews because they don't count as "normal" readers anyway and besides, _nobody died._ So what if this whole fiasco provides more ammo to those who like to look down their noses at indies as hacks because, hey, _nobody died_.


The hyperbole in this thread is amazing.

My comment was in response to someone calling anyone with a fake review SCUM and calling for readers to completely boycott anyone who has been found to have a fake review or taken the side of those who think it's okay. I'm not speaking out against it, so I guess I'm lumped in there, too.

People have fake reviews. You and I can't stop that. We usually won't really know which are fake and which are not. Trying to figure out is pointless and leads to witch-hunting and truly ugly and/or moronic behavior on the part of the so-called righteous.

You can care about fake reviews all you want. I don't think anyone has said you can't. I care about them. They aggravate me. I don't like it when people don't play fair. But what can be done about it? I can't see any way past it and the other many things people do that I don't agree with to try to sell books.

You can even think people with fake reviews are scum along with the other guy if you want, even if, as the poster said, it doesn't matter if they're dying of cancer and have kids to support.  (Though let it be known, that if I was dying of cancer and wanted to leave money for my child and a few fake reviews would guarantee that my book got noticed and left her an inheritance, why I'd be the lowliest scum you can imagine.)

How about it's a fake review, not someone selling my kid heroin or painting racial slurs on my house or doing any number of truly scummy things in this life. I mean, surely there are degrees of scum. Murder isn't required, but I think it takes a little more than someone having a fake review.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> But, there are people who say that they can tell fake reviews with certainly and that "something must be done." Well, outing those allegedly fake reviews by commenting on them would (a) let the readers know that the reviews are believed to be fake and (b) let the readers know that there are indie authors who believe in the integrity of the system. So, I say to those folks, this is a solution.
> 
> Betsy


I think a point to be considered is that "some people who say they can tell fake reviews with certainty." All I can say is, I gotta get me one of those crystal balls they're using. What, you mean they _don't_ have a crystal ball?? Then I'm sorry, they can't tell fake reviews _with certainty._


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Jena H said:


> I think a point to be considered is that "some people who say they can tell fake reviews with certainty." All I can say is, I gotta get me one of those crystal balls they're using. What, you mean they _don't_ have a crystal ball?? Then I'm sorry, they can't tell fake reviews _with certainty._


Sure they can, because they're the righteous who'd never, ever do it. So they can point a finger at you and call you a liar (or scum, as we've seen) and tell readers to boycott you and that's just how it is.

I'm wondering where is the outrage about the manipulation of the hot new release lists? Are readers angry about this, too, or blissfully unaware that some of the hot new release lists contain the same stuff they did 3-6 months ago? That's even more out in the open, and I think more likely to get something noticed than a good review, but there's no petition about that. (As there shouldn't be, but still.)

I also think it has a bigger chance of tricking readers into thinking something was newly released but is already riding at the top of the charts, making it seem better than it might be. It's particularly annoying since many of the people doing this are already doing quite well to start with, top of their charts, and just greedily decide to ride the HNR list again, keeping someone else with a newly released title out of that spot. I think that's more unethical than buying a fake review, and easier to see. And it aggravates my sense of fair play. But what the heck am I gonna do about it? Start a petition? Point my fingers? And if I did that, what of the one who truly does put out a new edition, instead of just gaming the system? How can I tell before I accuse? I can't, so I don't.

It only truly affects me insomuch as I sit and fret about it. I just focus on my own work.

It was mentioned earlier that people with fake reviews are treating readers like they're stupid. I highly disagree. I think they're just hoping for visibility so that their books, which they probably believe are worthy of being read, can get noticed by readers who will appreciate them. Readers are, as a group, probably one of the least stupid demographics, on account of how, you know, they read.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jena H said:


> I think a point to be considered is that "some people who say they can tell fake reviews with certainty." All I can say is, I gotta get me one of those crystal balls they're using. What, you mean they _don't_ have a crystal ball?? Then I'm sorry, they can't tell fake reviews _with certainty._


I agree completely. Which is why we ask that people not post links to allegedly fake reviews here.

Betsy


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> That's an interesting idea. But I'd say it would demand the involvement of the author in the comments. *If he stands accused, it's reasonable for him to answer the accusations*. Considered as a whole, I wonder if it's all worth it.


I don't know if it is reasonable to expect the author to respond to such an accusation at all, though. If someone was aggressive enough to accuse you of faking reviews in a review or comment on one, what would be the proper response? "No, it is not a fake review." I don't see how that will either convince the accuser or help in any way. It just gives an opening for the accuser to respond again.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I agree completely. Which is why we ask that people not post links to allegedly fake reviews here.
> 
> Betsy


Paid review? http://www.amazon.com/review/RQ1DDKPY3WTS2/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0042JUAIC&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=

 I've lost all respect for Betsy, Kindleboards, and myself.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

All of my reviews read like fake reviews.  

And clearly, you didn't pay me enough.  It's "only" a four star review.  

Betsy

(nice way to sneak in some self promotion, "Kristin.")


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> All of my reviews read like fake reviews.
> 
> And clearly, you didn't pay me enough. It's "only" a four star review.
> 
> ...


I would have done a screen shot, but I was too lazy, Betty


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

BOYCOTT! 

(The unfunny part is that both of you being on this board could be enough for someone to say that was a friend leaving a fake review and try to stir up all kinds of trouble. Hopefully this climate fades soon enough.)


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

i've been reading this for a while and have finally come to a conclusion.

unless you wrote the fake review, you don't know it's fake.  just because someone else says it's fake doesn't make it fake.  so, unless it's a fake review on your book that is harming you, do nothing. spend your time doing something productive, like writing your next book.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I would have done a screen shot, but I was too lazy, Betty


*looks around for cattle prod*


written anything longer yet?


Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> BOYCOTT!
> 
> (The unfunny part is that both of you being on this board could be enough for someone to say that was a friend leaving a fake review and try to stir up all kinds of trouble. Hopefully this climate fades soon enough.)


/shrug I don't think so.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *looks around for cattle prod*
> 
> 
> written anything longer yet?
> ...


Yes, but nothing you'd like


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Yes, but nothing you'd like


I'm pretty eclectic...but that's a conversation for another thread.

I'm off to write some more fake-sounding reviews...

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> And that is exactly my fear. The environment right now is ripe with 'perfect storm' conditions - readers and writers alike are stirred up over this mess. There's going to be a vigilante mob that takes on an innocent person (can anyone say LendInk?) and destroys their career. It could be any of us who is the target. There is no way to fight back against such accusations. We (the community as a whole) need to think first, think second, and think again if we are considering starting to point fingers. Are you willing to take the risk and potentially destroy an innocent person based on supposition? Because that's what it very well could come down to.


Your reviews are real. Except for the ones you paid me to write. Those are fake.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Your reviews are real. Except for the ones you paid me to write. Those are fake.


[Queue the "They're real, and they're spectacular" chestnut here.]


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> And that is exactly my fear. The environment right now is ripe with 'perfect storm' conditions - readers and writers alike are stirred up over this mess. There's going to be a vigilante mob that takes on an innocent person (can anyone say LendInk?) and destroys their career. It could be any of us who is the target. There is no way to fight back against such accusations. We (the community as a whole) need to think first, think second, and think again if we are considering starting to point fingers. Are you willing to take the risk and potentially destroy an innocent person based on supposition? Because that's what it very well could come down to.


I particularly love the suggestion I've recently read, from more than one person, that writers should make sure their friends and family members disclose those relationships in the reviews to avoid such accusations. Like if my friend leaves a book review he should have to point out that he's my friend. Like Betty would need to disclose that she mods a board where Krista participates to keep the revew "valid" and every mother should have to point out that the writer came from her loins. It's freaking laughable.

Personally, I think everyone should have to do a book report with an outline before they can leave a review, prove they've actually read it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> I particularly love the suggestion I've recently read, from more than one person, that writers should make sure their friends and family members disclose those relationships in the reviews to avoid such accusations. Like if my friend leaves a book review he should have to point out that he's my friend. Like Betty would need to disclose that she mods a board where Krista participates to keep the revew "valid" and every mother should have to point out that the writer came from her loins. It's freaking laughable.
> 
> Personally, I think everyone should have to do a book report with an outline before they can leave a review, prove they've actually read it.


I get those kinds of things, I do. But I have lots of reviews, and different ones, on Amazon, Goodreads, Smashwords, etc. So it doesn't bother me too much if someone knows me and reviews my work. I'm very active online and I've met in person a large number of my core readers. Heck, one of my SuperFans sent me flowers when my first book came out (we used to belong to a forum that sent each other Christmas cards every year. She kept my address all those years and on release day, I got a lovely arrangement with a "we're all so proud of you over here". I got something in my eye.)


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I get those kinds of things, I do. But I have lots of reviews, and different ones, on Amazon, Goodreads, Smashwords, etc. So it doesn't bother me too much if someone knows me and reviews my work. I'm very active online and I've met in person a large number of my core readers. Heck, one of my SuperFans sent me flowers when my first book came out (we used to belong to a forum that sent each other Christmas cards every year. She kept my address all those years and on release day, I got a lovely arrangement with a "we're all so proud of you over here". I got something in my eye.)


I'm not saying anyone is going to try to cause trouble for you, Krista. I can't imagine why they would. Just if someone had a bug up his butt, a review like that would be all that's needed to point a finger right now--that's how ridiculous it has become in some circles.

I don't think you're personally in danger of this happening.

And the flowers? Awwww.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Fair enough, though I peeve off enough people by being myself that I'm sure I've done well enough to get any host of things done to me


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I don't know if it is reasonable to expect the author to respond to such an accusation at all, though. If someone was aggressive enough to accuse you of faking reviews in a review or comment on one, what would be the proper response? "No, it is not a fake review." I don't see how that will either convince the accuser or help in any way. It just gives an opening for the accuser to respond again.


I'd say it's reasonable for him to answer. But our expectations? Who cares. It's his decision.

And the audience for his response wouldn't be the accuser. It would be all the people reading the accusation. That's the audience for the accusation, and it would be the audience for the response.



> And the author is always, always, always the one to lose in that sort of argument. So to answer Terrence, I don't think it's worth it.


I don't know. You may be correct that the environment in which we have been operating mitigates against an author responding. But we are now speculating on an new environment in which comments are used to accuse authors of faking reviews. So the author has a choice. He can remain quiet and let the false accusations remain unanswered, or he can stand up for himself. The best response would probably depend on the individual situation.

So consider the mess this could all degenerate into. Again, I question if any of it is worth it.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'd say it's reasonable for him to answer. But our expectations? Who cares. It's his decision.


I only know what I would or wouldn't do. I would ignore it, because I can see no good coming from acknowledging something like that.



> That's the audience for the accusation, and it would be the audience for the response.


Well, obviously. Plus the accuser. And when the accuser realizes you're going to play and keeps responding to your claims of innocence, that same audience can watch the whole thing devolve. Do you think that someone making such an accusation does so to suss out the truth? No, it's done solely to harm the writer's reputation with that audience. They may believe they're justified in doing that, but that doesn't change what they're doing. Why engage someone like that in any kind of a discussion? I wouldn't, no matter how unreasonable others might think that is. Others are free to do as they wish, of course.

It probably won't end well for the writer unless the accuser suddenly decides he or she was wrong. There is no way for a writer to prove that a review hasn't been faked, so this seems unlikely.



> Again, I question if any of it is worth it.


I don't believe it is.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Well, obviously. Plus the accuser. And when the accuser realizes you're going to play and keeps responding to your claims of innocence, that same audience can watch the whole thing devolve. Do you think that someone making such an accusation does so to suss out the truth? No, it's done solely to harm the writer's reputation with that audience. They may believe they're justified in doing that, but that doesn't change what they're doing. Why engage someone like that in any kind of a discussion? I wouldn't, no matter how unreasonable others might think that is. Others are free to do as they wish, of course.


I can't answer any of those questions in the abstract. It would depend on the individual situation and the rhetorical skill of the author. For a long time there was a response by Orsen Scott Card in Amazon reviews directed at various criticisms of one of his _Ender_ books. It was masterful, and prompted me to buy the book. He didn't use a comment, so it wasn't a direct response to anyone. He used a review entry. One of the most interesting things was people kept voting for his review entry and pushing it to the top of the list. So critics, author, and folks in the bleachers all joined in.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

T.L. Haddix said:


> You only think that. What you don't know is that I astrally projected myself into your house and whispered those words to your fur-kids, who then 'spoke' them to you. I quoted the original reviews that weren't fake, so they're not actually fake reviews. They're just amalgamations of other reviews that are real.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Another aspect of the whole situation involves the innocent reader who leaves a good faith review. Then some author comes along and says the reader is a fake.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I can't answer any of those questions in the abstract. It would depend on the individual situation and the rhetorical skill of the author. For a long time there was a response by Orsen Scott Card in Amazon reviews directed at various criticisms of one of his _Ender_ books. It was masterful, and prompted me to buy the book. He didn't use a comment, so it wasn't a direct response to anyone. He used a review entry. One of the most interesting things was people kept voting for his review entry and pushing it to the top of the list. So critics, author, and folks in the bleachers all joined in.


A couple of points I don't understand.

If this was a regular review, how many stars did he give himself?

And, did he eventually remove it?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> If this was a regular review, how many stars did he give himself?
> And, did he eventually remove it?


He gave himself five stars, and addressed it. He said Amazon demands a star score, and it would have been pretty dumb to give himself fewer.

I don't know why it doesn't appear now. Last time I looked for it I couldn't find it. I don't know the details.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Lot's of people distorting my arguments, or just plain not understanding them.

In a nutshell:

1. 1 star reviews are allowed.
2. Anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment.
3. I don't leave 1 star reviews, or use sock puppets.
4. Everyone up in arms about those who do is overreacting.
5. Signing a petition proclaiming your purity is overkill, and perhaps dangerous.

That's it. The rest of my argument was about how ethics are gray, and we've all done things we aren't proud of but don't deserve to be publicly shamed for, and witch hunts are bad. I also state, several times, that talking trash about other authors and their books is a lousy thing to do, which is why I don't do it.

Yet I will defend anyone's right to talk trash about me, including leaving me 1 star reviews, not matter what name they use.

That's my argument. You don't have to agree. You're entitled to be outraged over whatever you'd like. But it you want to condemn those whose morals aren't up to yours, the problem isn't the person who isn't meeting your standards. The problem is you. Moral superiority often results in hate groups. Self-righteousness often leads to the persecution of the innocent. And while you're entitled to call me morally corrupt, I'm entitled to call you a pinhead.

Nuff said.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

genevieveaclark said:


> I don't have a problem with morality. I don't care what these people do in their own lives. I have a problem with being lied to, including lies of omission meant to mislead for profit. I have a problem with being manipulated for profit, and I'm always going to think ill of people who try to use me that way, because they're treating me with contempt.
> 
> Also, hate groups? Really?
> 
> Who's overreacting, again?


Who lied to you and made a profit off of you? Locke, in his ebook? You know you can get a refund, right?

Or maybe you didn't buy his book. Maybe you aren't personally being manipulated for profit (BTW, another term for this is "advertising") but you've appointed yourself Condemner of Those That You Don't Approve Of. And you're doing this without making a decent argument proving you've been treated with contempt. You've already reached your verdict without even weighing the facts.

I've shown, in three blog posts, how there was zero harm done to any author or reader because of fake reviews or sock puppets. I've written thousands of words defending my position. And you've contributed your opinion, without anything to back it up.

As for hate groups, that online petition, and many of the reactions it prompted, meets the Wikipedia definition of a hate group. Hostility was, and still is, being directed by a large group of authors toward a smaller group of authors. These authors have been publicly humiliated, online and in the media. They continue to be bullied and picked on. Moral panic applies.

Again, you are free to disagree with me. But it would make for a more productive debate if you backed up your opinions with an argument rather than just stating them as irrefutable facts. You can think ill of whomever you want to. That's your right. But if you want to engage me, defend your position. Explain how you've been lied to, explain the harm it has caused you and others, and state what an appropriate solution is. Locke didn't mention buying reviews in his how-to book, and you think the appropriate solution is to humiliate him in a New York Times feature piece? Ellory left one star reviews (BTW, perhaps you should ask why he did that, and what those authors he did it to did to him first) so he deserves to be vilified in The Guardian?

You're overreacting. And no one likes to be told they're overreacting. You feel like someone lied to you on the Internet (again, without defending your statement). Did they lie specifically to you, signaling you out intentionally? Because that's what the petition did. It signaled out three people for chastisement.

Me? I'm not overreacting. I see authors being picked on by large groups, with the media jumping on board. So I step in. Like I do when the AAR, or the Authors Guild, or Harlequin, or Big 6 publishers, screw authors. I attack organizations, not individuals. I try to help authors, not signal them out of ridicule.

Now, unless you can show how you've been personally harmed by what Locke, Leather, Ellory, or I have done, your statement "I don't have a problem with morality. I don't care what these people do in their own lives." is false. Because unless you were personally effected, you apparently do have a problem with morality, and do care what others do in their own lives.

Again, you are entitled to your feelings and your opinions. They are no doubt genuine, and important enough for you to post them here. But if you want to debate this, you have to do better.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Who lied to you and made a profit off of you? Locke, in his ebook? You know you can get a refund, right?


Nitpick: depending on where it was bought. Kobo does not offer a refund, for example, unless there is a problem with the readability with the book. Not liking the content is not a good enough receive on Kobo to get a refund.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I've shown, in three blog posts, how there was zero harm done to any author or reader because of fake reviews or sock puppets. I've written thousands of words defending my position. And you've contributed your opinion, without anything to back it up.


Do you personally track down every sock puppet and author and reader? If not, then you really can't say that zero harm was done. You can say that you personally have not been harmed, and that people you spoken with don't feel they've been harmed. But there is no way to tell how many sales were lost because of bad reviews. And if even one person bought a book because of a fake good review, then there has been harm done.

And honestly, there is a different kind of harm to consider. The harm to the reputation of all indie authors who DON'T engage in sock puppetry, reveiw exchanges, etc, but are yet viewed by the public with suspicion because of the behavior of other people.

But, as you said, you have your opinion, and I have mine. But beating this dead horse of your opinion will never turn it into a throughbred racer.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

telracs said:


> Do you personally track down every sock puppet and author and reader? If not, then you really can't say that zero harm was done. You can say that you personally have not been harmed, and that people you spoken with don't feel they've been harmed. But there is no way to tell how many sales were lost because of bad reviews. And if even one person bought a book because of a fake good review, then there has been harm done.
> 
> And honestly, there is a different kind of harm to consider. The harm to the reputation of all indie authors who DON'T engage in sock puppetry, reveiw exchanges, etc, but are yet viewed by the public with suspicion because of the behavior of other people.
> 
> But, as you said, you have your opinion, and I have mine. But beating this dead horse of your opinion will never turn it into a throughbred racer.


It isn't my job to show no harm was done. It is up to those claiming harm to prove they were harmed. Have you been harmed? If so, explain how. If not, how can you speak for others?

As for lost sales, that's an easy argument to disprove. Do you automatically buy every book you see that has a five star review? Do you automatically ignore those that have a one star review? Can you distinguish between a thoughtful review and one that seems suspect?

Lots of factors go into a decision to buy an ebook. Reviews are only one thing readers look at, and I believe readers are savvy. If they're interested in an ebook, but it got a lot of bad reviews, they can still download a free sample and judge for themself. And if they bought a book they hated, they can get a full refund and write their own one star review.

So I'm confident in saying no one was harmed. There is no way to show a bad review stopped someone from buying a book. Amazon allows bad reviews.

As for harm to the reputation of indie authors, that's quite a leap, don't you think? I publicly supported Locke, Leather, and Ellory--and I've had many people disagree with me. Yet my sales remain steady. Not even a slight dip. And I'm the one quoted all the time, all over the place, and people are trashing me everywhere.

A moral panic is the intensity of feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order. Your concerns are textbook examples of moral panic. And moral panic ain't a good thing.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I've shown, in three blog posts, how there was zero harm done to any author or reader because of fake reviews or sock puppets. I've written thousands of words defending my position. And you've contributed your opinion, without anything to back it up.


No you haven't. All you have done is express an opinion. You have "shown" nothing.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> *It isn't my job to show no harm was done*. It is up to those claiming harm to prove they were harmed. Have you been harmed? If so, explain how. If not, how can you speak for others?
> 
> As for lost sales, that's an easy argument to disprove. Do you automatically buy every book you see that has a five star review? Do you automatically ignore those that have a one star review? Can you distinguish between a thoughtful review and one that seems suspect?
> 
> ...


Bolding above is mine....

Make up your mind. If it's not your job to show that people were harmed, how can you say with certainty that no one was harmed.

It's all semantics. I honestly don't care what you think about this. Or what you think about what I think about it.

But you're asking me to prove harm when you've disavowed any responsibility is disingenuous.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to change your name here so that people who don't read your books/blog realized that you are J. Konrath.

And writing long discourses about just proves that we both have too much time on our hands.

One last thing, and then I stop posting here..

If you really don't care about peoples' opinions, then why are you so adamantly and long-windedly defending your own? Oh, I know, you're not defensive, you're stating your position....


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

DarkScribe said:


> No you haven't. All you have done is express an opinion. You have "shown" nothing.


Actually, I have. I've presented arguments and defended them. See above for my nutshell conclusions--those are the arguments I defended on my blog.

You're welcome to defend why you believe writers aren't overreacting to this issue, or why signing a petition isn't overkill, and I can direct you to the parts of my blog that explain why I stated those things.

To make it easier, here are the posts in question:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/enough-already.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/ethical-roulette.html

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/writers-code-of-ethics.html

Please point out where my logic falters or where I don't back up my opinions.


----------



## Alan Ryker (Feb 18, 2011)

If only the people who signed the petition had done so with sock puppets. Then condemning them would be a hate crime!

This is hilarious!


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Jack Kilborn said:


> It isn't my job to show no harm was done.


It might not be your "job" but if you want your opinion to be considered as possibly valid then you need to support your claims in a logical and realistic manner. You have not done this.



Jack Kilborn said:


> It is up to those claiming harm to prove they were harmed. Have you been harmed? If so, explain how. If not, how can you speak for others?
> 
> As for lost sales, that's an easy argument to disprove. Do you automatically buy every book you see that has a five star review? Do you automatically ignore those that have a one star review? Can you distinguish between a thoughtful review and one that seems suspect?


This is a disingenuous comment. Suggesting buying every five star rated book is a ridiculous strawman approach to supporting your point of view. Choosing to buy any book and using a rating system to aid you in your choice is common practice by millions of people. If that rating has been gamed, if it can no longer be trusted, if exceptionally high ratings now seem suspect, then those writers who have earned exceptionally high ratings will suffer lost sales. If you can't see that it is because you don't want to do so.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

telracs said:


> Make up your mind. If it's not your job to show that people were harmed, how can you say with certainty that no one was harmed.


When a class action lawsuit is initiated, do the lawyers look for all the people who weren't harmed? Do they personally interview every single person on the planet to see if harm was done?

Or do they ask those who have been harmed to step forward and join the suit?

That's what I'm asking. And no one has stepped forward. No one has shown harm.

Until harm can be shown, and proven, there is no lawsuit.



telracs said:


> It's all semantics. I honestly don't care what you think about this. Or what you think about what I think about it.


I've only got your words to understand your intent. If that wasn't your intent, perhaps you should have used different words.



telracs said:


> But you're asking me to prove harm when you've disavowed any responsibility is disingenuous.


You do understand where the burden of proof falls, right? If you claim harm, you have to prove harm. I don't have to go on a quest to prove no one was harmed. That's silly.



telracs said:


> Oh, and by the way, you might want to change your name here so that people who don't read your books/blog realized that you are J. Konrath.


Says someone called "telracs." Thanks. I smiled at that.

I'm pretty sure those here know Jack Kilborn is one of my pen names. If not, a quick glance at the Konrath titles in my signature should confirm it.



telracs said:


> And writing long discourses about just proves that we both have too much time on our hands.


Have you written a long discourse? I've written thousands of words on this topic. Free time is a luxury I'm lucky to have, as it allows me to spout off when I see the publishing industry failing badly. The spouting off I've done in the past has apparently been helpful to some people. If my arguments about sock puppets and fake reviews aren't helpful to you, there isn't much I can do about that. But they are there for those who want to look critically at themselves. This whole episode helped me to grow and learn. I analyzed the ethical lines I would and wouldn't cross, and thought about how I'm able to justify my actions. I believe that sort of discussion is important.

But instead of people discussing it, and ethics, and fairness, and a whole range of interesting topics, I've seen a lot of people calling names and pointing fingers and acting morally superior. I don't find this helpful, or interesting. My posts on this were self-reflective. I answered my own questions, truthfully, and found that worthwhile. Much more worthwhile than finger pointing and condemnation.



telracs said:


> One last thing, and then I stop posting here..
> 
> If you really don't care about peoples' opinions, then why are you so adamantly and long-windedly defending your own? Oh, I know, you're not defensive, you're stating your position....


Am I long winded? I try to use only the words needed to adequately state my position. If I'm falling short, you're welcome to edit me and state what parts of my argument are repetitive or unnecessary.

I don't care about peoples' opinions. But if you read my blog, you know I do enjoy opposing viewpoints, because it lets me hone my arguments, and learn new things.

I have, on occasion, changed my mind as more information presented itself. Every so often, someone I'm debating makes a good point, something I hadn't thought of. Or they introduce an argument or data that adds to the discussion.

I learn a lot from my comments section. That's why I blog.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

btw, "jack"  i'm not a writer, and i'm not selling anything here or blogging about how people should sell things anywhere.  since you're doing both, you should be clear about pen names.  and you assuming that everyone is going to know both your names doesn't surprise me.  i don't have the time or the energy to play word games with a professional wordsmith, so have nice life, hope you're happy and eventually karma will catch up with all of us.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Actually, I have. I've presented arguments and defended them. See above for my nutshell conclusions--those are the arguments I defended on my blog.


Defending your POV does not "show" me anything. The only thing that can show is irrefutable proof. The next best is logic. If the rating system is damaged, if there are numerous posts by potential purchasers saying that avoiding five star reviews (as they might have been faked) and buying only four star reviews based on the premise that fakers always go for five stars, then damage has been done to those who earned their rating honestly.



Jack Kilborn said:


> You're welcome to defend why you believe writers aren't overreacting to this issue, or why signing a petition isn't overkill, and I can direct you to the parts of my blog that explain why I stated those things.


I am not claiming that writers are over reacting - or under reacting so I have nothing to "defend". I am only responding to your rather amusing, unproved, and presumptuous claims.

Very simply - the rating system is now regarded by many with suspicion. If the rating system once aided the higher ranked in obtaining sales, and it no longer does - ipso facto - there has been damage.

Would you like to argue that there has been no change in the way people regard or trust the rating system? If not, you have no argument.

(Do you suppose that the sudden breeze rattling my windows was caused by the influx of air as an enormous ego left the room?)
_
"Peace, and apologies to those who wished to engage me on this topic. I'm sure the debate would have been fun, but I'm going back to my WIP. Thanks for the discussion."_


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

telracs said:


> btw, "jack" i'm not a writer, and i'm not selling anything here or blogging about how people should sell things anywhere. since you're doing both, you should be clear about pen names. and you assuming that everyone is going to know both your names doesn't surprise me. i don't have the time or the energy to play word games with a professional wordsmith, so have nice life, hope you're happy and eventually karma will catch up with all of us.


It kind of goes without saying in "The Writers' Cafe" that you're playing word games with professional wordsmiths. I don't know that playing games with Konrath is a lot scarier than playing with Krista or, some would say, me. He just sells more books and makes more money. Anyhoo, the name is all over the sig line so he wasn't hiding anything.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

genevieveaclark said:


> Not if you bought it more than 7 days ago. You know that, right?


Why would you wait 7 days to return something you hated?

And if you did truly hate it after 7 days, contact Amazon customer support. I bet they'd be helpful.



genevieveaclark said:


> No. You know the FTC has guidelines about this for actual reasons, right? That companies and individuals can be sued and fined for deliberately misleading advertising or for a failure to disclose financial interest in products that they review or discuss? And you know this applies to blog posts, too, right? Maybe you don't. You should read up on it!


Can you point me to someone fined per these FTC guidelines, and what the actual offense was? Since you've apparently read up on it, you should have no trouble with the request.

Also, put on your legal hat and explain how Locke violated those guidelines. And then show me what the penalty is. Hint: The FTC tells him to stop it and take down those reviews, or add disclaimers.

So Locke should be humiliated by the NYT because he didn't add disclaimers? Does that punishment fit the crime?



genevieveaclark said:


> Aw, now I have to wonder about your reading comprehension. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I stated a series of behaviors with which I would - note the conditional - have a problem. For the record: yes, anyone who lies to me, whether it's in private conversation or whether it's part of a large scale campaign, in order to get me to do something, is treating me with contempt. That, you may be shocked to learn, is a personal opinion. It doesn't require evidence. It doesn't require proof. How would that even work? Do I need to reduce language as a formal system and build, from the simplest, irreducible pieces of meaning, a construction of "lie" that also includes "contempt"? And then I'll just happily await my Nobel prize? Sometimes I don't think you know what proof is.


You know you posted in a thread about fake reviews, right? Forgive me if I was lead to believe that's what you were speaking of.

And you still haven't shown how you were harmed. Hmm...



genevieveaclark said:


> "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society."
> 
> Sorry, Joe. "Writers who lie on the Internet" does not rise to the level of "designated sector of society," but I'm sure all the people that actually are targeted by hate groups because of who they are don't mind your trivializing their experiences _at all_.


Tell you what. I'll get several major newspapers and websites to humiliate you, and then rally my considerable fanbase to sign a petition condemning your behavior, then spend days Tweeting about how terrible you are, and get dozens of others to join in and retweet until it is seen thousands and thousands of times, and then you can tell me you don't feel like you're being persecuted by a hate group.

"Writers who lie on the Internet" are actually three people being named and targeted. That lead to a few others being named and targeted, as I expected it would. It lead to people signing that silly petition because they were afraid of being targeted themselves. And, if it wasn't challenged, I think it could have lead to innocent people being targeted. Heck, in this very thread people have accused me of having fake reviews.

You think that's a good thing?



genevieveaclark said:


> I don't know how to make this any clearer. I stated that, in my opinion, the act of lying to someone, either individually or as part of a group, in order to get them to give you money, is contemptuous. I could elaborate on that further - that to lie in such a way displays such disrespect that it must include contempt - but what's the point? It's my opinion. As to how I've been lied to: reviews - or blog posts, or articles, or whatever - that are intended to deceive me by representing themselves as without financial interest in the book under review when in fact they only exist because they do have such an interest are inherently deceptive. They are lies. Full stop. Whether you're ok with that is a different question.


I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in you showing me how you've been harmed.



genevieveaclark said:


> As to a solution: wow, I didn't realize I'd been given the job! Seriously, are you for real? There is no "solution." I just think the people involved are slimy. That's all. It's not a new problem, and there won't be a new fix.


So, no solution. But it sure feels good to point fingers and embrace that righteous indignation, don't it? 



genevieveaclark said:


> I'd love to see a quote! You know why there isn't one? Because I didnt say those things. For the record, acting as though people said things they've never said just so you can argue against them is...well, let's just call it weird, for now. It's also kind of sad.


You're conflating two different paragraphs. I didn't mean to suggest you said that. Your overreaction was due to what you said, not what I said.



genevieveaclark said:


> I'd also love to understand how the newspaper articles you mentioned are to be considered humiliating and vilifying if there is nothing wrong with the underlying acts that they expose.


There's nothing wrong with masturbating or going to the bathroom, either. But I wouldn't want pics of me doing either in the NYT.

When I see an author behaving badly, I email them privately. I don't blog about it, or call the papers. There's education, and there's reeducation. One is to enlighten. The other is to punish.



genevieveaclark said:


> No. I am part of the group that these people intended to, and did, deceive. They lied to me, just as they lied to everyone else. Whether they specifically put my name on it is immaterial and has no effect on the truth value of their statements. Which, btw, still false.


Watch out for nosebleeds when your high horse is that high.



genevieveaclark said:


> I think you are. I think you see an opportunity to be at the center of another issue, and you jump on it. To each his own.


Actually, several of the pinheads who started that petition did so because they love to see their names in the paper. It makes them feel important. That's a sad side to human nature. Me? I've turned down many more interviews than I've ever given. The opportunities I've declined would make the majority of my peers want to slap me.

I'd prefer there to be no issues at all. I'd certainly get a lot more done. Some people like the limelight. I do not. You might think I enjoy media attention, because I get a lot of it, but correlation doesn't equal causation.

I'd love to quit blogging and just write books. But the industry is broken. Too many people are still doing too many stupid things. Like that ridiculous, self-important petition. The issues need to be made public so writers can make informed decisions.

So I blog. Sometimes people agree with me. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they take it personally.

I don't take anything personally. And I advise everyone reading this to do the same.

And with that, I've said all I need to about sock puppets and fake reviews. I'll let my words stand on their own merit.

Peace, and apologies to those who wished to engage me on this topic. I'm sure the debate would have been fun, but I'm going back to my WIP. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> It kind of goes without saying in "The Writers' Cafe" that you're playing word games with professional wordsmiths. *I don't know that playing games with Konrath is a lot scarier than playing with Krista *or, some would say, me. He just sells more books and makes more money. Anyhoo, the name is all over the sig line so he wasn't hiding anything.


Oh hey! An honourable mention! Thanks!


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

After reading his post, it makes me wonder if Joe is doing a little sock puppetry of his own....


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

An average writer with cogent argument and analysis can easily beat a professional wordsmith with neither.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I just want to say that I take a lot longer than 7 days to get around to reading books I've purchased. I'm sure I'm not the only person.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*waves*

Me, too....

Betsy


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *waves*
> 
> Me, too....
> 
> Betsy


I like having a lot of books to choose from. That way, I always have something ready to match my mood.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm the original poster. During the time I've known of you and read you Joe I've never disagreed with you, especially in your diatribes against trad publishers. But your defense of this baffles me. I have read your posts and responses here and I'm still confounded. Bottom line: Your argument that "it's not a crime to do it, so that makes it ok, as long as it doesn't harm anyone" is not one I agree with.

This has, and always will be about intent. Not an actual crime. No, Locke didn't officially commit a crime. His intent, however you spin it, was to work the system to get more reviews. He paid for them. You say "good and legal business decision", and many of us say "cheater". We disagree. Won't convince you otherwise.

You may know publishing in and out, but I know Internet marketing in and out. Over 16-years working in it. I've seen this type of "intent" run rabid until finally things like the can-spam act and the ftc disclosure laws had to be put in place. Because while it wasn't illegal to spam 5 million people with your Viagra ad before the can-spam act, the intent was bogus and the unsolicited contact unwanted. And yes, there are people in jail for this. I won't post them all, just start reading here: https://www.google.com/search?q=jail+for+spamming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The ftc disclosure laws were put in place to go after big name scammers who lied about testimonials and false claims on things like weight loss and health products and yes, also regular, every day other types of products and bloggers, including books. Here's a story about the shoe company Sketchers getting a $400k fine. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/16/us/ftc-skechers-fine/ Notice why they got fined? "False claims".

Here's another: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/08/oreck-settles-false-advertising-charges-pays-ftc-750-000-fine/ (false claims)

No, the ftc has not gone after Joe Blogger not disclosing his affiliate links, just as they're not going to go after Locke for some fake reviews. That wasn't the intent of the governance. That doesn't make it ok to do it though. Like the cop who gave me a ticket for parking in front of my house the first night I moved in, "Just because you don't know the law, or don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist". Total bullshit, but he's right.

Did you know that way back when it was legal to sell and package cooking oil as "light" because it was packaged in a clear bottle, even though it wasn't "light"? The government had to step into those things as well to protect consumers. Surely you can agree that type of deceptive advertising and lame marketing is not "ok just because it was legal"?

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/22/misleading_advertising_salpart/

From this article on Salon. Here's what the FTC can, and has done, to people.



> So what can the FTC do to strengthen its efforts in combating misleading advertising? Here are four places it can start:
> 
> 1. The FTC can impose monetary punishments on companies the second a judge rules them in violation. Currently, companies that are sued for misleading advertising only face a monetary penalty if three conditions are met. First, the company must continue false ads after the judge's ruling; second, the FTC must get those ads admitted to the record; and finally, the judge must find it guilty of committing a "double violation."
> 
> ...


If you want to read more, here you go:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

We should all be thanking Locke for this really. Because hopefully this will spur some action into Amazon stopping this type of thing from happening. But fat chance as Amazon really only cares about $$$, and I doubt they're going to slow down any sales of anything for a few writers/authors with pitchforks.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> It kind of goes without saying in "The Writers' Cafe" that you're playing word games with professional wordsmiths. I don't know that playing games with Konrath is a lot scarier than playing with Krista or, some would say, me. He just sells more books and makes more money. Anyhoo, the name is all over the sig line so he wasn't hiding anything.


don't feel insulted, i find you and krista and julie plenty scary.
but, two points..
1) not everyone who posts in the WC is a writer (something of which i periodically like to remind people).
2) not everyone can see signatures.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Awwwww thanks.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I just want to say that I take a lot longer than 7 days to get around to reading books I've purchased. I'm sure I'm not the only person.


I almost never get around to reading a book within 7 days. . .even ones I've bothered to pre-order!


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Yay, so cool to have JA Konrath on thread! Too bad it wasn't about happier things.  

... just when Writers Cafe was starting to look like a box of puppies, the gang takes a nice big dump in the tub! Hurrah!

Shoot, now how am I supposed to write?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Bottom line: Your argument that "it's not a crime to do it, so that makes it ok, as long as it doesn't harm anyone" is not one I agree with.


If an action does not harm anyone, then it is either beneficial, benign, or neutral. That makes it OK.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> If an action does not harm anyone, then it is either beneficial, benign, or neutral. That makes it OK.


Really? How about desecrating a grave. If no one is aware of it, you feel that it is OK? If someone uses a hidden camera to take video of your partner naked and puts it on a porn site - but neither you nor your partner is aware of it - that's also OK? While visiting your house when you are having a spring clean I notice that you are throwing out a small vase. I know that the vase is actually an extraordinarily valuable antique. I ask you to give it to me - which you do. I later sell it (without you finding out) for several million dollars. That is OK too?

My examples are extreme but they are meant to illustrate that it is NOT alright simply because no one is harmed. Society - most of society - has standards. Breaking them is not alright.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Dalya said:


> Shoot, now how am I supposed to write?


Dalya,

Like you and I and all the real non-poseur writers in here always write.

By closing down the Web browser, firing up one's favorite writing program, and putting words on the page.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Dalya,
> 
> Like you and I and all the real non-poseur writers in here always write.
> 
> By closing down the Web browser, firing up one's favorite writing program, and putting words on the page.


Oh, my day didn't go that well, so I took a nap. 0 words today, but there's always tomorrow.

I can't be trusted to leave the browsers shut, so I have to run an app that blocks internet for an hour at a time. 

Total unrelated point, but I've completed over 600k words on various projects. When I get to a million ... I guess I'll talk about it for a couple of days and then carry on.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

In my first 15 months as a full-time indie writer, I wrote LOTS.

(Between my super-secret pen-name and my real name, I mean. Combined.)

But late last spring, I hit a wall and it's been like pulling teeth in the last three months.

I feel like I might be coming out of it, though.  So there's that.

600K words, though, is very impressive, Ms. Moon.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

I must admit I'm surprised that Konrath has spent so much time on this and has defending behavior that is giving self-published authors a bad name (not they're the only one doing this. He has had the following posts:


Get Over Yourselves
Ethical Roulette
Writers' Code of Ethics

All saying that there are "grey lines" in response to reviews. I don't know I don't see the lines as being very grey.


Posting any review while hiding your identity is wrong
Posting any review for a book you haven't read is wrong
Asking others to do either of the above on your behalf is wrong
If a reader writes you an email, saying they loved your book, it is fine to tell them that posting a review will help spread the enthusiasm
Paying for reviews will work against you if anyone finds out they are paid for
Offering to trading reviews with other authors before either of you have read the books is a recipe for potential disaster
If you read another author's book and like it - then no reason not to review and say so 
An author leaving a 1-star review for a book another's book might reflect badly on them (sour grapes) - whether you like it or not you are now a public figure and your mom was right about not saying anything if you can't say something nice. We should be supporting other authors not trying to "bring them down a peg" and besides all opinion on books is subjective. Better to just say "it wasn't for me, but that doesn't mean the book won't be liked by others."

Seems pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

jimkukral said:


> http://www.jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/enough-already.html
> 
> My thoughts. This may be the first time I disagree with Konrath. Of course it's "ok" to to post a one-star review on Amazon because Amazon allows it. But that argument is weak. What people are upset about is the intent of the person who posts a one-star review to try and hurt another competing author. Or the person who buys reviews to try and sell more books. Sure, it's "legal" because Amazon allows it happen, but that doesn't make it ok.
> 
> We're allowed to be upset about intent. Intent to harm or to not play fairly.


Listen, if Amazon wouldn't allow it, it would biased, so they have to allow it. Besides, a one star review adds credibility. If a reader sees a book and it's full of five stars, they may get a little suspicious. A one star review can actually help you sell more books. Let's face it, no matter how good your book, it's not going to please everyone. Somebody is going to find fault with it so you might as well go with the flow and forget about it. If I know in my heart that I wrote the best book I could write then a one star review is not going to bother me.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Why would you wait 7 days to return something you hated?


Because you were conned.

You were led to believe that Locke would tell you how he sold a bazillion books, and only *several months later* it transpires he omitted the most important ingredient: stuffing your book pages with paid-for reviews. (Something some of us won't stoop to.)
You were actually sold a "defective" and incomplete product.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> My examples are extreme but they are meant to illustrate that it is NOT alright simply because no one is harmed. Society - most of society - has standards. Breaking them is not alright.


All your examples do harm. Knowledge of the harm is not a necessary condition for harm.

Social standards can be exceedingly harmful, and it is not alright to comply with them. A standard needs a rational basis, not just a bunch of nodding heads.



> Posting any review while hiding your identity is wrong


Hamilton, Madison, and Jay posted the Federalist Papers under the name "Publius."


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> All your examples do harm. Knowledge of the harm is not a necessary condition for harm.
> 
> Social standards can be exceedingly harmful, and it is not alright to comply with them. A standard needs a rational basis, not just a bunch of nodding heads.


and my not buying a book because i doubt the reviews does harm to the author. 
and people forming bad opinions of indie authors because of sock puppets does harm to authors.

just because you can't see it doesn't mean the harm isn't real.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Could be. I'm not dealing with reviews. I'm challenging the notion that we should refrain from action that is beneficial, benign, or neutral.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

Again, this entire thing is about intent to decieve.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Action affects us, not the internal state of another's mind. The same action and effect can result from opposing intentions. The effect is the same. I'd suggest we forget about thought crimes.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2012)

Quote:

*"Hamilton, Madison, and Jay posted the Federalist Papers under the name "Publius."*

Maybe I'm missing something.

The Federalist Papers? Don't think that was a book review published under a false name.


----------



## Paul G (Apr 9, 2011)

I hate that people buy reviews and I would never pay for a review but unfortunately, as long as there is a review system, some people will find a way to cheat the system and have fake and paid for reviews. Because of that, I don't trust ANY reviews and put no stock in them at all when deciding whether to purchase a book.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The Federalist Papers? Don't think that was a book review published under a false name.


Correct. While they can easily be considered reviews of the proposed US Constitution, and Publius was a false name, I agree the US Constitution is not a book.

However, anonymous reviews are a subset of the class of anonymous writing. We have anonymous books, anonymous reviews, anonymous articles, pen names, anonymous contributors to KB, etc. Anonymous reviews belong to a larger class of anonymous writing. If there are valid reasons for anonymity in the larger class, then we should have some basis for carving out an exception only for book reviews.

Publius is an interesting case since I'd propose the ratification of the US Constitution was far more important than a consumer's decision to spend $2.99 on a book.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

*drools drips from corner of the mouth*


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Action affects us, not the internal state of another's mind. The same action and effect can result from opposing intentions. The effect is the same. I'd suggest we forget about thought crimes.


The legal codes are rife with issues of intent. Typically, for example, one can't be convicted of fraud without intent to deceive being proven to a "clear and convincing" standard.

The FTC has declared the right, under the FTC act, to regulate commercial speech found to be deceptive. It's declared consumer reviews a type of commercial speech. If one day the FTC decides to institute fines for deceptive consumer reviews--And wouldn't that keep them very busy!--then no one is going to have to pay any fines without a "thought crime" having been demonstrated.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The legal codes are rife with issues of intent. Typically, for example, one can't be convicted of fraud without intent to deceive being proven to a "clear and convincing" standard.


Sure they are, when that intent is coupled with harm. But we don't see much about intent when the action is beneficial, benign or neutral.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Konrath writes fake reviews of his own:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/konrath-posts-fake-amazon-reviews.html


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

EllenFisher said:


> Konrath writes fake reviews of his own:
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/09/konrath-posts-fake-amazon-reviews.html


Ah, Konrath! Ya gotta love him!


----------



## chrisstevenson (Aug 10, 2012)

I was a little surprised by Joe's reaction to this. Yet, I can't help thinking that he was doggedly defending the entire self-publishing community, rather than some individuals. Anybody else get this feeling? That he was casting a much wider net over his defense of this type of practice?


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2012)

JanneCO said:


> Ah, Konrath! Ya gotta love him!


He's STILL going on about this? Isn't he the one that was ranting that everyone else was overreacting?

Or did he notice his pageviews dropping and decide to stir the pot again?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> He's STILL going on about this? Isn't he the one that was ranting that everyone else was overreacting?


Yeah, that was my thought, too. The original issue had nothing to do with him at all. But he keeps talking about it (and we keep talking about him).


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The original issue had nothing to do with him at all.


Good point. In that case, then it had nothing to do with any of us.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Well, it affects us all in the general sense. But rather than talking about the original issue, or even just letting the matter die a quiet death, we're all talking about someone who wasn't involved in the matter to begin with. Konrath has as much right to weigh in as anyone. I'm just a bit amused that we developed an eight page thread on his opinion, that's all.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Hypothetically, if you found out an author was being paid to put up book reviews through a social media site, what would you do?
Just inform them it's wrong?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Hypothetically, if you found out an author was being paid to put up book reviews through a social media site, what would you do?


Nothing.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

I haven't really said anything about this issue, and let me be perfectly clear before I begin: no one will give a damn what I have to say anyway.

That being said, I was harmed. I spent the money and got Locke's book, and it's too late to return the book because the lies came out long after the book did. I'm referring to the one about how he sold a million ebooks in X amount of time.

I didn't buy it on account of the fake reviews, but the nature of that particular book resulted in harm. For clarity, he didn't sell a million books because he chased people on Twitter day in and day out. He sold them because he bought a bunch of fake reviews. So, it was a $4.99 non-fiction piece that was, at its core, a lie.

Indirectly, one could suppose that the fake reviews caused the harm because he wouldn't have been able to write such a piece without having sold the books in the first place (and the fake reviews certainly helped grease the gears of commerce in that respect).

Harm done: A few hours of my life wasted and $5. Maybe 10-12 hours worth of time over the whole John Locke experience since every blogger and journalist this side of the Atlantic (and the other side, too, probably) was up in arms about his sales and success. A memorable quote about being careful whom you put on a pedestal comes to mind. I think just about everyone who covered Locke's story in a blog, article, news story, or otherwise never even read his books. They chase proof of success, not proof of quality, and now, they're mad that they spent so much time on him for naught.

Witch hunts joined to date: 0. I don't have time for it. I have books to write and edit. Thankfully, I'm down to my last client on formatting, and my slate should be clean until October. I have three more releases before Christmas. Even writing this slice of nothing that no one will read is more than the issue deserves.

Moral(s) of the story: Get on with your lives. This is such a non-issue for most of us that it doesn't bear repeating at length. It doesn't make us all look bad that a couple of people have done unscrupulous things to get ahead. You don't have to join the mob to avoid persecution; just keep going along with what you were doing before, during, and after John Locke and the rest. Oh, and those using this scandal as a ticket to media inclusion and The Spotlight, shame on you. I don't find riding someone else's corpse into the limelight any more appealing than people buying reviews.

That will be all.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> For clarity, he didn't sell a million books because he chased people on Twitter day in and day out. He sold them because he bought a bunch of fake reviews.


How does one determine how many sales were due to social media, how many were due to paid reviews, unpaid reviews, word of mouth, people who liked book #1 and bought book #2, etc?

How is that done for any book?

What percentage of book sales are due to Amazon reviews?

I'd suggest we don't know any of the above.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> How does one determine how many sales were due to social media, how many were due to paid reviews, unpaid reviews, word of mouth, people who liked book #1 and bought book #2, etc?
> 
> How is that done for any book?
> 
> ...


I would suggest that he wrote a book saying he sold a million books solely from getting acquaintances from Twitter to review, which has been proven to be false by his own admission.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I would suggest that he wrote a book saying he sold a million books solely from getting acquaintances from Twitter to review, which has been proven to be false by his own admission.


Could be. But we still don't know how many sales were due to paid reviews, social media, unpaid reviews, word of mouth, buyers of book #1 buying books 2-9, free days, etc.

How many sales were due to unpaid reviews?

If we can do that for Locke's book, then the same techniques can be applied to any book. Did he have any free days?

We don't know the answers.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Could be. But we still don't know how many sales were due to paid reviews, social media, unpaid reviews, word of mouth, buyers of book #1 buying books 2-9, free days, etc.
> 
> How many sales were due to unpaid reviews?
> 
> ...


He's never price-matched to free, and he was never a user of Kindle Select that I ever noticed.

http://www.amazon.com/review/RLX97RHU7O6G5/ref=cm_aya_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B003CIOPZI
"Very overrated by others" ... "I also downloaded this because it was highly rated..."

Just a spot check to see if I could find someone who was influenced by the ratings. Here was another:

"After reading numerous reviews that said this was a great read..."

I'll concede that not all of the good reviews were necessarily fake if you're willing to concede that someone was probably influenced by one to buy the book. Due to the anonymous nature of the reviewing system, it would be impossible for anyone but Amazon working with the deceived customers to prove whether they read a fake review and bought based upon that or not.

That lack of proof does not indicate that no harm was done, though. The second reviewer did say that he or she read numerous reviews, and the chance of him/her not viewing and subsequently being influenced by a fake one is very slim indeed.

Either way, I really don't care that much. We can go back and forth on the issue for eternity, but neither side of it will have any proof one way or the other. We just have the evidence that the review buying took place en masse and likely influenced the customer base. If it wasn't so, then books without reviews would also be in the top 100 of the Kindle store. Reviews do influence the customers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I'll concede that not all of the good reviews were necessarily fake if you're willing to concede that someone was probably influenced by one to buy the book.


I'm content to say any and everything can have an influence on someone. I'll say that regardless of what you concede. There are all kinds of things that could have prompted people to buy Locke's book. (I bought my first Locke book because of the review controversy.)

However, the existence of someone who was influenced by a paid review of Book-A isn't sufficient to say another person was harmed when they bought Book-B. We still need to know a lot more. And it's certainly not sufficient to attribute the success of Book-A to paid reviews. We don't know.

I'm also content to say I don't know the extent of the influence of paid or unpaid reviews. I doubt any of us do.

Anyone yet figured out what percentage of Amazon book purchases are made by people who read Amazon reviews? Anyone know what percentage of people who view Amazon pages read the reviews?



> That lack of proof does not indicate that no harm was done, though.


Agree. Lack of proof doesn't indicate anything.



> We can go back and forth on the issue for eternity, but neither side of it will have any proof one way or the other.


My side says we don't know.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm also content to say I don't know the extent of the influence of paid or unpaid reviews. I doubt any of us do.


It is enough to say that at least one person was harmed (well, two, with the examples I provided), and thus, harm was done. The basis of the "no harm" argument is that no harm was done to anyone, which obviously isn't true. It doesn't require knowing the exact numbers of people that were harmed; the fact that one innocent person was harmed directly by the intentional actions of another means that it is wrong.

Could there be more? Probably so. There are probably other reviews that say they bought based on all of the glowing reviews, but I didn't research it that far. Does it take harming more than one to make it wrong? If I steal, is it okay until I reach a certain dollar value or a certain number of unique locations from which I've stolen? It's wrong on the first offense.

But, I won't be joining any of the witch hunts. Like I said, I'm too busy, and those more vocal (deafeningly so in some cases) are doing more than enough as it is.

And what are you doing reading my posts anyway? I declared earlier that no one would read it.


----------



## Jean E (Aug 29, 2011)

Konrath, wasn't he a friend of Kang and didn't they team up with Koloth and Kor to find the Sword of Kahless, or were they chasing down the Albino with Jadzia?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Now under FTC rules, reviewers are obligated to say whether they received a complimentary book and/or payment in every post mentioning the book. I notice in the Kindleboard.com banner ads, several indies use lines from paid Kirkus reviews and do not disclose it is from a "paid for review." This is technically illegal as the FTC rules are very clear the words "paid for" must be included with any mention of the review.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It is enough to say that at least one person was harmed (well, two, with the examples I provided), and thus, harm was done.


Enough for what? The claim was, "For clarity, he didn't sell a million books because he chased people on Twitter day in and day out. He sold them because he bought a bunch of fake reviews."

We don't know.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

@Terrence

As was mentioned in the original article by the person who charged for fake reviews, there were multiple authors that he worked with. One of the authors has received hundreds of two and one star reviews and used to be a regular here on the Kindleboards. He hasn't come here much since the forum posts started about him on Amazon. I'm not going to post his name here or the 850 post Amazon thread from readers who felt they had been duped, but to say there's no harm done to any of us by fake reviews is wishful thinking at best because his actions directly resulted in lost sales for other self-published authors.

Many of these readers tried an independent author, found him to be completely gaming the system and decided to never give another self-publisher another chance. Threads like that one are easy to find. Simply search for "fake reviews amazon forums" or something like that. Not only did the readers who were duped feel negative effects but there are also authors who almost certainly lost sales because of a readership (the reader and all the friends he or she might have told about a great self-published book) moving away from self-published fiction.

As for John Locke, I think he was the exception for the type of self-published author who paid for reviews. It helped convince a segment of the reading population that he was worth picking up, they did, and it turned out he was a great writer. However, the authors I've read about are on the mediocre to barely-passable spectrum and once readers started the book, they felt like they had been conned. And it was a con. This was intentional deception of quality to attract a reader in. It's like someone surrounding a car with fake mechanics in oily clothing (to show that they just got out of the shop or something) and paying the mechanics to hang around the car and jaw about how great the car is to anyone who comes to take a look at the for sale sign. The car price is a fraction of the blue book, and the deal looks too good to be true, but these mechanics who know the lingo and have inspected the engine swear it seems legit.

And thus a sucker is taken for his money and is unlikely to fall for anything resembling that scenario again. He's also likely to tell his friends so they don't fall for the same con. The problem is that there was nothing really unusual about the way the mechanics dressed or what they said, so the lesson learned is very likely to be 1) don't trust someone selling a car outside of a dealership or 2) don't trust anything with that low of a price, regardless of the appearance of endorsement from people you don't know.

So, fake reviews purchased by mediocre self-published authors taint the whole marketplace for self-published fiction. They anger legitimate customers who feel duped, and they dampen potential word-of-mouth, which is a key component of self-published success.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> but to say there's no harm done to any of us by fake reviews is wishful thinking at best because his actions directly resulted in lost sales for other self-published authors.


Speculation. We don't know. What authors? Do we have sales data to show that?



> but there are also authors who almost certainly lost sales because of a readership (the reader and all the friends he or she might have told about a great self-published book) moving away from self-published fiction.


Speculation. We don't know. Do we have sales data to show that?



> So, fake reviews purchased by mediocre self-published authors taint the whole marketplace for self-published fiction.


Speculation. We don't know. Do sales data show that?

Your speculations are reasonable, and I certainly can't refute them. But I don't see how they rise to the level of fact. We don't know, and it's probably far too early to make any determination.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Terrence, I don't think I'm allowed to link his books or the threads due to Kindleboards policy. However, it's not speculation to say that readers who have felt duped by these fake overwhelming positive reviews from people who never read the books have reacted negatively toward self-publishing. It's all over the Amazon Kindle forums if you'd unmask your bias and start doing some real research.

People duped by fake book reviews are almost always angry about it, especially if they spent any significant time or money trying it out.

P.S. I do have a mailbox if you'd like to message me and request links to the forum thread where one of the authors who purchased the fake review services was outed on the Amazon forums. I can also provide you with links to three of his books and you can see what happened to his average rating after Amazon removed hundreds of the fake reviews.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> We


Yep.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Terrence, I don't think I'm allowed to link his books or the threads due to Kindleboards policy. However, it's not speculation to say that readers who have felt duped by these fake overwhelming positive reviews from people who never read the books have reacted negatively toward self-publishing. It's all over the Amazon Kindle forums if you'd unmask your bias and start doing some real research.


Kindle forums pass for real research? Speculation. What is their sample set representative of? Biased researchers need to know.

Any sales data for an inquiring real researcher?


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

repeatedly saying 'speculation' smacks of trollish behavior.

Some self-published writers have essentially committed *fraud* - Q.E.D this reflects badly on all others in the same class of writers.

Its not 'speculation,' its self-evident. It does not require that anyone give you lists of the individuals whose reputations have been besmirched for this to be a true and valid statement.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> repeatedly saying 'speculation' smacks of trollish behavior.


That smacks of speculation.


----------



## autumn macarthur (Sep 24, 2012)

Oh my! I've only just found Kindleboards, and this is clearly a topic that gets a lot of emotion going. I actually bought Locke's book, and also one of the other guys mentioned, too.

It does occur to me (and I'm not normally the conspiracy theory type) that this whole thing has been blown waaaaay out of proportion, probably as an attempt to discredit self-publishing authors and make readers suspicious about self-published novels. 

I'm not excusing what these guys did, it's wrong. I feel the worse wrong is writing 1* reviews of competitors, or of books the person's never read, rather than paying for a few good reviews to get the ball rolling. Not saying I condone that, just saying falsifying bad reviews for competitors seems a worse sin. 

I mean, readers are not stupid. They are actually pretty good at avoiding the books with a handbook of glowing 5* reviews followed up with a few 1* reviews from the "real" readers. Those readers who paid for the book have every right to feel ripped off, of course. They are the people who've been wronged here. In the case of Locke though, many people actually liked his books. He didn't need to do the fake reviews.

But big businesses pay people to do fake reviews for their products all the time, and go on forums to write positive reviews and refute criticism. Locke behaved fraudulently, yes, but he simply applied big-business methods to self-publishing. 

What I take from Joe Konrath's post was that this is something not to be blown out of all proportion. Making a bigger deal about it and getting involved in a witch-hunt for the writers involved only plays into the hands of anyone wanting to discredit self-publishers. It's enough to say "It was wrong. I don't do that, and would never do that." Giving these guys 1* reviews on the basis of their business ethics and not the book they wrote is also wrong.

My main concern as a future  self-published writer is- how has all the publicity about this affected sales? Have people noticed their sales numbers take a hit as readers doubt the veracity of reviews? Is all the publicity everywhere about this affair damaged the credibilty of self-publishing?


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Kindle forums pass for real research? Speculation. What is their sample set representative of? Real researchers need to know.
> 
> Any sales data for an inquiring real researcher?


Your first bet, to help you understand buying habits from a statistical perspective (which will certainly validate that negative perceptions and discouragement affect brands and impulse buying), should probably be a Google scholar search. Researchers tend to use such searching systems to find empirical evidence to assert our claims. Since you are the one who seems locked up in quantitive evidence for the topic at hand, that impetus should fall on you and not me. However, I will make some small suggestions to get you moving in the right direction.

Here are a few articles to get you started.

Research on the effects of reference group on impulse buying behavior 
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5689798&tag=1

In this article, which was published recently, the effects of encouragement, discouragement or neutrality are measured against impulse buying behaviors. For relevance to our conversation, you can try looking at the "discouragement" data, as this is the most relevant. I say this because readers see fake reviews as a discouragement from trying both the conning author and any other potential conning author. You can then trace how this affects impulse buying.

A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behavior
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=856365&show=abstract

I am not famliar with this journal. If you can't download the document (due to payment requirements), I would recommend going to the Author's website at their university and looking for available publications. We usually include them on our websites thanks to copyright loopholes that are included in the agreement to publish in the journal. Anyway, this article claims to use both qualitative and quantitative data to test hypotheses related to consumers' motivations to engage in impulse buying.

You may also want to try reading a modern textbook on marketing, game theory, or even macro-economics, especially one that focuses on consumer behavior. No economic or marketing textbook I have ever heard of advocates your position--namely that conning or deceptive behavior does not impact a brand and there is no quantitive proof of such impacts. Quite frankly, your position seems silly and unlikely to be genuine. In computer science, we often refer to the behavior being exhibited here in fake review purchasing as "social engineering." This could be a useful search for you as well.

In short, I'm not here to do your research for you. My only impetus is to get you started on a track that isn't inane and intentionally annoying and misleading to everyone else on the forums. I would point you to psychology studies, but judging from your misunderstandings concerning what constitutes "real research", I have no real need to argue with you about it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> In short, I'm not here to do your research for you. My only impetus is to get you started on a track that isn't inane and intentionally annoying and misleading to everyone else on the forums. I would point you to psychology studies, but judging from your misunderstandings concerning what constitutes "real research", I have no real need to argue with you about it.


I agree you are not here do do my research for me, and I note you are not here with any of your own, either. That's why there is so much speculation. But speculation is good. It often leads to questions and investigation that can expand our horizons. Good work.

And those are great sources for a researcher. Now, what is the Kindle Forums sample set representative of?


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

It's a sample set of obviously dissatisfied readers who have disowned self-publishers due to fake review purchasing by self-publishers. It's also a sample set of people who have claimed they have been "hurt" and conned by overwhelming positive but fake reviews that encouraged them to waste time and money.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Terrence,

You don’t have to quantify the harm done—e.g., by counting and naming victims—when the action is inherently harmful. Posting fake reviews is analogous to counterfeiting currency. Every counterfeit bill (=fake review) diminishes the value of legal currency (=genuine reviews), even if the precise value of the loss is unknown. The effect isn’t speculation either; it’s common knowledge that any social or cultural “currency” is debased by gaming it. The more people lie, the less value verbal contracts and promises have, etc.

That last point is the reason I think Konrath’s rationalization of sock-puppetry is worse than sock-puppetry itself. Having a prominent blogger-author disseminating the idea that there’s nothing wrong with writing fake reviews further diminishes the value of reviews. Even if no one else is caught doing it, the value of reviews will diminish as a result of the perception that some writers think it okay to game the system. 

Again, the whole value of the review system is based on the perception that the vast majority of people leaving reviews are sincere—nothing else. Once that’s gone, the system has no value.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Now under FTC rules, reviewers are obligated to say whether they received a complimentary book and/or payment in every post mentioning the book. I notice in the Kindleboard.com banner ads, several indies use lines from paid Kirkus reviews and do not disclose it is from a "paid for review." This is technically illegal as the FTC rules are very clear the words "paid for" must be included with any mention of the review.


No. That is NOT what the rules say. I have read the rules and linked to them multiple times on this forum. I am well versed in the rules and I've been talking about them for over a year now.

The disclosure is required from the person who received the compensation from the endorsement. And it is ONLY required in such cases where the relationship between the seller and endorser is not clear. If Brad Pitt appears in a commercial for Snickers, they don't need to put a disclaimer that Brad Pitt was paid to be in the commercial. It is understood to be a commercial and people know that companies pay for commercials.

If Brad Pitt goes on the Today show and starts talking about his love of Snickers, and Snickers paid him to say it, then the FTC disclosure rules would kick in. Because in that environment, it would not be clear to the viewer that the discussion about Snickers was a paid endorsement.

In the case of Kirkus Reviews, the reason a disclosure is not required is because the review is not being portrayed as a CUSTOMER TESTIMONIAL. If you notice, you don't see Kirkus Reviews posted as customer reviews. At issue is not that a payment was made. The issue is that a payment was made but the endorsement presented in such a way as to make people believe it was a spontaneous, voluntary endorsement.

From the FTC:

*Do the Guides hold online reviewers to a higher standard than reviewers for paper-and-ink publications?*

No. The Guides apply across the board. The issue is - and always has been - whether the audience understands the reviewer's relationship to the company whose products are being reviewed. If the audience gets the relationship, a disclosure isn't needed. For a review in a newspaper, on TV, or on a website with similar content, it's usually clear to the audience that the reviewer didn't buy the product being reviewed. It's the reviewer's job to write his or her opinion and no one thinks they bought the product - for example, a book or movie ticket - themselves. But on a personal blog, a social networking page, or in similar media, the reader may not expect the reviewer to have a relationship with the company whose products are mentioned. Disclosure of that relationship helps readers decide how much weight to give the review.

http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf
People should in particular read section 255.2


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> It's a sample set of obviously dissatisfied readers who have disowned self-publishers due to fake review purchasing by self-publishers.


Good. So it's a valid sample of itself.



> The effect isn't speculation either; it's common knowledge that any social or cultural "currency" is debased by gaming it.


Have we seen that common knowledge validated in the currency of sales data? Note Brian's initial claim dealt with the number of sales resulting from paid reviews.



> That last point is the reason I think Konrath's rationalization of sock-puppetry is worse than sock-puppetry itself.


OK. Konrath can speak for himself.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

B.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

@B










I heart you.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Rex Jameson said:


> @B
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Outstanding.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Now under FTC rules, reviewers are obligated to say whether they received a complimentary book and/or payment in every post mentioning the book. I notice in the Kindleboard.com banner ads, several indies use lines from paid Kirkus reviews and do not disclose it is from a "paid for review." This is technically illegal as the FTC rules are very clear the words "paid for" must be included with any mention of the review.


I doubt there is any such law in my country, or in the UK, or in most countries of the world. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Ian Fraser said:


> Some self-published writers have essentially committed *fraud* - Q.E.D this reflects badly on all others in the same class of writers.





Rex Jameson said:


> Terrence, I don't think I'm allowed to link his books or the threads due to Kindleboards policy. However, it's not speculation to say that readers who have felt duped by these fake overwhelming positive reviews from people who never read the books have reacted negatively toward self-publishing.


Mediocre traditionally published authors have been outed as sock-puppeting their little nipples off as well. Do those readers now feel duped by traditionally published authors as well?
Does this reflect badly on e.g. J.K. Rowling, E. Hemingway and S. King? Do people now react negatively toward traditionally published authors?

Reality check:

1) We're independent authors. Independent, i.e. not part of some group.
2) I take no responsibility whatsoever for the actions of someone else.
3) There has been a bias against self published authors for a long time (certainly prior to this kerfuffle). There also is a bias against gays, Jews, black people, women an so on and so forth.
4) Traditional publishers have been rigging the game for ages and "a lot" of people are aware of this. This led to&#8230; nobody knows exactly what.
5) If you use general words like "many" and "a lot," I'm completely underwhelmed. I'd like to see a hard numbers. If your numbers amount to less than 10% of all readers, we're not talking about a serious problem.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> 3) There has been a bias against self published authors for a long time (certainly prior to this kerfuffle). *There also is a bias against gays, Jews, black people, women an so on and so forth.*


 

Been denied rights, enslaved, abused or threatened with murder lately because you self-publish? Then _just freaking NO_.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> No. That is NOT what the rules say. I have read the rules and linked to them multiple times on this forum. I am well versed in the rules and I've been talking about them for over a year now.
> 
> The disclosure is required from the person who received the compensation from the endorsement. And it is ONLY required in such cases where the relationship between the seller and endorser is not clear. If Brad Pitt appears in a commercial for Snickers, they don't need to put a disclaimer that Brad Pitt was paid to be in the commercial. It is understood to be a commercial and people know that companies pay for commercials.
> 
> ...


Sorry Julie, but the FTC says *if it is not clear that the positive endorsement was paid for-then it must be disclosed*. The general reading public is not aware that Kirkus positve endorsements are paid for, so it must be disclosed every time it is mentioned.



> This morning, the Federal Trade Commission announced that its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials would be revised in relation to bloggers. The new guidelines (PDF) specified that bloggers making any representation of a product must disclose the material connections they (the presumed endorsers) share with the advertisers. What this means is that, under the new guidelines, a blogger's positive review of a product may qualify as an "endorsement" http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/


He even goes onto say, the book must be returned if you aren't going to disclose it as compensation, and the money received must be disclosed.

There is a double standard (not the same), and that is discussed in the article.

Also this:


> 1. The FTC can fine both the blogger and the company for not disclosing an arrangement where the company compensates the blogger for a review, positive mention, or sponsored post. Wouldn't that be a bummer, to not mention your arrangement in the post and then find it costs you a new client? So not worth it.
> 
> First, let's define an "arrangement." According to the FTC, compensation happens when you:
> 
> ...


Now technically, if someone bought a book that had a "glowing" Kirkus review but the review is found to be misleading, and someone complained, you could be fined by the FTC.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> Been denied rights, enslaved, abused or threatened with murder lately because you self-publish? Then _just freaking NO_.


Scale has nothing to do with principle.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Scale has nothing to do with principle.


You're probably right. Because every day when I'm self-publishing and dealing with my first-world problems like whether Amazon will remove a review, I think to myself, "Wow, in principle this is just like the Holocaust or Apartheid. Uncanny."


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> You're probably right. Because every day when I'm self-publishing and dealing with my first-world problems like whether Amazon will remove a review, I think to myself, "Wow, in principle this is just like the Holocaust or Apartheid. Uncanny."


Oh dear&#8230; I just meant to say that people will dislike/have a bias against other people for all kinds of reasons, most of them irrational. Nobody, least of all me, denies that there are huge differences. The implication being that there are a lot more serious problems than the ones I replied to.
Believe me, I *know* that I *have* been treated far worse for being gay than for being an independent author.
Your sarcasm is misplaced and misdirected.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Oh dear&#8230; I just meant to say that people will dislike/have a bias against other people for all kinds of reasons, most of them irrational. Nobody, least of all me, denies that there are huge differences. The implication being that there are lot more serious problems than the ones I replied to.
> Believe me, I *know* that I *have* been treated far worse for being gay than for being an independent author.
> Your sarcasm is misplaced and misdirected.


It would be if my sarcasm were a response to your _explanation._ But it was a response to what you wrote before, which wasn't clear like your explanation. I didn't get your implication that those things were worse. It read quite like you were foolishly comparing the things as if they could possibly be compared. This was what I took from it, which I think is saying something considering I fully agree with your stand and your other points.

I don't see the need for those things to brought up in this discussion at all, but my awe was based on thinking you were comparing the things. You've now said you weren't, so fair enough.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

shelleyo1 said:


> It would be if my sarcasm were a response to your _explanation._ But it was a response to what you wrote before, which wasn't clear like your explanation. I didn't get your implication that those things were worse. It read quite like you were foolishly comparing the things as if they could possibly be compared. This was what I took from it, which I think is saying something considering I fully agree with your stand and your other points.
> 
> I don't see the need for those things to brought up in this discussion at all, but my awe was based on thinking you were comparing the things. You've now said you weren't, so fair enough.


Not the first time I should have used  or  to indicate I was being facetious.

Glad we cleared this up.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2012)

Lisa,

Do what I did. Go read the official FTC site and the actual law, not what a third-party blogger tells you it says. This is the problem with the internet. Nobody goes to the original source material. They just repeat what someone else said. If you actually read the PDF (which is from the FTC) you will clearly see some of the points he claims are not true. The site and links I provided _specifically_ talk about journalists and reviews (which is what Kirkus would fall under).


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Ian Fraser said:


> repeatedly saying 'speculation' smacks of trollish behavior.


This, coming from a person who, within the past month, has said than anyone speaking good of Locke or others like him should also be on the receiving end of your boycott? Writers, threatening the career destruction of other writers for simply not going along with the crowd? (http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,126009.msg1868448.html#msg186844

Troll, heal thyself.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

I feel like I'm hunkered down in No Man's Land between French and German lines, bullets whizzing overhead and praying that my name's not on one of them.

Just kidding. Still not really caring, but maybe that bit will entertain someone.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Yeah, but we did manage to beat a dead horse back to life...


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Yeah, but we did manage to beat a dead horse back to life...


Oh, it's still dead, just twitching and lurching around. Resurrected by necromancy would be more appropriate with how ugly it is.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Lisa,
> 
> Do what I did. Go read the official FTC site and the actual law, not what a third-party blogger tells you it says. This is the problem with the internet. Nobody goes to the original source material. They just repeat what someone else said. If you actually read the PDF (which is from the FTC) you will clearly see some of the points he claims are not true. The site and links I provided _specifically_ talk about journalists and reviews (which is what Kirkus would fall under).


Julie,

Richard Cleland is the *head* of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection Advertising Affairs. _He_ is the one responsible for interpreting the law. That's why if you want to know what the .PDF means, you need to listen to him. That's why I posted the interview with him; his job is to make sure advertisers [which is you ( as in all self-publishers and reviewers) if you're taking out advertising/posting reviews on your books] understand the law.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

WOW!  You people are STILL bashing this about?  Haven't you got books to write or something?

Seriously.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> I feel like I'm hunkered down in No Man's Land between French and German lines, bullets whizzing overhead and praying that my name's not on one of them.


Better order that soccer ball now if you want to get it time for Christmas! Delivery can be awfully slow to us poor blighters in the trenches, eh what?



BrianKittrell said:


> Just kidding.


Sure you are.


----------

