# Scammers Breaking The Kindle Store : Skyrocketing to #1 Overall (MERGED)



## IntoTheAbyss

In the most recent KENPC topic thread, it was pointed out that a person "most likely" scammed their way to the #1 spot in all of the paid Amazon kindle store. The author David Gaughran wrote an excellent breakdown of what is going on. The below link was shared in the KENPC thread, but as Monique pointed out there, this should really have its own thread, so I decided to create a thread for it.

Share with others what is going on. The more people that know the better. Don't know what Amazon will do about it, but the least we can do is spread awareness. Ideally, it'd be great to get the story picked up by a big news organization (maybe then Amazon be more proactive) and that can only be done by drawing attention to it.

https://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/scammers-break-the-kindle-store/#more-4447

Would love to hear ideas on how we can get the word out there. Later today, I'm going to look for an appropriate Reddit thread to share this information with.


----------



## Greg Banks

I think the answer to the problem is obvious. We need those with the real monetary power, the buyers, to care enough about this to start raising a stink. And poor reviews won't cut it, because scammers have already devalued them with fake/biased reviews. We need the buyers to start email Amazon in large enough numbers to get their attention.


----------



## Drakon

Thanks for going to so much trouble to notify Amazon of this scamming problem. 

The problem seems to be growing at every level, because it's so hard to get visibility now.


----------



## LindsayBuroker

TonyGonline said:


> The only thing I have left to wonder about is that amazon has a free and paid, why don't they also have a borrowed? Three separate ways to get a book, three separate charts!


I've wondered this from the beginning. I thought it was a BUG when KU came out and it became clear that borrows counted as sales for rankings purposes. It's ridiculous. A borrow isn't much harder to come by than a free download. I'm shocked that publishers (who have always published wide and continue to do so) never raised more of a stink. Non-exclusive indies aren't the only ones who get shuffled out of category charts because those KU borrows count as sales.


----------



## Guest

LindsayBuroker said:


> I've wondered this from the beginning. I thought it was a BUG when KU came out and it became clear that borrows counted as sales for rankings purposes. It's ridiculous. A borrow isn't much harder to come by than a free download. I'm shocked that publishers (who have always published wide and continue to do so) never raised more of a stink. Non-exclusive indies aren't the only ones who get shuffled out of category charts because those KU borrows count as sales.


Higher visibility for KU titles is done intentionally to give more incentive for authors to be exclusive to their platform. It was a smart thing for amazon to do.


----------



## X. Aratare

LindsayBuroker said:


> I've wondered this from the beginning. I thought it was a BUG when KU came out and it became clear that borrows counted as sales for rankings purposes. It's ridiculous. A borrow isn't much harder to come by than a free download. I'm shocked that publishers (who have always published wide and continue to do so) never raised more of a stink. Non-exclusive indies aren't the only ones who get shuffled out of category charts because those KU borrows count as sales.


I run a subscription site and I know this to be true because my Members tells me that there are books of mine in the membership that they would definitely BUY but there are others that they only read because its "free" to them, i.e., included with their membership. They may end up loving these "borrowed" books, but the very fact that they were "free" or "included" is what made them read them in the first place.

I know this isn't something people like to hear (I've been shot down before with people saying: I pay $9.95 for KU! You think that's "free"? Uhm no, but the reading decisions are VERY DIFFERENT between buying a book and borrowing one that doesn't cost you anything more than $9.95. Because my members tell me this and I'm in KU, too, and I have to go through a mental hoop to BUY a book that isn't in the KU program than I do to simply borrow one that is. It costs me "nothing".) The scammers actually prove this as well. That $9.95 allows them to make bank. So no a borrow shouldn't equal a sale. It's not the same at all. But I'm sure I'm in the minority in this.

As to the scamming, it isn't surprising. It's disheartening, because as someone who is wide and will always likely be wide (I give my members all my books with their subscription, can't do that in KU), I not only am "fighting" to gain rank and visibility against those authors getting legit borrows against my sales, but also the scammers. But KU has always been rife with the ability to scam it not only by blackhatters, but also by Amazon. Think about how Amazon itself has arbitrarily decided how many pages are in a book and how many of those pages are considered "read". Instead of a straight word or character count, Amazon came up with a distorted system so that one book of 50k words doesn't have the same KENCP as another book of 50k words.

But I'm getting off topic. The thing is that KU is now hurting just about everybody except the scammers. In KU or not, you are now not getting paid as much if you're in KU and none of us are gaining proper visibility in ranking.


----------



## 75845

LindsayBuroker said:


> I'm shocked that publishers (who have always published wide and continue to do so) never raised more of a stink.


I used to think that until Amazon announced that Amazon Publishing were the second highest selling publisher on the Kindle Store. Borrower ranks are to boost Amazon Publishing. Amazon had better hope the EU don't come after them once the Google case is settled.


----------



## Salvador Mercer

I shared David's blog post to my FB page and tweeted it.  Not sure I can do too much more than that right now.


----------



## 39416

But there's got to be a REASON why Amazon doesn't care about the scammed books making rank. I know that reason has to be money, but I can't figure out how in the long run it saves Amazon money, or, makes Amazon money.


----------



## Jim Johnson

Salvador Mercer said:


> I shared David's blog post to my FB page and tweeted it. Not sure I can do too much more than that right now.


Email [email protected] and [email protected] Be polite. Enough of us do that, they'll either block all our emails or maybe do something.


----------



## Rose Andrews

This makes me furious. I tried to post a response on David G.'s page but for some reason it did not post. Anyhow, I wish something would be done about this although it's wishful thinking. As a newer author, the majority of my titles are in KU. But one of them will be out tomorrow and I'm taking it wide. While I still think KU is good for new authors, it sickens me that people call themselves authors while cheating their way to the top. Didn't they learn in school that cheaters never prosper? Because they don't. What good does it do to forfeit your soul for cash?


----------



## unkownwriter

I would have posted this on David's blog, but I don't have Wordpress:



> Well, gosh, people What do you want Amazon to do? We already can't use a legitimate keyword like "KU" in our keywords, making the world safe for little children and puppies. Now you want the scammers stopped as well? Wow.
> 
> ^^^That was sarcasm, by the way, for the impaired.
> 
> David, you're doing the good work, but it's not going to change until enough customers complain, and take their business elsewhere. I doubt this will happen, because there are enough legit books for the voracious little souls to stay busy for a long, long time. I'm at the point where I wonder why I have ethics, because they've done nothing but make me poor. Bah. (More sarcasm, dears.)


----------



## PhoenixS

TonyGonline said:


> The only thing I have left to wonder about is that amazon has a free and paid, why don't they also have a borrowed? Three separate ways to get a book, three separate charts!


Not that they can't still create a separate list (which they used to have actually, but last summer we caught them out not updating it except with Amazon imprint books -- the link came down shortly after we created a stink about it, although that might have been coincidental), but they do have a filter specifically for KU. Customers can simply tick the box to see only titles that are currently in KU. Rank for it, however, is based on the poplist, not the bestseller list.



LindsayBuroker said:


> I've wondered this from the beginning. I thought it was a BUG when KU came out and it became clear that borrows counted as sales for rankings purposes. It's ridiculous. A borrow isn't much harder to come by than a free download. I'm shocked that publishers (who have always published wide and continue to do so) never raised more of a stink. Non-exclusive indies aren't the only ones who get shuffled out of category charts because those KU borrows count as sales.


I think there may be a two-fold answer to that, Lindsay. The first is the carrot incentive to keep folk in Select. There has to be a reward for exclusivity. The Big 5 opted to not join KU, so the 'punishment' is that KU books can leapfrog theirs in the bestselling ranks.

The second, imo, is a little more nuanced. There's a sort of compromise with the trads for allowing borrows to count on the bestselling lists since borrows don't count in the poplists. Couple that with the price bias in the poplists and the push to the poplists rather than the bestseller lists that Amazon does through all its recommendation algos, and the trads benefit in the tail by having higher visibility on the less-sexy backend, which includes search engine functions, alsobot placement, newsletters and recommendation emails.


----------



## Desert Rose

loraininflorida said:


> But there's got to be a REASON why Amazon doesn't care about the scammed books making rank. I know that reason has to be money, but I can't figure out how in the long run it saves Amazon money, or, makes Amazon money.


If Amazon were stopping the scammers, I would see the logic as: Scammers take a big chunk of the KU pot, driving down the per-page payment for everyone. Amazon axes scammers before payment goes out. Amazon does NOT re-calculate the payments for other authors. Amazon keeps the % of the pot which scammers "earned", lowering their KU overhead.

But that only works if they're shutting down the scammers before the 60 day payout period. Since we know they aren't, I can't see why they're reluctant to chlorinate the pool.


----------



## Doglover

Am I the only one who has wondered if the author of this blog has been following the book in question? If not, how does he know what the book's rank has been before it shot up to no. 1? I am intrigued by that and would love to know.


----------



## Tulonsae

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Doglover

Tulonsae said:


> The previous rank is listed by Amazon. Look in the screen shot for Movers and Shakers in the article. The post puts a square red bracket around the number.


Ah, I see. I never noticed that before. Thanks for enlightening me; that was a question that was going to niggle me.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

I see that the book that triggered all this kerfuffle now has no rank. See? Amazon does pay attention sometimes.


----------



## 41419

Doglover said:


> Am I the only one who has wondered if the author of this blog has been following the book in question? If not, how does he know what the book's rank has been before it shot up to no. 1? I am intrigued by that and would love to know.


There are a number of ways. The Movers & Shakers chart will only track rank changes in the last 24 hours or so, and only then if your book is below #400 in the rankings and one of the Top 100 improvers in sales rank.

But there are plenty of external sites which use the Amazon API to track rank over time.

One is Novelrank, which is fairly well known - not very accurate at tracking sales but good for tracking rank.

The other is KND's tracker, which is my preferred tool these days. It doesn't track all the international stores like Novelrank, but has some cool extra bells and whistles - like the ability to track books in groups. So I can, for example, stalk a bunch of books in my genre on one handy page, or all my own books, etc. It will show a book's ranking over time - giving the best and worst rank hit each month. It will show best/worst rank for each day over the last 30 days, and it will show best/worst rank for each hour of the last 24. Very useful indeed.

Everything on the internet leaves a trail.


----------



## 41419

PaulineMRoss said:


> I see that the book that triggered all this kerfuffle now has no rank. See? Amazon does pay attention sometimes.


I hope Amazon doesn't just take the easy PR solution here like with Angelin Sydney, and just strip the rank and leave it at that. There are other books which have pulled the same stunt, and obviously there is a much larger problem here which is going unaddressed.

Plus just stripping a book of its visibility going forward seems a pretty light punishment for a scam like this.


----------



## BellaJames

Jim Johnson said:


> Email [email protected] and [email protected] Be polite. Enough of us do that, they'll either block all our emails or maybe do something.


_This. _

I emailed that first email address about the stuffed books with one story and gibberish in the back or the same sentence repeated over and over again. I added a couple authors names to my email and I got a reply and those books had disappeared within a few days.

I think if enough authors and frustrated readers email Jeff and his team, they will pay attention and hopefully take action.

I also want Youtube to remove the videos that are blatantly encourgaging people to scam and stuff their books. The ones telling people to copy info off the internet and publish it within a couple hour.


----------



## 41419

TwistedTales said:


> I understand the intent of this blog post, but it's inappropriate to publicly shame an author just because you think they've done something wrong.


This whole position is baffling. So if you see something wrong, you should never say it, just hope that the powers that be take care of it.



TwistedTales said:


> If Amazon do nothing then it either means your suspicions were wrong or they don't care..


Because Amazon is infallible?



TwistedTales said:


> It's their platform and you either put up with how they run it or walk away.


And Amazon cannot be questioned?

There's a word for this: authoritarianism.

If that's how you want to live your life, fine. But you get in a knot because someone else stands up? It really is a weird position to take.


----------



## 41419

Well, Amazon has now acted which would make you... wrong.


----------



## BellaJames

Rosie A. said:


> This makes me furious. I tried to post a response on David G.'s page but for some reason it did not post. Anyhow, I wish something would be done about this although it's wishful thinking. As a newer author, the majority of my titles are in KU. But one of them will be out tomorrow and I'm taking it wide. While I still think KU is good for new authors, it sickens me that people call themselves authors while cheating their way to the top. *Didn't they learn in school that cheaters never prosper? Because they don't. What good does it do to forfeit your soul for cash?*


Money makes life easier. Being an ethical, honest, creative smart-working author takes too much effort. They have found a short cut and it's a lot easier than the road you guys are taking.

It's all about making quick cash and moving on to another scam. The ones on Youtube bragging about how much they are making or the ones on forums admitting that they stuff their books, buy reviews or miscatergorize on purpose, are not in this for a long term career.

Needing money can make people do almost anything. These people can create a bunch of trash and use systems to sell more books, get more reviews easily and make a pile of money then run. Does Amazon take action later down the line or do they just get away with a pile of cash.

Then they pop up on Youtube with their trashy courses and attract more people who want to make money easily. These people follow this bad advice without thinking about what they are getting into and how it's affecting other people (authors and readers). I've seen the comments where people think these guys are so clever.


----------



## 41419

TwistedTales said:


> What is appropriate is reporting your suspicions to Amazon...


You missed the part where I did that multiple times over an 18-month period and Amazon refused to act while the problem got so bad that scammers could put books at #1 in the store at will?



TwistedTales said:


> ...or addressing them directly with the author.


Because scammers usually respond to a polite request to cease scamming?


----------



## Patty Jansen

I want to publicly thank David and Phoenix (and probably others I don't know about) for all the work they put into this.


----------



## Guest

Don't Amazon still have that automated response letter citing "systematically generated accounts to manipulate rankings" to ping the scammers with? I recall there's no warnings, they just move to terminating accounts immediately. Apparently some legit authors got caught in that net. Consider the theory that the clickfarms promote innocent authors as well to disguise themselves. 

Although the recent author with the #1 book gave his response on twitter, and it was pretty damning.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

dgaughran said:


> I hope Amazon doesn't just take the easy PR solution here like with Angelin Sydney, and just strip the rank and leave it at that. There are other books which have pulled the same stunt, and obviously there is a much larger problem here which is going unaddressed.
> Plus just stripping a book of its visibility going forward seems a pretty light punishment for a scam like this.


We don't know what else may be going on behind the scenes. The rank-stripping is highly visible, but we don't know whether the author was also creaming off pages read illegally or not. If it was just rank manipulation, then rank stripping is a proportionate response, in my view.

I don't think there's a lot of point in closing down accounts in cases like this, because it's easy enough to set up a new account and Amazon ends up playing whack-a-mole. I do wish, though, that they'd act more decisively against ALL these rank-bot authors, instead of just the one or two that break out into an internet orgy of outrage. The other one that was mentioned in the original thread (which we're not allowed to identify as per forum rules) is still #37 in the store.


----------



## Doglover

dgaughran said:


> I hope Amazon doesn't just take the easy PR solution here like with Angelin Sydney, and just strip the rank and leave it at that. There are other books which have pulled the same stunt, and obviously there is a much larger problem here which is going unaddressed.
> 
> Plus just stripping a book of its visibility going forward seems a pretty light punishment for a scam like this.


Especially true when legitimate authors have been caught up in the scam and had their accounts banned and their royalties withheld.


----------



## 41419

TwistedTales said:


> I do not agree with targeting someone (and inciting others to target someone) based on what you think is happening.


I didn't target anyone. I described what was happening and suggested that people take action in the form of complaining to Amazon and educating their readers.

Also, in the comments I specifically asked people not to use the review system to vent their anger and instead to respectfully make their points to Amazon.

But to you that's "targeting someone" and "inciting" - yeah. Okay. Whatever.


----------



## 41419

Here is exactly what I said. So inciting...



> I also don't think using reviews for this purpose is prudent.
> 
> By all means make your point to Amazon forcefully, but do so respectfully, and leave the review system for readers. If you are a reader who has purchased or borrowed this title because you saw it in the charts then feel free to share your thoughts, but I would suggest keeping your complaints pointed at Amazon here.


----------



## Doglover

dgaughran said:


> Here is exactly what I said. So inciting...


I agree. The review system is messed up as it is without making it worse. As to inciting, well if you hadn't blogged about this book, he would likely have come here complaining that his rank had disappeared like a couple of other people. When they do that, I'm not sure they realise what they've done wrong. There was a comment on your blog asking why it was any different to all the other methods.


----------



## 41419

TwistedTales said:


> And there you go making assumptions again. You don't know what they've done or why. All you see is a rank has disappeared...for now. Who knows why or what will happen next.


Right, because Amazon is in the business of stripping ranks for no reason? Remember this is exactly what happened to Angelin Sydney after she used a clickfarm to put 14 books simultaneously in the Canadian Top 40.

But maybe I'm making assumptions. Maybe I'm actually living in the 23rd century and my eyeballs are actually tiny little video screens which are projecting these manufactured images and none of this actually happened. Maybe I'm a giant cockroach living in a post-apocalyptic version of Humberside that has somehow developed consciousness and is currently tripping off radioactive moss. Maybe I'm a 12th century shaman in pre-colonial Peru who is on a vision quest.

Nobody knows for sure.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter

David, Twistedtales, you've made your points on both sides. Let's not turn this into a personal argument between the two of you.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## MonkeyScribe

I'm really uncomfortable with people leaving drive by reviews, both for the internet mob mentality (which often destroys innocent people), and because as others have said, this is taking community problems and pushing them into a space that should be for readers to evaluate books.

Having said that, reporting books using scam tactics to Amazon/KDP reps is highly appropriate. When multiple people are reporting something, you'd think KDP would want to take advantage of other people's free labor, at least in the initial investigation stage.


----------



## 41419

I'm actually not comfortable with it either. Aside from everything you said (which I fully agree with), I think it's important to keep the focus on Amazon here. This guy is just one guy, but there is a bigger problem to solve. I tried to frame the article about the overall problem, but obviously had to lead with the headline news about someone grabbing the #1 spot while people could still see it for themselves. If you look at the article he only takes up a portion of it and the lion's share is actually about the overall problem and Amazon's response.

As soon as I saw people were leaving one-stars on the guy's book I commented on my blog advising that was inappropriate. And I quite deliberately made Amazon the focus of the "suggested actions" at the end of the piece.

But no matter how careful you are it's not going to stop some people from leaving one-star reviews. I'm sure they will argue their case, but it's not something I personally want to encourage.


----------



## MissingAlaska

As far as pointing out individual books, we should remember that click farms might target legitimate books as a way of covering their tracks. This could happen to any of us (which is quite frightening). 

This is a particularly thorny problem to weed out from a legal perspective. Amazon must be able to prove that not only did a click-farm increase a book's ranking -- but that the author of that book arranged for that to occur. Without hard evidence, they run the risk of accusing innocent authors targeted by spammers.

Sadly, this doesn't bode well for Kindle Unlimited. It's only a matter of time until legitimate authors finally leave - and readers with them. As a prawn, I have gained both exposure and readers - but it might finally be time to go wide.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

MonkishScribe said:


> Having said that, reporting books using scam tactics to Amazon/KDP reps is highly appropriate. When multiple people are reporting something, you'd think KDP would want to take advantage of other people's free labor, at least in the initial investigation stage.


Unfortunately, simply reporting these cases to Amazon, even when multiple people do it, seems to have no effect. It seems as if they only respond quickly when there's widespread public outrage about a particular case. The other less well-publicised example mentioned in the other thread is still ranked #42 in the store.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

PaulineMRoss said:


> Unfortunately, simply reporting these cases to Amazon, even when multiple people do it, seems to have no effect. It seems as if they only respond quickly when there's widespread public outrage about a particular case. The other less well-publicised example mentioned in the other thread is still ranked #42 in the store.


I know, it's super frustrating, and ironically, this guy is far from the worst offender. He's just someone who got greedy at the wrong time, right when irritation because of KU's lowered payment had people ready to act. It's like spraying a little air freshener in an outhouse. It's barely covers the stench, and any effect will be gone in five minutes.


----------



## Guest

michaelsnuckols said:


> As far as pointing out individual books, we should remember that click farms might target legitimate books as a way of covering their tracks. This could happen to any of us (which is quite frightening).


This is extremely important to remember which is why going after the authors who use them shouldn't be the only solution. Fiverr should not be allowing these sellers on their platform.

Regarding the targeted author, when asked how he got to number 1 he said on twitter "I have friends in high places", sort of a coy response that implies he knows how it happened. If he was innocent he would be saying he has no idea, he's stumped.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Maybe I'm a giant cockroach living in a post-apocalyptic version of Humberside that has somehow developed consciousness and is currently tripping off radioactive moss.


Hm. There's a story in there somewhere.

Being stripped of rank is a start, but it does nothing to stopping people from collecting money via click-farmed page "reads". Until they stop the money, Amazon is behind the game. How they go about that is up to them, but I suspect it's going to take vetting every entry into Select, which is what they should have done from the beginning. None of this would likely have occurred if they'd simple been more select in allowing stuff into Select. But, it would take more than a simple program which would cost money (and no, third world country employees wouldn't have worked, it would have to be American-based trained people to spot the less-obvious scams).


----------



## jckang

ShaneJeffery said:


> Regarding the targeted author, when asked how he got to number 1 he said on twitter "I have friends in high places", sort of a coy response that implies he knows how it happened. If he was innocent he would be saying he has no idea, he's stumped.


I loved some of the responses. One was something like "So you hired a click farm in Nepal?"

On a side note, I was trying to figure out the logistics of how to make a click farm profitable. I went to Kindlepreneur to see how many books you would need to sell to hit #1. It was over 6700 a day. That means the click farm has put up $67,000. Amazon probably doesn't care, because that's a lot of $$$. Though I guess it is possible that the click farm creates 6700 new accounts a month, each with a credit card, for the free KU trial.


----------



## Patty Jansen

jckang said:


> I loved some of the responses. One was something like "So you hired a click farm in Nepal?"
> 
> On a side note, I was trying to figure out the logistics of how to make a click farm profitable. I went to Kindlepreneur to see how many books you would need to sell to hit #1. It was over 6700 a day. That means the click farm has put up $67,000. Amazon probably doesn't care, because that's a lot of $$$. Though I guess it is possible that the click farm creates 6700 new accounts a month, each with a credit card, for the free KU trial.


You don't need to sell *any* if a book is in KU. Borrows equal sales. You only need a lot of clickfarm-owned KU subscriptions. There was an article about a guy who was auto-generating KU accounts with auto-generated email addresses. Don't tell me these people aren't smart. As my grandmother used to say "Now if they only put that brainpower towards honest work..."


----------



## jckang

I'm in a small FB author group with the other book mentioned in David's article. From his past posts, I would not characterize him as someone who wants to make a quick buck by writing junk. Whether it is or not, he genuinely believes he has a good product.  

When he posted about hitting #1 last Sunday, I was very quick to skepticism. I went rooting around to see if he got a Bookbub, or what other promotion services he used-- The only thing I found was a sketchy website which listed popular items on Amazon (not just books).  He also did do some release promos at the start of June.  Though I didn't publicly accuse him of gaming the system, I did share my suspicions with some of my friends in that group.

After some thought, though, I wonder if there was any malicious intent.  It could be that he (and maybe the main subject of David's post) might have commissioned a service he thought was a legitimate promotion.  

It doesn't make it any less wrong, of course.  I'll be watching over the next couple of days to see if and how he responds to accusation.


----------



## Guest

jckang said:


> I'm in a small FB author group with the other book mentioned in David's article. From his past posts, I would not characterize him as someone who wants to make a quick buck by writing junk. Whether it is or not, he genuinely believes he has a good product.
> 
> When he posted about hitting #1 last Sunday, I was very quick to skepticism. I went rooting around to see if he got a Bookbub, or what other promotion services he used-- The only thing I found was a sketchy website which listed popular items on Amazon (not just books). He also did do some release promos at the start of June. Though I didn't publicly accuse him of gaming the system, I did share my suspicions with some of my friends in that group.
> 
> After some thought, though, I wonder if there was any malicious intent. It could be that he (and maybe the main subject of David's post) might have commissioned a service he thought was a legitimate promotion.
> 
> It doesn't make it any less wrong, of course. I'll be watching over the next couple of days to see if and how he responds to accusation.


In order to get to number one in the entire store he would have been purchasing the scammers deluxe package which would have set him back some serious cash. I think he knew was he was paying for.


----------



## jckang

Patty Jansen said:


> You don't need to sell *any* if a book is in KU. Borrows equal sales. You only need a lot of clickfarm-owned KU subscriptions. There was an article about a guy who was auto-generating KU accounts with auto-generated email addresses. Don't tell me these people aren't smart. As my grandmother used to say "Now if they only put that brainpower towards honest work..."


Right, when I said sales, I meant "sales and downloads." I have no doubt these people are smart.


----------



## GoingAnon

[ORIGINAL POST MODIFIED SEPT 21, 2018. I do not accept nor do I consent to KBoards/VerticalScope's Terms of Service which were implemented without proper notification. As I await a response regarding my request for full account and content deletion - pursuant to GDPR - my continued use of this forum should not be construed as consent to, nor acceptance of, KBoards/VerticalScope's aforementioned Terms of Service.


----------



## #############

Alix Nichols said:


> ^^^ This. Honestly, no matter how I look at it, I don't see a solution that doesn't involve a well-trained human team vetting EVERY SINGLE Select title. That would probably mean having to wait a week or two before our books are enrolled in KU, but it's a small price to pay for a level playing field.


How would this action prevent something like this particular case from happening, though? The guy wrote a book. It had a great cover. It wasn't some scamphlet or anything. According to the current conversation, he didn't plagiarize or scrape content. He just possibly engaged in rank manipulation.

How would have vetting his book before getting into Select prevented this?


----------



## passerby

The state of Indie authors today:

Scammers to right of them,
Scammers to left of them,
Scammers right in front of them
Resolutely, they soldier on.

*Tips hat and winks at Alfred, Lord Tennyson*


----------



## Anarchist

michaelsnuckols said:


> This is a particularly thorny problem to weed out from a legal perspective. Amazon must be able to prove that not only did a click-farm increase a book's ranking -- but that the author of that book arranged for that to occur. Without hard evidence, they run the risk of accusing innocent authors targeted by spammers.


So true. It's the reason I cringe when authors are named and shamed without evidence that meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

I think back to my SEO days. With enough capital, you could negatively impact a competitor's rankings in Google. All you had to do was purchase hundreds of thousands of links from porn sites, pharma sites, and other "bad neighborhoods." It mostly happened in hyper-competitive verticals (payday loans, mortgage loans, etc.).

Google denied it was possible (via Matt Cutts, their liaison to the SEO community). I don't blame them for lying since it revealed a huge exploit in their algo. But I know guys who did it.

With Amazon, less capital is required to effect a similar outcome. I can pick an author, spend $1,000 sending illegitimate KU traffic to his books, wait for his ranks to change, and then report him to Amazon. If I wanted to go further, I could foment outrage on FB and forums by naming and shaming him.


----------



## PhoenixS

berkenstock said:


> How would this action prevent something like this particular case from happening, though? The guy wrote a book. It had a great cover. It wasn't some scamphlet or anything. According to the current conversation, he didn't plagiarize or scrape content. He just possibly engaged in rank manipulation.
> 
> How would have vetting his book before getting into Select prevented this?


The problem has become rampant. It isn't only Fiverr accounts offering these services or sleazy back-alley Warrior Forum sites. These guys are setting up slick web pages and spam-mailing potential clients. And more and more authors who are frustrated enough or are amoral enough are flocking to the dark side.

We see the serial offenders and the authors who push into the Top 20 free and the Top 10 paid more easily because of the sheer numbers it takes to get to those ranks. You don't get to those ranks organically without cause. Those ranks aren't byproduct of a few hundred or even a few thousand downloads or borrows to track-cover scammy services. But these guys we see and report are just the tip of this huge iceberg. And more and more, it's authors and books that are half-legit/half-scam.

David mentioned in his post one author who has multiple books in Amazon's Monthly Deal right now who has scammed books into the Top 5 free in the past. I know this because I personally saw and tracked the behavior with this author twice before -- once last fall and again last month. I personally reported it to Amazon both times I saw it -- which, I don't look at the lists every day, so who knows how many other times they've done this? Ironically, one of this author's books rocketed up to #4 Free with no ad footprint save from a small site or two who poached it from the Free list early yesterday morning.

It's been returned to paid this morning, so you won't find it on the Free list now. But think about that. Amazon rewarded this author with *multiple* books in the Monthly Deal and he has the chutzpah to scam the very system and company rewarding him for scamming the system in the first place.

The book and author David called out by name hit #1 Paid on the day the KU payout bottomed out. That author's become the poster boy for this type of scamming behavior. But several of us can point to much more egregious, serial behavior by authors who don't *look* like your typical scammer and who Amazon continues to court. Pre-qualifying books to enter Select won't stop the gray hatters from going black hat.


----------



## Used To Be BH

berkenstock said:


> How would this action prevent something like this particular case from happening, though? The guy wrote a book. It had a great cover. It wasn't some scamphlet or anything. According to the current conversation, he didn't plagiarize or scrape content. He just possibly engaged in rank manipulation.
> 
> How would have vetting his book before getting into Select prevented this?


Yes, vetting only solves certain kinds of scams. It would cause scammers to work a little harder to create books that weren't obviously fake, but it wouldn't prevent the use of click farms to inflate rank and pages read.

I wish there were an easy solution, but I don't see one. If Amazon were willing to employ enough real people to monitor suspicious activity, they could probably shut down at least the most obvious cases. They'd have to work carefully, so as not to blast legitimate authors targeted by click farms to camouflage the click farm activity. If Amazon were willing to spend the money, that would make the system better. Unfortunately, scammers would probably become more subtle in order to survive. We wouldn't notice as much, but people would still be siphoning money from the KU pot.

Ending the one-month free trial or at least restricting it to customers with a certain amount of history would also help. Click farm scams work partly through the creation of fake accounts, which usually require fraudulently obtained credit cards. With a whole month (and maybe more like two) before an actual charge, it's easy to keep up those fake identities long enough to do more damage. Making everyone pay upfront probably reduces the period between identity shifts, making scammers work a little harder.

Developing a more effective way to count pages read would also help. Amazon may be trying to do this. Some of the measure adopted robbed innocent authors of pages in some cases, so the search for a solution continues.

Maybe a partial solution would also be to dump ranking, at least as a publicly accessible statistic. Each product page could display number of copies sold, number of copies borrowed, number of free downloads, and let people draw their own conclusions about how well a book is doing. Perhaps there could also be a total for the last four weeks, to make it easier for new releases to gain some traction. I guess all of those stats except sales could be gamed, but being able to distinguish sales from borrows might be helpful to some buyers. (I don't agree that borrows should essentially count for nothing, but I have no problem letting readers decide how to weigh them, as opposed to having Amazon decide for them.)

I don't expect Amazon to create a perfect system. I'd be happy if the company made a good-faith effort. Right now, it does act sometimes, and then rather clumsily. Anti-scam efforts need to be on ongoing process, not something that appears and disappears at random.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Anarchist said:


> So true. It's the reason I cringe when authors are named and shamed without evidence that meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
> 
> I think back to my SEO days. With enough capital, you could negatively impact a competitor's rankings in Google. All you had to do was purchase hundreds of thousands of links from porn sites, pharma sites, and other "bad neighborhoods." It mostly happened in hyper-competitive verticals (payday loans, mortgage loans, etc.).
> 
> Google denied it was possible (via Matt Cutts, their liaison to the SEO community). I don't blame them for lying since it revealed a huge exploit in their algo. But I know guys who did it.
> 
> With Amazon, less capital is required to effect a similar outcome. I can pick an author, spend $1,000 sending illegitimate KU traffic to his books, wait for his ranks to change, and then report him to Amazon. If I wanted to go further, I could foment outrage on FB and forums by naming and shaming him.


Excellent points!

It's also worth noting that, long before KU and its associated scams, there were a few authors who just took off, seemingly without effort. I used to be fairly well acquainted with one. He couldn't really afford advertising at first. He just put up books, and they started selling. He went from barely making ends meet to hiring a personal assistant, taking a world tour, and contemplating opening his own publishing house. He did a lot of advertising as time went on, but the initial success came from zero advertising and almost zero platform.

Such successes might be much harder to come by today because the field is so much more congested. Are they impossible, though? Maybe not.

One possible approach would be to remove click-farmed pages and ranking benefits from such accounts. The author isn't shamed or banned unless there is more evidence of complicity, but Amazon could remove the proceeds. Any legitimately-earned royalties would remain. Amazon could probably prove click farm activity much more easily than direct author involvement. I know some authors would be upset even by that, but I think most of us could understand it. If you didn't really earn something, would you want to keep it?


----------



## going going gone

Patty Jansen said:


> I want to publicly thank David and Phoenix (and probably others I don't know about) for all the work they put into this.


hear, hear.


----------



## Philip Gibson

I posted David Gaughran's blog article to every journalist I could think of at the CNBC business channel.  If nothing else, it's an important business story that some business journalists should want to take up.

Philip


----------



## Gator

Patty Jansen said:


> I want to publicly thank David and Phoenix (and probably others I don't know about) for all the work they put into this.


Me, too. Thanks, guys and gals!


----------



## Becca Mills

Lynn is a pseud--uh said:


> KU is a broken system, and frankly, the whole set up is an irresponsible mess from Amazon.
> 
> The ratio of cost to customer and earnings potential for author is the key factor in all this and it's impossible to address without making KU prohibitively expensive to the kinds of customers Amazon wants.
> 
> I mean, my god, you can earn 9.95 with only ~ 2426 pages read at the .0041 rate.
> 
> I could get someone I know to check out 3 books I've put up that each have 2500 pages in them, page through them, return their monthly sub cost to them and still have $20 freaking dollars more than I had to start with. I could pay them $10 dollars to do it in addition to the sub cost, and still have $10.
> 
> And it costs nothing to get into this paradise of easy money. ANYBODY can scam this system.
> 
> KU is a nightmare. It's a paradise for scammers and Amazon let it happen and if they didn't know this was going to happen, then I'm sorry, but they've got idiots running the show.


Truly, it's hard to think of a way to make KU resistant to scamming. It would probably work in a world where traditional publishing was playing gatekeeper over what counts as a borrowable book, but the flexibility of what people can publish on Amazon must make a subscription program hard to manage. We can publish five-page books. We can publish 10,000-page books. We can publish books whose text is produced by a random word generator. We can publish a hundred books a day. And if we get caught doing something wrong and get banned, we can just start a new business with a new tax number -- something Random Penguin can't do. Trying to manage a subscription service in this environment, to preserve the freedoms self-publishers enjoy while stopping the scamming ... that's got to be extremely difficult. If Amazon appeared to be making a legitimate effort in that direction, I'd have a lot of sympathy for the challenges they face. Unfortunately, they seem to have decided it's preferable to eat the loss than to really try, beyond plucking a little low-hanging fruit around the edges, like limiting book length within KU and slapping the wrists of a few people who draw particular attention.


----------



## Seneca42

Not sure if we're allowed to mention the book or author, but the book everyone was talking about yesterday has subsequently been deranked.

https://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/scammers-break-the-kindle-store/#more-4447

the blog referenced yesterday talked about the book in question.

What's interesting though is:

* his other books are still ranked
* the book in question is still ranked on the international stores
* the book is still available for purchase.

So it looks like you literally have to clickfarm yourself to the #1 spot just to get a mild slap on the wrist.


----------



## Becca Mills

I've merged threads so as to keep the discussion of David Gaughran's blog post focused in one place.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

I'd also like to thank David and Phoenix for all they do to help indies  . 
These scams are like pyramid schemes and attract people who see others making easy money and so want to climb aboard themselves. Pyramid  schemes usually finally implode, so let's hope something similar happens to the scammers  .


----------



## CLStone

I understand people getting angry at someone who may be allegedly using scam methods to get the rankings up, but I think the 'report suspicious activity' to Amazon approach also creates a witch hunt mentality for anyone at the top of any rankings.

I'm not going to make assumptions of all the books out there or what anyone uses, because I've used things like newsletter swapping and different out of the ordinary advertising and tried out other methods to naturally boost rank, but anyone looking just at Bookbub wouldn't notice. It wouldn't be hard for someone to also believe they are utilizing a genuine advertising source that promised things like newsletter ads and Facebook group posts, and those could be legitimate or they could be unable to be traced rank manipulation of some sort.

Yes, you may be able to trace that it came from somewhere, but there are a lot of authors who will take this as a reason to point fingers at everyone else.

And what advertising they use, the author may not want to share. For example, they may not want to tell you the ten authors they swapped newsletter ads with because they don't want those people bombarded with questions on newsletter swaps. 

Maybe this is clear to those like Phoenix who do take the time, study their corner of Amazon and know when something funky is going on. I'm not saying stop this sort of research. However this gives a lot of people the assumption to look into top ranking books and if they feel like it, they can make trouble for a genuine author doing the right things.


----------



## Colin

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I'd also like to thank David and Phoenix for all they do to help indies .


Ditto. Great job.


----------



## Seneca42

CLStone said:


> Maybe this is clear to those like Phoenix who do take the time, study their corner of Amazon and know when something funky is going on. I'm not saying stop this sort of research. However this gives a lot of people the assumption to look into top ranking books and if they feel like it, they can make trouble for a genuine author doing the right things.


I don't think Amazon acts on reports without looking at the data and can identify bots if they were used.

That said, what's a very real and very dangerous element to this is that if you so desired you could destroy another author. If the pricing in this thread or another was correct, for $209 you could bump a book to top #5 (basically hire botters not for yourself, but to swarm another book). I mean, $200 to get your competition deranked or swamped with bad reviews? You better believe there are people with the money who would do that.

And this will happen eventually. The reason? If you bot someone else's book up, then when you bot your own, in the event that you get caught you can plead innocence more readily. It becomes impossible for Amazon to figure out who is paying to bot themselves up and who is being botted up as a form of being attacked.

KU is a mess.


----------



## 31842

michaelsnuckols said:


> As far as pointing out individual books, we should remember that click farms might target legitimate books as a way of covering their tracks. This could happen to any of us (which is quite frightening).
> 
> This is a particularly thorny problem to weed out from a legal perspective. Amazon must be able to prove that not only did a click-farm increase a book's ranking -- but that the author of that book arranged for that to occur. Without hard evidence, they run the risk of accusing innocent authors targeted by spammers.
> 
> Sadly, this doesn't bode well for Kindle Unlimited. It's only a matter of time until legitimate authors finally leave - and readers with them. As a prawn, I have gained both exposure and readers - but it might finally be time to go wide.


Your post pinged a distant memory in my head. A few years ago, Amazon sued providers on Fiverr who were selling fake reviews for the names of the customers who had purchased their services. I can't seem to find if there was a settlement or a decision by the courts, but I wonder if a similar suit might come down against the click-farms:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2015/10/18/amazon-sues-1114-fake-reviewers-on-fiverr-com/#2daf80f937d1
https://forum.fiverr.com/t/amazon-sues-1114-fiverr-sellers/69447
https://www.scribd.com/doc/285422882/Amazon-Complaint
https://www.geekwire.com/2015/after-conducting-undercover-sting-amazon-files-suit-against-1000-fiverr-users-over-fake-product-reviews/


----------



## Rose Andrews

PhoenixS said:


> And more and more, it's authors and books that are half-legit/half-scam.


I think this pretty much sums it up as the biggest problem with the package. The author/book used in the blog article is a prime example of this. One thing that concerns me, however, is how other authors here have basically said, "Hey, what evidence do you have that this author is gaming the system?" To this, my answer is, "How do you know they're NOT?"

Because really, I've kept my eye on a particular individual over time, and this author's books always rank in the top 10 of the store since the moment of their release and months/years later. With no platform? Brand new author who just wrote a book for the first time in their life and every single book that this person has published has been a best seller? All 20+ of them? Wow, this person has the midas touch to even stay in the top 100 of the store without faltering. I mean, not even Stephen King!

So why is it not okay to ask questions? Why is it not okay to call them out? Especially when they've not booked any promo sites and hit it big this quick on? I'm just saying that it's shady. Call me jealous. Call me a hater. I'm skeptical okay. And I still believe in ethical, honest, hard work. I also believe that light eventually shines on these dark deeds and it's never worth it. The price is a heavy one to pay once the bill comes.


----------



## Salvador Mercer

Rosie A. said:


> I think this pretty much sums it up as the biggest problem with the package. The author/book used in the blog article is a prime example of this. One thing that concerns me, however, is how other authors here have basically said, "Hey, what evidence do you have that this author is gaming the system?" To this, my answer is, "How do you know they're NOT?" ...


Good point Rosie but to the skeptics I say: "But there is evidence..."

Look at the reviews of any hot selling or best selling book on the right hand column. Look specifically for the date stamps. If the review is posted w/in the last 24 hours then it will be GREEN. When a book is highly ranked and there are no reviews in general, and few if any reviews while its ranked high, then it's not being read by real readers. Legitimate best sellers are swimming in new reviews, a sea of green date stamps in fact.

The flaw in the click farms is that they can't borrow, buy, or otherwise flip through a book, KU or otherwise AND leave a review. That should indicate evidence enough. The legal system doesn't have video of every crime that a criminal is convicted of, that kind of "proof" is unrealistic. This one facet is evidence enough that something is fishy.

Look for the green...


----------



## Anarchist

Salvador Mercer said:


> Good point Rosie but to the skeptics I say: "But there is evidence..."


That may be so. But personally, I advocate for adherence to more rigorous evidentiary standards.

To me, the details provided thus far fail to meet a reasonable "preponderance of the evidence" standard. I'm not arguing the absence of rank-manipulation shenanigans. Rather, I'm arguing there's insufficient evidence proving guilt on the part of the author(s) in question.

How can I possibly suggest this? Consider this example...

Suppose I go to Fiverr and order every KU-manipulation gig available to boost the rank of one of Becca's books. To guarantee her book climbs into top 100, I use a few other similar services. Altogether, I spend $400.

Two days from now, Becca's book ranks at #100.

Was rank manipulation involved? Absolutely.

Is Becca guilty of shenanigans? Absolutely not.

In this example, _I'm_ the offender. Not Becca.

Do you see how difficult it is to prove guilt? This is the reason I advocate taking more care in naming and shaming.


----------



## going going gone

Salvador Mercer said:


> The flaw in the click farms is that they can't borrow, buy, or otherwise flip through a book, KU or otherwise AND leave a review.


Wouldn't that be something they could also do, though? Write 60 vague one-line reviews, automatically post a random one every 100 "reads." Beyond my programming skills, but surely not beyond theirs. I have great faith in the ingenuity of con men.


----------



## Jena H

After the first day or so of this thread I've only skimmed it. A lot of people have asked "why doesn't Amazon do anything about this issue?" Obviously one reason is that effort (probably) costs money, and if they're already making money, they may not see a need to exert any energy (read: spend money) to look into the situation.

Also, another thing I'm not sure anyone has mentioned: books are only ONE revenue stream for Ammie. And probably far from the biggest. They do sell just about everything, and are also in other industries. So while ebooks represent a huge and important part of _our _world, it's only a sliver of what Amazon does. Maybe this is like wondering why Walmart doesn't do something to stop distributing/selling cheap perfume that hurts sales of more established brands. Possibly because A) it's only a small percentage of their annual sales, and B) why should they? They're still making money, and customers aren't complaining, only other perfumers. What are the other perfumers going to do--withdraw their product for sale in the US's largest retailer?? (Yeah, I know it's not a great analogy and there are flaws in it, but it's late and I'm tired.)


----------



## Becca Mills

Anarchist said:


> That may be so. But personally, I advocate for adherence to more rigorous evidentiary standards.
> 
> To me, the details provided thus far fail to meet a reasonable "preponderance of the evidence" standard. I'm not arguing the absence of rank-manipulation shenanigans. Rather, I'm arguing there's insufficient evidence proving guilt on the part of the author(s) in question.
> 
> How can I possibly suggest this? Consider this example...
> 
> Suppose I go to Fiverr and order every KU-manipulation gig available to boost the rank of one of Becca's books. To guarantee her book climbs into top 100, I use a few other similar services. Altogether, I spend $400.
> 
> Two days from now, Becca's book ranks at #100.
> 
> Was rank manipulation involved? Absolutely.
> 
> Is Becca guilty of shenanigans? Absolutely not.
> 
> In this example, _I'm_ the offender. Not Becca.
> 
> Do you see how difficult it is to prove guilt? This is the reason I advocate taking more care in naming and shaming.


Jeez, Anarchist, you were supposed to keep our nefarious scheme on the down-low! 

But seriously, yeah, I do think there's opportunity for abuse. I certainly take note whenever I see my books rise in the absence of promotional activity on my part (as here, for instance). I'm not sure the potential for abuse, and also plain old mistakes, means we should abandon efforts to share knowledge and act collectively. There's power in numbers, and that power can be used productively, though it does have to be used with care. Real-name people like Phoenix and David who have a years-long track record of statistical acumen and advocacy for ethics? I'm apt to trust their conclusions. Some random person who decides "X looks suspicious, and I'm going to do something about it"? Now that would make me very nervous. When inexpert people dive into stuff, they're as apt to be wrong as right.


----------



## Anarchist

Becca Mills said:


> But seriously, yeah, I do think there's opportunity for abuse. I certainly take note whenever I see my books rise in the absence of promotional activity on my part (as here, for instance). I'm not sure the potential for abuse, and also plain old mistakes, means we should abandon efforts to share knowledge and act collectively. There's power in numbers, and that power can be used productively, though it does have to be used with care. Real-name people like Phoenix and David who have a years-long track record of statistical acumen and advocacy for ethics? I'm apt to trust their conclusions. Some random person who decides "X looks suspicious, and I'm going to do something about it"? Now that would make me very nervous. When inexpert people dive into stuff, they're as apt to be wrong as right.


I agree. Reputation buys trust and latitude.

Having said that, it's easy to inadvertently incite a mob.










That makes me uncomfortable when there's even a slight possibility of innocence.


----------



## Becca Mills

Anarchist said:


> I agree. Reputation buys trust and latitude.
> 
> Having said that, it's easy to inadvertently incite a mob.
> 
> That makes me uncomfortable when there's even a slight possibility of innocence.


You're right, I think. There's no perfect solution. There's simply no way to avoid all risk. In trying to do something about scamming, we risk damaging an innocent person. But there's also risk in doing nothing or taking more watered-down action. It's a more diffuse risk (because the harm scamming does is spread across more people), but it's a risk nonetheless. This is generally the way it goes with real-world moral decision-making: whatever you choose to do, your hands are probably going to get dirty, so you end up seeking the path of least dirt. I do think the cautionary notes sounded in this thread are good and useful. It's important to guard against falling into some sort of hubristic stance of absolute certainty and moral authority. Reminding oneself of the risks is one way to do that.


----------



## 41419

Anarchist said:


> I agree. Reputation buys trust and latitude.
> 
> Having said that, it's easy to inadvertently incite a mob.
> 
> That makes me uncomfortable when there's even a slight possibility of innocence.


I genuinely appreciate this concern. However, let me try and reassure you: as I noted in the comments of my own post, I didn't post all of the evidence in my possession for various reasons. I have offered that to Amazon of course, we'll see if they bother replying this time. (I don't want scammers to know the exact ways in which I determine clickfarmed books or how I find their books. I gave a broad overview of some of the means in my post so that people could see what I was talking about, but I don't want to give scammers a list of what to avoid, or a template on how to do it in a more invisible way either.)

I'm extremely confident that clickfarms were used here.

Note that Data Guy has analysed these rank movements and backed up my assessment, if that gives you any additional reassurance:



> Karadjian's book had a total of roughly 50 downloads between 4/19 and 6/3, starting with a 4/21 spike of 20 downloads per day then tapering down to 2-3 per day by the beginning of May, and fading out to zero downloads by June.
> 
> Then, oddly, a giant overnight leap to #1 in mid July, corresponding to several thousand daily downloads.
> 
> ...
> 
> Based on the data, I would concur completely with David's assessment of what happened.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

I do think it's possible to do something about KU scammers, at least. There's a very clear signature for KU scammed books, in that they have high numbers of borrows but very few sales. That's not a normal ratio. I'd guess that for most books, there would be something in the order of 5-10 borrows for every sale (varying dependent on price, genre, etc). Any ratio beyond that is almost certainly not a natural borrow rate.

So why could Amazon not limit the allowable number of borrows to a maximum of 10 per sale (averaged over a week or a month, say)? Any numbers beyond that would simply be ignored - no rank uplift, no pages read counted.

There would be no benefit for large scale scamming; no benefit to scam-target rival authors; legitimate authors would be unaffected. Any thoughts?


----------



## GoingAnon

[ORIGINAL POST MODIFIED SEPT 21, 2018. I do not accept nor do I consent to KBoards/VerticalScope's Terms of Service which were implemented without proper notification. As I await a response regarding my request for full account and content deletion - pursuant to GDPR - my continued use of this forum should not be construed as consent to, nor acceptance of, KBoards/VerticalScope's aforementioned Terms of Service.


----------



## B.A. Spangler

Thank you to Phoenix and David for the research and hard work they've put into this.

With such a low barrier to entry (skillset, tech, cost), Amazon's current model is not sustainable -- it'll be overrun with scams. 

As I understand it, the scam on the 'Paid' side has to do with KU Borrows, where each borrow is ranked as a purchase. Results, fly up the charts and gain visibility. 
Since the scammer's pattern is dependent on borrows, what if Amazon removed the sales rank bump that comes with a borrow or eliminated borrows altogether? If so, that'd put an end to the scam. Or am I missing something?


----------



## unkownwriter

> It's also worth noting that, long before KU and its associated scams, there were a few authors who just took off, seemingly without effort. I used to be fairly well acquainted with one. He couldn't really afford advertising at first. He just put up books, and they started selling. He went from barely making ends meet to hiring a personal assistant, taking a world tour, and contemplating opening his own publishing house. He did a lot of advertising as time went on, but the initial success came from zero advertising and almost zero platform.


The thing is, the people who are consistently doing this meteoric rising into the ranks aren't getting the usual side effects: many reviews, consistency in rankings, sale-through to their other books, leaving any evidence of promotions. It's popping a book up, letting it fall dramatically, popping it back up, over and over.

I mean, _come on_. If you hit #1 IN THE ENTIRE STORE, and yet you can't maintain that? You can't get anyone to review the book? You can't get sales on anything else? Seriously? What the heck do you people think is happening? The luck fairy is hitting these same people, but no one else? Because many of you insist there's no such thing as luck, so...

I'm not in the law enforcement field, so I don't have to prove a case in court. All I need to do is report suspicious activity and let Amazon sort it out. Amazon wants this stuff brought to their attention, and they aren't checking for my law school diploma.

If people want to continually give offenders the benefit of the doubt, go for it. When you start feeling the effect of what's happening yourself, I'm sure things will look a lot clearer to you. I've seen it happening already with some who poo-pooed the idea that anything was happening back in September. Now they're being affected, or see the result of blatant rank manipulation happening to others. At least one has realized they've lost thousands of dollars because of KU payout tanking.

And yeah, vetting each Select applicant won't stop the scammers, not totally. Nothing will. But it will get rid of the junk books that are being botted up. It will remove the crappy books that people put up that aren't even coherent, the ones that get quality reports and one star reviews.

An algo to watch KU subscribers would show the ones who are borrowing loads of books (and they have to be "reading" a lot in order to earn any decent money), AKA the click farms. It isn't going to be any one thing that knocks the worst offenders down, it's going to be a multi-level approach.

Amazon might even decide that authors can't submit books for Select until they reach a certain level of sales (and this would hurt me, personally, but I can see why it would happen). Stop multi-author "box sets", heck, stop box sets and bundles altogether in KU. Limit book size, by not allowing bonus content. I know readers might complain, having to borrow each book rather than get them all at once, but it isn't that hard to click that little read for free button. They'll adapt.

Some innocent people will get dinged, but that happens already. We've all seen the threads where people are wondering why they got the nasty copyright email, why their account was terminated, why their book was blocked, when they've done nothing (most turn out to have done _something_, but let's not argue that here). But wouldn't that be better than watching helplessly while some scammer makes off with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, every single month? While it gets harder and harder to rise above the botted books? While it costs more and more and more to do any promotion?


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

"Scam Your Way to the Top" (the secret methods used by the top scammers)
With all the info we have on KBoards, going back to before KU when the scammers merely changed the names of the protagonists and re-titled a bestseller under their own name (and even used a stock photo cover with the logo still on it!), or put it through a translator several times, or changed M/F to M/M, there is enough info to make a really interesting book. I wonder if David or Phoenix would be interested in taking it on?


----------



## 41419

I'd just like to address some concern that I went off half-cocked in any way. 

Let me be absolutely clear:

1. I referred to the actions of four different authors in my post.

2. I have strong evidence that all of them used clickfarms.

3. I have more evidence in my possession than what I shared in my post.

4. Two of the four authors referred to in my post were engaged with directly and gave frankly unbelievable answers for their sudden sales spike.

5. The other two authors are long-time scammers who I've been watching for a while.

There is no possibility that these people are wide-eyed innocents that accidentally stumbled into using some dodgy service.


----------



## PenNPaper

There's a very simple solution to this. All legitimate authors leave KU. Many have/are anyway. Soon KU will be synonymous with junk books (more so than it is now) and the readers will no longer be interested in it.


----------



## Anarchist

Becca Mills said:


> You're right, I think. There's no perfect solution. There's simply no way to avoid all risk. In trying to do something about scamming, we risk damaging an innocent person. But there's also risk in doing nothing or taking more watered-down action. It's a more diffuse risk (because the harm scamming does is spread across more people), but it's a risk nonetheless. This is generally the way it goes with real-world moral decision-making: whatever you choose to do, your hands are probably going to get dirty, so you end up seeking the path of least dirt. I do think the cautionary notes sounded in this thread are good and useful. It's important to guard against falling into some sort of hubristic stance of absolute certainty and moral authority. Reminding oneself of the risks is one way to do that.


I always enjoy your reasoning, Becca. It's thoughtful, and reassuring to see in these types of threads.



dgaughran said:


> I genuinely appreciate this concern. However, let me try and reassure you: as I noted in the comments of my own post, I didn't post all of the evidence in my possession for various reasons. I have offered that to Amazon of course, we'll see if they bother replying this time. (I don't want scammers to know the exact ways in which I determine clickfarmed books or how I find their books. I gave a broad overview of some of the means in my post so that people could see what I was talking about, but I don't want to give scammers a list of what to avoid, or a template on how to do it in a more invisible way either.)
> 
> I'm extremely confident that clickfarms were used here.
> 
> Note that Data Guy has analysed these rank movements and backed up my assessment, if that gives you any additional reassurance: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/2017/07/scammers-break-the-kindle-store/#comment-395953


I'll add my voice to the growing chorus thanking you and Phoenix for your tireless work in this area. I appreciate the time and energy you spend to investigate dubious behavior and effect positive change.

I tend to overcompensate in my fear of lambasting the innocent. I'm the (irritating, tiresome) Henry Fonda character in _12 Angry Men_.

Again, thanks. Yours and Phoenix's efforts are heroic. I've always thought so, even if my position isn't perfectly aligned with yours.


----------



## Lady Runa

I'm looking at the book page now and it has no ranking at all, as if it's just been published. All the reviews are there, however. Weird.

Amazon must have done something to reset the ranking to zero.


----------



## 41419

Look, these are fair questions to ask. I have no problem with people poking and prodding my arguments. The ramifications are pretty serious here and people should question how conclusions were arrived at.

You are totally right that when that process doesn't happen that things can go very badly wrong, very quickly. I'm okay with there being a level of skepticism adopted and a presumption of innocence.


----------



## Philip Gibson

I believe Amazon emails ALL KU authors every month about the page reads payout.  Is that correct?

If so, would it be so hard for Amazon to email every KU author every month that if they are seen to be using click farms, their account will be terminated?  Surely that would scare off a majority of scammers.

Or would that be too easy?

Philip


----------



## Used To Be BH

she-la-ti-da said:


> The thing is, the people who are consistently doing this meteoric rising into the ranks aren't getting the usual side effects: many reviews, consistency in rankings, sale-through to their other books, leaving any evidence of promotions. It's popping a book up, letting it fall dramatically, popping it back up, over and over.
> 
> If people want to continually give offenders the benefit of the doubt, go for it. When you start feeling the effect of what's happening yourself, I'm sure things will look a lot clearer to you. I've seen it happening already with some who poo-pooed the idea that anything was happening back in September. Now they're being affected, or see the result of blatant rank manipulation happening to others. At least one has realized they've lost thousands of dollars because of KU payout tanking.
> 
> And yeah, vetting each Select applicant won't stop the scammers, not totally. Nothing will. But it will get rid of the junk books that are being botted up. It will remove the crappy books that people put up that aren't even coherent, the ones that get quality reports and one star reviews.
> 
> An algo to watch KU subscribers would show the ones who are borrowing loads of books (and they have to be "reading" a lot in order to earn any decent money), AKA the click farms. It isn't going to be any one thing that knocks the worst offenders down, it's going to be a multi-level approach.
> 
> Amazon might even decide that authors can't submit books for Select until they reach a certain level of sales (and this would hurt me, personally, but I can see why it would happen). Stop multi-author "box sets", heck, stop box sets and bundles altogether in KU. Limit book size, by not allowing bonus content. I know readers might complain, having to borrow each book rather than get them all at once, but it isn't that hard to click that little read for free button. They'll adapt.
> 
> Some innocent people will get dinged, but that happens already. We've all seen the threads where people are wondering why they got the nasty copyright email, why their account was terminated, why their book was blocked, when they've done nothing (most turn out to have done _something_, but let's not argue that here). But wouldn't that be better than watching helplessly while some scammer makes off with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, every single month? While it gets harder and harder to rise above the botted books? While it costs more and more and more to do any promotion?


I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Amazon should do nothing. I'm reacting to Amazon's tendency to lash out indiscriminately.

I would agree that, if multiple criteria are met, as you suggest, the risk of hitting an innocent person goes down considerably. The only scenario that might still be a problem would be scammers targeting an innocent person's book to camouflage their activity. We know that happens to some extent. Aside from that, yes, if a book shows none of the usual attributes of a bestseller but keeps hitting a top rank, it's hard to deny something's up.

The idea of restricting Select entry is brilliant. If a book had to demonstrate a little traction before entering the program (and KU), that would stop a lot of scams dead in their tracks. At the very least scammers would have to work harder to get the same result.

It sounds as if Amazon is already taking some steps regarding box sets, but I'm also on board with prohibiting them if necessary. That said, they are a nice way to offer a discount to someone who buys the whole series. What I'd advocate would be a virtual box set arrangement in which Amazon gives an author the ability to offer a lower price if a reader buys a certain combination of books (presumably in one order to avoid record-keeping complications). The principle would be similar to Matchbook or Whispersync. Authors could still offer a bargain, but there wouldn't be a separate box set in KU to potentially gum up the works. Also, the box set wouldn't become a product competing with the individual series titles, which seems as if it could be an advantage to me. I quite agree that a KU subscriber woudn't have to go through that much extra trouble to borrow the books individually.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Philip Gibson said:


> I believe Amazon emails ALL KU authors every month about the page reads payout. Is that correct?
> 
> If so, would it be so hard for Amazon to email every KU author every month that if they are seen to be using click farms, their account will be terminated? Surely that would scare off a majority of scammers.
> 
> Or would that be too easy?
> 
> Philip


General threats are not going to do much. A specific notice to an author whose activities appear suspicious would do more, maybe at least scare some light gray hats back to white. Hardcore scammers are only going to be frightened by seeing other scammers get crushed in a big way. Not just banned, but sued for every single penny they acquired fraudulently, plus punitive damages. As others have noted, that approach would be expensive, but if the goal is to frighten scammers, something like that is the only thing that will really do it.

Perhaps Amazon needs to more carefully vet accounts in countries where suing an offender would be more difficult.


----------



## Guest

I agree with the issue that scammers do, if fact, routinely use honest authors as a target to legitimize their services. We already saw this happen with the review sellers, who would leave reviews on honest books in an effect to mask their paid reviews. So it is a genuine concern that clickfarms could target real authors as a way to cover their tracks. But I also think David is a careful, mindful person who understands that and wouldn't go public with something like this without real information.

But as he said, the real target in this SHOULD be Amazon. Amazon created this monster and it is their job to kill it. The books in question are not the problem. They are symptoms of the problem, which is that KU is designed for scamming. The entire system rewards scamming and encourages it. And to date, Amazon doesn't care because KU is built on QUANTITY not QUALITY. Half the books in KU could be scam books and Amazon wouldn't care, because it is more important for the marketing of KU to say "over one million books available" than it is to say "thousands of high-quality titles available."

The reason for this is that consumers want the _illusion of choice_. And nobody understands this better than Amazon.

Years ago, Walmart did a complete revamping of their stores. They realized that about 10% of the products in their store accounted for over 70% of their profits. So they started to remove low performing products and make more room for the things people were actually buying.Instead of having 20 brands of toothpaste on the shelf, they would only have ten, for example. The idea was that by focusing on what people actually bought, they would reduce costs.

Profits plummeted. The reason? People started to say that "Walmart didn't have much variety."

A similar thing happened with McDonald's. They "simplified" their menu a few years ago to focus on the stuff people bought. Profits went down. People want the ILLUSION OF CHOICE. It doesn't matter that they always order the same thing. They like the comfort of believing that if they DID want something else, they could.

That is why Amazon does nothing about the scammers. The scammers don't matter. Because readers are still going to read what they were going to read anyway. Real readers don't care about the scammers because they are "buying" the same stuff they always buy.

In addition, KU is a loss-leader...a "gateway drug" into the Amazon ecosystem. KU is built to lose money because it is a marketing tool. Amazon doesn't care if it is paying out to scammers, because the end result is that KU is doing what it was built to do: bringing in more users of the ecosystem who spend money on other things.

Two things can push Amazon to fix KU:
Enough of their superstar authors start to publicly rebel. This would cause a PR crisis because Amazon uses the success of the biggest authors as a selling feature to recruit more authors. If the superstars start telling authors the deck is stacked, new authors don't come into the ecosystem to replace those that leave.

Enough readers stop subscribing and the scam starts to hurt the bottom line. If KU becomes a trash heap and people stop subscribing, it loses its value as a promotional tool for Amazon.


----------



## Colin

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I agree with the issue that scammers do, if fact, routinely use honest authors as a target to legitimize their services. We already saw this happen with the review sellers, who would leave reviews on honest books in an effect to mask their paid reviews. So it is a genuine concern that clickfarms could target real authors as a way to cover their tracks. But I also think David is a careful, mindful person who understands that and wouldn't go public with something like this without real information.
> 
> But as he said, the real target in this SHOULD be Amazon. Amazon created this monster and it is their job to kill it. The books in question are not the problem. They are symptoms of the problem, which is that KU is designed for scamming. The entire system rewards scamming and encourages it. And to date, Amazon doesn't care because KU is built on QUANTITY not QUALITY. Half the books in KU could be scam books and Amazon wouldn't care, because it is more important for the marketing of KU to say "over one million books available" than it is to say "thousands of high-quality titles available."
> 
> The reason for this is that consumers want the _illusion of choice_. And nobody understands this better than Amazon.
> 
> Years ago, Walmart did a complete revamping of their stores. They realized that about 10% of the products in their store accounted for over 70% of their profits. So they started to remove low performing products and make more room for the things people were actually buying.Instead of having 20 brands of toothpaste on the shelf, they would only have ten, for example. The idea was that by focusing on what people actually bought, they would reduce costs.
> 
> Profits plummeted. The reason? People started to say that "Walmart didn't have much variety."
> 
> A similar thing happened with McDonald's. They "simplified" their menu a few years ago to focus on the stuff people bought. Profits went down. People want the ILLUSION OF CHOICE. It doesn't matter that they always order the same thing. They like the comfort of believing that if they DID want something else, they could.
> 
> That is why Amazon does nothing about the scammers. The scammers don't matter. Because readers are still going to read what they were going to read anyway. Real readers don't care about the scammers because they are "buying" the same stuff they always buy.
> 
> In addition, KU is a loss-leader...a "gateway drug" into the Amazon ecosystem. KU is built to lose money because it is a marketing tool. Amazon doesn't care if it is paying out to scammers, because the end result is that KU is doing what it was built to do: bringing in more users of the ecosystem who spend money on other things.
> 
> Two things can push Amazon to fix KU:
> Enough of their superstar authors start to publicly rebel. This would cause a PR crisis because Amazon uses the success of the biggest authors as a selling feature to recruit more authors. If the superstars start telling authors the deck is stacked, new authors don't come into the ecosystem to replace those that leave.
> 
> Enough readers stop subscribing and the scam starts to hurt the bottom line. If KU becomes a trash heap and people stop subscribing, it loses its value as a promotional tool for Amazon.


You make lots of good points, Julie. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Alix Nichols said:


> I have a large mailing list of which 25% are KU readers (I've surveyed them). In my next newsletter I plan to tell them about the current KU scam that's killing the program by driving good books out. Has anyone already called on their subscribers to contact Amazon, and explained exactly how to go about it? I'd like to give my peeps a clear and easy roadmap, so they don't hesitate. If anyone has already prepared a handy template / call to action, please share here or PM me!


I also gave this idea some consideration, but decided against it.
My readers buy our stuff for entertainment purposes, and for me to discuss this w/ them in my NL would run the risk of making MY problem THEIR problem. It's tough enough getting them to leave reviews on my books they've read! LOL

I'm contacted by readers a few times a week, and I'm not going to share this challenge with them either.

The scamming has been going on in one form or another since the advent of KU. Saying that, I also have to say that KU right now is about 60% of a decent income for us. I've tried being wide and it just wasn't worth the additional effort for me.

I did fire off an email to Jeff Bezos account pointing out this thread, the PV thread and of course emphasizing David's blog post. While I hope for the best, I'm not confident of seeing any real change. Soldiering on...


----------



## passerby

Desmond X. Torres said:


> . . . Soldiering on...


----------



## Becca Mills

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> That is why Amazon does nothing about the scammers. The scammers don't matter. Because readers are still going to read what they were going to read anyway. Real readers don't care about the scammers because they are "buying" the same stuff they always buy.
> 
> In addition, KU is a loss-leader...a "gateway drug" into the Amazon ecosystem. KU is built to lose money because it is a marketing tool. Amazon doesn't care if it is paying out to scammers, because the end result is that KU is doing what it was built to do: bringing in more users of the ecosystem who spend money on other things.
> 
> Two things can push Amazon to fix KU:
> Enough of their superstar authors start to publicly rebel. This would cause a PR crisis because Amazon uses the success of the biggest authors as a selling feature to recruit more authors. If the superstars start telling authors the deck is stacked, new authors don't come into the ecosystem to replace those that leave.
> 
> Enough readers stop subscribing and the scam starts to hurt the bottom line. If KU becomes a trash heap and people stop subscribing, it loses its value as a promotional tool for Amazon.


Sounds about right.


----------



## AgnesWebb

Yes, thank you to David and Phoenix for thoroughly researching and exposing this massive flaw in the system. 
When I saw that "Broken People from God's Land" #1 in the Kindle store last week, I was SO freaking confused. Not only did it look terrible, but it had practically no reviews and an unrecognizable author. They have fully hacked and infiltrated Kindle Unlimited. It's really messed up.


----------



## unkownwriter

Bill Hiatt said:


> I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Amazon should do nothing. I'm reacting to Amazon's tendency to lash out indiscriminately.
> 
> *I didn't mean to imply I thought you meant Amazon should do nothing, just pointing out that your example was different from what these folks are doing. Sorry for not being clearer.  The easiest way to determine if a book is a true "out of the blue" miracle or botted is to look at the sales, not downloads, and how many reviews it gets (because these click farms don't leave reviews -- likely because of the rule requiring $50 of purchases in the store.*
> 
> I would agree that, if multiple criteria are met, as you suggest, the risk of hitting an innocent person goes down considerably. The only scenario that might still be a problem would be scammers targeting an innocent person's book to camouflage their activity. We know that happens to some extent. Aside from that, yes, if a book shows none of the usual attributes of a bestseller but keeps hitting a top rank, it's hard to deny something's up.
> 
> *It is hard to deny, and that was something that got in my craw. David isn't one of those people who jumps on something with no evidence (not that I'm saying you said that, but it was implied in some other responses). People who've been around for a while should know that, or they could ask. I thought myself that I'd been targeted by one of these scammers in April. I kind of freaked out when the page reads started going up. But then I realized sales had shot up as well (it was stratospheric for me, not so much to anyone else ), so I think I just hit it at the right time with a new release.*
> 
> The idea of restricting Select entry is brilliant. If a book had to demonstrate a little traction before entering the program (and KU), that would stop a lot of scams dead in their tracks. At the very least scammers would have to work harder to get the same result.
> 
> *Exactly. They can't get a foothold in sales, because that would cost them a fortune, even at .99, but they can rake in the dough with a few thousand free KU accounts with fake addresses. So if it was harder to get into Select, that would eliminate the vast majority of the issue right there. And I don't think it would cost Amazon all that much. They could write bots to catch most of it (the repeated content, the bundles/box sets with the same books in different order, the books that aren't written very well). There would be a need for people to do spot checks and to look at things the bot caught but wasn't completely clear, but I'd bet it would be far cheaper than a click farm!*
> 
> It sounds as if Amazon is already taking some steps regarding box sets, but I'm also on board with prohibiting them if necessary. That said, they are a nice way to offer a discount to someone who buys the whole series. What I'd advocate would be a virtual box set arrangement in which Amazon gives an author the ability to offer a lower price if a reader buys a certain combination of books (presumably in one order to avoid record-keeping complications). The principle would be similar to Matchbook or Whispersync. Authors could still offer a bargain, but there wouldn't be a separate box set in KU to potentially gum up the works. Also, the box set wouldn't become a product competing with the individual series titles, which seems as if it could be an advantage to me. I quite agree that a KU subscriber woudn't have to go through that much extra trouble to borrow the books individually.
> 
> *From what I'm hearing, something was done with the cap on box sets recently. I also think there was some more thorough checking to make sure stuff was truly only in Select. It's a start, but not near enough. I like your idea about how we could still offer a deal to our readers. I hope Amazon looks into something like that.*


----------



## Guest

I have noticed on the kindle app that all of the books I've read over the last two weeks too at some point and it will say page 988, then I turn the page and it says page 988 over and over. The most recent was a Robin Hobb book that showed a preview in the first book of a series for the last book, (I didn't understand why it wasn't for the next one but who am I.) Another was an indie epic fantasy just over 700 kindle pages and it had previews for five or six books in a different series. ( this also surprised me because this book was only recently added to KU but I guess they've picked up on the page payout t thing already except they didn't count or at least I think they didn't since the page numbers stopped and said the same page over and over.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Lauriejoyeltahs said:


> I have noticed on the kindle app that all of the books I've read over the last two weeks too at some point and it will say page 988, then I turn the page and it says page 988 over and over. The most recent was a Robin Hobb book that showed a preview in the first book of a series for the last book, (I didn't understand why it wasn't for the next one but who am I.) Another was an indie epic fantasy just over 700 kindle pages and it had previews for five or six books in a different series. ( this also surprised me because this book was only recently added to KU but I guess they've picked up on the page layout thing already except they didn't count or at least I think they didn't since the page numbers stopped and said the same page over and over.


Interesting! I can see why someone would want to have an excerpt of the next book at the end of the previous one. Trad-pubbed paperbacks have done that for a long time. However, it really doesn't make sense to count that kind of backmatter as part of the KENP total. It does sound as if Amazon is at least doing something.


----------



## Sam Rivers

This article tells how the scamming works. I found it interesting so I thought I would pass it on to you.

https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/amazon-encourages-indie-authors-to-be-shady


----------



## StephenBrennan

Don't click on it! It's a scam!


----------



## martyns

StephenBrennan said:


> Don't click on it! It's a scam!


Really? What makes you think it's a scam? I was going to click on it... Now I kind of don't want to.


----------



## 41419

Good Ereader is not a reliable source. I didn't even click on it - please refrain from doing so either. Don't quote them, don't link to them, they are garbage.

They write misogynistic trash which smears all indies with braindead generalities. And they make huge dough from it - the site owner sold the company for a big wedge last year.

Don't give them any more clicks.


----------



## Mylius Fox

dgaughran said:


> Good Ereader is not a reliable source. I didn't even click on it - please refrain from doing so either. Don't quote them, don't link to them, they are garbage.
> 
> They write misogynistic trash which smears all indies with braindead generalities. And they make huge dough from it - the site owner sold the company for a big wedge last year.
> 
> Don't give them any more clicks.


Cool, our very own fake news. 

_Privetstvuyu, moi russkiye druz'ya!_


----------



## #############

dgaughran said:


> Good Ereader is not a reliable source. I didn't even click on it - please refrain from doing so either. Don't quote them, don't link to them, they are garbage.
> 
> They write misogynistic trash which smears all indies with braindead generalities. And they make huge dough from it - the site owner sold the company for a big wedge last year.
> 
> Don't give them any more clicks.


I did, out of curiosity.  But I quickly backed out at their implication was that _all_ indies were scammers.


----------



## 75814

If I said what I really thought about Good Ereader, I'd probably break KBoards' cursing filter.


----------



## CLStone

berkenstock said:


> I did, out of curiosity.  But I quickly backed out at their implication was that _all_ indies were scammers.


How dare we write great books and offer them at lower prices and keep low overhead! 

Granted though the reputation for indie being scammy can end up being like people who think all 'work at home jobs' are scams. There are a lot of scams, a lot of people who are merely ignorant and try some dumb things, and then you have the small, genuine group trying their best and are too busy working their tails off.

But I used to do what dgaughran has been up to, following a few questionable people who seem to be going under the radar and pointing out the issues, only I was doing it in the work at home job world.

But I've had to do my fair share of the opposite, too, when someone was innocent but a mob mentality broke out, no research to base it from but everyone was angry. I'd have to dig in, figure out the mess and sort out what was going on.

It's good to be careful and ask questions and to presume innocence. When I used to teach a class how to spot scammers, I ended up making a list of what were warning signs and red flags. Warnings were things like no website, just an email address, or no internet history at all. Red flags were things that were definitely not okay, like charging a fee to turn in an application, or like here in the publishing world, an ebook filled with repeat paragraphs and links to the back of the book, etc.

Teach people how to spot scams, and you get fewer people just pointing fingers randomly, which I think is what the biggest concern. No one wants a KU filled with scammers, but no one also wants to get the boot when they had a good, random week and are suddenly questioned by Amazon when someone gets a jealous streak and starts pointing fingers.

You could say if they are innocent that Amazon would be okay with it, but we know how long it takes for Amazon to get to some things, and if you were an innocent who had a random lucky streak and suddenly get ranking on pause while they look into it, you lose that streak. It still hurts innocent authors, so I feel it is better to teach exactly what to look for, and at what point you should get in touch with Amazon about it.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

FWIW, I think their site's down.


----------



## Jim Johnson

Got this email from Amazon ECR following the email I sent late last week:



> Thanks for taking the time to contact us. We take any manipulation of our programs and services very seriously and have forwarded your concerns to the appropriate team for investigation. Although we can't disclose the outcome of the investigation, and corrective actions are not always visible to the public, we appreciate your feedback. Along with our ongoing investigations, we'll continue to dig into any example you provide to us.


Nothing new to other folks' responses, but someone's reading the emails.


----------



## PhoenixS

Jim Johnson said:


> Got this email from Amazon ECR following the email I sent late last week:
> 
> Nothing new to other folks' responses, but someone's reading the emails.


Total boilerplate response, though. I've got a stack of those piled up with that exact verbiage.


----------



## 75814

PhoenixS said:


> Total boilerplate response, though. I've got a stack of those piled up with that exact verbiage.


Yup, I got the exact same email. Exact same wording.


----------



## 41419

Same boilerplate email - in response to a report they asked me to compile. I offered them a whole pile of info. They didn't want it.


----------



## Phxsundog

Scammers have Amazon by the tail so long as clickbots run on legit books. Not just who ordered them. Amazon can't tell the difference. Neither can anyone else.


----------



## jckang

dgaughran said:


> I genuinely appreciate this concern. However, let me try and reassure you: as I noted in the comments of my own post, I didn't post all of the evidence in my possession for various reasons. I have offered that to Amazon of course, we'll see if they bother replying this time. (I don't want scammers to know the exact ways in which I determine clickfarmed books or how I find their books. I gave a broad overview of some of the means in my post so that people could see what I was talking about, but I don't want to give scammers a list of what to avoid, or a template on how to do it in a more invisible way either.)


Is this also true of the book that you mention hitting #1 two Sundays ago? The author went onto Facebook and categorically denied all wrongdoing, but I'm still quite skeptical.


----------



## jcalloway

I got the same email. 

Amazon is willing to act when bots swarm AMS ads. They reimburse authors for false clicks without hesitation. I assume they are also active behind the scenes, swatting the bots and fortifying their security to ensure the ads aren't abused.

And yet, after well over a year, authors and readers are still receiving the same copy+paste responses to complaints about the bots/clickfarms/scam books. The difference, I suppose, is that the AMS bots have the potential to impact Amazon's bottomline, if authors stop using the ads.

But when its our bottomline, they send form replies. Great. Nothing new, then.


----------



## Doglover

Philippa Gregory is ranked at 6 thousand something in the entire UK store but doesn't have a single review. That could well look dodgy if she were not a famous, trad published author. 

Just proof that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.


----------



## 75814

Doglover said:


> Philippa Gregory is ranked at 6 thousand something in the entire UK store but doesn't have a single review. That could well look dodgy if she were not a famous, trad published author.
> 
> Just proof that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.


Dave's not just using current rank as an indicator here. In his post, he talked about how he could find no presence of this book on book promotion sites and how it's over eight months old and has always had a pretty low rank until this happened. The author isn't well-known and when asked how he achieved such a high rank, he coyly responded that he has "friends in high places."


----------



## Monique

Fwiw, the author posted the following statement on FB regarding the issue. The photo is pretty damning evidence.

https://www.facebook.com/talesofashkar/photos/a.768331256598272.1073741828.597605267004206/1359890214109037/?type=3&theater


----------



## Guest

Monique said:


> Fwiw, the author posted the following statement on FB regarding the issue. The photo is pretty damning evidence.


He admits he paid a "marketing" company (who apparently have now vanished without a trace) and maintains he had no idea how they generated their results to catapult him to #1? He is also trying to cast shade by claiming he can name others who do the exact same thing. Colour me sceptical...


----------



## David VanDyke

I think it's very likely he was innocent of all but naivete'. These operations spam lots of authors. He tried it out. Stuff happened. He's so clueless he doesn't know the difference between a legit and non-legit service--but remember, we've all pretty much been that clueless at one point.


----------



## jckang

David VanDyke said:


> I think it's very likely he was innocent of all but naïveté. These operations spam lots of authors. He tried it out. Stuff happened. He's so clueless he doesn't know the difference between a legit and non-legit service--but remember, we've all pretty much been that clueless at one point.


I'm thinking the same thing. The sales and KENP numbers look more like Top 5000, and that is AFTER he hit #1.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot

I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Now he's playing the "aww, gee, shucks" victim because he got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar.


----------



## Guest

SevenDays said:


> I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Now he's playing the "aww, gee, shucks" victim because he got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar.


I agree, particularly when you couple it with his bragging and remarks in groups etc when he was #1. Now he's scrubbing everything he can and back pedalling. I would suspect he's in one of these secret FB groups sharing blackhat marketing techniques and thought he'd get away with it because it worked for others in the group.

Given he states he "just wanted exposure" he certainly has that now.


----------



## Seneca42

Nope. Not buying this apology for one minute NOR am i buying this "I have no idea how any of this stuff works".

Why?

* this guys been in the game for some time
* he goes to author hangouts in his city (which I was surprised to learn is the same city I live in)
* he has his books in Chapters (ie. bricks and mortar). He's got signs and all that jazz. 
* he blew off everyone on twitter telling him his book got botted to the top
* he offers zero apologies to the people who ended up buying his book (I'll assume it was at 99c... but regardless, it doesn't even cross his mind that people paid for a falsely ranked product. zero f's given by him). 
* he does not state the company name that supposedly suckered him into botting (and they are conveniently gone now anyway). 
* he's *STILL* suggesting the results may not be the result of click farm (he outright states he does not know if that's the case)
* he clearly DID NOT contact amazon when he botted up and waited until it all blew up in his face to address the situation.

And worst of all he has the gaul to chastize authors for accusing him of botting and furthermore to remind them that *THEY* are violating Amazon TOS policy (that was truly shocking).

This is one of the worst apologies / damage control attempts I've ever seen. Basically he's doing the one and only thing he can do, which is plead ignorance under the assumption no one can ever really prove he truly intended to do this.

And again, he's thick on his sob story "I'm just trying to make it in the world"... and couldn't give two f's about how what he did (and others like him) impact other authors.

I know I'm coming across as a real hard *ss on this one. And if I believed for a second he truly was ignorant of what he was doing I'd have a totally different view.

But simple truth is, this guy got sick and tired of not selling books and paid to climb the ranks. The service clearly screwed up and botted him up way too high in the ranks and it blew up in his face.

*There are dozens/hundreds more of these guys out there and you better believe they know what they are getting themselves into. 
*

I just hope next week he bots another book to #1. At least that would leave me busting a gut laughing.

_edited -- Ann_


----------



## Rose Andrews

Seneca42 said:


> Nope. Not buying this apology for one minute NOR am i buying this "I have no idea how any of this stuff works".
> 
> Why?
> 
> * this guys been in the game for some time
> * he goes to author hangouts in his city (which I was surprised to learn is the same city I live in)
> * he has his books in Chapters (ie. bricks and mortar). He's got signs and all that jazz.
> * he blew off everyone on twitter telling him his book got botted to the top
> * he offers zero apologies to the people who ended up buying his book (I'll assume it was at 99c... but regardless, it doesn't even cross his mind that people paid for a falsely ranked product. zero f's given by him).
> * he does not state the company name that supposedly suckered him into botting (and they are conveniently gone now anyway).
> * he's *STILL* suggesting the results may not be the result of click farm (he outright states he does not know if that's the case)
> * he clearly DID NOT contact amazon when he botted up and waited until it all blew up in his face to address the situation.
> 
> And worst of all he has the gaul to chastize authors for accusing him of botting and furthermore to remind them that *THEY* are violating Amazon TOS policy (that was truly shocking).
> 
> This is one of the worst apologies / damage control attempts I've ever seen. Basically he's doing the one and only thing he can do, which is plead ignorance under the assumption no one can ever really prove he truly intended to do this.
> 
> And again, he's thick on his sob story "I'm just trying to make it in the world"... and couldn't give two f's about how what he did (and others like him) impact other authors.
> 
> I know I'm coming across as a real hard *ss on this one. And if I believed for a second he truly was ignorant of what he was doing I'd have a totally different view.
> 
> But simple truth is, this guy got sick and tired of not selling books and paid to climb the ranks. The service clearly screwed up and botted him up way too high in the ranks and it blew up in his face.
> 
> *There are dozens/hundreds more of these guys out there and you better believe they know what they are getting themselves into.
> *
> 
> I just hope next week he bots another book to #1. At least that would leave me busting a gut laughing.


Yep. I went through this same checklist in my head when I read his apology. I believe in forgiveness and that people make mistakes, but this was a deliberate attempt to cheat and it's harder to dismiss it as him just being naive. Sorry. Not sorry.

_edited quoted post -- Ann_


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Lee Carlon said:


> I apologize upfront for the newb question, but I've seen people mention borrows and reads a few times now as if they're different from each other. When I look on my KDP dashboard I don't see any mention of borrows. What am I missing?


Borrows (downloading a KU book to a Kindle or other device) are invisible. They cause a rank uplift, just like a sale, but there is no record of them on your KDP dashboard. You will only see the result of a borrow when the book is read, and you get pages read showing up on the graph. People use the terms read and borrow interchangeably for convenience, that's all.

In the case of the author in question, the bots clearly borrowed (ie downloaded) his book many thousands of times, but didn't 'read' any pages. So the intent was for rank uplift alone, not to make money from the pages read.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Seneca42 said:


> This is one of the worst apologies / damage control attempts I've ever seen. Basically he's doing the one and only thing he can do, which is plead ignorance under the assumption no one can ever really prove he truly intended to do this.
> 
> And again, he's thick on his sob story "I'm just trying to make it in the world"... and couldn't give two f's about how what he did (and others like him) impact other authors.


What shocked me most about his post is firstly, he paints himself as some kind of victim in all this, and secondly, he seems to think what he did was fine because he made no money from it. He shows no sign of understanding why other authors are upset with him, or the magnitude of what he did.

If he is just some innocent who got suckered into something without understanding the implications of what he did, then humility and openness and a desire to prevent others being suckered in too would go a long way towards softening attitudes towards him. I don't know whether he knew what he was doing or not, but he's not done much to engage my sympathy so far.

It would really help if Amazon would take steps to warn authors away from potentially scammy promotions. How hard can it be to email people to make it clear that there are dodgy operators out there, and their account is in danger if these use them? It's been discussed many times here on Kboards, and in private FB groups and other forums, but a lot of authors operate outside such groups and may not know what's going on.


----------



## Seneca42

PaulineMRoss said:


> It would really help if Amazon would take steps to warn authors away from potentially scammy promotions. How hard can it be to email people to make it clear that there are dodgy operators out there, and their account is in danger if these use them? It's been discussed many times here on Kboards, and in private FB groups and other forums, but a lot of authors operate outside such groups and may not know what's going on.


I think what ticked me off the most is this guy's Canadian. I know Americans may not understand this, but Canadians (as a general rule) are pretty darn good at apologizing  So I'm more annoyed with this guy than I'd normally be.

But yes, I 100% agree with you re: Amazon. I mean, really, this is just as much their fault as his. Put this guy aside for a second, I'm sure there are plenty of not-so-intelligent authors out there who can be easily duped. And how sad is that, that you now have to be super well versed on the market not to accidentally step on a landmine (which I don't think this guy did, but others could quite easily).

Ultimately, and I can't believe I'm saying this given how negatively I view this guy, but Amazon is ten times more at fault for this than he is. You fail over and over again to address the botting, you do absolutely nothing to warn authors about these services and that they aren't allowed, you don't create an authorized list of promo services authors can trust, and finally you don't even ban people who cheat (you just derank them).

I think myself, and probably a lot of people who are reacting to this guy, are hitting him with general feelings towards the whole crooked Amazon marketplace. Don't get me wrong, I still think the guy knew what he was doing, but he's probably taking a bigger backlash than he should (afterall, his career is now dead). Amazon should really share 50% of the blame in all this for having created a truly flawed system.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Seneca42 said:


> I think what ticked me off the most is this guy's Canadian. I know Americans may not understand this, but Canadians (as a general rule) are pretty darn good at apologizing  So I'm more annoyed with this guy than I'd normally be.


This made me smile. I'm a Brit, we apologise when someone steps on our foot, so I totally get you.



> Ultimately, and I can't believe I'm saying this given how negatively I view this guy, but Amazon is ten times more at fault for this than he is. You fail over and over again to address the botting, you do absolutely nothing to warn authors about these services and that they aren't allowed, you don't create an authorized list of promo services authors can trust, and finally you don't even ban people who cheat (you just derank them).


I'm not really an Amazon apologist, but I really believe they ARE doing something about this, but it's all behind the scenes. There have been enough lurches in the KU system in the last year to suggest changes under the hood. But there's absolutely no point playing whack-a-mole with dodgy authors. You ban one account, they just pop up under a new account/pen name and you have to start all over again. The objective has to be to make scamming unprofitable in the long run, and I think there are signs that they're getting to grips with bundles, for example.



> I think myself, and probably a lot of people who are reacting to this guy, are hitting him with general feelings towards the whole crooked Amazon marketplace.


Yeah, and his timing was terrible - right after another lowered KU payout. And it was such a blatant case - #1 in the whole store! That still shocks me.


----------



## 41419

I also don't buy his denials whatsoever. It's kind of funny that both him and the previous #1 scammer both used the exact same "Aw, shucks, I accidentally walked into a clickfarm and put my book at the top of the charts and I don't even know what a clickfarm is" defence.

There's so much carefully crafted BS in that statement it takes a while to unpack. 

First, let's be clear: the graph is absolutely evidence of clickfarms. There are few sales, and few reads relative to the number of borrows (say 5000-6000 at minimum) needed to put you at #1. I bet anything you will see the same pattern on the other guy's chart.

Second, he's still refusing to name the service. Why?

Third, he claims the site magically disappeared. Even if it did, we could view a cached version or look on Wayback Machine, or even search Google for mention of it. So name the damn site.

Fourth, not only does he not apologize or even acknowledge that he has done wrong, if you look closely you will see he is quite unrepetent: "I will not be employing the same promotion again even though it may not break any rules." Are you kidding? 

Fifth, he starts pointing the finger at the authors who called him out. Yes, they are to blame dude.

Sixth, the reason he didn't make any g-d money is because he was CAUGHT. He was on track for $5k-$10k+ month off the back of this - he would have seen a page read bump this week that would have seen him racking up a quarter of a million, maybe half a million page reads by the end of the month. Maybe even more.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

dgaughran said:


> Sixth, the reason he didn't make any g-d money is because he was CAUGHT. He was on track for $5k-$10k+ month off the back of this - he would have seen a page read bump this week that would have seen him racking up a quarter of a million, maybe half a million page reads by the end of the month. Maybe even more.


The crazy part. If he hadn't been so stupidly obvious, he could have gotten away with a much more modest scheme. For every obvious numbnutz like this dude, their are countless others quietly scheming away. That's the kicker isn't it? All of the people using black-hat methods who we never see and who never get caught. :/


----------



## unkownwriter

> Second, he's still refusing to name the service. Why?


That right there tells me he knew exactly what he was doing, and the kind of business he was doing it with. If it were me in this situation, I'd be naming and shaming, and going public to Amazon to try and keep my account.

Of course, I'm sure if he gets banned, he'll be back under a new name with new books, and more sense about how to go about scamming the system. This one will be a little more under the radar, while others just blatantly give us all the finger.

I'm still not seeing how he ended up #1 in the entire store with that level of sales and borrows, not to mention the low number of pages read. It seems like it would take more than that to get him there.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

she-la-ti-da said:


> I'm still not seeing how he ended up #1 in the entire store with that level of sales and borrows, not to mention the low number of pages read. It seems like it would take more than that to get him there.


He did say he knows people in high places, which invites even more speculation. Corruption seems to be rife everywhere, so there is no reason to believe it can't occur with book rankings .


----------



## PearlEarringLady

she-la-ti-da said:


> I'm still not seeing how he ended up #1 in the entire store with that level of sales and borrows, not to mention the low number of pages read. It seems like it would take more than that to get him there.


The number of borrows doesn't show up on the graphs, or anywhere else. You can only infer it from the rank. It takes thousands of sales and/or borrows to hit #1, and since we can see the number of sales (<50) the rest must have been borrows.


----------



## 41419

Gentleman Zombie said:


> The crazy part. If he hadn't been so stupidly obvious, he could have gotten away with a much more modest scheme. For every obvious numbnutz like this dude, their are countless others quietly scheming away. That's the kicker isn't it? All of the people using black-hat methods who we never see and who never get caught. :/


Yep, this is why I stressed in my post that we are only catching the dumbasses. The smart guys will be hiding this a lot better. It's only a matter of time before the scammer population at large figures out how to cover their tracks better. Which is why Amazon needs to act now, before this mutates into something way worse.


----------



## 41419

PaulineMRoss said:


> The number of borrows doesn't show up on the graphs, or anywhere else. You can only infer it from the rank. It takes thousands of sales and/or borrows to hit #1, and since we can see the number of sales (<50) the rest must have been borrows.


Exactly this. There seems to be a little confusion over this point out there in general, so I wanted to stress it.

Also, just to add, you will see page read days of like 5k/8k on that graph - and I see some people saying that this isn't enough reads to put you at #1. To be clear: reads don't effect sales rank. You get the sales rank boost the moment the book is borrowed. You don't see that in your account - you don't see anything in your account until (/unless) the book is actually read. If someone borrows your book and returns it without reading it, you will get the ranking boost, but you won't see anything in your account relating to that boost, and you won't get paid.

Clickfarms can potentially do all sorts of things, but obviously the simplest service here, one easy to offer in bulk, is the mass borrowing and returning of books, rather than the more laborious option of paging through/clicking to the end, or the much more expensive option of purchasing.

And with KU offering a free 30-day trial, the cost on the clickfarm side becomes trivial.


----------



## 75814

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> He did say he knows people in high places, which invites even more speculation. Corruption seems to be rife everywhere, so there is no reason to believe it can't occur with book rankings .


That comment is what led me to believe his sob story was total BS. I've never known a writer to play coy about what they used to achieve a boost in rankings. You ask someone how they suddenly shot up the list, they'll tell you, "I got a Bookbub" or something. And as others have said, his "aw, shucks" response now would be a whole lot more believable if he still wasn't refusing to name the site.


----------



## Guest

Not only does he not name the site, he gives no information about the site at all. He doesn't say how he found out about it, who recommended it to him, what sort of promos they were offering. How much he paid for his promo, what was supposed to be the intended results. Why he didn't initially seem surprised to see his book at number 1. If he is getting into all of this trouble because of a dodgy promo site, then he would be shining the light on them - don't you think? Obviously he's coup-able. He might even be running the scam himself.


----------



## MissingAlaska

Tilly said:


> He admits he paid a "marketing" company (who apparently have now vanished without a trace) and maintains he had no idea how they generated their results to catapult him to #1? He is also trying to cast shade by claiming he can name others who do the exact same thing. Colour me sceptical...


I have to agree. I gave him the benefit of a doubt, but if he isn't willing to name the company involved...

Such abuse at the expense of other authors is wholly infuriating. I also have to agree that there is probably more of this going on than meets the eye. The smart scammers are probably much more subtle about it and not getting caught.


----------



## Seneca42

she-la-ti-da said:


> That right there tells me he knew exactly what he was doing, and the kind of business he was doing it with. If it were me in this situation, I'd be naming and shaming, and going public to Amazon to try and keep my account.


Especially given one of two possibilities are at play here. Either he asked to be botted to #1 OR the business he paid screwed up big time. Maybe the chinese guy monitoring the bots accidentally fell asleep on the job and didn't turn them off when he hit 2k rank and let it run to #1 on paid.

From what I've seen books are generally botting up to the 2-4k range in paid and 40-80 range in their sub category. They just went a little too far this time.

But ya, when you protect your co-conspirators it's kind of hard to argue you don't know what's going on.


----------



## Seneca42

This should be good. Amazon has started taking down reviews on his book identifying it was scammed up the ranks. No, they aren't taking down any of the 5-star ratings which are probably fake also... just the reviews stating he rank scammed. 

They did leave a single review identifying the rank scam, most likely because it has 99 upvotes. But I suspect Amazon will remove that in a day or two as well. Time to whitewash any evidence this happened


----------



## 75814

He's now said he used a site called boostebook.com. I can't seem to find any cache of it, though. I tried both Google and Wayback.


----------



## BlueGen

I found this

https://netho.me/boostebook.com

It appears to be a real site, recently taken down.


----------



## BlueGen

It's also been updated in the last few seconds! Someone is rapidly pulling down information about the site. But it appears it was registered in the UK

Also theres some interesting stuff in this google search    site:boostebook.com

I screenshot what came up, but don't know how to upload it here. Perhaps someone else can do it. The third entry in the list is particularly telling. 

Suggests he knows what he was doing after all.


----------



## Seneca42

BlueGen said:


> It's also been updated in the last few seconds! Someone is rapidly pulling down information about the site. But it appears it was registered in the UK
> 
> Also theres some interesting stuff in this google search site:boostebook.com
> 
> I screenshot what came up, but don't know how to upload it here. Perhaps someone else can do it. The third entry in the list is particularly telling.
> 
> Suggests he knows what he was doing after all.


thanks for this. If you view the cached returns and their "terms" you find:

_8. Governing Law

These terms and conditions are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in that State or location._

Looks like they are out of India.

I'm crossing my fingers that it was run by Amazon CSR's... it's the only way this debacle gets more absurd.


----------



## Desert Rose

From the Google cache of the bookbooste "for authors" page:

This is Google's cache of http://www.boostebook.com/forauthors/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on May 5, 2017 01:39:25 GMT.
The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Full versionText-only versionView sourceTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

Home
For Authors
Contact



> Free Book Campaigns (1 Day)
> Baby Boost $187
> 
> ✔︎ 5,000+ Guaranteed Downloads
> 
> ✔︎ Top 50 Free Guaranteed
> 
> ✔︎ Targeted Readers
> 
> ✔︎ 0-1 Verified Purchase Review*
> 
> ✘ SEO: Custom Keywords
> 
> ✘ First Page of the Top
> Schedule Now
> Boost $246
> 
> ✔︎ 7,500+ Guaranteed Downloads
> 
> ✔︎ Top 20 Free Guaranteed
> 
> ✔︎ Targeted Readers
> 
> ✔︎ First Page of the Top
> 
> ✔︎ 1-2 Verified Purchase Review*
> 
> ✘ Custom Keywords
> Schedule Now
> Star Boost $310
> 
> ✔︎ 10,000+ Guaranteed Downloads
> 
> ✔︎ Top 10 Free Guaranteed
> 
> ✔︎ Targeted Readers
> 
> ✔︎ First Page of the Top
> 
> ✔︎ 2-3 Verified Purchase Review*
> 
> ✔︎ SEO: Custom Keywords
> Schedule Now
> Super Star Boost $337
> 
> ✔︎ 15,000+ Guaranteed Downloads
> 
> ✔︎ Top 5 Free Guaranteed
> 
> ✔︎ Targeted Readers
> 
> ✔︎ First Page of the Top
> 
> ✔︎ 3-4 Verified Purchase Review*
> 
> ✔︎ SEO: Custom Keywords
> Schedule Now
> Benefits
> Get your book in Top 50 Free, guaranteed (with a smallest package)
> Get your book in Top 50 Free, guaranteed (with a smallest package)
> Your book will be promoted more efficiently by the Kindle platform because it proved that it has potencial.
> Your book will be promoted more efficiently by the Kindle platform because it proved that it has potencial.
> Make your book known, increase your reputation as an author.
> Make your book known, increase your reputation as an author.
> More changes to receive good ratings and reviews.
> More changes to receive good ratings and reviews.
> Improve your rankings. Your book will rank better when people are searching in Kindle Store after different keywords.
> Improve your rankings. Your book will rank better when people are searching in Kindle Store after different keywords.
> Increase the sales pf the targeted book and, also, the sales of other books if the current one is part of a series.
> Increase the sales pf the targeted book and, also, the sales of other books if the current one is part of a series.
> 
> Copyright © 2016 The Company, All Rights Reserved


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot

Seneca42 said:


> Looks like they are out of India.
> 
> I'm crossing my fingers that it was run by Amazon CSR's... it's the only way this debacle gets more absurd.


It might be tinfoil hat-ish, but I've suspected this for a long time. It would explain an awful lot.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

> Free Book Campaigns (1 Day)
> Baby Boost $187


All of this relates to free downloads, not KU borrows.


----------



## Monique

From a site discussing promos:



> Boostebook.com - 1 Day Package ($597)
> We received 96 sales from this in ~4 days. The maximum rank we achieved: #7 in the whole store and thousands of KENP readers for 7 days.
> The KENP would be even better if my client had more books to sell.
> Total Investment: $597
> Book Sales: $479 ($4.99 x 96 sales)
> KENP: 11,055 ($0.005 x 11.055 = $55)
> Total: -$63 (loss)
> Long Term Effect: I am still getting KENP readers&#8230; So this campaign would be perfect for someone with more books, for example. This is not our case. Overall, we are happy with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are accepted, they will promote your book, and usually you appear in the top 100 in the whole Kindle store. This campaign is not publicly available on their website: you have to contact them directly, I guess.
> Before we booked a campaign on Boostebook, some friends of mine were suspicious about them, just because it's too good to be true that they could get us into the top 100. The arguments were that it was just impossible, or that we would have a spike and nothing more after that, etc. We tested them anyway, and now the conclusion shows us a different perspective: a good one.


LOL @ the conclusion. It's clearly a clickfarm.

https://medium.com/@maria.j.f.sant/my-killer-ebook-campaign-to-reach-top-20-in-the-whole-kindle-store-a8bfe59cd9eb


----------



## Desert Rose

#7 in the store

*96 *sales

THOUSANDS of pages read. THOUSANDS.

If I don't laugh I'll cry.


----------



## David VanDyke

Seneca42 said:


> Ultimately, and I can't believe I'm saying this given how negatively I view this guy, but Amazon is ten times more at fault for this than he is. You fail over and over again to address the botting, you do absolutely nothing to warn authors about these services and that they aren't allowed, you don't create an authorized list of promo services authors can trust, and finally you don't even ban people who cheat (you just derank them).


It occurs to me that what Amazon should do is hire an indie author/publisher (someone like Phoenix, say) who's intimately familiar with the problem, as a special advisor. S/he could sign ironclad NDPs, get paid a nice fee, and then lay out all the problems and work toward solutions that would tamp down abuse to low levels.

But that's assuming (I know, I know) they actually want to throw some resources at the problem.


----------



## Atunah

Could they make it so that a book only gets a ranking count once a book is actually read to a percentage, say 20%. Not just because a KU subscriber downloads it to their account. That would at least take care of the click bots that do it for ranking boosts only. But I am sure they'll find another way to bypass all of that quickly. 

I stopped browsing for books on Amazon and I totally disregard the top 100 as I cannot trust any of it. I see stuff in my favorite genre that is so obviously scammed. 

I stick with reader recommendations which have so far never included scammy authors. Or just stick with known names, no unknown authors.


----------



## 77071

Atunah said:


> I stick with reader recommendations which have so far never included scammy authors. Or just stick with known names, no unknown authors.


*nods* Sadly, I'm much less likely these days to try a new-to-me author, even if their cover, rank, and reviews all look great.


----------



## Seneca42

David VanDyke said:


> It occurs to me that what Amazon should do is hire an indie author/publisher (someone like Phoenix, say) who's intimately familiar with the problem, as a special advisor. S/he could sign ironclad NDPs, get paid a nice fee, and then lay out all the problems and work toward solutions that would tamp down abuse to low levels.
> 
> But that's assuming (I know, I know) they actually want to throw some resources at the problem.


or even just look into the books that people report  Something, anything. Hell, outsource it to a local kindergarten class, it would be better than nothing.

Look at the top 100 scifi list and the box set "shift" it's around 48 in the store (was 58 this morning). Zero reviews. No blurb. Author has no other books. Basically no formatting on it. Horrific cover and writing. It's been out a month. Amazon even gave the book a nice "best seller" tag.

What's the author doing? Hugh Howey has an omnibus called "Shift", so the author is most likely trying to play off that in terms of search.

Will I allow for the possibility the guy is a super popular author who released this under a different pen name and directed his readers to it through a mailing list? I mean, I guess. But how Amazon let's a book like this just sit there in the top 100 without looking at it is beyond me.

Much less give it a best seller tag. I mean, the amazon store is an utter joke at this point.


----------



## jcalloway

Monique said:


> From a site discussing promos:
> 
> LOL @ the conclusion. It's clearly a clickfarm.
> 
> https://medium.com/@maria.j.f.sant/my-killer-ebook-campaign-to-reach-top-20-in-the-whole-kindle-store-a8bfe59cd9eb


Check out the other named promo service listed in that article. Yikes. Sure is funny to see it listed alongside a clickfarm. Or...not.


----------



## Monique

jcalloway said:


> Check out the other named promo service listed in that article. Yikes. Sure is funny to see it listed alongside a clickfarm. Or...not.


Yup. And those results also speak for themselves.


----------



## jcalloway

Monique said:


> Yup. And those results also speak for themselves.


"The sales stopped the next day." Ahem.


----------



## Colin

Seneca42 said:


> Look at the top 100 scifi list and the box set "shift" it's around 48 in the store (was 58 this morning). Zero reviews. No blurb. Author has no other books. Basically no formatting on it. Horrific cover and writing. It's been out a month. Amazon even gave the book a nice "best seller" tag.


It's Shift with a silent 'f' then...


----------



## PearlEarringLady

> This campaign is not publicly available on their website: you have to contact them directly, I guess.


And that's not shady AT ALL. Of course it isn't.


----------



## Rose Andrews

Seneca42 said:


> or even just look into the books that people report  Something, anything. Hell, outsource it to a local kindergarten class, it would be better than nothing.
> 
> Look at the top 100 scifi list and the box set "shift" it's around 48 in the store (was 58 this morning). Zero reviews. No blurb. Author has no other books. Basically no formatting on it. Horrific cover and writing. It's been out a month. Amazon even gave the book a nice "best seller" tag.
> 
> SNIP
> *
> Much less give it a best seller tag. I mean, the amazon store is an utter joke at this point.*


I can't tell you how angry this makes me. I see books in my favorite genres hit the top 100 and get best seller tags that are just like what you describe above. How does this happen? Here we are, the rest of us, relentlessly honing our craft trying to be read in this world and these pieces of shit vomit out words on a canvas and then clickbait their way to the top. I'm so demoralized right now.


----------



## Desert Rose

PaulineMRoss said:


> And that's not shady AT ALL. Of course it isn't.


No, of course it's not shady. It's EXCLUSIVE.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

Colin said:


> It's Shift with a silent 'f' then...


I read the sample. It's not even vaugely Sci-Fi. At best it's gritty Urban Hood Fiction. :/ It doesn't even belong in the category it's in.

And what's with that awful cover? And the terrible non-existent blurb? I mean c'mon this ass isn't even half-way trying to disguise what he's doing... and the 'zon still hasn't noticed it!!!!

Jeesh I need a Tylenol now!


----------



## unkownwriter

PaulineMRoss said:


> The number of borrows doesn't show up on the graphs, or anywhere else. You can only infer it from the rank. It takes thousands of sales and/or borrows to hit #1, and since we can see the number of sales (<50) the rest must have been borrows.


I know that, Pauline. I was guestimating he was getting low "borrows" because he didn't have much for page reads, which to me means he was paying just to get rank and not the KU money. Anyway, it still seems an awfully small number to get to #1 in the entire store, not just in some category.



Dragovian said:


> #7 in the store
> 
> *96 *sales
> 
> THOUSANDS of pages read. THOUSANDS.
> 
> If I don't laugh I'll cry.


I know, right? How in the world does it take so little to get so high?

That book is now sitting at this:



> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #607 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> 
> #1 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Genre Fiction > Historical > Alternate History
> #3 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Alternative History
> #56 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Science Fiction


At #607 paid in the store. PAID. It's been out just over a month and has not a single review. It has nothing in it that I can see to fit into these categories, the cover, blurb and formatting suck big time. Where are these sales/borrows (they'd have to be borrows, or it would be too expensive at 9.99 to pay people to buy it).

Amazon has to be seeing these things. I mean, they can stop us from putting KU in our keywords (which is stupid to begin with, why not let that be in there?), and send a nasty gram in a second, but these books just fly right on by them?


----------



## Seneca42

she-la-ti-da said:


> Amazon has to be seeing these things. I mean, they can stop us from putting KU in our keywords (which is stupid to begin with, why not let that be in there?), and send a nasty gram in a second, but these books just fly right on by them?


I'll say this as well. There is at least one author on kboards who is in the dragonsoul also-bought list. I'm am *not* saying they are botting, but they might want to contact amazon to make sure they don't get wrapped up in all this.

Because the bot accounts very likely were applied against some of thsoe also-bought books (knowingly or unknowingly).

For authors who think of using these services, this is another thing to consider. All it takes is one getting caught to start to see who else is using that service (because the also-boughts essentially show you which books those bots have been used against). It's *not* 100% definitive, but it's definitely another reason not to go down the dark path of botting. Even if you get away with it, you can still get caught by *someone else* and their association with the same bot accounts.


----------



## Athena Grayson

jcalloway said:


> Check out the other named promo service listed in that article. Yikes. Sure is funny to see it listed alongside a clickfarm. Or...not.


Check out that other writer's article. Smells like SEO content. I'd bet better money than they are probably getting paid that the article is an attempt to subtly advertise the services of either one entry or the other...


----------



## Jena H

Seneca42 said:


> or even just look into the books that people report  Something, anything. Hell, outsource it to a local kindergarten class, it would be better than nothing.
> 
> Look at the top 100 scifi list and the box set "shift" it's around 48 in the store (was 58 this morning). Zero reviews. No blurb. Author has no other books. Basically no formatting on it. Horrific cover and writing. It's been out a month. Amazon even gave the book a nice "best seller" tag.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. The cover and Look Inside are so.... unbelievable. And from 2007. The numbers this book is getting are definitely not natural or organic.


----------



## Becca Mills

Folks, let's stay focused on David Gaughran's post and the impact of the publicity it's generated. People without Dave's lengthy public track record wading through the bestseller lists and identifying various books/authors for attack here on KBoards ... that's not a direction we want to go.


----------



## CassieL

Seneca42 said:


> I'll say this as well. There is at least one author on kboards who is in the dragonsoul also-bought list. I'm am *not* saying they are botting, but they might want to contact amazon to make sure they don't get wrapped up in all this.
> 
> Because the bot accounts very likely were applied against some of thsoe also-bought books (knowingly or unknowingly).


Another possible explanation is that someone using AMS sucked up the names of authors in the top 100 of their genre or the Amazon store and directed AMS ads against those authors, including ones who've been botted. As that screenshot the author posted showed, there were actual buys that resulted from the botting. All it would take is some of the people who bought the botted book while it was ranking high to also buy the book by someone who was directing their AMS ads at that author. No foul play by the author involved.


----------



## KSRuff

A huge thanks to Michael and David for raising awareness on this. It appears your efforts may be paying off because I found this on Amazon's product page for Dragonsoul today:


Item Under Review
This book is currently unavailable because there are significant quality issues with the source file supplied by the publisher.
The publisher has been notified and we will make the book available as soon as we receive a corrected file. As always, we value customer feedback.

As an author, I find this clickfarm problem so discouraging, not just because it impacts my rankings and income generated through the KDP Global Fund but because has the potential to destroy the entire industry. I've identified what I believe are credible and trustworthy book promotion sights like Bookbub, ENT, Fussy Librarian, Freebooksy, AMS etc, but I'm terrified to try anyone new because what if they contract with one of these clickfarm operations? I've steered clear of all the usual suspects who guarantee results, but I think it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust others to promote my books. Also, as a voracious reader, I've avoided relying too heavily on reviews ever since I learned how Locke truly made his millions. I started relying more on Amazon's best seller lists, but after downloading a handful of crappy reads, I have learned I can't trust those lists to help me find new authors or hidden gems either. Surely OUR readers are picking up on this and wondering why such terrible books have five star reviews and land on the best seller list. Amazon has got to be losing consumer trust, which will eventually cost them sales, so you would think they'd want to clean up the act. Hubby, who has a masters in information systems management, doesn't think it would be all that difficult for Amazon to identify those products using clickfarms. There's a sequence or a repeating pattern he claims should be fairly easy to detect (I'm probably not describing this right). Anyway, if this problem persists, one would hope that Amazon would eventually realize this will cost them in the end and take some action to identify the perpetrators and put an end to this. It is illegal activity (fraud) after all.

Thanks again for raising awareness and for helping the rest of us more fully understand the problem. I knew there were crappy books making Amazon's best seller lists, but I didn't understand why until I stumbled across these threads on clickfarms on kboards.

Kim


----------



## Seneca42

Cassie Leigh said:


> Another possible explanation is that someone using AMS sucked up the names of authors in the top 100 of their genre or the Amazon store and directed AMS ads against those authors, including ones who've been botted. As that screenshot the author posted showed, there were actual buys that resulted from the botting. All it would take is some of the people who bought the botted book while it was ranking high to also buy the book by someone who was directing their AMS ads at that author. No foul play by the author involved.


100% definitely possible.

That said. I know of an author who bots up (my assumption, no hard proof) to about 2k then lets the book drop to about 100k, then bots back up. Plays it smart and stays roughly under the radar. Anyway, same crap as all these bot books, almost no reviews and what not.

Anyway, I looked at their also boughts. Surprise, surprise, basically 90% overlap with dragonsoul. Although, no kboard authors there (which was great to see!).

But point being, for Amazon, it is (or should be) beyond easy to start linking all these things together. You can exclude false positives by simply checking AMS activity. Also very easy to identify an "also bought" overlap of 50 readers versus 3,000 readers.

The take away for me is that if my book ends up in an also-bought of a scammer, I think I'll be contacting amazon just to cover my bases. Last thing I (or anyone) wants is to get sucked into some web of bot-based bans if you are totally innocent.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

KSRuff said:


> A huge thanks to Michael and David for raising awareness on this. It appears your efforts may be paying off because I found this on Amazon's product page for Dragonsoul today:
> 
> Item Under Review
> This book is currently unavailable because there are significant quality issues with the source file supplied by the publisher.
> The publisher has been notified and we will make the book available as soon as we receive a corrected file. As always, we value customer feedback.


And yet the other book mentioned is still ranking well.



> Hubby, who has a masters in information systems management, doesn't think it would be all that difficult for Amazon to identify those products using clickfarms. There's a sequence or a repeating pattern he claims should be fairly easy to detect (I'm probably not describing this right).


The KU rank-botting is incredibly easy for Amazon to spot because there will be way more borrows than sales. We can't see the actual numbers of either of those for books with suspicious activity, so we're reduced to using proxies like number of reviews and whatever secret methods David has, but Amazon has only to compare sales and borrows to see instantly who's botting.

I'd like to see some sort of cap placed on the number of borrows to keep it proportionate to sales, and anything above that would just be discarded - no rank uplift, no pages read. Simple to operate, but it would leave legitimate sales patterns and promotion unaffected.


----------



## 39416

Just for us prawns trying to follow this conversation--

What is an SEO?

What is an Amazon CSR (I may have the acronym wrong, now I can't find it), something to do with India?

The worst that has happened to this scammer is that he had his book removed, right? That's all Amazon has done?

What is the point of this scam? I understand it gets him to the top rankings which apparently caused about 50 sales but if the clickfarm cost $200-$300 that's not a very good ROI. So what does it get the scammer?

Any illumination appreciated!


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

PaulineMRoss said:


> And yet the other book mentioned is still ranking well.
> 
> The KU rank-botting is incredibly easy for Amazon to spot because there will be way more borrows than sales. We can't see the actual numbers of either of those for books with suspicious activity, so we're reduced to using proxies like number of reviews and whatever secret methods David has, but Amazon has only to compare sales and borrows to see instantly who's botting.
> 
> I'd like to see some sort of cap placed on the number of borrows to keep it proportionate to sales, and anything above that would just be discarded - no rank uplift, no pages read. Simple to operate, but it would leave legitimate sales patterns and promotion unaffected.


I had no idea that a solution to this could be this simple. I'm sure that there would be caveats etc on such a program. There are many members of this community well versed in IT, and this is the first specific example of a fix.

I don't know whether to be relieved or steamed angry at Amazon's rocket scientists for this not already having been implemented.
OK- steamed.


----------



## IntoTheAbyss

loraininflorida said:


> What is an SEO?
> 
> What is an Amazon CSR (I may have the acronym wrong, now I can't find it), something to do with India?


Search Engine Optimization.

Customer Service Representative.


----------



## J. Tanner

loraininflorida said:


> What is an SEO?
> 
> What is an Amazon CSR (I may have the acronym wrong, now I can't find it), something to do with India?
> 
> The worst that has happened to this scammer is that he had his book removed, right? That's all Amazon has done?
> 
> What is the point of this scam? I understand it gets him to the top rankings which apparently caused about 50 sales but if the clickfarm cost $200-$300 that's not a very good ROI. So what does it get the scammer?


SEO: Search Engine Optimization

CSR: Customer Service Representative

(I'm not sure what context you saw these in in this thread. I haven't read every post.)

The point of these scams from the author perspective is that ranking high has a tail of legit sales and reads. (_Some_ authors may not know it's a scam going in and assume they are getting real readers from the promo rather than rank manipulation. Those authors should be legit outraged by the reality and complaining loudly about who did this. That's part of the reason why there's an assumption of guilt.

Anyway, we don't really know the ROI until someone who used a bad-faith promo reveals the details. The clickfarmers could be preying on newbies one time each with a bad ROI, or they could be pretty cheap and racking up repeat business from bad actors, or the authors could be involved in the scam itself and not be paying typical promo rate. It's likely a combo of all three across all the permutations of the scam.


----------



## Desert Rose

PaulineMRoss said:


> I'd like to see some sort of cap placed on the number of borrows to keep it proportionate to sales, and anything above that would just be discarded - no rank uplift, no pages read. Simple to operate, but it would leave legitimate sales patterns and promotion unaffected.


That would kill KU as surely as the scammers will. You can't tell legitimate authors, "If we think you're getting too many borrows vs sales, according to an algorithm that of course we won't release, you don't get any benefit or payment for those books" and expect them to remain in the program.


----------



## 39416

Thanks!


----------



## PhoenixS

* The other book mentioned in David's blog post as hitting #1 has also been removed from sale.
* One of the other authors not mentioned by name in David's post but who's hit at least #3, #6, #6, #7 and #2 PAID in the last 6 weeks just had his extensive ebook catalog nuked (no idea if it'll stick, but no ebooks are currently available for sale).
* A second bot service site other than the one previously mentioned here has gone dark in the past handful of days.

They may just be taking care of the PR complaints, but at least there's progress.


----------



## Seneca42

Desmond X. Torres said:


> I had no idea that a solution to this could be this simple. I'm sure that there would be caveats etc on such a program. There are many members of this community well versed in IT, and this is the first specific example of a fix.
> 
> I don't know whether to be relieved or steamed angry at Amazon's rocket scientists for this not already having been implemented.
> OK- steamed.


In theory it's easy.. very easy.

I suspect one of four situations (or combination of) are playing out here:

1) Amazon has to be able to prove the accounts are bot accounts otherwise they could be sued (so legal may be telling them they can't drop the hammer without irrefutable proof).

2) They don't have the resources to tackle this, even though it's easy to do. This is very likely. They did drop the hammer a while back and ended up banning legit authors by accident. Once that hit a few press outlets, they stopped immediate (that's what is causing the wild wild west going on now I believe; Amazon can't refine the algos enough to accurate just nail scammers).

3) They are intentionally letting the situation play out. Let all the riff raff feed like fat pigs at the trough then slaughter them all in one fell swoop. It will be a momentous day if we suddenly see everyone who has botted over the past year banned from their store.

4) This problem (gaming the amazon store in a variety of ways/ fake reviews, ranking, etc.) may extend beyond books and is a far bigger issue than we realize. Tin foil hat: they could very easily have their own employees out of Indian and South America helping facilitate the gaming of their store. If that were true you wouldn't want to shut it down until you had the "finger prints" of every rat [illegitimate person] involved 

All to say. Yes, this should be very easy to address. The fact Amazon is not doing so either means they just don't care OR something far bigger is in the works.

All I know is if you're on the up and up it will all work out fine. If you're gaming Amazon... all you can do is hope they truly are as incompetent as they seem.


----------



## Ryan W. Mueller

Now, of course, there's the worry that they may lump in legitimate authors with the scammers. Let's hope nobody legitimate ends up as collateral damage.


----------



## PhoenixS

PaulineMRoss said:


> I'd like to see some sort of cap placed on the number of borrows to keep it proportionate to sales, and anything above that would just be discarded - no rank uplift, no pages read. Simple to operate, but it would leave legitimate sales patterns and promotion unaffected.


Different genres have different ratios, though. I went round and round with Data Guy on that last summer. And post-promo ratios can skew high in favor of borrows. Our post-BookBub freebies have returned to paid as high as in the #200 and #300s, and they've held rank in the #500-800 range with low, low double-digit sales. I've seen those books where 93% of the rank is due to borrows. Granted, we had ad footprints to readily point to, but that would also require factoring in to any scam-sniffing algo.

Then again, there's one bot ad site that routinely buys ads with legit promo sites to cover their botting tracks. They'll use a combo of legit sites and bots to get into the Top 30 or 50 Free, switch to borrows, and bot a few hundred of those so ensure the target book enters the paid side at a nice high (good) rank. So the presence of legit ad sites in the IPs of a book's history could trigger a false negative if recent ads were factored in.

It's a complicated mess to be sure...


----------



## Salvador Mercer

PhoenixS said:


> * The other book mentioned in David's blog post as hitting #1 has also been removed from sale.
> * One of the other authors not mentioned by name in David's post but who's hit at least #3, #6, #6, #7 and #2 PAID in the last 6 weeks just had his extensive ebook catalog nuked (no idea if it'll stick, but no ebooks are currently available for sale).
> * A second bot service site other than the one previously mentioned here has gone dark in the past handful of days.
> 
> They may just be taking care of the PR complaints, but at least there's progress.


I do believe that all 73 of this authors books are not for sale right now. His account must be suspended, at least temporarily. Progress will be adjudicated once we see how this plays out long term, but it's a promising sign after all these months/years. Hard to say what the Zon is doing behind the curtain...


----------



## Patty Jansen

Salvador Mercer said:


> I do believe that all 73 of this authors books are not for sale right now. His account must be suspended, at least temporarily. Progress will be adjudicated once we see how this plays out long term, but it's a promising sign after all these months/years. Hard to say what the Zon is doing behind the curtain...


Holy dooley, they are not, indeed. I guess this author's only mistake about botting is to have been too greedy. Those botting up into the top 10k will remain unnoticed. Then again, they're not real readers so what's the point, because that doesn't give all that much extra magical visibility.

Also, KU really stinks to high heaven.


----------



## ........

Perhaps Amazon should take a leaf from Google and PayPal's books...

When you want to work with Google Adsense, they deposit two small sums into your bank account (like $0.14 and 0.02). You then need to contact them to verify the amounts they put in. First layer of checking that you're a real person and not a bot. 

PayPal does something similar. 

There are also checks that rely on having a real address (because they mail you something with a code in it) and also a connected phone number (they send you a text message with a code).

There are two major scams happening with KU and Amazon. The first is the scammers selling bots to whatever sucker authors wants to buy them. Promotion sites and the like. 

The second is scammers who play both sides - they publish hundreds of books (old fairy tales, wikipedia articles, private label content) and then run 5000 KU accounts that read like 100 pages a day. The accounts cost $9.99 and bring in, say, $13 a month in KU page reads across their massive catalogs. They end up clearing $180K a year and don't get caught because any single KU account is only reading between $9.99 - $15 worth of page reads in any given month.

These are the scammers that are killing KU - the ones with books floating down at 600K that get 50 page reads a day and no sales. Both publisher and reader.

But look to Google, PayPal and other companies. Firstly, the bank account details is a massive weak spot. It may be easy to set up 5000 KU accounts but it's not easy to set up 5000 bank accounts. 

You could list every KDP account currently with published books and then in column two have the bank details. Any duplicate bank account details indicates violation of TOS. So that takes care of scammers who are setting up new KDP accounts, publishing five fairy tales and taking in the page reads for each account. Seeing the same bank details appearing next month on a new account - warning sign.

The other version of scammer is just using one account with hundreds of books on it. So that's easy... sort all current publishing accounts by total number of books on account. Above X books means take a closer look.

I'd also suggest that when free KU trial accounts are set up that if they don't convert to a paid account after trial, that the page reads are removed from the pool entirely. Their page reads are gone, no payment due. This kills the scam of setting up free accounts and accruing page reads. 

It seems blindingly obvious to me that the bank account details is where the weak point here is.

Say a scammer went to the bother of setting up fifty bank accounts and fifty KDP accounts and then 5000 bot accounts to read the hundreds of books they published AND they're reading other legit books in the genres... there are still weak spots there! The need to have a phone number connected to each account. The need to have a physical address to receive a letter with a code. 

The physical addresses for example - any match there would trigger an alarm. Any secondary match - like all those virtual mailboxes, like #3454 at X address and #3455 at same address. Sure, legitimate authors *may* be using a mail service like that but not many.

So many solutions... also Amazon has a horde of super smart computer scientists working for them. There are all kinds of analysis that would reveal bot stuff happening.


----------



## Some Random Guy

The only viable solution to KU is nuke it from orbit.  It's the only way to make sure.  I would dearly love to see Amazon kill KU.  It's  an abomination that screws authors and promotes a serious strain of Stockholm disease. Subscription services will always be scammed.  The only way to avoid getting ******is refusing to play the game.


----------



## Aaronhodges

Eric Thomson said:


> The only viable solution to KU is nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to make sure. I would dearly love to see Amazon kill KU. It's an abomination that screws authors and promotes a serious strain of Stockholm disease. Subscription services will always be scammed. The only way to avoid getting ******is refusing to play the game.


Not going to happen. Subscription services such as Spotify Netflix and Kindle Unlimited are here to stay. They may tinker with KU a bit, but it won't be going anywhere. People don't put much value on 'online' entertainment, they want it for 'free' or as near as they can get


----------



## ........

Lauriejoyeltahs said:


> What about those of us with joint accounts? I have my own, but that would mean my husband could not have his own. I wouldn't open another bank account just so we can both shop/read/etc.


Fine to have a joint customer account. I meant the publishing accounts on KDP - no duplicate bank details. That would prevent a lot of scammers I'd think given it's far more difficult to set up multiple bank accounts than it is to set up KU accounts.


----------



## Guest

That makes more sense, though that would mean there would have to be more to it than click here to activate your keep account.


----------



## David VanDyke

Dragovian said:


> That would kill KU as surely as the scammers will. You can't tell legitimate authors, "If we think you're getting too many borrows vs sales, according to an algorithm that of course we won't release, you don't get any benefit or payment for those books" and expect them to remain in the program.


It would be easy to use as a red flag. Any time a book gets, say, more than three times the number of borrows than sales in ay one 24-hour period, it would be flagged for a human look.

Or, if Amazon data analysis indicates that no legit books historically ever exceed, say, 5x ratio of borrows to sales in any 1-day period, then not only might they be red-flagged, but the algo could simply cut off any borrows more than 5x sales. If they set the algo right, they would never have false positives.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Amazon can't refine the algos enough to accurate just nail scammers


Which is why it will take live, trained human beings, probably in the US or other English-speaking country, to look at what the bots find. I know Amazon wants to be the "we have an algo for that!" company, but people are still needed. They need to be trained and paid a decent salary.

I don't expect Amazon to find all the scammers. That would likely be impossible. But I do expect them to work on the problem, not let things get out of hand like they've done so far. If we can come up with solutions, they surely can. We'll see how far they're going to go now, and if they'll keep it up in the future.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Colin said:


> It's Shift with a silent 'f' then...


----------



## Rose Andrews

To come back to the OP topic about Dragonsoul: okay, I love dragons. LOVE them. What angers me the most about all of this is that this book's premise is good. The idea for the world and the surrounding conflict sounds dope. All right, so he's not skillful enough yet to blast it out really well yet. That's okay. We've all been there...

But why shoot your career out of the sky simply because you think more people should like your book?

I've been thinking about this a lot today. Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now. Today. This book. How many new authors are willing to do this for the long haul? How many are willing to see the graphs flatline or bleep every once in a while? This is a tough business. The toughest I've ever been in and I worked in the science field for some time. I thought THAT was tough! Not compared to Indie publishing. Although this is the best time to be an author, it's also hard to get visibility for your work.

This whole debacle has reminded me of something: patience is a virtue. I don't sell that much. It's chump change, really. But I still work hard every day to get more work out there. To hone my craft. To improve in what ways I can. This author got tired of not selling. It's why he did this and now his career has come to a screeching halt. Who knows if he'll be able to sell to Amazon again. Suppose he could always go the pen name route but he's thrown away all the work he's put into his real name. He's put himself in a very bad light instead of just having written the next book, gotten feedback on why this book didn't work and continued forward. He could've done something else with his fantasy world, with the characters, tied other books into this one and kept writing, kept practicing, kept being honest. Instead he got impatient and greedy and now look. It honestly sucks what he did but I'd hate to be him right now.

What did authors do before the internet? They kept writing, kept working at their craft, never gave up. Scamming the system is a short term reward and the bad thing is, this guy is a genuine author. Someone who wants a career writing books. Now he's fucked himself. It's truly sad when the whole picture is up for viewing.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Rosie A. said:


> What did authors do before the internet? They kept writing, kept working at their craft, never gave up. Scamming the system is a short term reward and the bad thing is, this guy is a genuine author. Someone who wants a career writing books. Now he's [expletive]ed himself. It's truly sad when the whole picture is up for viewing.


Yes to this whole post. Of course there are out and out scammers around, who are stealing just because they can. But this guy and the other who's been mentioned are real authors who've worked hard on their books and could have made it on merit alone, in time. In fact, the other guy had a flourishing career at one time, I seem to recall. It's sad. Patience is indeed a virtue, but unfortunately we live in the age of instant gratification.


----------



## Susanne O

Rosie A. said:


> To come back to the OP topic about Dragonsoul: okay, I love dragons. LOVE them. What angers me the most about all of this is that this book's premise is good. The idea for the world and the surrounding conflict sounds dope. All right, so he's not skillful enough yet to blast it out really well yet. That's okay. We've all been there...
> 
> But why shoot your career out of the sky simply because you think more people should like your book?
> 
> I've been thinking about this a lot today. Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now. Today. This book. How many new authors are willing to do this for the long haul? How many are willing to see the graphs flatline or bleep every once in a while? This is a tough business. The toughest I've ever been in and I worked in the science field for some time. I thought THAT was tough! Not compared to Indie publishing. Although this is the best time to be an author, it's also hard to get visibility for your work.
> 
> This whole debacle has reminded me of something: patience is a virtue. I don't sell that much. It's chump change, really. But I still work hard every day to get more work out there. To hone my craft. To improve in what ways I can. This author got tired of not selling. It's why he did this and now his career has come to a screeching halt. Who knows if he'll be able to sell to Amazon again. Suppose he could always go the pen name route but he's thrown away all the work he's put into his real name. He's put himself in a very bad light instead of just having written the next book, gotten feedback on why this book didn't work and continued forward. He could've done something else with his fantasy world, with the characters, tied other books into this one and kept writing, kept practicing, kept being honest. Instead he got impatient and greedy and now look. It honestly sucks what he did but I'd hate to be him right now.
> 
> What did authors do before the internet? They kept writing, kept working at their craft, never gave up. Scamming the system is a short term reward and the bad thing is, this guy is a genuine author. Someone who wants a career writing books. Now he's [expletive]ed himself. It's truly sad when the whole picture is up for viewing.


YES to all of this. I have been writing for twenty years, seven as an Indie author and work hard every day to produce the next book and the next and so on, trying to improve and learn as I go along. It is a long, hard road to build up a readership and even then it's a constant struggle. The sales graph is like a roller coaster track, up and down, up and down. You have to keep pushing and promoting all the time.

But if you only keep your eyes on sales and only write for money, then you'll have lost something. I mainly write because I love it and for the challenge of improving my craft. Of course I want my books to sell, but when sales are down I don't feel like stopping or scamming the system to see my books up there at the top.

Rosie, your post is inspirational. Thank you.


----------



## GeneDoucette

Rosie A. said:


> To come back to the OP topic about Dragonsoul: okay, I love dragons. LOVE them. What angers me the most about all of this is that this book's premise is good. The idea for the world and the surrounding conflict sounds dope. All right, so he's not skillful enough yet to blast it out really well yet. That's okay. We've all been there...
> 
> But why shoot your career out of the sky simply because you think more people should like your book?
> 
> I've been thinking about this a lot today. Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now. Today. This book. How many new authors are willing to do this for the long haul? How many are willing to see the graphs flatline or bleep every once in a while? This is a tough business. The toughest I've ever been in and I worked in the science field for some time. I thought THAT was tough! Not compared to Indie publishing. Although this is the best time to be an author, it's also hard to get visibility for your work.
> 
> This whole debacle has reminded me of something: patience is a virtue. I don't sell that much. It's chump change, really. But I still work hard every day to get more work out there. To hone my craft. To improve in what ways I can. This author got tired of not selling. It's why he did this and now his career has come to a screeching halt. Who knows if he'll be able to sell to Amazon again. Suppose he could always go the pen name route but he's thrown away all the work he's put into his real name. He's put himself in a very bad light instead of just having written the next book, gotten feedback on why this book didn't work and continued forward. He could've done something else with his fantasy world, with the characters, tied other books into this one and kept writing, kept practicing, kept being honest. Instead he got impatient and greedy and now look. It honestly sucks what he did but I'd hate to be him right now.
> 
> What did authors do before the internet? They kept writing, kept working at their craft, never gave up. Scamming the system is a short term reward and the bad thing is, this guy is a genuine author. Someone who wants a career writing books. Now he's [expletive]ed himself. It's truly sad when the whole picture is up for viewing.


Yes, this exactly.


----------



## Jim Johnson

Rosie A. said:


> To come back to the OP topic about Dragonsoul: okay, I love dragons. LOVE them. What angers me the most about all of this is that this book's premise is good. The idea for the world and the surrounding conflict sounds dope. All right, so he's not skillful enough yet to blast it out really well yet. That's okay. We've all been there...
> 
> But why shoot your career out of the sky simply because you think more people should like your book?
> 
> I've been thinking about this a lot today. Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now. Today. This book. How many new authors are willing to do this for the long haul? How many are willing to see the graphs flatline or bleep every once in a while? This is a tough business. The toughest I've ever been in and I worked in the science field for some time. I thought THAT was tough! Not compared to Indie publishing. Although this is the best time to be an author, it's also hard to get visibility for your work.
> 
> This whole debacle has reminded me of something: patience is a virtue. I don't sell that much. It's chump change, really. But I still work hard every day to get more work out there. To hone my craft. To improve in what ways I can. This author got tired of not selling. It's why he did this and now his career has come to a screeching halt. Who knows if he'll be able to sell to Amazon again. Suppose he could always go the pen name route but he's thrown away all the work he's put into his real name. He's put himself in a very bad light instead of just having written the next book, gotten feedback on why this book didn't work and continued forward. He could've done something else with his fantasy world, with the characters, tied other books into this one and kept writing, kept practicing, kept being honest. Instead he got impatient and greedy and now look. It honestly sucks what he did but I'd hate to be him right now.
> 
> What did authors do before the internet? They kept writing, kept working at their craft, never gave up. Scamming the system is a short term reward and the bad thing is, this guy is a genuine author. Someone who wants a career writing books. Now he's [expletive]ed himself. It's truly sad when the whole picture is up for viewing.


Great post, Rosie. Thanks for adding it.


----------



## Seneca42

Rosie A. said:


> I've been thinking about this a lot today. Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now.
> 
> This whole debacle has reminded me of something: patience is a virtue.


I don't think authors have ever been all that patient  They were forced to be (if you wanted through the gates you had to really polish your manuscript). Now, because everything is digital and can be gamed, the opportunity is there to take short cuts.

While I agree with everything you said in spirit I think it ultimately comes down to a very simple thing. Either you have personal morals and ethics or you don't.

Even if I quit publishing and had nothing to lose I still wouldn't bot my way up the ranks as a last hurrah. It's just morally and ethically wrong to me (I'd think less of myself as a person if I did that, so I never would).

Other people don't share that ideology. I'm sure they have all kinds of rationalizations why they are botting, but at the end of the day they simply lack basic ethics and morals. I suppose that can partly be blamed on the greater world we live (or even the fact that Amazon itself behaves ruthlessly much of the time), but I still think it's a choice. You are either someone who plays fair because it's the right thing to do, or you aren't.

So I have no sympathy for people who cheat and then cry afterward that their punishment is too severe. Karma's a b*tch as they say.

Now, if this guy had genuinely stumbled into a bot farm accidentally, that would be a whole different story. I'd have a *ton* of sympathy for him. There's just no evidence that's the case.

So yes, he probably was impatient. But beneath even that, his real problem was he lacks a personal sense of right and wrong.


----------



## 75814

Rosie A. said:


> To come back to the OP topic about Dragonsoul: okay, I love dragons. LOVE them. What angers me the most about all of this is that this book's premise is good. The idea for the world and the surrounding conflict sounds dope. All right, so he's not skillful enough yet to blast it out really well yet. That's okay. We've all been there...
> 
> But why shoot your career out of the sky simply because you think more people should like your book?
> 
> I've been thinking about this a lot today. Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now. Today. This book. How many new authors are willing to do this for the long haul? How many are willing to see the graphs flatline or bleep every once in a while? This is a tough business. The toughest I've ever been in and I worked in the science field for some time. I thought THAT was tough! Not compared to Indie publishing. Although this is the best time to be an author, it's also hard to get visibility for your work.
> 
> This whole debacle has reminded me of something: patience is a virtue. I don't sell that much. It's chump change, really. But I still work hard every day to get more work out there. To hone my craft. To improve in what ways I can. This author got tired of not selling. It's why he did this and now his career has come to a screeching halt. Who knows if he'll be able to sell to Amazon again. Suppose he could always go the pen name route but he's thrown away all the work he's put into his real name. He's put himself in a very bad light instead of just having written the next book, gotten feedback on why this book didn't work and continued forward. He could've done something else with his fantasy world, with the characters, tied other books into this one and kept writing, kept practicing, kept being honest. Instead he got impatient and greedy and now look. It honestly sucks what he did but I'd hate to be him right now.
> 
> What did authors do before the internet? They kept writing, kept working at their craft, never gave up. Scamming the system is a short term reward and the bad thing is, this guy is a genuine author. Someone who wants a career writing books. Now he's [expletive]ed himself. It's truly sad when the whole picture is up for viewing.


Perfectly stated.

And if you really want to be a writer, why would you want to gain success this way? I just can't wrap my head around how people can be this unethical. For me, if the only reason my book is shooting up the ranks is because I paid for a clickfarm to manipulate the rankings, I wouldn't feel any sense of accomplishment. I'd be deeply ashamed that I had to resort to those methods.

And it's not like I've always had the best luck with publishing. For ten years, my books wallowed in phone-number ranks. But even still, the thought of doing something like this literally never occurred to me.

I just don't get people who think like that.


----------



## 41419

Yep, author impatience is a problem. We see it in threads where newbies are asking something like "Is it realistic to expect six-figure earnings in my first year?" - often accompanied by refusing to listen to people suggesting that this might be setting inappropriate expectations.

I'm all for shooting for the moon, but it should also be tethered to some kind of realism, otherwise it can bleed into entitlement, then a sense of injustice or bitterness, and it's a short step from that to the dark side - because you view the whole system as unfair or corrupt.


----------



## Used To Be BH

she-la-ti-da said:


> Which is why it will take live, trained human beings, probably in the US or other English-speaking country, to look at what the bots find. I know Amazon wants to be the "we have an algo for that!" company, but people are still needed. They need to be trained and paid a decent salary.
> 
> I don't expect Amazon to find all the scammers. That would likely be impossible. But I do expect them to work on the problem, not let things get out of hand like they've done so far. If we can come up with solutions, they surely can. We'll see how far they're going to go now, and if they'll keep it up in the future.


Bots are cheaper--when they work. The problem in this case is that they're not enough to solve this problem. Amazon should care enough about its consumer-centric image to be willing to invest in protective measures to keep customers from getting scammed. The company did take a stand on fake reviews, even if enforcement wasn't completely accurate. Eventually, it will do the same with rank scams. Whether it does it soon enough to keep KU from falling apart completely is the question. (I agree with Aaron that subscription services are here to stay. What Amazon has to decide is whether it wants to be a real player or the company whose service is a joke.)


----------



## Jim Johnson

The challenge there is that the newer writers don't want to hear that it takes time, to be patient, to keep working at it. They read the huge success stories and want their six figure nut to build off their first novel or first series. Some people want the fast track to success and don't see or don't care that a lot of this takes time and practice and a life-long commitment to constant improvement.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Perry Constantine said:


> Perfectly stated.
> 
> And if you really want to be a writer, why would you want to gain success this way? I just can't wrap my head around how people can be this unethical. For me, if the only reason my book is shooting up the ranks is because I paid for a clickfarm to manipulate the rankings, I wouldn't feel any sense of accomplishment. I'd be deeply ashamed that I had to resort to those methods.
> 
> And it's not like I've always had the best luck with publishing. For ten years, my books wallowed in phone-number ranks. But even still, the thought of doing something like this literally never occurred to me.
> 
> I just don't get people who think like that.


As a former teacher with thirty-six years of experience, I can tell you that cheating is rampant, even among students who are otherwise ethical. The problem is partly the same as it is for authors: immediate gratification. Why work for a grade when you can game it? There is also the argument, variations of which we sometimes hear, that everyone else is doing it, so one needs to do it to some extent to stay competitive. (That's what a lot of people fear will happen with writers.)

The saddest part for me when I was teaching was that parents often became enablers for that kind of behavior, in some cases even lying themselves to get their kids off the hook. Teaching has become a constant battle to promote honesty. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Enough people get into the world with those habits intact to become the KU scammers of the future (or maybe the serial returning customers).

Authors need to have reasonable expectations. Sure, we all want to be bestsellers and see our books turned into movies, but only a small number of authors (indie and trad) will ever see that. Phone book rankings (I love that expression) are as much as most indie writers ever get. Even the ones who do better often take years to really get to that point. That means having a day job one can at least stand and that allows enough time to write--not always an easy combination to find. You're right, though: it's hard to have real satisfaction from scamming.


----------



## Seneca42

dgaughran said:


> I'm all for shooting for the moon, but it should also be tethered to some kind of realism, otherwise it can bleed into entitlement, then a sense of injustice or bitterness, and it's a short step from that to the dark side - because you view the whole system as unfair or corrupt.


Not just that. But even if you pull it off you don't really benefit. So let's say you bot up and it actually jacks up your income for a period of time. You start thinking "yes, I'm making it." You get used to the money for a few months. Eventually the 1 stars start coming in, your sales fall, your money declines... and you're potentially in a worse situation than before because you're now counting on that money that is disappearing.

It's just basic business sense. Cheating might work short term, but it will burn you long term. I suppose it could work for an author who is genuinely an amazing writer. But if you are, why risk your career when you can succeed without cheating? (which brings us back to either impatience or lack of ethics)

Tangentially... a few years ago there was a rash of bodybuilders dying in their late 40s / early 50s. Why? Heart attacks from years of steroid use when they were younger. So ya, cheating worked, but at an insane cost, decades off their life. I'm sure if they could go back and do it again they wouldn't have put some silly trophy over their life.

Even putting aside the ethical component, cheating is just bad business practice. Sure, there'll always be one or two who cheat and get away with it, but so many more get burned.

Even Zon itself is now potentially facing antitrust issues. There's (almost) always a piper to be paid if you start breaking the rules... sometimes it just takes some time before the hammer comes down on your head.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here

PhoenixS said:


> Then again, there's one bot ad site that routinely buys ads with legit promo sites to cover their botting tracks. They'll use a combo of legit sites and bots to get into the Top 30 or 50 Free, switch to borrows, and bot a few hundred of those so ensure the target book enters the paid side at a nice high (good) rank. So the presence of legit ad sites in the IPs of a book's history could trigger a false negative if recent ads were factored in.
> 
> It's a complicated mess to be sure...


^^^ this, 100%.
I can't begin to describe how frustrating this is. I personally vet submissions to my promo site, but it has become such an issue that I've had to turn it over to one of my assistants, and then I double check after the initial vetting because she's new to this and might not be completely up to speed on how to spot scams. Bot books, plagiarized books, and scam books are getting harder to spot without buying the book, and sadly, the people behind those schemes have big brass ba!!s and routinely submit to legit promo sites. 
Just a couple weeks ago I came across one that I thought was *one* scam book, which turned into at least five other pen names I could link to that one person. It really opened my eyes to how the scammers operate. And I continue to be shocked at how some of the scammers are linked to authors who actually have been around a while and just hide their tracks very well.


----------



## jaehaerys

This is a disheartening thread to read, yet unsurprising at the same time. Corruption, scamming, gaming...it runs deep and not just in Amazon's waters. It's enough to make you want to hide in your cave and never come out. 


I guess all I can do is continue to write stories and do the work that I enjoy and hope that others connect with it in some way enough that I can derive some kind of an income. Meanwhile, I suppose I could burn brain cells wishing that maybe, just maybe most of the cheaters out there would get their comeuppance, but history and experience suggests that won't happen. What a world. 


The "good" news is hard-bitten cynicism can provide fuel for effectively gritty crime fiction.


----------



## Rose Andrews

Jim Johnson said:


> The challenge there is that the newer writers don't want to hear that it takes time, to be patient, to keep working at it. They read the huge success stories and want their six figure nut to build off their first novel or first series. Some people want the fast track to success and don't see or don't care that a lot of this takes time and practice and a life-long commitment to constant improvement.


Life-long indeed. I believe it was on Kristine Rusch's blog that I read about a romance author of high caliber who spent years upon years building a mailing list by postal mail in the 90s. It eventually paid off. During the entire time, she kept writing and kept adding more names to her list. Tedious work, I thought. And that's what all of this is: a long-term commitment. It's easy to get disgruntled when newbie writers pop out of nowhere earning hot money on their first book. But also, what's the other side of that shoe? Holy cow, I have more than enough to do with my meager sales. But you know what? It allows me more time to keep adding to my back list. Writing in obscurity is a blessing in my eyes. I can experiment, I can write new things, I can keep growing in my craft. Being a best seller comes with its own problems. As Biggie Smalls once said, "Mo' money, mo' problems." 

My point is, that's a whole other bundle of work with way more expectations. If Dragonsoul's author would have taken a clue from his lack of sales and REVIEWS, which clearly tell him what the problem is, then listen and freaking do something positive about it for your career. Instead, he got cocky. "They just don't understand me." And now his career is dead. SMH.


----------



## Guest

Rosie A. said:


> Authors today are impatient. Everyone wants that 100k a year now. Today. This book.


Great post. Personally I think the issue isn't one of patience but one of doing the *W.O.R.K.*

On so many forums I see writers who throw the first draft of their very first book up on Amazon and then except the millions to roll in. There's no working with critique partners, honing the craft or learning what makes a good book. If you dare talk about craft, you get attacked. Writing a great book that gets readers talking is hard work, there is no short cut or quick route to improving your ability as a writer. You have to put your butt in the chair, dig deep and figure out how to address your shortcomings. Even on the kboards when newbies start yet another "why isn't my book selling?" thread we're not allowed to talk about craft. You can suggest a new category or cover, but no one can point out the work is far from ready for a paying audience. Hard work and craft seem to have become dirty words to avoid, to some.

We have so many writers now who refuse to believe there is anything wrong with their books and that they *deserve* success simply because they finished something. You just had to see the boastful posts that writer was making when he hit #1 as though he had done it through talent, as opposed to a click farm. Authors are rushing to grab what they see as success - whether that's click farms to put them in the top 10 overall on Amazon or dodgy promoters practically guaranteeing everyone is going to be a USA/NYT bestseller by paying her thousands of dollars.

Everywhere I look, I'm seeing more authors taking the short cut, engaging in blackhat or marginal practices so they can point a finger and go "but I'm successful and you're not" as though rank/letters/newsletter list size is some sort of metric of success. And then I see those same authors posting elsewhere how despite being #1 or a NYT bestseller or having a 20k newsletter list, why can't they crack $1,000 in earnings per month? And then they are looking for more quick fixes (I get need to do MORE newsletter swaps!) rather than taking a hard look at the thing that should matter most... the book.

Personally I'm concentrating on having a following of genuine readers who are eager to devour my next book.


----------



## S. C.

Hard work is rarely glamorous.  If you work the right way on the right things (craft and genre), then you will get genuine fans.  

Fans that you only have to sell to twice: once when they buy your book, and second when they read your work and like it.  If you have good craft, write well in a popular genre and respect your fans, they will be auto buyers of your future books too.  

It's an investment of time and craft that many don't want to make, but the up front cost pays for itself in the long run.


----------



## EC Sheedy

This is a scary thread. From what I'm reading here it seems entirely possible to get tangled up in one of these click farms without knowing it. Yikes!   I do the occasional promo with the sites that have been talked about here, but occasionally I catch sight of a new promo site and think, Hey, maybe I'll give it a try. It's frightening to think you might end up in a death spiral if you're just taking a chance on someone new.  

How does one vet promo sites so that he/she doesn't get mired in this click farm sh**? Does it require ace technical and research skills?


----------



## Jena H

Tilly said:


> Great post. Personally I think the issue isn't one of patience but one of doing the *W.O.R.K.*


The scammers--whether knowingly or unknowingly--undoubtedly consider their efforts of scammery to be W.O.R.K.


----------



## Becca Mills

EC Sheedy said:


> This is a scary thread. From what I'm reading here it seems entirely possible to get tangled up in one of these click farms without knowing it. Yikes!  I do the occasional promo with the sites that have been talked about here, but occasionally I catch sight of a new promo site and think, Hey, maybe I'll give it a try. It's frightening to think you might end up in a death spiral if you're just taking a chance on someone new.
> 
> How does one vet promo sites so that he/she doesn't get mired in this click farm sh**? Does it require ace technical and research skills?


Another current thread might provide some answers, EC: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,253489


----------



## ........

EC Sheedy said:


> This is a scary thread. From what I'm reading here it seems entirely possible to get tangled up in one of these click farms without knowing it. Yikes!  I do the occasional promo with the sites that have been talked about here, but occasionally I catch sight of a new promo site and think, Hey, maybe I'll give it a try. It's frightening to think you might end up in a death spiral if you're just taking a chance on someone new.
> 
> How does one vet promo sites so that he/she doesn't get mired in this click farm sh**? Does it require ace technical and research skills?


What is truly scary is how easy it is to buy these services and direct them to your competitors' books. It's a super cheap way to destroy another author. Imagine if you were actually innocent? Your book hits #1 and you're protesting that you didn't buy a service but who is going to believe you?


----------



## Seneca42

........ said:


> What is truly scary is how easy it is to buy these services and direct them to your competitors' books. It's a super cheap way to destroy another author. Imagine if you were actually innocent? Your book hits #1 and you're protesting that you didn't buy a service but who is going to believe you?


I don't think we've seen this to date, but it's probably right around the corner. I think we've seen a bit of it with AMS though, but not with actual book borrows.

I'll wildly and recklessly predict that within six months we're going to see some big indie names getting attacked this way. And while many have been silent and/or supportive of KU up until now (can't blame them, they make a good living off it) they'll quickly see how flawed the system is at that point. Most authors don't have the money to attack their competitors, but a few do. If it becomes clear that you won't get caught (which right now you wouldn't - the person you're attacking would) someone will do it.

Hopefully people start to see how broken KU is and stop pretending like all this is just a "minor" issue just because they make a good living from it. Even if the problems are currently minor (in the big picture) the "flaw" is there for them to become gargantuan.


----------



## Becca Mills

Tilly said:


> Even on the kboards when newbies start yet another "why isn't my book selling?" thread we're not allowed to talk about craft. You can suggest a new category or cover, but no one can point out the work is far from ready for a paying audience. Hard work and craft seem to have become dirty words to avoid, to some.


Just to be clear, craft feedback is absolutely allowed (though we suggest people only offer critical feedback -- of whatever type -- when it's requested). I do fairly frequently see people here giving feedback on sentence-level craft issues, but yeah, larger matters often go unaddressed.

I can understand why. First and foremost, it's a big gift of time and attention to read some near stranger's book for characterization, pacing, genre fit, and other global issues. Also, not everyone feels comfortable giving your-book-is-weak-in-major-ways feedback. It takes a certain level of ... well, people who are comfortable with that kind of judgment might call it "self-confidence," while those who aren't might call it "hubris" ... to put that kind of claim out there in a public setting. One has to be willing to say, "I think this is weak, and the weakness isn't a matter of personal taste. It's _objectively_ weak, and you need to change it."

As a writer, I value people who are willing to give me that tough feedback, but as a community member, I do respect those whose gentleness makes them unwilling to make such judgments in a public setting, or whose humbleness makes them hesitate to judge at all. As regards the latter folks, so many indie writers have had the experience of being told by trad pub that their work isn't good enough only to find out that it is, in fact, totally good enough. The number of people who've had that happen may have helped build something of an indie culture of humbleness or reticence about making aesthetic judgments, so that could be a factor as well.


----------



## RRodriguez

Tilly said:


> Great post. Personally I think the issue isn't one of patience but one of doing the *W.O.R.K.*
> 
> On so many forums I see writers who throw the first draft of their very first book up on Amazon and then except the millions to roll in. There's no working with critique partners, honing the craft or learning what makes a good book. If you dare talk about craft, you get attacked. Writing a great book that gets readers talking is hard work, there is no short cut or quick route to improving your ability as a writer. You have to put your butt in the chair, dig deep and figure out how to address your shortcomings. Even on the kboards when newbies start yet another "why isn't my book selling?" thread we're not allowed to talk about craft. You can suggest a new category or cover, but no one can point out the work is far from ready for a paying audience. *Hard work and craft seem to have become dirty words to avoid, to some.*


It's not so much that I think these are "dirty words" so much it is that it's so incredibly hard to measure.

I think of it like this: I'm not a runner. Running is incredibly difficult for me, and when I was training for my mile time I was paired up with a girl 10 years younger than me who'd been running for years. My mile time was an absolute breeze to her and she could easily lap me without breaking a sweat (thank goodness she was a sweetheart and always cheered me on!). So who was working harder? Well, she clearly had YEARS of hard work behind her, that's why my slow mile time was so easy for her and she was pushing for an even faster time. So was I not working hard enough because I couldn't keep up? My shaking legs, burning lungs and stomach that upturned on more than one occasion would tell you-no. I was definitely working as hard as I could. It wasn't that she or I were working harder than one another, it's just that we came at running with different levels of experience and practice.

That's how I apply it to writing. It's easy to look at a shoddy piece of writing and think the author didn't work hard at it, when we don't know at what stage they are. Perhaps they ARE working as hard as they can at that point in their career, and telling them 'You're not trying hard enough' isn't going to help anyone. That's actually why I like that that rule is in place. I know my writing isn't up to par with some people here, but it doesn't mean I'm not trying my very best and applying all I've learned into it.


----------



## 77071

Becca Mills said:


> One has to be willing to say, "I think this is weak, and the weakness isn't a matter of personal taste. It's _objectively_ weak, and you need to change it."


Aside from certain low hanging fruit, where people can't be bothered to spell correctly or use punctuation, I'm not sure I agree. Objectively weak writing means different things to different people.

I'd be more convinced if one of my favorite books didn't have GR feedback absolutely shredding the ability of the author to write or even breathe with their mouth closed (I'm exaggerating, but not by much). I can sort of see where some of it might be objective...but I love that book.

I really think it's hard to be objective about another person's writing. Ultimately a lot will come down to your own opinion.

It would be so easy to say "Darling, nobody but nobody writes space opera anymore! Ship battles are so overdone, and having a square jawed hero is sooo 1950s!" But some people love that stuff, and some authors on this very site do very well with it, and please their audiences immensely. Good for them.

I'm sorry to disagree so vehemently, but I truly believe objective critiques are rarely so.


----------



## kninemark2

I saw an interview woth Dean Koontz where he said he could do upto 50 drafts of a page. I kinda think I probably need to do twice as many if i hope to be half as good.


----------



## Chrissy

RRodriguez said:


> It's not so much that I think these are "dirty words" so much it is that it's so incredibly hard to measure.
> 
> I think of it like this: I'm not a runner. Running is incredibly difficult for me, and when I was training for my mile time I was paired up with a girl 10 years younger than me who'd been running for years. My mile time was an absolute breeze to her and she could easily lap me without breaking a sweat (thank goodness she was a sweetheart and always cheered me on!). So who was working harder? Well, she clearly had YEARS of hard work behind her, that's why my slow mile time was so easy for her and she was pushing for an even faster time. So was I not working hard enough because I couldn't keep up? My shaking legs, burning lungs and stomach that upturned on more than one occasion would tell you-no. I was definitely working as hard as I could. It wasn't that she or I were working harder than one another, it's just that we came at running with different levels of experience and practice.
> 
> That's how I apply it to writing. It's easy to look at a shoddy piece of writing and think the author didn't work hard at it, when we don't know at what stage they are. Perhaps they ARE working as hard as they can at that point in their career, and telling them 'You're not trying hard enough' isn't going to help anyone. That's actually why I like that that rule is in place. I know my writing isn't up to par with some people here, but it doesn't mean I'm not trying my very best and applying all I've learned into it.


Great point!


----------



## Jena H

RRodriguez said:


> It's not so much that I think these are "dirty words" so much it is that it's so incredibly hard to measure.
> 
> I think of it like this: I'm not a runner. Running is incredibly difficult for me, and when I was training for my mile time I was paired up with a girl 10 years younger than me who'd been running for years. My mile time was an absolute breeze to her and she could easily lap me without breaking a sweat (thank goodness she was a sweetheart and always cheered me on!). So who was working harder? Well, she clearly had YEARS of hard work behind her, that's why my slow mile time was so easy for her and she was pushing for an even faster time. So was I not working hard enough because I couldn't keep up? My shaking legs, burning lungs and stomach that upturned on more than one occasion would tell you-no. I was definitely working as hard as I could. It wasn't that she or I were working harder than one another, it's just that we came at running with different levels of experience and practice.
> 
> That's how I apply it to writing. It's easy to look at a shoddy piece of writing and think the author didn't work hard at it, when we don't know at what stage they are. Perhaps they ARE working as hard as they can at that point in their career, and telling them 'You're not trying hard enough' isn't going to help anyone. That's actually why I like that that rule is in place. I know my writing isn't up to par with some people here, but it doesn't mean I'm not trying my very best and applying all I've learned into it.


This is very, very true.


----------



## Becca Mills

HSh said:


> Aside from certain low hanging fruit, where people can't be bothered to spell correctly or use punctuation, I'm not sure I agree. Objectively weak writing means different things to different people.
> 
> I'd be more convinced if one of my favorite books didn't have GR feedback absolutely shredding the ability of the author to write or even breathe with their mouth closed (I'm exaggerating, but not by much). I can sort of see where some of it might be objective...but I love that book.
> 
> I really think it's hard to be objective about another person's writing. Ultimately a lot will come down to your own opinion.
> 
> It would be so easy to say "Darling, nobody but nobody writes space opera anymore! Ship battles are so overdone, and having a square jawed hero is sooo 1950s!" But some people love that stuff, and some authors on this very site do very well with it, and please their audiences immensely. Good for them.
> 
> I'm sorry to disagree so vehemently, but I truly believe objective critiques are rarely so.


Sorry not to have been clear, but that was the point I was trying to make: many people are not willing to pass decisive judgment on a book's aesthetic quality, so when authors come here wondering why they're not selling, they're generally not told it's because the book is weak in major ways. Many people don't want to make that kind of broad claim about someone else's book. Instead, they're more apt to think, "Well, *I* don't like it much, but who am I to say other people won't like it?" There's a humbleness to that kind of response that I appreciate, a recognition that one's judgment isn't infallible.


----------



## sela

LilyBLily said:


> I've read mss. that appeared so hopeless I assumed the writer was stupid. Flash forward a few years and that same writer had novels accepted by a major publisher. Not stupid after all, but someone who needed to work hard on style and did, successfully.


My high school creative writing teacher encouraged me to take creative writing in college. I started writing back then because of him (Thanks Mr. Currie!) although I didn't go to college to study creative writing. Science!

It's funny, but I was one of those spelling bee kids in public school who could spell the hardest words but I was bad with the regular words so I had a lot of stupid spelling mistakes in my work.

Lazy, I think the term is.



Mr. Currie said it didn't matter because the ideas and voice were good. I could work on the spelling. 

New authors should be aware of writing mechanics of course but the most important part of becoming a successful author is telling a compelling story that people want to read. I get feedback from Beta readers who tell me when I've gone off the rails and when I bore them. They help me make my mss. better. Then, my editors tell me when I'm making mistakes in continuity or when I blow it with clutzy sentences.

Your ability to write coherent English sentences, paragraphs, pages, chapters, and whole novels is important, but so is the story. In fact, story rules but you need English to be able to tell a great story so they go hand in hand. Don't neglect either.


----------



## RandomThings

I have to agree with some of the others here. Is my writing up to the quality of Koontz or King? Nah, not at all. My first book especially is likely in need of a complete reworking now, two years later, when I know a great deal more. But... it does reasonably well. The whole series that that book leads into is my best selling series and I have some loyal fans who frequently tell me how much they love it. 

My main issue was with grammar and editing. I don't deny it now and if you read my latest work compared to my earliest, you can see the difference. One thing it does have though is an entertaining character and a compelling story that people keep saying has them continuing to turn the pages long after they should have gone to sleep. 

Craft is all well and good. You should know what you're doing but you also need to be aware that the people who tend to ding a book now for grammar and editing are other authors. At least in the genres I write in.


----------



## sela

ParkerAvrile said:


> People don't take shortcuts because they never work. They take shortcuts because they often _do_ work.
> 
> Arnold Scharzenegger has acknowledged using steroids at the beginning of his career. Yet, his life looks like a pretty good life, and he has also done a lot of good for others. Even if he passed on tomorrow, he can look back on a life well-lived. Absolutely, I believe he would take that risk again. Those trophies may seem silly to you. They were life changing for him.
> 
> It's Amazon's duty to put a better lock on the vault. It is not fair to anyone involved when they leave the door to the bank hanging open. Some people are not going to be a situation where they can resist an open invitation to waltz in and help themselves.


This. Totally this.

1. Scams work -- sometimes only in the short-term but they work. There will always be people who prefer taking short cuts or using scammy tactics to get ahead. Some of them end up in the trash heap and some end up on the top of the world. It all depends.

2. How long scams work depends on the vigilance of the scammee. In this case, the scams will work as long as Amazon turns a blind eye or is unaware.

Amazon has set up a system that encourages scamming, and Amazon is reluctant to change it very much because it's likely streamlined to be as automated as possible, costing as little labor as possible. Bots and algorithms instead of real live people, who cost a lot of $$$.

It's tempting to make fast money. There's always a way to scam most things and processes.

Whether you do is premised on your own personal moral code.

Unfortunately, when the system appears to be unfair, more people will be willing to use shady tactics because -- it's unfair anyway so who cares? People feel they must cheat in order to compete. That's sad. If the system were fairer -- or appeared to be fairer -- there would be less incentive to cheat.

That appearance of unfairness is on Amazon. Fix the system.


----------



## GeneDoucette

Becca Mills said:


> Sorry not to have been clear, but that was the point I was trying to make: many people are not willing to pass decisive judgment on a book's aesthetic quality, so when authors come here wondering why they're not selling, they're generally not told it's because the book is weak in major ways. Many people don't want to make that kind of broad claim about someone else's book. Instead, they're more apt to think, "Well, *I* don't like it much, but who am I to say other people won't like it?" There's a humbleness to that kind of response that I appreciate, a recognition that one's judgment isn't infallible.


It IS hard. I've seen authors (here and elsewhere) who've done all the right things, with cover and edit, and marketing, who still aren't getting any traction, and I've looked in on some of their books... and what I see are well constructed, clean sentences that just aren't INTERESTING. Writing well will get you pretty far. It'll get you far in business, it'll get you an English degree if you want one, it will serve you well in life. But writing something inspired, that's captivating, that people want to see more of, that's something different. I think it's something you can learn, but I don't think it's something that can be taught.


----------



## Some Random Guy

ParkerAvrile said:


> It's Amazon's duty to put a better lock on the vault.


Amazon's sole duty is to its shareholders. If putting a better lock on the vault costs more than the impact of scammers then tough. Amazon has zero duties to us as suppliers other than its contractual obligations to pay us for the distribution of our products. And since the KU terms regarding the value of our products are so nebulous as to be vapor, their duty to pay authors enrolled in KU is whatever Amazon wants. If you want Amazon to put a better lock on the vault, make not doing it more expensive.


----------



## Seneca42

ParkerAvrile said:


> People don't take shortcuts because they never work. They take shortcuts because they often _do_ work.
> 
> Arnold Scharzenegger has acknowledged using steroids at the beginning of his career. Yet, his life looks like a pretty good life, and he has also done a lot of good for others.


He got lucky. The other guys who died, didn't. Not really sure what this proves.

That's like saying drugs are fine because Keith Richards or Ozzy Osborne haven't died yet. There are always exceptions.


----------



## Anarchist

Eric Thomson said:


> Amazon's sole duty is to its shareholders.


----------



## sela

Anarchist said:


>


Legally, yes. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders.

However, "We should always make a distinction that right and wrong is a very different standard than legal and illegal. The law is no substitute for morallity."


----------



## Going Incognito

Maybe instead of all the protesting authors are doing and the emailing and etc we should organize. One big prescheduled click farm promo day that everyone gets in on. Blow up the Amazon store with massive amounts of clicks in a sit-in-protest. Schedule it enough time out so everyone has a chance to find/schedule a click company AND enough time to stuff every book in their catalog into the book set to be farmed on farm day. And be vocal about it online the day of, so they know its not a scam but a protest.


----------



## Patty Jansen

Occupy Amazon LOL


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Bill Hiatt said:


> As a former teacher with thirty-six years of experience, I can tell you that cheating is rampant, even among students who are otherwise ethical. The problem is partly the same as it is for authors: immediate gratification. Why work for a grade when you can game it? There is also the argument, variations of which we sometimes hear, that everyone else is doing it, so one needs to do it to some extent to stay competitive. (That's what a lot of people fear will happen with writers.)


I always say to students who are found cheating, or otherwise gaming the system, "If you are wheeled into an operating theatre do you want the theatre staff to be there because they earned their qualifications through honest diligence and hardwork, or because they got there by cheating?"


----------



## Used To Be BH

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I always say to students who are found cheating, or otherwise gaming the system, "If you are wheeled into an operating theatre do you want the theatre staff to be there because they earned their qualifications through honest diligence and hardwork, or because they got there by cheating?"


Oddly enough, I've used the same analogy. Students often don't think beyond the moment. What happens to someone who graduates with no actual skills, for example?

I guess the answer is that they make a living by scamming Amazon.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Eric Thomson said:


> Amazon's sole duty is to its shareholders. If putting a better lock on the vault costs more than the impact of scammers then tough. Amazon has zero duties to us as suppliers other than its contractual obligations to pay us for the distribution of our products. And since the KU terms regarding the value of our products are so nebulous as to be vapor, their duty to pay authors enrolled in KU is whatever Amazon wants. If you want Amazon to put a better lock on the vault, make not doing it more expensive.


I have to agree with the people who advocate the idea of moral duty as well as legal duty. That said, if anyone ever gets Amazon into court on the issue, it's hard to imagine that any court is going to accept the notion that Amazon can pay suppliers whatever it wants. I have the feeling judges would be tempted to apply a rational basis test.

Besides, doing the right thing is often "enlightened self-interest." In the short-term, Amazon loses money through its return policy. In the long-term, it makes more money because of increased consumer confidence.

What does having a subscription service loaded with scammers do for consumer confidence? Over time, it erodes it. Perhaps not so drastically when decent books get botted to the top--that's harder to detect. Readers can certainly tell if they borrow a book with a high rank, and it's basically trash, though.

I doubt Amazon's stockholders cared one way or the other about the review system, but customers did. When the situation became a public scandal, Amazon made changes because the execs knew that if people couldn't trust the reviews at all, those people would buy less. It's the same thing with KU. If the situation becomes public enough, particularly if the subscribers start canceling at the end of their term, Amazon will do something, even if it costs money. Put another way, Amazon will never let the situation get to the point when consumers (as opposed to suppliers) start calling it Scamazon.

(Though not relevant to the moral and practical points, it's perhaps worth noting that Amazon often seems to ignore the short-term interests of stockholders. The company could have realized much larger short-term profits many times, but instead it keeps plowing the money into expansion. Presumably, these initiatives will pay off somewhere down the road, but they don't always pay off right away. Amazon has spent a lot of its history being criticized for its profit margin. That has never seemed to stop it from spreading into other areas, from fashion design to restaurant delivery to movie and TV show production.)


----------



## Seneca42

Nothing to see here folks. Please, everyone, move along. Nothing to see. 

Whitewash is almost finished. DS is now available for purchase again and all reviews referring to the scam have been removed. rank is still not there, but give that a couple of days to return.


----------



## jcalloway

Seneca42 said:


> Nothing to see here folks. Please, everyone, move along. Nothing to see.
> 
> Whitewash is almost finished. DS is now available for purchase again and all reviews referring to the scam have been removed. rank is still not there, but give that a couple of days to return.


I doubt KDP actually went out of their way to remove DS from sale. It's more likely the book received enough Quality Control-type reports that the system booted it back to Draft and sent an automated Nastygram to the author with a list of corrections. I would guess he's fixed them, uploaded a new draft, and KDP approved DS for sales/borrows again.

Huzzah.


----------



## Salvador Mercer

jcalloway said:


> I doubt KDP actually went out of their way to remove DS from sale. It's more likely the book received enough Quality Control-type reports that the system booted it back to Draft and sent an automated Nastygram to the author with a list of corrections. I would guess he's fixed them, uploaded a new draft, and KDP approved DS for sales/borrows again.
> 
> Huzzah.


I'll add that all four books by this author were under review, not just the one book so it was an account issue not a single title issue. The other author, alleged to have done something similar, still has all 73 books under review.

No idea what the Zon is doing or thinking behind the curtain...


----------



## Anarchist

sela said:


> Legally, yes. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders.
> 
> However, "We should always make a distinction that right and wrong is a very different standard than legal and illegal. The law is no substitute for morallity."


This is true. However, expecting a corporation to conform to one's idea of morality seems a waste of time. Corporate entities can only be expected to "do the right thing" when doing so increases shareholder wealth.

Moreover, and importantly, opinions vary on what is right or wrong. For example, some folks feel Amazon should do the "right" thing and fix KU's problems, even if doing so imposes costs (capital, bodies, time, server capacity, etc.). As a shareholder, I disagree 100%.

In this example, who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Who is "moral" and who is "immoral" (or amoral)?

Again, opinions vary.

Legality is less variable because the "rules" associated with an issue have been codified in law. As Snowden has opined, positive law can never make a thing moral and just. But positive law is the only reliable tool we have to predict the actions of a corporation in the face of a challenge.

It's imperfect (e.g. Enron). But it's less frustrating than expecting corporations to act according to one's idea of right and wrong.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Anarchist said:


> This is true. However, expecting a corporation to conform to one's idea of morality seems a waste of time. Corporate entities can only be expected to "do the right thing" when doing so increases shareholder wealth.
> 
> Moreover, and importantly, opinions vary on what is right or wrong. For example, some folks feel Amazon should do the "right" thing and fix KU's problems, even if doing so imposes costs (capital, bodies, time, server capacity, etc.). As a shareholder, I disagree 100%.
> 
> In this example, who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Who is "moral" and who is "immoral" (or amoral)?
> 
> Again, opinions vary.
> 
> Legality is less variable because the "rules" associated with an issue have been codified in law. As Snowden has opined, positive law can never make a thing moral and just. But positive law is the only reliable tool we have to predict the actions of a corporation in the face of a challenge.
> 
> It's imperfect (e.g. Enron). But it's less frustrating than expecting corporations to act according to one's idea of right and wrong.


I think this can be summed up by "Just because you have the right to do something it doesn't mean that you are right to do it."


----------



## David VanDyke

The statement that the SOLE responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders is incorrect. It's primary a responsibility, yes.

But any corporation has more than that responsibility, especially legally. A corporation is, by definition, an entity under law, and so has the legal responsibility to follow the laws that apply to it.

It also, I would argue, has an uncodified moral and ethical responsibility to act as a responsible citizen of its society, just as a citizen does, under the unstated but still real social contract. That doesn't mean it has to act against its own self-interest. Like any person, it is expected to act in its own self-interest. The key, as usual, is to convince the corporation that its long-term self-interest lies in acting morally and ethically.


----------



## Alan Petersen

David VanDyke said:


> The statement that the SOLE responsibility of a corporation is to its shareholders is incorrect. It's primary responsibility, yes.
> 
> But any corporation has more than that responsibility, especially legally. A corporation is, by definition, an entity under law, and so has the legal responsibility to follow the laws that apply to it.
> 
> It also, I would argue, has an uncodified moral and ethical responsibility to act as a responsible citizen of its society, just as a citizen does, under the unstated but still real social contract. That doesn't mean it has to act against its own self-interest. Like any person, it is expected to act in its own self-interest. The key, as usual, is to convince the corporation that its long-term self-interest lies in acting morally and ethically.


In regards to the issues in the OP and in David's blog post, what these people did violates Amazon's TOS. It's not as if Amazon officially allows these unethical actions. Do that and you are in direct violation of Amazon's terms and you're putting your account at risk.

The crux of the argument is that Amazon is doing little to nothing to punish or put in tougher countermeasures to prevent this from happening, but it is against Amazon's terms.

My car was broken in and the police here said to file a report online. And that was that. Car breaks in San Francisco are at an all time high because criminals know it's a misdemeanor and police won't do anything about it.

That doesn't mean the police or that the city condone car break-ins and thus they're acting immorally and unethically. They just have bigger fish to fry. It's annoying as heck and I wish they would do more but I wouldn't question their "morality" and "ethics" because they didn't send a Swat team to track down the person(s) that broke into my car.

In Amazon's world, we're tiny blips in their big picture/long terms goals. It's frustrating. We wish they would do more since it appears only once a big kerfuffle is raised publicllly that they act against those violating TOS with shoddy tactics.


----------



## PhoenixS

Seneca42 said:


> Nothing to see here folks. Please, everyone, move along. Nothing to see.
> 
> Whitewash is almost finished. DS is now available for purchase again and all reviews referring to the scam have been removed. rank is still not there, but give that a couple of days to return.


So the two authors who last hit #1 both have their books available to purchase again. First thought: Outrage!

But they've been rank-stripped. And, looking back at the catalogs of two other authors who had their books rank-stripped last month, those books still have no ranks. What's Amazon thinking? Let's take a closer look at what this punishment actually means. (Believe me, I had to take a deep breath here, too, in order to see past the emotion to the actual consequences.)

First, these authors all appeared to have been manipulating rank, which *indirectly* affects the KU pot. Botting borrows only means any actual income is coming from real readers choosing to borrow (or buy) the book when it was riding high. That's egregious, but perhaps not *as* egregious an offense as botting page reads. Let's assume the rank-stripping is permanent and these authors have all been placed on probation and their accounts have been flagged so no shady business such as actual scam-botted page reads will get by Amazon's bots.

We don't have a lot of these books to analyze, but let's also assume being stripped on the product page for sure means being kept off the bestseller lists. The books, however, DO still appear in the poplists and search results and alsobots of other books (that's currently verifiable).

So here are the ways those rank-stripped books might/will be affected:

1) No visibility on the bestseller charts. This is the biggie. They can buy another 10,000 borrows and customers won't see their books climbing the charts. That visibility is gone. Poof.

2) No visibility means no organic sales and borrows from being visible. This matters to the poplists, which in turn affects the alsobots. Borrows do not count in those algos. Only sales and 1/10 of each freeload. So again, 10,000 bought borrows that customers don't see on the bestseller charts will not affect ranking in the poplists, nor will they help populate the book in other books' alsobots.

While (2) is already the case for books with botted borrows, those authors are relying on bestselling chart visibility to push real sales and borrows. But you can't have a tail without bestseller rank.

So the authors are now free to sell and advertise those books legitimately (I've even seen one of the 4 authors who I know have been rank-stripped advertising on the legit sites). And while they'll be credited with sales and/or freeloads from that advertising...

3) The books won't get the additional initial organic push from ranking higher on bestseller lists because of ad sales, which will also result in worse rankings in the poplists for a softer tail.

4) Amazon did not boot the books from KU. So the authors are forced to finish out their terms instead of being able to go wide immediately. (I giggled a bit at this one.)

It's not perfect, but it *is* a bit better than a simple wrist-slap, assuming the rank-stripping is permanent and that these authors' accounts are now flagged.

Of course, if the rank-stripping is only temporary, then I reserve the right to backtrack on all this and go back to my first inclination of outrage. Because I still have plenty of that banked.


----------



## MissingAlaska

Amazon's scamming problems extend well beyond their bookstore.  I'm an avid gardener and have noticed that Amazon is now allowing third-party vendors to sell plants and seeds.  One of the scams with seeds are vendors in China advertising impossible plants like pure-blue poppies (not Meconopsis but Papaver spp), rainbow chrysanthemums (all colors in a single bloom - not possible), seeds from rare species or hybrids that are not viable unless fresh, etc. They photographs are either altered or the flowers are dyed.  The ads will be up for a few days and naive new gardeners will buy the seeds -- which are then rejected at US customs. From there, a string of 1-star reviews follow. Unfortunately, this scam seems to be getting worse, helped by dozens of fake reviews.  At the same time, there are legitimate seed companies by Mom-and-Pop startups or individuals getting lost in the scams.

If Amazon continues to allow these scams to proliferate, they are going to lose customers. So far, Amazon has succeeded largely because people have faith in the quality of the business and their customer first attitudes. If this continues, it won't take much for Walmart, Target, or other online vendors to start hacking away at their market-share.  Imagine if Walmart partnered with Barnes and Noble and started selling e-books. It's not that complex of a business model.


----------



## 41419

Phoenix's points are well made, but my initial reaction is: not much of a deterrent to future scammers, is it? They'll just republish if they get caught. No skin off their nose.


----------



## 41419

zzz said:


> Someone should have reported him for a typo. The book would have been down longer.


lolcry


----------



## Becca Mills

PhoenixS said:


> So the two authors who last hit #1 both have their books available to purchase again. First thought: Outrage!
> 
> But they've been rank-stripped. And, looking back at the catalogs of two other authors who had their books rank-stripped last month, those books still have no ranks. What's Amazon thinking? Let's take a closer look at what this punishment actually means. (Believe me, I had to take a deep breath here, too, in order to see past the emotion to the actual consequences.)
> 
> First, these authors all appeared to have been manipulating rank, which *indirectly* affects the KU pot. Botting borrows only means any actual income is coming from real readers choosing to borrow (or buy) the book when it was riding high. That's egregious, but perhaps not *as* egregious an offense as botting page reads. Let's assume the rank-stripping is permanent and these authors have all been placed on probation and their accounts have been flagged so no shady business such as actual scam-botted page reads will get by Amazon's bots.
> 
> We don't have a lot of these books to analyze, but let's also assume being stripped on the product page for sure means being kept off the bestseller lists. The books, however, DO still appear in the poplists and search results and alsobots of other books (that's currently verifiable).
> 
> So here are the ways those rank-stripped books might/will be affected:
> 
> 1) No visibility on the bestseller charts. This is the biggie. They can buy another 10,000 borrows and customers won't see their books climbing the charts. That visibility is gone. Poof.
> 
> 2) No visibility means no organic sales and borrows from being visible. This matters to the poplists, which in turn affects the alsobots. Borrows do not count in those algos. Only sales and 1/10 of each freeload. So again, 10,000 bought borrows that customers don't see on the bestseller charts will not affect ranking in the poplists, nor will they help populate the book in other books' alsobots.
> 
> While (2) is already the case for books with botted borrows, those authors are relying on bestselling chart visibility to push real sales and borrows. But you can't have a tail without bestseller rank.
> 
> So the authors are now free to sell and advertise those books legitimately (I've even seen one of the 4 authors who I know have been rank-stripped advertising on the legit sites). And while they'll be credited with sales and/or freeloads from that advertising...
> 
> 3) The books won't get the additional initial organic push from ranking higher on bestseller lists because of ad sales, which will also result in worse rankings in the poplists for a softer tail.
> 
> 4) Amazon did not boot the books from KU. So the authors are forced to finish out their terms instead of being able to go wide immediately. (I giggled a bit at this one.)
> 
> It's not perfect, but it *is* a bit better than a simple wrist-slap, assuming the rank-stripping is permanent and that these authors' accounts are now flagged.
> 
> Of course, if the rank-stripping is only temporary, then I reserve the right to backtrack on all this and go back to my first inclination of outrage. Because I still have plenty of that banked.


It sounds as though permanent rank-stripping is actually a fairly good punishment -- measured yet significant. But it does leave the door open for these books to engage in free-download scams if they still have free days left, so maybe Amazon should combine it with stripping any remaining free days and denying any future requests for permafree status on the book in question. I think this package would deter people who care about their books or about making it as authors, but who are "ethically flexible" enough to take what they perceive as deserved shortcuts. People who are 100% scammers just in publishing to make an easy buck ... not so much.

Personally, I agree that botting borrows for visibility is not quite as gross as botting page-reads. The former tosses the book up into visibility, where it will have to (and probably won't) stick on its own merits. The latter = direct theft of KU money. The penalty for the latter should be worse, IMO.


----------



## PhoenixS

ParkerAvrile said:


> If they're getting paid for a scam that put them #1 in the paid store, they earned enough to change banks & LLCs every time they publish if need be. There doesn't seem to be any downside at all.


Actually, not necessarily. Not if they're only buying borrows, not page reads. Sure, some folk will buy/borrow the books while they're high in rank. With that, the authors might be making enough to cover the cost of the scammed borrows. And they're "earning" bragging rights (which for some, as we've seen with other scammy behavior, is a satisfying end to the means in itself).

But I've seen 2 books that both were botted up to #6 in the store within the past handful of weeks that up until they were removed from sale didn't even have alsobots. And their meteoric fall suggested they weren't getting but a few borrows on their way into the abyss. Frankly, for those particular books, I'd be quite surprised if the author made back his investment. But again, bragging rights to some are far more important than the money or the means of getting there. And there are plenty of botted books that do well enough to make the scam viable. But unless they're buying page reads on top of the borrows (which is much more expensive) and/or engaging in other behavior to get the tail they also need, they're probably not making what you think they are.


----------



## JRTomlin

ParkerAvrile said:


> Arnie didn't "get lucky." He was willing to go hard and do whatever it took. Everybody who goes hard in a sport risks physical injury or death. Everybody. If it's not worth it to you to take those risks, that's fine, you're in the majority, but then you don't understand the psychology of people who_ are_ willing to do whatever it takes to get where they want to go.
> 
> As long as Amazon leaves the door wide open, people *will *take the risk. It is a waste of oxygen to argue that everyone should be willing to spend a decade or so developing a career instead of taking a shortcut that is paying off in spades for others. Nobody_ should_ rob a bank, but you would still assume if a bank refuses to lock up at night, it's utterly predictable that someone will rob that bank. _It doesn't matter that you and I are too financially secure to be interested in robbing the bank. Somebody *will* rob the bank._ It's one hundred percent guaranteed.


He was also willing to cheat by using an illegal drug. This isn't 'the bank leaving the door open'. It is cheating, pure and simple.


----------



## JRTomlin

I saw a comment (sorry I don't recall who said it to link it) that reviews saying it had rank scammed were removed from DS. 

This is incorrect. There are still a number of reviews that accuse the author of scamming. They may have removed reviews that ONLY referred to that but a number that also refer also to poor quality are still there. 

Assuming that Amazon sticks by the rank stripping, I agree with Phoenix on this one. The author probably paid quite a bit for that rank, so it hits them in both wasting what they already paid and in future income which is a fairly decent penalty. I would have preferred an outright ban but this does hit them where they live.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

PhoenixS said:


> Actually, not necessarily. Not if they're only buying borrows, not page reads. Sure, some folk will buy/borrow the books while they're high in rank. With that, the authors might be making enough to cover the cost of the scammed borrows. And they're "earning" bragging rights (which for some, as we've seen with other scammy behavior, is a satisfying end to the means in itself).
> 
> But I've seen 2 books that both were botted up to #6 in the store within the past handful of weeks that up until they were removed from sale didn't even have alsobots. And their meteoric fall suggested they weren't getting but a few borrows on their way into the abyss. Frankly, for those particular books, I'd be quite surprised if the author made back his investment. But again, bragging rights to some are far more important than the money or the means of getting there. And there are plenty of botted books that do well enough to make the scam viable. But unless they're buying page reads on top of the borrows (which is much more expensive) and/or engaging in other behavior to get the tail they also need, they're probably not making what you think they are.


Well one of the botted authors did post his KU-Dashboard. He apparently made little to no sales & had very few page reads. Also, I noticed he earned himself a slew of 1-stars for poor editing and writing. So pushing yourself up in visibility may not be worth it, if you don't have the polish to stand toe-to-toe with real #1 best sellers.

There's an obvious scam book that been riding high in the SciFi Alternative History charts. It's terribly easy to spot. Amazon has done nothing. But I'm not as annoyed by it as I was earlier. For one, it has no Also boughts, just also views. That leads me to believe it's not making any money really. It's rank will probably slip into oblivion by Monday.

As far as them being stuck in KU. Well, they've effectively been booted from KU by having their ranks stripped. And since the biggest benefit of being in KU is visibility - they'd have nothing to lose by pulling their books out.


----------



## Colin

dgaughran said:


> lolcry


Lolcry is a typo. Someone report this man!


----------



## 39416

So the penalty for scamming a rank is that Amazon takes that rank away? So what? Rank is only important for visibility and it's only really visible if the rank is in the top one hundred. I doubt that book on its own would've been in the top one hundred, or if so, not for long. So I don't see that that author really lost any demonstrable ground. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly (wouldn't be a first) but to me it's like a thief stealing your car and his penalty is that he has to give it back. Big deterrent.


----------



## X. Aratare

loraininflorida said:


> So the penalty for scamming a rank is that Amazon takes that rank away? So what? Rank is only important for visibility and it's only really visible if the rank is in the top one hundred. I doubt that book on its own would've been in the top one hundred, or if so, not for long. So I don't see that that author really lost any demonstrable ground. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly (wouldn't be a first) but to me it's like a thief stealing your car and his penalty is that he has to give it back. Big deterrent.


Maybe others will explain this better, but he has NO RANK. I mean none. Not in the millions or whatever. He has NONE. Meaning he will never show up on any lists, ever, no matter what he does. The only way he can get sales is to direct customers to his page through advertising and maybe they will buy the book. Even if he gets sales or borrows, he still will have NO RANK so he won't get any benefit from those other than the sales/borrows themselves. No new readers will see his book. It's like Amazon's algorhythms don't exist for him.

But if Amazon gives him back rank on that book then ... then its more like what you've suggested.


----------



## Guest

Maybe someone just needs to buy / borrow his book for the rank to come back.


----------



## unkownwriter

Phoenix, I feel a little better after your analysis. I think if Amazon sent authors an email warning them of what would happen when found cheating or otherwise violating TOS, it might start to sink in to some that this isn't something to play around with. Especially if second offenses meant termination.


----------



## jcalloway

And what happens if the desperation of not seeing sales or borrows inspires him--or anyone else who has gone down this road--to hire another click-farm, this time for full page reads on all those borrows?

He'll be gambling his account, sure, but it could be a last ditch effort to make some cash off the book. If he loses his account, oh well. He's already not selling organically because of the missing rank, right? Maybe he'll think there's a chance he could get away with click-farmed reads. There's a chance Amazon might not notice, if he's smart about it and hires out in modest numbers. 

And since he is rank-less, no one on our side of the KDP fence would be able to look twice at suspicious rank behavior. No one--not even savvy members like David and Phoenix--would be able to call shenanigans, thus saving Amazon from future embarrassment.

Yes, removing the rank makes the book almost impossible to find--unless you know to search for it--but it's still live in the store. It's still there, able to be used to game Amazon's system. 

Why wouldn't this author--or anyone else like him--be willing to go this route? They've just learned that Amazon's "punishment" still leaves them with a product they can use for future scams.


----------



## Rose Andrews

she-la-ti-da said:


> Phoenix, I feel a little better after your analysis. I think if Amazon sent authors an email warning them of what would happen when found cheating or otherwise violating TOS, it might start to sink in to some that this isn't something to play around with. Especially if second offenses meant termination.


Agreed. After reading Phoenix's post I was able to understand his punishment more. Honestly, it sounds sucky. Maybe Amazon had mercy on him. I still say he's done though. Showing his face in the author community after this might not go so good for him.


----------



## Seneca42

loraininflorida said:


> So the penalty for scamming a rank is that Amazon takes that rank away? So what? Rank is only important for visibility and it's only really visible if the rank is in the top one hundred. I doubt that book on its own would've been in the top one hundred, or if so, not for long. So I don't see that that author really lost any demonstrable ground. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly (wouldn't be a first) but to me it's like a thief stealing your car and his penalty is that he has to give it back. Big deterrent.


I'm in your camp. Found it confusing how this is a punishment. If you have no rank to start with (ie. 600k+ in the charts) how are you hurt by simply having no rank. But then I thought about it:

* You can never really benefit from a bookbub (you'll still get the sales, but won't get all the additional sales associated with the rank bump)
* Bookbub probably wouldn't even take a book from someone not ranked (maybe ENT wouldn't either). Not sure of this, but it's possible
* I'm not sure if being deranked also means being decategorized. If so, then ya, your book will never be organically found
* it potentially might also mean no use of the AMS system. Will AMS advertise a book with no rank or category? I'm not sure. 
* It's definitely *demotivating* to know that if one day you were to strike it big, you'd have no proof point of that (ie. because you have no rank to validate it).

But none of these things are truly a punishment to an author that was never going to see 50k rank, much less above 10k.

The big loophole is whether amazon basically considers the author punished and free to put this in the past. Because if they do, it's quite simple to just publish under a different name and reissue the book with a new title and cover. Which the guy would be smart to do regardless because his brand took such a hit.

I guess my view is that if I'm some drowning author with one million rank and at the end of my rope. This by no means would be deterrent enough to stop me from giving botting a shot. The only thing this situation would do is make me make sure that the service I use doesn't bot me to #1.

I guess I'd say this as well. The DS book was deranked, but none of his other books. Which makes ZERO sense to me. When a botter gets caught ALL their books should be dealt with. What is the logic in only punishing ONE book? It's the author that should be punished, not the book per se.

Or hell... his book is still being shown in the "also boughts" of other books that used the same service as he did.

hehe, this whole situation is so absurd I actually find it funny now. No matter how you try to understand what Amazon is doing, it just doesn't make any sense at all... they're either playing 4D chess that's beyond my understanding, or they don't know what they are doing.


----------



## dianapersaud

ShaneJeffery said:


> Maybe someone just needs to buy / borrow his book for the rank to come back.


Amazon has removed rank from other books suspected of rank manipulation and those ranks are still gone (at least one month later, the rank is still gone). I don't think a buy/borrow is going to give that book any rank. It's quite an interesting consequence.


----------



## dianapersaud

Seneca42 said:


> *The big loophole is whether amazon basically considers the author punished and free to put this in the past. Because if they do, it's quite simple to just publish under a different name and reissue the book with a new title and cover. Which the guy would be smart to do regardless because his brand took such a hit. *


There is another author who had their books' rank removed and that person's books are still on Amazon. I just checked and that person has a box set out with the deranked books and the box set has no ranking. Now it's possible that no one has borrowed/purchased that book yet, or perhaps ALL new books will be deranked.


----------



## JRTomlin

Seneca42 said:


> I'm in your camp. Found it confusing how this is a punishment. If you have no rank to start with (ie. 600k+ in the charts) how are you hurt by simply having no rank. But then I thought about it:
> 
> * You can never really benefit from a bookbub (you'll still get the sales, but won't get all the additional sales associated with the rank bump)
> * Bookbub probably wouldn't even take a book from someone not ranked (maybe ENT wouldn't either). Not sure of this, but it's possible
> * I'm not sure if being deranked also means being decategorized. If so, then ya, your book will never be organically found
> * it potentially might also mean no use of the AMS system. Will AMS advertise a book with no rank or category? I'm not sure.
> * It's definitely *demotivating* to know that if one day you were to strike it big, you'd have no proof point of that (ie. because you have no rank to validate it).
> 
> But none of these things are truly a punishment to an author that was never going to see 50k rank, much less above 10k.
> 
> The big loophole is whether amazon basically considers the author punished and free to put this in the past. Because if they do, it's quite simple to just publish under a different name and reissue the book with a new title and cover. Which the guy would be smart to do regardless because his brand took such a hit.
> 
> I guess my view is that if I'm some drowning author with one million rank and at the end of my rope. This by no means would be deterrent enough to stop me from giving botting a shot. The only thing this situation would do is make me make sure that the service I use doesn't bot me to #1.
> 
> I guess I'd say this as well. The DS book was deranked, but none of his other books. Which makes ZERO sense to me. When a botter gets caught ALL their books should be dealt with. What is the logic in only punishing ONE book? It's the author that should be punished, not the book per se.
> 
> Or hell... his book is still being shown in the "also boughts" of other books that used the same service as he did.
> 
> hehe, this whole situation is so absurd I actually find it funny now. No matter how you try to understand what Amazon is doing, it just doesn't make any sense at all... they're either playing 4D chess that's beyond my understanding, or they don't know what they are doing.


No, he had a rank before even if it was a bad one. Now he has no rank at all. None. They didn't lower his rank, they removed it. These are very different things.

He has paid to have that novel at #1 multiple times, so it is something he obviously cares about. That makes it a punishment. It's not as bad as I would have liked, but still a punishment.

What I don't understand is why they didn't do the same to all his novels.


----------



## Seneca42

JRTomlin said:


> No, he had a rank before even if it was a bad one. Now he has no rank at all. None. They didn't lower his rank, they removed it. These are very different things.
> 
> He has paid to have that novel at #1 multiple times, so it is something he obviously cares about. That makes it a punishment. It's not as bad as I would have liked, but still a punishment.
> 
> What I don't understand is why they didn't do the same to all his novels.


I understand, but the difference between 300k and no ranks is nothign in terms of visibility. It's only a punishment if there was the possibility that his book might have one day climbed the ranks on its own merits.

Re: all his novels. I find it even more perplexing that all the also-boughts links on his deranked books are active. You visit other books in his also-boughts, and you'll see his book in theirs. Which means either they haven't gotten around to cleaning that up, or, Amazon is just putting this to bed in the most expeditious manner possible. Which also explains why his other books are still ranked.

I get that this is "something"... I'm just hard pressed to think of what they could have done that would have been less than this


----------



## Rose Andrews

Seneca42 said:


> I get that this is "something"... I'm just hard pressed to think of what they could have done that would have been less than this


Tbh, I don't see anything stopping him from starting a new name and refining his technique for future scamming. Unless he learned his lesson with this go around. I personally would have liked to see him banned from Amazon but I don't think they've done that with any scammers ever (that I've known of). Suppose this is good punishment on its own though. Getting stripped of rank is bad juju. His other books weren't botted so maybe that's why those were spared.


----------



## Guest

Better ten scammers go free than one innocent author getting their account terminated. I don't think we have all the information about how Amazon are handling the matter yet, but calling for the guy's head might set an unwanted outcome where clickfarms become a new tool in destroying author accounts. A show of restraint might save one of us in the future.


----------



## Seneca42

Rosie A. said:


> Tbh, I don't see anything stopping him from starting a new name and refining his technique for future scamming. Unless he learned his lesson with this go around. I personally would have liked to see him banned from Amazon but I don't think they've done that with any scammers ever (that I've known of). Suppose this is good punishment on its own though. Getting stripped of rank is bad juju. His other books weren't botted so maybe that's why those were spared.


Well, that's the thing. At the end of the day who really cares about this *one* guy, really. He's toast regardless if they did anything or not.

I figured out why this doesn't sit well with me. It's not the author's individual situation. It's that Amazon, as far as I can see, seems to have treated this a "clean up on aisle seven" type situation. Just get out the mop, clean it up (scrub those reviews away that mention scamming), and back to business as usual.

You know some of this guy's 5-star reviews are fake as can be. Some of his other books have used the bot service at some point as well (no deranking on them). No looking into any of the authors on the also-bought list (I'm not saying they botted, but I know there's at least one book in there that clearly has).

I feel like I'm watching the cops take away the corner drug dealer and I'm saying: "Guys are you nuts, he's just the tip of the iceburg. And all the evidence you need to start rooting out all the other crooks he dumped out of his pocket on the ground. Just bend over, it's right there!"

But they just shrug and say "whatever, the call was about this guy, we're taking him in, mission accomplished."

Like I say, this whole thing makes me laugh now at how silly it all is. 

But maybe zon is playing 4D chess and I just can't see it.


----------



## Patty Jansen

> But maybe zon is playing 4D chess and I just can't see it.


Now I want to write a story with 4d chess.


----------



## Seneca42

ShaneJeffery said:


> Better ten scammers go free than one innocent author getting their account terminated. I don't think we have all the information about how Amazon are handling the matter yet, but calling for the guy's head might set an unwanted outcome where clickfarms become a new tool in destroying author accounts. A show of restraint might save one of us in the future.


I don't see it as an either or.

Obviously, one should be *proven* guilty before any action is taken. But how much more proof can you get than what they had on this guy? For the epub world this was video tape, 100 witnesses, a confession, AND the gloves fit.

So if this is the best Amazon can do when there's not a shadow of doubt, then there's no hope. I mean, anyone can basically just say "I had no idea what I was doing and fell for a scam service without knowing" and then that's that.

So as it stands now, if you are prepared to risk your rank, then by all means bot away. Stay under 1k in rank and you're 99.99% assured not to get caught as well.

Sorry if I come across as arguementative or anything. I'm actually laughing at this situation now.

I think the botters are just a part of life now and aside from the odd one getting caught (and losing their rank), it's just something everyone will have to live with.


----------



## JRTomlin

Seneca42 said:


> Well, that's the thing. At the end of the day who really cares about this *one* guy, really. He's toast regardless if they did anything or not.
> 
> I figured out why this doesn't sit well with me. It's not the author's individual situation. It's that Amazon, as far as I can see, seems to have treated this a "clean up on aisle seven" type situation. Just get out the mop, clean it up (scrub those reviews away that mention scamming), and back to business as usual.
> 
> You know some of this guy's 5-star reviews are fake as can be. Some of his other books have used the bot service at some point as well (no deranking on them). No looking into any of the authors on the also-bought list (I'm not saying they botted, but I know there's at least one book in there that clearly has).
> 
> I feel like I'm watching the cops take away the corner drug dealer and I'm saying: "Guys are you nuts, he's just the tip of the iceburg. And all the evidence you need to start rooting out all the other crooks he dumped out of his pocket on the ground. Just bend over, it's right there!"
> 
> But they just shrug and say "whatever, the call was about this guy, we're taking him in, mission accomplished."
> 
> Like I say, this whole thing makes me laugh now at how silly it all is.
> 
> But maybe zon is playing 4D chess and I just can't see it.


The novel still has numerous reviews that mention scamming. The only ones they removed were the ones that didn't review the book and ONLY mentioned scamming because that is against their reviewing rules.


----------



## Guest

Seneca42 said:


> So if this is the best Amazon can do when there's not a shadow of doubt, then there's no hope. I mean, anyone can basically just say "I had no idea what I was doing and fell for a scam service without knowing" and then that's that.


Is that not a legitimate defense? A lot of authors are probably clueless when it comes to telling the difference between the promotion site that wouldn't take their book and the one who will guarantee them results. But even if we're happy for them to fall off the cliff, what protects other authors from the scammers using the clickfarms to borrow their books and have their accounts reported and banned. Amazon need to fix this so that scamming isn't possible. Or at least more difficult. It would help of course *if they could actually tell if pages were being read*.

Amazon have already banned innocent authors for "systematically generated accounts" borrowing their books, as it has been documented on here. Accounts have been reinstated with a lot of work on the author's end and many days of distress and worry. This shouldn't be the automated process.


----------



## Seneca42

ShaneJeffery said:


> Is that not a legitimate defense?


So yes and no. It technically is a defense, and is probably even true in some cases. And the false positives a few months ago were ridiculous and Amazon should be ashamed of that period. This is why KU is fatally flawed, because they apparently can't figure out who is guilty and who is innocent.

However, Amazon is a few servers shy of being Skynet. They have the computing power to assess cases with incredible data mining and accuracy. What *we* see when we look at the data (product page, reviewers, also boughts, social media, etc.) is a tiny sliver of what Amazon *can* see if they so choose to look. They might have to hire some "humans" to review the data, but that's within their ability to do.

So that's ultimately the big question. Does Amazon have the ability to inspect the vast array of data it has access to with regards to a particular author (as well as tangential data of other authors that may be relevant) and come to a definitive conclusion whether they are up to shady stuff?

If the answer to that is yes, then the question is why aren't they cleaning up the store?

If the answer to that is no, then what in the world are they doing running a subscription service that is fatally flawed?

No matter how you cut it, either Amazon doesn't care to clean up this mess or they can't and they are allowing it because... there's money to be made (which, to me, is far more immoral than what this one guy did... because in essence Amazon is enabling hundreds/thousands of scammers and passing the cost on to KU authors).

If I imagined myself without a conscience or moral center, to be honest, you'd have to be an idiot *not* to bot. So long as you stay off the top of the charts, it's smooth sailing. Not just bot, but pad your reviews as well. In some ways, one could argue, if you build a system that allows these things, then it almost becomes mandatory to participate in them unless you want to be a competitive disadvantage to the market.

Even in such a case, I personally would never bot simply because if that's what's required to succeed then I'd rather go do something else with my life. My own self-respect means more to me than success. BUT, I also acknowledge that's *not* smart business in a market where everyone is gaming the system.

If everyone at the poker table is cheating (and nothing happens when they are caught) and you aren't, there's not much point playing.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

What evidence do people have for the startling idea that "everybody" cheats? I know a lot of bestselling authors in and out of KU. Other than the usual suspects often mentioned here, I don't know of anybody who is cheating. I can state categorically that it is perfectly possible to make All-Star money in KU without cheating of any kind. I think some imaginations are overworking on this one.


----------



## Seneca42

Usedtoposthere said:


> What evidence do people have for the startling idea that "everybody" cheats?


Nobody has said that or anything approaching that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Seneca42 said:


> Nobody has said that or anything approaching that.


Uh, the two posts above mine said exactly that. Farther up on this page, somebody talks about how authors will soon have to scam or lose their livelihood. All this looks like rank overstatement to me. Anything that's as relatively easy to make big money at with no training and investment as indie book publishing is will attract people of diverse levels of morality. The people I see doing consistently well over time are still people who are consistently putting out books that satisfy a large audience.


----------



## Doglover

Seneca42 said:


> I understand, but the difference between 300k and no ranks is nothign in terms of visibility. It's only a punishment if there was the possibility that his book might have one day climbed the ranks on its own merits.
> 
> Re: all his novels. I find it even more perplexing that all the also-boughts links on his deranked books are active. You visit other books in his also-boughts, and you'll see his book in theirs. Which means either they haven't gotten around to cleaning that up, or, Amazon is just putting this to bed in the most expeditious manner possible. Which also explains why his other books are still ranked.
> 
> I get that this is "something"... I'm just hard pressed to think of what they could have done that would have been less than this


It is also annoying that this morning I got the usual sales pitch email from Amazon and guess which book was at the top of it? I must have looked at it once, when I saw this thread, and that's why the computers picked me up as a potential customer, but seriously, could they not have altered the program somehow? Seems they are still actively trying to sell the wretched thing.


----------



## 41419

I got the same recommendation email. I guess being rank-stripped doesn't stop your book being recommended by Amazon...


----------



## Guest

You guys, it's not a coincidence Amazon are recommending that book to you. You've been visiting its page too much.


----------



## unkownwriter

dgaughran said:


> I got the same recommendation email. I guess being rank-stripped doesn't stop your book being recommended by Amazon...


Makes it all seem rather pointless, doesn't it? I mean, you can be bad, get ranks stripped, and lookie here, there's your book with a handy link. And how many people think the book is great, and there's some legit sales, and the guy didn't have to lift a finger for them. Good grief, Amazon. Get it together.



> It would help of course if they could actually tell if pages were being read.


I think ultimately, this is the biggest worry. We've seen how easy it is to cheat, and the main reason is that despite frequent protestations to the contrary, Amazon has jack idea about how many pages are actually read, if any. I think they're just guessing.

I've seen some folks reporting that the minute the place flip thing is reactivated on their books (because Amazon seems to spend a lot of time and effort getting around anything that shuts it off, oddly enough), their page reads drop. Now, the thing I wonder is, why do they care about page flip so much? Because it drops the number of pages counted? Hm.


----------



## 41419

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Well one of the botted authors did post his KU-Dashboard. He apparently made little to no sales & had very few page reads.


That's not really the full story. He had a couple of hundred sales and maybe 30k reads on his dash from the days after hitting #1. And that's before the pop list bump would have kicked in and the ensuing spike in page reads. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have made $5k - $10k this month if he wasn't caught.

That's what irked me most about his BS statement. "Wah, I didn't make any money from this." Yes, dude.

Because you were caught.


----------



## MissingAlaska

dgaughran said:


> That's not really the full story. He had a couple of hundred sales and maybe 30k reads on his dash from the days after hitting #1. And that's before the pop list bump would have kicked in and the ensuing spike in page reads. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have made $5k - $10k this month if he wasn't caught.
> 
> That's what irked me most about his BS statement. "Wah, I didn't make any money from this." Yes, dude.
> 
> Because you were caught.


I have to agree. After reading his Facebook defense, all i can do is shake my head in disgust. I still think Amazon is in a tough position with this. They are going to have to take this court like they did the fake Fiverr reviews. I would guess they'll also need to catfish with some fake Fiverr posts to catch people red-handed.

DGaughran -- thank you so much for researching and bringing this issue to everyone's attention. Indies like you make this forum worth participating in.


----------



## #############

No news about the legitimate authors who are getting their catalogues hit with ranks being removed? I checked a couple who are fairly well known writers who have books with hundreds of reviews and no ranking.

Although it may just be a glitch since the books appear to have been published around the same span of few days.


----------



## alawston

berkenstock said:


> No news about the legitimate authors who are getting their catalogues hit with ranks being removed? I checked a couple who are fairly well known writers who have books with hundreds of reviews and no ranking.
> 
> Although it may just be a glitch since the books appear to have been published around the same span of few days.


Ah, look. I don't know which writers you're talking about, but be very sure of your ground before leaping to anyone's defence (and indeed accusation) in this mess. There's some _very_ well known writers who've been caught out in dishonest practice of various kinds over the years. And they all had their cheerleaders who ended up a bit embarrassed, and potentially a bit tainted by the fallout.

I trust David's judgement in the case of Dragonsoul, there was very flagrantly something shady going on there, and David knows his onions where Amazon's concerned. To the rest, I'm... uneasy about the general tone of this thread. It's got the potential to get very witch-hunty. I particularly didn't like the examination of Dragonsoul's also-boughts, and the speculation about which of those books might also be botted. It looked to me as though most of them were dragon-based, or at least fantasy books that you might legitimately expect to see in a list.


----------



## #############

alawston said:


> Ah, look. I don't know which writers you're talking about, but be very sure of your ground before leaping to anyone's defence (and indeed accusation) in this mess. There's some _very_ well known writers who've been caught out in dishonest practice of various kinds over the years. And they all had their cheerleaders who ended up a bit embarrassed, and potentially a bit tainted by the fallout.


Sure ok. So it happens to authors who don't show the same hallmarks of the Dragonsoul rank manipulation but it's okay that they're being thrown under the bus, too, because Amazon clearly has never overreacted in the past. Got it.



alawston said:


> I trust David's judgement in the case of Dragonsoul, there was very flagrantly something shady going on there, and David knows his onions where Amazon's concerned. To the rest, I'm... uneasy about the general tone of this thread. *It's got the potential to get very witch-hunty.* I particularly didn't like the examination of Dragonsoul's also-boughts, and the speculation about which of those books might also be botted. It looked to me as though most of them were dragon-based, or at least fantasy books that you might legitimately expect to see in a list.


The books I'm referring to are romance and have very little to do with dragons or this author. So given what you said in response to me? Mmhm.

Thanks for the clarification.

eta: You know, I've read this thread since it was first started and the question I kept asking myself was "What would happen when Amazon catches innocent authors in the net? Will they get also get accused of rank manipulation and no matter how much proof they offer otherwise, they'll be accused of being scammers too? Now everyone who gets hit by Amazon's fine tune instrument of correction deserves it?"

My pessimism got the better of me and I figured they would, given the tone of this thread.

Looks like I may not be wrong!


----------



## alawston

berkenstock said:


> Sure ok. So it happens to authors who don't show the same hallmarks of the Dragonsoul rank manipulation but it's okay that they're being thrown under the bus, too, because Amazon clearly has never overreacted in the past. Got it.
> 
> The books I'm referring to are romance and have very little to do with dragons or this author. So given what you said in response to me? Mmhm.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.


Well, whatever. All I'm saying is you don't know what those authors have been getting up to, and neither do I, but Amazon probably have a pretty good idea once they're minded to look into it. And for my part, I've seen enough paragons of authorly virtue end up by having their dirty laundry aired that I would withhold judgement on any individual author.


----------



## raminar_dixon

It's quite depressing to read about authors losing their hard-earned rank. I know several of the ones affected recently and to the best of my knowledge they were engaging in legitimate business practices all the way.



Patty Jansen said:


> Now I want to write a story with 4d chess.


"4D Chess: It's About Time"


----------



## Seneca42

JRTomlin said:


> The novel still has numerous reviews that mention scamming. The only ones they removed were the ones that didn't review the book and ONLY mentioned scamming because that is against their reviewing rules.


those reviews have now been removed also, now


----------



## 41419

I've mainly been focusing on the scammers plaguing the free charts. 

Some of the free scammers I've been watching were rank stripped also. These were guys that were doing it for 18 months, so that's some kind of progress I guess. I don't know how thorough Amazon are being, or if they are just going after the biggest fish. Two long-time guys were nixed anyway. I haven't looked that deeply at it.

I'm getting lots of people messaging me about a group of romance authors getting rank-stripped now too. I don't know much about that, I don't watch Romance so closely.

I know that over in SF, there are still plenty of free botted books in the (free) genre bestseller list, so it's not like there has been a total cleaning of the house or anything. These guys jumped in a few days ago and are still there.


----------



## JRTomlin

Seneca42 said:


> those reviews have now been removed also, now


Yep, now they have.


----------



## PhoenixS

raminar_dixon said:


> It's quite depressing to read about authors losing their hard-earned rank. I know several of the ones affected recently and to the best of my knowledge they were engaging in legitimate business practices all the way.


Rumors about romance books being deranked are flying across Facebook.

I've taken a look at some of the deranked books cited, and so far, to a one, I'm finding them to be KU-enrolled and bonus-book-stuffed (the type of bonus content that's in clear violation of Amazon's T&Cs, not the legit kind). The deranking right now seems to be a bit haphazard, but it's possible Amazon bots or personnel are moving methodically through the catalogs sniffing out the books that are gaming and/or scamming the system. And maybe the books being targeted first are the ones that hit highest. Or most recently, if it's a new scam-sniffing bot in play.

Now, I don't follow the romance sub-genres I've seen most affected today, but here's the thing. A lot of authors are studying the top-ranking books of each sub-genre looking for those resonating tropes so popular with the current write-to-market trend. More eyes looking. More authors discovering gaming or scamming in the sub-genres where they have every intention of competing. That means more and more reports to Amazon of easy-to-spot unethical behaviors.

If there are any truly innocent authors that have been hit in the past few days, I'd love to know. But so far, all I've had to do was look at the TOCs and the file sizes to see why the books that I've seen have been targeted. I have other speculations about under-radar stuff, but the on-radar, public stuff is pretty clear regarding the T&C violations.


----------



## #############

PhoenixS said:


> If there are any truly innocent authors that have been hit in the past few days, I'd love to know. But so far, all I've had to do was look at the TOCs and the file sizes to see why the books that I've seen have been targeted. I have other speculations about under-radar stuff, but the on-radar, public stuff is pretty clear regarding the T&C violations.


I would too. But given the current attitude, I know if I were one of them, I wouldn't be inclined to speak up, knowing that the first thing someone would do is accuse me of maybe-possibly engaging in sketchy behavior.


----------



## PhoenixS

berkenstock said:


> I would too. But given the current attitude, I know if I were one of them, I wouldn't be inclined to speak up, knowing that the first thing someone would do is accuse me of maybe-possibly engaging in sketchy behavior.


But isn't that what Amazon has already publicly done by stripping the rank?

I'm as happy to go to bat, and have, for a falsely accused author as I am to denounce the shady ones. Would I investigate the claims before taking up that bat? Well, duh. I'm seeing a lot of claims of innocence out there right now when one peek at the Look Inside tells you what shenanigans the author's engaging in publicly, so due diligence is called for. But if an author's truly clean, and they're accused, then coming forward with THAT evidence would be important. We've seen the reversals when that's happened.


----------



## CassieL

alawston said:


> I trust David's judgement in the case of Dragonsoul, there was very flagrantly something shady going on there, and David knows his onions where Amazon's concerned. To the rest, I'm... uneasy about the general tone of this thread. It's got the potential to get very witch-hunty. I particularly didn't like the examination of Dragonsoul's also-boughts, and the speculation about which of those books might also be botted. It looked to me as though most of them were dragon-based, or at least fantasy books that you might legitimately expect to see in a list.


Saw this earlier and wanted to +1 it.

I'm not talking about the things that Phoenix and David have been calling out. I'm talking about the "if you rank in the 2-6K rank and don't have the number of reviews I think you should have and are in the also-boughts of a book that has been scamming you must be scamming too" statement I see being made. I'll go on the record to say I don't think those are sufficient (or even appropriate) criteria for implying an author is scamming. In the case of one of the authors I think is being called out with those criteria I'd look more to on-genre covers for a book that was written to market in a hot market.


----------



## faea

berkenstock said:


> I would too. But given the current attitude, I know if I were one of them, I wouldn't be inclined to speak up, knowing that the first thing someone would do is accuse me of maybe-possibly engaging in sketchy behavior.


I just have a question. I'm fairly new to the publishing work, and haven't done much (mostly cause I have no budget), but I've been following the topic of the KU scamming for a while. If your an innocent new author, how do you 'prove' your innocence? I'm in agreement that many wouldn't speak up cause of the mob mentality going on. for instance on page 6 of this very discussion someone's defense was shared, then picked appart. I make no judgement on them or their work cause honestly i don't know. but if someone was innocent, its just as easy to pick their defense appart and make accusations.

To be totally honest I have made the decision to never go near KU because of these problems and the fact that I don't want the risk of being hit with it. Its easier to avoid the sharks if you don't swim in those waters.


----------



## Seneca42

faea said:


> I just have a question. I'm fairly new to the publishing work, and haven't done much (mostly cause I have no budget), but I've been following the topic of the KU scamming for a while. If your an innocent new author, how do you 'prove' your innocence?


hence why this is such a shitshow 

It's impossible to 100% prove someone is innocent or guilty. You can prove someone botted, but not that they intended to. And even then, you can't prove they botted, maybe someone applied bots against their book to sabotage them. In the case of DS, he openly admitted that he paid for this service (he only got caught because of how stupid the whole situation was, botting to #1 and admitting he paid to achieve that). If not for that stupidity, this would never have been noticed by the community-at-large.

Hence why the community is sort of split on this issue. Some authors say it's better to have a policy of extreme leniency and others say once a certain threshold of botting is evident drop the hammer; and of course there are people in between those views.

But ultimately, the situation may simply be unresolvable. Being in KU may mean that the possibility exists (as low probability as it may be) that you'll one day be deranked unfairly; or vice versa, that the bots are here to stay because it's too hard to punish them without hurting innocent authors.

Hence why someone earlier in the thread said that this is like punching a hole in the Titanic (ie. it's only a matter of time until KU implodes). Others disagree with that statement. Only time will tell.


----------



## RedFoxUF

If the books ranks are stripped...can they still use page read bots to steal from the KU pot or no?

If yes, then Amazon has not fixed this still.


----------



## Becca Mills

faea said:


> I just have a question. I'm fairly new to the publishing work, and haven't done much (mostly cause I have no budget), but I've been following the topic of the KU scamming for a while. If your an innocent new author, how do you 'prove' your innocence? I'm in agreement that many wouldn't speak up cause of the mob mentality going on. for instance on page 6 of this very discussion someone's defense was shared, then picked appart. I make no judgement on them or their work cause honestly i don't know. but if someone was innocent, its just as easy to pick their defense appart and make accusations.


Indeed, one of the very worst things about the rampant scamming in KU is the mutual distrust it engenders throughout the indie author community. I pretty much agree with what Anarchist said upthread about corporations generally only truly paying attention to their obligations to their shareholders, but I find myself really resenting Amazon for torpedoing our ecosystem by letting this scamming run unabated for so long. I know they don't care about that, and they never will, but it still really sucks. From the point of view of someone who cares about the communal aspects of the indie movement, an unpredictable environment that invites widespread abuse is the worst kind of poison.


----------



## Seneca42

RedFoxUF said:


> If the books ranks are stripped...can they still use page read bots to steal from the KU pot or no?
> 
> If yes, then Amazon has not fixed this still.


if they are allowed to stay in KU then obviously they are getting paid for page reads. So sure, nothing stopping them from using page read bots... other than they are probably now being scrutinized by Amazon (whatever that actually means).


----------



## alawston

Seneca42 said:


> if they are allowed to stay in KU then obviously they are getting paid for page reads. So sure, nothing stopping them from using page read bots... other than they are probably now being scrutinized by Amazon (whatever that actually means).


Not necessarily. Amazon could have done all sorts of things in their back-end - adjusted the individual book's KENPC down to 0 pages, or even just stopped reads being credited to the author's account. I've not read the T&C document lately (I probably really should), but they'll have some wording that absolves them from paying out on provably shady page reads. Just because they've only taken one action that's visible to us, it doesn't mean it's the only action they've taken.


----------



## Salvador Mercer

This is an interesting link to put the cost of business in perspective:

http://www.pymnts.com/news/2015/global-card-fraud-damages-reach-16b

Basically the fraud level worldwide in 2015 was $16.31 BILLION dollars on $28.844 TRILLION dollars of volume. We're not abandoning our credit cards so it stands to reason that Amazon will act in a similar fashion. For me, I interpret this to mean that as long as the scamming doesn't bring down the overall subscription model, then it's considered to be part of the business. Our issue, as indie writers, is that we take this fraud more personally as we are part of it's ecosystem.

I think the best we can do as a community is exactly what many of us have been doing to date. Report what you find, educate and support one another, and hold to your own virtues and values and act appropriately when promoting your own books. KU will collapse on itself if, and when, it can no longer sustain itself due to scamming, poor reader experience, and poor economics. In the meantime, the subscribers and the authors decide if it lives or dies and for now it stays as part of our world.

In the end, I dare say this experience puts many authors on notice that not all deeds go unnoticed.


----------



## Guest

berkenstock said:


> Sure ok. So it happens to authors who don't show the same hallmarks of the Dragonsoul rank manipulation but it's okay that they're being thrown under the bus, too, because Amazon clearly has never overreacted in the past. Got it.


Amazon removes rank for a number of reasons - not all of them related to rank manipulation. For the rank to be pulled it is a prima facie case that the author has done something that has triggered a response from Amazon.

I would be interested to know your definition of "innocent"? What I am hearing about *some* of the romance authors who have had their rank pulled (and I don't know if we're talking about the same people or not) is that they have violated TOS around bonus book stuffing and gaming pages read. If that's the case then I certainly don't consider them innocent authors "thrown under the bus" but rather authors doing dodgy things that have finally been caught.


----------



## #############

PhoenixS said:


> But if an author's truly clean, and they're accused, then coming forward with THAT evidence would be important. We've seen the reversals when that's happened.


In the meantime, their name and reputation is dragged through the mud by people willing to wade in with the pitchforks.

This whole YOU'RE guilty until YOU prove YOU'RE innocent really bothers me.

Which leads me to ask just how an author would go about proving their innocence to the satisfaction of those who are so willing to apply the term scammer on them?



Becca Mills said:


> Indeed, one of the very worst things about the rampant scamming in KU is *the mutual distrust it engenders throughout the indie author community*. I pretty much agree with what Anarchist said upthread about corporations generally only truly paying attention to their obligations to their shareholders, but I find myself really resenting Amazon for torpedoing our ecosystem by letting this scamming run unabated for so long. I know they don't care about that, and they never will, but it still really sucks. From the point of view of someone who cares about the communal aspects of the indie movement, *an unpredictable environment that invites widespread abuse is the worst kind of poison*.


Agreed.


----------



## novel1st

> I would be interested to know your definition of "innocent"? What I am hearing about *some* of the romance authors who have had their rank pulled (and I don't know if we're talking about the same people or not) is that they have violated TOS around bonus book stuffing and gaming pages read. If that's the case then I certainly don't consider them innocent authors "thrown under the bus" but rather authors doing dodgy things that have finally been caught.





> I've taken a look at some of the deranked books cited, and so far, to a one, I'm finding them to be KU-enrolled and bonus-book-stuffed (the type of bonus content that's in clear violation of Amazon's T&Cs, not the legit kind). The deranking right now seems to be a bit haphazard, but it's possible Amazon bots or personnel are moving methodically through the catalogs sniffing out the books that are gaming and/or scamming the system. And maybe the books being targeted first are the ones that hit highest. Or most recently, if it's a new scam-sniffing bot in play.
> 
> If there are any truly innocent authors that have been hit in the past few days, I'd love to know. But so far, all I've had to do was look at the TOCs and the file sizes to see why the books that I've seen have been targeted. I have other speculations about under-radar stuff, but the on-radar, public stuff is pretty clear regarding the T&C violations.


Edit as image feature didn't work: http://imgur.com/JdUyb6X

Why do people keep harping on about bonus books? They are specifically allowed. Evidence: the screenshot above that I just took from Amazon's KDP policies. What is not allowed is linking to end of a book, which to my (informed) knowledge, none of the authors affected this weekend were. This is an easy thing to check. Go borrow their books and see if they're linking or otherwise pushing to the end. Simples.

With all respect, Phoenix, point me to the TOS violations. File size is irrelevant. Unless they are specifically linking to end, bonus content is fine.


----------



## Monique

novel1st said:


> Edit as image feature didn't work: http://imgur.com/JdUyb6X
> 
> Why do people keep harping on about bonus books? They are specifically allowed. Evidence: the screenshot above that I just took from Amazon's KDP policies. What is not allowed is linking to end of a book, which to my (informed) knowledge, none of the authors affected this weekend were. This is an easy thing to check. Go borrow their books and see if they're linking or otherwise pushing to the end. Simples.
> 
> With all respect, Phoenix, point me to the TOS violations. File size is irrelevant. Unless they are specifically linking to end, bonus content is fine.


Not Phoenix, but ...

It's perfectly fine to add a short excerpt or a bonus short story. What isn't okay is stuffing two, three, four, five books into a book to pad for reads, etc. That, I believe, falls under the disappointing content area of the TOS.


----------



## novel1st

Monique said:


> Not Phoenix, but ...
> 
> It's perfectly fine to add a short excerpt or a bonus short story. What isn't okay is stuffing two, three, four, five books into a book to pad for reads, etc. That, I believe, falls under the disappointing content area of the TOS.


According to you, though. I have spoken to reps and asked about bonus _stories,_ and they didn't have a problem with it. The link literally says "e.g. other stories". It doesn't specify shorts. In fact, no-one from Amazon has specified anything about bonus content. They have had plenty of opportunity to do so. Now, other authors may dislike it, but it's not against TOS.

Although 'Zon reserve the right to declare anything they like to be "disappointing content".


----------



## Monique

Plenty of people have gotten dinged for stuffing. I believe these are the areas of TOS they're violating. 

Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store

You can choose to believe something else, but stuff at your own peril.


----------



## novel1st

Monique said:


> Plenty of people have gotten dinged for stuffing. I believe these are the areas of TOS they're violating.
> 
> Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store
> 
> You can choose to believe something else, but stuff at your own peril.


Ah that is actually fair enough.


----------



## writerlygal

Monique said:


> Plenty of people have gotten dinged for stuffing. I believe these are the areas of TOS they're violating.
> 
> Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store
> 
> You can choose to believe something else, but stuff at your own peril.


Who has gotten dinged for "stuffing"? I have been around a long time and have many bestselling author friends and I am one myself and I have never heard of this. I am writing this anonymously so as not to have the pitchfork headed in my direction next because that seems to be what happens around here.

Since my erotica bundling days I have always used all the page limits allotted to me by Amazon and have never gotten dinged.

Amazon specifically allows for 3000 KENPC and specifically allows for bonus content.

I think it is shameful that some authors here are deciding to play Extra Gatekeepers and decide that even though Amazon sets these parameters, in THEIR opinion it's against Amazon TOS if authors fully utilize what Amazon gives us to utilize. It smells of sour grapes and witchhunting based on differing business methods. I think it is really sad that authors are going after each other and reporting each other and being Amazon's volunteer police squad and even bragging about it. If Amazon has a problem with bonus books then Amazon would not specifically allow for it in their TOS. For people to set an arbitrary number, like two or three bonus books are okay, but not six, is ridiculous--- you are playing Amazon God to other authors and that is not cool.

Now I guess it's okay on Kboards to go after authors for doing what IS in Amazon's TOS and not just this clickfarming stuff. Got it. That's why I never post here anyway... if you don't do things the self-appointed Amazon Gods say is a-okay then you are demonized and reported. Very sad.

EDITED TO ADD: Some of the romance books that were rank stripped had no bonus books at all. And they were by reputable romance writers who got to the top 100 by promotion and having a following and none of their books followed the ping pong like trajectory in rankings that those books who use clickfarms do. I know everyone wants bonus books to be the issue here but they are not.


----------



## GeneDoucette

> Now I guess it's okay on Kboards to go after authors for doing what IS in Amazon's TOS and not just this clickfarming stuff. Got it. That's why I never post here anyway... if you don't do things the self-appointed Amazon Gods say is a-okay then you are demonized and reported. Very sad.


Every now and then, I come across something written on KBoards about KBoards, and I have to wonder what people on other sites are saying about this place.


----------



## Arches

faea said:


> I just have a question. I'm fairly new to the publishing work, and haven't done much (mostly cause I have no budget), but I've been following the topic of the KU scamming for a while. If your an innocent new author, how do you 'prove' your innocence? I'm in agreement that many wouldn't speak up cause of the mob mentality going on. for instance on page 6 of this very discussion someone's defense was shared, then picked appart. I make no judgement on them or their work cause honestly i don't know. but if someone was innocent, its just as easy to pick their defense appart and make accusations.
> 
> To be totally honest I have made the decision to never go near KU because of these problems and the fact that I don't want the risk of being hit with it. Its easier to avoid the sharks if you don't swim in those waters.


The KU versus wide discussion will probably go on long after the Rock of Gibraltar has dissolved into the sea. That discussion continues irrespective of the current controversy over scam artists in KU.

My take is that, for certain genres like urban fantasy, KU is a terrific way of connecting with a large group of very active readers. Three fourths of my earnings in my urban fantasy series come from KU, to the tune of several thousand dollars a month. And most of my sales are organic. They come because readers are constantly on the lookout for new urban fantasies. The only ads I'm running now are a couple of bucks a day for AMS ads. So my costs are low, except when I have a new release to promote.

Just so you know, that's what you could be giving up by avoiding KU--high income and low costs. On the plus side, you can distribute your book more widely, and you don't have to wonder whether Amazon will go berserk at any moment, and over-correct for the very real problem of all these click farms.

If you read David Gaughran's posts carefully, and I fully support his great work, you see that he's pointing out a number of bits of evidence that lead to the conclusion some people are gaming the system. And so far, Amazon seems to be moving slowly, rather than over-correcting. So I don't see why a legitimate author has to avoid KU entirely because a few bad apples are in the mix.


----------



## Guest

writerlygal said:


> Since my erotica bundling days I have always used all the page limits allotted to me by Amazon and have never gotten dinged.
> Amazon specifically allows for 3000 KENPC and specifically allows for bonus content.


Just because people have gotten away with it in the past, doesn't make it ethical or allowed.

I'm curious how you can call stuffing your back catalogue into a title to the maximum 3,000 KENPC to scam pages read equals "bonus content"? If I have a 300 KENPC novel and add 2,700 KENPC to pad it out to the 3k max (which is what these romance authors are doing so they can cream pages read) which content is actually the "bonus"? Can you have a "bonus" that is 900% larger than the supposed original content?


----------



## Pnjw

It's true we don't know exactly why the current subset of romance authors had their rank stripped. As far as I know, the authors haven't been given an answer and I hope they do get one soon. Because if it is for bonus content and they truly had no idea it's against the rules, I think they should have the opportunity to rectify the situation. 

From my perspective, the bonus content could be the issue (the ones who don't have bonus content that were hit, I can't speak to that). Yes, the TOS says bonus content is allowed. But it also says this is not allowed:

Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store

That would leave me to believe that bonus content is fine, but if it's already available in the Kindle Store and isn't differentiated (like presented as a bundle or anthology perhaps) then it isn't allowed. 

Before anyone says they've been doing this for forever without any problems, I'm sure that is true. Multi-author anthologies in KU were fine as well right up until they weren't.


----------



## sela

Deanna Chase said:


> Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store


This says to me that bonus means not available already. So stuffing books that already are published on Amazon (with the exception of collections clearly stated in the title and product description) would be considered a violation of TOS.

Bonus, in this case, would mean not available already.

So those authors who have 12 books and have 12 different volumes with each of those twelve books but ordered differently with a different book at the front are violating the TOS as I read them.

An author who puts something new and different from what they already have published on Amazon at the back of their books as a treat for their readers is fine from what I read in those TOS.

Clearly, these authors stuffing books with the same content in different orders are violating TOS. If they're getting illegitimate page reads that way, they are hurting the rest of us by diluting the pot.

It's completely legitimate for those of us who follow the rules being p*ssed at those who flagrantly violate them and in effect "steal" money from the KU pot, meaning those of us who do follow the rules get screwed.


----------



## PhoenixS

If you want to add bonus content that's relevant and meets KU guidelines, fine. Disclose it, both on the product packaging (book cover) and in the product description. And, in fact, it's fine to have over 3000 KENPC. Have as many KENPs as you can produce; Amazon, however, will only pay you for up to 3000. Because authors were abusing that loophole.

Sneaking lengthy bonus material into a file where the bonus content is 50-90% of the content without disclosing it in advance is adding disappointing content. It is also done to game the system. Adding an exclusive story to the end of the book while stuffing 3 or 4 other *undisclosed* books a customer may have already bought and read to get them to click through those to the end is just one example. Having an ebook linked to a paperback so it shows 200 pages but the file size is over 14K MB KB and triggers a warning that the content may be slow to download because of its unusually high file size (and not due to images) is another. Would you say that because the T&Cs don't specifically say it's a no-no and Support will happily link the page counts when they see it's the same title/author (even if it isn't the exact same content) that it's OK to do? How granular do the T&Cs need to be?

Intent to defraud is a thing. The same shady practices used over and over to varying degrees by multiple authors becomes a trend in that intent and evidence of intent. The presumption when someone engages in those specific practices, in at least some courts, is that there's intent, and it's the accused who has to provide evidence to the contrary once it's proven the accused engaged in those practices. Feel free to spin that however you like. In the end, it's Amazon who will determine how to interpret their guidelines. Not anything any of us say here.

Personally, I don't care if it's botting or stuffing or incentivizing buys and borrows or gifting inappropriately. If folk are engaged in scammy behaviors that affect the visibility and/or profit of others, I'd like it to stop. And if truly innocent dolphins are getting caught up in the tuna net, then Amazon needs to get those dolphins out of there before hauling the net up. (Yes, I want it all. And a pony.)


----------



## unkownwriter

> Personally, I don't care if it's botting or stuffing or incentivizing buys and borrows or gifting inappropriately. If folk are engaged in scammy behaviors that affect the visibility and/or profit of others, I'd like it to stop. And if truly innocent dolphins are getting caught up in the tuna net, then Amazon needs to get those dolphins out of there before hauling the net up. (Yes, I want it all. And a pony.)


Quoted for truth.

I do think it's interesting how many people have been around a long time and have no idea what we've been talking about here for ages. And not only here, but on other groups. It's been going on for a long time now.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Anarchist said:


> This is true. However, expecting a corporation to conform to one's idea of morality seems a waste of time. Corporate entities can only be expected to "do the right thing" when doing so increases shareholder wealth.
> 
> Moreover, and importantly, opinions vary on what is right or wrong. For example, some folks feel Amazon should do the "right" thing and fix KU's problems, even if doing so imposes costs (capital, bodies, time, server capacity, etc.). As a shareholder, I disagree 100%.
> 
> In this example, who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Who is "moral" and who is "immoral" (or amoral)?
> 
> Again, opinions vary.
> 
> Legality is less variable because the "rules" associated with an issue have been codified in law. As Snowden has opined, positive law can never make a thing moral and just. But positive law is the only reliable tool we have to predict the actions of a corporation in the face of a challenge.
> 
> It's imperfect (e.g. Enron). But it's less frustrating than expecting corporations to act according to one's idea of right and wrong.


Have you seen the documentary 'The Corporation'? I really think that you'd get a lot out of it; it was a real eye-opener for me, and judging from your posts I think you'd find it worthwhile too.


----------



## Seneca42

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Have you seen the documentary 'The Corporation'? I really think that you'd get a lot out of it; it was a real eye-opener for me, and judging from your posts I think you'd find it worthwhile too.


One of the best documentaries out there. Right up there with "the fog of war".


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Seneca42 said:


> One of the best documentaries out there. Right up there with "the fog of war".


OK- I know I'm possibly derailing a thread here, but FOW was AWSUM. But since we were speaking about corporations... have ya seen 'Inside Job'? Whoa.
(Dodges the prod)


----------



## writerlygal

What I'm saying is that ya'll are making up your own rules that have nothing to do with what Amazon says. I am in close contact with Amazon reps a lot and none have any problem with my bonus books. If Amazon tells me I get less than 3000 KENPC I will change my tactics but I have checked with them and they have said it's fine and I have never gotten in trouble so until then it's sad to see authors tearing down other authors just because of their own opinions of what Amazon might mean. 

It's sad that because some author allegedly clickfarmed or clickbotted or whatchamacalled it his way to the top ya'll are on a witchhunt against anyone doing what YOU personally think is or should be against Amazon's rules. Everything everyone has posted is just an interpretation of what you think it means but to my knowledge there has never been anyone in trouble for using related bonus books which Amazon specifically allows up to 3000 KENPC. If you disagree with me then continue your witchhunt until Amazon says something more specific. It really makes you look mean spirited and petty to many other authors. In the meantime I will be writing books and making money & mutually supporting any author who I don't know for completely sure is clickbotting, because I, unlike some of ya'll apparently, don't have time to sit here dissecting and reporting everyone else's books instead of worrying about my own.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

writerlygal said:


> What I'm saying is that ya'll are making up your own rules that have nothing to do with what Amazon says. I am in close contact with Amazon reps a lot and none have any problem with my bonus books. If Amazon tells me I get less than 3000 KENPC I will change my tactics but I have checked with them and they have said it's fine and I have never gotten in trouble so until then it's sad to see authors tearing down other authors just because of their own opinions of what Amazon might mean.


I have no horse in this race, but. There's a big difference between 3000 KENPC of original content, and recycling the same content over and over. No one is saying that bundling up stories in ORIGINAL volumes is bad. More power to you. But pasting the same exact stories in the back of every book... that's double dipping. And Amazon has more than once cracked down on that. You're right in that the options here don't amount to much. It's what Amazon thinks that's important. I agree with you.

But any author recycling the exact same content book to book, is playing a risky game with their account. And when Amazon acts, they don't tend to do so with finesse. It's usually with a sledgehammer. Personally, I wouldn't risk it. But to each his or her own.


----------



## MattHaggis

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I have no horse in this race, but. There's a big difference between 3000 KENPC of original content, and recycling the same content over and over. No one is saying that bundling up stories in ORIGINAL volumes is bad. More power to you. But pasting the same exact stories in the back of every book... that's double dipping. And Amazon has more than one cracked down on that. You're right in that the options here don't amount to much. It's what Amazon thinks that's important. I agree with you.
> 
> But any author recycling the exact same content book to book, is playing a risky game with their account. And when Amazon acts, they don't tend to do so with finesse. It's usually with a sledgehammer. Personally, I wouldn't risk it. But to each his or her own.


I agree. The protestations that "it's only a bonus book or five it's all fine" don't hold water. Maybe you don't mean to stuff your books, but the result is the same and it is against the TOS.


----------



## X. Aratare

writerlygal said:


> What I'm saying is that ya'll are making up your own rules that have nothing to do with what Amazon says. I am in close contact with Amazon reps a lot and none have any problem with my bonus books. If Amazon tells me I get less than 3000 KENPC I will change my tactics but I have checked with them and they have said it's fine and I have never gotten in trouble so until then it's sad to see authors tearing down other authors just because of their own opinions of what Amazon might mean.
> 
> It's sad that because some author allegedly clickfarmed or clickbotted or whatchamacalled it his way to the top ya'll are on a witchhunt against anyone doing what YOU personally think is or should be against Amazon's rules. Everything everyone has posted is just an interpretation of what you think it means but to my knowledge there has never been anyone in trouble for using related bonus books which Amazon specifically allows up to 3000 KENPC. If you disagree with me then continue your witchhunt until Amazon says something more specific. It really makes you look mean spirited and petty to many other authors. In the meantime I will be writing books and making money & mutually supporting any author who I don't know for completely sure is clickbotting, because I, unlike some of ya'll apparently, don't have time to sit here dissecting and reporting everyone else's books instead of worrying about my own.


I'm not in KU so I don't care about bonus books at all (though I can understand why those in KU would have a problem with it) but it seems to me that you don't know what this thread is even about (read David's blogpost first maybe?) and, if in fact, as you say bonus books are not against the TOS and you have confirmation from Amazon reps that what you're doing isn't wrong: why are you worried?

So basically, you can't have it both ways. If you say you know bonus books are a-okay then no "witchhunt" could be successful. Amazon won't strip ranks, etc. But if it is not actually okay (and Amazon reps have been known to say X then Y then Z) then that's the only thing you have to fear. So it's not a witchhunt then but a legit thing to complain authors are doing when they stuff books.

Those parts of the TOS that people are citing makes it appear like Sela's is the right interpretation of bonus content. If that's NOT what you're doing, I would re-evaluate it.


----------



## X. Aratare

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I have no horse in this race, but. There's a big difference between 3000 KENPC of original content, and recycling the same content over and over. No one is saying that bundling up stories in ORIGINAL volumes is bad. More power to you. But pasting the same exact stories in the back of every book... that's double dipping. And Amazon has more than once cracked down on that. You're right in that the options here don't amount to much. It's what Amazon thinks that's important. I agree with you.
> 
> But any author recycling the exact same content book to book, is playing a risky game with their account. And when Amazon acts, they don't tend to do so with finesse. It's usually with a sledgehammer. Personally, I wouldn't risk it. But to each his or her own.


What I meant said far better.


----------



## sela

X. Aratare said:


> What I meant said far better.


If you spend a little time studying these stuffed books, you'll find that most of them appear to be recycled erotica, with bits and pieces of non-erotic content at the front to make them look like actual stories. One author in particular has the same exact "bonus" content after a different first book in about a half dozen of her books but they really are just erotica. Long long long strings of nothing more than erotica disguised as romance novels.

Now, I have nothing against erotica. I've written it before and my romance novels are definitely steamy. But this isn't merely steamy romance. It's pretty much just erotica. And yet these books are not where they belong: Literature & Fiction > Erotica but in Romance categories, such as Military Romance or Romantic Comedy or even in Literature & Fiction > Humor.

There's not a whit of military content in the books I looked at, and nothing funny other than the ridiculously contrived plots that are just excuses for more erotica. It's really crass. The product description of one book claims it's a full length standalone with an HEA but it's categorized in Literature & Fiction > Contemporary Fiction > Short Stories

Can't be both...

I don't usually let these scammy books bother me, because I have a business to run and books to write, but I write Military Romance and Romantic Comedy and it burns my craw to see these scammy books in the ranks where they don't belong.


----------



## Pnjw

sela said:


> I don't usually let these scammy books bother me, because I have a business to run and books to write, but I write Military Romance and Romantic Comedy and it burns my craw to see these scammy books in the ranks where they don't belong.


As a reader of romantic comedy, the rom-com category on Amazon is utterly useless now. It really irks me to no end that it's nearly impossible to find rom-com books by browsing.


----------



## Spicy Boi

I'm confused why everyone's talking about bonus content. Sure the rank-stripped books all have bonus content, but a few other indie romances with bonus books in the top 100 were _not_ stripped. And they don't appear to have touched any books outside the top 100.

To my mind, the more interesting commonalities between the books are 1) they're indie romances and 2) they were all top 100 and 3) they got rank-stripped exactly the same way the Dragonsoul book did last week.

Pointing to bonus content just seems like sloppy or willfully ignorant reasoning. It seems much more likely that this is another failed attempt by Amazon to crack down on scammers after David's blog post. And as happens nearly every time, the crackdown nuked innocent authors from orbit.

The other possibility, which isn't mutually exclusive with the above, is that someone reported these books.

I know KBoards doesn't like bonus content but it's just not the most likely culprit here.


----------



## Monique

Stuffing might not be the issue. Just a possible one. It's also possible it's a mistake or there are other shenanigans going on. I looked at some of the books affected and they have a LOT in common. I don't know what's up. Only Amazon does.


----------



## PhoenixS

Spicy Boi said:


> I know KBoards doesn't like bonus content but it's just not the most likely culprit here.


I actually think the majority of people here who have seen the books in question are dancing around what they really think the *most* likely culprit is. Sela's come closest. The bonus content is just the low hanging fruit.



> The other possibility, which isn't mutually exclusive with the above, is that someone reported these books.


There seems to be a lot of insinuation around "reports." Certainly enough that it makes me think "deflection."

I can pretty well guarantee you Amazon doesn't take action on an account in that way simply from reports. Often even from reports with plenty of evidence. They'll send out an email for an author to correct typos that aren't typos based on customer reports, sure. But anything truly impactful? Not without an investigation. And even then, even with evidence and in the face of multiple reports from multiple sources, they may not act.

Talking about innocent authors being caught up in Amazon's cleanup attempt isn't the same as talking about Amazon acting on "reports". Save for cases of copyright infringement claims where Amazon by law must act, can anyone name a time when an innocent author has had their rank stripped or book taken down or account closed or been otherwise significantly punished simply because someone made a false report?


----------



## Salvador Mercer

Spicy Boi said:


> ...the crackdown nuked innocent authors from orbit.


It's the only way to be sure.

(Couldn't resist from one of my fav movies, go Sig!)


----------



## 39416

Does anybody know about how many books Amazon stripped of rank this weekend? I'm just curious.


----------



## Becca Mills

writerlygal said:


> What I'm saying is that ya'll are making up your own rules that have nothing to do with what Amazon says. I am in close contact with Amazon reps a lot and none have any problem with my bonus books. If Amazon tells me I get less than 3000 KENPC I will change my tactics but I have checked with them and they have said it's fine and I have never gotten in trouble so until then it's sad to see authors tearing down other authors just because of their own opinions of what Amazon might mean.
> 
> It's sad that because some author allegedly clickfarmed or clickbotted or whatchamacalled it his way to the top ya'll are on a witchhunt against anyone doing what YOU personally think is or should be against Amazon's rules. Everything everyone has posted is just an interpretation of what you think it means but to my knowledge there has never been anyone in trouble for using related bonus books which Amazon specifically allows up to 3000 KENPC. If you disagree with me then continue your witchhunt until Amazon says something more specific. It really makes you look mean spirited and petty to many other authors. In the meantime I will be writing books and making money & mutually supporting any author who I don't know for completely sure is clickbotting, because I, unlike some of ya'll apparently, don't have time to sit here dissecting and reporting everyone else's books instead of worrying about my own.


The other way to look at it is that, barring a really horrible mistake on Amazon's part, these romance authors' books have been rank-stripped for _some _reason, and a lot of other authors are probably sitting around wondering if they might also be at risk. In a situation like that, responsible speculation on what may have led to the rank-stripping is a pretty reasonable project. How else are other authors supposed to figure out whether they need to make fast changes to their books to avoid being caught in whatever crackdown is going on? Barring KBoards discussion of the possible causes of this event would be another way of saying, "Sorry, folks, you're on your own. There will be no collective pooling of knowledge and ideas, no effort to figure out the safest way forward. It's every author for themselves."

Considering the fact that punishment for something has apparently already been meted out (again, barring an Amazon mistake), and considering high stakes for many authors, and considering the fact that the romance authors in question have remained anonymous on this thread (which is as it should be, IMO), it's hard for me to see much of a "witch hunt" happening. Amazon has apparently already conducted a "hunt." What people here are trying to identify is what painted the target on these particular books, figuring that out being a matter of self-preservation for at least some of us.

Let's continue to keep the authors in question anonymous (no names, no titles, no links) and to avoid hyperbole and assumptions in favor of careful, responsible discussion.


----------



## Phxsundog

Becca is right. It's unknown why Amazon killed their rank. Why not figure that out We just know they stripped rank recently over click farm use. We know not all the books stripped are scammers. Two possibilities then for the nonscammers: they were hit by a click farm in KU unknowingly or worked with someone else using a farm. Romance authors exploded newsletter swaps this year more than anyone . Maybe some lists are dirty. Be very afraid trading with randos you don't know.


----------



## nikkykaye

sela said:


> If you spend a little time studying these stuffed books, you'll find that most of them appear to be recycled erotica, with bits and pieces of non-erotic content at the front to make them look like actual stories. And yet these books are not where they belong: Literature & Fiction > Erotica but in Romance categories, such as Military Romance or Romantic Comedy or even in Literature & Fiction > Humor. I don't usually let these scammy books bother me, because I have a business to run and books to write, but I write Military Romance and Romantic Comedy and it burns my craw to see these scammy books in the ranks where they don't belong.


Sela, you've hit the nail on the head of what's been bothering me as I try fruitlessly to research niches and categories. I see authors in the top 100 (or top 20) of multiple categories and subcategories, and at first I think "Oh, I want to be successful like AuthorX!" But then the half a dozen titles they might have in the top100 of those cats and subcats all seem to be 2000 pages long, and how the hell does a book rank so highly in romcom, inspirational, crime, coming of age, and action&adventure all at the same time (for example)? I've tried to read some of these books for research purposes, and can't get past the first few chapters. But they're clearly selling like crazy, almost certainly getting All Star bonuses, and have rave reviews. All of which burns my craw.

As someone who is trying to find visibility and figure out the best strategic yet accurate home for my voice, it's unbelievably frustrating. I can't do effective research, because of all the miscategorization (often thanks in part to keyword stuffing). This business is not a meritocracy in any way, which has been a hard lesson to learn. Recently I was so irritated that I decided to try a little experiment.

After venting with another author friend about some of these issues, I decided to write something under a new pen name as kind of an ironic pastiche. Of course, it's well-written (naturally! ), but I wrote it as almost an experimental parody of keyword and trope-stuffing. It comes out later this week, and I'm increasingly anxious to see what happens with it. I have the horrible feeling it will be the most successful thing I've ever published.


----------



## MattHaggis

Phxsundog said:


> We know not all the books stripped are scammers.


How do we know this? This seems like an opinion and not fact.


----------



## sela

nikkykaye said:


> Sela, you've hit the nail on the head of what's been bothering me as I try fruitlessly to research niches and categories. I see authors in the top 100 (or top 20) of multiple categories and subcategories, and at first I think "Oh, I want to be successful like AuthorX!" But then the half a dozen titles they might have in the top100 of those cats and subcats all seem to be 2000 pages long, and how the hell does a book rank so highly in romcom, inspirational, crime, coming of age, and action&adventure all at the same time (for example)? I've tried to read some of these books for research purposes, and can't get past the first few chapters. But they're clearly selling like crazy, almost certainly getting All Star bonuses, and have rave reviews. All of which burns my craw.
> 
> As someone who is trying to find visibility and figure out the best strategic yet accurate home for my voice, it's unbelievably frustrating. I can't do effective research, because of all the miscategorization (often thanks in part to keyword stuffing). This business is not a meritocracy in any way, which has been a hard lesson to learn. Recently I was so irritated that I decided to try a little experiment.
> 
> After venting with another author friend about some of these issues, I decided to write something under a new pen name as kind of an ironic pastiche. Of course, it's well-written (naturally! ), but I wrote it as almost an experimental parody of keyword and trope-stuffing. It comes out later this week, and I'm increasingly anxious to see what happens with it. I have the horrible feeling it will be the most successful thing I've ever published.


It's really frustrating. People do love erotica but it is a hard genre to make a buck in now because of KU 2.0 (or is it 3.0?).

Back under KU 1.0, erotica authors could mop up with their erotic shorts. If they could escape the erotica dungeon, they could sell their erotica and everyone who knew what was what could find it.

But people complained (not erotica authors of course) because of the short content and scamphlets and so KU 2.0 was born as a way to encourage longer works and read through vs. payouts for that magic 10%. It threw a whole lot of erotica authors out of business because they got some decent cash for their shorts -- $1.30 for a 2500 word short.

I remember the KU 2.0 massacre of erotica authors and felt really bad for them for they only had 2 weeks notice. People were doing really well and then went to nothing virtually overnight. I think some of them found a way to take that old erotica and repackage it. My thought is that they took this shorter erotica with practically zero plot and then merely changed names so that several "couples" became one couple and they threw in some backstory and voila! A short novel length work of mostly erotica that they could sell as romance. There are all these keywords still in some of the stuff I checked out like "man of the house" and "brat" which are keywords for pseudoincest plus there's lots of menage, to name a few kinks. I'm sure erotica readers are quite happy to get dozens and dozens of erotica stories packed together into a bundle for really cheap in KU. It's probably a bonanza for them and the authors.

I really do understand why erotica authors would be p*ssed and want to try to repurpose their work, but this stuffing of books with material that is nothing more than thinly veiled erotica and reordering the same material a dozen times with incentivized links to "brand new never published stories" at the end in order to garner full page reads is, well, scammy and hurts the rest of us. Plus the miscategorization messes up the store.

I'm sure erotica authors don't care and consider it payback or karma or something, but it sucks.


----------



## GoingAnon

[ORIGINAL POST MODIFIED SEPT 21, 2018. I do not accept nor do I consent to KBoards/VerticalScope's Terms of Service which were implemented without proper notification. As I await a response regarding my request for full account and content deletion - pursuant to GDPR - my continued use of this forum should not be construed as consent to, nor acceptance of, KBoards/VerticalScope's aforementioned Terms of Service.


----------



## 41419

To echo what miaa said above:

Someone sent me a list of six or seven romance books that were affected by rank stripping.

Without naming names, I checked them all. Every single one of them:

* was in KU
* had "bonus" content. 

In some cases that "bonus" content was just one book. In some cases it was five or six books. 

It's my understanding that's against the ToS. I haven't read these books so can't comment in detail, but just eyeballing the page count, this bonus content seemed to expand that considerably.

All of the authors were very tightly linked in also boughts and the like. Of course, there are any number of ways that can be influenced legitimately, or happen organically. But that might be something Amazon is also looking at (perhaps with cause, perhaps without cause - none of us can know).

So maybe it's the bonus content Amazon has an issue with. That's the first thing I spotted when looking at these books (and didn't spot anything else personally, but didn't dig too deep either).

Or maybe it's something else. Absent the authors in question sharing why Amazon stripped their rank (and perhaps absent Amazon sharing that with them), any talk is just speculation really.

Some of the authors have emailed me about it and say they are in the dark as to why this happened and Amazon hasn't told them anything, so I hope that happens, at least. An information vacuum is never good.

Personally, I don't like bonus stuffing at all. I think it's a dirty play designed to inflate your KU payout at the expense of other authors. But it's not something I've ever reported an author for, and my opinion of it doesn't matter anyway - what matters is how Amazon perceives it and how they apply their own rules (which seem unusually clear on this point).


----------



## 41419

All that said, if someone has been rank stripped who doesn't have any "bonus" content in their book - I definitely want to hear about that.

I've seen people say upthread that innocent* authors have been caught in the net. Any examples? 




(*Narrowly defined here as one not engaging in bonus stuffing)


----------



## unkownwriter

> Save for cases of copyright infringement claims where Amazon by law must act, can anyone name a time when an innocent author has had their rank stripped or book taken down or account closed or been otherwise significantly punished simply because someone made a false report?


I haven't seen any cases in any of the various author forums I hang around at. Seen some people claim to be innocent, but it always turned out they did something they shouldn't have.

No one here is making up their own rules. We are discussing things and expressing opinions. That's how forums work. Amazon is the only one with rules, and it seems they're finding issues with some authors. Until and unless they share what's going on, all we have to go on is what we can see, and despite what some say, it appears that "bonus" content is triggering some kind of fallout.


----------



## 41419

Did Amazon decide to take a closer look at the Top 100 after that scammer hit #1? Maybe. It's certainly plausible. But we don't know for sure. Amazon certainly isn't talking.

But the idea that people here are engaging in a witchunt is pretty ridiculous. I can only speak for myself, but I've been campaigning on the issue of scammers in the free charts for 18 months and getting nowhere. I believe the only thing that caused Amazon to act in the case of the OP was the huge publicity and associated embarrassment of someone actually hitting #1 on the *paid* side with clickfarms - as I don't see any improvement in the free charts yet. A couple of the higher profile scammers were squashed, but that's it. Some of the biggest and most flagrant abusers were totally untouched (I'm talking guys with 200+ titles up to all sorts of shenanigans that extend far beyond bonus stuffing).

Amazon has repeatedly refused to engage with me on the issue in any meaningful way, as I have documented quite publicly. I know other authors who were working on the scammer issue also hit the same brick walls. So, really, the idea that I, or any other author, has some kind of influence over Amazon is quite laughable. 

If anything, the opposite is true at this point.


----------



## #############

dgaughran said:


> To echo what miaa said above:
> 
> Someone sent me a list of six or seven romance books that were affected by rank stripping.
> 
> Without naming names, I checked them all. Every single one of them:


Thank you for looking into that, David. I trust your discernment far more than the casual and flippant responses of 'Oh, I'm sure they did something wrong, too' without looking into it.


----------



## JeanetteRaleigh

I'm not sure if someone else mentioned this, but the author in question posted a reasonable explanation on his Facebook page.  He paid for an advertisement without the knowledge that it was a click-farm site  (boostebook.com and we actually still don't know for sure if it is indeed a click farm).  From his dashboard (he also posted graphics), it looks like there was a sudden increase in page reads and sales, meaning that the ad was effective.  He himself asked Amazon to look into it once he realized that others were questioning the legitimacy of the rank increase.  He is asking people to stop attacking him, and if you have a problem, report it directly to Amazon.


----------



## scottnicholson

Just because you're targeted by a witch hunt is no proof you're not a witch


----------



## Seneca42

dgaughran said:


> But the idea that people here are engaging in a witchunt is pretty ridiculous. I can only speak for myself, but I've been campaigning on the issue of scammers in the free charts for 18 months and getting nowhere.


People just love to be melodramatic about this stuff. No titles other than DS have even been mentioned in this thread (I think I mentioned one book which was more blatantly botting than DS was)... yet somehow there's a witch hunt on?

There is a book I know of right now, that I know has botted, that's got the best seller tag on the Canadian store, but not US (which tells me the bots are happening on the international stores as well). Since all this broke their rank has been consistently dropping lower and lower. Whether they've stopped using bots, or the services they were using got shut down, it's hard to say.

But point is, it's fascinating to see some books are starting to sink in rank. There's another author I follow who has been consistently 10k and above in rank. Literally never seen a book of theirs below 10k in the past year. This rank botting scandal breaks, now their books are dropping down to 20k in rank. And that's someone I never ever would have suspected of botting in a million years.

If this were truly a "witch hunt" there is a TON of odd stuff going on that people could be pointing out regarding certain books. But no one is because everyone is actually taking great caution not to smear someone unjustly.

But I'll say this... IF Amazon actually goes deep and roots out all the scammers, I think there are going to be some shockers that come out of it.


----------



## SunnySammy

LilyBLily said:


> Payback to customers for Amazon being afraid to have an official erotica category?
> 
> As much as all this disguised and mislabeled erotica hurts other authors by pushing our books aside in the category listings, it also, and more significantly, makes for a nasty customer experience. Strictly as a customer, when I'm looking for a mild romance, I do not want salaciously titled books with very suggestive covers littering the category listings I browse. Amazon does nothing about this.
> 
> Newsletters allow me to to filter out categories, with no cheating, so I find most of my books from them. Many of those promoted books are available somewhere other than Amazon, too. Amazon continues to make the mistake of debasing the customer browsing experience, so we browse elsewhere. And that means we're less likely to go to the Amazon store, and this less likely to buy expensive non-book items from Amazon.


Amazon has an erotica category. I write erotica and label it as such. All the erotica forums I hang out on strongly discourage mislabeling erotica as romance or anything else. And the erotica community is every bit as p***ed about clickfarming as Kboards authors.


----------



## Arches

This "bonus material" doesn't seem to be well defined. I can understand a problem with stuffing whole extra books into an ebook as raising issues.

I usually add the first chapter of the next book in the series (if I've written the next book) at the end of each novel. Is that a potential problem? I'm happy to stop doing that, but it seemed like a good way to get the reader to continue reading the series.


----------



## sela

Here's the thing, in my view:

Some people cannot compete on a book vs. book basis in the proper category. 

So they compete using other means. 

They stuff keywords. They stuff books. They miscategorize so they can rank in a less-competitive sub-category. They use blackhat tactics to get borrows or page reads. They use incentivized links to the back of the book to get illegitimate page reads. They pay customers to download their books or gift in massive numbers to get rank. They buy reviews. 

Some people do all of this, and some people do only one or two, but these are all scammy tactics that are used to compete because they can't do so on a book vs. book basis. i.e. on a legitimate basis.

I know a bestselling romance author who hits the #1 slot in Contemporary Romance with each new release. She doesn't use any of those scammy tactics. Why? Because she writes romance novels that people want to read. She writes well and she writes compelling stories. She doesn't have to keyword stuff or stuff her books full of bonus content. She doesn't have to miscategorize because she rules in the most competitive category in romance. She writes commercial books that appeal to a massive audience. She writes 4 books a year and has hit the NYTs numerous times and she is raking in the dough.

If authors would focus on really understanding their genres and categories and would focus on craft -- be professional and ethical in other words -- they might get further and produce material they can feel proud to publish. 

Some scammers may make bank in the short term while they fly under Amazon's radar but they will eventually get caught. 

Those people who shrug and say, who cares -- I'm making bank in the short term? They have something broken in their ethics department...


----------



## sela

Arches said:


> This "bonus material" doesn't seem to be well defined. I can understand a problem with stuffing whole extra books into an ebook as raising issues.
> 
> I usually add the first chapter of the next book in the series (if I've written the next book) at the end of each novel. Is that a potential problem? I'm happy to stop doing that, but it seemed like a good way to get the reader to continue reading the series.


I'll show you using a fictional example of stuffed books to illustrate:

Stuffed Book 1: Title: RAM ME HARD Subtitle: A BAD BOY SHIFTER NEW ADULT MENAGE ROMANCE

Content:

Book 1: RAM ME HARD (2300 pages) 
Category:

Literature & Fiction > Humor
Romance > Romantic Comedy

Bonus Content:

Book 2: HIT ME HARD
Book 3: DO ME AGAIN
Book 4: LOVE ME HARD
Book 5: LOVE ME HARD AGAIN
Book 6: RAM ME HARD AGAIN
Book 7: LOVE ME HARD AND RAM ME HARDER
SPECHUL NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED SHORT STORY - CLICK HERE!!

Stuffed Book 2: HIT ME HARD (2300 pages) Subtitle: A BAD BOY SHIFTER NEW ADULT MENAGE ROMANCE

Literature & Fiction > Collections > Short Stories
Romance > Romantic Comedy

Content:

Book 1: HIT ME HARD

Bonus content:

Book 2: RAM ME HARD
Book 3: DO ME AGAIN
Book 4: LOVE ME HARD
Book 5: LOVE ME HARD AGAIN
Book 6: RAM ME HARD AGAIN
Book 7: LOVE ME HARD AND RAM ME HARDER
SPECHUL NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED SHORT STORY - CLICK HERE!!

Stuffed Book 3: DO ME AGAIN (2300 pages) Subtitle: A BAD BOY SHIFTER NEW ADULT MENAGE ROMANCE

Literature & Fiction > Humor
Romance > Military Romance

Content:

Book 1: DO ME AGAIN

Bonus Content:

Book 2: RAM ME HARD
Book 3: DO ME HARD
Book 4: LOVE ME HARD
Book 5: LOVE ME HARD AGAIN
Book 6: RAM ME HARD AGAIN
Book 7: LOVE ME HARD AND RAM ME HARDER
SPECHUL NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED SHORT STORY - CLICK HERE!!

The other 4 books follow this same pattern.

As I understand the TOS including a new short story at the end of your title as a bonus for your reader is not prohibited by Amazon as long as it has not been published before. Theoretically, it should be mentioned in the product description.


----------



## kemobullock

sela said:


> I'll show you using a fictional example of stuffed books to illustrate:
> 
> Stuffed Book 1: Title: RAM ME HARD Subtitle: A BAD BOY SHIFTER NEW ADULT MENAGE ROMANCE
> 
> Content:
> 
> Book 1: RAM ME HARD (2300 pages)
> Category:
> 
> Literature & Fiction > Humor
> Romance > Romantic Comedy
> 
> Bonus Content:
> 
> Book 2: HIT ME HARD
> Book 3: DO ME AGAIN
> Book 4: LOVE ME HARD
> Book 5: LOVE ME HARD AGAIN
> Book 6: RAM ME HARD AGAIN
> Book 7: LOVE ME HARD AND RAM ME HARDER
> SPECHUL NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED SHORT STORY - CLICK HERE!!
> 
> Stuffed Book 2: HIT ME HARD (2300 pages) Subtitle: A BAD BOY SHIFTER NEW ADULT MENAGE ROMANCE
> 
> Literature & Fiction > Collections > Short Stories
> Romance > Romantic Comedy
> 
> Content:
> 
> Book 1: HIT ME HARD
> 
> Bonus content:
> 
> Book 2: RAM ME HARD
> Book 3: DO ME AGAIN
> Book 4: LOVE ME HARD
> Book 5: LOVE ME HARD AGAIN
> Book 6: RAM ME HARD AGAIN
> Book 7: LOVE ME HARD AND RAM ME HARDER
> SPECHUL NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED SHORT STORY - CLICK HERE!!
> 
> Stuffed Book 3: DO ME AGAIN (2300 pages) Subtitle: A BAD BOY SHIFTER NEW ADULT MENAGE ROMANCE
> 
> Literature & Fiction > Humor
> Romance > Military Romance
> 
> Content:
> 
> Book 1: DO ME AGAIN
> 
> Bonus Content:
> 
> Book 2: RAM ME HARD
> Book 3: DO ME HARD
> Book 4: LOVE ME HARD
> Book 5: LOVE ME HARD AGAIN
> Book 6: RAM ME HARD AGAIN
> Book 7: LOVE ME HARD AND RAM ME HARDER
> SPECHUL NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED SHORT STORY - CLICK HERE!!
> 
> The other 4 books follow this same pattern.
> 
> As I understand the TOS including a new short story at the end of your title as a bonus for your reader is not prohibited by Amazon as long as it has not been published before. Theoretically, it should be mentioned in the product description.


I can't stop laughing at your examples. Superb choices. LOL


----------



## Arches

Sela, I didn't think I was a prudish guy, but wow!


----------



## sela

Arches said:


> Sela, I didn't think I was a prudish guy, but wow!


It was supposed to be funny rather than racy. You know, RAM = shifter.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

dgaughran said:


> It's my understanding that's against the ToS. I haven't read these books so can't comment in detail, but just eyeballing the page count, this bonus content seemed to expand that considerably.
> 
> _Snip_
> 
> Personally, I don't like bonus stuffing at all. I think it's a dirty play designed to inflate your KU payout at the expense of other authors. But it's not something I've ever reported an author for, and my opinion of it doesn't matter anyway - what matters is how Amazon perceives it and how they apply their own rules (which seem unusually clear on this point).


This is what Amazon says about bonus content:

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/A3CFOBV9O6PLD7

_Bonus Content
If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we recommend placing additional content at the end of the book.

Content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.

For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions._

There is nothing in these guidelines that covers length or quantity of bonus content. The only hard rule here is that bonus content should be at the end. There's a clear reason for this: They don't want anyone publishing Book 5 of the series with Books 1-4 in front of that book, which would encourage people to skip over the old content and generate reads from skipped content.

Otherwise the only rules are the same as any other content. It can't be markov chain gibberish, it can't be automatically translated foreign books, and it has to be related, so no sticking a cookbook after a romance novel.

That's it.

In what sense is it unusually clear that including a bonus novel is prohibited? Can you cite from what I posted above what is unusually clear to you?

I suppose this is unusually clear in that it's a little more than "about what you expect" but there's only a couple of hard rules there and they have nothing to do with what you say they do. The rest reads as, simply, "bonus content is okay until we say it's not on a case by case basis"

That's all we're ever going to get, rules wise. These rules are written under the supervision of lawyers, who know that specific rules create more room for litigation, even with the usual TOS gibberish and arbitration clause.

Adding bonus books isn't shady and it's not artificially inflating page reads. The reader still decides whether or not they will read the content.

The use of bonus books is dictated by a basic understanding of marketing.

I get paid more when a reader consumes more of my content. If they like one book, I want them to read my entire catalog. There's a couple ways I can do this:

1. Link to my other books in an "also by" page.

2. Just put the book right there.

If I do No 1. I'm looking at several disadvantages. If they're on an iDevice, which many readers are, they can't download the next book via the Kindle app, they have to navigate to the actual web store. Even if they're not, they have to download my book, go back to their library, and open my book. At that point they may decide to put the device down and when they come back later, read something else. My next book may get pushed out when they click some more Facebook ads and download those books, reaching their 10 book limit. My book may end up on a wish list, where it makes me no money.

Or, I can put another book right in front of them. After two they might like me so much they go download my whole catalog and read it all.

It's just a good business practice. It's dictated and favored by the Kindle Unlimited system. They could do several things to limit this and they've chosen to do none of them.

Probably because this kind of bundling is an established and long-standing publishing industry practice. I have bundles like this from trad pubs right on my own Kindle. If J.R.R. Tolkien was a self publisher I'd be hearing howling about how he stuffed that Lord of the Rings book. He already published them all, and what is all this crap with these "appendicies"? One of them is a romance novel! What a hack!

Also, *the ranks disappearing are not a response to stuffing.*

Why? Because it's completely illogical.

Bonus books would be a quality issue. That means that Amazon would remove them from sale but leave the product page up, send an email, and demand that it be corrected before the book is reviewed again and returned to sale. They wouldn't take an unrelated punitive action without contacting the authors, which is _apparently_ what happened here.

I say apparently because several of the authors I'm in contact with have touched base with Amazon and been informed that this is a widespread technical issue.

It's a glitch.

The next time everyone here sees something odd on the Kindle Store and jumps to the conclusion that the authors involved deserved it, I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind.

In the past, Amazon has:


Mass-filtered LGBT categorized books, regardless of erotic or even romantic content, to the tune of thousands of books
Blocked dozens of clean romances during an erotica purge, removing books that contain no sex and sometimes no kissing for dubious reasons like a dog on the cover
Completely removed catalogs from sale and suspended accounts for no readily apparent reason
Threatens people's Kindle Unlimited privileges over obviously pirated books
Cooperates with fraudulent DMCA requests that cite back-dated blog posts as evidence to blackmail authors
Punishes authors for "content" which can mean the cover, blurb, actual book, title, and metadata and refuses to say which one is the problem or what the issue is
Frequently responds to inquiries about TOS/content guideline issues with 'you did something wrong but we wont' tell you what, you have to guess'
Refused to acknowledge or explain massive technical issues with the store or the kDP backend until a call-in and email campaign is launched
Removed books from sale over less than 10 typos in a full length novel

In the past couple of years, there have been bugs that prevented also boughts from showing on pages, or reciprocal also boughts for being assigned, or cover images from populating pages, or look insides from appearing. If any of those had come after a blog post about a scammer, would they have been seen as punitive measures from Amazon too?

The problem with the Kindle Unlimited system and the declining page rate has nothing to do with legitimate authors putting their work in front of people to be read by using bonus books. Thats' a response to the overall situation.

What placing the blame on the authors does is obfuscate the real problem: If your novel is widely downloaded and read, it doesn't matter because the system has so devalued our books that one novel alone can't generate enough revenue. Why?

It's not because of bonus books. it's because black hat scammers are uploading 3000 KENPC "books" to the store in large numbers, click farming them to generate reads, and collecting both an ever-increasing share and collecting the bonuses.

A few months ago there were about 80 books in the top 100 rankings with endlessly repeated excerpts of machine translated fairy tales with KDP-generated cover files.

There's your culprit. That's why authors are struggling, and many feel forced to put in bonus books.

You think I want to put bonuses novels in my new releases? Do yo think I want to take two or three books that each took months to write and edit and price them for $0.32 each as part of a bundle? It's mandatory.


----------



## JRTomlin

writerlygal said:


> Who has gotten dinged for "stuffing"? I have been around a long time and have many bestselling author friends and I am one myself and I have never heard of this. I am writing this anonymously so as not to have the pitchfork headed in my direction next because that seems to be what happens around here.
> 
> Since my erotica bundling days I have always used all the page limits allotted to me by Amazon and have never gotten dinged.
> 
> Amazon specifically allows for 3000 KENPC and specifically allows for bonus content.
> 
> I think it is shameful that some authors here are deciding to play Extra Gatekeepers and decide that even though Amazon sets these parameters, in THEIR opinion it's against Amazon TOS if authors fully utilize what Amazon gives us to utilize. It smells of sour grapes and witchhunting based on differing business methods. I think it is really sad that authors are going after each other and reporting each other and being Amazon's volunteer police squad and even bragging about it. If Amazon has a problem with bonus books then Amazon would not specifically allow for it in their TOS. For people to set an arbitrary number, like two or three bonus books are okay, but not six, is ridiculous--- you are playing Amazon God to other authors and that is not cool.
> 
> Now I guess it's okay on Kboards to go after authors for doing what IS in Amazon's TOS and not just this clickfarming stuff. Got it. That's why I never post here anyway... if you don't do things the self-appointed Amazon Gods say is a-okay then you are demonized and reported. Very sad.
> 
> EDITED TO ADD: Some of the romance books that were rank stripped had no bonus books at all. And they were by reputable romance writers who got to the top 100 by promotion and having a following and none of their books followed the ping pong like trajectory in rankings that those books who use clickfarms do. I know everyone wants bonus books to be the issue here but they are not.


Maybe you should point out the posts that are 'going after' some specific authors because I sure haven't seen them. Every one I've seen has been careful not to name names. Perhaps a bit over-sensitive for some reason?

And as for Amazon caring what we might report.... *laughs til there are tears in her eyes*


----------



## Spicy Boi

Well said, Acrocanthosaurus.


----------



## Mxz

I don't know who all of the romance authors who had their rank stripped are, and if they're innocent, but I looked at one that had been stuffing for almost a year and she had her rank stripped on one of the books.  I also saw today that a couple other authors who stuffed their books, using previously released books, to get page counts like 1800 now have page counts of 250 and 100 on those same books.  So they totally knew they were doing wrong.  They just quickly fixed it before their rank was taken away.  Edited to say that one still has that high KNEP- and "bonus" 4 novels, but now it's linked to the paperback to decrease the obvious stuffed page count.

There still are about 9 books in the top Romance 100 with about 1 to 5 stuffed novels from previous releases or stuffed "previews" of previous releases, which they may consider "bonus content."  I wonder if these books will keep their ranks or the author will upload a file without all of the extra "bonuses," especially since they'll find out that some books have disabled ranks.


----------



## sela

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> This is what Amazon says about bonus content:
> 
> https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/A3CFOBV9O6PLD7
> 
> _Bonus Content
> If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we recommend placing additional content at the end of the book.
> 
> Content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.
> 
> For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions._
> 
> There is nothing in these guidelines that covers length or quantity of bonus content. The only hard rule here is that bonus content should be at the end. There's a clear reason for this: They don't want anyone publishing Book 5 of the series with Books 1-4 in front of that book, which would encourage people to skip over the old content and generate reads from skipped content.
> 
> Otherwise the only rules are the same as any other content. It can't be markov chain gibberish, it can't be automatically translated foreign books, and it has to be related, so no sticking a cookbook after a romance novel.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> *snip*


In your quote, it says that bonus content has to *meet all program guidelines*.

This is what Amazon says about content in general that is prohibited:

_*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*_

That means bonus content must be "*significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store*"

To spell it out more clearly:

_*Content must be significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store.*_

So, organizing stuffed books in different orders in ten different volumes is in violation of the program guidelines. Those stuffed books are NOT bonus content according to the guidelines.

It's really simple.



> You think I want to put bonuses novels in my new releases? Do yo think I want to take two or three books that each took months to write and edit and price them for $0.32 each as part of a bundle? It's mandatory.


As to something being mandatory, no, it's not.

I don't stuff books and I make $200,000 a year.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

What does significantly differentiated mean? Why are bundles allowed?

These books contain unpublished content and republished content. Why would that be prohibited if a collection of all previously published is not?

These rules are written to provide after-the-fact justification when they decide they don't want something anymore. Full stop.

There's books in the Top 100 right now with extra novels included as bonus content. Why weren't they affected?

All I see here is people trying to (1.) victim shame legit authors for what is most likely a glitch or a mistake and is inconsistent with Amazon's past record of deliberate punitive action and (2.) start with the conclusion that bonus books are a cheat and the cause of all our problems and pick and choose evidence to support it while ignoring obvious points against that claim.


----------



## Phxsundog

The authors aren't all innocent. There is proof. Doesn't mean they're all guilty either. Without naming names one had a book in the Top 20 paid early this month blocked because it was stolen content. Readers posted reviews proving word for word rewrites from another book. Amazon took it down. Her new book is one of those rank pulled in the Top 100. Some authors affected are internet marketers caught for other crimes. Is it so unbelievable they'd use click farms too? This doesn't explain everyone. It's a single case where they were up to tricks and now got nailed over something else.


----------



## 41419

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> In what sense is it unusually clear that including a bonus novel is prohibited? Can you cite from what I posted above what is unusually clear to you?


What you are quoting is from the formatting guidelines. If you look under content guidelines you will see this:



> Poor customer experience
> 
> We don't accept books that provide a poor customer experience. We reserve the right to determine whether content provides a poor customer experience. See the Guide to Kindle Content Quality for examples of content that's typically disappointing to customers.


You can read that here:

And then the Guide to Kindle Content Quality is linked to from there - - which says this, under Disappointing Content



> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> 
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*


Offering an excerpt would be fine, for example. Putting five novels in there that are on sale in the Kindle Store would not be fine.

Unless you interpret that differently, but it seems clear enough to me. But I guess it's Amazon's interpretation that matters. If that is indeed why these books got rank-stripped. That remains speculation, as you said.


----------



## 75814

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> This is what Amazon says about bonus content:
> 
> https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/A3CFOBV9O6PLD7
> 
> _Bonus Content
> If you choose to include bonus content (e.g. other stories, or previews of other books), it should be relevant to the customer and should not disrupt the reading experience. To meet these guidelines, we recommend placing additional content at the end of the book.
> 
> Content must meet all program guidelines (e.g., bonus content in KDP Select titles must be exclusive). Translated content must be high quality and not machine generated. Disruptive links and promises of gifts or rewards are never allowed.
> 
> For more information, see our content guidelines and Terms and Conditions._
> 
> There is nothing in these guidelines that covers length or quantity of bonus content. The only hard rule here is that bonus content should be at the end. There's a clear reason for this: They don't want anyone publishing Book 5 of the series with Books 1-4 in front of that book, which would encourage people to skip over the old content and generate reads from skipped content.
> 
> Otherwise the only rules are the same as any other content. It can't be markov chain gibberish, it can't be automatically translated foreign books, and it has to be related, so no sticking a cookbook after a romance novel.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> In what sense is it unusually clear that including a bonus novel is prohibited? Can you cite from what I posted above what is unusually clear to you?
> 
> I suppose this is unusually clear in that it's a little more than "about what you expect" but there's only a couple of hard rules there and they have nothing to do with what you say they do. The rest reads as, simply, "bonus content is okay until we say it's not on a case by case basis"
> 
> That's all we're ever going to get, rules wise. These rules are written under the supervision of lawyers, who know that specific rules create more room for litigation, even with the usual TOS gibberish and arbitration clause.
> 
> Adding bonus books isn't shady and it's not artificially inflating page reads. The reader still decides whether or not they will read the content.
> 
> The use of bonus books is dictated by a basic understanding of marketing.
> 
> I get paid more when a reader consumes more of my content. If they like one book, I want them to read my entire catalog. There's a couple ways I can do this:
> 
> 1. Link to my other books in an "also by" page.
> 
> 2. Just put the book right there.
> 
> If I do No 1. I'm looking at several disadvantages. If they're on an iDevice, which many readers are, they can't download the next book via the Kindle app, they have to navigate to the actual web store. Even if they're not, they have to download my book, go back to their library, and open my book. At that point they may decide to put the device down and when they come back later, read something else. My next book may get pushed out when they click some more Facebook ads and download those books, reaching their 10 book limit. My book may end up on a wish list, where it makes me no money.
> 
> Or, I can put another book right in front of them. After two they might like me so much they go download my whole catalog and read it all.
> 
> It's just a good business practice. It's dictated and favored by the Kindle Unlimited system. They could do several things to limit this and they've chosen to do none of them.
> 
> Probably because this kind of bundling is an established and long-standing publishing industry practice. I have bundles like this from trad pubs right on my own Kindle. If J.R.R. Tolkien was a self publisher I'd be hearing howling about how he stuffed that Lord of the Rings book. He already published them all, and what is all this crap with these "appendicies"? One of them is a romance novel! What a hack!
> 
> Also, *the ranks disappearing are not a response to stuffing.*
> 
> Why? Because it's completely illogical.
> 
> Bonus books would be a quality issue. That means that Amazon would remove them from sale but leave the product page up, send an email, and demand that it be corrected before the book is reviewed again and returned to sale. They wouldn't take an unrelated punitive action without contacting the authors, which is _apparently_ what happened here.
> 
> I say apparently because several of the authors I'm in contact with have touched base with Amazon and been informed that this is a widespread technical issue.
> 
> It's a glitch.
> 
> The next time everyone here sees something odd on the Kindle Store and jumps to the conclusion that the authors involved deserved it, I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind.
> 
> In the past, Amazon has:
> 
> 
> Mass-filtered LGBT categorized books, regardless of erotic or even romantic content, to the tune of thousands of books
> Blocked dozens of clean romances during an erotica purge, removing books that contain no sex and sometimes no kissing for dubious reasons like a dog on the cover
> Completely removed catalogs from sale and suspended accounts for no readily apparent reason
> Threatens people's Kindle Unlimited privileges over obviously pirated books
> Cooperates with fraudulent DMCA requests that cite back-dated blog posts as evidence to blackmail authors
> Punishes authors for "content" which can mean the cover, blurb, actual book, title, and metadata and refuses to say which one is the problem or what the issue is
> Frequently responds to inquiries about TOS/content guideline issues with 'you did something wrong but we wont' tell you what, you have to guess'
> Refused to acknowledge or explain massive technical issues with the store or the kDP backend until a call-in and email campaign is launched
> Removed books from sale over less than 10 typos in a full length novel
> 
> In the past couple of years, there have been bugs that prevented also boughts from showing on pages, or reciprocal also boughts for being assigned, or cover images from populating pages, or look insides from appearing. If any of those had come after a blog post about a scammer, would they have been seen as punitive measures from Amazon too?
> 
> The problem with the Kindle Unlimited system and the declining page rate has nothing to do with legitimate authors putting their work in front of people to be read by using bonus books. Thats' a response to the overall situation.
> 
> What placing the blame on the authors does is obfuscate the real problem: If your novel is widely downloaded and read, it doesn't matter because the system has so devalued our books that one novel alone can't generate enough revenue. Why?
> 
> It's not because of bonus books. it's because black hat scammers are uploading 3000 KENPC "books" to the store in large numbers, click farming them to generate reads, and collecting both an ever-increasing share and collecting the bonuses.
> 
> A few months ago there were about 80 books in the top 100 rankings with endlessly repeated excerpts of machine translated fairy tales with KDP-generated cover files.
> 
> There's your culprit. That's why authors are struggling, and many feel forced to put in bonus books.
> 
> You think I want to put bonuses novels in my new releases? Do yo think I want to take two or three books that each took months to write and edit and price them for $0.32 each as part of a bundle? It's mandatory.


This is a selective reading of the KDP terms. Please read the following, found in the Disappointing Content section of the Guide to Kindle Content Quality:



> We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:
> 
> Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
> Content that is freely available on the web (unless you are the copyright owner of that content or the content is in the public domain). For more information, you can refer to the sections titled "Illegal and Infringing Content" and "Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content" in the Content Guidelines.
> Content whose primary purpose is to solicit or advertise
> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store*
> *Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
> Content that is too short
> Content that is poorly translated
> Content that does not provide an enjoyable reading experience


Notice the sections I bolded. This means if you have a 5-book series and it goes like this:

Book 1
-Book 2 (bonus)
-Book 3 (bonus)
-Book 4 (bonus)

Book 2
-Book 1 (bonus)
-Book 3 (bonus)
-Book 4 (bonus)

Book 3
-Book 1 (bonus)
-Book 2 (bonus)
-Book 4 (bonus)

Book 4
-Book 1 (bonus)
-Book 2 (bonus)
-Book 3 (bonus)

...then you're violating the terms and conditions.

If Books 2-4 aren't separately available in the Kindle Store, then that's fine. If you just include short previews of Books 2-4, then that's fine. But if you're stuffing all your books into the back of each individual title, then that's a clear attempt to manipulate the KU page reads and is a violation.



Acrocanthosaurus said:


> What does significantly differentiated mean?


That's up to Amazon to decide. They don't specify what "significantly differentiated" means. How are you significantly differentiating your bonus books? If you're just changing a single paragraph out of the whole book, that's not a significant differentiation.



> There's books in the Top 100 right now with extra novels included as bonus content. Why weren't they affected?


You'd have to ask Amazon. Maybe they missed them or maybe they haven't gotten to those books yet. Or maybe those books conform to the terms. Again, it's not _all_ bonus content, it's content that isn't significantly differentiated from other books in the Kindle Store.

But saying, "how come these people are being punished while these people get away with it?" is like saying, "how come my friend was doing 80 in a 50 mph zone and didn't get pulled over, while I got a ticket for doing 35 in a 25 mph zone?" Maybe your friend drove during a time when there was no cops around or the cops just weren't paying attention.

Just because someone's getting away with it doesn't mean it's not a violation. It just means that person has been lucky so far.



> All I see here is people trying to (1.) victim shame legit authors for what is most likely a glitch or a mistake and is inconsistent with Amazon's past record of deliberate punitive action and (2.) start with the conclusion that bonus books are a cheat and the cause of all our problems and pick and choose evidence to support it while ignoring obvious points against that claim.


Please refer to the quoted sections from Amazon's terms and conditions.


----------



## 41419

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> All I see here is people trying to (1.) victim shame legit authors...


Really? I didn't see a single author/title/publisher named. They are vaguely referred to as "romance" books. No identifying features whatsoever.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

sela said:


> In your quote, it says that bonus content has to *meet all program guidelines*.
> 
> This is what Amazon says about content in general that is prohibited:
> 
> _*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*_
> 
> That means bonus content must be "*significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store*"
> 
> To spell it out more clearly:
> 
> _*Content must be significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store.*_
> 
> So, organizing stuffed books in different orders in ten different volumes is in violation of the program guidelines. Those stuffed books are NOT bonus content according to the guidelines.
> 
> It's really simple.
> 
> As to something being mandatory, no, it's not.
> 
> I don't stuff books and I make $200,000 a year.


Ee-yup to all this. And I make a lot more than that. I know plenty of authors who make way more than I do who don't stuff books either. In contemporary, paranormal, and romantic suspense. It's not mandatory.

But it doesn't matter what any of us thinks. It's what Amazon thinks. If Amazon has no problem with it and everybody's blowing smoke? Problem solved. The people putting 2,800 pages of bonus content behind a 200-page book will have the last laugh--and more importantly, bank their money. If Amazon means what Sela, I, and others suspect they mean, those authors are at risk. Time will tell. But I think we've seen time and time again that Amazon doesn't warn. They just act.


----------



## sela

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> What does significantly differentiated mean? Why are bundles allowed?
> 
> These books contain unpublished content and republished content. Why would that be prohibited if a collection of all previously published is not?
> 
> These rules are written to provide after-the-fact justification when they decide they don't want something anymore. Full stop.
> 
> There's books in the Top 100 right now with extra novels included as bonus content. Why weren't they affected?
> 
> All I see here is people trying to (1.) victim shame legit authors for what is most likely a glitch or a mistake and is inconsistent with Amazon's past record of deliberate punitive action and (2.) start with the conclusion that bonus books are a cheat and the cause of all our problems and pick and choose evidence to support it while ignoring obvious points against that claim.


1. Significantly differentiated =

significant = sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
differentiated = to form or mark differently from other such things; distinguish

So, including an already-published book that is the exact same book as a book already published on Amazon would not qualify as "significantly differentiated". I don't understand how this is hard to comprehend. If it's the exact same book as the book already published, it's not significantly differentiated. Period.

2. If something is labeled as "The ____ Collection" and is described in the product description as "The ____ Collection includes the entire series of ____ books in one volume" or something like that, it is clear it is a "collection" and therefore, including all the books in the series is kosher.

The converse holds true: if a book is titled RAM ME HARD: A SHIFTER NEW ADULT BAD BOY BILLIONAIRE STANDALONE HEA ROMANCE and the product description talks only about RAM ME HARD, it is not a collection. If the "bonus" books in the volume have already been published elsewhere in the exact same form, they are not significantly differentiated from books already available on Amazon and are thus prohibited under the program guidelines.

3. The rules may have been written after-the-fact because of scammers screwing up Amazon's store and programs. They still apply. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it and the same applies to Amazon's rules. As business people, we have to keep abreast of the rules, even when they change.

4. Maybe those books weren't reported. Amazon may only be looking at the books that were reported to understand the issue and may eventually look at all books in the top 100 in each category in order to weed out the scammers.

5. If people feel shame at what people have written here calling out scamming, that means they probably think they have been breaking the rules and feel bad. In other words, they have a working conscience. If people have been using scam tactics and they do not feel shame, then they probably don't have a working conscience. I don't scam because it's wrong. Hence, I don't feel shame when I read what people here have written. There's a simple solution for those who feel shame -- stop scamming.

6. This is my business. This is my livelihood. I make money in KU and so it matters to me how effective it is and how reliable it is. When scammers steal money from the KU pool by using scam tactics, they are stealing from me and every other honest author who does not use scam tactics.

7. Just because Amazon may be a big heartless corporation does not absolve people who scam them or their programs.

Why this is hard for some to comprehend, I don't understand...


----------



## Spicy Boi

I posted this yesterday and nobody listened. So I'll post again. 

No matter how you personally feel about bonus content, it's a poor explanation for this incident.  If bonus content is the issue, why were these romance books the only ones targeted? There are other stuffed books in the top 100. And why weren't any books outside of the top 100 targeted? They have bonus content too. 

Sure it's POSSIBLE it's bonus content and Amazon is just being inconsistent in their application of the rules. But it's not the most likely explanation based on a survey of the facts. 

That this comes after the exact same rank-stripping happened with the Dragon book, coupled with the inconsistencies of the bonus explanation suggests it's more likely this is a new anti click farm algo gone awry. 

If you still insist on blaming bonus content then you need stronger reasons why it's more likely than a further application of the Dragonsoul style rank stripping. THAT is the relevant common thread here. Not bonus material. Regardless of what you think of it.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

Perry Constantine said:


> This is a selective reading of the KDP terms. Please read the following, found in the Disappointing Content section of the Guide to Kindle Content Quality:


Everything in this thread is a selective reading.

The actual facts don't support what you're saying. As you read the terms, multi-book bundles full of previously published content -which is a long standing industry practice that long predates ebooks even- are banned according to the TOS and ineligible for Kindle Unlimited. Yet the store is full of them.

Also, Amazon has decided to suddenly enforce this reading of the rules, in a very selective fashion. If it's against the TOS why haven't they clarified this? Why didn't they contact the authors involved to inform them, as is standard practice that they've followed with every previous wave of enforcements or individual issues?



> But saying, "how come these people are being punished while these people get away with it?" is like saying, "how come my friend was doing 80 in a 50 mph zone and didn't get pulled over, while I got a ticket for doing 35 in a 25 mph zone?" Maybe your friend drove during a time when there was no cops around or the cops just weren't paying attention.


Why are you presuming this is a punishment and not a glitch or mistake?

Amazon has a track record of mistakes, unacknowledged errors in the store, and individual employees overreaching with overly broad/narrow readings of the TOS. Why are you making the assumption that this is happening because the authors did something and it's not similar to the examples I already mentioned?

They're not infallible, and most importantly, they are not on our side. We should give authors the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, if there had been a blog post about scammers before the page reads issue last fall, before the also bought bugs, before the review bugs, before the look inside bugs, would you assume those are punitive actions too?



dgaughran said:


> Really? I didn't see a single author/title/publisher named. They are vaguely referred to as "romance" books. No identifying features whatsoever.


This is a discussion of an issue impacting specific people and this "we're not naming names" nonsense is a paper thin defense against attacking the authors personally. Honestly, facebook vagueposts are more mature.



sela said:


> 1. Significantly differentiated =
> 
> significant = sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
> differentiated = to form or mark differently from other such things; distinguish
> 
> So, including an already-published book that is the exact same book as a book already published on Amazon would not qualify as "significantly differentiated". I don't understand how this is hard to comprehend. If it's the exact same book as the book already published, it's not significantly differentiated. Period.


This is a narrow and specific reading of a subjective rule. If the overall file is 50% different from any other book in the store (which it would be if half is new) then it's significantly differentiated.



> 2. If something is labeled as "The ____ Collection" and is described in the product description as "The ____ Collection includes the entire series of ____ books in one volume" or something like that, it is clear it is a "collection" and therefore, including all the books in the series is kosher.


So if the publisher says the content that violates the rules as you read them is okay, then it's okay? Your argument here is that the things you don't like are against the rules.



> 3. The rules may have been written after-the-fact because of scammers screwing up Amazon's store and programs. They still apply. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it and the same applies to Amazon's rules. As business people, we have to keep abreast of the rules, even when they change.


Bonus books aren't causing the problems in the store.



> 4. Maybe those books weren't reported. Amazon may only be looking at the books that were reported to understand the issue and may eventually look at all books in the top 100 in each category in order to weed out the scammers.


So bonus books make you a scammer now?



> 5. If people feel shame at what people have written here calling out scamming, that means they probably think they have been breaking the rules and feel bad. In other words, they have a working conscience. If people have been using scam tactics and they do not feel shame, then they probably don't have a working conscience. I don't scam because it's wrong. Hence, I don't feel shame when I read what people here have written. There's a simple solution for those who feel shame -- stop scamming.


There's three pages of posts calling them thieves, scammers, hacks, cheating erotica authors, and arguing they deserve this. When they don't show up to subject themselves to your insults personally, it's proof of their guilt? People post long strawmen TOCs mocking their books and you take refusal to engage as evidence of guilt?



> 6. This is my business. This is my livelihood. I make money in KU and so it matters to me how effective it is and how reliable it is. When scammers steal money from the KU pool by using scam tactics, they are stealing from me and every other honest author who does not use scam tactics.


People publishing bonus books a aren't stealing from you. If the readers would rather read someone else's bonus books than your book, that's your problem.



> 7. Just because Amazon may be a big heartless corporation does not absolve people who scam them or their programs.


I didn't say that and I didn't argue that. I said that Amazon makes mistakes, punishes legitimate authors for things they didn't do, and issues like the one some authors are seeing now are frequently glitches. The argument that these authros are being punished for something comes down to coincidental timing of a blog post and your personal biases. You assume they're doing something wrong and you're picking and choosing from the available facts to support your conclusions.


----------



## sela

Spicy Boi said:


> I posted this yesterday and nobody listened. So I'll post again.
> 
> No matter how you personally feel about bonus content, it's a poor explanation for this incident. If bonus content is the issue, why were these romance books the only ones targeted? There are other stuffed books in the top 100. And why weren't any books outside of the top 100 targeted? They have bonus content too.
> 
> Sure it's POSSIBLE it's bonus content and Amazon is just being inconsistent in their application of the rules. But it's not the most likely explanation based on a survey of the facts.
> 
> That this comes after the exact same rank-stripping happened with the Dragon book, coupled with the inconsistencies of the bonus explanation suggests it's more likely this is a new anti click farm algo gone awry.
> 
> If you still insist on blaming bonus content then you need stronger reasons why it's more likely than a further application of the Dragonsoul style rank stripping. THAT is the relevant common thread here. Not bonus material. Regardless of what you think of it.


I think you are splitting hairs here.

It has been noted in this thread that a number of books that are suspected of both botting for rank and book stuffing have had their ranks stripped. It has been theorized that Amazon may be studying the matter and considering how to address it. We have discussed botting for rank and book stuffing -- two scams that have been observed in the Amazon Kindle store and bestselling categories.

Authors who have / are considering using botting to boost their rank and/or authors who stuff their books should consider that Amazon may be preparing to move on both those issues and govern themselves accordingly.


----------



## sela

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> This is a narrow and specific reading of a subjective rule. If the overall file is 50% different from any other book in the store (which it would be if half is new) then it's significantly differentiated.


Nope. Bonus content has to be significantly differentiated. Not the "overall file". That's your word, not Amazon's



Acrocanthosaurus said:


> So if the publisher says the content that violates the rules as you read them is okay, then it's okay? Your argument here is that the things you don't like are against the rules.


Just because a book is published on Amazon does not mean that Amazon has said it's okay. We all know it is an automated system with minimal content quality checks. That's why most of this is after-the-fact. Stuff slips under the radar because of Amazon's systems. Scammers take advantage of that to break the rules and slide by. Until they are reported or caught during review.



Acrocanthosaurus said:


> Bonus books aren't causing the problems in the store.
> 
> So bonus books make you a scammer now?


We're not talking about bonus content. Bonus content that meets Amazon program guidelines is not a scam.

We're talking about stuffed books. There's a difference.

Bonus content is significantly differentiated content that is not available in the Kindle Store.

Stuffed books are books that are not significantly differentiated from content available in the Kindle Store.

Simple!



Acrocanthosaurus said:


> People publishing bonus books a aren't stealing from you. If the readers would rather read someone else's bonus books than your book, that's your problem.


People publishing scam books stuffed with books that are not significantly differentiated from content available in the Kindle Store which get illegitimate page reads and bonuses are stealing from me and other authors in KU who do not publish scam books.

We will have to agree to disagree.

In the end, those authors whose books have been stripped of rank will either have their rank reinstated or not. Amazon will decide what is acceptable or not. We'll find out at that point in time.

In the meantime, authors beware. If you are violating TOS, be careful. This is your business. It's up to you to understand the TOS and follow the rules. Ignorance of the rules and violation of them unknowingly can still get your account closed and that would be a very bad thing.


----------



## Phxsundog

Agree with Spicy. I don't think this rank thing happened over bonus books whether you think it's right or wrong. Amazon does the rank stripping punishment to botfarmed books. Some of the romance authors using click farms is the best explanation. I don't doubt it when I know a few of them did other dirty things like stealing content. Can't say about the others getting hit. I bet they fell into a click farm unknowingly or worked with someone unethical who ran it on their books. Amazon deserves bulk of blame. They created a system where bot scamming proliferated.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

sela said:


> Nope. Bonus content has to be significantly differentiated. Not the "overall file". That's your word, not Amazon's


Amazon has never said whether bonus books are undifferentiated content or not. They throw out the word 'significantly' which is subjective and gives them wiggle room do do as they please.

Amazon can detect if content has previously been published, in order to send our a copyright confirmation request. They do not manually review for copyright unless it's after an automated check. If they wanted to implement this to block all bonus books, they could, easily. They do not and remain silent on the issue.

There's nothing to suggest that the current issue has anything to do with bonus books other than rampant, baseless speculation driven by frankly very petty reasoning.

Kindle Unlimited books are read by people and that's where the reads come from. Putting bonuses in books doesn't magically generate reads. The reader still has to keep reading. If a book is good enough that they want to read the next one before they go read something else, that's their choice and the market supports offering them that option.

We're losing sight of what's going on here: If Amazon decided bonus books are no longer okay and wants them gone, they picked a petty and destructive way to go about doing that. No announcement, no contact, only a punitive measure that has nothing to do with bonus books. If that's what they did, that is not okay and we should be on our fellow author's side, not the giant indifferent corporation that views us all as disposable vendors that are easily replaced.

If the issue with these books was a quality issue, which bonus books would be, why didn't they initiate the standard quality control process by removing the book from sale temporarily with a quality flag on the page and a warning dispatched to the author with instructions for corrective measures?

When we're at each other's throats like this we're not demanding explanations and action from Amazon.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Oh, dear. Now I'm wondering if the word 'bonus' is going to trigger some sort of investigation. My book of short stories includes in the blurb: T_here are even two BONUS read-aloud stories for children. _  Perhaps I should take it out, or at least use lower case.


----------



## writerlygal

Ya'll are still bringing your own interpretation to Amazon's TOS. Significantly differentiated content could very well mean you can't publish the same book under a different title. Clearly having a new book that hasn't been published before differentiates that book from others in the store and nothing says bonus books can't be previously published books. Have you authors never heard of bundles? Box sets? It's ridiculous that you're putting down other authors for not agreeing with your own interpretation of what Amazon's TOS might mean. And then hiding behind coy statements like we never said anyone's name. Yeah, just anyone who uses more bonus books then you think should be allowed. It's laughable at this point.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

Actually, the only time I've heard that rule actually being applied explicitly, as in cited by Amazon themselves, is for removal of mirrored books (exact same story with some minor detail changed).

If they were applying it over bonus books I'd think we'd know by now. Someone would have posted an email. Instead it's radio silence.


----------



## 75814

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> Everything in this thread is a selective reading.
> 
> The actual facts don't support what you're saying.


This isn't my interpretation. I quoted *Amazon's* terms. So when we're talking about Amazon's rules and I quote a specific rule, then I'd say that's an actual fact.



> As you read the terms, multi-book bundles full of previously published content -which is a long standing industry practice that long predates ebooks even- are banned according to the TOS and ineligible for Kindle Unlimited. Yet the store is full of them.


This is a new thing because of shady tactics used by some in regards to bundles and box sets. So, Amazon changed the rules and started cracking down on them. Just because Amazon has been lax in regards to this doesn't mean it's not against the rules.



> Also, Amazon has decided to suddenly enforce this reading of the rules, in a very selective fashion. If it's against the TOS why haven't they clarified this? Why didn't they contact the authors involved to inform them, as is standard practice that they've followed with every previous wave of enforcements or individual issues?


Because this isn't the first time Amazon has done something like this. They often shoot first and ask questions later. Whether or not that's right or fair is up for debate. But we're not discussing the ethics of Amazon's behavior, we're discussing what Amazon's terms are. There's a big difference. If you really think this is the first time Amazon has taken action without first informing authors, then I suggest you scroll through some of the past threads on this very board where people have talked about how their books were suddenly taken down without warning. This is not new.

Why did they suddenly enforce this reading? Who knows. Maybe they got a string of reports that made them finally take a look at it. Maybe they just hired someone new who is trying to impress their bosses by going above and beyond.

And why is it being done selectively? I already addressed this in my previous post.



> Why are you presuming this is a punishment and not a glitch or mistake?


I'm not assuming anything. I'm just telling you what the rules state.



> Amazon has a track record of mistakes, unacknowledged errors in the store, and individual employees overreaching with overly broad/narrow readings of the TOS. Why are you making the assumption that this is happening because the authors did something and it's not similar to the examples I already mentioned?


I'm not assuming anything. I'm just telling you what the rules state.



> They're not infallible, and most importantly, they are not on our side. We should give authors the benefit of the doubt.


Why should I give _all_ authors who have been affected by this the benefit of the doubt? I've been doing this for over ten years, and while I've known a lot of ethical, above-board authors, I've also known a _lot_ of authors who would bend or break any and every single rule they could if it meant they could increase their earnings.

If we were talking about a specific author, then I would give them the benefit of the doubt _based on their individual circumstances_. But I'm not going to broadly do so for everyone because there very well could be scammers in that group (and past experience has shown that there very likely are scammers getting caught up in this).

I'm not passing judgment. No one has even been named for judgment to be passed. I'm just speculating on what has happened based on the types of books we've been told have been affected and based on Amazon's terms.



> As I said, if there had been a blog post about scammers before the page reads issue last fall, before the also bought bugs, before the review bugs, before the look inside bugs, would you assume those are punitive actions too?


Not necessarily. I would do what I did when I read David's post--I would look at the evidence he presented, I would investigate the book myself, and I'd make an assumption based on the information available.



> This is a discussion of an issue impacting specific people and this "we're not naming names" nonsense is a paper thin defense against attacking the authors personally. Honestly, facebook vagueposts are more mature.


Please point out who was personally attacked. Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

They cracked down? When?


----------



## sela

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> Amazon has never said whether bonus books are undifferentiated content or not. They throw out the word 'significantly' which is subjective and gives them wiggle room do do as they please.
> 
> Amazon can detect if content has previously been published, in order to send our a copyright confirmation request. They do not manually review for copyright unless it's after an automated check. If they wanted to implement this to block all bonus books, they could, easily. They do not and remain silent on the issue.
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that the current issue has anything to do with bonus books other than rampant, baseless speculation driven by frankly very petty reasoning.
> 
> Kindle Unlimited books are read by people and that's where the reads come from. Putting bonuses in books doesn't magically generate reads. The reader still has to keep reading. If a book is good enough that they want to read the next one before they go read something else, that's their choice and the market supports offering them that option.
> 
> We're losing sight of what's going on here: If Amazon decided bonus books are no longer okay and wants them gone, they picked a petty and destructive way to go about doing that. No announcement, no contact, only a punitive measure that has nothing to do with bonus books. If that's what they did, that is not okay and we should be on our fellow author's side, not the giant indifferent corporation that views us all as disposable vendors that are easily replaced.
> 
> If the issue with these books was a quality issue, which bonus books would be, why didn't they initiate the standard quality control process by removing the book from sale temporarily with a quality flag on the page and a warning dispatched to the author with instructions for corrective measures?
> 
> When we're at each other's throats like this we're not demanding explanations and action from Amazon.


_Bonus content_ has to meet _program guidelines_. Ergo, if an extra book is not significantly differentiated from a book already available in the Kindle Store, it is in violation of the program guidelines.

That is so simple, I fail to see how you can misunderstand this.

Amazon has set out program guidelines. It's up to us to follow them -- or not. If we choose not to follow the program guidelines, we will have to face whatever consequences Amazon chooses to impose. Some people may decide they want to take that risk and ignore program guidelines, publishing material that breaks the TOS. Because of Amazon's automated system in which each book published is not hand vetted, material that breaks TOS will get through. This does not mean Amazon doesn't care. If they didn't care, they would not have created program guidelines that prohibit certain kinds of content.

Amazon allows bonus content but it has to follow all program guidelines. Program guidelines state clearly that content is prohibited when it is not significantly differentiated from content available in the Kindle Store. That means that stuffed books are not permitted, even if Amazon doesn't actively vet each book to make sure the content is not prohibited. It has program guidelines that we are supposed to know and we are supposed to follow as business people. We want Amazon to honor the TOS and pay us when our content is sold / pages are read. Amazon expects us to follow the TOS as written.

Many readers read books several times. I know my readers talk of re-reading my series several times, especially re-reading the series before a new book in the series comes out. Amazon doesn't want to pay for multiple reads of the same content, so it has prohibited this in the guidelines and is prohibited. Anything that would intentionally lead to multiple reads being counted in error is prohibited.

Amazon is concerned with customer experience. Its business is premised on great customer experience and that is why it has cornered the market. Amazon has defined bad customer experience to include content that is not significantly differentiated from content that is available in the Kindle Store. So stuffed books give readers a bad customer experience and break the TOS regarding an author getting paid multiple times for the same material.

We're not at each other's throats. We're calling out scammers because they make it bad for all of us.

Scammers are why we can't have nice things.


----------



## 75814

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> They cracked down? When?


Few months ago, I believe. I've heard of bundles in KU that also have the individual books in KU that were taken down or sent nastygrams.


----------



## Becca Mills

It seems to me there may be too much we don't know here to draw useful conclusions.

I can very much see the point about "significantly differentiated" as a component of Amazon's language. Thinking about different ways of bundling ...

1) The author of a six-book series creates two three-book bundles, the first containing Books 1, 2, and 3, and the second containing Books 4, 5, and 6. The two bundles are significantly differentiated from one another because they contain entirely different books, and both bundles are significantly differentiated from the singleton novels in the series because they each contain three book instead of one.

2) A bunch of authors get together and publish a boxed set. Even before the new rules about not having duplicate material in boxed sets, the boxed set would've been significantly differentiated because it was a unique combination of books.

3) But if an author does the kind of thing Perry outlined ...


Perry Constantine said:


> Book 1
> -Book 2 (bonus)
> -Book 3 (bonus)
> -Book 4 (bonus)
> 
> Book 2
> -Book 1 (bonus)
> -Book 3 (bonus)
> -Book 4 (bonus)
> 
> Book 3
> -Book 1 (bonus)
> -Book 2 (bonus)
> -Book 4 (bonus)
> 
> Book 4
> -Book 1 (bonus)
> -Book 2 (bonus)
> -Book 3 (bonus)


... those books won't be significantly differentiated from one another. Yes, they're differentiated in that the order of material is different, but they're not significantly differentiated in that all the same sentences appear in four books.

All that said, miaa, who seems to know which books have been ranked stripped, looked at some of them and listed their commonalities:



miaa said:


> To echo what PhoenixS mentioned, these are just my observations about a number of the rank-stripped books that I've seen, all by different authors (they're all in each other's also-boughts).
> 
> They are all 99c romances by reasonably established authors, all enrolled in KU.
> They have all included additional content after the actual book.
> Some have included another full-length novel which is already available for sale elsewhere on Amazon, so that the actual book ends at around 50%.
> Some have included numerous book "previews" which are several chapters in length or an exclusive 'never before published' book.
> Some have included a 'bonus short story collection'.
> One of the books has a TOC with: the actual book, followed by a short story collection, followed by numerous previews of other books, and then a link to another bonus book, let's just call it 'X'. In the front matter, the author says "I've included bonus book 'X', which you can access from the TOC.'


I'm not seeing an indication that all the books miaa looked at are offering insignificantly differentiated content of the type Perry proposed. And if there are other non-deranked books in the Top 100 that include substantial bonus material, that's further indication that bonus offerings are not the problem.

So, who knows? It'd be great if it turned out to be a glitch. It's true that we've seen rankings fall away in the past, only to reappear later, but I think this has been a store-wide thing every time it's happened.



Acrocanthosaurus said:


> This is a discussion of an issue impacting specific people and this "we're not naming names" nonsense is a paper thin defense against attacking the authors personally.


I really don't think so. I've read this entire thread, and I have no idea who any of these authors are. Not a single one of them. And if the books' ranks have been stripped, there's no way for me to go look them up, as they're not in the Top 100 any longer. Some people are obviously in the know because they're in private loops with these authors or have gotten scuttlebutt from those who are, but this thread is not spreading that knowledge to a single additional person, so far as I can tell.

Any posts that do identify them should be reported immediately.


----------



## CassieL

I'm not a lawyer but I have spent 15+ years interpreting regulatory requirements in my industry and my reading of those terms is similar to Sela's.

If you publish book A, book B, and book C and then an omnibus of books A, B, and C those books are all different content.
If you publish book 1 with books A, B, and C in that order and then book 2 with books B, C, and A and then book 3 with books C, B, and A those are not different.  All three of those books offer the exact same product.

I suspect if this is about bonus books that, like with all things in the indie world, someone started out doing something that was probably allowed like including a holiday short after their novel then someone else thought why don't I include another novel not just a short story and then someone else thought, hell, why not five novels and it just spiraled from there.


----------



## sela

writerlygal said:


> Ya'll are still bringing your own interpretation to Amazon's TOS. Significantly differentiated content could very well mean you can't publish the same book under a different title. Clearly having a new book that hasn't been published before differentiates that book from others in the store and nothing says bonus books can't be previously published books. Have you authors never heard of bundles? Box sets? It's ridiculous that you're putting down other authors for not agreeing with your own interpretation of what Amazon's TOS might mean. And then hiding behind coy statements like we never said anyone's name. Yeah, just anyone who uses more bonus books then you think should be allowed. It's laughable at this point.


No, Amazon is quite clear that bonus content has to follow program guidelines and meet program quality guidelines. Stuffed books do not follow program guidelines.

Boxed sets are allowed because they are clearly labeled as collections and usually say so in the title and product description. You are selectively reading.

But I will tell you one thing I know -- if this book stuffing continues and if Amazon gets fed up and brings down its Thor hammer? It may outlaw boxed sets and collections along with the stuffed books.

THEN people will be really angry at the book stuffers.

Book stuffing is scamming. It is not "bonus content" as defined in Amazon's TOS. We've quoted Amazon TOS and Guidelines _verbatim_ on bonus content and product quality. If people are still not getting it, I suspect it's because they don't want to.


----------



## writerlygal

Mxz said:


> I don't know who all of the romance authors who had their rank stripped are, and if they're innocent, but I looked at one that had been stuffing for almost a year and she had her rank stripped on one of the books. I also saw today that a couple other authors who stuffed their books, using previously released books, to get page counts like 1800 now have page counts of 250 and 100 on those same books. So they totally knew they were doing wrong. They just quickly fixed it before their rank was taken away. Edited to say that one still has that high KNEP- and "bonus" 4 novels, but now it's linked to the paperback to decrease the obvious stuffed page count.
> 
> There still are about 9 books in the top Romance 100 with about 1 to 5 stuffed novels from previous releases or stuffed "previews" of previous releases, which they may consider "bonus content." I wonder if these books will keep their ranks or the author will upload a file without all of the extra "bonuses," especially since they'll find out that some books have disabled ranks.


Several books that had rankings stripped had 1 or 2 bonus books only. And as you point out several books with lots of bonus books are still in the top 100. Not to mention the rest of the store. No one else that I know of has had this happen to them no matter how many bonus books they have. Pretty darn sure if this was a bonus book problem the issue would be more widespread.

So perhaps the theory that this is about bonus books is just plain incorrect. Even though all this forum likes to talk about is bonus books so it's probably impossible to focus attention on any other more reasonable theories.

Just because a lot of people here don't like bonus books doesn't mean Amazon doesn't.

I for one would put my back catalog wide if Amazon didn't allow bonus books. They are worth more to me as bonus books than they are sitting around not earning much money in my back catalog since KU readers like new releases & Amazon pushes the new releases more. Perhaps it's the Big Bad Zon's way of keeping bestselling Amazon authors exclusive with their whole catalog to Amazon rather than taking our books to competitor platforms.

Just an alternative theory to ponder. Because you have to wonder why- if ya'll are correct that Amazon doesn't want to pay authors 2or 3 times or more for the same content to be continually read as bonus books- they allow it & don't have anything specifically forbidding it or enforcing it. Certainly less than a dozen books with rankings removed on a weekend when lots of eyeballs are on the store because some sci fi author bought their way to the top of the list- without warnings issued to those authors telling them to remove bonus books or else or anything along those lines- is not evidence that Amazon is cracking down on bonus books. You would need more evidence to prove that case. So either the previously published bonus books benefit Amazon or Amazon just doesn't care.

If Amazon cared- if it affected it in some negative way- then everyone with previously published bonus books would soon find out very quickly that Amazon doesn't like it & it better change or else. Maybe that's coming down the pipelines as ya'll have predicted for ages but maybe it's kind of like the radical religious people who keep saying the end is near, repent, we are going to see the end of the world on this date! ! ! ! One day they will be right just like a broken clock sometimes is, & IMO they will be 'right' despite having the completely the wrong rationale & blaming all the wrong people, but so far that day hasn't come so perhaps it's a bit unproductive to keep focusing on it & turning on fellow authors for doing things Amazon has not let us know it doesn't like.

That's just my opinion & ya'll are entitled to yours. This post isn't just aimed at this one but everyone jumping to the conclusions they want to find & demonizing other authors due to their own bias against bonus books.

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


----------



## sela

Cassie Leigh said:


> I'm not a lawyer but I have spent 15+ years interpreting regulatory requirements in my industry and my reading of those terms is similar to Sela's.


I wrote program guidelines for 15 years. 

As to how this all started, I'm sure the book stuffing started as a way to repackage material and get extra page reads. I don't see why we would think anything different. Back before KU 2.0, people specifically wrote 10 page books so that they'd get a full payout for a person merely opening the book. Scam. Once KU 1.0 was changed to deal with the scamphlets, people started padding books with extra content -- badly translated versions of the main book, recipes, all kinds of scraped content, to get illegitimate page reads. Scam. In KU 2.0, people put links to the back of the book in order to generate a huge page read payout for content that was not read. Scam.

I see no reason to think that including a half-dozen or dozen extra books in different order is anything different. Scam.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

Wait.

All undifferentiated content is banned.

However, if I put out a book full of undifferentiated content and call it a collection, it's okay?

Why? Because I said so?

I'm arguing that these rules are inconsistent and subjective and you're arguing that they're not by demonstrating how inconsistent and subjective they are.

We'd be better off if Amazon explicitly banned bonus books and bundles from Kindle Unlimited and forced every book in the program to be a single, original book. Bundles don't make much sense for a subscription program anyway. The point of a bundle is a discount on the books. The point of a subscription program is that you're already paying a pittance on a per book basis.

The system encourages bundling and doing everything. Don't blame authors for publishing bundles. Blame Amazon for a broken system that aggressively devalues our work.

For the record, I think one of two things happened here:

1. This is a glitch. It's a bug, straight up. The appearance that it is not is pure coincidence.

2. Amazon tried to implement some kind of automated check for suspicious behavior and it's too sensitive or ineffective. They're not going to individually review books. They don't have the manpower.

Reasons why it's unrelated to bonus books:

1. They didn't do this to all the books with bonus books

2. They haven't told the authors it was because of bonus books

3. They have a process for major quality issues, and it doesn't include stripping rank



sela said:


> I see no reason to think that including a half-dozen or dozen extra books in different order is anything different. Scam.


What about one? Two?

Publishing a book with 2 older books behind it is a scam but publishing 3 old books together is a bundle?


----------



## Seneca42

Lynn is a pseud--uh said:


> I've seen people have their livelihoods completely upended by Amazon more times than I can count. Because of that, I toe the line and I do with extra caution and frankly, I recommend anyone serious about hanging on to any of their accounts with Amazon do the same. If you get too brave or bold or creative in your TOS interpretations, maybe it will pay off-or maybe you'll get squashed.


This is what I don't get. Is this a hobby or a business? If it's a business, then it's *very* clear that if you write a book and sell a book that you are 100% fine. If you write a trilogy and offer a box set, you are 100% fine.

Anything beyond that, if you aren't contacting Amazon to get confirmation that what you are doing is okay, you are taking a risk.

This is getting a bit ridiculous that people are working so hard to go outside the standard publishing model and then getting wound up when they get in trouble for it and arguing technicalities ("but in paragraph C, subsection 7.11, it was unclear what you meant by the word _is_. Therefore, because it was unclear, anything I've done is fine.")

If publishing is your business, act like a business person and make sure what you are doing is legal (edit: within the rules). It takes almost no effort to contact amazon to confirm that whatever you are doing (or planning to do) is okay with them. I mean, there's a lot of things to knock Amazon on, but access to a CSR isn't one of them.


----------



## sela

writerlygal said:


> Several books that had rankings stripped had 1 or 2 bonus books only. And as you point out several books with lots of bonus books are still in the top 100. Not to mention the rest of the store. No one else that I know of has had this happen to them no matter how many bonus books they have. Pretty darn sure if this was a bonus book problem the issue would be more widespread.
> 
> So perhaps the theory that this is about bonus books is just plain incorrect. Even though all this forum likes to talk about is bonus books so it's probably impossible to focus attention on any other more reasonable theories.
> 
> Just because a lot of people here don't like bonus books doesn't mean Amazon doesn't.
> 
> I for one would put my back catalog wide if Amazon didn't allow bonus books. They are worth more to me as bonus books than they are sitting around not earning much money in my back catalog since KU readers like new releases & Amazon pushes the new releases more. Perhaps it's the Big Bad Zon's way of keeping bestselling Amazon authors exclusive with their whole catalog to Amazon rather than taking our books to competitor platforms.
> 
> Just an alternative theory to ponder. Because you have to wonder why- if ya'll are correct that Amazon doesn't want to pay authors 2or 3 times or more for the same content to be continually read as bonus books- they allow it & don't have anything specifically forbidding it or enforcing it. Certainly less than a dozen books with rankings removed on a weekend when lots of eyeballs are on the store because some sci fi author bought their way to the top of the list- without warnings issued to those authors telling them to remove bonus books or else or anything along those lines- is not evidence that Amazon is cracking down on bonus books. You would need more evidence to prove that case. So either the previously published bonus books benefit Amazon or Amazon just doesn't care.
> 
> If Amazon cared- if it affected it in some negative way- then everyone with previously published bonus books would soon find out very quickly that Amazon doesn't like it & it better change or else. Maybe that's coming down the pipelines as ya'll have predicted for ages but maybe it's kind of like the radical religious people who keep saying the end is near, repent, we are going to see the end of the world on this date! ! ! ! One day they will be right just like a broken clock sometimes is, & IMO they will be 'right' despite having the completely the wrong rationale & blaming all the wrong people, but so far that day hasn't come so perhaps it's a bit unproductive to keep focusing on it & turning on fellow authors for doing things Amazon has not let us know it doesn't like.
> 
> That's just my opinion & ya'll are entitled to yours. This post isn't just aimed at this one but everyone jumping to the conclusions they want to find & demonizing other authors due to their own bias against bonus books.
> 
> _Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


You are assuming that Amazon actively polices books to make sure that authors are following guidelines. Nope. They use the fewest humans that they can get away with to run the store. They have minimal tech in place to scan content for spelling mistakes, etc. Their margins are premised on that and on automating everything.

They publish TOS and expect people to read and follow them. They have put in place minimal checks to ensure content meets guidelines. They revise those guidelines frequently to counter scammers. Scammers are always ahead of the game -- in Amazon and in every industry.

Amazon relies on us to understand and follow TOS. When we click that button when we publish, we select that check mark that we have read and understood the TOS and are following them. It's up to us to do that. We can't go back and plead ignorance after the fact when Amazon closes down our account for violations of TOS.

They also rely on customers to report bad content.

Authors who follow the TOS have every right to be angry at authors who break TOS and thus get money from the KU pot that they don't deserve based on the TOS and program guidelines.

A word to the wise -- some people may get away with scamming Amazon for a long term or a short term, but if Amazon brings down the ban hammer, it will be them crying, not me.


----------



## Becca Mills

writerlygal said:


> Several books that had rankings stripped had 1 or 2 bonus books only. And as you point out several books with lots of bonus books are still in the top 100. Not to mention the rest of the store. No one else that I know of has had this happen to them no matter how many bonus books they have. Pretty darn sure if this was a bonus book problem the issue would be more widespread.
> 
> So perhaps the theory that this is about bonus books is just plain incorrect. Even though all this forum likes to talk about is bonus books so it's probably impossible to focus attention on any other more reasonable theories.


Speaking as someone who's not all that knowledgeable about this stuff, the top paragraph above does strike me as a fairly convincing refutation of bonus-books as an explanation. It's hardly the only explanation that's been offered, though. Botting has also been suggested, with possible evidence being that all the deranked books are in one another's also-bots. So far as I've noticed, this thread has offered three theories: 1) it's a glitch/algorithm misfire; 2) it's the bonus books; 3) the books were botted. It's to our members' credit, IMO, that most have not advocated No. 3, which is the worst possibility. No. 2 isn't really so bad, many authors honestly believe bonus books do not go against Amazon's TOS.

What do you think a "more reasonable theory" would be, writerlygal?


----------



## nikkykaye

[raises hand] I have an embarrassingly ignorant question, the answer to which I have not figured out during this thread.

What exactly is "rank-stripping"?


----------



## 75814

nikkykaye said:


> [raises hand] I have an embarrassingly ignorant question, the answer to which I have not figured out during this thread.
> 
> What exactly is "rank-stripping"?


It's when a book is still available on Amazon, but if you look at the details, you won't see any rank in the overall store or individual categories listed. It essentially means making your book invisible to the best-seller charts.


----------



## Going Incognito

Perry Constantine said:


> Few months ago, I believe. I've heard of bundles in KU that also have the individual books in KU that were taken down or sent nastygrams.


If/when the various books in the bundle and the bundle itself are published on multiple dashboards. So in a multi author bundle, the individual stories *or* the bundle can be in KU, but not both. Your own bundled series with the individual stories and the bundle itself can all be in KU, as they're all published on the same dashboard.


----------



## unkownwriter

I don't know. I've never done anything wrong, and Amazon has dropped a nuke more than once that caught me up and messed up my earning potential. Innocent authors do get hurt, but that's how it goes with anything. I mean, if an innocent person is wrongly convicted of murder, do we stop prosecuting murder cases? No, we try our best to not get innocent people for crimes they didn't do. Not a perfect system by any means, and that's just how it is with Amazon.

I think what's eventually going to be officially KUv3 is that only single books will be allowed in KU, with a cap of 1000 KENPC or less. Probably a lot less (I'd guess at 500). No bundles, no collections, no box sets, no bonus content. Back matter will be cut off like front matter is. People will scream and pull out their hair, because they've done nothing wrong and their income is once again slashed because some people can't play nice and let us have good things. Then those people will find a way around the new rules and exploit whatever loophole gets created or overlooked. Maybe botting will be stopped, maybe not. Like we used to say in the USAF:  SSDD. Same Sh*t, Different Day.

No one here is attacking other authors. What we are doing is expressing our extreme distaste for people who will do anything to cheat their way up the lists and into All Star Bonuses (which, in my opinion, need to go away). If this discussion is getting too close to home, it may be time to really reflect on how one wants to run their business.

The MOAB is coming, folks. Duck and cover!


----------



## Mercedes Vox

she-la-ti-da said:


> I think what's eventually going to be officially KUv3 is that only single books will be allowed in KU, with a cap of 1000 KENPC or less. Probably a lot less (I'd guess at 500).


Holy balls, I hope not. That would basically force me to split four of my novels into two books each, such as my behemoth 180,000-word World War II historical.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

If they cap KENPC like that and ban repeated content, scammers will fill books with gibberish, publish them, and float hundreds of them at a time with clickfarms to take reads, just as they do now.

If they don't do something about that problem, a new KENPC cap and bonus book ban will hurt legitimate authors. KU is a zero sum game and those measures, without doing something about actual scam artists, will give the clickfarmers an advantage.

Here's what they can do:

1. Apply the filter software that catches duplicate content for copyright purposes to all books and actually enforce the TOS.

2. Limit the number of books that can be published in a month. No legitimate author needs to publish 1000 books in a month.

3. Create a separate system for publishers who handle multiple author's books, who would publish above the limit, and vet them so people can't just sign up and publish 1,000 copies of a book called "The Reluctant Goat" filled with the same machine translated paragraph over and over up to 3000kenpc. If the people who can do that are in their own ecosystem the'll be easier to catch if the scam their way in and then engage in fraud/schemes.


----------



## sela

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> Wait.
> 
> All undifferentiated content is banned.
> 
> However, if I put out a book full of undifferentiated content and call it a collection, it's okay?
> 
> Why? Because I said so?
> 
> I'm arguing that these rules are inconsistent and subjective and you're arguing that they're not by demonstrating how inconsistent and subjective they are.
> 
> We'd be better off if Amazon explicitly banned bonus books and bundles from Kindle Unlimited and forced every book in the program to be a single, original book. Bundles don't make much sense for a subscription program anyway. The point of a bundle is a discount on the books. The point of a subscription program is that you're already paying a pittance on a per book basis.
> 
> The system encourages bundling and doing everything. Don't blame authors for publishing bundles. Blame Amazon for a broken system that aggressively devalues our work.
> 
> For the record, I think one of two things happened here:
> 
> 1. This is a glitch. It's a bug, straight up. The appearance that it is not is pure coincidence.
> 
> 2. Amazon tried to implement some kind of automated check for suspicious behavior and it's too sensitive or ineffective. They're not going to individually review books. They don't have the manpower.
> 
> Reasons why it's unrelated to bonus books:
> 
> 1. They didn't do this to all the books with bonus books
> 
> 2. They haven't told the authors it was because of bonus books
> 
> 3. They have a process for major quality issues, and it doesn't include stripping rank
> 
> What about one? Two?
> 
> Publishing a book with 2 older books behind it is a scam but publishing 3 old books together is a bundle?


Amazon defines bad quality content as that which is not significantly differentiated from content already available in the Kindle Store.

Significantly differentiated.

Not "all undifferentiated". You are splitting hairs here.

If you have ten stand alone novels published and then publish a collection of those ten, it is a collection. Kosher.

If you have ten stand alone novels published and then publish ten collections of those ten with the same content but a different opening novel, you are breaking TOS.

You are breaking TOS if you only do three books of ten rearranged in different orders or if you do thirty books of ten or thirty books of thirty. It's not the number. It's the fact that you are publishing multiple collections of the same material. Material that is already available in the Kindle Store.

There's no other reason to do it than to get more page reads because each of those books is considered a separate book in the eyes of the bots that determine page reads. An author doing this gets paid for the same content multiple times.

That breaks TOS.

Amazon most often doesn't tell us anything. What it does is change the algos and program guidelines and merely expect us to deal. So the fact that Amazon hasn't told any of us anything means nothing. Nada. Nichts.

The fact that some authors were dinged and other authors weren't dinged means nothing. Nada. Nichts. Amazon was probably responding to reports.

"Nobody knows anything." William Goldman


----------



## MattHaggis

I think it is a disgrace that people have posted on here that book stuffing is fine because *look over there* there are scammers, so these authors had to do this to compete.

_Edited. We don't do name-calling, here. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## PhoenixS

Becca Mills said:


> Speaking as someone who's not all that knowledgeable about this stuff, the top paragraph above does strike me as a fairly convincing refutation of bonus-books as an explanation. It's hardly the only explanation that's been offered, though. Botting has also been suggested, with possible evidence being that all the deranked books are in one another's also-bots. So far as I've noticed, this thread has offered three theories: 1) it's a glitch/algorithm misfire; 2) it's the bonus books; 3) the books were botted. It's to our members' credit, IMO, that most have not advocated No. 3, which is the worst possibility. No. 2 isn't really so bad, many authors honestly believe bonus books do not go against Amazon's TOS.
> 
> What do you think a "more reasonable theory" would be, writerlygal?


There's a number 4 and a number 5 that, in KBoards-speak, is to our credit we're not flashing around here because while they *seem* apparent in the cases of the group of romance books and writers now under discussion, we can't be as certain of. Some of us can speculate about those more reasonable theories, but I'm betting, Becca, you and the other mods wouldn't like it. *I* personally don't believe *just* the stuffing going on that's publicly visible and easy to point a finger at as being a T&C violation is the whole cause of the rank-stripping in these particular cases. But that's opinion and based only on what I've seen of these books and the histories I've been able to glean from them since yesterday morning when they were brought to my attention.

I mentioned a couple of pages back that the bonus books issues are simply the low-hanging fruit and the very clear violations that we can point to in polite company. I can assure you those other theories are being raised in less-polite company/FB groups.

Still, I am intrigued as to what writerlygal thinks might be the cause.


----------



## Caimh

As someone who had no idea what book stuffing was 24 hours ago - in all honesty it just seems like a very clear abuse of the system. Are there any wide authors who have five free books shoved in at the back of a book? I doubt it. This is clearly something being done to game the KU system. If you just wanted to make all of your books available to the readers, then do a boxset. As a KU user, it would strike me as obviously shady.

However - I will point out something I've noticed. I think I've seen a non-romance author having their books de-ranked today and I have no evidence of botting or stuffing. However - I think they did have their books in Instafreebie at the same time. Is it possible that this is the reason behind some of the de-rankings? It is against TOS I think although personally, it doesn't strike me as anywhere near as bad as botting.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

If they're in KU and have it available via InstaFreebie they'll get a nastygram, a chance to remove it, and if it's their first time, they'll be informed they have two more strikes before they're removed from KU permanently.

Amazon does not remove ranks in response to KU TOS violations or quality guideline issues. In both cases they are very clear and direct.


----------



## Seneca42

Caimh said:


> However - I will point out something I've noticed. I think I've seen a non-romance author having their books de-ranked today and I have no evidence of botting or stuffing. However - I think they did have their books in Instafreebie at the same time. Is it possible that this is the reason behind some of the de-rankings? It is against TOS I think although personally, it doesn't strike me as anywhere near as bad as botting.


This is an easy mistake to make, but yes, it's still a pretty serious one. The whole point of being in KU is amazon locks you into their ecosystem. If you're putting a book in KU but also giving it away free on IF (to zon, kobo, itunes, nook readers) you're circumventing the entire purpose of KU from amazon's perspective.

But this one actually is a pretty easy mistake to make and very easy to correct. So deranking for that is maybe a tad extreme.

This is the problem though, the amount of people ignoring Amazon's rules is so out of control what choice does Amazon have to but to nuke the hell out of anyone that breaks the rules? Although, I'm still not sure they'll do that. The coming weeks will tell. I've got my eye on a few books and if they get nuked, then watch out, it means Amazon is digging deep to resolve the issue.


----------



## PhoenixS

Caimh said:


> However - I will point out something I've noticed. I think I've seen a non-romance author having their books de-ranked today and I have no evidence of botting or stuffing. However - I think they did have their books in Instafreebie at the same time. Is it possible that this is the reason behind some of the de-rankings? It is against TOS I think although personally, it doesn't strike me as anywhere near as bad as botting.


As a purely general comment (I have no idea what book you might be talking about here), many people willing to scam/defraud/increase their competitive advantage in unethical ways using one tactic are likely to be engaged in multiple tactics. Some are obvious, such as bonus book stuffing and using instafreebie while in Select. Some aren't as obvious, such as incentivized buys and borrows done through closed Facebook groups. Those catching Amazon's notice might be engaged in just one major violation ... or in multiple violations of varying degrees of badness.


----------



## G.L. Snodgrass

I don't know why these particular books were dinged. We may never know all the details. I do believe though, that Amazon is like the IRS. Every so often, the make an example of a few authors who are bending the rules. It helps to keep everyone else in line. If that doesn't work. They bring down the Thor's hammer.

I wonder if over the last few days, a great many authors haven't scrambled to upload revised editions that meet TOS, or the new perception of the TOS. A few examples can go a long way. 

Don't forget, Amazon's survival doesn't depend on KU, to them, this is a minor spill in a distant aisle. What is more. They are perfectly aware that someone will spill something tomorrow.

All they can do is try to keep things under control so the customers are happy. Without having to spend a hole bunch of money fixing a problem that isn't that huge compared with the thousand other problems they are dealing with each day.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

Lynn is a pseud--uh said:


> Anyone who doesn't expect Amazon to deal with this or any other issue in this manner hasn't been working with Amazon long enough. Ask any long-term affiliate. Amazon has ALWAYS been this way.
> 
> I've seen people have their livelihoods completely upended by Amazon more times than I can count. Because of that, I toe the line and I do it with extra caution and frankly, I recommend anyone serious about hanging on to any of their accounts with Amazon do the same. If you get too brave or bold or creative in your TOS interpretations, maybe it will pay off--or maybe you'll get squashed.


This 100%.

As someone who got caught up in the great Erotica purges of days past, I couldn't nod in agreement fast enough. Amazon can and will make sudden policy changes that negatively impact authors. I think many authors are pointing to book stuffing as a possible issue, because of past experiences with Amazon. But this entire situation has the feel of a coming purge. I've been through previous such purges with Amazon, and IMHO now is not the best time to play fast and loose with TOS interpretations. Again, each author needs to do what's right for them. What's right for me, is to just follow Amazon's rules to the freaking letter.

Again, none of us really know what's going on. As usual, Amazon is being secretive and isn't revealing much information. And just like in days past, it's up to the indie community to try and figure out what's going on. But if this is the start of a book purge, I would like to know what the hell is triggering it. Like GI Joe says, knowing is half the battle.


----------



## Becca Mills

novel1st said:


> I'm one of the authors involved. I stuff. Sue me. You think it's against TOS, well when I spoke to the rep from Amazon today about this very issue I was told it wasn't the issue - it was the first thing I asked. Now, she might have known as much as my pet goldfish's left nut (indeed, that's likely), but that's what we're going with for now.


Did the rep you spoke to say the rank-stripping was just a glitch? If so, did she have any idea what caused it?


----------



## novel1st

Becca Mills said:


> Did the rep you spoke to say the rank-stripping was just a glitch? If so, did she have any idea what caused it?


There was no indication it was punitive. Lucky me I get to wait 48 hours for the technical team to respond. One thing I haven't seen you guys dig into is why it was only our top 100 books. I have another book doing well (edit: rank removed from original for privacy) that didn't get touched. If they thought we were botting they'd have nuked our catalogs, I would have thought.


----------



## Becca Mills

novel1st said:


> There was no indication it was punitive. Lucky me I get to wait 48 hours for the technical team to respond. One thing I haven't seen you guys dig into is why it was only our top 100 books. I have another book below (the good below) #200 that didn't get touched. If they thought we were botting they'd have nuked our catalogs, I would have thought.


I'm not sure we've seen enough clear examples to know what Amazon's doing to authors caught botting. While _Dragonsoul_ is still unranked, that author's other books have ranks now. So maybe an author's entire catalog doesn't get nuked, at least the first time around?


----------



## novel1st

Becca Mills said:


> I'm not sure we've seen enough clear examples to know what Amazon's doing to authors caught botting. While _Dragonsoul_ is still unranked, that author's other books have ranks now. So maybe an author's entire catalog doesn't get nuked, at least the first time around?


True enough. That's why I say we all calm down and wait and see. If Amazon are writing new policy on the fly we'll find out. But all that happened when I lost my rank is that some other authors I know jumped into the chart. It was hardly a clean sweep.

As usual none of us know what's going on, least of all Amazon.


----------



## Cactus Lady

zzz said:


> The simple solution to book stuffing, and a lot of other problems at Amazon, is to charge $10 to publish an eBook. It would be an insignificant expense to publishers and it would allow Amazon to hire hundreds or thousands of workers to actually look at every book submitted. They wouldn't have to look for quality of writing, but could easily spot stuffed books, scraped content, gibberish, and even crappy formatting. They could also look at keyword stuffing in the titles. Actually $1 per book would cover the labor cost using third-world English speakers, at $5 they could hire Americans, and at $10 it would be a juicy profit center.


$10 a book is nothing to scammers who are making thousands from their scams. But for poor but honest authors, who sometimes are scraping by making $10-$20 a month, that's enough to keep them from being able to publish at all.


----------



## sela

Kyra Halland said:


> $10 a book is nothing to scammers who are making thousands from their scams. But for poor but honest authors, who sometimes are scraping by making $10-$20 a month, that's enough to keep them from being able to publish at all.


Agreed. For some, that would be prohibitive.

What Amazon should do is only allow the titled content to be eligible for page reads. So you could stuff your books full of the any old crap scraped off the internet or recycled from other books if you wanted and there would be no page reads for any of it.

Of course, that would negate the reason to stuff books full of "bonus" content and repeat content endlessly...


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

That isn't technically feasible. Your Kindle doesn't know what "page" you've read. There are no pages to track.

How KENPC works is that Amazon uses a formula to calculate a numerical value for your book (I'm not sure if it's based on word count or character count or something else) and when a user's kindle sends a last read point to the servers, you get that a percentage of your book's KENPC based on that stopping point.

The system doesn't know what words you've read and it has no way to track that. It can only tell where you stopped in the file.

You'll notice that Amazon never refers to your books' pages, only to its KENPC. The wording of these descriptions is both very careful and slightly deceptive, implying that they are aware of pages in the same sense that a physical paper book has specific pages on specific sheets of paper. Kindle books don't work that way.

This is why you may not get paid if a reader goes back to the middle part of a book before the device sends the location info back to Amazon, or if they open page flip and never close it again.


----------



## sela

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> That isn't technically feasible. Your Kindle doesn't know what "page" you've read. There are no pages to track.
> 
> How KENPC works is that Amazon uses a formula to calculate a numerical value for your book (I'm not sure if it's based on word count or character count or something else) and when a user's kindle sends a last read point to the servers, you get that a percentage of your book's KENPC based on that stopping point.
> 
> The system doesn't know what words you've read and it has no way to track that. It can only tell where you stopped in the file.
> 
> You'll notice that Amazon never refers to your books' pages, only to its KENPC. The wording of these descriptions is both very careful and slightly deceptive, implying that they are aware of pages in the same sense that a physical paper book has specific pages on specific sheets of paper. Kindle books don't work that way.
> 
> This is why you may not get paid if a reader goes back to the middle part of a book before the device sends the location info back to Amazon, or if they open page flip and never close it again.


I'm pretty sure it would be possible to determine where the titled content ends -- say at 35% of KENP. If a reader stopped reading before 35%, they would get paid for whatever percent < 35%. If the reader stopped reading at 100%, the author would get paid for 35%.

Stuff away. You'd only get paid for 35% maximum.

Simple.


----------



## 75814

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> That isn't technically feasible. Your Kindle doesn't know what "page" you've read. There are no pages to track.
> 
> How KENPC works is that Amazon uses a formula to calculate a numerical value for your book (I'm not sure if it's based on word count or character count or something else) and when a user's kindle sends a last read point to the servers, you get that a percentage of your book's KENPC based on that stopping point.
> 
> The system doesn't know what words you've read and it has no way to track that. It can only tell where you stopped in the file.
> 
> You'll notice that Amazon never refers to your books' pages, only to its KENPC. The wording of these descriptions is both very careful and slightly deceptive, implying that they are aware of pages in the same sense that a physical paper book has specific pages on specific sheets of paper. Kindle books don't work that way.
> 
> This is why you may not get paid if a reader goes back to the middle part of a book before the device sends the location info back to Amazon, or if they open page flip and never close it again.


I'm not so sure it isn't technically feasible. My Kindle always seems to know as soon as I've read the last page of a book, because it ALWAYS sends me a notification right after I turn that last page, regardless of if it's the actual last page or if there's still several pages of author's notes. If they can do that with a regular book, I don't see why they couldn't also do it with stuffed books.


----------



## Acrocanthosaurus

It knows when you reach a marked endpoint.

That's not what it reports. It tells the servers the last location where you stopped.

I tested this with my own file and kindle.



sela said:


> I'm pretty sure it would be possible to determine where the titled content ends -- say at 35% of KENP. If a reader stopped reading before 35%, they would get paid for whatever percent < 35%. If the reader stopped reading at 100%, the author would get paid for 35%.
> 
> Stuff away. You'd only get paid for 35% maximum.
> 
> Simple.


They can't. They don't know what's on what page.

It would make more sense to just ban bonus books and adapt the identical content detection they use for copyright to check during the review process.


----------



## Monique

I have little doubt Amazon can tell what page you're on/last read/stopped reading entirely when the device is synced. Hell, they probably know what color underwear you were wearing when you read it.


----------



## Dom

Acrocanthosaurus said:


> It knows when you reach a marked endpoint.


I don't understand what the problem is. If Amazon knows where to set an endpoint, then they can ignore anything past that endpoint when generating KENPC. The ideal is that stuffed books would have the same KENPC as non-stuffed books.


----------



## GoneToWriterSanctum

I don't consent


----------



## Going Incognito

T. M. Bilderback said:


> Good grief, if you want to bundle your titles, _make a stinking bundle_! Keep either the bundle or the individual story out of KU (your choice), and play fair!


That's only a thing for multi author bundles. You can bundle your own stuff and keep all parts in KU.


----------



## SuzyQ

Mxz said:


> I don't know who all of the romance authors who had their rank stripped are, and if they're innocent, but I looked at one that had been stuffing for almost a year and she had her rank stripped on one of the books. I also saw today that a couple other authors who stuffed their books, using previously released books, to get page counts like 1800 now have page counts of 250 and 100 on those same books. So they totally knew they were doing wrong. They just quickly fixed it before their rank was taken away. Edited to say that one still has that high KNEP- and "bonus" 4 novels, but now it's linked to the paperback to decrease the obvious stuffed page count.
> 
> There still are about 9 books in the top Romance 100 with about 1 to 5 stuffed novels from previous releases or stuffed "previews" of previous releases, which they may consider "bonus content." I wonder if these books will keep their ranks or the author will upload a file without all of the extra "bonuses," especially since they'll find out that some books have disabled ranks.


The most egregious book stuffers actually use a paperback to make their book listing appear to be normal length. If you don't look at the contents or catch it in the first few days, it is impossible to see, other than perhaps the file size. That's the difference between people who include a reasonable amount bonus content for reader enjoyment and those who are doing it to the extreme and don't care if that's what readers want.

I don't see an issue with excerpts. I use them and I don't stuff. More out of fear and laziness than anything else


----------



## Seneca42

T. M. Bilderback said:


> If KU is so important to some legitimate authors, why in the devil would you try to cheat by adding another book to the end of one? Good grief, if you want to bundle your titles, _make a stinking bundle_! Keep either the bundle or the individual story out of KU (your choice), and play fair!
> 
> If KU paid so many bills for me that I couldn't dream of losing it, I sure wouldn't play around with the TOS!
> 
> I'm so glad that I'm wide - you just have NO idea!


ugh I wish I could remember the quote. It's something like people individually are intelligent, but in groups are total idiots.

So you get authors forming groups and reinforcing all kinds of truly idiotic ideas (which they think are ingenious). Something that is obviously stupid can seem like it's brilliant when 10, 20 or 30 people are all telling you it is (that's how Pepsi commercials get made, after all). That's all that is happening here.

People do know better, but after talking with 10 other authors all doing x, y and z, suddenly they think that must be the right thing to do if everyone else is doing it. It's also amazing the rationalizations people can come up with to convince themselves of certain things.


----------



## sela

I don't have an issue with bonus content or excerpts. 

Readers probably love bonus content if it's relevant. Giving away content is a standard in marketing.

Stuffing is not bonus content by any stretch of the imagination if we're being honest. Stuffing doesn't happen outside of KU. That in itself is a dead giveaway that stuffing is meant to circumvent the TOS and get extra page reads for the same material. 

The trad publishers use excerpts so why shouldn't indies? It whets the reader's appetite for the next book so it's a great marketing tool. 

I'm writing a lead magnet for my one series -- a novella of about 15K -- that I will give away as a funnel into my main series and as a way to get newsletter signups. It'll take me 6 or 7 hours of writing and then a hundred bucks to have proofed and another hundred for a cover. If I can get people to funnel into my first book in the series, I know I have a high read through so it will make me money to give away content.

To me, that's legitimate as a tactic. 

Stuffing multiple books with the same exact content but simply reordered is not legitimate -- not because it's giving away free content but because it garners page reads that are against TOS. Amazon does not want to pay authors for content that is read by the same customer multiple times. 

Amazon may not have cracked down yet on stuffed books, but if and when it does, watch out. 

Subtlety in its dealings with indies is not a hallmark of Amazon. It's "Shoot first and ask questions later."


----------



## Joseph M. Erhardt

zzz said:


> The simple solution to book stuffing, and a lot of other problems at Amazon, is to charge $10 to publish an eBook. It would be an insignificant expense to publishers and it would allow Amazon to hire hundreds or thousands of workers to actually look at every book submitted. They wouldn't have to look for quality of writing, but could easily spot stuffed books, scraped content, gibberish, and even crappy formatting. They could also look at keyword stuffing in the titles. Actually $1 per book would cover the labor cost using third-world English speakers, at $5 they could hire Americans, and at $10 it would be a juicy profit center.


I suggested that months ago as part of the solution to the page-reads problem (I suggested having a borrow credit the full KENPC page count, subject to 50 minimum and maybe a 2000 maximum--that would avoid page read problems altogether). $1 a title would suffice to hire college-educated screeners at $50k / year. And, it's a job one could do from home. In skivvies. Or starkus.


----------



## J. Tanner

Monique said:


> I have little doubt Amazon can tell what page you're on/last read/stopped reading entirely when the device is synced. Hell, they probably know what color underwear you were wearing when you read it.


I don't think that's accurate. This is the whole problem with the Kindle architecture that was built before KU page read model and it was kind of astonishing when it came to light due to the earliest KU2 abuse.

The URL/TOC that skips to the end of the book looks no different in the data KU receives than someone who spends time reading each page in between. All they (appear to) know is the current and furthest synced page and thus the new rules on the TOS side where the engineering falls short. If they had real page read info for users much of this stuff could have been handled on the engineering side fairly easily and it would have been done that way before it ever became a problem. A link to the back of the book would have been a non-issue.


----------



## Joseph M. Erhardt

Perry Constantine said:


> I'm not so sure it isn't technically feasible. My Kindle always seems to know as soon as I've read the last page of a book, because it ALWAYS sends me a notification right after I turn that last page, regardless of if it's the actual last page or if there's still several pages of author's notes. If they can do that with a regular book, I don't see why they couldn't also do it with stuffed books.


If Kindles periodically and automatically update their software, then yes, it should be possible to actually track pages read, by the individual page. Kindle software could be upgraded so that an encrypted bit-table, in double-character ASCII form and included in a book's file, could be used to mark read pages. (I could give the details of a workable algorithm, but if Amazon is interested, they can pay me.) Then, when it comes to reporting pages read, the Kindle would report the number of pages whose read-bits have been flipped. You could also add logic to not count a page read until after a certain amount of time has passed after a page has been displayed; 3 seconds, say. Something like this would make page-jumping irrelevant, and it would also allow page counting under Page Flip.

Of course, all of this would actually require _work_.


----------



## dianapersaud

Joseph M. Erhardt said:


> *If Kindles periodically and automatically update their software, then yes, it should be possible to actually track pages read, by the individual page. *Kindle software could be upgraded so that an encrypted bit-table, in double-character ASCII form and included in a book's file, could be used to mark read pages. (I could give the details of a workable algorithm, but if Amazon is interested, they can pay me.) Then, when it comes to reporting pages read, the Kindle would report the number of pages whose read-bits have been flipped. You could also add logic to not count a page read until after a certain amount of time has passed after a page has been displayed; 3 seconds, say. Something like this would make page-jumping irrelevant, and it would also allow page counting under Page Flip.
> 
> Of course, all of this would actually require _work_.


Yes, Amazon does periodically update the kindles. I've had several updates in the last year or so. All it takes is a connection to the mother ship and they push those updates.

Does anyone know if the romance authors books that were deranked all had KENPC over 1000 pages?


----------



## Going Incognito

Joseph M. Erhardt said:


> If Kindles periodically and automatically update their software, then yes, it should be possible to actually track pages read, by the individual page. Kindle software could be upgraded so that an encrypted bit-table, in double-character ASCII form and included in a book's file, could be used to mark read pages. (I could give the details of a workable algorithm, but if Amazon is interested, they can pay me.) Then, when it comes to reporting pages read, the Kindle would report the number of pages whose read-bits have been flipped. You could also add logic to not count a page read until after a certain amount of time has passed after a page has been displayed; 3 seconds, say. Something like this would make page-jumping irrelevant, and it would also allow page counting under Page Flip.
> 
> Of course, all of this would actually require _work_.


Actually tracking pages that are read. Page jumping made irrelevant. Pages counting in page flip mode, by design! Flipping back to the beginning to see something, closing the book, and not losing all the pages you read before going back to the beginning. Actually being able to count real 'pages read' inside a system that pays by pages read? Be still, my heart. A moment of silence please, while I imagine this utopia.


----------



## David VanDyke

Definitions matter.

There seems to be (broadly) two types of arguments here, supported by two worldviews. These viewpoints have people talking past each other. At the very least, it would help to use the same terminology and acknowledge the way the terminology is used.

One is the legalistic viewpoint, with its associated world view that if it's not prohibited by law, or in this case by Terms of Service standing in for law, it's not wrong. This viewpoint believes it's entirely on Amazon to enforce its TOS, and that there's no ethical problem with practices which manage to make it past the enforcement. Thus, they won't call these unethical practices scamming or worse, because they don't believe ethics have any applicability, only "the rules." This viewpoint is rather like those in sports who believe anything you can get away with to win is fine, as long as it either doesn't violate the rules, or you don't get caught by the refs.

The other is the ethical viewpoint. In this viewpoint, "the rules" frame and support ethics, but are decidedly not the same thing. In this view, any tactic that exploits weaknesses in an artificial system (and remember, all of this is about the KU system, not the standard retail free market) in order to artificially inflate payouts for the users is wrong on the face of it, and is called scamming or something like that.

It appears to me that each of use has to decide which if these viewpoints to hold. I realize there is some nuance here, but I don't see much middle ground.

You either believe in abusing a system for profit because you can get away with it, and thereby taking money from your fellow authors who do act ethically; or you believe in acting ethically, competing as hard as you can within both the letter and spirit of the rules, and let the best competitor win.


----------



## Seneca42

David VanDyke said:


> One is the legalistic viewpoint, with its associated world view that if it's not prohibited by law, or in this case by Terms of Service standing in for law, it's not wrong.
> 
> The other is the ethical viewpoint. In this viewpoint, "the rules" frame and support ethics, but are decidedly not the same thing. In this view, any tactic that exploits weaknesses in an artificial system (end remember, all of this is about the KU system, not the standard retail free market) in order to artificially inflate payouts for the users is wrong on the face of it, and is called scamming or something like that.


And it's Amazon's job to ensure that these two things overlap, ideally 100%. That their rules line up with what is ethical; making enforcement quite easy.

In that sense, Amazon has been asleep on the job. The biggest issue is they have been utterly inconsistent with how they deal with infractions. As a result, no one really knows what the "punishment" is for x, y, or z. And just like parenting, when the rules are unclear the kids are going to push the boundaries to figure out just where the real line is that they can't cross. Sure, some kids will self-regulate themselves (ie. the good kids) but most will get away with whatever they can.


----------



## GoingAnon

[ORIGINAL POST MODIFIED SEPT 21, 2018. I do not accept nor do I consent to KBoards/VerticalScope's Terms of Service which were implemented without proper notification. As I await a response regarding my request for full account and content deletion - pursuant to GDPR - my continued use of this forum should not be construed as consent to, nor acceptance of, KBoards/VerticalScope's aforementioned Terms of Service.


----------



## 41419

There's more than a little false equivalence going on here. It's not the case that the author community is divided somehow on bonus stuffing or the TOS is unclear.

What we have is a group of authors engaging in bonus stuffing who are defending it. Is there anyone who doesn't engage in bonus stuffing who is defending it?

The TOS is clear on bonus stuffing. The defenses are fairly ridiculous. It seems like this group of authors are desperate to find any edge or advantage, ethics be damned, even if it does something like artificially inflate their page count so they get extra money from the communal pot.

And they dare to say people are being "unfair"?

Give me a break.

Sure, we don't know why Amazon stripped the rank of these 6 or 7 (more?) books. It could just be a coincidence that it's a group of authors who all engage in bonus stuffing and who all cross-promote heavily together.

Pretty damn big coincidence, but there you go...


----------



## 41419

Let's be exactly clear what we are talking about here because there is quite a bit of hand-waving and fudging going on.

I'll give an exact example instead of a theoretical one. I won't link to the book, or name it, or mention the author. I won't identify it in any way, except to say it's one of the titles from the group in question, which has been (exclusively, it seems) affected by this latest round of rank-stripping.

This is an exact example, not a hypothetical one:

*It was published in the last 10 days and has over 100 reviews but considerably less on Goodreads. Lots of the reviews are unverified, but of course there can be genuine reasons for all of that (i.e. street teams).

*It's 99c, and in KU, and has all these other authors who have been rank stripped in its also bots. Again there can be any number of genuine reasons for that also.

*It's 1385 pages. Seems long for erotica, but let's see.

*On that note, it was in the rom-com category yesterday but it is in erotica today. I guess mistakes happen.

*Looking inside the book it contains lots of "bonus" content. After the novel readers would have been expecting, there are FIVE additional novels stuffed in the back. All of these look like they were previously published and are available elsewhere in the Kindle Store.

*After that there are two exclusive "never been seen" short stories to get readers to click all the way to the back, and skip that content which they may have already anyway. 

Remember, this isn't a hypothetical. I'm looking at this book right now. The gameplan is pretty clear: take a novel of around 200 pages, add five more to it so you bulk up the page count to like 1200 pages. Dangle an exclusive short at the back so readers click right to the end and you get a full 1200 page reads for 200 pages of novel.

You're making up to 6X per borrow, and that money is coming from the communal author pot.

Not only that, but this kind of page inflation doesn't represent real reader activity. It's manufactured. It's fake. And I bet it's a factor in the payouts dropping month by month. Think about it. Pages read are getting increased through tricks but that increase in reads doesn't represent a real increase in subscriber activity or an actual increase in subscribers. So it comes out of our end. 

It's indefensible.


----------



## alawston

dgaughran said:


> It's indefensible.


It _is_ indefensible, but I bet in the next hour or so someone's going to give it a damn good old college try in any case.


----------



## Positive

You are all wrong in the way you are interpreting the rules. Go and spend some time on the phone with KDP or ECR. All the reps will tell you that bonus content is allowed and that book differentiation refers to the title, ie any given title must be significantly different in content from another. So a book used as a main title may be reused as a bonus story in another. That is fact. Not speculation. Ask Amazon yourself.
So where do you draw the line with ethics? Is it unfair that someone gets pages read for a 180k word novel? Is it unfair if I stuff 3x 60k word novels to reach the equivalent? There are sooooooo many ways to look at what's fair and what's not. 
Fact that we have up to 3000 kencp. It's pretty hard to reach. But if you don't add bonus content then you're leaving money on the table. That's your decision. It's not my fault. If you're writing only 60k word novels, it's not another author's fault you get paid less than someone who writes 180k words. So is the author of 60kwords allowed to stuff but the 180k author not?

You're kidding yourself if you compare this business to a bookshop. It's not. It's Kindle. It's KU. The playground is unique. You play or you don't. Your decision. Use your allowed to re utilize your back catalogue that no one's reading anyway. 

And as for the stripped- ranked Romance authors, it clearly has nothing to do with bonuses or content. The technical team is on the case, not quality control. What they all have in common are sexy covers, top 100 success, and a falsely- founded reputation of being scammers. There was a blog post a few days beforehand that irresponsibly called to arms to report all scammers. And considering there's a widespread erroneous interpretation of this concept, these authors may have been reported for click farming. After all, how can a smutty romance book with a half naked guy on the cover and bonus content be taken seriously? How could they have ever made their way into the top 100? Must be a scam, right? Wrong. Stories written to market, quality covers and blurbs, and a strong marketing campaign behind it. The book is only the product. The hard part is selling it. It's the marketing that will bring you success. That's what every indie publisher needs to know.

So stop blaming other authors for everything. What can you learn from them? What can you do better?


----------



## Lydniz

alawston said:


> It _is_ indefensible, but I bet in the next hour or so someone's going to give it a damn good old college try in any case.


Good call.


----------



## Homer

Positive said:


> You are all wrong in the way you are interpreting the rules. Go and spend some time on the phone with KDP or ECR. All the reps will tell you that bonus content is allowed and that book differentiation refers to the title, ie any given title must be significantly different in content from another. So a book used as a main title may be reused as a bonus story in another. That is fact. Not speculation. Ask Amazon yourself.
> So where do you draw the line with ethics? Is it unfair that someone gets pages read for a 180k word novel? Is it unfair if I stuff 3x 60k word novels to reach the equivalent? There are sooooooo many ways to look at what's fair and what's not.
> Fact that we have up to 3000 kencp. It's pretty hard to reach. But if you don't add bonus content then you're leaving money on the table. That's your decision. It's not my fault. If you're writing only 60k word novels, it's not another author's fault you get paid less than someone who writes 180k words. So is the author of 60kwords allowed to stuff but the 180k author not?
> 
> You're kidding yourself if you compare this business to a bookshop. It's not. It's Kindle. It's KU. The playground is unique. You play or you don't. Your decision. Use your allowed to re utilize your back catalogue that no one's reading anyway.
> 
> And as for the stripped- ranked Romance authors, it clearly has nothing to do with bonuses or content. The technical team is on the case, not quality control. What they all have in common are sexy covers, top 100 success, and a falsely- founded reputation of being scammers. There was a blog post a few days beforehand that irresponsibly called to arms to report all scammers. And considering there's a widespread erroneous interpretation of this concept, these authors may have been reported for click farming. After all, how can a smutty romance book with a half naked guy on the cover and bonus content be taken seriously? How could they have ever made their way into the top 100? Must be a scam, right? Wrong. Stories written to market, quality covers and blurbs, and a strong marketing campaign behind it. The book is only the product. The hard part is selling it. It's the marketing that will bring you success. That's what every indie publisher needs to know.
> 
> So stop blaming other authors for everything. What can you learn from them? What can you do better?


I'm confused. If you go to Kindle Direct Publishing Terms of Service / Content Guidelines / Disappointing Content it clearly states that 'disappointing content' which readers do not like and may result in Amazon taking action include:

*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*

The boldface is directly taken from Amazon's 'disappointing content' guidelines. Isn't that exactly what you're advocating is allowed?

Wait, you're saying is that only the title matters in term of content differentiation? So you could have the same book five times in the store, with a different title and cover and that'd be fine? That makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## 41419

We've seen the defenses morph from "this isn't happening but it's a witch hunt" to "bonus stuffing is great and Amazon loves it."

Still not buying it.


----------



## Caimh

If you're stuffing content in the back of your books with the purpose of doing nothing except artificially ramping up your page reads and taking more money out of a communal pot then YOU ARE ATTACKING OTHER AUTHORS. You are taking money they would have made away from them. Not stuffing your book isn't 'leaving money on the table' - it is not stealing money off the table that you didn't earn.

There is not so many different ways to view the ethics here - there is how the people engaging in the dodgy practices are justifying it to themselves and there is how everybody else sees it.


----------



## 41419

Caimh said:


> Not stuffing your book isn't 'leaving money on the table' - it is not stealing money off the table that you didn't earn.


Exactly.


----------



## jcalloway

Stuffing is a scammer tactic, end of story. Where did all these authors get the idea? From the honest-to-Christmas scammers who used to release a new "book" with the rest of their catalogue crammed inside, along with links to the back of the book offering the chance to win gift cards, Kindles, etc.

Those honest-to-Christmas scammers are part of the reason we now have the 3000-KENP pay cap. They're why legitimate authors are still wary of linking anything--even a mailing list signup--in the backs of their books, and why legitimate authors no longer put their TOC in the back, either.

This practice is literally plucked from the (stolen) pages of the Scammer Handbook. Maybe they're not linking to incentivized giveaways, but I'm sure there are links to mailing lists or something else a reader might find interesting. 

A reader doesn't even need to be looking for a newsletter link. A reader could simply find themselves baffled over why the book they just borrowed ended at 20-30%. They could easily click to the end, hoping to find the rest of the story they were expecting. Only, they won't find it, so they close the book, and ka-ching. The author gets paid for 3000 pages that weren't actually read.

It's utterly amazing to me that people came here to defend this malarkey as ethical when it has its roots in one of the most blatant--and obnoxious--scams we've seen since KU2 was announced.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

I still think there's a big difference between actual bonus content and book stuffing. Book stuffing (IMHO) is taking currently published content and sticking it in the back of a new book to inflate page count. That's not the same as someone who publishes a huge novel (150K+) or who adds fresh bonus material in the back of their book.

Look, I'm not trying to make enemies, but for those who said they called KDP support and asked, how exactly did you phrase your question. Did you specifically ask * if you could take currently published material and put it in the back of all your books*? Or did you ask if bonus content was OK? Because, there's a big difference between those two things in my opinion.

Amazon has been very clear in the past about re-purposing material to make new books. It's considered double dipping into the KU pot and they don't like it. And this is the very behavior that's going to cause Amazon to act. *Do we really want Amazon to overreact? *Is that going to be good for anyone?

No it wont' it will be terrible, just as it always is terrible when they decide to make a sweep. So that's why so many authors look down on the book stuffing practice. It's not a personal attack or jealousy. We don't want to be hurt or impacted because other people can't seem to self-regulate themselves and behave responsibly. Those romance books losing their ranking - terrified a lot of experienced authors. We've seen this before folks, and something like that could kill a prawny author's (like myself) career. Amazon getting more strict or launching a KU3 to address abuse of the payout could very well be disastrous. No sane person could want this.


----------



## novel1st

dgaughran said:


> We've seen the defenses morph from "this isn't happening but it's a witch hunt" to "bonus stuffing is great and Amazon loves it."
> 
> Still not buying it.


Most romance authors have enough of a back catalog built up that we could just take our old (non-earning) books off 'Zon and use them as bonuses that way. And in that case, we wouldn't even be breaching _your_ interpretation of the disappointing content guidelines. So in that scenario, would you still have an issue with it?


----------



## 41419

Obviously a genuinely long book is fine. Obviously an excerpt is fine. Obviously actual bonus content - as in ancillary content, like an author's note, or an epilogue, or short essay about your historical research, or a short story set in the same world, or an excerpt from Book 2 - obviously all that is fine.

You can't equate any of that with stuffing five or six books into the back of a short novel to make it six times longer. That's just ridiculous and a clear attempt to inflate page count. And when combined with an inducement to skip to the end, it's a clear attempt to grab money from the pot that isn't yours.

And, yes, this is a trick that was first deployed by the plagiarizing scammers who hit the Free charts with Click Here scams 18 months ago. And now the tactics are filtering out into the mainstream.

The pool gets pissier every day.


----------



## MattHaggis

It looks to me like these erotica authors were making out like bandits with KU1 and their short stories, and didn't give a hoot about the authors making the same amount for far longer novels. Then KU2 came along and evened the playing field and they felt hard done by. How dare KDP pay the same amount per page read? The gall of them. So they came up with a book stuffing strategy as outlined by David Gaughran above, and now they've been caught and are paying the price.


----------



## 41419

novel1st said:


> I spoke to CSR _yesterday_ about bonus content, and was told it wasn't the issue at hand, and that KDP didn't have an issue with it. Take it up with them if you want, because I understand your perspective. But since support keep telling me it's OK to use bonus content, then I will.


You _claim_ Amazon have okayed this. But seeing as you have admitted to engaging in bonus stuffing, I don't exactly have you classed under "trustworthy."

Besides, I don't know what form of words Amazon used - if indeed this conversation did take place. Did Amazon specifically say that it's fine to stuff in five or six novels that are already for sale on Amazon in a book that's advertised as a single novel, and then to induce readers to click to the end by adding exclusive short stories to the back? Did they specifically okay that exact practice? I find that hard to believe.

I do know that these bonus-stuffing authors have had their books rank-stripped. That's objectively verifiable.


----------



## unkownwriter

MattHaggis said:


> It looks to me like these erotica authors were making out like bandits with KU1 and their short stories, and didn't give a hoot about the authors making the same amount for far longer novels. Then KU2 came along and evened the playing field and they felt hard done by. How dare KDP pay the same amount per page read? The gall of them. So they came up with a book stuffing strategy as outlined by David Gaughran above, and now they've been caught and are paying the price.


The erotica authors didn't come up with this scheme, black hat scammers did. What erotica authors mostly did was switch to steamy romance novels, so they could have longer work in KU and get into a genre that didn't automatically ding them for content. Perfectly legit, and perfectly ethical.



novel1st said:


> There was no indication it was punitive. Lucky me I get to wait 48 hours for the technical team to respond. One thing I haven't seen you guys dig into is why it was only our top 100 books. I have another book doing well (edit: rank removed from original for privacy) that didn't get touched. If they thought we were botting they'd have nuked our catalogs, I would have thought.


Because that's how Amazon works? I've been around long enough to see that. One other thing? Most of those "reps" don't know diddly. They've been wrong before. And Amazon likely isn't done yet, so don't crow too soon.


----------



## SunnySammy

Let me start by saying I don't stuff. I think I have one book out of around 20 that has bonus content in the back, so I have no monkeys in this circus.

I do kinda see why people are getting defensive about it.

Some of the biggest E-rom authors around 'stuff' (I'm talking authors who now have publishing contracts). It's expected by some e-rom or erotica readers that they'll get some bonus content. Other e-rom/erotica readers expect it but don't like it (as reflected in reviews).

I really don't see it as stealing from the pot. At the end of the day, if readers don't want to read the bonus content, they won't and the author won't get paid. If they do, the author is getting paid because they kept the reader engaged enough that they want to carry on reading and/or re-read some of the bonus content they may have already read.

This thread started about scamming now it seems to have denigrated into an attack on erotica authors. That's gonna get some people feeling prickly.

Sticking links in the middle of a book to jump to the end doesn't count as pages read anyway. The reader has to stay on the page for however many seconds 'Zon demands. Flipping through too fast or jumping to the back via links don't count.


----------



## thesmallprint

Good luck to anyone dedicating time to trying to change someone's ethics.

Here's part of the blurb from Michael Lewis's Wall Street story _Flash Boys_:



> This is a market that's rigged, out of control and out of sight; a market in which the chief need is for speed; and in which traders would sell their grandmothers for a microsecond. Blink, and you'll miss it.
> 
> In Flash Boys, Michael Lewis tells the explosive story of how one group of ingenious oddballs and misfits set out to expose what was going on. It's the story of what it's like to declare war on some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. It's about taking on an entire system. And it's about the madness that has taken hold of the financial markets today.


The leader of this 'group of ingenious oddballs' took the view from the start that he had no ill feeling about the predators who were legally gaming the system. Rather than try to change the predators or kill them off (his view was that history had proved that new predators always moved in) he decided to eliminate the prey.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

dgaughran said:


> I do know that these bonus-stuffing authors have had their books rank-stripped. That's objectively verifiable.


But we don't yet know why they were rank-stripped. It's only a guess that it has to do with stuffing.


----------



## 41419

SunnySammy said:


> This thread started about scamming now it seems to have denigrated into an attack on erotica authors.


Where has that happened?


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Colin

alawston said:


> It _is_ indefensible, but I bet in the next hour or so someone's going to give it a damn good old college try in any case.


Yep. It's a bit like career criminals - they justify stealing by convincing themselves that everyone's on the take, so why shouldn't they have a piece of the action ...


----------



## Positive

Stealing? Back to my example of the 180k word novel versus 3x 60k stories. Why am I stealing if I add some stories from my back catalogue as bonus? Do I want people to read all my work. Yes. If they don't like it, they won't read it. I'm not forcing them too. Is coke stealing from Pepsi when they include 33% free in their bottle? It's called promotion. Giving value to the consumer. And in KU you get paid for it. So yes, I dowant to get paid for my work and the stories that readers chose to read. Why don't you?


----------



## Homer

Positive said:


> Stealing? Back to my example of the 180k word novel versus 3x 60k stories. Why am I stealing if I add some stories from my back catalogue as bonus? Do I want people to read all my work. Yes. If they don't like it, they won't read it. I'm not forcing them too. Is coke stealing from Pepsi when they include 33% free in their bottle? It's called promotion. Giving value to the consumer. And in KU you get paid for it. So yes, I dowant to get paid for my work and the stories that readers chose to read. Why don't you?


It seems like you're reinterpreting what most people are saying here. You're getting defensive because you think putting a few extra books *that are not in KU* at the end of your books to inflate your page reads is perfectly fine. While I don't understand why you wouldn't just state up front on the cover that these books are inside, I don't think anyone here would be in this thread complaining if those books were fresh, original material that was not anywhere else.

But as has been stated upthread numerous times, many of these 'bonus books' are already in KU in other stuffed books or as the titled books themselves. That is a clear violation of KDP rules. Again, straight from the content guidelines, books shouldn't have:

*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*

If your 'bonus' content is all original material and doesn't exist anywhere else, I don't think this thread is directed at you. If it is available somewhere else, then it seems very clear that you are, in fact, violating the guidelines.


----------



## Sati_LRR

Positive said:


> You are all wrong in the way you are interpreting the rules. Go and spend some time on the phone with KDP or ECR. All the reps will tell you that bonus content is allowed and that book differentiation refers to the title, ie any given title must be significantly different in content from another. So a book used as a main title may be reused as a bonus story in another. That is fact. Not speculation. Ask Amazon yourself.
> So where do you draw the line with ethics?* Is it unfair that someone gets pages read for a 180k word novel? Is it unfair if I stuff 3x 60k word novels to reach the equivalent? There are sooooooo many ways to look at what's fair and what's not. *
> Fact that we have up to 3000 kencp. It's pretty hard to reach. But if you don't add bonus content then you're leaving money on the table. That's your decision. It's not my fault. If you're writing only 60k word novels, it's not another author's fault you get paid less than someone who writes 180k words. So is the author of 60kwords allowed to stuff but the 180k author not?
> 
> You're kidding yourself if you compare this business to a bookshop. It's not. It's Kindle. It's KU. The playground is unique. You play or you don't. Your decision. Use your allowed to re utilize your back catalogue that no one's reading anyway.
> 
> And as for the stripped- ranked Romance authors, it clearly has nothing to do with bonuses or content. The technical team is on the case, not quality control. What they all have in common are sexy covers, top 100 success, and a falsely- founded reputation of being scammers. There was a blog post a few days beforehand that irresponsibly called to arms to report all scammers. And considering there's a widespread erroneous interpretation of this concept, these authors may have been reported for click farming. After all, how can a smutty romance book with a half naked guy on the cover and bonus content be taken seriously? How could they have ever made their way into the top 100? Must be a scam, right? Wrong. Stories written to market, quality covers and blurbs, and a strong marketing campaign behind it. The book is only the product. The hard part is selling it. It's the marketing that will bring you success. That's what every indie publisher needs to know.
> 
> So stop blaming other authors for everything. What can you learn from them? What can you do better?


Your examples are completely missing the point.

In KU, it is _not_ unfair that an author gets paid for 180k words of a new novel that has been READ.

In KU, it is unfair however when authors get paid for duplicated old content that the reader has to SKIP over (UNREAD content) to get to the new short stories or new epilogues.

In KU, it is also unfair when an author gets paid for duplicated old content (that appears in more than one product listing) and the reader REREADS it. This is double/triple dipping.

How do you not comprehend the difference?

If the author of the 180k novel decided to publish several new listings in KU and insert old back-catalogue content into them, some more 180k novels, up to the 3000 KENP, then that author would be just as guilty of scamming the system and double-dipping.

Anyone doing this is exploiting a fundamental flaw in Amazon's ability to accurately count page reads. That fact is undeniable. Yes, Amazon are to blame for creating the system and allowing it to continue, but those using these practices are not doe-eyed innocents either.

I guarantee you if every single author in KU started to implement these practices, stuffing every new release with old content, the KU page rate would plummet. Race to bottom if there ever was one. (Hint: it's already happening.) The KU ecosystem would implode and those contributing by stuffing, imho, would be partially to blame.

As someone already said, the fact that stuffing does not happen outside of KU is proof that when done in KU it is done to capitalize on the system's flaw and nothing but.

The argument that bonus content has been done before, in traditional publishing and before KU, doesn't hold water either. That is comparing apples to oranges; a closed system with a fund cap to an open system with no cap. Stop trying to legitimize crappy behavior disguised as savvy and adaptable business practices when they are not. They are down right appalling.

In regards to the romance authors with their stripped ranks, I agree that it has nothing to do with book stuffing. There are a few possibilities that I see.

1. It's a glitch. (I have my doubts about this.)

2. It _is_ due to click farming. 
A quick thought experiment: If you imagine that a high majority of the authors affected are actually the same person using multiple pen names then it becomes reasonable to assume that that one account has done something (whether aware of it or not) to cause the issue since many of their names are affected. And anyone engaging with that individual, via newsletter swaps, paid promotions, co-authoring, could have also been dragged into an investigation.

3. Amazon have become suspicious of the activity resulting from author-organized newsletter swaps that are big in the indie romance community right now.

4. Amazon have been investigating the also-boughts of the previous proven click-farmed books, connecting the dots, and again whether guilty or not Amazon have acted on that information with prejudice. When this topic first appeared there were several books in the also-boughts belonging to the romance authors now affected.

Either way I don't think we will ever find out the true reason.

But it is my opinion that some romance authors in the top 100 have been using click-farms for a while now and covering the practice with legitimate promos, swaps, Facebook and Amazon ads so it is harder to track. And before anyone brings out that old chestnut that I am jealous or whatever, I am an indie romance author writing steamy books with man chests and abs all over those covers, and perfectly capable of reaching the top 100 without stuffing or botting.


----------



## 75814

Seeing these defenses of black-hat scam tactics is making me physically ill. The concept of ethical behavior just doesn't exist for some people.


----------



## Guest

Perry Constantine said:


> Seeing these defenses of black-hat scam tactics is making me physically ill. The concept of ethical behavior just doesn't exist for some people.


Yeah I get that feeling and my first book is still being edited. Personally if we're them and truly believed I was not wrong and that amazon had told me that what I was doing was great on the phone I wouldn't be hiding my name. I would be screaming it loud and proud instead of anonymously.


----------



## CABarrett

Sati_LRR said:


> Your examples are completely missing the point.
> 
> In KU, it is _not_ unfair that an author gets paid for 180k words of a new novel that has been READ.
> 
> In KU, it is unfair however when authors get paid for duplicated old content that the reader has to SKIP over (UNREAD content) to get to the new short stories or new epilogues.
> 
> In KU, it is also unfair when an author gets paid for duplicated old content (that appears in more than one product listing) and the reader REREADS it. This is double/triple dipping.


I absolutely agree that this is how people have been talking past each other for the past page or two! The problem is not the inclusion of bonus content, but that readers skip past it and KU pays for these pages. I do believe that an author can add content beyond the story to an eBook in good faith, with the idea that it's convenience for the binge reader or just a cool extra that ebooks make possible. Designing the book to cause readers to skip past content that's not being read is the problem. That intent is clear in the books described in this thread and I do not intend to defend those scenarios, but I can imagine situations that aren't so easy to classify.

I really hope that Amazon comes up with a better system for tracking page reads. As a reader, I love the subscription approach. But as a writer, I write nonfiction reference books which are not designed to be read cover-to-cover and would be a huge mess. I feel sympathetic to writers who want to try new things.


----------



## Colin

Positive said:


> Stealing? Back to my example of the 180k word novel versus 3x 60k stories. Why am I stealing if I add some stories from my back catalogue as bonus? Do I want people to read all my work. Yes. If they don't like it, they won't read it. I'm not forcing them too. Is coke stealing from Pepsi when they include 33% free in their bottle? It's called promotion. Giving value to the consumer. And in KU you get paid for it. So yes, I dowant to get paid for my work and the stories that readers chose to read. Why don't you?


Nice try.


----------



## Doglover

Lauriejoyeltahs said:


> Yeah I get that feeling and my first book is still being edited. Personally if we're them and truly believed I was not wrong and that amazon had told me that what I was doing was great on the phone I wouldn't be hiding my name. I would be screaming it loud and proud instead of anonymously.


I have serious doubts about the phone chat claim. Finding a phone number for kdp is as rare as finding rocking horse sh*t; that's something everyone complains about. I doubt they'd be phoning back on a regular basis.

Perhaps the poster could provide the elusive phone number, since he is so well informed.


----------



## 75814

Doglover said:


> I have serious doubts about the phone chat claim. Finding a phone number for kdp is as rare as finding rocking horse sh*t; that's something everyone complains about. I doubt they'd be phoning back on a regular basis.
> 
> Perhaps the poster could provide the elusive phone number, since he is so well informed.


This. In another thread, we've certainly seen an author dubiously claiming they received confirmation from Amazon reps that supposed TOS violations are actually A-OK. So color me suspicious. Even if the call did happen, I'm not sure we're getting an accurate report of how the questions were phrased.


----------



## Doglover

Perry Constantine said:


> This. In another thread, we've certainly seen an author dubiously claiming they received confirmation from Amazon reps that supposed TOS violations are actually A-OK. So color me suspicious. Even if the call did happen, I'm not sure we're getting an accurate report of how the questions were phrased.


Well, the number is Amazon, not kdp, so if the poster has spent time explaining all this to them, he will be told whatever they think will make him go away. They know as much about kindle direct publishing as I know about rocket science (that's not much, btw)


----------



## sela

Many of us have reps and can get on the phone to clarify what is meant by "bonus content".

I have a pretty big backlist and if I get the okay on stuffing my books with my backlist reordered in different sequences, I could RAKE IN THE DOUGH BABY!!!

Oh, and PLEASE people... watch your tone so we don't get this thread locked. This is a very important discussion that affects all of us in KU so ignore anything too snippy and mind your P's and Q's.


----------



## novel1st

Doglover said:


> Well, the number is Amazon, not kdp, so if the poster has spent time explaining all this to them, he will be told whatever they think will make him go away. They know as much about kindle direct publishing as I know about rocket science (that's not much, btw)


They ring you back. Great googling though. https://imgur.com/a/xxAJ6


----------



## GeneDoucette

the most illuminating thing in the last couple of pages of this thread is that for some, a person who wrote a 180 page book getting paid more than someone who wrote a 60 page book is objectively unfair. This is a remarkable conclusion.


----------



## anniejocoby

GeneDoucette said:


> the most illuminating thing in the last couple of pages of this thread is that for some, a person who wrote a 180 page book getting paid more than someone who wrote a 60 page book is objectively unfair. This is a remarkable conclusion.


Um, where did you get that impression? I didn't read anybody saying this. Literally.


----------



## Doglover

anniejocoby said:


> Um, where did you get that impression? I didn't read anybody saying this. Literally.


Nor me. I could be wrong, but I thought we were discussing, initially, authors engaging the services of click farms in order to achieve high levels of page reads and reach No.1 ranking and the all star bonus. Then the discussion moved on to authors who are adding other books to the end of the book being advertised, and that these extra books have already been published and possibly read by the purchaser of the new book. They will also put a free, new short at the very back, so that people skip over the bonus books to that freebie and the author gets the page read money for the entire book.

Am I getting this right?


----------



## G.L. Snodgrass

Positive said:


> Stealing? Back to my example of the 180k word novel versus 3x 60k stories. Why am I stealing if I add some stories from my back catalogue as bonus? Do I want people to read all my work. Yes. If they don't like it, they won't read it. I'm not forcing them too. Is coke stealing from Pepsi when they include 33% free in their bottle? It's called promotion. Giving value to the consumer. And in KU you get paid for it. So yes, I dowant to get paid for my work and the stories that readers chose to read. Why don't you?


Because you are getting paid twice for the same story. And that money is coming from a pool of money that I am a part of. You are taking money from me. Is your suggestion that I should stuff also to make things equal?


----------



## PhoenixS

novel1st said:


> - I have no doubt I will have a call with Amazon in the next day or so, so I can ask a refined version of your question about bonus content. But see my response just above for the alternative. I've written 20 60-90k novels in two years, taking a couple, or even most, off the market isn't gonna do anything. Same for any/most authors currently adding bonuses. Equally, I don't induce readers to jump to the end. I get reviews on the bonus content. They read it.
> 
> - It doesn't matter what any of us do individually. KU is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons] playing out. Hundreds, thousands of authors acting in their own economic self interest polluting a common resource. You must know that it's not just the ten authors currently in question who are stuffing, 80% of romance these days is stuffed. KU's original sin was that 'Zon lied that they could (or bothered to) track pages actually read.
> 
> But again, why would bonus content be wrong *according to even a strict interpretation of the TOS* - especially if we took our bonus books down from other titles in KU (which is what will happen)? It's obviously an attempt to inflate page count. But since: a) Amazon repeatedly tell us they don't mind, and b) they've repeatedly refrained from simply banning bonus content (which would make this all easier), it's not gonna stop. The authors struck down were immediately replaced by 10 more w/ bonuses...


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a pretty good idea which book is yours that you mentioned yesterday ranking high. Amazon was apparently OK about the book being listed as non-erotica...until they weren't. Or did you re-classify it yourself? Or is this also a technical glitch?

Google cache tells me that on July 18, that particular book appeared in these cats:
Books > Romance > Contemporary
Books > Romance > Military
Books > Romance > New Adult & College
Books > Romance > Romantic Comedy
Books > Romance > Sports
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Contemporary
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Military
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Romantic Comedy
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Sports

Today, the same book appears here:
Books > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Humorous
Books > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Suspense
Books > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Thrillers
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Humorous
[Edited to add these cats that got cut off in my copy/paste:
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Romantic Erotica
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Suspense
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Thrillers]

In the sample, there's a "Last never before seen short story" link after multiple stuffed books. So readers *are* being incentivized to skip over content they've previously read to get to new content scattered throughout the backmatter forcing payouts.


----------



## novel1st

PhoenixS said:


> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a pretty good idea which book is yours that you mentioned yesterday ranking high. Amazon was apparently OK about the book being listed as non-erotica...until they weren't. Or did you re-classify it yourself? Or is this also a technical glitch?
> 
> Google cache tells me that on July 18, that particular book appeared in these cats:
> Books > Romance > Contemporary
> Books > Romance > Military
> Books > Romance > New Adult & College
> Books > Romance > Romantic Comedy
> Books > Romance > Sports
> Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Contemporary
> Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Military
> Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Romantic Comedy
> Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Sports
> 
> Today, the same book appears here:
> Books > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Humorous
> Books > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Suspense
> Books > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Thrillers
> Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Erotica > Humorous
> 
> In the sample, there's a "Last never before seen short story" link after multiple stuffed books. So readers *are* being incentivized to skip over content they've previously read to get to new content scattered throughout the backmatter forcing payouts.


I haven't been catted in erotica in at least 18 months. I'm gonna disengage now.


----------



## passerby

Monique said:


> I have little doubt Amazon can tell what page you're on/last read/stopped reading entirely when the device is synced. Hell, they probably know what color underwear you were wearing when you read it.


^    *Runs out to buy new underwear* (just in case.)


----------



## PhoenixS

novel1st said:


> I haven't been catted in erotica in at least 18 months. I'm gonna disengage now.


Apologies if this isn't yours. It *is,* however, a book that belongs to one of this group of authors that had a book deranked over the weekend. And one in the Top 100 right now.


----------



## anniejocoby

Doglover said:


> Nor me. I could be wrong, but I thought we were discussing, initially, authors engaging the services of click farms in order to achieve high levels of page reads and reach No.1 ranking and the all star bonus. Then the discussion moved on to authors who are adding other books to the end of the book being advertised, and that these extra books have already been published and possibly read by the purchaser of the new book. They will also put a free, new short at the very back, so that people skip over the bonus books to that freebie and the author gets the page read money for the entire book.
> 
> Am I getting this right?


Yup. You got it exactly right. Nowhere has anybody complained that people writing 180,000 word books are getting paid more than those writing 60,000 books.

It's weird how people interpret things sometimes. It's like that movie "Rashomon," where four different people saw the exact same murder, and they all saw it COMPLETELY differently.


----------



## anniejocoby

PhoenixS said:


> Apologies if this isn't yours. It *is,* however, a book that belongs to one of this group of authors that had a book deranked over the weekend. And one in the Top 100 right now.


If this is true, this is good news. It *sounds* like what might be happening is that Amazon deranked those books because they wanted to examine the content. Then, they saw the content, saw that it didn't belong in romance, and stuck it into erotica. I have a feeling that each of these books might be re-categorized as erotica, and then given their ranks back.

Good news for romance readers if that's the case. I've long thought those books were miscategorized.


----------



## GeneDoucette

anniejocoby said:


> Yup. You got it exactly right. Nowhere has anybody complained that people writing 180,000 word books are getting paid more than those writing 60,000 books.
> 
> It's weird how people interpret things sometimes. It's like that movie "Rashomon," where four different people saw the exact same murder, and they all saw it COMPLETELY differently.


I could certainly have interpreted it wrong. I was reacting to this statement below.



> So where do you draw the line with ethics? Is it unfair that someone gets pages read for a 180k word novel? Is it unfair if I stuff 3x 60k word novels to reach the equivalent? There are sooooooo many ways to look at what's fair and what's not.


----------



## anniejocoby

GeneDoucette said:


> I could certainly have interpreted it wrong. I was reacting to this statement below.


That was that particular poster going on a rant by using rhetorical questions. She was trying to make the point that 3 x 60,000 novels should be the same as 1 x 180,000 novels. In the process, she totally missed the point that you really can't stuff the EXACT SAME 3 60,000 word novels into every novel you publish.

Everybody is talking past each other in this thread.


----------



## GeneDoucette

anniejocoby said:


> That was that particular poster going on a rant by using rhetorical questions. She was trying to make the point that 3 x 60,000 novels should be the same as 1 x 180,000 novels. In the process, she totally missed the point that you really can't stuff the EXACT SAME 3 60,000 word novels into every novel you publish.
> 
> Everybody is talking past each other in this thread.


fair enough.


----------



## Doglover

anniejocoby said:


> Yup. You got it exactly right. Nowhere has anybody complained that people writing 180,000 word books are getting paid more than those writing 60,000 books.
> 
> It's weird how people interpret things sometimes. It's like that movie "Rashomon," where four different people saw the exact same murder, and they all saw it COMPLETELY differently.


I don't know the film, but I live in fear that someday, somewhere, I am going to witness something and be asked to identify the perpetrator. Since I don't even recognise people I know half the time, I couldn't do that in a million years.


----------



## RedFoxUF

I feel like those books being deranked has decreased the focus on Amazon. Like, oh someone got in trouble, Amazon is doing something, stand down. The reality is I know several authors being cheated out of their Amazon bonuses this month by dozens upon dozens of scam books that are live *right now*.

They are stuffed to the gills.

They appear to be botted.

They are reported to Amazon.

Amazon does nothing.

I don't know why those other books were pulled. It was NOT b/c of stuffing though. Because that tactic is chugging along just fine for the scammers. Maybe they got caught doing something else. Maybe scammers came after them to bump them out of their rank. Who knows. But it wasn't anything close to a fix.

If we want the scamming controlled (not stopped, it can't be totally stopped), we need to stay on Amazon. David and Phoenix can't be the only ones.


----------



## Seneca42

RedFoxUF said:


> Amazon does nothing.


Agreed. Many are hopeful maybe this time the trespasses were so egregious (at least the #1 book botting) that Amazon would send out the guards to get the prison yard back under control.

However, I'm skeptical that's the case. They seem to have done "something", but it also seems to have stopped there. But let's give it a week, launching a nuke I'm sure is something that takes time on their end.


----------



## Not any more

David VanDyke said:


> You either believe in abusing a system for profit because you can get away with it, and thereby taking money from your fellow authors who do act ethically; or you believe in acting ethically, competing as hard as you can within both the letter and spirit of the rules, and let the best competitor win.


Where's the LIKE button?


----------



## Mxz

For the people saying they talked to KDP reps who said stuffing was fine, another author was in a situation where people debated about what they were doing.  That author also spoke to KDP reps who said what they were doing was fine.  

Now, I'm pretty sure, that author's account was stripped from them.  The only books that remain appear to be published by co authors and a different publisher.  If you want to roll the dice with Amazon, don't be surprised if they suddenly change their tone.


----------



## sela

I emailed my rep about this and got a response back that it was fine to include bonus material in the back of your books, even if it is reordered, as long as it is published by the same KDP account. I am clarifying because I suspect this rep isn't clear on what is going on.

I will report back as soon as I hear.

If this is the case, now we know why the pot has been going down each month as stuffers are garnering illegitimate extra (?) page reads and Amazon doesn't really care. I honestly can't believe Amazon is okay with this and that this initial response is purely because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and that the rep is not up to speed.

I'll move the question up the chain to see if I can get a clearer response.


----------



## PhoenixS

sela said:


> I emailed my rep about this and got a response back that it was fine to include bonus material in the back of your books, even if it is reordered, as long as it is published by the same KDP account. I am clarifying because I suspect this rep isn't clear on what is going on.
> 
> I will report back as soon as I hear.
> 
> If this is the case, now we know why the pot has been going down each month as stuffers are garnering illegitimate extra (?) page reads and Amazon doesn't really care. I honestly can't believe Amazon is okay with this and that this initial response is purely because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and that the rep is not up to speed.
> 
> I'll move the question up the chain to see if I can get a clearer response.


Keep us posted. I've got 90 titles and a BookBub coming up. Bet I can help drive the payout to $.001 per page!

One clear yes on this that's upheld at the highest links in the chain and the flood of authors diving in who believed they were being honest up to this point will break KU in a week. Guaranteed. (Although it wouldn't be buried for another few weeks when authors saw the payouts being offered.)

Then again, there ARE all those authors who were stuffing just like this who've had their accounts terminated. Must have been a mistake on Amazon's part. Oops. Poor authors.


----------



## David VanDyke

SunnySammy said:


> Sticking links in the middle of a book to jump to the end doesn't count as pages read anyway. The reader has to stay on the page for however many seconds 'Zon demands. Flipping through too fast or jumping to the back via links don't count.


Not true. It's been demonstrated by experimentation that there is no time required to stay on a page to count, and that all that matters is where the page pointer is when the book is closed.

If what you said were true, there would be a little less scamming.


----------



## sela

PhoenixS said:


> Keep us posted. I've got 90 titles and a BookBub coming up. Bet I can help drive the payout to $.001 per page!
> 
> One clear yes on this that's upheld at the highest links in the chain and the flood of authors diving in who believed they were being honest up to this point will break KU in a week. Guaranteed. (Although it wouldn't be buried for another few weeks when authors saw the payouts being offered.)
> 
> Then again, there ARE all those authors who were stuffing just like this who've had their accounts terminated. Must have been a mistake on Amazon's part. Oops. Poor authors.


I would encourage other authors to email KDP customer support and include an example using your own books so you can get an all clear or no-go from them directly. I suspect that very often, the CSRs don't really understand the TOS and so give wrong answers. If you use a clear example from your own books, then they will have to give a clear answer. If enough people get the same answer, we can at least know what's what.

But let me say this:

If, in fact, Amazon approves of this stuffing, and if we all start to do it, page reads will plummet and KU will become worthless financially and will only be of value for the visibility. In other words, you may get added visibility for borrows, but the payout will be so low that it will be a losing venture. At that point, maybe Amazon will lose enough authors that customers start complaining. Amazon only acts when customers complain. It couldn't give a sh*t about suppliers, apparently...


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

sela said:


> I emailed my rep about this and got a response back that it was fine to include bonus material in the back of your books, even if it is reordered, as long as it is published by the same KDP account. I am clarifying because I suspect this rep isn't clear on what is going on.
> 
> I will report back as soon as I hear.
> 
> If this is the case, now we know why the pot has been going down each month as stuffers are garnering illegitimate extra (?) page reads and Amazon doesn't really care. I honestly can't believe Amazon is okay with this and that this initial response is purely because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and that the rep is not up to speed.
> 
> I'll move the question up the chain to see if I can get a clearer response.


Clarity would be something new, eh? Man oh man... it's like we as KU authors are dealing with a black box. I haven't stuffed, or botted or gotten involved in the swap angle or any of that. I'd like to say that it's b/c I'm honest, ethical and so forth, but the truth of the matter is that this is my livlihood, I'm almost 60 years old and if this blows up I'm working at Wal Mart or back to hacking a cab.

Yeah, there is a degree of attempts at some form of integrity for me, sure; but to be fair to the posters who are doing this, the 'rules' aren't really rules b/c they lack enforcement. I mean, just look at your own personal experience quoted above, Sela. And you're one of the heavy hitters- 200K/year is an enormous income for any writer. You've been playing it straight, as have I...

... but now the question is, are we being as foolish as has been implied?


----------



## sela

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Clarity would be something new, eh? Man oh man... it's like we as KU authors are dealing with a black box. I haven't stuffed, or botted or gotten involved in the swap angle or any of that. I'd like to say that it's b/c I'm honest, ethical and so forth, but the truth of the matter is that this is my livlihood, I'm almost 60 years old and if this blows up I'm working at Wal Mart or back to hacking a cab.
> 
> Yeah, there is a degree of attempts at some form of integrity for me, sure; but to be fair to the posters who are doing this, the 'rules' aren't really rules b/c they lack enforcement. I mean, just look at your own personal experience quoted above, Sela. And you're one of the heavy hitters- 200K/year is an enormous income for any writer. You've been playing it straight, as have I...
> 
> ... but now the question is, are we being as foolish as has been implied?


I have been playing by what I thought are the rules. If stuffing is in fact accepted under Amazon TOS, stupid me for being honest and ethical. I could have been raking in much more dough if I had been stuffing all along.

To me, the writing on the wall is clear -- KU's days are numbered if stuffing is okay. It will further diminish the value of a book to pennies.

The only sound strategy for authors? Start to go wide and build an audience wide. When the KUpocalypse happens because we all start to stuff, KU will be of so little value monetarily that it will be better to have a solid audience on Apple and Google Play, plus Kobo and B&N for what it's worth.

Start building that audience now. Keep some books in KU while it lasts, but make sure to start getting a foot in on other retailers. When everyone starts stuffing, and payouts reach $0.001 per page read, what good will KU be?


----------



## JRTomlin

Lydniz said:


> Good call.


----------



## RedFoxUF

sela said:


> I have been playing by what I thought are the rules. If stuffing is in fact accepted under Amazon TOS, stupid me for being honest and ethical. I could have been raking in much more dough if I had been stuffing all along.
> 
> To me, the writing on the wall is clear -- KU's days are numbered if stuffing is okay. It will further diminish the value of a book to pennies.
> 
> The only sound strategy for authors? Start to go wide and build an audience wide. When the KUpocalypse happens because we all start to stuff, KU will be of so little value monetarily that it will be better to have a solid audience on Apple and Google Play, plus Kobo and B&N for what it's worth.
> 
> Start building that audience now. Keep some books in KU while it lasts, but make sure to start getting a foot in on other retailers. When everyone starts stuffing, and payouts reach $0.001 per page read, what good will KU be?


You never know. They may see this coming and planning to add to the pot. I know they never appear to know WTF is going on but they do have a strategy for KU. Hopefully they've modeled some of this.

And they certainly have enough $$$ to pivot in any direction they want.

I agree with your advice though. I think the key now is to keep options open. Go uncheck all the autorenew boxes for KU so *you* can pivot quickly too. Put reminders on your calendar for when KU terms end.


----------



## Phxsundog

There are ethical issues with bonus stuffing like how it disappoints and confuses readers. You can't hold stuffers accountable for lowering the rate though. Amazon could double the pot and it would be chump change to their company. The only reason rate is going down this year is because Amazon KDP lets it.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

RedFoxUF said:


> You never know. They may see this coming and planning to add to the pot. I know they never appear to know WTF is going on but they do have a strategy for KU. Hopefully they've modeled some of this.
> 
> And they certainly have enough $$$ to pivot in any direction they want.
> 
> I agree with your advice though. I think the key now is to keep options open. Go uncheck all the autorenew boxes for KU so *you* can pivot quickly too. Put reminders on your calendar for when KU terms end.


WHOOPS.
My own experience in doing that may help here. 
We did that with about six of our books last year. And our entire catalog cratered in the rankings in 48 hours. We tried it once before in '15 when the KU payout changed and the same thing happened. We lack the degree of loyal readership to afford that again. For July, KU income is 2/3 of what we're making.

We had been wide at one point- back in 13 and 14; but we went all in b/c we found the returns from Gplay and iBooks drop steadily. 
We don't have the ability to write at the speed of Amanda Lee, one title every 90 days is our limit; so we're kinda stuck.

BUT AGAIN>
ticking that box for auto renews really clobbered us in the Zon, twice. Be careful.


----------



## sela

Phxsundog said:


> There are ethical issues with bonus stuffing like how it disappoints and confuses readers. You can't hold stuffers accountable for lowering the rate though. Amazon could double the pot and it would be chump change to their company. The only reason rate is going down this year is because Amazon KDP lets it.


If my stuffed book is 3,000 KENP and I get a full read, I get $12.67. That's much more than I get for my $9.99 actual bona fide series collection for an actual sale, which is about $6.99. So, it's almost double what I get for a sale. It makes sense under this kind of economy to create a massive collection and sell it for $9.99 and put it in KU, hoping to get a massive payout for a full read -- triggered by that brand spanking new short story at the end that the readers click to the back to read. It's ridiculous.

None of us know exactly how Amazon calculates the payout. We don't know what it gets for subscribers. We don't know anything except what they tell us. If the pot is only going to be so big, the payout will be based on how many page reads are counted. Stuffers increase the page reads so that means the payout will go down as long as Amazon does not increase the pot to compensate. So it is on Amazon for allowing stuffing -- if they do -- and for not increasing the pot to compensate -- if they don't.

My blood pressure has gone down a few mmHg now. I'll wait and see what the Amazon folks say...


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## hottakes

sela said:


> If, in fact, Amazon approves of this stuffing, and if we all start to do it, page reads will plummet and KU will become worthless financially and will only be of value for the visibility. In other words, you may get added visibility for borrows, but the payout will be so low that it will be a losing venture. At that point, maybe Amazon will lose enough authors that customers start complaining. Amazon only acts when customers complain. It couldn't give a sh*t about suppliers, apparently...


Amazon does approve of it, as you already found out. And people have been stuffing their books since the start of KU2. Remember the months that the rate went up? Stuffing. The sky hasn't fallen yet, but if it does, it won't be because legitimate authors are including an extra book or two.

Stuffing isn't the problem, but somehow this thread has turned into a "omg stuffing" circle jerk.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Phxsundog said:


> There are ethical issues with bonus stuffing like how it disappoints and confuses readers. You can't hold stuffers accountable for lowering the rate though. Amazon could double the pot and it would be chump change to their company. The only reason rate is going down this year is because Amazon KDP lets it.


Earlier in this thread, a few people (waves to Jacoby) mentioned that two different perspectives were talking past one another. I think it's b/c we're working from two radically different sets of basic assumptions. IOW, what one person defines as fair, the other person does not find credible. What the other person defines as a good business practice to maximize return for effort, the other sees as a form of chicanery.

Chicanery that, so far Amazon tolerates, and rewards.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that readers get disappointed and confused if you think that alone would lead to a breakdown of the system. Why? Because we've seen these books at the top of the charts, and if I'm not mistaken reap significant financial rewards. If the readers were as upset as you point out (well, if it was a significant number) then these books would not be at the level of success they are and have been.

The stuffers, and the 'botters are making good bank doing what they're doing. And they have been for quite some time.

And unless Amazon comes out with clear rules on these matters and enforces them with a big stick this will continue. Other people mentioned in this thread that the guy who got to #1 overall- Dragonsoul I think was the title, right?- was foolish b/c he stuck his head far up enough to get the attention. Ok, fine, he's gotten slapped down...

But what about the others out there who are not being as evident? Sure the top 100 players are moving a SERIOUS amount of copies...but y'know something? so are #200-500... and 500 to 2.5K....

I've demonstrated in this thread my lack of IT proficiency. But judging from what I've seen, a combination of stuffed books, bots for d/l, and then another bot for turning pages is a heck of a business opportunity for someone.

After all, there ain't no rulz agin' it, right?


----------



## Going Incognito

Atlantisatheart said:


> Break KU to fix KU...


Could always try this route, lol.



Going Incognito said:


> Maybe instead of all the protesting authors are doing and the emailing and etc we should organize. One big prescheduled click farm promo day that everyone gets in on. Blow up the Amazon store with massive amounts of clicks in a sit-in-protest. Schedule it enough time out so everyone has a chance to find/schedule a click company AND enough time to stuff every book in their catalog into the book set to be farmed on farm day. And be vocal about it online the day of, so they know its not a scam but a protest.


Wait, what's wrong with promo'ing others in your genre by swapping mentions in your newsletters?



Desmond X. Torres said:


> Clarity would be something new, eh? Man oh man... it's like we as KU authors are dealing with a black box. I haven't stuffed, or botted *or gotten involved in the swap angle* or any of that. I'd like to say that it's b/c I'm honest, ethical and so forth, but the truth of the matter is that this is my livlihood, I'm almost 60 years old and if this blows up I'm working at Wal Mart or back to hacking a cab.
> 
> Yeah, there is a degree of attempts at some form of integrity for me, sure; but to be fair to the posters who are doing this, the 'rules' aren't really rules b/c they lack enforcement. I mean, just look at your own personal experience quoted above, Sela. And you're one of the heavy hitters- 200K/year is an enormous income for any writer. You've been playing it straight, as have I...
> 
> ... but now the question is, are we being as foolish as has been implied?


----------



## hottakes

Going Incognito said:


> Wait, what's wrong with promo'ing others in your genre by swapping mentions in your newsletters?


Nothing. That's just promotion 101.


----------



## sela

hottakes said:


> Amazon does approve of it, as you already found out. And people have been stuffing their books since the start of KU2. Remember the months that the rate went up? Stuffing. The sky hasn't fallen yet, but if it does, it won't be because legitimate authors are including an extra book or two.
> 
> Stuffing isn't the problem, but somehow this thread has turned into a "omg stuffing" circle jerk.


No, what happened is that those of us with an ethical read of Amazon TOS saw stuffing and believed it contravened Amazon TOS and wanted to discuss and find out more because they felt it was scamming.

Those with a legalistic read of Amazon TOS (or maybe even an incorrect read of the TOS by an Amazon rep not in the know -- still waiting to hear back) read stuffing differently and were defending their actions.

Stuffing may not be the reason that those authors had their rank stripped. It may become one in the future if Amazon clarifies that stuffing is not kosher. We shall see when it goes up the chain to Jeff.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Going Incognito said:


> Wait, what's wrong with promo'ing others in your genre by swapping mentions in your newsletters?


No that's not the thing I was talking about. A while ago, about 2 years, it was buying swaps. I'd d/l and flip thru your KU book and you'd do the same for mine. Get a group of 20, 50 etc together and there's gold in them thar hills, see? Zon clobbered a few authors on that that I know of. I'm NOT talking about cross promotions at all.

Sorry for not being clear-er-er.


----------



## Seneca42

Desmond X. Torres said:


> And unless Amazon comes out with clear rules on these matters and enforces them with a big stick this will continue. Other people mentioned in this thread that the guy who got to #1 overall- Dragonsoul I think was the title, right?- was foolish b/c he stuck his head far up enough to get the attention. Ok, fine, he's gotten slapped down...


This right here is really the only thing that actually matters. Which is why DS was such a big deal. It was one of the (if not the) biggest abuses of KU.

The result? He didn't really get slapped down. He got deranked on the DS book alone, all the other books of his are fine (and DS itself remains in KU). All the reviews he has (many of them probably fake) were fine. Only the reviews that mentioned scamming were removed.

I'm more than willing to wait a while to see what Amazon's full response is. But on the surface, they're just whitewashing this and moving on. Hoping (as usual) the limited strike they've made will be enough to ward others off from cheating.

I can say that the books I track just out of curiousity, that are obviously botting, have not yet been caught. Some have paused their bots, clearly concerned about this. But without serious action by Amazon, in a month from now they'll be right back to botting, 100% guaranteed.

To be honest, at some level, one has to ask whether running a service this broken is even legal? Failure to accurately record page reads, scammers all over, stuffing to gain 'click to the end' reads, fake reviews, etc.

I know congress has been talking about looking at Amazon's business practices in relation to antitrust laws and Amazon may find themselves in deep shit running a business this way (their issues extend beyond just books).

My gut tells me this is a company that is simply too large and too automated to keep the deck chairs neatly organized on deck.


----------



## J. Tanner

SunnySammy said:


> Sticking links in the middle of a book to jump to the end doesn't count as pages read anyway. The reader has to stay on the page for however many seconds 'Zon demands. Flipping through too fast or jumping to the back via links don't count.


You're mistaken.

EXAMPLE 1:

BOOK CONTENTS:
100 page story, described by cover and blurb.
1000 pages of filler.
10 page bonus story.

KU reader reads the 100 page story, skips to the end and reads the 10 page bonus story.

1110 pages KU page reads generated.

EXAMPLE 2:
User notices in a blurb or Look Inside there's a "Special Offer" of interest (freebie, contest, etc) contained in the book. They aren't interested in the book at all, but that Special Offer is enticing...

BOOK CONTENTS:
Link to Special Offer
100 page story, described by cover and blurb.
1000 pages of filler.
10 page bonus story.
1 page Special Offer

KU reader clicks on Link to Special Offer, and decides they have no interest in it, or anything else in the book.

1111 pages KU page reads generated.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

For me all of these issues are related. The fact is techniques which were formerly considered black-hat are becoming mainstream. Readers don't seem to really notice it. While Amazon clearly doesn't have the means to support the unique ecosystem they created. Will Amazon keep adding to the pot to compensate and prevent page read amounts from plummeting to .001 cents? Because the cats out of the bag now, the recipe on how to print money has now been laid out it glorious detail. 

The bottom line is that you can use KU to cheat your way to a HUGE cash payouts. Amazon won't really pursue you and even if they get around to catching you months down the road, you'll be able to keep the ill gotten gains.  This is going to be a huge mess by years end.


----------



## Monique

Desmond X. Torres said:


> No that's not the thing I was talking about. A while ago, about 2 years, it was buying swaps. I'd d/l and flip thru your KU book and you'd do the same for mine. Get a group of 20, 50 etc together and there's gold in them thar hills, see? Zon clobbered a few authors on that that I know of. I'm NOT talking about cross promotions at all.
> 
> Sorry for not being clear-er-er.


These are alive and well and scammers be scammin' up a storm with them as we speak.


----------



## Phxsundog

Nothing inherently wrong with newsletter promos. The truth is lists have exploded in romance this year and so have send rates due to authors crosspromoting. More romance authors joined the swap groups like Bookclicker just to keep up. Many of these lists have been abused with daily spam recommendations but that's another issue. Email spam is also what's giving a big boost to the authors doing things a lot of people in this thread don't like such as bonus stuffing. They trade their new release promos for email swaps with dozens of authors. What does this have to do with books losing rank? Too many authors jumped on swaps without always knowing who they agreed to trade with. Or without having a previous relationship. If they accidentally made a deal with a scammer who decided to click farm books in their email swaps then they got bot traffic and Amazon found out.


----------



## Going Incognito

Desmond X. Torres said:


> No that's not the thing I was talking about. A while ago, about 2 years, it was buying swaps. I'd d/l and flip thru your KU book and you'd do the same for mine. Get a group of 20, 50 etc together and there's gold in them thar hills, see? Zon clobbered a few authors on that that I know of. I'm NOT talking about cross promotions at all.
> 
> Sorry for not being clear-er-er.


Ah, gotcha. Buy/read swaps, not newsletter spot swaps.

As someone who sees newsletter swaps as brilliant and a green light activity, stuffing as a grey area/yellow light activity and bots as a red light true scam activity, I thought I was missing something about NL swaps.

Course I'm also firmly in the 'Amazon pays out whatever it feels like paying out, adding whatever made up amounts to the mythical pot it budgeted that month' camp since they have flat out said 'reading in page flip does not count pages,' 'we can't actually count pages at all anywhere, to be honest,' and 'a read is what we say it is.' So I don't think anything is going to change, really. Amazon will continue to give and take at will, keeping any and all information on a need to know basis that us peon vendors obviously never need to know, while slapping people down when it wants to send a vague message it wants to keep us occupied fighting and guessing about while dividing up the imaginary KU pot of gold as it deems appropriate to those that don't cause _too much_ trouble. 'Too much' trouble of course also being as quantifiable as anything else they do, which is about what you'd expect.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Monique said:


> These are alive and well and scammers be scammin' up a storm with them as we speak.


Oh. I genuinely thought that had been fixed once and for all. Sigh.

Look, I have never worked in a corporate environment long enough to wrap my head around the culture of one. For example, the movie comedy 'Office Space' was pretty good, but my partner who worked over 20 years for an Ins Co loved it. I never could get the TV series The Office, but she loves that. (I DO think Carrell's a genius).

That's all a lead up to my expression of bewilderment. On this thread, in the earlier pages were descriptions of simple fixes that were so elegant they astonished me. And those were practically throw aways insofar as they were posts on a Kboard thread. In terms of IT, Amazon has rocket scientists who work for them.

The only conclusion that I'm coming to is that:
1. They're quite aware of what's going on; in more dimensions than I could comprehend, frankly. Which leads me to 
2. They genuinely DON'T CARE one way or another about the perceived injustices. I say perceived b/c of my earlier post that described the woeful lack of clarity regarding their policies. Add that to the apathy they've demonstrated since 2015 about this and, yeah... they don't care.

Does the current situation keep money out of my pocket for playing this gig as I am? Absolutely. 
But it's the only game in town.


----------



## 75814

Desmond X. Torres said:


> 2. They genuinely DON'T CARE one way or another about the perceived injustices. I say perceived b/c of my earlier post that described the woeful lack of clarity regarding their policies. Add that to the apathy they've demonstrated since 2015 about this and, yeah... they don't care.


I think this is definitely the answer.


----------



## Going Incognito

Phxsundog said:


> Nothing inherently wrong with newsletter promos. The truth is lists have exploded in romance this year and so have send rates due to authors crosspromoting. More romance authors joined the swap groups like Bookclicker just to keep up. Many of these lists have been abused with daily spam recommendations but that's another issue. Email spam is also what's giving a big boost to the authors doing things a lot of people in this thread don't like such as bonus stuffing. They trade their new release promos for email swaps with dozens of authors. What does this have to do with books losing rank? Too many authors jumped on swaps without always knowing who they agreed to trade with. Or without having a previous relationship. If they accidentally made a deal with a scammer who decided to click farm books in their email swaps then they got bot traffic and Amazon found out.


It's like watching a chess game.
Between savvy business minded authors and a savvy business minded storefront. Each wants control. Only it's like WarGames.

"Shall we play a game?"

The storefront starts by hiding every scrap bit of data. What other storefront on the planet refuses to tell their vendors how many of each item goes out the front door? What's the point of not giving authors the very basic knowledge of how many units of product are borrowed? They want a good customer experience? How about letting us figure out with that borrow number if the majority of readers are reading the whole book or if the majority of readers are borrowing and returning after struggling thru a single chapter? If we knew 'pages read' AND 'books borrowed' we could see that, but no. We could also see if people are really even falling for the link to the back of the book thing, or closing the book after the first story. I've fallen for some of these stuffed books, trying out a new-to-me author based on cover and blurb only to not enjoy Chapter 1 enough to finish the book, giving them almost no reads, and certainly never making it to the end. How many are like me? How many are giving them full reads? Who knows?

The storefront wants total control. No transparency. Shut up, do what you're told and don't question us! 
So authors adapt, blindly feeling for a foothold in the dark. Then Amazon blocks.

Customers are gobbling up the 'wrong kinds' of books, making the lists look un-family friendly? Let's build a dungeon!

Authors aren't happy or content letting Amazon's super secret algos decide who gets visability? They buy ads on FB. Amazon sees that all this traffic is coming from authors paying good money to FB for ads? Hmm, how bout we keep that money in house and have 'sponsored products' take over the author's product page so we have control over ads?

Amazon says 'here are your very unclear rules!' Authors work within the rules, flooding KU1 with shorts. No, wait! That's not what we...

Hang on, here are your new rules! KU2, long now rewarded. Authors work within the new rules, working together and bundling. Offering readers samples of 10 authors for 99 cents, hoping to drive readers to their catalogs. Oh, nope, wait, that's not what we meant either, no more of that!

Well, then... maybe be clearer? Tell us what is allowed? Oh, no. No need, just dont pub bundles in KU from different accounts. Keep it all on one account. Ok, so stuffing is good? Umm, sure. Maybe. Possibly. Wait, maybe we didnt think a damn thing thru about anything in this system of paying by pages counted, that we cant even count?

Bookbub gets what kind of results just by sending out a mailing list? Amazon puts up a 'follow me and get emails about...' button. Authors think 'how bout if I build a mailing list so I can reach my own damn customer base instead of Amazon being the only one sending out daily deals targeted to buyers?  We can even swap! 
Wait, Amazon says... thats not what we meant! Now you look like bots! Or now we cant tell who is using bots! Crap!

Why you guys gotta zig when we zag? We purposely keep you in the dark on everything so you wont figure these things out! Cause humans as a whole _never_ try to work a system to their advantage, not since the beginning of evolution when the ones with the most opposable thumbs grabbed the most bananas.

Check mate.
No, you're in check!
No, you're in check!
Yeah? Watch this!


----------



## Going Incognito

Desmond X. Torres said:


> The only conclusion that I'm coming to is that:
> 1. They're quite aware of what's going on; in more dimensions than I could comprehend, frankly. Which leads me to
> 2. They genuinely DON'T CARE one way or another about the perceived injustices. I say perceived b/c of my earlier post that described the woeful lack of clarity regarding their policies. Add that to the apathy they've demonstrated since 2015 about this and, yeah... they don't care.


Bingo, we have a winner.


----------



## Monique

I figure it's the same reason companies produce and install faulty airbags and the like. They know people will die. They can settle those suits. It's more cost effective to let people die and deal with the few who fight back than to deal with the problem in design/production.

Amazon knows people scam. Until it hurts their bottom line or impedes their goals (because with Amazon it's not always about making money in the short term), they will put as few resources toward the issue as possible. Eventually, the problems will grow - like stuffing (and much worse) - until they destroy the system as we know it and a new one is put in its place.


----------



## Sally C

This whole situation is very depressing.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Going Incognito said:


> Bingo, we have a winner.


 
So, what's my prize? A gift card? A book? If you give me a pony, I'm sending it to Phoenix!


----------



## Anarchist

Fun fact: Amanda, whose absence in this thread is noteworthy,* has written 38,000 words and edited 130,000 words since this thread began.





* If only to suggest how some of us might better use our limited time.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Y'know what just hit me?
A couple of years ago a NY Times reporter went on a tear against Amazon. It started w/ the Hachette debacle and how that led to the 'Authors United' crew of TradPubed writers taking out ads and giving interviews about big, bad Amazon. 

Joe Konrath and others stuck up for the Zon. As did Hugh Howey. When the NYT resorted to Whale math, the number of comments on that specific article's page online went through the roof; so much that the Public Editor had to send Strietfield onto other assignments, but not before he did a piece about Bezo's annual conference that was basically a hit piece. 

During that period the number of posts here on Kboards of people telling how Indie pubbing and the Zon had such a powerful and positive effect on their lives was compelling. 

I genuinely believed that Amazon was trying to be fair. 

Now I feel like a bumpkin who finally saw behind the curtain. That was never the case; it IS always about profits.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Anarchist said:


> Fun fact: Amanda, whose absence in this thread is noteworthy,* has written 38,000 words and edited 130,000 words since this thread began.
> * If only to suggest how some of us might better use our limited time.


Yeah, you're right; I just posted behind her on that thread. This thread has derailed me for the last 2 days, man.


----------



## sela

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Yeah, you're right; I just posted behind her on that thread. This thread has derailed me for the last 2 days, man.


Nothing derails The Machine Amanda!

Yeah, I had to rejig my schedule due to two days of reading and posting on this thread LOL!

But that's okay. That's why I love being an indie and as much as I complain about it, why I also love Amazon. Because, without Amazon, I would likely have never published my first book back in 2012 or made the money I have made. So, there's that.


----------



## Colin

Anarchist said:


> Fun fact: Amanda, whose absence in this thread is noteworthy,* has written 38,000 words and edited 130,000 words since this thread began.
> 
> * If only to suggest how some of us might better use our limited time.


I've published one book and I'm about to publish another since this thread began.


----------



## 75814

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Y'know what just hit me?
> A couple of years ago a NY Times reporter went on a tear against Amazon. It started w/ the Hachette debacle and how that led to the 'Authors United' crew of TradPubed writers taking out ads and giving interviews about big, bad Amazon.
> 
> Joe Konrath and others stuck up for the Zon. As did Hugh Howey. When the NYT resorted to Whale math, the number of comments on that specific article's page online went through the roof; so much that the Public Editor had to send Strietfield onto other assignments, but not before he did a piece about Bezo's annual conference that was basically a hit piece.
> 
> During that period the number of posts here on Kboards of people telling how Indie pubbing and the Zon had such a powerful and positive effect on their lives was compelling.
> 
> I genuinely believed that Amazon was trying to be fair.
> 
> Now I feel like a bumpkin who finally saw behind the curtain. That was never the case; it IS always about profits.


Don't get me wrong, I love that Amazon has made it possible for me to make money doing what I love. It's absolutely changed my life, I've met some wonderful people because of it, and I'm a whole lot happier because of it. But never lose sight of the fact that Amazon really doesn't give a crap about any of us. They've always done what's in their best interests. Sometimes, those interests coincide with those of indie authors and other times, they don't.


----------



## Going Incognito

Desmond X. Torres said:


> So, what's my prize? A gift card? A book? If you give me a pony, I'm sending it to Phoenix!


How bout some Chinese-made counterfeit knockoffs of your choice? Take your pick from any non-book arm of... you guessed it! Amazon!!!! 
And the crowd goes wild!


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Going Incognito said:


> How bout some Chinese-made counterfeit knockoffs of your choice? Take your pick from any non-book arm of... you guessed it! Amazon!!!!
> And the crowd goes wild!


OH JOY!!!


----------



## Going Incognito

Desmond X. Torres said:


> OH JOY!!!


No worries, you can always resell it, lol!


----------



## Going Incognito

Perry Constantine said:


> Don't get me wrong, I love that Amazon has made it possible for me to make money doing what I love. It's absolutely changed my life, I've met some wonderful people because of it, and I'm a whole lot happier because of it. But never lose sight of the fact that Amazon really doesn't give a crap about any of us. They've always done what's in their best interests. Sometimes, those interests coincide with those of indie authors and other times, they don't.


Best kind of hell there is, amiright?


----------



## David Greene

This thread is like a novel. There's good and evil, moral ambiguity, hidden identities, noble authors, sneaky scammers, evil corporations. It's a real page-turner. It's well-written (mostly)! Which I guess is not a surprise.

But how will it end? Will there be an HEA ending? Will good triumph over evil? I'm spending a lot of time here, waiting to find out!


----------



## Jim Johnson

David Greene said:


> But how will it end? Will there be an HEA ending? Will good triumph over evil? I'm spending a lot of time here, waiting to find out!


My money's on ending in flames or at least locked down once we get a few more drive by posters with under 10 posts stirring up the regulars.

Plenty of popcorn tho.


----------



## Anarchist

David Greene said:


> This thread is like a novel. There's good and evil, moral ambiguity, hidden identities, noble authors, sneaky scammers, evil corporations. It's a real page-turner. It's well-written (mostly)! Which I guess is not a surprise.
> 
> But how will it end? Will there be an HEA ending? Will good triumph over evil? I'm spending a lot of time here, waiting to find out!


I'm looking for a somber, thought-provoking, and possibly even heartbreaking ending - a la _Million Dollar Baby_.


----------



## Colin

Anarchist said:


> I'm looking for a somber, thought-provoking, and possibly even heartbreaking ending - a la _Million Dollar Baby_.


This 'novel' thread should end like all good novels - with an excerpt from the next book in the series. ;--)


----------



## Homer

Colin said:


> This 'novel' thread should end like all good novels - with an excerpt from the next book in the series. ;--)


Haven't you been paying attention? We're supposed to stuff 5-6 more threads at the end and then put a link at the beginning to the end.


----------



## Colin

Homer said:


> Haven't you been paying attention? We're supposed to stuff 5-6 more threads at the end and then put a link at the beginning to the end.


So sorry... my pet goldfish, Bieber, has a higher attention span.


----------



## Seneca42

It will end with Kboards 2.0


----------



## unkownwriter

So, the take away, for all the lurkers and those like me who like to be ethical, is that Amazon has said stuffing is okay, everyone else with any sense is doing it, and there's big money to be made. I give in. I'm going to get some Google translations of everything I have (save for those brand new bonus stories to put in the back of the book, handy link included for free), maybe scrape some old stories from the web, and start stuffing away. I'll have to get a loan to hire the click farm, though. But once I'm rolling in dough, look out, cause I'm going to be Number One! The rest of you suckers can just sit and moan about how unfair it is.


----------



## David VanDyke

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Clarity would be something new, eh? Man oh man... it's like we as KU authors are dealing with a black box. I haven't stuffed, or botted or gotten involved in the swap angle or any of that. I'd like to say that it's b/c I'm honest, ethical and so forth, but the truth of the matter is that this is my livlihood, I'm almost 60 years old and if this blows up I'm working at Wal Mart or back to hacking a cab.


That's exactly why you might consider moving away from KU, in a controlled, deliberate manner, and going wide. Right now, my income is about 50% Amazon ebooks (retail for English, KU/retail for foreign language, about sub-50/50, or in other words, 25% overall each) and 50% everything else (print, audio, other vendor ebooks). It used to be 90% Amazon ebooks, all-in with KU. And, six months after making the switch, the overall total is about the same, i.e., after a few months of making 20-30% less, I'm making about the same now.

The difference is, yes, my business is more complicated by having to manage all the other vendors. But, you can always just go thru D2D or Smashwords if you're willing to give them their cut, and your life will be simplified.

The positive compensations include:

- The fact that I no longer worry about KU (if non-English KU crashed completely, I'd lose half of half of my Amazon ebook earnings, or roughly 13%, but no more);
- The fact that BookBubs are easier to get (they favor wide);
- All other promo sites that provide wide links, such as ERNT, are more effective per dollar;
- Kobo has its own in-house promos that support Kobo sales
- Each other site has its own strength. My Nook sales are strong with mystery/thriller/suspense; Apple customers seem willing to pay higher prices; Kobo has a worldwide customer base that has me selling English books in places like Netherlands and South Africa where I hardly ever sell on Amazon; I have no idea WTF goes on at Google Play, but my sales there have kept pace, and I have to believe Google itself gives some subtle SEO help to its own books. I even sell a few on Smashwords, and when I do, I get the highest royalty rate.
- And bottom line, spreading my bets around means I don't have to worry about the 800-pound gorilla accidentally smashing my all bananas, because I have bananas everywhere.
- There's also the "venture capital" principle, in other words, placing as many bets in as many places as possible, hoping one of them explodes/goes viral/blows up. "The Martian" became a movie and a million-seller basically because the right guy read it. Yes, it appears that "right guy" read it off Amazon as a 99c novel, imagine if the "right guy" had been a Nook or Apple-only reader?

Bottom line, I'm not against KU, but I have come to believe that, if you can avoid taking too big an income hit, it make a lot of sense to spread your risk around and go wide.


----------



## David VanDyke

Desmond X. Torres said:


> WHOOPS.
> My own experience in doing that may help here.
> We did that with about six of our books last year. And our entire catalog cratered in the rankings in 48 hours. We tried it once before in '15 when the KU payout changed and the same thing happened. We lack the degree of loyal readership to afford that again. For July, KU income is 2/3 of what we're making.
> 
> We had been wide at one point- back in 13 and 14; but we went all in b/c we found the returns from Gplay and iBooks drop steadily.
> We don't have the ability to write at the speed of Amanda Lee, one title every 90 days is our limit; so we're kinda stuck.
> 
> BUT AGAIN>
> ticking that box for auto renews really clobbered us in the Zon, twice. Be careful.


The key is to do it very gradually. I moved my books out of KU in a rolling wave, from series start to finish, over 3 month's time. It was a lot of work, but it kept things from crashing.


----------



## writerlygal

Mmmmm hmmm. So here there were successful top 100 authors saying they weren't doing anything against the TOS & a bunch of other authors including the ringleaders of this witchhunt were claiming that yes they were. The authors said: we've spoken to our Amazon reps, they're fine with our bonus content up to 3000 KENPC. Some here called them liars. Said their defenses made you sick to your stomach to read. [Well, the way ya'll demonize & go after fellow authors for things YOU think are wrong based on YOUR own understanding of rules & TOS makes ME sick to MY stomach to read].

Then Sela emails a rep & gets the exact same answers these authors defending themselves have said they received & now you're saying, oh my, are we really allowed to do that? YES. These very successful top 100 authors have been saying that & those of you here who need the self-appointed Amazon's Helpers & Rule Interpreters to tell you what to think didn't want to believe them & in fact were denigrating them as scammers when they were merely participating in the KU system as fully as possible. It's laughable that the discussion of ethics has now changed into 'wait, we're allowed to do that, then I'm going to...' which is exactly what these other authors were doing the whole time while you were busy reporting them & stalking their catalogs & talking badly about them on this forum. Perhaps those authors are just better business people & that's where the real hate is coming from.


----------



## David VanDyke

writerlygal said:


> Mmmmm hmmm. So here there were successful top 100 authors saying they weren't doing anything against the TOS & a bunch of other authors including the ringleaders of this witchhunt were claiming that yes they were. The authors said: we've spoken to our Amazon reps, they're fine with our bonus content up to 3000 KENPC. Some here called them liars. Said their defenses made you sick to your stomach to read. [Well, the way ya'll demonize & go after fellow authors for things YOU think are wrong based on YOUR own understanding of rules & TOS makes ME sick to MY stomach to read].
> 
> Then Sela emails a rep & gets the exact same answers these authors defending themselves have said they received & now you're saying, oh my, are we really allowed to do that? YES. These very successful top 100 authors have been saying that & those of you here who need the self-appointed Amazon's Helpers & Rule Interpreters to tell you what to think didn't want to believe them & in fact were denigrating them as scammers when they were merely participating in the KU system as fully as possible. It's laughable that the discussion of ethics has now changed into 'wait, we're allowed to do that, then I'm going to...' which is exactly what these other authors were doing the whole time while you were busy reporting them & stalking their catalogs & talking badly about them on this forum. Perhaps those authors are just better business people & that's where the real hate is coming from.


This is the legalistic, "whatever you can get away with" argument. It's akin to arguing that the police and Wal-mart don't work hard to catch you shoplifting, and everybody does it, and you interpret the law as not prohibiting theft, so it's okay.

Bollocks.

The TOS are clear. There's no need for interpretation. The fact that Amazon doesn't stringently enforce their own TOS doesn't make violating them right. Abusing the system is unethical, and by the same legalistic arguments, it's wrong. It's defending the indefensible. Anyone with a lick of common sense and ethics can see this.

Guess what: it's not a metaphorical witch hunt if there really are witches poisoning the brew, so to speak.

(Not downing Wiccans, by the way; just using the common parlance).


----------



## Homer

writerlygal said:


> Mmmmm hmmm. So here there were successful top 100 authors saying they weren't doing anything against the TOS & a bunch of other authors including the ringleaders of this witchhunt were claiming that yes they were. The authors said: we've spoken to our Amazon reps, they're fine with our bonus content up to 3000 KENPC. Some here called them liars. Said their defenses made you sick to your stomach to read. [Well, the way ya'll demonize & go after fellow authors for things YOU think are wrong based on YOUR own understanding of rules & TOS makes ME sick to MY stomach to read].
> 
> Then Sela emails a rep & gets the exact same answers these authors defending themselves have said they received & now you're saying, oh my, are we really allowed to do that? YES. These very successful top 100 authors have been saying that & those of you here who need the self-appointed Amazon's Helpers & Rule Interpreters to tell you what to think didn't want to believe them & in fact were denigrating them as scammers when they were merely participating in the KU system as fully as possible. It's laughable that the discussion of ethics has now changed into 'wait, we're allowed to do that, then I'm going to...' which is exactly what these other authors were doing the whole time while you were busy reporting them & stalking their catalogs & talking badly about them on this forum. Perhaps those authors are just better business people & that's where the real hate is coming from.


If you want to add 2500 KENP of new material that is not available anywhere else on Amazon, then that's within the terms of of the agreement you signed with Amazon. I still don't know if that's what you're talking about.

If you're shuffling the same six stories between six different books, all in different order, that is clearly in violation of Amazon's terms, which are, again, that your books cannot have
*
Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*

So which is it? Is your 'bonus' material elsewhere in the store? Or is it all fresh? And have you explained this distinction to the KU rep?


----------



## CassieL

I honestly don't care what the Amazon reps are telling people is okay.  What I've heard described doesn't pass the smell test so I wouldn't do it.

As I mentioned up thread, I'm not a lawyer but I've spent most of my professional career interpreting legal requirements, close to a decade of that spent enforcing those requirements.  In my industry we'd have situations like this crop up where someone would think they'd asked for an interpretation but the way they described it meant they weren't asking what they thought they were.  Or they'd ask the wrong person.  In that case, which was far more regulated, there was one department staffed by lawyers who were actually the ones who could give an official interpretation of the requirements.  The request had to be in writing and the response was made in writing. Only then could you trust exactly what was asked and that someone with true authority to make a determination had answered and actually considered the requirements in sufficient detail.

"Everyone else does it" didn't stand up there and won't stand up if Amazon decides they don't like this. Maybe they just change their terms to clarify things (which they've done before) or maybe they take action. If they take action, people could lose their accounts.

I'm not telling anyone what to do with their books. Everyone has to make their own choice about where their line is.  Because of my professional background I try to stay as far away from the gray line as I can get even if that means less money now.


----------



## sela

writerlygal said:


> Mmmmm hmmm. So here there were successful top 100 authors saying they weren't doing anything against the TOS & a bunch of other authors including the ringleaders of this witchhunt were claiming that yes they were. The authors said: we've spoken to our Amazon reps, they're fine with our bonus content up to 3000 KENPC. Some here called them liars. Said their defenses made you sick to your stomach to read. [Well, the way ya'll demonize & go after fellow authors for things YOU think are wrong based on YOUR own understanding of rules & TOS makes ME sick to MY stomach to read].
> 
> Then Sela emails a rep & gets the exact same answers these authors defending themselves have said they received & now you're saying, oh my, are we really allowed to do that? YES. These very successful top 100 authors have been saying that & those of you here who need the self-appointed Amazon's Helpers & Rule Interpreters to tell you what to think didn't want to believe them & in fact were denigrating them as scammers when they were merely participating in the KU system as fully as possible. It's laughable that the discussion of ethics has now changed into 'wait, we're allowed to do that, then I'm going to...' which is exactly what these other authors were doing the whole time while you were busy reporting them & stalking their catalogs & talking badly about them on this forum. Perhaps those authors are just better business people & that's where the real hate is coming from.


I actually sent a very detailed email response to my KDP rep outlining a stuffing scenario using my own books as an example to ask her to check in if it was legit as I laid it out. Why? I felt the email I got back from her was very vague on the whole stuffing issue.

My scenario rearranged 5 different books 5 ways with a different title book and with a "special bonus story" at the back and a link to it at the back to generate a large KENP payout if the reader clicked it after reading the title story.

Which is what the top 100 authors who stuff their books are doing right now. You can go and find examples of this in the top 20 in the Romance genre and Kindle store.

She has indicated that the content team will be reviewing what I sent and will consider and respond back.

I will report back when I get the a-okay. I have a backlist of 15 full-length novels and 4 novellas and 3 short stories. I could do a lot of stuffing with that backlist if it is indeed within Amazon's acceptable TOS and product quality, etc. to stuff books and merely rearrange the content to make it up to 3000 KENP.* I could put a different "special bonus story" at the end of each stuffed book and I know my thousands and thousands of email list subscribers, Bookbub subscribers, Amazon subscribers and other Facebook followers would probably love to read those very special all new never been read stories. 

Watch out KU pot!

* Just kidding. I am conflicted about this. I suspect the reps who have responded already don't know their a** from a hole in the ground, frankly. But we shall see.

As to your post, writerlygal, many of us were concerned that people were scamming the KU system which is a legitimate concern because it affects our livelihoods. People have been scamming Amazon and KU since KU was created. Those of us questioning stuffing have an understanding of the TOS based on our experiences with reps and with publishing and after watching Amazon respond to scammers. I never named a single person, so I wasn't on a witch hunt of any kind. I was trying to find out whether what stuffers were doing was legit. Many of us agreed it seemed to contravene the written TOS and the spirit of the rules.

I still think stuffing is probably against TOS and will be dealt with. That's just my gut feeling. Until I hear back from the top of the Amazon KDP foodchain, I won't be stuffing my books.

If I do hear back from the Amazon big wheels that stuffing books with reordered content already published in the Kindle Store with special bonus stories at the end is kosher and gosh, great! then I and other non-stuffers will probably stuff our books so full that the KU pot will shiver.

But I'm not holding my breath that a practice that so clearly contravenes the written KDP TOS is truly legit.


----------



## Shelley K

Amazon really does tell people that they have no problems with bonus content. I know many people who have asked specifically, several times, about their own bonus content, because they don't want to end up on the Zon's bad side. And they have all been assured that it's fine. I do believe that one day Amazon is going to decide that it's not, and anyone with a business plan based on read-money from bonus books is going to have to come up with a plan B. I think there might be some isolated cases of that happening now, but on the whole, no, they dgaf. And _if they do_, which I highly doubt, their front-line CSRs aren't aware of it.

I don't do bonus content in my books. Never have. I don't even put anything more than a paragraph about other novels, haven't for years now. Yet I can't bring myself to get too worked up about other people's bonus content. I think some of the scenarios about bonus content stealing reads are a little overblown. For instance, the double-dipping, getting paid twice for the same book because the person read it before on its own and then reads it again when they find it in the back of another. I don't think that happens enough to matter. Do authors sometimes get paid double when the reader doesn't actual read double, because there are eight bonus books and they want to read number five or six? I'm sure that happens. And that's entirely Amazon's fault for not counting actual pages read instead of last page, so when I bristle at that, it's at Amazon for creating that problem to start with. A switch to actual pages read would eliminate 99% of people's ire over bonus content.

The only thing that really ruffles me is when there's a thousand pages of bonus content, and a link at the beginning or the end of the actual title content leading readers to the last book, _purposefully_ getting them to skip over other stuff to the end. I think that's dodgy.

I also don't happen to believe that bonus content is the reason for the romance rank-stripping. At the very least, it's not the only reason. I think there's a lot more to it, and I also suspect that after Amazon looks at everything, most if not all of them will be restored. If not, there are bigger problems on the horizon than bots and bonus books.


----------



## Homer

Shelley K said:


> Amazon really does tell people that they have no problems with bonus content. I know many people who have asked specifically, several times, about their own bonus content, because they don't want to end up on the Zon's bad side. And they have all been assured that it's fine. I do believe that one day Amazon is going to decide that it's not, and anyone with a business plan based on read-money from bonus books is going to have to come up with a plan B. I think there might be some isolated cases of that happening now, but on the whole, no, they dgaf. And _if they do_, which I highly doubt, their front-line CSRs aren't aware of it.
> 
> I don't do bonus content in my books. Never have. I don't even put anything more than a paragraph about other novels, haven't for years now. Yet I can't bring myself to get too worked up about other people's bonus content. I think some of the scenarios about bonus content stealing reads are a little overblown. For instance, the double-dipping, getting paid twice for the same book because the person read it before on its own and then reads it again when they find it in the back of another. I don't think that happens enough to matter. Do authors sometimes get paid double when the reader doesn't actual read double, because there are eight bonus books and they want to read number five or six? I'm sure that happens. And that's entirely Amazon's fault for not counting actual pages read instead of last page, so when I bristle at that, it's at Amazon for creating that problem to start with. A switch to actual pages read would eliminate 99% of people's ire over bonus content.
> 
> The only thing that really ruffles me is when there's a thousand pages of bonus content, and a link at the beginning or the end of the actual title content leading readers to the last book, _purposefully_ getting them to skip over other stuff to the end. I think that's dodgy.
> 
> I also don't happen to believe that bonus content is the reason for the romance rank-stripping. At the very least, it's not the only reason. I think there's a lot more to it, and I also suspect that after Amazon looks at everything, most if not all of them will be restored. If not, there are bigger problems on the horizon than bots and bonus books.


So Amazon has said that it's okay to have seven books in KU in seven bundles, all ordered differently with different titles? Despite that being a clear violation of TOS? Or do they allow fresh bonus content at the end of books, material that isn't already available in the Kindle store? I'm trying to wrap my head around why KU representatives would say the former is okay, when it very clearly contradicts the TOS.


----------



## Not any more

As far as bailing out of KU, for some genres that isn't as easy as for others.

Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win.
Robert Heinlein


----------



## Shelley K

Homer said:


> So Amazon has said that it's okay to have seven books in KU in seven bundles, all ordered differently with different titles? Despite that being a clear violation of TOS? Or do they allow fresh bonus content at the end of books, material that isn't already available in the Kindle store? I'm trying to wrap my head around why KU representatives would say the former is okay, when it very clearly contradicts the TOS.


If all the books are in KU under the same account, they don't care. That is what people have been told. I can't vow that anybody asked specifically about seven books, but yes, books repeated in more than a couple volumes as bonus content.

Doing that only contradicts the TOS _clearly_ if you also take it to mean that a bundle of books previously published individually also violates it. I mean, if you want to drill down into the words, I can see bundles violating it for the same reason. I'm sure that's not how it's meant, but that's irrelevant if we're talking about the actual words.

I genuinely think the best use of people's ire about this is to contact Amazon and push for them to actually register pages read, not last page and everything before it. That would solve a lot.


----------



## GeneDoucette

David VanDyke said:


> That's exactly why you might consider moving away from KU, in a controlled, deliberate manner, and going wide. Right now, my income is about 50% Amazon ebooks (retail for English, KU/retail for foreign language, about sub-50/50, or in other words, 25% overall each) and 50% everything else (print, audio, other vendor ebooks). It used to be 90% Amazon ebooks, all-in with KU. And, six months after making the switch, the overall total is about the same, i.e., after a few months of making 20-30% less, I'm making about the same now.
> 
> The difference is, yes, my business is more complicated by having to manage all the other vendors. But, you can always just go thru D2D or Smashwords if you're willing to give them their cut, and your life will be simplified.
> 
> The positive compensations include:
> 
> - The fact that I no longer worry about KU (if non-English KU crashed completely, I'd lose half of half of my Amazon ebook earnings, or roughly 13%, but no more);
> - The fact that BookBubs are easier to get (they favor wide);
> - All other promo sites that provide wide links, such as ERNT, are more effective per dollar;
> - Kobo has its own in-house promos that support Kobo sales
> - Each other site has its own strength. My Nook sales are strong with mystery/thriller/suspense; Apple customers seem willing to pay higher prices; Kobo has a worldwide customer base that has me selling English books in places like Netherlands and South Africa where I hardly ever sell on Amazon; I have no idea WTF goes on at Google Play, but my sales there have kept pace, and I have to believe Google itself gives some subtle SEO help to its own books. I even sell a few on Smashwords, and when I do, I get the highest royalty rate.
> - And bottom line, spreading my bets around means I don't have to worry about the 800-pound gorilla accidentally smashing my all bananas, because I have bananas everywhere.
> - There's also the "venture capital" principle, in other words, placing as many bets in as many places as possible, hoping one of them explodes/goes viral/blows up. "The Martian" became a movie and a million-seller basically because the right guy read it. Yes, it appears that "right guy" read it off Amazon as a 99c novel, imagine if the "right guy" had been a Nook or Apple-only reader?
> 
> Bottom line, I'm not against KU, but I have come to believe that, if you can avoid taking too big an income hit, it make a lot of sense to spread your risk around and go wide.


All of this. And my split is 50-50 too.


----------



## sela

Shelley K said:


> Amazon really does tell people that they have no problems with bonus content. I know many people who have asked specifically, several times, about their own bonus content, because they don't want to end up on the Zon's bad side. And they have all been assured that it's fine. I do believe that one day Amazon is going to decide that it's not, and anyone with a business plan based on read-money from bonus books is going to have to come up with a plan B. I think there might be some isolated cases of that happening now, but on the whole, no, they dgaf. And _if they do_, which I highly doubt, their front-line CSRs aren't aware of it.
> 
> I don't do bonus content in my books. Never have. I don't even put anything more than a paragraph about other novels, haven't for years now. Yet I can't bring myself to get too worked up about other people's bonus content. I think some of the scenarios about bonus content stealing reads are a little overblown. For instance, the double-dipping, getting paid twice for the same book because the person read it before on its own and then reads it again when they find it in the back of another. I don't think that happens enough to matter. Do authors sometimes get paid double when the reader doesn't actual read double, because there are eight bonus books and they want to read number five or six? I'm sure that happens. And that's entirely Amazon's fault for not counting actual pages read instead of last page, so when I bristle at that, it's at Amazon for creating that problem to start with. A switch to actual pages read would eliminate 99% of people's ire over bonus content.
> 
> The only thing that really ruffles me is when there's a thousand pages of bonus content, and a link at the beginning or the end of the actual title content leading readers to the last book, _purposefully_ getting them to skip over other stuff to the end. I think that's dodgy.
> 
> I also don't happen to believe that bonus content is the reason for the romance rank-stripping. At the very least, it's not the only reason. I think there's a lot more to it, and I also suspect that after Amazon looks at everything, most if not all of them will be restored. If not, there are bigger problems on the horizon than bots and bonus books.


As someone who wrote legislative guidelines for a living for years, I know full well that you have to be very clear with how you define something when asking for advice on whether some behavior or process or act is within guidelines.

For example, it is clear that "bonus content" is acceptable and that it should go at the end of the titled content. That's what the TOS says. Righto.

But what constitutes "bonus content" and how much is legit?

Is it _any_ content that the publisher has the rights to be publishing, hence any of their books or their pen name books already published? Or only _new_ content not already available in the Kindle Store?

The TOS are not clear as we have seen by looking at the Kindle Quality Guidelines.

Stuffing, as we have defined it, is primarily the practice of adding content at the end of the titled content that is already published and available in the Kindle Store.

That in itself might be kosher as long as the publisher has rights to be publishing that content.

What I think might be an issue, if anyone at Amazon actually paid attention to these things, is including the brand new never been published epilogue or new short story at the end of the 2800 KENP with a link to that content in order to get a full payout in KU.

That's the only real reason to stuff a book full of already published content. That nice little story at the end that encourages the reader to click to the end and get their special story! That way the author gets paid for pages not actually read.

Now, maybe Amazon doesn't give a flying f*ck.

I do because I have understood that Amazon doesn't want to pay for double-dipping. That's why Amazon recently re-wrote the TOS for multi-author collections. To stop double-dipping of content in KU.

So I suspect Amazon actually _does_ care about the stuffing with the "bonus story" at the end practice -- if it knows exactly what is happening. Given how automated everything is at Amazon, perhaps the program folks really had no idea exactly what is going on with stuffing.

I could see some nameless drone KDP CSR being asked "Is bonus content okay?" and saying, "Why yes, bonus content is fine."

Because it clearly is.

But if they knew what "stuffing" actually entails? Maybe not so much...

We shall see.


----------



## Monique

Everyone should stuff every book with every other book they have then KU will explode like Mr. Creosote.


----------



## sela

Monique said:


> Everyone should stuff every book with every other book they have then KU will explode like Mr. Creosote.


Ah, but make sure you include that special never been published before epilogue to the story so your readers click through to the end!

Otherwise, meh. If people have already read the other books in each stuffed volume, they will shrug and move on to the next new book.

If there's a scammy part of this, it's that. That, I suspect, will be the weak link.


----------



## Tulonsae

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Homer

Shelley K said:


> If all the books are in KU under the same account, they don't care. That is what people have been told. I can't vow that anybody asked specifically about seven books, but yes, books repeated in more than a couple volumes as bonus content.
> 
> Doing that only contradicts the TOS _clearly_ if you also take it to mean that a bundle of books previously published individually also violates it. I mean, if you want to drill down into the words, I can see bundles violating it for the same reason. I'm sure that's not how it's meant, but that's irrelevant if we're talking about the actual words.
> 
> I genuinely think the best use of people's ire about this is to contact Amazon and push for them to actually register pages read, not last page and everything before it. That would solve a lot.


I know I'm a broken record here, but this is lifted straight from the actual content guidelines: Content that is considered harmful to the reader experience is

*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*

That's literally copied straight from the content guidelines. How is repeating the same book over and over again in different books as 'bonus' content not 'content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store'

I feel like it's not even a matter of interpretation. It's black and white.


----------



## Guest

Maybe Amazon are afraid to say it's not okay because then it will certify that bonus stuffing authors have been fraudulently taking money from the KU Pot, and away from other authors. Money, Amazon actually owe us.


----------



## Not any more

Monique said:


> Everyone should stuff every book with every other book they have then KU will explode like Mr. Creosote.


I'm just afraid that when the hammer falls, it will take out everyone. I remember Amanda predicting that bundles would eventually be banned, possibly including legitimate omnibus editions.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Shelley K

sela said:


> What I think might be an issue, if anyone at Amazon actually paid attention to these things, is including the brand new never been published epilogue or new short story at the end of the 2800 KENP with a link to that content in order to get a full payout in KU.
> 
> That's the only real reason to stuff a book full of already published content. That nice little story at the end that encourages the reader to click to the end and get their special story! That way the author gets paid for pages not actually read.


I think Amazon do care about that, but it's a separate issue from stuffing in general. And it's certainly not the only reason to stuff a bunch of content behind the title content. I mentioned this above as the only thing that does ruffle me, when readers are taken by link to the end of thousands of pages precisely to get paid for all those between. That, to me, is dodgy. If there are thousands of pages of other books in there between the title content and a bonus epilogue to it, that's the same thing.

But people who put bonus books in the back aren't all doing that. I suspect most, even, are not. I think it's primarily done in the hopes the reader will keep reading their bonus books, boosting the pages read and the payout. That's what I'm talking about, and that's what the people I know who've asked about their own bonus content were referring to. Not bonus stuff that encourages a jump to the back by link or otherwise.


----------



## Monique

brkingsolver said:


> I'm just afraid that when the hammer falls, it will take out everyone. I remember Amanda predicting that bundles would eventually be banned, possibly including legitimate omnibus editions.


I think that's where we're headed. Time to blow the whole thing up.



P.J. Post said:


> Question:
> 
> At the end of the day, can't Amazon regulate the pool to reflect any pay-out rate they want? I mean, apart from the fact that we have zero verification of the actual pages read, they generate around $11 billion a month in revenue. Couldn't they just nullify any suspected shenanigans by adding a few million to the pool in order to give us a reasonable page-read rate?
> 
> I suspect they are trying to find the tolerable bottom without creating too much chaos, which is why we're getting the "clean up on aisle 7" response someone mentioned up-thread. I'm not convinced that the pay-out rate is even a real number, that is, that it's based on real data. .004 seems to be both an economic and an emotional/principle _should I stay or should I go_ threshold, but I wouldn't be shocked to see the rate slip just under, to test our resolve.


Rewarding the scammers is what leads to more scammers. They can add more but why would they? They don't need to.


----------



## sela

P.J. Post said:


> Question:
> 
> At the end of the day, can't Amazon regulate the pool to reflect any pay-out rate they want? I mean, apart from the fact that we have zero verification of the actual pages read, they generate around $11 billion a month in revenue. Couldn't they just nullify any suspected shenanigans by adding a few million to the pool in order to give us a reasonable page-read rate?
> 
> I suspect they are trying to find the tolerable bottom without creating too much chaos, which is why we're getting the "clean up on aisle 7" response someone mentioned up-thread. I'm not convinced that the pay-out rate is even a real number, that is, that it's based on real data. .004 seems to be both an economic and an emotional/principle _should I stay or should I go_ threshold, but I wouldn't be shocked to see the rate slip just under, to test our resolve.


Yes, they could just maintain the payout by adding more to the pot to negate the scammers stuffers double and triple and quadrupe and octuple dipping. As long as the noise is low enough not to bother them too much, they might turn a blind eye to scammers stuffers because it's too much work to police the Kindle Store bestsellers lists. If customers don't complain?

Who gives a crap about the concerns of vendors and their feelings of the program being scammed or KU being defrauded?


----------



## sela

Shelley K said:


> I think Amazon do care about that, but it's a separate issue from stuffing in general. And it's certainly not the only reason to stuff a bunch of content behind the title content. I mentioned this above as the only thing that does ruffle me, when readers are taken by link to the end of thousands of pages precisely to get paid for all those between. That, to me, is dodgy. If there are thousands of pages of other books in there between the title content and a bonus epilogue to it, that's the same thing.
> 
> But people who put bonus books in the back aren't all doing that. I suspect most, even, are not. I think it's primarily done in the hopes the reader will keep reading their bonus books, boosting the pages read and the payout. That's what I'm talking about, and that's what the people I know who've asked about their own bonus content were referring to. Not bonus stuff that encourages a jump to the back by link or otherwise.


Like I say, I don't care about putting extra content in any book -- it's your book to give away and as long as it doesn't violate the TOS, I don't care. But -- if you are including a link to "special bonus content not available anywhere else" as a way to get unread page reads, which is scamming any way you slice it, then I'm not okay.

I think Amazon might have said yes to the first issue of adding any content you already own at the back of the titled content. I don't think they would approve the titled content being 200 KENP and having 2750 KENP of additional content not in the title, and then a link to the back of the 2950 KENP book to get a 50 KENP story and get 2750 KENP counted as read when it is not read.

But what do I know?


----------



## Seneca42

Homer said:


> I know I'm a broken record here, but this is lifted straight from the actual content guidelines: Content that is considered harmful to the reader experience is
> 
> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
> 
> That's literally copied straight from the content guidelines. How is repeating the same book over and over again in different books as 'bonus' content not 'content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store'
> 
> I feel like it's not even a matter of interpretation. It's black and white.


It all depends on the definition of "significantly differentiated". If you add a bonus epilogue to a 2,000-page book, is that now significantly differentiated from the version without the epilogue.

Where's the cut off point? Is a 2-page short story enough to count as "significantly differentiated"? Is a single paragraph enough?


----------



## Homer

Seneca42 said:


> It all depends on the definition of "significantly differentiated". If you add a bonus epilogue to a 2,000-page book, is that now significantly differentiated from the version without the epilogue.
> 
> Where's the cut off point? Is a 2-page short story enough to count as "significantly differentiated"? Is a single paragraph enough?


I think it'd be hard to argue that a bonus epilogue or a paragraph is significantly differentiated, if the other 200+ pages are the same.


----------



## Shelley K

Homer said:


> I know I'm a broken record here, but this is lifted straight from the actual content guidelines: Content that is considered harmful to the reader experience is
> 
> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
> 
> That's literally copied straight from the content guidelines. How is repeating the same book over and over again in different books as 'bonus' content not 'content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store'
> 
> I feel like it's not even a matter of interpretation. It's black and white.


According to those words, number of repetitions is irrelevant. It's talking about one bit of content being non-differentiated from another. So three books in a bundle would fall under the same umbrella as a book put in the back of five others. It may be black and white to you, but the words themselves aren't so sure.

Here's the thing people seem to be missing. The words up there don't matter. What a CSR says doesn't really matter. All that matters is what's up Amazon's butt on a particular day. I firmly believe that sooner rather than later, all repetition in KU is going to be over, and eventually that will include legitimate single-author series bundles.

Because every problem is a nail.



Tulonsae said:


> So, then you're saying that Amazon is fine with double dipping?
> 
> (I have no ire. I'm just trying to understand.)


Nope, I'm saying they don't care about bonus content. Their disinterest in repeated bonus content, so far, has clearly outweighed any concern about double-dipping. That'll change one day, I think, but it hasn't yet. When it does, there will be a lot of writers who will be thrilled. Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm counting on nothing much changing, including the KU rates. Amazon sets that amount of that pot every month _after_ the page reads are calculated. They're going to stay in the same range no matter what anybody does. They'll go up, and dip low, no matter.


----------



## Shelley K

sela said:


> I think Amazon might have said yes to the first issue of adding any content you already own at the back of the titled content. I don't think they would approve the titled content being 200 KENP and having 2750 KENP of additional content not in the title, *and then a link to the back of the 2950 KENP book to get a 50 KENP story and get 2750 KENP counted as read when it is not read. *
> 
> But what do I know?


The bolded part is the only part I think Amazon has a problem with. They already did make some attempts at stopping that linking practice. Of course catching up authors who didn't do it in the mix, because Amazon.


----------



## Homer

*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*



Shelley K said:


> According to those words, number of repetitions is irrelevant. It's talking about one bit of content being non-differentiated from another. So three books in a bundle would fall under the same umbrella as a book put in the back of five others. It may be black and white to you, but the words themselves aren't so sure.


Wait. I'm having trouble with my reading comprehension here. What do you mean that 'number of repetitions is irrelevant' but 'it's talking about one bit of content being non-differentiated from another' - isn't sticking a book already in KU at the back of a different book clearly - unequivocally - putting in 'content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the store'?


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

David VanDyke said:


> That's exactly why you might consider moving away from KU, in a controlled, deliberate manner, and going wide. Right now, my income is about 50% Amazon ebooks (retail for English, KU/retail for foreign language, about sub-50/50, or in other words, 25% overall each) and 50% everything else (print, audio, other vendor ebooks). It used to be 90% Amazon ebooks, all-in with KU. And, six months after making the switch, the overall total is about the same, i.e., after a few months of making 20-30% less, I'm making about the same now.
> 
> The difference is, yes, my business is more complicated by having to manage all the other vendors. But, you can always just go thru D2D or Smashwords if you're willing to give them their cut, and your life will be simplified.
> 
> The positive compensations include:
> 
> - The fact that I no longer worry about KU (if non-English KU crashed completely, I'd lose half of half of my Amazon ebook earnings, or roughly 13%, but no more);
> - The fact that BookBubs are easier to get (they favor wide);
> - All other promo sites that provide wide links, such as ERNT, are more effective per dollar;
> - Kobo has its own in-house promos that support Kobo sales
> - Each other site has its own strength. My Nook sales are strong with mystery/thriller/suspense; Apple customers seem willing to pay higher prices; Kobo has a worldwide customer base that has me selling English books in places like Netherlands and South Africa where I hardly ever sell on Amazon; I have no idea WTF goes on at Google Play, but my sales there have kept pace, and I have to believe Google itself gives some subtle SEO help to its own books. I even sell a few on Smashwords, and when I do, I get the highest royalty rate.
> - And bottom line, spreading my bets around means I don't have to worry about the 800-pound gorilla accidentally smashing my all bananas, because I have bananas everywhere.
> - There's also the "venture capital" principle, in other words, placing as many bets in as many places as possible, hoping one of them explodes/goes viral/blows up. "The Martian" became a movie and a million-seller basically because the right guy read it. Yes, it appears that "right guy" read it off Amazon as a 99c novel, imagine if the "right guy" had been a Nook or Apple-only reader?
> 
> Bottom line, I'm not against KU, but I have come to believe that, if you can avoid taking too big an income hit, it make a lot of sense to spread your risk around and go wide.


It's late for me... and I think... yeah, you're right. What you just describe is how I've been feeling about my next releases. I'll have to look at D2D again; I used them b4.

I don't like being one of Jeff's quasai employees. I was NEVER good at that, frankly.
I'll PM you in the AM. But thanks, man. I've read every post of yours I've ever come across and... yeah... k? 
Thanks.


----------



## Shelley K

Homer said:


> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
> 
> Wait. I'm having trouble with my reading comprehension here. What do you mean that 'number of repetitions is irrelevant' but 'it's talking about one bit of content being non-differentiated from another' - isn't sticking a book already in KU at the back of a different book clearly - unequivocally - putting in 'content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the store'?


If putting books one, two and three of a series together in a series bundle is also clearly, unequivocally, putting in content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available at the store, then yes, it is.

My point is that you're focusing on a book being in the back section of a dozen others, because that's what you feel is unfair. But those words are referring to a single instance of non-differentiation. Content in _another_--singular--book. Those two lines don't distinguish between something like a bundle of three books published separately and a book put in the back of forty others. In fact, it also doesn't distinguish between a book repeated forty times and a bonus book that's not for sale separately but added to two books. And that's why those lines are basically useless as evidence of repeated bonus content being against the TOS, because they also make standard bundles a no-no, too. As written, it's both or neither.


----------



## J. Tanner

Shelley K said:


> Amazon really does tell people that they have no problems with bonus content. I know many people who have asked specifically, several times, about their own bonus content, because they don't want to end up on the Zon's bad side. And they have all been assured that it's fine.


That's what they told Adam Dreece when he reported weird spikes in his page reads that he didn't think was normal reader activity. He was told everything was fine. No need to worry. He didn't believe the first rep and got a second opinion. Same reassurance. Then a few days later, KDP account suspended for using "system-generated accounts." Adam's story had a reasonably happy ending with his account being restored a week later, but it just shows that the KDP rep team is quite unreliable in knowing what the fraud team is up to or communicating effectively with them on behalf of KDP vendors.

So, proceed with caution, I think...?


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Phxsundog

I think bonus stuffing has its days numbered because it's an really extension of the duplicate content debate Amazon had in 2010-2011. This was in the early days and the Kindle store was being overrun with the same private licensed content being purchased by internet marketers, barely rewritten, and published with different covers. KDP came down hard against duplicate content in the end. Accounts were banned over PLR. The bonus books are a bigger grey area, sure. They're causing a similar problem, crowding the store, angering certain readers when books end at 20%, allowing authors to earn with pages from the same repackaged content again and again. Let's wait and see where we are in 2018. I bet more restrictions on bonus books are coming before the end of the year if it isn't banned outright. I don't think bonus content had anything to do with the romances rank stripped either.


----------



## sela

P.J. Post said:


> I wasn't suggesting anyone be rewarded, but increasing the pot would nullify any harm suffered by other authors. I don't know anything about Amazon's motivations. Not being snarky, I really don't know why they do what they do. It's baffling sometimes.
> 
> I didn't say anything about vendor concerns or their feelings, however, the TOS seems pretty unambiguous that stuffing and linking and publishing the same books, reshuffled, as different ASIN's is not allowed. But, then it is? The linking to the back thing blew up, what, last summer? But now it's okay again?
> 
> I wrote a simple operational solution and was about to post it, and then realized Amazon can effect whatever outcome they want. It's not necessarily an operational problem, it could very well be a public relations problem. On the surface it may appear that the pot is being distributed unfairly, as well as, the page-rate being driven down, but it is also possible that no one author is harming any other author, regardless of their actions, because the actual performance of our books has either, nothing to do with the page-read rate Amazon sets, or very little. Which would explain their apparent lack of concern. Just a possibility.
> 
> I have no idea how the All-Star bonuses are distributed, and I know that could be a real issue for top earners if they are getting bumped for scammers, regardless of whether or not the scammers get paid.
> 
> Again, I find their actions as baffling as anyone else. Personally, I publish books one at a time.


I didn't meant to imply you did. I was just musing.

I suppose if Amazon decided to pay authors between $0.004 and $0.005 a page read no matter what went on with subscribers or page reads -- in other words, if stuffing and incentivized bonus content did not affect payout -- then it wouldn't affect my bottom line if authors chose to stuff and link and I wouldn't care.

But none of us really know how Amazon sets the payout or what is going on behind the curtain. There's so much flak out there about this and KU it's hard to know what is truly kosher and what is pushing the limits.

If everyone and their dog start to stuff, link and double, triple and octuple dip and the payout remains the same, then we'll know.

What I suspect is this:

At this point in time, only a few authors do this and they are the top earners. As a result, it is of no real concern to Amazon, which has decided, completely outside of actual page reads and subscriptions, to keep the payout at a pre-determined range.

It would only matter if Amazon responded to all this stuffing and octuple dipping by lowering the payout. We won't know that until Amazon either shuts down the stuffer/linkers or says, sure, go ahead -- DO IT!

*gets out the popcorn*


----------



## Atunah

As a reader, all this is making me pretty sad. 

You know what I think when I see all these stuffed books, all this over the top marketing and using all these tricks?
I see books that are not able to stand on their own. Sorry, but that is what I see as a reader. Because a good book doesn't need all these tricks and scams. I want to read quality books. I buy or borrow a book, I read it. If I like it, I might get another from that author. If a book or author screams at me like a slap and chop and the local fair, I walk right on by. Its what it feels like at this point. Slap and chop sellers in KU. 

Thankfully my vetting doesn't seem to bring these books into my sight anymore. I don't browse the store anymore because of all the scam stuff and trickster stuff. I can't trust reviews anymore, I can't trust new authors anymore.

I do still love KU as a reader and I have a pre-paid sub, but I don't look for reads by browsing anymore. There are plenty of already established authors I can read and I go with what other readers recommend me. They never recommend any stuffed titles, or any other books using tricks. Go figure. 

What happened to writing a good book and respecting readers. Instead of trying to find and use up any kind of loop hole there is to be found, use any kind of questionable marketing. I don't see any talk about pride in putting out a good product. Just how good can it be marketed. How can I milk that cow. 

But hey, I am just a reader. What do I know. Never mind me.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Seneca42

Atunah said:


> What happened to writing a good book and respecting readers. Instead of trying to find and use up any kind of loop hole there is to be found, use any kind of questionable marketing. I don't see any talk about pride in putting out a good product. Just how good can it be marketed. How can I milk that cow.
> 
> But hey, I am just a reader. What do I know. Never mind me.


This is what most writers do and most wish the industry was all about. Shut down KU and it would go back to that. Until then though, at least with KU, you're not really dealing with authors so much as scammers who have chosen novels as their method.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

Seneca42 said:


> This is what most writers do and most wish the industry was all about. Shut down KU and it would go back to that. Until then though, at least with KU, you're not really dealing with authors so much as scammers who have chosen novels as their method.


Nah. Only some of them are. I think Atunah can tell the difference.


----------



## Shelley K

J. Tanner said:


> That's what they told Adam Dreece when he reported weird spikes in his page reads that he didn't think was normal reader activity. He was told everything was fine. No need to worry. He didn't believe the first rep and got a second opinion. Same reassurance. Then a few days later, KDP account suspended for using "system-generated accounts." Adam's story had a reasonably happy ending with his account being restored a week later, but it just shows that the KDP rep team is quite unreliable in knowing what the fraud team is up to or communicating effectively with them on behalf of KDP vendors.
> 
> So, proceed with caution, I think...?


Absolutely. I don't recommend anybody do it based on that. I don't use bonus material, and I wouldn't recommend anybody start.

I only pointed it out because someone who said the same thing earlier in the thread was dismissed as a liar, when I've heard the exact same thing from several people. I make no judgment on the accuracy of Amazon's statement. I'm simply saying yes, they do make it.


----------



## Atunah

Usedtoposthere said:


> Nah. Only some of them are. I think Atunah can tell the difference.


Yep. None of the KU books I pick have any marks of scammers. I just can't browse anymore to find reads. Which is what I used to love doing. No fellow reader has ever recommended me a scam book either, or one that uses questionable tactics. 
So yeah, there are still plenty of upstanding authors having books in KU. Its just harder to find them. But my wishlists are full enough to get me through 2 or more years of KU reading, so I am fine for now. It still makes me sad though.

KU is just one way to get books. Its not a either or for the majority of readers. We do both, buy and borrow. I don't think KU is going anywhere. They just sold 2 year subscriptions to it on Prime day.

There are 5 KU books in my current reader signature. None of them have to scam and I didn't find any of them by browsing in the store.


----------



## Going Incognito

P.J. Post said:


> Question:
> At the end of the day, can't Amazon regulate the pool to reflect any pay-out rate they want?


I am whole heartedly convinced that they already do.



P.J. Post said:


> My paranoia  is driven by Amazon's refusal to give us the number of borrows. They have them. It doesn't give us a one to one comparison on how many people are finishing books, or where they stop, but at least we would know how big our customer base is, which....is a rather vital number for like...oh, every business in existence. They could give us lots of detailed reader data as well, which would only, theoretically, improve the customer experience. But then we'd know the data behind the curtain....and that's never going to happen. So, yeah, I'm at a loss.


But then the fact that they pull the rate/pay out of their ass every month would be exposed.



P.J. Post said:


> I wrote a simple operational solution and was about to post it, and then realized Amazon can effect whatever outcome they want. It's not necessarily an operational problem, it could very well be a public relations problem. On the surface it may appear that the pot is being distributed unfairly, as well as, the page-rate being driven down, but it is also possible that no one author is harming any other author, regardless of their actions, because the actual performance of our books has either, nothing to do with the page-read rate Amazon sets, or very little. Which would explain their apparent lack of concern.


My thoughts, exactly. I do think they have _a_ system, a system that stacks? or ranks? or somethings? authors, so that authors are paid kind of based on the popularity of their books, hence Amanda at the top, for example, and less popular near the bottom, and maybe stuffing and botting jacks with _that_ system some, the system that lines up KU birdies in the right order of dropping read money into their open mouths, but I do not for a moment believe that they use the system they tell us they use. I think they have an 'acceptable amount' they dont mind passing out to KU authors every month, but I believe they pay what they want to who they want, then they make up the vague, round pot/reads/subscriber numbers they announce, to make what they want to pay toward the KU system as a whole _look_ like it works out the way they claim it works.

I think that is how/why they can say 'everything is running as expected' when that's the line they're feeding us. That's how they can say 'pages read in page flip mode dont effect anyone,' and mean it. Cause there is no way that 'subscribers in vs pages out plus we added to the pot cause we love you!' can this consistently keep the page rate in the 0.004's every month, fine tuning it juuust right to the perfect 'your profit margin is my playground' tune every single month.



Shelley K said:


> Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm counting on nothing much changing, including the KU rates. Amazon sets that amount of that pot every month _after_ the page reads are calculated. They're going to stay in the same range no matter what anybody does. They'll go up, and dip low, no matter.


Exactly.



Atunah said:


> What happened to writing a good book and respecting readers.


KU happened. It's no longer a 'the marketplace will decide,' courting of readers and their checkbooks to get paid. It's a cage-match cock-fight where the spoils go to the ones willing to get bloody in the service of helping Amazon build their monopoly, choke out the competition, and take over the world. And when they're are done with us, with using us, it'll be over.


----------



## Seneca42

Usedtoposthere said:


> Nah. Only some of them are. I think Atunah can tell the difference.


sorry, typed that poorly. I mean to say that KU is where you'll find the scammers (not that they all are by any means). Without the subscription model there's really no way to do any of this funky stuff people are up to.


----------



## anniejocoby

Monique said:


> Everyone should stuff every book with every other book they have then KU will explode like Mr. Creosote.


Your posts always crack me up.


----------



## Atunah

Going Incognito said:


> KU happened. It's no longer a 'the marketplace will decide,' courting of readers and their checkbooks to get paid. It's a cage-match cock-fight where the spoils go to the ones willing to get bloody in the service of helping Amazon build their monopoly, choke out the competition, and take over the world. And when they're are done with us, with using us, it'll be over.


Yeah no. These authors chose to use scammy tactics. Its not the fault of anyone else, or anything else. I don't believe in using any and all excuses for actions. Courting readers and their checkbooks is not just a KU thing. Its a marketplace thing. There are a gazillion books out there. It would be the same cage match without KU. Being scammy is a choice. And not all are doing it. I prefer supporting authors that are not using such scammy tactics and using excuses for using such.

KU and subscription services are not the problem. Folks being scammy are the problem.


----------



## Going Incognito

Atunah said:


> KU and subscription services are not the problem. Folks being scammy are the problem.


Both, together are the problem. It's human psychology. It's the Stanford Prison Experiment. It's the Milgram obedience study. The KU rate is Skinner's Box and the variable schedule of rewards, which is now used by games and social media as well. It's the right percentage of the population given the right closed arena at the right time. But either way, it would be a whole lot easier to change the 'service' than it would be to change 'folks.'


----------



## Shelley K

Seneca42 said:


> sorry, typed that poorly. I mean to say that KU is where you'll find the scammers (not that they all are by any means). Without the subscription model there's really no way to do any of this funky stuff people are up to.


Plenty of funky stuff went on before KU, I promise. Plenty of funky stuff went on before _ebooks_. Before _indies_.

None of this stuff is new. Only the methods change.


----------



## Becca Mills

I have trouble believing Amazon won't eventually declare the 1-2-3-4/2-1-3-4/3-1-2-4/4-1-2-3-style stuffing not allowed. They've recently cracked down on double-dipping between singleton titles and boxed sets such that you now can't have a title in KU as both a singleton and in a boxed set. Why would they be strongly against that form of double-dipping but fine with one author putting the same novel in seven different KU books as a "bonus"? It makes so little sense that I suspect this is a typical case of KDP's right hand and left hand being only very tenuously and circuitously attached to the same brain.

Whatever they actually want us to do, I really wish they could get their act together enough to provide truly clear rules and then enforce them effectively. The current environment of confusion, ill will, and rampant abuse is the pits.


----------



## sela

Becca Mills said:


> I have trouble believing Amazon won't eventually declare the 1-2-3-4/2-1-3-4/3-1-2-4/4-1-2-3-style stuffing not allowed. They've recently cracked down on double-dipping between singleton titles and boxed sets such that you now can't have a title in KU as both a singleton and in a boxed set. Why would they be strongly against that form of double-dipping but fine with one author putting the same novel in seven different KU books as a "bonus"? It makes so little sense that I suspect this is a typical case of KDP's right hand and left hand being only very tenuously and circuitously attached to the same brain.
> 
> Whatever they actually want us to do, I really wish they could get their act together enough to provide truly clear rules and then enforce them effectively. The current environment of confusion, ill will, and rampant abuse is the pits.


Actually, I believe (and I might be wrong) that having a book published alone and in a collection is fine as long as you hold the rights to publish that title. It's when a single title goes into a multi-author boxed set that Amazon demands you unpublish that singleton and give the collection publisher the sole right to publish that book. If it's YOUR IP you can publish it alone and in a collection you publish.

And if the CSR and rep that I was in contact with are right, they don't care if you reorder your books in multiple volumes, as long as they are your content and you hold the IP rights as a publisher.

Although I think maybe they might be wrong...

We will see...


----------



## Becca Mills

sela said:


> Actually, I believe (and I might be wrong) that having a book published alone and in a collection is fine as long as you hold the rights to publish that title. It's when a single title goes into a multi-author boxed set that Amazon demands you unpublish that singleton and give the collection publisher the sole right to publish that book. If it's YOUR IP you can publish it alone and in a collection you publish.
> 
> And if the CSR and rep that I was in contact with are right, they don't care if you reorder your books in multiple volumes, as long as they are your content and you hold the IP rights as a publisher.
> 
> Although I think maybe they might be wrong...
> 
> We will see...


Right, sorry -- by "boxed sets" I meant the multi-author ones.

The easiest thing would be to say no two KU books could duplicate more than 5,000 words of text (or whatever smallish figure they want), and then to partner with some outfit like turnitin.com to check submitted books for matching text. It seems reasonably fair to say an author can only get paid once per reader per text within KU, and they've already gone there with the multi-author boxed sets.


----------



## Alan Petersen

Shelley K said:


> Plenty of funky stuff went on before KU, I promise. Plenty of funky stuff went on before _ebooks_. Before _indies_.
> 
> None of this stuff is new. Only the methods change.


The first mass unsolicited commercial message was sent via telegram in 1864 (http://www.economist.com/node/10286400#print?story_id=10286400). I can't believe they haven't figured out to stop spammers from scamming after 154 years! It has to be so easy to fix!


----------



## Jill Nojack

Homer said:


> I know I'm a broken record here, but this is lifted straight from the actual content guidelines: Content that is considered harmful to the reader experience is
> 
> *Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store*
> 
> That's literally copied straight from the content guidelines. How is repeating the same book over and over again in different books as 'bonus' content not 'content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store'
> 
> I feel like it's not even a matter of interpretation. It's black and white.


When Amazon put that into the guidelines, they were specifically prohibiting duplicate copies of the classics. They didn't want every book that is in the public domain to be published hundreds (thousands) of times by every publisher with access to Gutenberg.org. It would be a bad experience for readers and unmanageable for Amazon.

This is why you will find copies of the classics with additional "interpretive" material or "book club notes", etc.

I doubt this was meant to be applied to new books by indie authors, which is why it may look clear to some but Amazon may not be interpreting it that way because that isn't why they wrote it or what they meant it to apply to.


----------



## sela

Jill Nojack said:


> When Amazon put that into the guidelines, they were specifically prohibiting duplicate copies of the classics. They didn't want every book that is in the public domain to be published hundreds (thousands) of times by every publisher with access to Gutenberg.org. It would be a bad experience for readers and unmanageable for Amazon.
> 
> This is why you will find copies of the classics with additional "interpretive" material or "book club notes", etc.
> 
> I doubt this was meant to be applied to new books by indie authors, which is why it may look clear to some but Amazon may not be interpreting it that way because that isn't why they wrote it or what they meant it to apply to.


Wow, thanks for this. I guess that's why it's important to ask a KDP rep what the TOS mean.


----------



## JRTomlin

Jill Nojack said:


> When Amazon put that into the guidelines, they were specifically prohibiting duplicate copies of the classics. They didn't want every book that is in the public domain to be published hundreds (thousands) of times by every publisher with access to Gutenberg.org. It would be a bad experience for readers and unmanageable for Amazon.
> 
> This is why you will find copies of the classics with additional "interpretive" material or "book club notes", etc.
> 
> I doubt this was meant to be applied to new books by indie authors, which is why it may look clear to some but Amazon may not be interpreting it that way because that isn't why they wrote it or what they meant it to apply to.


It doesn't say it applies only to classics or previously published books. Amazon left if vague (as they do many of their rules) so they can interpret it to mean whatever they NEED it to mean. If they need it to apply to new books, it will.


----------



## Jill Nojack

JRTomlin said:


> It doesn't say it applies only to classics or previously published books. Amazon left if vague (as they do many of their rules) so they can interpret it to mean whatever they NEED it to mean. If they need it to apply to new books, it will.


Yes, exactly what I said. It is not black and white (as in the quote I was responding to). Although it also was written for the purpose for which they have applied it continually from the time that they wrote it. I did not say that they would not apply it to different purposes. I was only adding some information to the mix for people who wish to think about the meanings of things and from whence they come.

BTW, Sela, you're welcome. Sigh. It's what prevented me from spending months uploading classics years and years ago


----------



## unkownwriter

None of this will matter until the customers start complaining in huge numbers, I think. We -- or most of us -- can clearly see where the abuses are, and how they affect us, but Amazon only wants to bot their way to domination with as little hassle as possible.

But, I'm enjoying this thread a lot more now. I've been reworking my business plan (again!) to take advantage of all the opportunities out there. After all, if it's good enough for those top romance authors, it's good enough for me. Thanks, Amazon.


----------



## 41419

I would like to remind everyone that this tactic - artificially inflating page count and inducing clicks to the end - was pioneered by the first wave of KU2 scammers. I wrote about it here back in March 2016.

This was the kind of thing they had in the front of their books:

Here's a quote from that post:



> "The latest wheeze from this shady crew was to *place a message at the start of their KU titles encouraging readers to click through to the end - because this fools Amazon's system into thinking the entire book has been read, the author of that title then receives an inflated payout from the KU pot*, and then honest, hard-working writers who aren't pulling these cheap tricks on readers have less money to share. It's a mess. These guys are peeing in the KU pool and Amazon is paying them by the gallon."


Amazon released a statement after that scandal broke:

And here is the money quote from that statement:



> "Relatedly, some in the community have contacted us about the activities of *a small minority of publishers who may attempt to inflate sales or pages read through the use of various techniques*, such as adding unnecessary or confusing hyperlinks, misplacing the TOC or adding distracting content. We both actively police for this type of activity on our own as well as investigate when the community points out such abuse (thank you to those of you who have helped us in this regard). *Any abuse we find results in the immediate suspension of a title. Some circumstances, including repeat offenses, will result in KDP account suspension*. In any abuse cases, we will also remove related pages read from the allocation of the monthly KDP Select Global Fund."


It's abundantly clear that these authors who have been rank-stripped have copied scammer tactics - that's the kind of people we are dealing with.

I'm sure they will try and weasel out of it again by saying that their behavior doesn't fall under the three examples given by Amazon, but those are examples. It's not an exhaustive list, nor meant to be one.

Without naming any names, titles, or even genres, I've asked Amazon for exact clarification on the practice of stuffing multiple novels into the back of another and inducing readers to click to the end.

Hopefully that clarification will come soon.


----------



## 41419

Further, I note that one member of the group we are referring to has published a new title since one of her books was rank-stripped and it contains one crucial difference from the rest of her catalog:

*It's still (what looks like) erotica classed as rom-com and women's fiction - surely another accident.

*It's still one short novel that somehow manages to be over 1600 pages.

*It still has SIX full novels stuffed in the back, even though they are on sale elsewhere.

*It still has 50 reviews just after launch day, even though none are verified purchases and there is only a handful on Goodreads.

So what changed?

There is no inducement to click to the back, no exclusive short story.

A change of tactics? Or did Amazon slap them down? I remember this is *almost exactly* what happened with the KU2 scammers in March 2016. Their books were pulled from sale temporarily, they removed the "CLICK HERE" inducements, and then they went back on sale.

Unless it's just a technical problem which just happened to affect this super tight group of 6/7 authors who all cross promote together AND JUST HAPPEN to engage in bonus stuffing and Click Here-style inducements.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

she-la-ti-da said:


> But, I'm enjoying this thread a lot more now. I've been reworking my business plan (again!) to take advantage of all the opportunities out there. After all, if it's good enough for those top romance authors, it's good enough for me. Thanks, Amazon.


So now stuffing will be endemic in every genre. Thanks, Amazon.


----------



## alawston

PaulineMRoss said:


> So now stuffing will be endemic in every genre. Thanks, Amazon.


I kind of assumed that post was tongue in cheek.

Um, to the point where I sent a "that was hilarious" PM.

I'm usually happy to be proved wrong about stuff, but in this case I really hope I'm the one who read it right.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

alawston said:


> I kind of assumed that post was tongue in cheek.


Even if it was, there are thousands of people right now thinking along exactly those lines. If Amazon confirms at a high level that stuffing is OK, there will be an explosion of stuffed books and an implosion of KU payout rates. And an exodus from KU of authors who don't want to stuff.


----------



## jcalloway

I hope Sela or David come back with detailed responses from KDP reps. And I hope those KDP reps have understood that the question isn't simply about brand-new, never-released bonus content, but recycled, double-dipped titles. I also hope that those reps can confirm, as many of us believe, that there is a distinction between the two types of bonus content, with the latter type having the potential to put accounts at risk.

Otherwise, this thread just turned into a 25-page manual on how to ensure the KU rate drops through the floor from this point onward.


----------



## 41419

In the interests of transparency, here's the exact email I wrote, just with my contact's name removed.



> Hi [Redacted],
> 
> I would like to get some clarity from Amazon about whether a certain practice - popularly known as "bonus-stuffing" - is permitted by KDP.
> 
> Bonus stuffing is the practice of putting additional, full novels in the back of another novel to inflate page count (for the purposes of increasing KU payout) - usually paired with some kind of inducement for readers to click to the end, passed the content they likely own already (as it's novels already on sale in the Kindle Store). This inducement often takes the form of an exclusive short story, or special offer.
> 
> I'll give an example:
> 
> If I'm an author with four books - Title A, B, C, & D. I will publish my books like this:
> 
> Title A (with B, C, D in the back also, and then an exclusive short to get readers to skip the content they have already read previously, so that the full page reads are counted by Amazon).
> 
> Title B (with C, D, and A in the back also... and so on across my catalog).
> 
> There is conflicting answers coming back from KDP Customer Support and the matter is causing huge debate. The practitioners feel they are just proving "bonus" content and it is permitted. Those opposed see it as a naked attempt to inflate page count, trick Amazon's page counting system into thinking the reader has read five or six times the amount of pages they truly have, and thus grab an inflated payout from the KU pot.
> 
> Ethics aside, it would quite obviously seem to provide a poor customer experience. If your Kindle is telling you that you're at 18% of the book file and the story suddenly ends, that will be an anti-climax. It also seems to clearly contravene existing KDP guidelines about Disappointing Content, specifically the provisions that forbid:
> 
> "*Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
> *Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store"
> 
> Nevertheless, it's Amazon's interpretation that matters here, not my own. So can we get a clear ruling? Is this practice permitted or not?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> [Redacted]


----------



## hottakes

dgaughran said:


> It's abundantly clear that these authors who have been rank-stripped have copied scammer tactics - that's the kind of people we are dealing with.


This isn't true. Nothing here is "abundantly clear," Gaughran.

I can tell you for a fact that several of the "rank stripped" authors had absolutely ZERO misleading links. NOTHING asked the readers to skip ahead to the bonus content at the end of the book. These are legitimate authors simply adding bonus content to their books.

But no, go ahead and assume (or maybe you're just not going your research?).

Hard to trust anything you say now since apparently you're just making shit up.


----------



## 41419

The scammer tactic was to stuff books with extraneous content and induce clicks to the end.

That is the exact tactic which has been copied.


----------



## hottakes

dgaughran said:


> The scammer tactic was to stuff books with extraneous content and induce clicks to the end.
> 
> That is the exact tactic which has been copied.


Again, this is NOT TRUE.

Yes, legitimate authors include bonus content.

BUT THEY DO NOT INDUCE CLICKS TO THE END. That's the scammer link click tactic, and I know for a fact that multiple authors caught up in this DO NOT DO THAT.

Before, you were smearing authors based on your interpretations of Amazon's rules.

Now you're smearing them by lying.


----------



## 41419

So it's just a coincidence that the EXCLUSIVE short story NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE is always placed after the 1000 pages of already-published filler novels, yeah?

The coincidences are really racking up.


----------



## hottakes

dgaughran said:


> So it's just a coincidence that the EXCLUSIVE short story NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE is always placed after the 1000 pages of already-published filler novels, yeah?
> 
> The coincidences are really racking up.


The problem here is that you seem to lack the full picture. There are multiple authors with their ranks stripped, and not all authors are alike.

Some of them may be scammy.

But I know for a fact that legitimate, serious authors were caught up in this. This whole thread is smearing every author that had their rank randomly stripped, and you keep lumping all of these authors in together.

You're suggesting they were all doing this link scam thing.

It's unfair. And it's untrue.

But this thread has turned into pure witch hunt style speculation. And you're feeding it pretty hard here, Gaughran. It was bad enough when you were doing it based on your own interpretations, but now you're factually incorrect.


----------



## badtothebone

It's probably worth bearing in mind that maybe it's a reasonably good thing that most of these authors are currently confined to 'steamy' romance. 

It's a genre with a huge, rabid readership that can absorb the output. Think of it this way – Amazon probably wants to pay us just below $0.005/page read. It's currently around $0.00425. Pulling numbers out of nowhere, let's say that "gray hat" bonus stuffing, as practiced by the authors in question, is responsible for about half of the $0.00075 in the fall of the KU payout, the rest of it is probably due to proper "black hat" scammers using click farms and 3000 KENPC books. So the community at large is absorbing something like a $0.000375 hit to KU payout due to stuffing, or around 8.8%. Again – I'll reiterate – these numbers are made up, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what it was.

Now, as a thought experiment, consider what will happen if there's a crackdown on bonus stuffing, and romance revenues decline. There are probably around two hundred romance authors each putting out a book a month, some even more than that. These are the people with expertise in getting to the highest ranks in the Amazon store, and not only that, but doing it in the most competitive genre. If even fifty of them decide to flood out into sci-fi, fantasy, post-apocalyptic, etc., then a lot of people on these boards (myself included) are probably going to find ourselves forced out of our comfortable mid-list positions in the charts. I would hazard a guess that this exodus would probably hurt people a lot more than an 8.8% fall in KU revenue (especially as a lot of people probably do 50-50 KU:Sales, so it's more like a 4.5% impact on many people).

Given the Amazon don't seem to care about stuffing, it's worth at least considering that it's better these extremely money-driven authors are kept in their own sandbox. Just my two cents…


----------



## 41419

@hottakes

I refer you to my previous post when I asked if anyone innocent of bonus-stuffing of the type described above was rank-stripped - and no one could offer up a single example.

I myself was contacted by three of the authors who asked me to look into it. I was also sent a list of six or seven authors who were affected.

As I said above, every single one of them was both engaging in bonus stuffing AND had an exclusive short at the back of all that stuffed in content.

Every single one of them.

All that said, I'm not sure how anyone can be smearing anyone without mentioning any names.


----------



## hottakes

dgaughran said:


> @hottakes
> 
> I refer you to my previous post when I asked if anyone innocent of bonus-stuffing of the type described above was rank-stripped - and no one could offer up a single example.


Okay, and now I'm telling you: multiple legitimate authors that do stuff, but DO NOT engage in link scamming, were rank stripped.



dgaughran said:


> All that said, I'm not sure how anyone can be smearing anyone without mentioning any names.


Yes you do.


----------



## 41419

I'm smearing authors - that I'm totally unaware of - by not talking about them? 

This is getting ridiculous. I've been pretty clear who I have been referring to all along, as clear as I can be while still respecting anonymity.

Now you are claiming that I'm impugning the honour of authors who I'm not talking about.

OK then.


----------



## hottakes

dgaughran said:


> I'm smearing authors - that I'm totally unaware of - by not talking about them?
> 
> This is getting ridiculous. I've been pretty clear who I have been referring to all along, as clear as I can be while still respecting anonymity.
> 
> Now you are claiming that I'm impugning the honour of authors who I'm not talking about.
> 
> OK then.


Do you not realize that a lot of people are reading these posts? And since you're not pointing out who you're actually talking about, they're going to lump every single author that got rank stripped in with the link scammers.

Legitimate authors got caught up in this, but you're making no distinctions.

I can't believe I have to explain that.


----------



## hottakes

And just to add on to that--

It only shows that you're not doing your homework. If you were, you'd know that legit authors had their ranks stripped. 

This is the problem with threads like this: half baked ideas and rampant witch hunts lumping innocent people in with the scammers.


----------



## 41419

And how will anyone reading this thread ascribe the behaviors I've outlined to those you refer to as "legitimate authors"? 

I have no idea who you are referring to. How will anyone else?


----------



## Caimh

Atunah said:


> Yeah no. These authors chose to use scammy tactics. Its not the fault of anyone else, or anything else. I don't believe in using any and all excuses for actions. Courting readers and their checkbooks is not just a KU thing. Its a marketplace thing. There are a gazillion books out there. It would be the same cage match without KU. Being scammy is a choice. And not all are doing it. I prefer supporting authors that are not using such scammy tactics and using excuses for using such.
> 
> KU and subscription services are not the problem. Folks being scammy are the problem.


Exactly this! Beautifully put.


----------



## Christine_C

hottakes said:


> Okay, and now I'm telling you: multiple legitimate authors that do stuff,


You're suggesting that authors who stuff their books with crap they don't expect people to read are "legitimate"? I'm so confused.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

Who are the legit authors who had their books rank stripped. It shouldn't be hard to give a name or two. All the ones I've seen have clear ToS violations. I'm not ruling out some collateral damage--that's one of the frustrating things about Amazon--but if someone is going to make that claim, it's not crazy to ask for evidence.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

MonkishScribe said:


> Who are the legit authors who had their books rank stripped. It shouldn't be hard to give a name or two. All the ones I've seen have clear ToS violations. I'm not ruling out some collateral damage--that's one of the frustrating things about Amazon--but if someone is going to make that claim, it's not crazy to ask for evidence.


They don't have to be publicly named here. A PM to David would be sufficient.


----------



## 41419

OK, I was emailed a very short list of names of authors who aren't engaging in "click here" type inducements - just looking at their books now. Again, not naming names...

They are engaging in stuffing, but not encouraging readers to click to the end by dangling exclusive short stories.

So, out of the authors who are bonus stuffing and who have been rank-stripped, some of these authors are dangling exclusive content at the end, some of them are not.

Happy to make that clarification (but also not sure how anyone is smeared when no one is named).


----------



## MonkeyScribe

Then it sounds like Amazon is making a clear ruling that stuffing in lots of other content is gaming the KU ecosystem. Whether people agree or not, it's clear that this is their opinion, so I would recommend adjusting your publishing tactics accordingly.

It's frustrating that they let things grow in one direction for so long and then start swinging the scythe indiscriminately, versus taking care of the problem all along. It doesn't seem too hard to have a couple of smart, dedicated people working and analyzing these things, giving warnings to people who are stepping into gray territory, etc., but I suppose this result is better than continuing to let things fester.


----------



## MyraScott

All of the books we've heard of with their ranks stripped have "bonus content."

Official, unofficial, Amazon-sent-me-a-personal-angel-to-tell-me-I'm-awesome aside, their _actions _can be interpreted to mean that they are indeed taking a closer look at bonus content -for now- in steamy romance.

I understand that really upsets the people who feel like this is a legitimate way to boost their income and take more of the communal payout for themselves, but if Amazon is finally looking into the problem and leveling the playing field, insisting that it hasn't been penalized before isn't really a valid argument.

Play the odds if you want.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

MonkishScribe said:


> Then it sounds like Amazon is making a clear ruling that stuffing in lots of other content is gaming the KU ecosystem. Whether people agree or not, it's clear that this is their opinion, so I would recommend adjusting your publishing tactics accordingly.


I don't think there's anything clear about it at all. So far as I can tell (and I only know of a few of the authors involved, so my data is limited), all have other books which follow the exact same stuffing policy, but only one book has been rank-stripped. There are also many authors stuffing who have NOT been rank stripped. Any connection between the rank-stripping and stuffing is dubious at best.

I hope that if and when these rank-stripped authors get a definitive reason for the action, that they'll share it, for the benefit of everyone. And obviously we still await a pronouncement from Amazon high-ups about bonus stuffing.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

PaulineMRoss said:


> I don't think there's anything clear about it at all. So far as I can tell (and I only know of a few of the authors involved, so my data is limited), all have other books which follow the exact same stuffing policy, but only one book has been rank-stripped. There are also many authors stuffing who have NOT been rank stripped. Any connection between the rank-stripping and stuffing is dubious at best.


Yet all the people getting rank stripped are bonus stuffers and/or known for hiring click farms. Until someone points out someone who has been rank stripped who doesn't fall into these categories, it seems like a safe conclusion.


----------



## Colin

'Legitimate authors' may well engage in bonus-stuffing. Ethical authors don't.


----------



## 75814

hottakes said:


> And just to add on to that--
> 
> It only shows that you're not doing your homework. If you were, you'd know that legit authors had their ranks stripped.
> 
> This is the problem with threads like this: half baked ideas and rampant witch hunts lumping innocent people in with the scammers.


In my mind, if they're doing things like:

Book 1
-Bonus content includes books 2-4

Book 2
-Bonus content includes book 1, books 3-4

Book 3
-Bonus content includes books 1-2, book 4

...then they're not legitimate. They're unethical.

Could there be innocent people caught up in this? Sure. Innocent people were caught up in the last scammer purge. But there seems to be a pretty consistent pattern and if you're engaging in this kind of activity, I don't care if a KDP rep says it's okay. It's just flat-out unethical.

Just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you _should_ do something.


----------



## RedFoxUF

MonkishScribe said:


> Then it sounds like Amazon is making a clear ruling that stuffing in lots of other content is gaming the KU ecosystem. Whether people agree or not, it's clear that this is their opinion, so I would recommend adjusting your publishing tactics accordingly.
> 
> It's frustrating that they let things grow in one direction for so long and then start swinging the scythe indiscriminately, versus taking care of the problem all along. It doesn't seem too hard to have a couple of smart, dedicated people working and analyzing these things, giving warnings to people who are stepping into gray territory, etc., but I suppose this result is better than continuing to let things fester.


I think you missed the part where tons of scammers are still scamming just fine...on a much more egregious level than the small handful of books that were targeted. Amazon has done nothing that is clear. Except to continue to allow large scale scamming of their ecosystem.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

RedFoxUF said:


> I think you missed the part where tons of scammers are still scamming just fine...on a much more egregious level than the small handful of books that were targeted. Amazon has done nothing that is clear. Except to continue to allow large scale scamming of their ecosystem.


I also see speeders every day on the freeway. There are people who dump old couches and mattresses at the end of my lane. People cross into the country every day without proper documentation.

People are also arrested and/or fined for all of this behavior. That people often get away with stuff is no indication as to whether or not it's legal.


----------



## Dhewco

Hi,

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have finished only about 3 novels and one of those got disappeared during a computer crash (flash drive backup and CD-RW was corrupted). I can't do stuffing even if I wanted. If the 'stuffing' is only an extra short or a chapter or two of the next book, I don't see a problem with that. The 'click here' is wrong. Of course, I don't see the purpose of the TOC being in the back. As a reader, I use the TOC to jump to a favorite chapter or to read a appendix that has some detail I missed while reading. (In cases of high fantasy, terms of magic and the relationships of the various characters count here) If I had to go all the way to the back for the TOC, I'd be irritated. When I finish a book, I usually close it out, sync and then reopen it to send it back to the front so the next time I read it I can start off right away. 

This thread has been an entertaining read, but it's a wonder it hasn't been locked with the near-hostility I've read. 

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. Good luck to those affected. 

David


----------



## alawston

Dhewco said:


> This thread has been an entertaining read, but it's a wonder it hasn't been locked with the near-hostility I've read.


I'm sure the moderators are keeping an extremely close eye on it, but this feels like a thread that needs to run its course. When it started, it focused on one very specific book and tactic. Now it's got on to the stuffing, and all sorts of skeletons are coming out of closets.


----------



## PhoenixS

Like Sela and David, I sent off my own detailed query yesterday (actual book and author names abbreviated or redacted):

Hello.

Apparently authors are currently being told by KDP reps that including the same books over and over as bonus content in other books of theirs in Select is perfectly fine as long as all the books in question follow the exclusivity guidelines.

If this is truly the case, this is very exciting news for me. I have up to 90 titles I manage that I can add bonus books into to ensure each title has up to the 3000 KENP maximum that KU pays.

But I've also seen some authors whose accounts have been terminated for appearing to have followed this practice. So Amazon's responses are coming across mixed.

I would love to add bonus books to my titles. I already create boxed sets of series/related collections and always list what titles are included. So I'm good on understanding what constitutes a boxed set of content. I'm also good on understanding the terms of Select. Please do NOT quote boilerplate at me. If a script is all you have to go by, PLEASE ESCALATE this query. If I receive boilerplate back, I'll just bounce this up again. And again, if need be.

Very plainly, please let me know:

1) whether I will be paid for all the pages read in a book that contains bonus content as created below.

2) if the following examples of creating bonus content are within the Terms & Conditions for Select:

From my personal catalog:
A.) I offer the single title BH, then simply add as a surprise bonus:
PH
NH
HH

B) I offer the single title PH, then add:
BH
NH 
HH [oops, edited to abbreviate]

C) I offer the single title NH, then add:
TH
HH

D) I offer the single title TH, then add:
BH (same pen name)
HS (different pen name, different subgenre)
AH (different pen name, different subgenre)

From the SMP account I manage for another author (she has close to 80 titles available):
A) I include the 504 KENP series starter CH, the 338 KENP series starter LP, and the 265 KENP series starter TRW in ALL 80 titles, adding an extra 1100 KENP pages of content to every title in that catalog.

B) I include a brand new short story not yet published anywhere as an extra bonus incentive at the end of all 80 titles.

This author typically gets around 1-1.6 million page reads per month. I think by adding the above bonus material, we can at the very least double that amount, assuming bonus content gets counted and paid no differently.

But I want to be 100% sure that this is within guidelines. So please be 100% sure of your answer.

Please advise.

_
[Reply in next post]_


----------



## PhoenixS

A few minutes ago, I received this reply:

Hello,

My name is [redacted], one of the Customer Support Supervisor with the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) team.

I understand you concern about including the bonus content in the Kindle books which are enrolled in KDP Select.

I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.

If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.

Since, this will be considered as duplication of the content, you may not include the other books in the primary content as our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books.

Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.

Just so you know, content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience. If our content review team found that a book is resulting in a poor experience or genuine reader confusion, or is designed to unnaturally inflate sales or pages read, they will take action and remove the title.

Check Help for more information on bonus content:
https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A3CFOBV9O6PLD7

Thanks for using Amazon KDP.


----------



## RedFoxUF

PhoenixS said:


> A few minutes ago, I received this reply:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> My name is [redacted], one of the Customer Support Supervisor with the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) team.
> 
> I understand you concern about including the bonus content in the Kindle books which are enrolled in KDP Select.
> 
> I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.
> 
> If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.
> 
> Since, this will be considered as duplication of the content, you may not include the other books in the primary content as our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books.
> 
> Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.
> 
> Just so you know, content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience. If our content review team found that a book is resulting in a poor experience or genuine reader confusion, or is designed to unnaturally inflate sales or pages read, they will take action and remove the title.
> 
> Check Help for more information on bonus content:
> https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A3CFOBV9O6PLD7
> 
> Thanks for using Amazon KDP.


Ask them why dozens of books are literally doing this now with no repercussions and despite being reported to Amazon multiple times. Their official policy doesn't mean a lot when they don't enforce it.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

PhoenixS said:


> Since, this will be considered as duplication of the content, you may not include the other books in the primary content as our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books.


Thank you, Phoenix. I think this exchange is proof that if you ask a carefully worded and explicit question, you will (sometimes!) get a carefully worded and explicit answer.

I think we now have a clear statement of position from KDP.


----------



## Lydniz

PaulineMRoss said:


> I think we now have a clear statement of position from KDP.


Until someone else quotes something else from some other rep that says differently.


----------



## A Woman&#039;s Place Is In The Rebellion

Lydniz said:


> Until someone else quotes something else from some other rep that says differently.


Still searching for that kboards 'like' button!


----------



## 75814

RedFoxUF said:


> Ask them why dozens of books are literally doing this now with no repercussions and despite being reported to Amazon multiple times. Their official policy doesn't mean a lot when they don't enforce it.


Because Amazon sucks at enforcing their rules. They let crap slide for a long time and then take drastic action when it gets out of control. This is nothing new. It sucks, but we can't change Amazon's lax enforcement policies.


----------



## 555aaa

I don't understand why Amazon doesn't just strip out bonus content if that's the new rule. Seems like something they could get their interns to program. At the same time, they should auto-build box sets - or readers should be able to build their own customized box sets.


----------



## Not any more

PaulineMRoss said:


> I think we now have a clear statement of position from KDP.


Aw, heck. I guess I need to get back to writing a new book. All that work stuffing all my books together wasted. Sigh.


----------



## alawston

555aaa said:


> I don't understand why Amazon doesn't just strip out bonus content if that's the new rule. Seems like something they could get their interns to program. At the same time, they should auto-build box sets - or readers should be able to build their own customized box sets.


I don't think their system, or their current TOS, would allow for stripping out content. When we publish a book, we effectively "sign" a statement that we're responsible (ie, liable) for the content we're uploading, which I would have thought would preclude someone from fiddling with it post-publication, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## 75814

555aaa said:


> I don't understand why Amazon doesn't just strip out bonus content if that's the new rule. Seems like something they could get their interns to program. At the same time, they should auto-build box sets - or readers should be able to build their own customized box sets.


They don't have the manpower to even take down the books that violate the rules, and that's a lot easier than having someone go into each and every book to see if it has bonus content and then strip it out (which scammers would counter by re-uploading new versions with the bonus content).

Auto-building box sets is a good idea. In a way, they do this already. If you go to a series page, you can buy all the books in the series with one click of a button. Or they should allow authors to create box sets from existing titles through the KDP dashboard. As I recall, DriveThru Fiction has a feature like that which was really nifty.


----------



## Anarchist

555aaa said:


> I don't understand why Amazon doesn't just strip out bonus content if that's the new rule.


The rules remain unclear.

I would never take one rep's response as the final word on Amazon's policy. Show me a company that has more than 10 employees, and I'll show you a company with support reps giving out inconsistent - and in many cases, demonstrably inaccurate - information.


----------



## RedFoxUF

Perry Constantine said:


> Because Amazon sucks at enforcing their rules. They let crap slide for a long time and then take drastic action when it gets out of control. This is nothing new. It sucks, but we can't change Amazon's lax enforcement policies.


It feeds the scamming. Amazon is Amazon's biggest problem.


----------



## Donna White Glaser

PhoenixS said:


> Apparently authors are currently being told by KDP reps that including the same books over and over as bonus content in other books of theirs in Select is perfectly fine as long as all the books in question follow the exclusivity guidelines.
> 
> If this is truly the case, this is very exciting news for me. I have up to 90 titles I manage that I can add bonus books into to ensure each title has up to the 3000 KENP maximum that KU pays.


Did you use the special sarcasm font for this one? Hee hee hee!


----------



## Arches

Perry Constantine said:


> Because Amazon sucks at enforcing their rules. They let crap slide for a long time and then take drastic action when it gets out of control. This is nothing new. It sucks, but we can't change Amazon's lax enforcement policies.


Before we pile on Amazon too much for lax enforcement, I think it's worth remembering that most of the enforcement programs I can think of follow the same model: let things slide as long as possible and then hammer a few miscreants to the deter the many who would like to break the rules, too. That the way most police departments I know of operate, as does the IRS, and the SEC, and EPA, etc.

The main difference with Amazon is that their word is final. If the cops screw you over, or the IRS, you can always go to court and tell your story to a judge. Amazon is both the cop and the judge in this case. So I would think it would be smart to be particularly careful. If KU is cutting you big monthly royalty checks, it could stop immediately, and there's not a dang thing you could do about it except pull your books and try your luck with going wide.


----------



## JRTomlin

Lydniz said:


> Until someone else quotes something else from some other rep that says differently.


If a rep tells you differently, I suggest bouncing it to a _supervisor_ as Phoenix did.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

Anarchist said:


> The rules remain unclear.
> 
> I would never take one rep's response as the final word on Amazon's policy. Show me a company that has more than 10 employees, and I'll show you a company with support reps giving out inconsistent - and in many cases, demonstrably inaccurate - information.


The rules are perfectly clear. As are the ethics of attempting this sort of content stuffing. The enforcement is lax, but that's something else entirely.


----------



## MaryBlaisdell

JRTomlin said:


> If a rep tells you differently, I suggest bouncing it to a _supervisor_ as Phoenix did.


Also, make sure that you have your question phrased clearly. A vague: "is adding bonus material still allowed" might get you the answer that you want, but that won't help you if Amazon decides to get nasty.


----------



## sela

Thanks Phoenix for your question and for providing Amazon's response. It seems pretty clear to me and probably to anyone who has read the TOS that stuffing is wrong and violates the TOS in letter and spirit. They didn't really address the short story at the end except to mention that it can't be duplicated content but it should stop the ethical among us from misunderstanding what "bonus" content means and how it can be used.

I'd love to hear from those authors who were posting here defending stuffing and bonus content. Like I said in my previous post, as someone who has written guidelines and provided analysis of those guidelines to government officials, I am aware how important it is to accurately describe the scenario you are asking about or else you will get an incorrect response / interpretation.

If an author was to ask "Can I include a bonus story at the end of my book?" an Amazon rep might rightfully answer "Yes, you can include a bonus story at the end of your book."

An ethical person would say, "Great! I have this special epilogue that I thought my readers would like."

An unethical person would say to themselves "GREAT! I can stuff my new short 200 KENP book with my entire catalogue so that it meets the 3,000 KENP cap and I can include a special new 50 KENP story at the end so I can get readers who have already read the entire catalogue to click to the end for that special new story and I will get an extra 2750 KENP or $11.61 for a novella and short story that would only garner me $1.06!! SCORE!"


----------



## David VanDyke

Desmond X. Torres said:


> It's late for me... and I think... yeah, you're right. What you just describe is how I've been feeling about my next releases. I'll have to look at D2D again; I used them b4.
> 
> I don't like being one of Jeff's quasai employees. I was NEVER good at that, frankly.
> I'll PM you in the AM. But thanks, man. I've read every post of yours I've ever come across and... yeah... k?
> Thanks.


I PM'd you back, but I reproduce my answer here for everyone's benefit:

Here are the wide promo sites that I use. I use them more often than the Amazon-only sites, because an Amazon-only site only targets half my reading audience.

BookBub
ERNT
Freebooksy/BargainBooksy
Manybooks
Ebook Hounds
Riffle
Fussy Librarian
Robin Reads
BookBarbarian

Anyone have any more that they consider cost-effective?

***

One thing about using D2D or another aggregator that was pointed out; you can't use Kobo's in-house promos if you don't go direct. Kobo is pretty easy to use, too, as long as you have epubs available.


----------



## 75814

JRTomlin said:


> If a rep tells you differently, I suggest bouncing it to a _supervisor_ as Phoenix did.


I didn't realize it was from a supervisor at first, so thanks for pointing that out.

The reps know nothing. As someone rightly pointed out, you ask six different reps the same question, you'll get six different answers. I know when trying to get my book into additional categories, I've had to email several different reps before I got to someone who would.

But the fact that this explanation came from a supervisor and that we see how clearly Phoenix worded the question so we know specifically what she was asking seems far more definitive than "a KDP rep said it was okay."


----------



## Anarchist

MonkishScribe said:


> The rules are perfectly clear. As are the ethics of attempting this sort of content stuffing. The enforcement is lax, but that's something else entirely.


No, they're not. This thread alone is evidence as we have intelligent KB members disagreeing on the particulars. We also have reports of contradictory responses from Amazon reps.

Ethics are a rabbit hole. Not only do ethical standards evolve, but there remains a big difference in opinion regarding what is ethical and what is unethical. Some folks are moral absolutists. Others are moral relativists. Most are somewhere in between the two extremes.



JRTomlin said:


> If a rep tells you differently, I suggest bouncing it to a _supervisor_ as Phoenix did.


At the company I used to work for, the supervisors were all but clueless on policy. They supervised their people. But they routinely gave out inaccurate information.

It was truly a Dilbert world.


----------



## David VanDyke

hottakes said:


> Do you not realize that a lot of people are reading these posts? And since you're not pointing out who you're actually talking about, they're going to lump every single author that got rank stripped in with the link scammers.
> 
> Legitimate authors got caught up in this, but you're making no distinctions.
> 
> I can't believe I have to explain that.


You keep saying "link scammers."

Gaughran is not talking about link scammers. He's talking about bonus story scammers, which is an attempt to get the reader to go to the back, skipping content they don't actually read, triggering more page reads.

The effect is the same, but the bonus story scammers are avoiding one explicit trigger for getting their book flagged. They are, however, trying to induce a reader to go ot the end and trigger fake page reads.

Any trick that gets people to jump over content that they don't actually read, and repeatedly, is a scam. The only debate about that is in the minds of the unethical, who want to justify scamming.

Imagine if Amazon were to put into place a system where each page had to be brought up and "read" for at least ten seconds, say. That would eliminate this particular issue, and it would also demonstrate the unassailable fact that the bonus story tactic has one and only one purpose: to create "page reads" where nobody actually reads the pages.


----------



## Alan Petersen

Lydniz said:


> Until someone else quotes something else from some other rep that says differently.


 Or you ask another KDP rep or supervisor or manager. Just keep trying until you get the "answer" you're looking for.


----------



## Becca Mills

So, working with Phoenix's rep's language, we should not be putting together books that "end up with having the same content in [multiple] books repeatedly" because "this will be considered as duplication of the content," and "our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books." If you do "include a short story as a bonus content in your book [...] you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog," as that would be "a duplication."

Given this answer, it seems reasonable to say that adding non-unique bonus content is risky. Perhaps _extremely risky_, depending on the true explanation for the current round of rank-stripping.

Apparently some/most Amazon reps aren't giving the same answer Phoenix got, but I suspect that's either because they don't understand the question or because Amazon hasn't focused on what's happening on the ground and therefore hasn't produced the appropriate boilerplate. Not the reps' fault -- first-line customer service people are only as good as the info and training they get from their supervisors, and with KDP, the "info and training" seems to a thumb drive of canned emails to send out. But that doesn't mean the interpretation/position of higher-ups like the person Phoenix communicated with won't eventually filter down to all the lower-level reps and start being enforced ... probably in the draconian, inconsistent way Amazon tends to enforce things. We may or may not be seeing the beginnings of that now (I'm still not convinced stuffing led the rank-stripping being discussed here), but I do think it will come.

So IMO, now is the time to get duplicate bonus material out of books. Surely it's better to transition now than to get the income rug pulled suddenly out from under you when Amazon finally gets its ducks in a row. And I do think they will.


----------



## sela

If your moral framework precludes stealing, lying and cheating, your ethics should be guided by those values. Hence, you would not steal by taking money you have not earned, you wouldn't lie about what you were doing, and you wouldn't cheat by using black hat techniques to get that unearned money.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

Anarchist said:


> No, they're not. This thread alone is evidence as we have intelligent KB members disagreeing on the particulars. We also have reports of contradictory responses from Amazon reps.


This is not about the intelligence of the KBers. That was never an issue.

We have a ToS. We have a fresh statement from a KDP supervisor that confirms that content stuffing is a violation. And we have Amazon rank stripping books that violate the rules. Some people don't like the evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't clear.


----------



## Becca Mills

Anarchist said:


> No, they're not. This thread alone is evidence as we have intelligent KB members disagreeing on the particulars. We also have reports of contradictory responses from Amazon reps.


Anarchist, I agree with you that things are not yet 100% clear, but surely there's enough evidence to say that the practice of using duplicate bonus content appears to be risky?


----------



## sela

David VanDyke said:


> You keep saying "link scammers."
> 
> Gaughran is not talking about link scammers. He's talking about bonus story scammers, which is an attempt to get the reader to go to the back, skipping content they don't actually read, triggering more page reads.
> 
> The effect is the same, but the bonus story scammers are avoiding one explicit trigger for getting their book flagged. They are, however, trying to induce a reader to do it.
> 
> Any trick that gets people to jump over content that they don't actually read, and repeatedly, is a scam. The only debate about that is in the minds of the unethical, who want to justify scamming.
> 
> Imagine if Amazon were to put into place a system where each page had to be brought up and "read" for at least ten seconds, say. That would eliminate this particular issue, and it would also demonstrate the unassailable fact that the bonus story tactic has one and only one purpose: to create "page reads" where nobody actually reads the pages.


Yeah, what was happening before was link scamming by including a link at the _front_ of the content that skipped readers to the back to get that special incentive, such as a free book or gift card. People had to take those links out.

What is happening now is that people are including a Special Never Before Read Story or Exclusive Epilogue at the end of the stuffed content. It shows up in the table of contents and so a reader who has finished reading the actual new content at the front end and is excited to see that Special Never Before Read Story or Fabulous Exclusive Epilogue will click on the link and will be taken past the duplicated content to the end of the new bonus story, hence generating the full 3,000 (or whatever) KENP read.

If people are not able to include stuffed books at the back end of their new content, then it will be no issue to include a _new_ bonus chapter, story, book, etc. If it's new content, the author will be legitimately paid.

That's all I care about. Legitimate page reads.

Yes, I know Amazon isn't able to truly count pages, but that doesn't mean they can be scammed. Scamming is still scamming.


----------



## JRTomlin

MaryBlaisdell said:


> Also, make sure that you have your question phrased clearly. A vague: "is adding bonus material still allowed" might get you the answer that you want, but that won't help you if Amazon decides to get nasty.


True, this.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin

PhoenixS said:


> A few minutes ago, I received this reply:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> My name is [redacted], one of the Customer Support Supervisor with the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) team.
> 
> I understand you concern about including the bonus content in the Kindle books which are enrolled in KDP Select.
> 
> I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.
> 
> If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.
> 
> Since, this will be considered as duplication of the content, you may not include the other books in the primary content as our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books.
> 
> Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.
> 
> Just so you know, content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience. If our content review team found that a book is resulting in a poor experience or genuine reader confusion, or is designed to unnaturally inflate sales or pages read, they will take action and remove the title.
> 
> Check Help for more information on bonus content:
> https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A3CFOBV9O6PLD7
> 
> Thanks for using Amazon KDP.


Phoenix, thanks for being a leader in the community (again!) and taking the time/putting forth the effort to set the record straight.


----------



## Used To Be BH

The seed of this whole problem was Amazon creating a KU system based on pages read without bothering to develop an accurate way of counting pages read. I'm not sure how easy it would be to create a system that did that. On this board I've seen answers ranging from "counting pages accurately would be easy," to "counting pages accurately would be impossible." It does seem as if Amazon could develop a system that would at least raise a red flag if someone was apparently reading thousands of pages in a few seconds, as they would be if they jumped over all of them to get to the bonus at the end.

By the way, has Amazon changed the counting mechanism? I remember reference book authors claiming in the beginning that KU wasn't well adjusted for their work because people just looked up the items they needed, but if jumping to the end of the book in fact gives a full page count, it seems as likely reference book writers would be overpaid as underpaid, depending on where someone jumped. I also remember some romance writers complaining because at the time Amazon allegedly was reducing page counts when readers were supposedly reading too fast. (The argument at the time was that romance readers tended to read faster than the norm.) It doesn't seem as if that complaint would ever have been made if the system always operated as it does now. In other words, did Amazon try to address some of these problems earlier and then back off because the solutions were causing unintended consequences?

Either way, it's unfortunate that Amazon's carelessness has led to a situation in which authors turn on each other. Unfortunately, if there is a dubious or unethical way to profit, there is always going to be someone who will take advantage of it. That it's doable doesn't absolve the person doing it from ethical responsibility, but, as someone pointed out earlier, it would be easier to close the loopholes than to change human nature.

Another thing Amazon really needs to do something about is the way customer service people respond to questions. When one combines a TOS that is sometimes unclear with employees likely to misinterpret it, you have a recipe for disaster. I've frequently gotten the wrong answer at first to questions much simpler than the ones we're discussing.

The really sad part is that most of this should be common sense. Bonus content has been around for a long time--but as an actual bonus, not a device for getting people to jump over content to inflate pages read. I suspect most readers aren't going to accidentally reread a novel, so if writers can no longer incentivize jumping over the content, I imagine the problem of stuffing would take care of itself. In any case, it makes perfect sense that the same content shouldn't be entered repeatedly in KU in slightly different packages.

Speaking of common sense, enlightened self-interest sometimes points the way to an ethical choice. This kind of scamming creates a short-term profit, but it's very success would be its own ruin. If people see it can be safely done, more and more people will do it. As more and more people will do it, the payout would continue to shrink, causing scammers to have to scam harder and harder to make the same profit--which in turn would drive the payouts down still lower. Eventually, the whole system would collapse--and then where would the scammers be?


----------



## Anarchist

Becca Mills said:


> Anarchist, I agree with you that things are not yet 100% clear, but surely there's enough evidence to say that the practice of using duplicate bonus content appears to be risky?


Yes. It's definitely risky.

I think you're absolutely right that Amazon will eventually address this matter, and probably in a way that expressly prohibits some of the dubious methods described in this thread. They'll update their TOS and modify their CSR training to reflect the updates.

Until that happens, it's my opinion that _some_ of the accusations being made about TOS violations are best described as such...


----------



## Not any more

A lot of these books are so long that the book on the cover finishes before the "look inside" length. I saw one that had a single ToC entry for the cover book, then about 30 entries for "bonus books", then the same 30 books translated to Spanish, then the same 30 books translated to French. At the end was a "Special" something about the main characters in the first book. Definitely erotica dressed up as e-rom with a regency cover and title. 

And yes, if you're having trouble figuring out what this whole tempest in a teacup is about, just do a search on "steamy romance", then click on any book with fewer than 10 reviews.


----------



## Becca Mills

Anarchist said:


> Yes. It's definitely risky.
> 
> I think you're absolutely right that Amazon will eventually address this matter, and probably in a way that expressly prohibits some of the dubious methods described in this thread. They'll update their TOS and modify their CSR training to reflect the updates.
> 
> Until that happens, it's my opinion that _some_ of the accusations being made about TOS violations are best described as such...


LOL ... one of my favorite gifs.


----------



## 75814

brkingsolver said:


> A lot of these books are so long that the book on the cover finishes before the "look inside" length. I saw one that had a single ToC entry for the cover book, then about 30 entries for "bonus books", then the same 30 books translated to Spanish, then the same 30 books translated to French. At the end was a "Special" something about the main characters in the first book. Definitely erotica dressed up as e-rom with a regency cover and title.
> 
> And yes, if you're having trouble figuring out what this whole tempest in a teacup is about, just do a search on "steamy romance", then click on any book with fewer than 10 reviews.


I was able to find some by browsing the erotica top 100. It's really egregious. People are stuffing three or four books into the back as "bonus content for my readers." Riiiiight, completely altruistic. The fact that you're getting paid bonus money for that double-dipping had no impact on your decision.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

Anarchist said:


> Yes. It's definitely risky.
> 
> I think you're absolutely right that Amazon will eventually address this matter, and probably in a way that expressly prohibits some of the dubious methods described in this thread. They'll update their TOS and modify their CSR training to reflect the updates.
> 
> Until that happens, it's my opinion that _some_ of the accusations being made about TOS violations are best described as such...


The email that Phoenix received was a from a supervisor. It wasn't a boilerplate response. Speaking as someone who spent close to 20 years as a customer service manager (including a five year stint at Bank of America) I know one thing. An email like that doesn't go out without being checked and read by more than one person.

Because, you never know when there will be a law suit, news story, or internet post quoting your message word-for-word. In fact, in many cases a message like that is reviewed by a lawyer before the supervisor is allowed to send it. I have been in that position many times- especially when there were contentious issues, where an erroneous answer could've cost my my job.

In this capacity, the supervisor is representing the company--- in writing. You can blow off a mistake by a run-of-the-mill CSR. But a letter or email from management is on whole different level. In every job I've ever had, email communication from managers was reviewed before sending.

Every. Single. Time.

People can continue to stuff if they want to, but I strongly believe they putting their KDP accounts at risk. Amazon always over corrects a problem and responds more drastically than is necessary . We have plenty of evidence of this behavior from Amazon in the past.

But again, no horse in this race for me. My KU is fine and is not risk of being deleted. I learned my lesson after having several erotica books banned back in the day. Amazon doesn't play around and people who think this is cute now --- are in for a nasty surprise later.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

P.J. Post said:


> How about just maxing out page reads at 700 KENPC per book (~120k words)? [...]everyone should be happy.


Except epic fantasy writers.  Mine average 150K words per book... One is 220K words. I'd be happy to have a limit if there were some way of having a human verify that my 220K words is indeed all one book and give me an exemption for it.


----------



## thesios

It was my understanding that u have to actually land on a page in order to be counted

so linking around content does not count the skipped pages , unless page flip is disabled for theh book.

toc 
story --> link --> go to epilogue
junk    ==>> these pages were skiped so they are not supposed to be counted
more junk  ==>> these pages were skiped so they are not supposed to be counted
#epilogiue <<==
story


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Going Incognito

she-la-ti-da said:


> ...but Amazon only wants to bot their way to domination with as little hassle as possible.


Giggling at the irony here. Bots vs bots, who will win? Dun dun dunnnn


----------



## Becca Mills

thesios said:


> It was my understanding that u have to actually land on a page in order to be counted
> 
> so linking around content does not count the skipped pages , unless page flip is disabled for theh book.


Yeah, that's what Amazon said. But apparently it doesn't actually work that way.


----------



## Going Incognito

Becca Mills said:


> Yeah, that's what Amazon said. But apparently it doesn't actually work that way.


Shocker!


----------



## Becca Mills

I've removed a few posts that got into the whole KU-should/shouldn't-exist argument. That's an interesting and valid debate, IMO, but it tends to get very contentious and often leads to locked threads, so this is not the place to have it, as I said upthread.


ETA: Just removed another such post. Further posts in that vein will lead to banning from the thread. We want to keep this one open so that authors can be informed about an important topic. We're not going to allow it to be sidetracked.


----------



## MaryBlaisdell

Could Amazon be dragging their feet simply because they're trying to develop a mechanized solution to the problem, and they don't want to expend a lot of human effort on dealing with it, book by book?


----------



## Cactus Lady

P.J. Post said:


> Um...are you familiar with the term, "Trilogy"?


Pauline's books are full-length, well-constructed novels that can't just be chopped into three parts.

150K+, or even 200K+ words is common for epic fantasy.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

P.J. Post said:


> If it was good enough for Tolkien...
> 
> Fine, make the limit 800 or 850, but if it goes too high you invite the opportunists back in. If writers want to write door stoppers, they may have to take a haircut for the team - or writer slightly shorter books, or write trilogies, or serials, or whatever. To be fair, most fantasy series are novel length serials anyway.


There's nothing wrong with box sets, though. It's twelve different permutations of the same box set that's the problem.


----------



## kenbritz

Monique said:


> I have little doubt Amazon can tell what page you're on/last read/stopped reading entirely when the device is synced. Hell, they probably know what color underwear you were wearing when you read it.


Ah the real use of the x-ray feature is revealed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Crystal_

PhoenixS said:


> A few minutes ago, I received this reply:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> My name is [redacted], one of the Customer Support Supervisor with the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) team.
> 
> I understand you concern about including the bonus content in the Kindle books which are enrolled in KDP Select.
> 
> I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.
> 
> If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.
> 
> Since, this will be considered as duplication of the content, you may not include the other books in the primary content as our KDP Terms and Conditions doesn't allow submitting the duplicate books.
> 
> Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.
> 
> Just so you know, content published through Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) is held to the same high standards customers have come to expect from Amazon. The addition of distracting bonus content can result in a poor customer experience. If our content review team found that a book is resulting in a poor experience or genuine reader confusion, or is designed to unnaturally inflate sales or pages read, they will take action and remove the title.
> 
> Check Help for more information on bonus content:
> https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A3CFOBV9O6PLD7
> 
> Thanks for using Amazon KDP.


I legitimately don't understand what this rep is saying. Maybe it's because I haven't seen the first email. (I'm sure it's in the thread somewhere, so that's my bad). Is this saying you can't combine books at all? Or is it saying you can't combine books and refer to them as "bonus books"? Or is it only saying you can't create multiple box sets of the same books? So you can't have The Sexy Billionaire Collection: Sexy Billionaire, Sexier Billionaire, The Most Sexy Billionaire THEN another box set called Sexy Billionaires: The Most Sexy Billionaire, Sexy Billionaire, Sexier Billionaire. It sounds like it's this last one, but I'm not clear.

I have asked reps about bonus books and gotten "they're allowed" answers before (much to my bonus book hating chagrin). I've also seen "they're considered bundles, which are allowed" answers. Even this supposedly clear email is worded in a very confusing way.


----------



## Becca Mills

Crystal_ said:


> I legitimately don't understand what this rep is saying. Maybe it's because I haven't seen the first email. (I'm sure it's in the thread somewhere, so that's my bad). Is this saying you can't combine books at all? Or is it saying you can't combine books and refer to them as "bonus books"? Or is it only saying you can't create multiple box sets of the same books? So you can't have The Sexy Billionaire Collection: Sexy Billionaire, Sexier Billionaire, The Most Sexy Billionaire THEN another box set called Sexy Billionaires: The Most Sexy Billionaire, Sexy Billionaire, Sexier Billionaire. It sounds like it's this last one, but I'm not clear.
> 
> I have asked reps about bonus books and gotten "they're allowed" answers before (much to my bonus book hating chagrin). I've also seen "they're considered bundles, which are allowed" answers. Even this supposedly clear email is worded in a very confusing way.


Yeah, the rep's prose is a bit convoluted. 

Read in combination with the email Phoenix sent, I think the rep is pretty clearly saying ...

If you've written three separate novels titled _Sexy Billionaire_, _Sexier Billionaire_, and _The Most Sexy Billionaire_, you can't do the following:

1) publish a book called _Sexy Billionaire_ that includes _Sexier Billionaire_ and _The Most Sexy Billionaire_ as bonus books, and

2) publish a book called _Sexier Billionaire_ that includes _Sexy Billionaire_ and _The Most Sexy Billionaire_ as bonus books, and

3) publish a book called _The Most Sexy Billionaire_ that includes _Sexy Billionaire_ and _Sexier Billionaire_ as bonus books

because readers would be getting the same novels duplicated in all three books. In other words, bonus content needs to be original, not a duplication of something that's already in KU in another book.

ETA: It seems to me that they haven't really dealt with the question of whether you could:
1) publish a book called _Sexy Billionaire_ with no bonus inclusions,
2) publish a book called _Sexier Billionaire_ with no bonus inclusions,
3) publish a book called _The Most Sexy Billionaire_ with no bonus inclusions, and also
4) publish a book called _The Sexy Billionaire Complete Trilogy_ that contains _Sexy Billionaire_, _Sexier Billionaire_, and _The Most Sexy Billionaire_

... and put all four books in KU. The rep's email could be read as not allowing that, I think, but so far they have allowed that sort of thing. Maybe it's fundamentally different from the bonus-book thing in that the fourth book above is clearly labeled as containing all three novels.


----------



## Usedtoposthere

I don't think there's anything unclear about that email. I'd say--stuff at your peril. 

I'm awaiting a response from my rep, who's checking with the "Content Team" (who would presumably be the arbiters of, well, content). I'll share when I get it, although I think those willing to be convinced have probably been convinced, and others won't be convinced unless their account is closed and their reads stripped. I doubt enforcement will ever be absolute and even-handed. I'd guess all that happens is that if you do this, you're running a risk. A big risk, possibly. But maybe a risk that you think is worth it when you balance it against the reward. Everybody gets to do what they want, and Amazon will ALWAYS do what they want. That's publishing.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Not any more

P.J. Post said:


> How about just maxing out page reads at 700 KENPC per book (~120k words)? Publish whatever you want, bundles, bonus content, super-duper secret epilogues, multi-author box sets for NYT/USA lists, knock yourself out, but you'll only be paid for the first 800 pages, and the page-read rates will based upon that same 800 page maximum. Since most bundles are ostensibly for marketing purposes, everyone should be happy.


Neal Stephenson, published by HarperCollins, would be out of business. His novels run 900-1100 print pages, which puts them into the 1500 KENP plus range. Ken Follett is another (the first book of his Kingsbridge trilogy is 1000 pages). There is such a thing as artistic freedom. Some people like reading books that can double as fortifications.


----------



## Becca Mills

P.J. Post said:


> But you can do 1, 2 or 3 independently. The bonus content can be packaged as a bundle - once, which is why omnibuses are allowed. I think this is what's throwing off the Amazon service reps when people ask if bonus content is allowed.


Maybe the difference is that omnibuses are clearly labeled as being collections, so that readers can consciously choose whether they want to borrow just Book 1 of a series or a few books collected?



brkingsolver said:


> Neal Stephenson, published by HarperCollins, would be out of business. His novels run 900-1100 print pages, which puts them into the 1500 KENP plus range. Ken Follett is another. There is such a thing as artistic freedom. Some people like reading books that can double as fortifications.


Major door-stoppers might be less common among the indie authors whose books are actually in KU. But yeah, putting a tight cap on KENPs would definitely leave some people less compensated for their books. Every system will create winners and losers.


----------



## unkownwriter

Pauline, my tongue was so firmly in cheek, I looked like a lopsided chipmunk. Since I gave no details about my evil master plan, no lurkers will be harmed. Besides, I want to keep all that yummy KU goodness to myself. The rest of the scammers will have to come up with their own ideas. mwha-ah-ha!



Going Incognito said:


> Giggling at the irony here. Bots vs bots, who will win? Dun dun dunnnn


The Mighty Zon will overcome all! Foolish mortal, kneel before Zon!


----------



## Crystal_

Usedtoposthere said:


> I don't think there's anything unclear about that email. I'd say--stuff at your peril.
> 
> I'm awaiting a response from my rep, who's checking with the "Content Team" (who would presumably be the arbiters of, well, content). I'll share when I get it, although I think those willing to be convinced have probably been convinced, and others won't be convinced unless their account is closed and their reads stripped. I doubt enforcement will ever be absolute and even-handed. I'd guess all that happens is that if you do this, you're running a risk. A big risk, possibly. But maybe a risk that you think is worth it when you balance it against the reward. Everybody gets to do what they want, and Amazon will ALWAYS do what they want. That's publishing.


It's this part that confuses me:



> I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.
> 
> *If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.*


Why aren't "NH" and "HH" mentioned if the story is you can't do bonus duplicate content, period?

*I would be very easy for the rep to say "You can't include bonus duplicate content." The fact that they haven't is what makes it unclear IMO.*

There's also the fact that, uh, 1/4-1/2 of the books in romance have duplicate bonus content. If it's not allowed, that rule is clearly not enforced. I had one particularly bonus book hating friend email ECR about bonus books, asking if they're not allowed, and ERC "investigated" the books then ruled that nothing was wrong/left the books up for sale exactly as is. So, unless this is a brand spanking new policy, it's pretty irrelevant. Like not being able to put subtitles that aren't on your cover on a book (which people do all the time).

Having an unenforced rule is essentially the same as not having the rule.


----------



## 75814

P.J. Post said:


> Fine, make the limit 800 or 850, but if it goes too high you invite the opportunists back in.


Opportunists will still take advantage of it. I found several stuffed books in the Kindle Store just a few hours ago, and they were under 800 pages. You're still getting people abusing the system and stuffing their books in multiple places to double-/triple-/even quadruple-dip.

Capping the page count at 850 pages won't have the slightest effect on most of the stuffers I found today, but it _will_ hurt authors who write long. Why should we penalize honest authors who just happen to write long with a system that won't even stop the stuffers?


----------



## Sailor Stone

David VanDyke said:


> I PM'd you back, but I reproduce my answer here for everyone's benefit:
> 
> Here are the wide promo sites that I use. I use them more often than the Amazon-only sites, because an Amazon-only site only targets half my reading audience.
> 
> BookBub
> ERNT
> Freebooksy/BargainBooksy
> Manybooks
> Ebook Hounds
> Riffle
> Fussy Librarian
> Robin Reads
> BookBarbarian
> 
> Anyone have any more that they consider cost-effective?
> 
> ***
> 
> One thing about using D2D or another aggregator that was pointed out; you can't use Kobo's in-house promos if you don't go direct. Kobo is pretty easy to use, too, as long as you have epubs available.


Great list. There is also Bookraid, which only charges per click, and Hidden Gems.


----------



## Becca Mills

Crystal_ said:


> It's this part that confuses me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that, you would like to combine four of your books "BH," "PH", "NH" and "HH" and publish, where you would submit the books with a single title and offer the other books as bonus content.
> 
> If you do so, a customer who is purchasing the books "BH" and "PH" perceiving that he/she purchases two different books, would end up with having the same content in the both the books repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't "NH" and "HH" mentioned if the story is you can't do bonus duplicate content, period?
> 
> *I would be very easy for the rep to say "You can't include bonus duplicate content." The fact that they haven't is what makes it unclear IMO.*
> 
> There's also the fact that, uh, 1/4-1/2 of the books in romance have duplicate bonus content. If it's not allowed, that rule is clearly not enforced. I had one particularly bonus book hating friend email ECR about bonus books, asking if they're not allowed, and ERC "investigated" the books then ruled that nothing was wrong/left the books up for sale exactly as is. So, unless this is a brand spanking new policy, it's pretty irrelevant. Like not being able to put subtitles that aren't on your cover on a book (which people do all the time).
> 
> Having an unenforced rule is essentially the same as not having the rule.
Click to expand...

The idea is that the reader borrows a book titled BH and gets something that actually contains BH, PH, NH, and HH. Then they borrow a book titled PH and again get something that contains BH, PH, NH, and HH. The borrowing experience annoys them because they keep getting the same four books over and over, even though the stated titles indicate they're borrowing different books.

Yeah, Amazon clearly hasn't been enforcing this at all. But maybe they're starting to now? It's not clear to me.


----------



## Crystal_

Becca Mills said:


> *The idea is that the reader borrows a book titled BH and gets something that actually contains BH, PH, NH, and HH. Then they borrow a book titled PH and again get something that contains BH, PH, NH, and HH. The borrowing experience annoys them because they keep getting the same four books over and over, even though the stated titles indicate they're borrowing different books.*
> 
> Yeah, Amazon clearly hasn't been enforcing this at all. But maybe they're starting to now? It's not clear to me.


That is how I read it too, that you can't use the same selection of bonus content over and over. Or that you can't have the same set of books in a different permeation.

I did not read it as you can't use duplicate bonus content, period.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

she-la-ti-da said:


> Pauline, my tongue was so firmly in cheek, I looked like a lopsided chipmunk. Since I gave no details about my evil master plan, no lurkers will be harmed. Besides, I want to keep all that yummy KU goodness to myself. The rest of the scammers will have to come up with their own ideas. mwha-ah-ha!


Sorry for misreading you! I'm really bad at subtext and irony and all that good stuff. I take everything literally, unless there's a smiley.


----------



## Becca Mills

Crystal_ said:


> That is how I read it too, that you can't use the same selection of bonus content over and over. Or that you can't have the same set of books in a different permeation.
> 
> I did not read it as you can't use duplicate bonus content, period.


Doesn't the following bit suggest that you really can only use a particular bonus text in one place, though?



> Further, you may certainly include a short story as a bonus content in your book, however you may not include the same story on all the titles in your catalog as the customers who are purchasing different titles from the same publisher will have the same short story as a duplication.


Or is there some magic number that's more than "one" but fewer than "all," and you can include the story as a bonus in that many books but no more?


----------



## 75814

P.J. Post said:


> I don't think lowering the maximum KENPC from 3k to 800 is creating real losers. Sure, a few writers who write super long won't get paid for a couple hundred pages per book, but that would be their choice to write that long and the page-read rates wouldn't be adversely affected by opportunists. 800 pages is ~150k. That seems reasonable.


The opportunists are already scamming the system with books that are around 700-800 pages.


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Colin

*Monique on Yesterday at 01:52:01 AM*


> I have little doubt Amazon can tell what page you're on/last read/stopped reading entirely when the device is synced. Hell, they probably know what color underwear you were wearing when you read it.





kenbritz said:


> Ah the real use of the x-ray feature is revealed.


WARNING: Do _not _sync your device unless you are wearing lead-lined underwear.


----------



## Crystal_

Becca Mills said:


> Doesn't the following bit suggest that you really can only use a particular bonus text in one place, though?
> 
> Or is there some magic number that's more than "one" but fewer than "all," and you can include the story as a bonus in that many books but no more?


It's a very Amazon answer. It doesn't say "you can only use the bonus short story once." It says you can't use it in every book in your catalog. That does suggest there's a magic number that's less than all but fewer than one that is okay.


----------



## Becca Mills

Crystal_ said:


> It's a very Amazon answer. It doesn't say "you can only use the bonus short story once." It says you can't use it in every book in your catalog. That does suggest there's a magic number that's less than all but fewer than one that is okay.


They are constitutionally unable to be clear. 

ETA: Either that or the various moments of confusion are a sophisticated ploy to create wiggle room.


----------



## ShayneRutherford

Becca Mills said:


> Doesn't the following bit suggest that you really can only use a particular bonus text in one place, though?
> 
> Or is there some magic number that's more than "one" but fewer than "all," and you can include the story as a bonus in that many books but no more?


That was how I read it, Becca. A bonus can be included once, but more than once falls into the arena of duplicate content.


----------



## Rose Andrews

Perry Constantine said:


> The opportunists are already scamming the system with books that are around 700-800 pages.


Ugh, this. I write western brides and book stuffing is rampant in that category. You'll see these books gracing the top 100 lists with the following:

-ONE blurb indicating that it is a single story
-one title indicating that it is a single story, no mention of more than one story
-stuffed title: "Mail-order Bride Scammy: A sweet historical western mail-order bride inspirational christian romance" 
-scroll down and you'll see it's 600+ pages
-scroll down to the reviews and you'll see comments such as, "I enjoyed the first story but not the others", "I enjoyed all the stories" etc indicating that it's not a single story file but many stories
-one star reviews but somehow the book is in the top 20

These are just a few things that make you go "hmmm" 

And it's annoying as piss when your category is motherfucking littered with this shit and you're trying to make a living by being ethical. It's straight up bullshit and I'm glad to see Amazon taking at least some measure of action.


----------



## AriadneBeckett

brkingsolver said:


> Neal Stephenson, published by HarperCollins, would be out of business. His novels run 900-1100 print pages, which puts them into the 1500 KENP plus range. Ken Follett is another (the first book of his Kingsbridge trilogy is 1000 pages). There is such a thing as artistic freedom. Some people like reading books that can double as fortifications.


And some of us like writing them. I just launched a 167k word book with a KENPC of 972. No stuffing, no bonuses, all novel. Given that I wrote and edited each of those pages, I'd like to be paid for all of it. I even considered if I could split the thing in two, but it's structured as one story and reader experience would have suffered if I'd done that.


----------



## Not any more

AriadneBeckett said:


> And some of us like writing them. I just launched a 167k word book with a KENPC of 972. No stuffing, no bonuses, all novel. Given that I wrote and edited each of those pages, I'd like to be paid for all of it. I even considered if I could split the thing in two, but it's structured as one story and reader experience would have suffered if I'd done that.


And I'm at the 60K mark, halfway through the first book in a trilogy. There's no way I'm near a stopping point. All I've done so far is set the stage.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

AriadneBeckett said:


> And some of us like writing them. I just launched a 167k word book with a KENPC of 972. No stuffing, no bonuses, all novel. Given that I wrote and edited each of those pages, I'd like to be paid for all of it. I even considered if I could split the thing in two, but it's structured as one story and reader experience would have suffered if I'd done that.


FYI...
Just instabought (Former NYPD) 
Good luck, doll


----------



## SuzyQ

Just want to point out that every book should be treated as a case by case issue regarding stuffing. I have a friend who puts the same five excerpts in the back of every book. No more than two pages long each. She has been accused of stuffing those same five books by people who, obviously, do not read her books at all to begin with. She's a high ranking romance author who has included a bonus book in the past so she knows that makes her a target, but has not for her last three releases (two had DIFFERENT short stories and the excerpts and the last one had no bonus content at all except the excertps). For some reason people continue to rant at her about stuffing, probably because she ranks so high.

I think 4 or 5 books is disgusting personally, I don't do it myself (but I'm not in romance). But targeting someone with book titles in the back of the table of contents and screaming 'STUFFER!' at her is unfair and incorrect. It's driving me nuts quite frankly!

I STILL don't understand if stuffing is completely against TOS, though I really REALLY wish it was.


----------



## Not any more

ParkerAvrile said:


> Neal Stephenson wouldn't be out a penny. If you want his books from a library, you are going to have to break down and order them for free from your public library instead of paying $10/month for the privilege of borrowing them from Amazon. Seveneyes is not in KU. I just checked. Nor is Cryptonomicon. (The two I've read) Are any of them?


I simply used Stephenson and Follett as examples of famous authors who write long. I find it frightening that people start talking about dictating what others can write. That's not what this thread is about at all.


----------



## LadyG

Rosie A. said:


> Ugh, this. I write western brides and book stuffing is rampant in that category. You'll see these books gracing the top 100 lists with the following:
> 
> -ONE blurb indicating that it is a single story
> -one title indicating that it is a single story, no mention of more than one story
> -stuffed title: "Mail-order Bride Scammy: A sweet historical western mail-order bride inspirational christian romance"
> -scroll down and you'll see it's 600+ pages
> -scroll down to the reviews and you'll see comments such as, "I enjoyed the first story but not the others", "I enjoyed all the stories" etc indicating that it's not a single story file but many stories
> -one star reviews but somehow the book is in the top 20
> 
> These are just a few things that make you go "hmmm"
> 
> And it's annoying as p*ss when your category is mother[expletive]ing littered with this [crap] and you're trying to make a living by being ethical. It's straight up [bullcrap] and I'm glad to see Amazon taking at least some measure of action.


If it's any help, I noticed today that one of the worst offenders in this category has had a slight change in her listings. While she's still got 140+ books with the identical revolving content (and I'm sure you know who I'm talking about) take a look at the category listings on her individual book pages. The books are no longer highly ranked in Viking/Victorian/Amish/Jewish/Multicultural/Regency/Scottish Romance categories. They are now ranked in erotica categories, as they should have been all along. If you do a search for "Mail order bride western romance" her books no longer show up because they are now properly categorized as erotica.

Unfortunately, they all still seemed to be stuffed with identical content and links to bonus stories at the end. So now she's hurting erotica authors and the problem has just been relocated instead of solved. But maybe this is just the beginning and Amazon is finally focusing on it?


----------



## David VanDyke

thesios said:


> It was my understanding that u have to actually land on a page in order to be counted
> 
> so linking around content does not count the skipped pages , unless page flip is disabled for theh book.
> 
> toc
> story --> link --> go to epilogue
> junk ==>> these pages were skiped so they are not supposed to be counted
> more junk ==>> these pages were skiped so they are not supposed to be counted
> #epilogiue <<==
> story


Unfortunately, your understanding is presently incorrect. We all wish it were that way.


----------



## David VanDyke

Rosie A. said:


> Ugh, this. I write western brides and book stuffing is rampant in that category. You'll see these books gracing the top 100 lists with the following:
> 
> -ONE blurb indicating that it is a single story
> -one title indicating that it is a single story, no mention of more than one story
> -stuffed title: "Mail-order Bride Scammy: A sweet historical western mail-order bride inspirational christian romance"
> -scroll down and you'll see it's 600+ pages
> -scroll down to the reviews and you'll see comments such as, "I enjoyed the first story but not the others", "I enjoyed all the stories" etc indicating that it's not a single story file but many stories
> -one star reviews but somehow the book is in the top 20
> 
> These are just a few things that make you go "hmmm"
> 
> And it's annoying as p*ss when your category is mother[expletive]ing littered with this [crap] and you're trying to make a living by being ethical. It's straight up [bullcrap] and I'm glad to see Amazon taking at least some measure of action.


Everyone needs to report those books in their own genres. Quote the TOS to Amazon verbatim. Create a document in your files to copy and paste from so it's easy. If everyone did this, we'd see less scamming. Anything that cuts down on the scammers helps the ecosystem. It's just like pollution in the natural environment: anything that cuts down on pollution helps keep the environment healthy.


----------



## AriadneBeckett

Desmond X. Torres said:


> FYI...
> Just instabought (Former NYPD)
> Good luck, doll


((hugs)) Thank you so much! Hope you enjoy it -- it takes some hard swipes at some nasty folks in the NYPD, but it's written from a place of considerable love and respect!


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## AriadneBeckett

zzz said:


> Thousand page print books might be priced more than shorter ones to cover the manufacturing cost, but they aren't priced at three times a 300 page or twice a 500 page book.
> 
> EBooks have no manufacturing cost. If a 300 page eBook from a traditional publisher is priced at $9.99, is a 600 page book priced at $19.98, and a 1200 page book $39.96? Or, from indie authors, would the same eBooks be priced at $3.99, $7.98, and $15.96?
> 
> If the author of a 1,000 page eBook is willing to sell it for $2.99, and be paid $2.09, why should he be paid $4.00 for a KU borrow of the exact same book?
> 
> Paying by the page for KU never made a lick of sense.


Proofreaders? Paid by the word. Editors? Paid by the word. Ghostwriters? Paid by the word.

It makes a lot of sense to me. More effort should equal more pay, and it takes an author twice as long to write a 1,000 page book as a 500 page one, so yes - paying by the page is fair.


----------



## Shelley K

Well, Amazon could cap the KENPC at a smaller number and screw people who write epics, ban anything but single volumes in KU and screw people who do well with series sets, and set up an algorithm that stops counting after the title content (which wouldn't work properly and would screw plenty of people out of legitimate pages while they claimed everything was _fine_). They could also restrict a number of other things, and put burdens on certain authors while turning a blind eye to actual scammers. Much like now, but with more tedium.

Or maybe, you know, I know it's a crazy idea, they could consider possibly thinking about entertaining the idea of fixing their [expletive]ing system.


----------



## Not any more

Shelley K said:


> Well, Amazon could cap the KENPC at a smaller number and screw people who write epics, ban anything but single volumes in KU and screw people who do well with series sets, and set up an algorithm that stops counting after the title content (which wouldn't work properly and would screw plenty of people out of legitimate pages while they claimed everything was _fine_). They could also restrict a number of other things, and put burdens on certain authors while turning a blind eye to actual scammers. Much like now, but with more tedium.
> 
> Or maybe, you know, I know it's a crazy idea, they could consider possibly thinking about entertaining the idea of fixing their [expletive]ing system.


That's so radical that I can't believe you're even suggesting it. Shocking. Absolutely shocking.


----------



## Colin

Shelley K said:


> Well, Amazon could cap the KENPC at a smaller number and *screw *people who write epics, ban anything but single volumes in KU and *screw *people who do well with series sets, and set up an algorithm that stops counting after the title content (which wouldn't work properly and would *screw *plenty of people out of legitimate pages while they claimed everything was _fine_). They could also restrict a number of other things, and put burdens on certain authors while turning a blind eye to actual scammers. Much like now, but with more tedium.
> 
> Or maybe, you know, I know it's a crazy idea, they could consider possibly thinking about entertaining the idea of fixing their [expletive]ing system.


So, in brief, you are saying the whole KU thing is screwy.

Agreed. And it has been since its (mis)conception.


----------



## unkownwriter

No one has said people couldn't write longer books. What has been suggested is that there could a limit to how much one is paid in a particular program. You don't have the right to be paid more for a borrowed book than a sale. It's just worked out that way under the new KU system. Wasn't that one of the complaints the novel writers had about short stories getting the same for a borrow? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you (general you) want to be treated as special for putting out huge books.

Select is a voluntary program. No one is forced to be in it or out of it. If the rules say KENPC is capped at 1K, or whatever new limit comes up (and I'd bet there will be a new, lower one), then you have to decide if losing a few pennies is worth it. Good grief, the entitlement some people have.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

Why is limiting the length of books a better solution than de-listing books that violate the ToS? Just shut down the obvious stuffers.


----------



## Caimh

Set a max of 400 pages per book, have no box sets etc in KU so that it is just single titles, and for any book over 400 - they can still be submitted but a human just looks at it and goes - OK, this is all one book. That'd take a matter of moments once stuffing is gone.


----------



## 75814

MonkishScribe said:


> Why is limiting the length of books a better solution than de-listing books that violate the ToS? Just shut down the obvious stuffers.


This. KDP needs better monitoring, not arbitrary page caps. Especially when every stuffed book I've found would be completely unaffected by the suggested page caps. Cap it at 800 pages, you only screw over authors who write long. The scammers? They'll just stuff in two books as opposed to three. And they'll still continue stealing from the pot.


----------



## Guest

she-la-ti-da said:


> You don't have the right to be paid more for a borrowed book than a sale.


Tell that to all the people selling 99 cent novels in KU. There's a least a couple of them I think...


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

LadyG said:


> If it's any help, I noticed today that one of the worst offenders in this category has had a slight change in her listings. While she's still got 140+ books with the identical revolving content (and I'm sure you know who I'm talking about) take a look at the category listings on her individual book pages. The books are no longer highly ranked in Viking/Victorian/Amish/Jewish/Multicultural/Regency/Scottish Romance categories. They are now ranked in erotica categories, as they should have been all along. If you do a search for "Mail order bride western romance" her books no longer show up because they are now properly categorized as erotica.
> 
> Unfortunately, they all still seemed to be stuffed with identical content and links to bonus stories at the end. So now she's hurting erotica authors and the problem has just been relocated instead of solved. But maybe this is just the beginning and Amazon is finally focusing on it?


So rather than discipline the offenders, they're moving them to a lousy neighborhood. 'No penalty for botting nor for stuffing. Go over to the erotic ghetto where you belong and play your games there.'

And they will, and regroup, and be back to the other cats when this thing blows over. This thread has told me that shennanigans that I thought had been solved years ago still continue. If there's $$ in it, they aint a gonna stop.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Capping page count just changes the mechanics of the scam. It doesn't take away the scammer's ability to work. Rather than having to produce three times the number of novels, I suspect the scammers would switch to novellas as their base, meaning they could publish three times the number of books in the same amount of time if they wanted to. Yes, capping the number of releases might stop slow them down, but there are some people operating as small publishers for author co-ops and similar arrangements who use KDP to put out a lot of titles. Also, that kind of solution lowers the profit margin for scammers but still leaves enough incentive to scam that it will still happen. The only way to cut the incentive out completely would constrain legitimate authors to an unacceptable extent.

Here's what I think Amazon should do. First, ban duplicate content in KU, period. We know Amazon can and does scan for duplicate content. Currently, this scanning is not applied to books issued through the same account, but I'm sure it could be. There would have to be a little leeway for duplications like the same author bio, obviously. It might be enough to cover short excerpts from other books as well. Box sets to give readers willing to buy the whole series a bargain are legitimate, but Amazon could provide a "buy complete series" link and allow authors to set a series price. That would eliminate the need for having box sets as a separate product.

It would take Amazon time to rescan the existing catalog. Before it starts, it could announce the change in clear terms and give authors a week to upload compliant versions of existing titles. After that, when the scan shows duplicate content, the book is removed from sale until the problem is corrected. If an innocent duplication (like the ones mentioned above) gets flagged by accident, the author contacts customer service, a real human looks at the title, and puts the book back on sale.

As an added safeguard, Amazon could links from one part of the book to another (except for the TOC, naturally). That would prevent people from abusing the system by including nonduplicative garbage in the file and providing lengths to jump around it. We know scammers have used padding in the past--but readers who actually have to read through obvious padding aren't going to stick with the book.

I'm sure there's a downside to this, but as far as I can tell, it would be relatively mild. it wouldn't be that expensive for Amazon, and the only non-scammy behavior it prevents is using legitimate bonus content. Authors who really wanted to give bonuses could do them as downloads through their own website or through sites like Book Funnel. (The readers still get a bonus if they want one, but it doesn't affect the KU page count.


----------



## Silly Writer

Bill Hiatt said:


> *As an added safeguard, Amazon could links from one part of the book to another* (except for the TOC, naturally). That would prevent people from abusing the system by including nonduplicative garbage in the file and providing lengths to jump around it. We know scammers have used padding in the past--but readers who actually have to read through obvious padding aren't going to stick with the book.


I think you're missing a word here. I know we don't normally point these things out, but in this context, your intent is skewed. Maybe you meant Amazon could 'disable' links? Is that what you meant?


----------



## Becca Mills

Silly Writer said:


> I think you're missing a word here. I know we don't normally point these things out, but in this context, your intent is skewed. Maybe you meant Amazon could 'disable' links? Is that what you meant?


Yeah, I think he meant something like "disable" there.

The problem with Bill's suggestion is that putting a new and exclusive short story at the back of the book, after five duplicate bonus novels, will generate the desired jump-to-the-end behavior, even if all you do is include a TOC.

The problem every suggestion tends to run up against is Amazon's apparent unwillingness to invest any real person-hours in dealing with the problem. Even programming hours seem hard to come by, considering that they instituted KU2 without developing a real way to track page-reads. That means every solution they consider has to be a quick fix, and quick fixes aren't going to work in this kind of situation (meaning, a situation where there's a whole lot of money to be made.


----------



## Sapphire

David VanDyke said:


> Definitions matter.
> 
> There seems to be (broadly) two types of arguments here, supported by two worldviews. These viewpoints have people talking past each other. At the very least, it would help to use the same terminology and acknowledge the way the terminology is used.
> 
> One is the legalistic viewpoint, with its associated world view that if it's not prohibited by law, or in this case by Terms of Service standing in for law, it's not wrong. This viewpoint believes it's entirely on Amazon to enforce its TOS, and that there's no ethical problem with practices which manage to make it past the enforcement. Thus, they won't call these unethical practices scamming or worse, because they don't believe ethics have any applicability, only "the rules." This viewpoint is rather like those in sports who believe anything you can get away with to win is fine, as long as it either doesn't violate the rules, or you don't get caught by the refs.
> 
> The other is the ethical viewpoint. In this viewpoint, "the rules" frame and support ethics, but are decidedly not the same thing. In this view, any tactic that exploits weaknesses in an artificial system (and remember, all of this is about the KU system, not the standard retail free market) in order to artificially inflate payouts for the users is wrong on the face of it, and is called scamming or something like that.
> 
> It appears to me that each of use has to decide which if these viewpoints to hold. I realize there is some nuance here, but I don't see much middle ground.
> 
> You either believe in abusing a system for profit because you can get away with it, and thereby taking money from your fellow authors who do act ethically; or you believe in acting ethically, competing as hard as you can within both the letter and spirit of the rules, and let the best competitor win.


I totally agree. 
Character is determined by what you do when no one is watching. In my beliefs, CHARACTER COUNTS!


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Mercedes Vox

Shelley K said:


> Or maybe, you know, I know it's a crazy idea, they could consider possibly thinking about entertaining the idea of fixing their [expletive]ing system.


I totally heard that line in your avatar's voice.  Denis O'Hare's "Liz Taylor" was the only part of that season of _American Horror Story_ that I actually enjoyed.


----------



## Not any more

Atlantisatheart said:


> ok, I have a stupid question; why can't they just design a program that can count page reads?


Because they can't figure out how to embed a marker in each page that says it was displayed. It would mean a complete redefinition for the program that creates a MOBI file, and would make the files larger. Since MOBI files are uncomfortably large already, that would be a problem. The other way would require that users be synced with Zon's servers to read, which would reduce the functionality of the ebook.


----------



## Shelley K

Mercedes Vox said:


> I totally heard that line in your avatar's voice.  Denis O'Hare's "Liz Taylor" was the only part of that season of _American Horror Story_ that I actually enjoyed.


She made the season!



she-la-ti-da said:


> You don't have the right to be paid more for a borrowed book than a sale.


I think the fact that everybody with a 99 cent novel does make more for a borrow means people do have that right.



> Select is a voluntary program. No one is forced to be in it or out of it. If the rules say KENPC is capped at 1K, or whatever new limit comes up (and I'd bet there will be a new, lower one), then you have to decide if losing a few pennies is worth it. Good grief, the entitlement some people have.


I don't think anybody's entitled for wanting a program to work as advertised without punishing them because scammers exist.


----------



## Going Incognito

Ya'll know that the rescrambling and repackaging of content was around long before KU, right? Erotica was rife with them. 100 different shorts scrambled and pubbed in a million variations of singles, 2-packs, 3-packs, 4-packs, 5-packs ad nauseum. The only difference was price. Singles were 2.99. 2-packs were 3.99 ($2 cheaper than buying them separately!) 3-packs were... blah blah. This isn't new. People gobbled up whichever combo interested them out of an author's catalog all day long. The only big difference is that how you get paid for it now opened the door widely for... creativity. 
Actually, there is a second difference- packaging. Before they were very obvious about what you were getting in each title, now some people still are and some are not.

ETA- then KU came along. Suddenly it made way more business sense to just publish them singly. Then KU2 happened. Seems like people are doing exactly what is preached- adapt to the changes or die.


----------



## Joseph M. Erhardt

brkingsolver said:


> Because they can't figure out how to embed a marker in each page that says it was displayed. It would mean a complete redefinition for the program that creates a MOBI file, and would make the files larger. Since MOBI files are uncomfortably large already, that would be a problem. The other way would require that users be synced with Zon's servers to read, which would reduce the functionality of the ebook.


A bit-read table for every KENPC page can be included as html comments near the front of the book. Obviously you don't want special characters in commentary (especially nulls and cr's, lf's, etc.), so you'd use ASCII hex characters, 0-F, to represent bits. One byte's bits would take up two bytes of the book's space. One hex digit would represent 4 page-read bits. A 1000-page book's bits could be represented in a table of 250 bytes. However, because you don't want hackers to know how the bit-table works, you'd need to encrypt and scramble the information, essentially doubling the table size to 500 bytes, plus maybe another 100 bytes for miscellaneous overhead. Adding less than 1k to a book to allow for page-reads to be tracked would not be that big a burden.

If anyone from Amazon is reading this and interested in the details of the algorithm, feel free to contact me. I have 45+ years experience in DP/IT, and my rates are reasonable.


----------



## Lummox JR

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but why is so much of this thread, and others that have shown up like it, obsessed with books that contain bonus content? Yeah I get it; at the very least it's borderline. I mean if you wrote that content, you are giving readers some value and therefore getting more KENP out of it doesn't bother me that much. We who don't push bonus content would obviously prefer everyone were paid just for the main book, but isn't this like freaking out over a wine stain on the carpet when a tornado is pulling the house apart?

I don't lump books with bonus content, or the people who create them, in with the scammers. I just can't. They may be _a_ problem, although there's room to disagree on that point; but they're obviously not _the_ problem. The real issue is all the click farms and the services that fake KU page reads. The real questions are: What is Amazon currently doing about the issue, and what if anything can we do to help them?

Obviously Amazon does have some investment in fixing this, because scammers greatly undermine trust in their recommendations and their reviews. It has been argued with some success that they're not doing enough, or at least not doing enough nearly fast enough, to combat the issue. It's possible they don't find the problem as alarming as we do, and then we have to ask: How do we convince them that this is a serious problem not just for us but for them? The level of Amazon's response depends directly on how serious a threat they consider any given problem to be.

This is why I say again we have to stop focusing on bonus content. If authors are gaming the system with that, it's not by a lot and it's not our real problem--nor does it bother Amazon in the slightest because bonus content doesn't undercut confidence in their site. Actual scamming is the real problem and if we keep harping on picayune crap _that only matters to us_, we're not going to advance the cause of getting Amazon to take firmer, quicker action against the scammers. And if you do want Amazon to do something about content stuffing, then we need them to hamstring the scammers first and reduce their frequency to a highly manageable level; only then will a lesser evil, which like the greater one is not low-hanging fruit, be worth fighting.


----------



## ShayneRutherford

Lummox JR said:


> This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but why is so much of this thread, and others that have shown up like it, obsessed with books that contain bonus content? Yeah I get it; at the very least it's borderline. I mean if you wrote that content, you are giving readers some value and therefore getting more KENP out of it doesn't bother me that much. We who don't push bonus content would obviously prefer everyone were paid just for the main book, but isn't this like freaking out over a wine stain on the carpet when a tornado is pulling the house apart?
> 
> I don't lump books with bonus content, or the people who create them, in with the scammers. I just can't. They may be _a_ problem, although there's room to disagree on that point; but they're obviously not _the_ problem. The real issue is all the click farms and the services that fake KU page reads. The real questions are: What is Amazon currently doing about the issue, and what if anything can we do to help them?
> 
> Obviously Amazon does have some investment in fixing this, because scammers greatly undermine trust in their recommendations and their reviews. It has been argued with some success that they're not doing enough, or at least not doing enough nearly fast enough, to combat the issue. It's possible they don't find the problem as alarming as we do, and then we have to ask: How do we convince them that this is a serious problem not just for us but for them? The level of Amazon's response depends directly on how serious a threat they consider any given problem to be.
> 
> This is why I say again we have to stop focusing on bonus content. If authors are gaming the system with that, it's not by a lot and it's not our real problem--nor does it bother Amazon in the slightest because bonus content doesn't undercut confidence in their site. Actual scamming is the real problem and if we keep harping on picayune crap _that only matters to us_, we're not going to advance the cause of getting Amazon to take firmer, quicker action against the scammers. And if you do want Amazon to do something about content stuffing, then we need them to hamstring the scammers first and reduce their frequency to a highly manageable level; only then will a lesser evil, which like the greater one is not low-hanging fruit, be worth fighting.


The problem with the stuffing is that, in all likelihood, they're getting paid for pages that were not read. The stuffers can put in a bunch of stuff the reader doesn't want, then a short story at the very end. The reader jumps to the short story, and still gets paid for all the crap. Or they stuff the same stuff into a bunch of different books, and get paid for the same content multiple times. Think about that: paid multiple times for something that probably never got read in the first place. That's why people are so peeved about it. Also, because it's causing the per-page payout to drop.


----------



## Ava Glass

Amazon is looking for someone to advocate for authors, publishers, and agents and turn "pain-points" into "successful solutions."



> We are seeking a driven, influential, experienced professional to work directly with a specialized segment of authors and content providers. You will play a critical role to support our rapid growth by working directly with authors to acquire new content while learning from them so that we can create the best-in-class customer experience and publishing support for authors. This is a unique opportunity to build and run programs from the ground-up for a vital segment of authors, and advocate on their behalf internally, turning pain-points into successful solutions.





> Responsibilities Include:
> 
> 
> Develop and oversee compelling programs and business solutions that are mutually beneficial for authors, publishers, and Amazon, addressing the concerns of authors and agents enabling the expansion of Kindle title selection.
> 
> Work closely with cross-functional teams across Amazon globally to develop and implement creative content merchandising, incentives, business models, and content opportunities, as well as educational programs for participating authors and publishers.
> 
> Develop key, influential relationships and act as an Amazon ambassador within the publishing and content-creation community.
> 
> Represent the Voice of the Author to internal groups, maintaining feedback loops help business development, product management, and other teams continue to raise the bar on the author and reader experience on Kindle.
> 
> Drive expedient support and resolution (along with root cause analysis) individually and with internal teams for critical issues affecting authors and readers.


I'm sure we can think of a few things for this advocate to work on.

Oh, and Amazon is developing a "new global service for Kindle publishers." The service definitely has to do with books because the job listing asks "Would you like to make it simpler for publishers around the world to offer millions of books on Kindle?"

https://www.amazon.jobs/en/jobs/562572/sr-product-manager-kindle-content-acquisition

I'm going to keep an eye on that.


----------



## Lummox JR

ShayneRutherford said:


> The problem with the stuffing is that, in all likelihood, they're getting paid for pages that were not read. The stuffers can put in a bunch of stuff the reader doesn't want, then a short story at the very end. The reader jumps to the short story, and still gets paid for all the crap. Or they stuff the same stuff into a bunch of different books, and get paid for the same content multiple times. Think about that: paid multiple times for something that probably never got read in the first place. That's why people are so peeved about it. Also, because it's causing the per-page payout to drop.


So the concern is about pre-stuffing rather than post-stuffing? I can see that. But it seems like that would be fairly easy for Amazon to police, since all they'd have to do is check to see where the start location in the book is relative to total content. Also, it seems like the simplest thing would be to count KENP only from the starting point forward.

But it still seems to me that those books are a drop in the bucket compared to the click farm problem.


----------



## 75814

Lummox JR said:


> This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but why is so much of this thread, and others that have shown up like it, obsessed with books that contain bonus content? Yeah I get it; at the very least it's borderline. I mean if you wrote that content, you are giving readers some value and therefore getting more KENP out of it doesn't bother me that much. We who don't push bonus content would obviously prefer everyone were paid just for the main book, but isn't this like freaking out over a wine stain on the carpet when a tornado is pulling the house apart?
> 
> I don't lump books with bonus content, or the people who create them, in with the scammers. I just can't. They may be _a_ problem, although there's room to disagree on that point; but they're obviously not _the_ problem. The real issue is all the click farms and the services that fake KU page reads. The real questions are: What is Amazon currently doing about the issue, and what if anything can we do to help them?
> 
> Obviously Amazon does have some investment in fixing this, because scammers greatly undermine trust in their recommendations and their reviews. It has been argued with some success that they're not doing enough, or at least not doing enough nearly fast enough, to combat the issue. It's possible they don't find the problem as alarming as we do, and then we have to ask: How do we convince them that this is a serious problem not just for us but for them? The level of Amazon's response depends directly on how serious a threat they consider any given problem to be.
> 
> This is why I say again we have to stop focusing on bonus content. If authors are gaming the system with that, it's not by a lot and it's not our real problem--nor does it bother Amazon in the slightest because bonus content doesn't undercut confidence in their site. Actual scamming is the real problem and if we keep harping on picayune crap _that only matters to us_, we're not going to advance the cause of getting Amazon to take firmer, quicker action against the scammers. And if you do want Amazon to do something about content stuffing, then we need them to hamstring the scammers first and reduce their frequency to a highly manageable level; only then will a lesser evil, which like the greater one is not low-hanging fruit, be worth fighting.


Do the math.

Author puts out a 150-page book. They include a 20-page short story. Between those two, they insert other books in their catalogue (which are also in KU) in order to get to the 3000 KENPC limit.

Their readers read the 150-page book then go to the TOC and skip to the short story. The readers have only read 170 pages of that book. But because of the way pages are counted in KU, that author is now getting paid for an additional 2830 pages.

Multiply that across all the books in their library.

The KU pot is communal. This causes the KENPC rate to go down.

And you may think this is just a problem for KU authors, but I can't imagine readers are happy picking up what Amazon tells them is a 3000-page book and then finding out the book is over at the 5% mark.



Lummox JR said:


> So the concern is about pre-stuffing rather than post-stuffing? I can see that. But it seems like that would be fairly easy for Amazon to police, since all they'd have to do is check to see where the start location in the book is relative to total content. Also, it seems like the simplest thing would be to count KENP only from the starting point forward.
> 
> But it still seems to me that those books are a drop in the bucket compared to the click farm problem.


Why does it have to be either/or? Both scammers and stuffers are damaging to the earnings of KU authors, undermine reader confidence, and give self-publishing a bad name.


----------



## ShayneRutherford

Lummox JR said:


> So the concern is about pre-stuffing rather than post-stuffing? I can see that. But it seems like that would be fairly easy for Amazon to police, since all they'd have to do is check to see where the start location in the book is relative to total content. Also, it seems like the simplest thing would be to count KENP only from the starting point forward.
> 
> But it still seems to me that those books are a drop in the bucket compared to the click farm problem.


I think the concern is mainly pages getting counted that aren't actually being read. And it may be only a drop in the bucket compared to click farms, but, unlike click farms it's an entirely in-house problem, and Amazon can probably deal with it a lot faster and more easily.


----------



## Sati_LRR

Going Incognito said:


> Ya'll know that the rescrambling and repackaging of content was around long before KU, right? Erotica was rife with them. 100 different shorts scrambled and pubbed in a million variations of singles, 2-packs, 3-packs, 4-packs, 5-packs ad nauseum. The only difference was price. Singles were 2.99. 2-packs were 3.99 ($2 cheaper than buying them separately!) 3-packs were... blah blah. This isn't new. People gobbled up whichever combo interested them out of an author's catalog all day long. The only big difference is that how you get paid for it now opened the door widely for... creativity.
> Actually, there is a second difference- packaging. Before they were very obvious about what you were getting in each title, now some people still are and some are not.


In the context of bundling/stuffing/bonuses it doesn't matter what people have done before, or do, outside of KU in either self or traditional publishing because of one very simple reason: *KU is a CLOSED SYSTEM with a CAP.*.

I know you know this but I'm going to say it once more with feeling: Each month there is a cap, a limit to how much you can technically earn. It doesn't matter that Amazon chooses the final number, every single time there is a limit to what they will pay out. And there isn't really a cap in the other scenario. Publishers outside of KU can bundle up as much as they want, make as many variations as they want (within reason to whatever TOS they agreed to) because each time the customer has to pay up for every single instance. The author gets paid. But in KU right now unless you are stuffing you don't get paid for multiple reads of your content.

And within KU because there is that ceiling duplication and multiple variations of the same content matters.

I honestly don't understand how people don't get this. Especially when they know the system is so [***] flawed that actual _read_ pages aren't recorded, only the furthest point is recorded - regardless of whether it was read or not.

If pages were accurately recorded (as well as REREAD pages) no one would care, because _everyone_ could be paid multiple times over for re-reads of the same content from a single reader. (The rate would plummet of course and everyone would be paid peanuts for more pages read, but that's by the by.)

But what we have now is a system that only allows *some* people (those doodling in the grey areas) to get paid either for secondary (or more) reads of their work that appear in multiple ASINs _or_ they get paid for *skipped* (unread) content.

That is the problem. Amazon's system is the problem. KU is fundamentally flawed and publishers engaging in these tactics are not exactly helping either.


----------



## sela

Lummox JR said:


> This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but why is so much of this thread, and others that have shown up like it, obsessed with books that contain bonus content? Yeah I get it; at the very least it's borderline. I mean if you wrote that content, you are giving readers some value and therefore getting more KENP out of it doesn't bother me that much. We who don't push bonus content would obviously prefer everyone were paid just for the main book, but isn't this like freaking out over a wine stain on the carpet when a tornado is pulling the house apart?
> 
> I don't lump books with bonus content, or the people who create them, in with the scammers. I just can't. They may be _a_ problem, although there's room to disagree on that point; but they're obviously not _the_ problem. The real issue is all the click farms and the services that fake KU page reads. The real questions are: What is Amazon currently doing about the issue, and what if anything can we do to help them?


I'm not concerned about truly bonus content -- content that is new and unique, made available to readers that is meant as a gift or thank you, etc. If it is being provided as a way of getting readers to skip duplicate content so I get a massive payout of unread pages? That's a scam no matter how you slice it.

What if Amazon designed a page counting system that deliberately took away a portion of your page reads -- say 90%.

Would you be upset?

For every 1000 KENP read, Amazon made 900 invisible.

That's what stuffers with "bonus stories" at the end of duplicated content are doing, except the opposite. They are artificially inflating their page reads by placing incentivized bonus content at the end of duplicated content that the reader may or may not even read.

Here's an example for illustrative purposes.

If I have ten short books of 250 KENP each and organize those ten books in 10 different orders, and add a new bonus story at the end, a reader may borrow all 10 of my 99c stuffed books, getting 10 actual books plus 10 actual bonus short stories and 90 extra books that are duplicated content.

If the reader legitimately reads each titled book (10) and skips over the duplicated books (90) and reads the bonus stories (10), Amazon is paying me 10 x 3000 KENP or a nice $126.70. This is instead of Amazon paying out a total of 3000 KENP or $12.67. So Amazon is paying out 10x the KENP that they should be.

It's really ingenious.

Stuffing with that bonus "never been seen short story" or "superfantastic epilogue" is a scam because it was designed to get payouts for pages not read.

I don't care if it's because of a poorly designed system. There was never any intent on Amazon's part to pay for skipped content or for double dippling. Just like we who put our books in KU would never accept it if we knew Amazon deliberately removed a certain percentage of our page reads.


----------



## Going Incognito

Sati_LRR said:


> In the context of bundling/stuffing/bonuses it doesn't matter what people have done before, or do, outside of KU in either self or traditional publishing because of one very simple reason: *KU is a CLOSED SYSTEM with a CAP.*.
> 
> I know you know this but I'm going to say it once more with feeling: Each month there is a cap, a limit to how much you can technically earn. It doesn't matter that Amazon chooses the final number, every single time there is a limit to what they will pay out. And there isn't really a cap in the other scenario. Publishers outside of KU can bundle up as much as they want, make as many variations as they want (within reason to whatever TOS they agreed to) because each time the customer has to pay up for every single instance. The author gets paid. But in KU right now unless you are stuffing you don't get paid for multiple reads of your content.
> 
> And within KU because there is that ceiling duplication and multiple variations of the same content matters.
> 
> I honestly don't understand how people don't get this. Especially when they know the system is so [***] flawed that actual _read_ pages aren't recorded, only the furthest point is recorded - regardless of whether it was read or not.
> 
> If pages were accurately recorded (as well as REREAD pages) no one would care, because _everyone_ could be paid multiple times over for re-reads of the same content from a single reader. (The rate would plummet of course and everyone would be paid peanuts for more pages read, but that's by the by.)
> 
> But what we have now is a system that only allows *some* people (those doodling in the grey areas) to get paid either for secondary (or more) reads of their work that appear in multiple ASINs _or_ they get paid for *skipped* (unread) content.
> 
> That is the problem. Amazon's system is the problem. KU is fundamentally flawed and publishers engaging in these tactics are not exactly helping either.


If the issue is with the design and functionality of the car then why get so mad at the driver? Fix the system. If the system can't be fixed, dump it. It's not the driver's problem for learning how to hold the clutch just right to get thru the light. Recall the car. Yell at the manufacturer.


----------



## 75814

Going Incognito said:


> If the issue is with the design and functionality of the car then why get so mad at the driver? Fix the system. If the system can't be fixed, dump it. It's not the driver's problem for learning how to hold the clutch just right to get thru the light.


That's not a good analogy because it implies that the stuffers have no choice but to stuff in order for the system to work properly. Except that's not at all what's happening. This is people taking advantage of a flaw in the system to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

Yes, KU's system needs to be fixed. Yes, Amazon needs better policing. _No one disputes that._ But that doesn't excuse the people who are exploiting the flaws in the system in order to enrich themselves at the expense of all others. What these stuffers are doing is tantamount to stealing money from the pot.


----------



## Dhewco

I'm always amazed at people who actually have 5-6 novels to stuff. If I had it, I wouldn't do it...but for me who has only written 3 standalone novels (1 lost, 1 published and 1 unpublishable in its current state)...a large series is admirable on that alone. Some are talking here about catalogues of 20 novels or more. I'm just in awe right now. I don't know if they're quality novels, but I'm still going 'wow'.


----------



## Not any more

Going Incognito said:


> If the issue is with the design and functionality of the car then why get so mad at the driver? Fix the system. If the system can't be fixed, dump it. It's not the driver's problem for learning how to hold the clutch just right to get thru the light. Recall the car. Yell at the manufacturer.


Or, to phrase it another way, "If it makes me money, I'll do whatever I can get away with and screw everyone else."

Just the kind of neighbors we all want to have.


----------



## EA Cruz

Cheating to get to the top is one thing, STAYING THERE is another.

Eventually, low quality content will lose out.

Focus on what YOU can control


----------



## Not any more

Dhewco said:


> I'm always amazed at people who actually have 5-6 novels to stuff. If I had it, I wouldn't do it...but for me who has only written 3 standalone novels (1 lost, 1 published and 1 unpublishable in its current state)...a large series is admirable on that alone. Some are talking here about catalogues of 20 novels or more. I'm just in awe right now. I don't know if they're quality novels, but I'm still going 'wow'.


You're assuming they wrote any of the content. Do you really think that the people doing this are actually sitting down and writing anything? Take a "look inside" at these books. I can pay twenty people in the Philippines $20 each to write fifty pages, then create 20 different bundles of 1,000 pages each and release ten a week. Even if Zon catches me, another $5 a book recovers them and I release them again. My click farm drives them up the ranking and I get a bunch of downloads.


----------



## unkownwriter

> I think the fact that everybody with a 99 cent novel does make more for a borrow means people do have that right.


And I think that people are deliberately overlooking the tone of the reply I was responding to, which was full of complaint because they wrote epic books and they deserved to be paid for it above and beyond what others got. And no one deserves sales or extra money because they put more words in a book. But, everyone keep on talking past what the issue is, which is people who cheat harm all of us, and many of them have this same attitude, because they wrote something (or hired someone to do it for them), and _they have earned the right to steal_. I guess it works so well on Wall Street, might as well get in it, right?


----------



## Nope

.


----------



## Going Incognito

brkingsolver said:


> Or, to phrase it another way, "If it makes me money, I'll do whatever I can get away with and screw everyone else."
> 
> Just the kind of neighbors we all want to have.


But that's the thing. We don't get to pick our neighbors. You can try. You can move in between the two most awesome, pie baking no car cemetery in the yard houses in the whole region, but if the guy on one side moves and the lady on the other side dies, new people are moving in. We can wish all people acted from a high moral center all day long. But- have you met 'people?' People run from one end of the bell curve to the other. Trying to get all people to do the same amount of 'right' is like herding cats. 
Lol, I'm defending stuffers like I stuff.

It's a lemon. We were sold a shiny new car but the brakes don't work and the keyfobs open every car in the lot and people are mad that other people are buying it anyway. 
The biggest issue is that the system is broken. 
The entirety of Sati_LRR's post boils down to -if the system worked the way it was sold to us, then it wouldn't matter what people did. That is true. If the car that was sold to us actually had functioning brakes, people wouldn't be driving on the sidewalks. But...



Perry Constantine said:


> That's not a good analogy because it implies that the stuffers have no choice but to stuff in order for the system to work properly. Except that's not at all what's happening. This is people taking advantage of a flaw in the system to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
> 
> Yes, KU's system needs to be fixed. Yes, Amazon needs better policing. _No one disputes that._ But that doesn't excuse the people who are exploiting the flaws in the system in order to enrich themselves at the expense of all others. What these stuffers are doing is tantamount to stealing money from the pot.


...But whether you excuse them or don't excuse them doesn't matter. If people as a whole only took their fair share of anything, we wouldn't be where we are as a planet. All I'm saying is that the odds of getting 'people' to not exploit a broken system... well they're the same as the odds of getting herded cats to stay inside a three sided fence just because you're yelling at them that it's the right thing to do. It does no good to worry about herding the cats until the fences are solid. Fix the fence, then you'll have waaaaaay less cats to herd and it might actually even be a little bit effective to try. Until the fence is fixed all you're doing is fighting over is it the dogs or the cats that are escaping faster. None of which matter cause they're both going to do what they're going to do until there's a functioning fence.


----------



## 75814

Going Incognito said:


> ...But whether you excuse them or don't excuse them doesn't matter. If people as a whole only took their fair share of anything, we wouldn't be where we are as a planet. All I'm saying is that the odds of getting 'people' to not exploit a broken system... well they're the same as the odds of getting herded cats to stay inside a three sided fence just because you're yelling at them. It does no good to worry about herding the cats until the fences are solid. Fix the fence, then you'll have waaaaaay less cats to herd and it might actually even be a little bit effective to try. Until the fence is fixed all you're doing is fighting over is it the dogs or the cats that are escaping faster. None of which matter cause they're both going to do what they're going to do until there's a functioning fence.


None of us have the power to fix the system. But by speaking out against people who are abusing it, we can get more people to report these scammers to Amazon so that they'll hopefully fix it. The idea that we should just sit down and shut up until Amazon decides to fix it because "hey, there are always scammers" is totally bonkers.


----------



## Dhewco

brkingsolver said:


> You're assuming they wrote any of the content. Do you really think that the people doing this are actually sitting down and writing anything? Take a "look inside" at these books. I can pay twenty people in the Philippines $20 each to write fifty pages, then create 20 different bundles of 1,000 pages each and release ten a week. Even if Zon catches me, another $5 a book recovers them and I release them again. My click farm drives them up the ranking and I get a bunch of downloads.


You're right...I was assuming that. That is really low. I hadn't considered that these weren't real books being added.


----------



## sela

Going Incognito said:


> But that's the thing. We don't get to pick our neighbors. You can try. You can move in between the two most awesome, pie baking no car cemetery in the yard houses in the whole region, but if the guy on one side moves and the lady on the other side dies, new people are moving in. We can wish all people acted from a high moral center all day long. But- have you met 'people?' People run from one end of the bell curve to the other. Trying to get all people to do the same amount of 'right' is like herding cats.
> Lol, I'm defending stuffers like I stuff.
> 
> It's a lemon. We were sold a shiny new car but the brakes don't work and the keyfobs open every car in the lot and people are mad that other people are buying it anyway.
> The biggest issue is that the system is broken.
> The entirety of Sati_LRR's post boils down to -if the system worked the way it was sold to us, then it wouldn't matter what people did. That is true. If the car that was sold to us actually had functioning brakes, people wouldn't be driving on the sidewalks. But...
> 
> ...But whether you excuse them or don't excuse them doesn't matter. If people as a whole only took their fair share of anything, we wouldn't be where we are as a planet. All I'm saying is that the odds of getting 'people' to not exploit a broken system... well they're the same as the odds of getting herded cats to stay inside a three sided fence just because you're yelling at them. It does no good to worry about herding the cats until the fences are solid. Fix the fence, then you'll have waaaaaay less cats to herd and it might actually even be a little bit effective to try. Until the fence is fixed all you're doing is fighting over is it the dogs or the cats that are escaping faster. None of which matter cause they're both going to do what they're going to do until there's a functioning fence.


I totally agree that you can never stamp out bad behavior. There will always be a certain percentage of people who will scam, period. There are always people who think the rules don't apply to them, and whose moral code is stuck back at the level of a toddler -- if I don't get caught, it's OK. They don't care about what is right or wrong or good for their fellow human.

That doesn't absolve the rest of us from being good community members and helping to keep our space a better place. If we all turn a blind eye to scammers and those who break the rules, then things will never improve. Scammers will scam. They are why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Going Incognito

Perry Constantine said:


> None of us have the power to fix the system. But by speaking out against people who are abusing it, we can get more people to report these scammers to Amazon so that they'll hopefully fix it. The idea that we should just sit down and shut up until Amazon decides to fix it because "hey, there are always scammers" is totally bonkers.


Oh for sure. But the message is too scattered. It's the bots. It's the stuffers. It's not the stuffers it's the linking. When this group marches on Bezos's house all he's gonna hear is a mob yelling a bunch of different things and pointing in every direction. Any march needs one very focused, easily understood thing to chant that everyone can get behind. Know what fixes a lot of this? Count the pages or stop paying us by pages 'counted'. Counting pages fixes stuffing. Counting pages fixes link jumping. Counting pages fixes 'click to the back' bots. Give us what you said we were getting or give us something else. It won't stop rank botting and it won't stop the development of bots that turn every page, but counting pages in a system that pays by pages counted is a place to start. A unifying call. A first patch in the fence.

Count the pa-ges!
Count the pa-ges!
Count the pa-ges!

Or something else. But it's gotta be pointed. Otherwise like in Sela's post, we're kids yelling about the fairness of the toddlers stealing our cookies.


----------



## Becca Mills

Going Incognito said:


> Oh for sure. But the message is too scattered. It's the bots. It's the stuffers. It's not the stuffers it's the linking. When this group marches on Bezos's house all he's gonna hear is a mob yelling a bunch of different things and pointing in every direction. Any march needs one very focused, easily understood thing to chant that everyone can get behind. Know what fixes a lot of this? Count the pages or stop paying us by pages 'counted'. Counting pages fixes stuffing. Counting pages fixes link jumping. Counting pages fixes 'click to the back' bots. Give us what you said we were getting or give us something else. It won't stop rank botting and it won't stop the development of bots that turn every page, but counting pages in a system that pays by pages counted is a place to start. A unifying call. A first patch in the fence.
> 
> Count the pa-ges!
> Count the pa-ges!
> Count the pa-ges!
> 
> Or something else. But it's gotta be pointed. Otherwise like in Sela's post, we're kids yelling about the fairness of the toddlers stealing our cookies.


Effective messaging is important, but not at the expense of basic accuracy, IMO. If you make it just about counting pages accurately, and Amazon caves in and makes that change but doesn't fix anything else, then you end up looking like a constituency that can never be satisfied. _You said *all* you wanted was a way to count pages, and we gave you that, but you're still unhappy?!? Whiners! Forget you!_ It may be better to convey the situation more accurately, which is that this is a program with a handful of very significant weaknesses: no reliable page counting, vulnerability to click-farmed page-reads, vulnerability to rank manipulation through borrows, vulnerability to double-dipping with duplicate content, etc.


----------



## Dhewco

I forgot to quote, but I'm speaking to the poster who said 'count da pages' a couple times in their post a couple before this one. I may be dumb here, but what do you mean by 'pages'...is it every 250 words? I ask because I sometimes make my text larger when my eyes feel tired. So, page flips would be different.


----------



## Shelley K

P.J. Post said:


> But what exactly is Amazon advertising: equitable commerce, an even playing field?


A program whereby you get paid for each page a KU member reads.


----------



## Going Incognito

Becca Mills said:


> Effective messaging is important, but not at the expense of basic accuracy, IMO. If you make it just about counting pages accurately, and Amazon caves in and makes that change but doesn't fix anything else, then you end up looking like a constituency that can never be satisfied. _You said *all* you wanted was a way to count pages, and we gave you that, but you're still unhappy?!? Whiners! Forget you!_ It may be better to convey the situation more accurately, which is that this is a program with a handful of very significant weaknesses: no reliable page counting, vulnerability to click-farmed page-reads, vulnerability to rank manipulation through borrows, vulnerability to double-dipping with duplicate content, etc.


True, hence my 'or something else' unifying to yell. Maybe 'count the pages' would get a spokesperson in the door to be able to list weaknesses? Tho I'm scared of my other 'something else' quote, too. The give us what you said you were giving us or give us something else thing? I'm afraid of what that something else might be, lol.



Dhewco said:


> I forgot to quote, but I'm speaking to the poster who said 'count da pages' a couple times in their post a couple before this one. I may be dumb here, but what do you mean by 'pages'...is it every 250 words? I ask because I sometimes make my text larger when my eyes feel tired. So, page flips would be different.


See- a definitive answer to 'what is a page?' would also be nice. As would 'how many units am I moving?' You know, basic accounting between vendor and platform. That would be great, too.


----------



## sela

Going Incognito said:


> See- a definitive answer to 'what is a page?' would also be nice. As would 'how many units am I moving?' You know, basic accounting between vendor and platform. That would be great, too.


"It's my party and you'll cry if I want you to." Jeff Bezos

/satire


----------



## Going Incognito

sela said:


> "It's my party and you'll cry if I want you to." Jeff Bezos
> 
> /satire


Lol, right?
Dude was just crowned King Of The World. He may have 99 problems but to him, Amazon ain't one.


----------



## J. Tanner

Dhewco said:


> I forgot to quote, but I'm speaking to the poster who said 'count da pages' a couple times in their post a couple before this one. I may be dumb here, but what do you mean by 'pages'...is it every 250 words? I ask because I sometimes make my text larger when my eyes feel tired. So, page flips would be different.


Whatever the amount of content in the book is equal to 1 KENP has been viewed would count as one page. This varies from book to book unfortunately, but then the number of words on the page of a physical book varies too...

The system now extrapolates the number of pages "read" by the current/last pointer position in the book when it connects to the KDP server. So think of it like taking a bookmark and inserting it at the end of the book without ever cracking the book otherwise. Then all your friends think you finished the book.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie

I don't get how people don't see the problems that the stuffers cause. I know legitimate romance authors right now who are really struggling. These authors play by the rules, they don't use click farms, they don't stuff. They do their best to follow the TOS - and they are being buried right now by the scammers. They can't gain visibility without paying out the nose for it. And the link between stuffing and click-bot farms is there. They are definitely related. Stuff a book, have it click-farmed to the top, then for the extra gold - pay for some page read of your 2k stuffed book.

So right now this is a  problem that's concentrated in the Romance genres. But if anyone thinks it's going to stay there - they're nuts. As those using dubious techniques make it harder to make money in romance, they are going to branch out. It's like expecting roaches to stay in one apartment. NOPE- they are going to infest the entire building. 

And the one thing I keep saying -- other authors irresponsible behavior always brings down the wrath of Amazon.  I don't get why some people can't see this. Rampant scamming is going to bring the wrong kind of attention to indies. And when Amazon acts (and they will) it will be with something disastrous. 

And yet some in our community still can't see why this is a problem. But they will see some day. Whether it's by discovering their KDP account has been closed or finding their entire catalog blocked. Or with the threat of a lawsuit in their mailbox. (Amazon has done all of these things in the past) 

Of course there will many innocents caught up the &^*(&*storm when it arrives. I'm not that worried about my account. I don't engage in any dodgy activities. But that doesn't mean I might not be collateral damage when the 'Zon decides they had enough.


----------



## Becca Mills

Dhewco said:


> I forgot to quote, but I'm speaking to the poster who said 'count da pages' a couple times in their post a couple before this one. I may be dumb here, but what do you mean by 'pages'...is it every 250 words? I ask because I sometimes make my text larger when my eyes feel tired. So, page flips would be different.


When you submit a book manuscript to KU, the system determines how many pages it has for the purposes of counting KU page-reads. This is the book's KENP (Kindle Edition Normalized Pages). The KENP is not the same as the page count displayed on the book page, and it doesn't change from device to device.


----------



## ShaneCarrow

If you want to find your KENP count (I didn't realise this was different from the count on the regular page that customers see) go to Author Dashboard > Bookshelf > Promote and Advertise, and scroll down to the bottom.

For an example, my first book has a stated length of 165 but a KENP count of 281.


----------



## alawston

ShaneCarrow said:


> If you want to find your KENP count (I didn't realise this was different from the count on the regular page that customers see) go to Author Dashboard > Bookshelf > Promote and Advertise, and scroll down to the bottom.
> 
> For an example, my first book has a stated length of 165 but a KENP count of 281.


Yup. And bear in mind that there often doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the KENP count. My 110 page novella has a KENP count of 154 (#winning!), but my 300+ page Casanova translation has a count of just 243 (#losing...). My Chantecoq translation bears the closest resemblance to its actual printed length, clocking in at a KENP of 451 for a 448 page count. Which would be great, except absolutely no one has ever read it through KU. In 18 months.


----------



## unkownwriter

> I don't get how people don't see the problems that the stuffers cause.


I can think of a couple of reasons. #1: Some people truly don't know how this works, and why it's wrong. #2: Some people are dismissive because they're doing the dirty deeds, and they don't want anyone to think this is wrong. #3 Some people just like to troll. They get their jollies seeing people upset.

And I swear, how many people truly think that "everyone else/Big Author is doing it, so I have to do it too" is a valid excuse? Remember when your parents asked you if you'd jump off a cliff just because someone else did it? Yeah.

As much as I think the MOAB is about to drop, I'm worried about the fall out. Because somehow, whenever Amazon tweaks something, or adjusts an algo, or chances this or that tiny little thing, my reports page looks like the locusts landed. Crap. But, for the betterment of self-publishing, I guess I'll take it on the chin again. Crap.


----------



## Not any more

Gentleman Zombie said:


> And the one thing I keep saying -- other authors irresponsible behavior always brings down the wrath of Amazon. I don't get why some people can't see this. Rampant scamming is going to bring the wrong kind of attention to indies. And when Amazon acts (and they will) it will be with something disastrous.


"You have a hangnail? Oh, I can fix that. Let me get my chainsaw."

Anyone need a plot for a new horror story? Think about the department at Zon in charge of "Solutions to Problems".


----------



## Used To Be BH

Becca Mills said:


> Yeah, I think he meant something like "disable" there.
> 
> The problem with Bill's suggestion is that putting a new and exclusive short story at the back of the book, after five duplicate bonus novels, will generate the desired jump-to-the-end behavior, even if all you do is include a TOC.
> 
> The problem every suggestion tends to run up against is Amazon's apparent unwillingness to invest any real person-hours in dealing with the problem. Even programming hours seem hard to come by, considering that they instituted KU2 without developing a real way to track page-reads. That means every solution they consider has to be a quick fix, and quick fixes aren't going to work in this kind of situation (meaning, a situation where there's a whole lot of money to be made.


Silly Writer was correct about the missing word in my earlier post.

Allow me to clarify something else--yes, a TOC link would serve the scammer's purpose, but I wasn't just talking about links. My first suggestion was to ban duplicate content within the same account, which means there wouldn't be any five duplicate novels to jump around. There wouldn't be duplicate novels, period. Legitimate box sets could be simulated by Amazon providing a "Buy the whole series link," for which the author would be permitted to offer a lower price if desired.

Amazon already has the scanning for duplicates technology in place; it just hasn't applied it in the past to content within the same account.

Of course, if, as Joseph suggests, there really is an easy way from Amazon to count actual pages read, then that would serve the same purpose--apparently without inflating the file much or requiring huge numbers of programming man hours.

If we really want to help the situation, I would suggest working out a common message, as Going Incognito recommended, and that we all start pushing that solution with Amazon.

For whatever reason, Amazon has an interest in preserving Select, and right now the only real advantage to Select is KU distribution. (Notice how many people on this forum use _KU_ when they mean _Select_.) Amazon also has an interest in preserving the content subscription model. That's two reasons for preserving KU. We also have reasons to want to see KU succeed. That gives us a common interest with Amazon. Now, if we could just get Amazon to see that, it might be willing to consider reasonable suggestions.


----------



## GeneDoucette

I appreciate that I'm coming at this from a completely alien perspective: I don't write romance, I'm not in KU. But It has quite literally never occurred to me that I could/should/would be expected to put another novel behind the novel I'm selling, or to have the same story exist in more than one place (outside of collected works.) I have a bonus short story at the end of Immortal, and that's the only place it exists. I have duplicate back-matter in every book, but that's all just 'also-by-this-author' stuff that's been standard in publishing for decades.

I think that if you went out on the street and said to a stranger, hey, each one of my series books comes with copies of the other four books in the file, they would say, why on earth would you do that? My perhaps antiquated perspective on being a novelist consists of creating original works of art that are unique, non-fungible products that exist in discrete, clearly labeled packaging. I am absolutely here to make money, but I'm also here to create and provide things I'm proud of. And if you go back to when I finished my first novel, I've been trying to reach the point where I am now for about fifteen years. It might have gone faster if KDP existed in the year 2000, but maybe not. I'd like to make art that makes money, but money isn't the reason I'm making art.


----------



## sela

GeneDoucette said:


> I appreciate that I'm coming at this from a completely alien perspective: I don't write romance, I'm not in KU. But It has quite literally never occurred to me that I could/should/would be expected to put another novel behind the novel I'm selling, or to have the same story exist in more than one place (outside of collected works.) I have a bonus short story at the end of Immortal, and that's the only place it exists. I have duplicate back-matter in every book, but that's all just 'also-by-this-author' stuff that's been standard in publishing for decades.
> 
> I think that if you went out on the street and said to a stranger, hey, each one of my series books comes with copies of the other four books in the file, they would say, why on earth would you do that? My perhaps antiquated perspective on being a novelist consists of creating original works of art that are unique, non-fungible products that exist in discrete, clearly labeled packaging. I am absolutely here to make money, but I'm also here to create and provide things I'm proud of. And if you go back to when I finished my first novel, I've been trying to reach the point where I am now for about fifteen years. It might have gone faster if KDP existed in the year 2000, but maybe not. I'd like to make art that makes money, but money isn't the reason I'm making art.


I agree and would never have even considered stuffing. To me it goes against my goal of actually selling my books, as books, to as many people as I can, so I have a large audience and can keep selling my new books to them and have a real career at this.

But that's such 2013 thinking...

It's 2017 and we have Scammable Kindle Unlimited. That means we no longer sell books as much as we let Amazon distribute them to subscribers and we enter into a Hunger Games over the pot that Amazon creates each month based on some secret formula, the design of which we have no clue.

Also, this is business, like or not.

That means there's money to be made and low overheads and low to almost nil start-up costs. It's ripe to be overtaken by purely business-minded folk who are not authors and who are looking for the fastest way to make money.

To that end, we have the indie publishers who hire ghostwriters to produce short erotic romance novels for very low cost. They then create a large catalogue of stuffed books, put them in KU, and then bot the books to the top of the charts.

We author authors have to compete for visibility with these primarily business people who are in it for the quick and dirty buck.

Plus, it's now a pay to play system where visibility on Amazon is becoming more and more premised on AMS or other ads -- money IOW. It's hard for the little indie author to get inside and become visible the way we once were able using Amazon's algorithms.


----------



## Seneca42

GeneDoucette said:


> I am absolutely here to make money, but I'm also here to create and provide things I'm proud of. And if you go back to when I finished my first novel, I've been trying to reach the point where I am now for about fifteen years. It might have gone faster if KDP existed in the year 2000, but maybe not. I'd like to make art that makes money, but money isn't the reason I'm making art.


I think it's a bit like actors who take serious roles versus the ones who are happy just to take "any" role so long as it pays the most.

Some of Pacino and Depp's recent movies just make you cringe. But I suspect with them they may be cashing in one final time to leave their kids/grandkids as big an inheritance as they can.

Brad Pitt is a guy who seems like a true artist; took lots of roles because they were good scripts. The only one that looked like a bit of a sellout was some movie he did with his ex-wife. Keanu Reeves is another who didn't do "Super Dog in Super Space" just because Disney was willing to pay him $20M.


----------



## Not any more

GeneDoucette said:


> I appreciate that I'm coming at this from a completely alien perspective: I don't write romance, I'm not in KU. But It has quite literally never occurred to me that I could/should/would be expected to put another novel behind the novel I'm selling, or to have the same story exist in more than one place (outside of collected works.) I have a bonus short story at the end of Immortal, and that's the only place it exists. I have duplicate back-matter in every book, but that's all just 'also-by-this-author' stuff that's been standard in publishing for decades.


I admit to being a bit ego involved with my publishing business. I want to feel proud and confident when I tell someone I've written a book. The idea of saying, "I make my living by skimming money from all those idiot independent publishers at Amazon," just doesn't feel quite right.


----------



## anniejocoby

sela said:


> I agree and would never have even considered stuffing. To me it goes against my goal of actually selling my books, as books, to as many people as I can, so I have a large audience and can keep selling my new books to them and have a real career at this.
> 
> But that's such 2013 thinking...
> 
> It's 2017 and we have Scammable Kindle Unlimited. That means we no longer sell books as much as we let Amazon distribute them to subscribers and we enter into a Hunger Games over the pot that Amazon creates each month based on some secret formula, the design of which we have no clue.
> 
> Also, this is business, like or not.
> 
> That means there's money to be made and low overheads and low to almost nil start-up costs. It's ripe to be overtaken by purely business-minded folk who are not authors and who are looking for the fastest way to make money.
> 
> To that end, we have the indie publishers who hire ghostwriters to produce short erotic romance novels for very low cost. They then create a large catalogue of stuffed books, put them in KU, and then bot the books to the top of the charts.
> 
> We author authors have to compete for visibility with these primarily business people who are in it for the quick and dirty buck.
> 
> Plus, it's now a pay to play system where visibility on Amazon is becoming more and more premised on AMS or other ads -- money IOW. It's hard for the little indie author to get inside and become visible the way we once were able using Amazon's algorithms.


I agree, but not entirely. It's still possible to sell lots of books without paying for ads or botting or any of that. Any indie who doesn't want to play that game needs to look at underserved genres. That would probably mean steering clear of romance or UF until things get straightened out. That's been my game plan, and my legal thriller books have stuck well without any ads. I've gotten favorable algos for them just because it's fairly easy to get visibility in my genre.

Of course, I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, because it's just going to be a matter of time until the locusts invade my genre. If that happens, I'll just look for another underserved genre and hang out a shingle. Rinse and repeat. At some point, the romance market probably will normalize to where people can get traction without shady methods or spending thousands of dollars of ads - those scammers dominated those charts are going to go somewhere else once their scamming no longer works in romance. At that point, I might put some more romance out. I'm not sure though.

I only hope that Amazon can get a handle on things before the locusts come to my genre, but if they don't, I'm prepared to jump again.


----------



## Becca Mills

Bill Hiatt said:


> Silly Writer was correct about the missing word in my earlier post.
> 
> Allow me to clarify something else--yes, a TOC link would serve the scammer's purpose, but I wasn't just talking about links. My first suggestion was to ban duplicate content within the same account, which means there wouldn't be any five duplicate novels to jump around. There wouldn't be duplicate novels, period. Legitimate box sets could be simulated by Amazon providing a "Buy the whole series link," for which the author would be permitted to offer a lower price if desired.
> 
> Amazon already has the scanning for duplicates technology in place; it just hasn't applied it in the past to content within the same account.


Sorry, I didn't focus on the earlier parts of your post, Bill. Yes, what you're suggesting sounds to me like a helpful fix. The allowable duplicate content could be set at 5,000 words or something -- enough to include all an author's usual back-matter, plus more unusual but still valid repetitions (for instance, I put a glossary at the back of my Emanations books).

I have a feeling people would still find ways to exploit the system, though. For instance, let's say I have Readers-Can't-Get-Enough-Of-It Series A and Can't-Move-A-Darned-One-Of-'Em Series B. I could put all of the Series B books in KU as separate volumes and put a different original Series A short at the end of each one. Let Series A readers know about the shorts, and they all borrow the Series B books, jump to the end, and bingo ... payday.

Maybe this kind of thinking is what makes Amazon just throw its hands up and ignore the scamming, except in the case of PR storms. 



she-la-ti-da said:


> I can think of a couple of reasons. #1: Some people truly don't know how this works, and why it's wrong. #2: Some people are dismissive because they're doing the dirty deeds, and they don't want anyone to think this is wrong. #3 Some people just like to troll. They get their jollies seeing people upset.


But we don't call people trolls, here, so No. 3 is right out. 

To suggest a different No. 3, some authors have a largely antagonistic attitude toward Amazon. They see Amazon not putting the needed resources into KDP while unfairly imposing a 35% royalty in a number of situations and over-charging on delivery fees AND and while using the indie books as a key loss-leader to draw shoppers to the site, where hopefully they'll buy a toaster oven, a TV, a baby stroller, and six pounds of coffee. They feel basically exploited by Amazon and see "gray hat" activities as justified in what they perceive as a dog-eat-dog environment where no one cares about anyone else and you have to get your own back however you can. Or they don't see scamming as harming other authors because they believe Amazon will set the KU compensation level at whatever they want it to be, not matter how many pages are read. Or both. People are complicated.


----------



## Used To Be BH

GeneDoucette said:


> I appreciate that I'm coming at this from a completely alien perspective: I don't write romance, I'm not in KU. But It has quite literally never occurred to me that I could/should/would be expected to put another novel behind the novel I'm selling, or to have the same story exist in more than one place (outside of collected works.) I have a bonus short story at the end of Immortal, and that's the only place it exists. I have duplicate back-matter in every book, but that's all just 'also-by-this-author' stuff that's been standard in publishing for decades.
> 
> *I think that if you went out on the street and said to a stranger, hey, each one of my series books comes with copies of the other four books in the file, they would say, why on earth would you do that?* My perhaps antiquated perspective on being a novelist consists of creating original works of art that are unique, non-fungible products that exist in discrete, clearly labeled packaging. I am absolutely here to make money, but I'm also here to create and provide things I'm proud of. And if you go back to when I finished my first novel, I've been trying to reach the point where I am now for about fifteen years. It might have gone faster if KDP existed in the year 2000, but maybe not. I'd like to make art that makes money, but money isn't the reason I'm making art.


Ah, it would be nice if everyone thought that way.

The part I bolded is the part I wonder about when I think about all these scams. As a reader, I'd be put off by a mountain of bonus content like that. A bonus short story makes sense, but four or five novels? I'd find that off-putting.

I can't think of any analogy in publishing, but I have noticed some DVDs and Blu-rays now come with "bonus movies" (as distinct from the usual bonus content). Guess what, the bonus movies typically aren't that great--and neither is the movie they're bundled with. It's packaging multiple mediocre products and selling them at a low price so people will think it's a bargain. It's hard to believe at least some readers don't have a similar reaction.


----------



## JRTomlin

anniejocoby said:


> I agree, but not entirely. *It's still possible to sell lots of books without paying for ads or botting or any of that.* Any indie who doesn't want to play that game needs to look at underserved genres. That would probably mean steering clear of romance or UF until things get straightened out. That's been my game plan, and my legal thriller books have stuck well without any ads. I've gotten favorable algos for them just because it's fairly easy to get visibility in my genre.
> 
> Of course, I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, because it's just going to be a matter of time until the locusts invade my genre. If that happens, I'll just look for another underserved genre and hang out a shingle. Rinse and repeat. At some point, the romance market probably will normalize to where people can get traction without shady methods or spending thousands of dollars of ads - those scammers dominated those charts are going to go somewhere else once their scamming no longer works in romance. At that point, I might put some more romance out. I'm not sure though.
> 
> I only hope that Amazon can get a handle on things before the locusts come to my genre, but if they don't, I'm prepared to jump again.


I beg your pardon? You are saying that paying for ads is equivalent to botting? In what universe?


----------



## Not any more

JRTomlin said:


> I beg your pardon? You are saying that paying for ads is equivalent to botting? In what universe?


I think you read that wrong. I don't think that's what she was saying at all. She's just saying that sometimes you can get sales without any effort, legitimate or not.


----------



## TaraCrescent

anniejocoby said:


> I agree, but not entirely. It's still possible to sell lots of books without paying for ads or botting or any of that. Any indie who doesn't want to play that game needs to look at underserved genres. That would probably mean steering clear of romance or UF until things get straightened out. That's been my game plan, and my legal thriller books have stuck well without any ads. I've gotten favorable algos for them just because it's fairly easy to get visibility in my genre.
> 
> Of course, I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, because it's just going to be a matter of time until the locusts invade my genre. If that happens, I'll just look for another underserved genre and hang out a shingle. Rinse and repeat. At some point, the romance market probably will normalize to where people can get traction without shady methods or spending thousands of dollars of ads - those scammers dominated those charts are going to go somewhere else once their scamming no longer works in romance. At that point, I might put some more romance out. I'm not sure though.
> 
> I only hope that Amazon can get a handle on things before the locusts come to my genre, but if they don't, I'm prepared to jump again.


This. As someone who writes contemporary romance and doesn't stuff (I've done one bonus book in one release sometime last year, and none since) - I'm actively looking to stay clear and write in other genres until the dust settles.


----------



## Shelley K

brkingsolver said:


> I think you read that wrong. I don't think that's what she was saying at all. She's just saying that sometimes you can get sales without any effort, legitimate or not.


Yes. It was in response to the idea that you have legitimate authors buying ads and authors stuffing and botting. Annie pointed out there are other ways than those two, which is why they were in the same sentence. Context matters. Her history of posts here also provide context that she wouldn't hold such an idea.


----------



## anniejocoby

JRTomlin said:


> I beg your pardon? You are saying that paying for ads is equivalent to botting? In what universe?


Huh? I didn't say that at all. I was referring to Sela's post where she said that romance was "pay to play." Where you are forced to pay for AMS ads to become visible and overcome the scammers. I was simply making the point that not every genre is "pay to play." Not every genre is so overrun with scammers that you have to spend a small fortune for just a modicum of visibility. That's all.

Geez...I get that passions are high, but I'm getting kind of tired of people resorting to the worst possible interpretation of ambiguous sentences.



Shelley K said:


> Yes. It was in response to the idea that you have legitimate authors buying ads and authors stuffing and botting. Annie pointed out there are other ways than those two, which is why they were in the same sentence. Context matters. Her history of posts here also provide context that she wouldn't hold such an idea.


Yes. Thanks. And thanks to Brkingsolver too!


----------



## Lummox JR

Dhewco said:


> I forgot to quote, but I'm speaking to the poster who said 'count da pages' a couple times in their post a couple before this one. I may be dumb here, but what do you mean by 'pages'...is it every 250 words? I ask because I sometimes make my text larger when my eyes feel tired. So, page flips would be different.


250 words per page is a metric that is used _nowhere_ besides manuscripts. A typical paperback is actually more like 300-350 words per page, but it can vary. Sometimes it's lower, sometimes it's higher. I wish people would stop repeating this 250 wpp chestnut like it's a real thing.

For KENP purposes, the page count seems to be the number of characters (not including HTML/formatting, and _hopefully_ not including doubled spaces) divided by 1000. Someone else mentioned that either on this thread or one of the others, and it holds up.

Estimated page count of a Kindle book is entirely different from KENP, and appears to be related to all kinds of formatting issues including the page size you set for the file--even though it's not used.

I think what Incognito meant by "count the pages" was that no matter how the division is done, the software in the Kindle and also the Kindle app needs to be able to mark which "pages" have actually been read. If it's every 1000 characters, then for any given range of X to Y the software could figure out which page X and Y are on, and mark those pages (and the ones between) as read--and refusing to do so if the X to Y range is way too high, indicating foul play. Not long ago on this thread, someone suggested setting up a bunch of bitflags in the book file and encrypting that; it wouldn't be perfect by any means but it'd be a good way to go. What concerns me is, I think old Kindles would need to be upgraded to handle that.

IMO, the bitflag idea is probably overkill. Since reading is typically sequential, this should boil down to ranges of pages read, and typically it'll just be one single range. That should be quite easy to encode. But again you've got the legacy device problem to think about.


----------



## sela

anniejocoby said:


> I agree, but not entirely. It's still possible to sell lots of books without paying for ads or botting or any of that. Any indie who doesn't want to play that game needs to look at underserved genres. That would probably mean steering clear of romance or UF until things get straightened out. That's been my game plan, and my legal thriller books have stuck well without any ads. I've gotten favorable algos for them just because it's fairly easy to get visibility in my genre.
> 
> Of course, I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, because it's just going to be a matter of time until the locusts invade my genre. If that happens, I'll just look for another underserved genre and hang out a shingle. Rinse and repeat. At some point, the romance market probably will normalize to where people can get traction without shady methods or spending thousands of dollars of ads - those scammers dominated those charts are going to go somewhere else once their scamming no longer works in romance. At that point, I might put some more romance out. I'm not sure though.
> 
> I only hope that Amazon can get a handle on things before the locusts come to my genre, but if they don't, I'm prepared to jump again.


Oh, absolutely -- and I didn;t meant to imply it is ONLY possible to get sales via a huge ad spend. It is possible for people to do very well without a massive spend on ads, but AMS was created when Amazon realized that it can take some of our indie margins away by making visibility rely in part on using AMS. I'm sure they've seen how much traffic comes into the store from Bookbub and other promoters and have decided -- why not get a slice of that pie?

Hence, the sales I used to get without any ads, I now have to have at least _some_ ads.


----------



## Sam Rivers

I think the easiest way to fix the scamming problem is for more people to become scammers. When a majority in KU are scammers, there will be no real advantage for the present scammers.

Perhaps someone could write a book on how to scam legally so it would help people become scammers more easily.

Of course the scammers will try new tricks so the new scammers will have to stay up on the skills.

I suspect that many people have used this tread to already convert to becoming scammers.  It will take additional work to make changes to their books though.

Just consider scamming a new way of earning a fair share of the pie.


----------



## Going Incognito

Sam Rivers said:


> I think the easiest way to fix the scamming problem is for more people to become scammers. When a majority in KU are scammers, there will be no real advantage for the present scammers.
> 
> Perhaps someone could write a book on how to scam legally so it would help people become scammers more easily.
> 
> Of course the scammers will try new tricks so the new scammers will have to stay up on the skills.
> 
> I suspect that many people have used this tread to already convert to becoming scammers. It will take additional work to make changes to their books though.
> 
> Just consider scamming a new way of earning a fair share of the pie.


I'm telling ya. Amazon has Prime Day in July. How many super cheap/long KU memberships were sold? Kindlemas is coming quickly. Plenty of time to organize stuff/bot day. December 26th. By then everyone will have plenty of time to stuff every book with every other book, oh and then double it! Plenty of time to book their bot service for Bot Day. Count _these_ pages, beeotch!*

*said mostly tongue in cheek but only cause I'm also scared of the MOAB threat, lol. And I have a cop's warped sense of humor. If the choices are laugh, cry or wail, I laugh. I laugh a lot.


----------



## MmmmmPie

*A lot of this could be solved if Amazon would simply cap the payout-per-borrow at the payout-per-buy:* Meaning if you have a 99-cent book, you earn 34 cents per sale. Cap the revenue-per borrow at 34 cents. (For books that fluctuate in price, this could be based on the price of the book at the time the borrow-click occurred.)

In the real world no one ever gets paid more for _loaning _something than _selling _something. Under the current cluster, "authors" are buying rank with a 99-cent price point, stuffing their books to the gills, and getting a "royalty" that's several times the sale-price. This is utterly unsustainable.

By capping the borrow-payout, this one simple fix would _immediately _remove the incentive for all the scamming, content-stuffing, and click-farming. Plus, Amazon surely has the ability to do this _right now_. I suggest they use it.

Before anyone howls that it's unfair, if you price your book at 99-cents, you're already saying that's what you're willing to sell it for. It's unrealistic to expect a higher reward for _loaning out_ your product compared to actually _selling _your product.


----------



## Not any more

MmmmmPie said:


> *A lot of this could be solved if Amazon would simply cap the payout-per-borrow at the payout-per-buy:* Meaning if you have a 99-cent book, you earn 34 cents per sale. Cap the revenue-per borrow at 34 cents. (For books that fluctuate in price, this could be based on the price of the book at the time the borrow-click occurred.)
> 
> In the real world no one ever gets paid more for _loaning _something than _selling _something. Under the current cluster, "authors" are buying rank with a 99-cent price point, stuffing their books to the gills, and getting a "royalty" that's several times the sale-price. This is utterly unsustainable.
> 
> By capping the borrow-payout, this one simple fix would _immediately _remove the incentive for all the scamming, content-stuffing, and click-farming. Plus, Amazon surely has the ability to do this _right now_. I suggest they use it.
> 
> Before anyone howls that it's unfair, if you price your book at 99-cents, you're already saying that's what you're willing to sell it for. It's unrealistic to expect a higher reward for _loaning out_ your product compared to actually _selling _your product.


This would work well for me, since a full read on the books of my current series is less than the royalty off a sale. And that is why Zon won't do it. Everyone will price at $9.99 and take the $6.99 per borrow.


----------



## MmmmmPie

*A lot of this could be solved if Amazon would simply cap the payout-per-borrow at the payout-per-buy: Meaning if you have a 99-cent book, you earn 34 cents per sale. Cap the revenue-per borrow at 34 cents. (For books that fluctuate in price, this could be based on the price of the book at the time the borrow-click occurred.)*



brkingsolver said:


> This would work well for me, since a full read on the books of my current series is less than the royalty off a sale. And that is why Zon won't do it. Everyone will price at $9.99 and take the $6.99 per borrow.


I see what you mean, but that's doubtful. Right now, books priced at 99 cents have a huge selling advantage. I'm in romance. Right now, the top-100 categories are jam-packed with overstuffed 99-cent books. At my $3.99 price point, it's an uphill battle just to get that click.

Under my suggested scenario, let's say the scammers _do _price their books for $9.99, _they're _going to be the ones disadvantaged, as opposed to legitimate authors. And let's say they _do _get buyers for their $9.99 stuffed books. They're going to get the complaints and returns they so richly deserve, which will automatically trigger an Amazon review.

Under this scenario, the market polices itself, without the need for manual reviews or anything overly complicated. Seriously, in what world do sellers get more for a borrow than a buy? In the real world, no such scenario exists. That's the reason this system is so messed up right now. It contradicts the laws of reality.


----------



## JRTomlin

Which all makes me so glad I don't write romance!


----------



## Chrissy

MmmmmPie said:


> *A lot of this could be solved if Amazon would simply cap the payout-per-borrow at the payout-per-buy:* Meaning if you have a 99-cent book, you earn 34 cents per sale. Cap the revenue-per borrow at 34 cents. (For books that fluctuate in price, this could be based on the price of the book at the time the borrow-click occurred.)
> 
> *In the real world no one ever gets paid more for loaning something than selling something.* Under the current cluster, "authors" are buying rank with a 99-cent price point, stuffing their books to the gills, and getting a "royalty" that's several times the sale-price. This is utterly unsustainable.
> 
> By capping the borrow-payout, this one simple fix would _immediately _remove the incentive for all the scamming, content-stuffing, and click-farming. Plus, Amazon surely has the ability to do this _right now_. I suggest they use it.
> 
> Before anyone howls that it's unfair, if you price your book at 99-cents, you're already saying that's what you're willing to sell it for. It's unrealistic to expect a higher reward for _loaning out_ your product compared to actually _selling _your product.


Not true. Cars and houses (rentals) come to mind.


----------



## MmmmmPie

JRTomlin said:


> Which all makes me so glad I don't write romance!


Oh man, no kidding! I've had several top 100 books, but in this market, it's gotten nearly impossible to gain visibility without spending serious cash. On a sale, I make $2.79. On a borrow that's fully read, I make around $1.70.

Meanwhile, the gray- and black-hatters are buying visibility with the 99-cent price point and earning 30 times their regular royalty through content stuffing and click-farming. This nets them more money (taken from the common pot, no less, for pages that aren't even read), which enables them to pour the money back into more advertising and click-farming. Meanwhile, legitimate authors are slipping further and further behind.

Lost in all of this is the Amazon customer, who buys or borrows a "book," only to discover that the book ends at 20% of the page-count. The current system is bad for everyone, well, except for those who exploit the weakness in Amazon's current system. One of the things that makes this so frustrating is that it wouldn't be terribly difficult for Amazon to institute some easy checks-and-balances that would immediately discouraging the stuffing.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Chrissy said:


> Not true. Cars and houses (rentals) come to mind.


Nope. Let's say a house costs $100,000. You don't rent it for $500,000. A car costs $30,000. You don't rent it for $150,000.

We're not talking monthly payments here. We're talking the actual price the seller receives. Nowhere in the real world does someone with a $100,000 house rent it to ten different people for $500,000 each.


----------



## Lummox JR

Capping the payout doesn't solve the stuffing problem. If a stuffer is currently making $2.00 off an artificially inflated 500-page-ish book they priced at $0.99, capping the payout at $0.34 hurts them a lot but it doesn't stop the stuffing at all. If anything it gives them more incentive to find new ways to cheat, like flooding the market with more junk.


----------



## Going Incognito

brkingsolver said:


> This would work well for me, since a full read on the books of my current series is less than the royalty off a sale. And that is why Zon won't do it. Everyone will price at $9.99 and take the $6.99 per borrow.


Hmmm. I think I like MmmmmPie's idea. 
And, even if everyone did start pricing at 9.99, would that be so bad? 
99 cent sales would mean something. Some may stay there, but with the whole race to the bottom theory, would an ebook price stabilization at 9.99 be a bad thing? Especially in a subscription model world where you could still read them all for the price of one per month? No page counting needed. Page flip could flip to its hearts content. I'd even be happy with a mostly functioning guess at how much was read. Especially if they could kinda go back to the old ku1 trigger point type thing. Wouldn't have to count pages, just mark a book's quarter, half, three quarters and full points. Or mark it at 10 percent increments. Doubt it'll happen tho, as that's more than my one bundled series makes on a full read thru. Amazon would be all- nope. We are not paying 6 bucks a book. (Tho a 3k KENPC book at 0.004 does make $12, so maybe?)Course I guess they could make a range. Like how 99 cent books get 30 percent and 2.99-9.99 gets 70 percent. Could do a books in KU must be priced between 2.99 and something. Hmmm, interesting.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Lummox JR said:


> Capping the payout doesn't solve the stuffing problem. If a stuffer is currently making $2.00 off an artificially inflated 500-page-ish book they priced at $0.99, capping the payout at $0.34 hurts them a lot but it doesn't stop the stuffing at all. If anything it gives them more incentive to find new ways to cheat, like flooding the market with more junk.


I see what you mean. But right now, they're able to rake in the rewards with very little work. Take your 500-page example. Capping their payout would reduce their profit by approximately 80%. If they were still determined to make up that money, yes, they _would _have to work harder. That's the whole point. The current system makes it entirely too easy for gray- and black-hatters to game the system.

Also, my suggestion falls in-line with Amazon's established royalty structure. They already offer a larger incentive (the 70% royalty rate) for books priced from $2.99 to $9.99. There's no reason they can't set up a similar pay-structure for buys-versus-borrows.


----------



## David VanDyke

Sometimes you can get more for a rental than for a sale in the long run, but renters abuse properties or cars, there's maintenance, etc. The market balances things out eventually. In this case, the "market" is so skewed by an artificial system, scamming is highly incentivized.

If, for example, in the real world, The Amazonian aliens gave out $10 for every pack of gum people shoplifted, we'd have a rash of shoplifting by otherwise good people. They'd justify it by claiming they aren't hurting anyone very much, it's only a pack of gum, they have to stay competitive, they need that plasma TV etc.


----------



## RaeC

Over the lifetime of an asset like a car or house, you very well could, and should imo, make more from the asset's rental/lease than its sale. Same with licenses and such.

The problem with a borrow cap is that it's now basing a payout on something like pricing, and not a customer's satisfaction in the form of pages read.  That goes against everything Amazon (or what Amazon claims to be).  Fixing the borrow payout to be less than a sales royalty disincentives participation in KU across the board. I suppose people cheered that logic when KU2.0 did that for short stories, but doing so for everyone would be very unwise.

It's possible it would result in the end of the $.99 novel, which I wouldn't mind. But the market would just establish a new minimally viable pricing floor.


----------



## spellscribe

MmmmmPie said:


> Nope. Let's say a house costs $100,000. You don't rent it for $500,000. A car costs $30,000. You don't rent it for $150,000.
> 
> We're not talking monthly payments here. We're talking the actual price the seller receives. Nowhere in the real world does someone with a $100,000 house rent it to ten different people for $500,000 each.


That's because when you sell something, you don't get it back. When you rent it, you're paid for a term. You get the item back, and you can then sell it (allowing you to make money off it twice) or rent it again (allowing you to make money indefinitely/until the item expires).

In no situation I've looked at is renting cheaper than buying in the long term. Nor is a seller making more on an item than renting, over the total life of the product.

i really don't think this solution will do much, other than push more readers into KU and swing the percentages towards higher reads and lower sales for those enrolled. Genres like romance that have a higher KU base would probably suffer for it over the long term and amazon will still cap the pot, making sure that large payouts (for $9.99 equiv reads) won't see the light of day. They won't give us specific values and they will fluctuate, leading to constantly changing 'best' prices and more headaches over a program that is already unstable in regards to how reads are calculated and how much they're worth.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Going Incognito said:


> Hmmm. I think I like MmmmmPie's idea. And, even if everyone did start pricing at 9.99, would that be so bad? 99 cent sales would mean something. Some may stay there, but with the whole race to the bottom theory, would an ebook price stabilization at 9.99 be a bad thing?


Many thanks!!! And _exactly_ about $9.99 being better than .99. A few years ago, Amazon established some pricing-incentives (the 35% versus 70% royalty) to discourage this race-to-the-bottom. And now, Kindle Unlimited has broken those incentives. It has thrown everything out-of-whack, because it ignores real-world dynamics. By setting up a (better) system where you can't earn more per-borrow than per-buy, it just returns us to normalcy.

As a bonus, the payout-per-page will surely rise, as those 1,000-page (mostly unread) books aren't scooping up an oversized chunk of the communal pot.


----------



## 75814

JRTomlin said:


> Which all makes me so glad I don't write romance!


Not necessarily a defense. Many of the people behind this not only stuff their books, but they also have a flagrant disregard for proper categorization. Some of the books I've seen are categorized in crime, mystery, action/adventure, etc.

But even if you're lucky enough to be in one of the few categories that these stuffers haven't gone after (yet), the illegitimate page reads they rack up means more pages for the payout to be divided among. Which means lower rates per page.


----------



## sela

MmmmmPie said:


> Oh man, no kidding! I've had several top 100 books, but in this market, it's gotten nearly impossible to gain visibility without spending serious cash. On a sale, I make $2.79. On a borrow that's fully read, I make around $1.70.
> 
> Meanwhile, the gray- and black-hatters are buying visibility with the 99-cent price point and earning 30 times their regular royalty through content stuffing and click-farming. This nets them more money (taken from the common pot, no less, for pages that aren't even read), which enables them to pour the money back into more advertising and click-farming. Meanwhile, legitimate authors are slipping further and further behind.
> 
> Lost in all of this is the Amazon customer, who buys or borrows a "book," only to discover that the book ends at 20% of the page-count. The current system is bad for everyone, well, except for those who exploit the weakness in Amazon's current system. One of the things that makes this so frustrating is that it wouldn't be terribly difficult for Amazon to institute some easy checks-and-balances that would immediately discouraging the stuffing.


Like, once a week a person could check out the top 100 in every genre romance and look inside.

In eight hours, maybe sixteen, I could probably make it through every list and make note of all those authors who stuff and have special bonus story at the end to encourage a skip through and a full page read count.


----------



## MmmmmPie

sela said:


> Like, once a week a person could check out the top 100 in every genre romance and look inside. In eight hours, maybe sixteen, I could probably make it through every list and make note of all those authors who stuff and have special bonus story at the end to encourage a skip through and a full page read count.


Yup. And if Amazon doesn't do something now, the rot will only spread further.

They could discourage a ton of this by a simple policy change. *"Amazon will pay the author for each page read, not to exceed the standard royalty payment of a book-purchase, as determined by the book-price at the time of the borrow."* See how reasonable it sounds?

I don't see why Amazon doesn't get it. They do movie rentals. It's cheaper to rent than buy. The current system is like offering a DVD for sale at five bucks, but charging twenty bucks to rent it. It's totally whacked.


----------



## Not any more

MmmmmPie said:


> I see what you mean, but that's doubtful. Right now, books priced at 99 cents have a huge selling advantage. I'm in romance. Right now, the top-100 categories are jam-packed with overstuffed 99-cent books. At my $3.99 price point, it's an uphill battle just to get that click.


They are only disadvantaged for a sale. NONE OF THESE SCAMMERS ARE SELLING ANYTHING!!!! They are taking advantage of the KU pool. They don't expect to sell anything, and they don't. This is a click-to-the-end page-reads scam.

I understand that honest authors don't get this. Honest authors don't think the way the scammers do. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HONEST AUTHORS.


----------



## Not any more

Going Incognito said:


> Hmmm. I think I like MmmmmPie's idea.
> And, even if everyone did start pricing at 9.99, would that be so bad?
> 99 cent sales would mean something. Some may stay there, but with the whole race to the bottom theory, would an ebook price stabilization at 9.99 be a bad thing? Especially in a subscription model world where you could still read them all for the price of one per month? No page counting needed. Page flip could flip to its hearts content. I'd even be happy with a mostly functioning guess at how much was read. Especially if they could kinda go back to the old ku1 trigger point type thing. Wouldn't have to count pages, just mark a book's quarter, half, three quarters and full points. Or mark it at 10 percent increments. Doubt it'll happen tho, as that's more than my one bundled series makes on a full read thru. Amazon would be all- nope. We are not paying 6 bucks a book. (Tho a 3k KENPC book at 0.004 does make $12, so maybe?)Course I guess they could make a range. Like how 99 cent books get 30 percent and 2.99-9.99 gets 70 percent. Could do a books in KU must be priced between 2.99 and something. Hmmm, interesting.


I hate to burst your bubble, but please tell me what incentive Amazon would have to implement such a system?


----------



## MmmmmPie

brkingsolver said:


> They are only disadvantaged for a sale. NONE OF THESE SCAMMERS ARE SELLING ANYTHING!!!! They are taking advantage of the KU pool. They don't expect to sell anything, and they don't. This is a click-to-the-end page-reads scam. I understand that honest authors don't get this. Honest authors don't think the way the scammers do. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HONEST AUTHORS.


True. (And a serious compliment, you've made lots of excellent points throughout this thread, so I really appreciate and value what you're saying.)

But some of the current problem is that these books are getting so much visibility. What if, for example, Amazon took my idea (of not paying more per borrow than for a buy) and combined it with some other other ideas presented in this thread? For example, what if a borrow only counted toward sales-rank, as long as there was a corresponding buy?

For Example: 
"The Billionaire Werewolf" by Joe Scammer gets 1,000 borrows and only 10 buys. Only ten of those borrows count toward rank. (Total rank points = 20)
"The Billionaire Vampire" by Joe Legitimate Author gets 200 borrows and 200 buys. All 400 of those buys and borrows count toward rank. (Total rank points = 400)
In this scenario, the legitimate author will quickly outrank the scammers, as opposed to the other way around. Without visibility, scamming gets that much harder.

I probably have more borrows than buys, but I would still gladly embrace this system. Scammers, however, would hate it, because it would dramatically reduce their visibility. Combine this lower visibility with a lower payout for scamming, and you've made gaming the system a lot less profitable.

But right now, it's like Amazon's leaving the bank vault wide-open. This would be bad enough, except it's OUR money they're leaving exposed to thieves.


----------



## Going Incognito

brkingsolver said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but please tell me what incentive Amazon would have to implement such a system?


Oh, none. No bubble bursting worries needed, burst away. Bezos was just crowned richest man in the universe or something. There's no incentive to change anything. If it gets too much attention Amazon will whack something with a machete, follow it with a steam roller, scare some folks, take out some innocents and then all will go back to whatever and life will carry on. We'll stay divided, arguing amongst ourselves like we have about everything since ku1 started, if not before, and Zon will carry on doing whatever it wants to do while the empire grows until he's crowned king of all there ever was and all there will ever be. Thread speculations are just fun procrastinations from the WIP.


----------



## Not any more

Going Incognito said:


> Oh, none. No bubble bursting worries needed, burst away. Bezos was just crowned richest man in the universe or something. There's no incentive to change anything. If it gets too much attention Amazon will whack something with a machete, follow it with a steam roller, scare some folks, take out some innocents and then all will go back to whatever and life will carry on. We'll stay divided, arguing amongst ourselves like we have about everything since ku1 started, if not before, and Zon will carry on doing whatever it wants to do while the empire grows until he's crowned king of all there ever was and all there will ever be. Thread speculations are just fun procrastinations from the WIP.


To the Mods, can we frame and immortalize this post in gold or something? It deserves more than a "like" button.


----------



## MmmmmPie

brkingsolver said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but please tell me what incentive Amazon would have to implement such a system?


Sure! Here's a few I've been thinking of:
-- It nudges up the price-point. We know this is important to Amazon, because they already discourage the 99-cent price point through a (lower) 35% royalty rate.
-- It improves customer-satisfaction, as fewer readers end up with "books" that end at 20%.
-- It better showcases quality products, as opposed to products that are falsely advertised. (I guess this could be combined with the point above.)
-- It improves visibility for Amazon imprints, which are generally priced at $4.99 and are no doubt also suffering from reduced visibility in the top 100 lists.
-- It helps prevent established, legitimate authors from leaving Kindle Unlimited.
-- It reduces the need to find a complicated technical solution to the problem of counting actual pages read.
-- If it's combined with a rank-throttling buy-versus-borrow mechanism (as I outlined in the post above), it greatly reduces Amazon's odds of being embarrassed by having a click-farmed book hit the #1 spot.

And one nice thing about my idea is that it's easy to institute. I'm not a programmer, but it surely wouldn't be hard. Maybe part of the reason they haven't fixed the broken system so far was because fixing it was expensive and complicated. My fix is cheap and easy. As a bonus, very few legitimate authors would object.


----------



## sela

Here's a thought --  maybe Amazon could approve books that go into the KU program instead of using an automated system of approving every book with a few automated checks to see if there's any duplicated content out there on the web.

Some poor sucker whose book was left up for sale on an obscure German website gets the ban hammer while Joe Scammer Enterprises rakes in the dough ghostwriting erotica-miscategorized-as-military-romance and stuffing duplicate books with incentivized bonus stories at the end buying reviews and botting to the top of the charts rakes in the dough without any concern.

GRRRrrrr.


----------



## Not any more

MmmmmPie said:


> True. (And a serious compliment, you've made lots of excellent points throughout this thread, so I really appreciate and value what you're saying.)


I love someone who recognizes true genius. 

I do software development management for a living. Many people on this forum depend on software I've designed and implemented. A lot of other software savvy people have chimed in on this thread. The problems with KU page reads have been apparent for almost a year now, and Amazon has done nothing to address the issue. Anything other than a software fix is window dressing. No matter what you do on the author side, you haven't fixed the basic problem, which is that you've promised software that works, but instead it is broken.

And since we're the bottom of the totem pole, we get whatever slides down to us.


----------



## Going Incognito

brkingsolver said:


> To the Mods, can we frame and immortalize this post in gold or something? It deserves more than a "like" button.


*Bows*
Do I win a set of Chinese-made counterfeit prizes from all the other scammed arms of Amazon for my very own?


----------



## G.L. Snodgrass

Nothing will really stop the scamming except eliminating the ability to publish the same content multiple times under different titles AND the number of pages is capped per book. This means eliminating bundles (Both legit, and multi configurations) from KU and probably limiting books to 1500 KENP. You would still be able to publish a bundle, but you couldn't place it in KU if the books in the bundle are also available on KU. The authors would have to decide. No one would get paid for the same material being read twice, or ten times.

Bonus books would be allowed. But only once on KU.

Even then, I'm not to sure this would be enough. You'd still be able to bot a regular book up the ranks, but you might not make enough money to justify it. 

I hope Amazon is coming to this realization and is in the process of developing new software and new processes to institute this (KU3). I will not hold my breath though.


----------



## PearlEarringLady

MmmmmPie said:


> For example, what if a borrow only counted toward sales-rank, as long as there was a corresponding buy?


I suggested this upthread - way, way upthread, actually (it's a l-o-n-g thread). I wouldn't set it at parity, because some genres do naturally have more borrows than sales, but maybe cap the borrows at five times the number of sales, averaged over the last 30 days, and anything above the cap would be ignored - no rank uplift, no pages read payout. It would stop the rank-botting in its tracks, minimise read-botting and also remove any possibility of malicious rank-botting (someone paying a click-farm to bot a rival author, to get them into trouble with Amazon).


----------



## J. Tanner

brkingsolver said:


> I do software development management for a living. Many people on this forum depend on software I've designed and implemented. A lot of other software savvy people have chimed in on this thread. The problems with KU page reads have been apparent for almost a year now, and Amazon has done nothing to address the issue. Anything other than a software fix is window dressing. No matter what you do on the author side, you haven't fixed the basic problem, which is that you've promised software that works, but instead it is broken.


It's doable, but I'd be leery too about a firmware update on those early generation Kindles. Yuck. But you go there, or you limit KU to only certain devices which is less technical headache and more customer relations headache.

I can see why they went with Plan A and why their initial response was just to band-aid it. It's the mess less obvious without the virtue of hindsight.

So, how many of those Amazon Leadership Principles were ignored in the meeting where these decisions were approved? Like all of them but the "Frugality" one?


----------



## MmmmmPie

PaulineMRoss said:


> I suggested this upthread - way, way upthread, actually (it's a l-o-n-g thread). I wouldn't set it at parity, because some genres do naturally have more borrows than sales, but maybe cap the borrows at five times the number of sales, averaged over the last 30 days, and anything above the cap would be ignored


Oh yeah, that was a great idea! I knew someone said it up-thread, but I was too lazy to see who. But it really was a great suggestion. Under your scenario, the only people who'd get hurt would be scammers. And they deserve the pain.


----------



## unkownwriter

> basing a payout on something like pricing, and not a customer's satisfaction in the form of pages read


Except, we don't get paid more for a sale if a reader really, really liked our book. We get one flat fee. I'm curious about all these folks getting so upset that they might not be able to make more for a borrow than a sale. It doesn't matter what goes on with car rentals, or rental houses, or whatever. It's about trying to make it harder for scammers to just walk away with money for crappy products. If someone was renting cars and they fell apart, would you think it's okay that they do something that could hurt innocent people, or would you want these scammers to answer for what they've done?



brkingsolver said:


> They are only disadvantaged for a sale. NONE OF THESE SCAMMERS ARE SELLING ANYTHING!!!! They are taking advantage of the KU pool. They don't expect to sell anything, and they don't. This is a click-to-the-end page-reads scam.
> 
> I understand that honest authors don't get this. Honest authors don't think the way the scammers do. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HONEST AUTHORS.


And this is what I'm lost about as well. These scammers aren't selling books. They can't sell most of what they put up, because it's nonsense, junk filler. They're after that KU pot, and the bonuses are just cream on top. There's no money -- no endless, easy money, at any rate -- in selling books, only in botting them up for the KU pot.

And just think, for every spot in the top 100, that's a spot an honest author -- maybe even the ones trying to weasel this into a nothing to see here situation -- doesn't get. That puts people trying their best to write good books and sell them ethically down how many spots? That pushes people who might not make the top 100, but still rank higher, down how many spots? How can anyone justify that? Unless they're guilty as well? It makes one wonder.



sela said:


> Here's a thought -- maybe Amazon could approve books that go into the KU program instead of using an automated system of approving every book with a few automated checks to see if there's any duplicated content out there on the web.
> 
> Some poor sucker whose book was left up for sale on an obscure German website gets the ban hammer while Joe Scammer Enterprises rakes in the dough ghostwriting erotica-miscategorized-as-military-romance and stuffing duplicate books with incentivized bonus stories at the end buying reviews and botting to the top of the charts rakes in the dough without any concern.
> 
> GRRRrrrr.


I've said more than once that books submitted to Select should get a more thorough review. Search for duplicate content, bad writing (grammar, spelling, punctuation, not story), formatting issues. This alone, which wouldn't cost nearly as much as paying out bonuses to scammers every month, would stop the vast majority of this issue.

I also think "borrows" shouldn't count towards rank. That's why that one author was botting his books to #1 without getting loads of page reads. He was smart enough to not do that obvious scam, but being ranked high would help for legitimate sales. And before people freak out, free ranks used to count when the book returned to paid. They don't now. No one died. Amazon changed the rules because it was doing something they didn't like.

So, to recap what I've been thinking, let's see:

*find someone who can program to get actual pages read. Disable page flip and paging back through the book from removing pages read.

*cap the payout to X pages, probably around 1K

*stop counting pages at the actual content, much as front matter isn't counted, back matter isn't either

*no bonus content in KU books, okay in general KDP (has the effect of not stopping people from publishing what they want, just removes the incentive to scam KU)

*no repeated content in KU, okay in general KDP (reasoning as above)

*eliminate bonuses for high KU reads (if someone is getting hundreds of thousands to millions of page reads, they don't need another incentive to stay in KU, because dollars!)

*hire people and train them to know what is and is not allowed; bots are fine in general, but they're obviously missing a lot of stuff, so humans, use the money no longer used for bonuses to pay them

Forgot one:

*only allow a small number of books from any one author/publisher to be submitted to KU each month, maybe cap at three (would stop people from uploading multiple scam books, but wouldn't hurt prolific authors that much)


----------



## AYClaudy

I know there won't be any answers from Amazon now that it's the weekend, but I'm curious if there has been any more communication with them or any further actions taken.

As I don't know the books involved, I can't check, are the books still rank stripped? 
Have any other authors been impacted since last weekend's stripping? 

Since it happened on the weekend, I'm wondering if any more will occur this weekend... only time will tell... 

It's just crazy to me that Amazon would intentionally strip rank but not tell, as far as we know, the authors involved their reasoning! 

Edit to add/ clarify: It would be even crazier if it was a glitch and still not resolved (I'm pretty sure that's not the case, but with such little information anything is on the table)


----------



## PearlEarringLady

AYClaudy said:


> As I don't know the books involved, I can't check, are the books still rank stripped?


The ones I know about are still rank-stripped.


----------



## Becca Mills

she-la-ti-da said:


> Except, we don't get paid more for a sale if a reader really, really liked our book. We get one flat fee.


Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to go back to a KU1-style payment scheme. Now that Amazon has tried both, it might be possible to combine the best of both models, using features of one to plug the weaknesses of the other. Weaknesses as Amazon perceives them, at any rate.


----------



## Not any more

Becca Mills said:


> Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to go back to a KU1-style payment scheme. Now that Amazon has tried both, it might be possible to combine the best of both models, using features of one to plug the weaknesses of the other. Weaknesses as Amazon perceives them, at any rate.


Becca, Becca. That is far too logical. Go sit in the corner until you feel better, dear.


----------



## Becca Mills

brkingsolver said:


> Becca, Becca. That is far too logical. Go sit in the corner until you feel better, dear.


<snort>


----------



## Becca Mills

brkingsolver said:


> Becca, Becca. That is far too logical. Go sit in the corner until you feel better, dear.


But seriously, how about this?

1) Go back to the flat-payment approach used in KU1.
2) Disallow short books -- set 40,000 words as the minimum, or some such (whatever novella length is, maybe). Shorts can be published in collections that hit the minimum.
3) Set the payment-trigger point at 25% read.
4) Set flat payment at $2.50.
5) Disallow more than 3,000 words of duplicate text from book to book (or some other lowish figure).
6) Stipulate exactly what can be included as front matter (like, cover page, copyright page, dedication page, and that's it).
7) Print the front-matter rules in a very short, very clear form and require authors to read and agree to them before every time they hit "publish" with the KU box checked.
8 ) Charge a $1 "quality assurance" fee the first time a book is submitted to KU.
9) Use the money from the fee to hire ONE PERSON to do spot checks of front matter, with a three-month whole-catalog ban from KU for an author's first offence and a permanent ban from the program for the second offence.

It wouldn't solve the issue of authors using click-farms to buy visibility through borrows or to read pages. Those things are being done from outside the Amazon platform, so they need a different kind of solution. But would it stop most of the "gray hat" exploitation? Checks for manuscript length and duplication could be fully automated, probably with existing tools. Given what Amazon is paying for stuffed books now, I bet it would all pay for itself, especially with the $1 fee.


----------



## sela

Just for sh*ts and giggles, I went through the top 100 bestselling romance novels today and found six examples of stuffed books. These authors appear to all use the same cover artist, and the same formatter, same author branding style. Multiple duplicated books at the end of the titled content with special stories at the end. All with man chests and most miscategorized. One was even a top seller in Literature & Fiction / CLASSICS FFS!!!

The balls...

That's where you can find a lot of these "classic" works of literature and fiction.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Becca Mills said:


> But seriously, how about this?
> 
> 1) Go back to the flat-payment approach used in KU1.
> 2) Disallow short books -- set 40,000 words as the minimum, or some such (whatever novella length is, maybe). Shorts can be published in collections that hit the minimum.
> 3) Set the payment-trigger point at 25% read.
> 4) Set flat payment at $2.50.
> 5) Disallow more than 3,000 words of duplicate text from book to book (or some other lowish figure).
> 6) Stipulate exactly what can be included as front matter (like, cover page, copyright page, dedication page, and that's it).
> 7) Print the front-matter rules in a very short, very clear form and require authors to read and agree to them before every time they hit "publish" with the KU box checked.
> 8 ) Charge a $1 "quality assurance" fee the first time a book is submitted to KU.
> 9) Use the money from the fee to hire ONE PERSON to do spot checks of front matter, with a three-month whole-catalog ban from KU for an author's first offence and a permanent ban from the program for the second offence.
> 
> It wouldn't solve the issue of authors using click-farms to buy visibility through borrows or to read pages. Those things are being done from outside the Amazon platform, so they need a different kind of solution. But would it stop most of the "gray hat" exploitation? Checks for manuscript length and duplication could be fully automated, probably with existing tools. Given what Amazon is paying for stuffed books now, I bet it would all pay for itself, especially with the $1 fee.


Well, I think this is a great starting point. What appeals to me is the straightforwardness of it.

It would blow me away to see Amazon put up a set of clear and concise rules and regs. I'd welcome them, for sure; but they qualify their statements a great deal.

Look- a payout of 2.50 for 40K would send my income for a title I published 3 weeks ago from $292.00 to $813.00. Yeah, it's 40K novella; that length's my bread and butter and under the current system I get about 0.90 for a read thru. Y'know what? Back in KU 1.0 I was making incredible bank for 40K books. Yeah, erotica, but that's where the book went. I couldn't write the super shorts b/c I was trying to build a brand w/ the pen name. Whereas many, many erotica 'authors' took a hugely bigley hit w/KU 2.0, my income dropped by about 1/2.

They're gone and I'm still here, and I'm slowly but surely getting back to that level. Having the 2nd pen name w/ my wife writing what she LOOOVES helps a great deal, but here's the thing:

KU 2.0 put a number (yeah, 1/2 a penny or so) on 'Reader's Experience'. Maybe it forced me to pay more attention to the craft. Maybe it forced me to pay more attention to my brand and marketing. I KNOW I did both since July 2015.

We have a book up (in the sig) that's about 90K words. 400 KENPC pages, so about 2.00 a read thru. IOW, as someone seeing it from both sides, I'm ok w/a pay per page read. BUT... it must, must must be enforced. For me, it's battle the bots; that's my #1 priority. Put the resources into battling the downloaders who STEAL rank, and the readerbots who STEAL money from us.

The stuffers? Meh. Seriously, I don't give a goddamn and I'll tell you why:
The readers are a lot smarter than those jerks think they are. I have emails from readers that tell me. They get taken once, but then they smarten up pretty quick. Do they complain to Amazon? One or two might, but no, they vote w/ their feet and avoid that 'author'. Those clowns stuff b/c they can't hook and keep a reader as far as I'm concerned. I'm not talking about Omnibuses here, like Amanda's Covenant college series, or Monique's Out of Time Series. I put those up too. I'm talking about the game playing that people have the chutzpah to brag about.

Let me repeat that:
Those stuffers are incapable of providing a story to a reader so resort to all kinds of low rent, second rate 3 card monte nonsense to suck in unsuspecting readers. That kind of fix is a simple thing w/ the sort of program you're advocating, Becca. At the same time, the readers will catch on.

Heck, I'd be willing to shell out $5.00, $10.00 an upload to have my stuff quality checked for internal links and such if it's enforced and people's accounts are terminated. But the real danger here that I see are the bot attacks.

Frankly, I think this sort of discussion is more pertinent to the topic than whether or not I rent or buy my house.


----------



## Not any more

Becca Mills said:


> But seriously, how about this?
> 
> 1) Go back to the flat-payment approach used in KU1.
> 2) Disallow short books -- set 40,000 words as the minimum, or some such (whatever novella length is, maybe). Shorts can be published in collections that hit the minimum.
> 3) Set the payment-trigger point at 25% read.
> 4) Set flat payment at $2.50.
> 5) Disallow more than 3,000 words of duplicate text from book to book (or some other lowish figure).
> 6) Stipulate exactly what can be included as front matter (like, cover page, copyright page, dedication page, and that's it).
> 7) Print the front-matter rules in a very short, very clear form and require authors to read and agree to them before every time they hit "publish" with the KU box checked.
> 8 ) Charge a $1 "quality assurance" fee the first time a book is submitted to KU.
> 9) Use the money from the fee to hire ONE PERSON to do spot checks of front matter, with a three-month whole-catalog ban from KU for an author's first offence and a permanent ban from the program for the second offence.
> 
> It wouldn't solve the issue of authors using click-farms to buy visibility through borrows or to read pages. Those things are being done from outside the Amazon platform, so they need a different kind of solution. But would it stop most of the "gray hat" exploitation? Checks for manuscript length and duplication could be fully automated, probably with existing tools. Given what Amazon is paying for stuffed books now, I bet it would all pay for itself, especially with the $1 fee.


What we will get is 40K novellas filling the store, which Amazon says customers don't want. Some kind of link taking a reader to the 25% mark. If they can't track page reads, they can't track 25 or 50 % any better.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

brkingsolver said:


> What we will get is 40K novellas filling the store, which Amazon says customers don't want. Some kind of link taking a reader to the 25% mark. If they can't track page reads, they can't track 25 or 50 % any better.


I fully agree w/ you. That's why I'd be willing to shell out a finski to have someone go thru my book to find that I'm legit and clobber the scammers.

The fix would be have the book's content checked for those internal links, and if found kill the book, and the 2nd time the account is terminated. It's funny; the only links in our books are for our mailing list and I'd be willing to forgo that with just an email addy that the reader would have to input on their own if that solved the problem.


----------



## Becca Mills

brkingsolver said:


> What we will get is 40K novellas filling the store, which Amazon says customers don't want. Some kind of link taking a reader to the 25% mark. If they can't track page reads, they can't track 25 or 50 % any better.


So ... add checking for illegal links to what the quality assurance person has to do? But actually, that should be pretty easy to automate. Just make it so that the only links allowed in the book are those in the TOC. All others can be stripped out during conversion.

I do think any workable system is going to depend on an investment of *some* person hours. But maybe every single book doesn't have to be checked, if the penalty for transgressions is harsh enough?

I think the gray-hat stuff is what the system should be most designed to address. If that stuff weren't happening, then the market would likely take care of shaping the overall catalog toward what readers most want. If readers prefer 80K books to 40K books, 80K books would do better and, over time, we'd see more of them and fewer shorter works.


----------



## sela

The thing is, if you had $15K to invest, you could hire a dozen ghostwriters to produce a dozen short novels of 200 KENP each and then variously stuff those 144 novels into various stuffed titles, with exclusive 50 KENP never before seen short stories at the end. You could purchase 100 reviews for each of those 12 novels, and then bot them up to the top 100 for a very low price.

You'd make back your investment in a day with a book that was botted to the top 100 and stayed there for a few days. One book.

If Amazon does not police its KU program and store, scammers gonna scam because there's just too much easy money to make.

There are too many ghostwriters who can't afford to do it on their own and who are willing to write a dozen short novellas for cheap.

There are too many scammers willing to produce scam reviews for cheap.

There are too many scam services with bot farms in China or India who are quite happy to make their small amount of US dollars.

Why, it's almost stupid for a number of us not to band together, pool resources, and start our own Scam Business... 

Except, Ethics.

For the unethical, it's too much of a temptation given how lax Amazon is in actually enforcing its TOS.

Scamazon Unlimited -- but who cares?

CEO Jeff is the richest man in the world and Amazon's quarterly reports are sound. What's a little scamming business when you look at it from a larger perspective?


----------



## PearlEarringLady

Becca Mills said:


> 7) Print the front-matter rules in a very short, very clear form and require authors to read and agree to them before every time they hit "publish" with the KU box checked.


I would love, love, love to have a very clear, unambiguous set of rules for KU. Transgress and that book is out of KU. Transgress multiple times, and all your books are out of KU. Simple. I don't care so much what people put up for sale, but I do care about people fraudulantly taking payment for pages that haven't been read.


----------



## Used To Be BH

I should be writing, but here I am, looking at this thread again.

If Joseph is correct (and he certainly has the experience to know what he's talking about), there is a way to count pages read more accurately. Does it require a firmware upgrade? I don't know, but even if it only worked on the more recent devices, it would be a step in the right direction.

We could marry that to several of the excellent suggestions that have come up recently. The one I like best (in no particular order)
*$1 quality assurance fee per book enrolled in KU to hire real people to check whatever can't be readily checked by bots.
*Prohibition of duplicate content from the same account (can be automated) If Amazon doesn't want to automate the box set creation by letting authors offer a sale price for buying the whole series at once, I would say box sets can be offered for sale but can't be put in KU. I'd even go as far as to say that each novel in KU has to be enrolled as a separate title (no bundling).
*no internal links (can be automated)

I'm not sure even all of those together would completely eliminate click farms, but required a certain amount of time, as I think Joseph's idea does, would at least slow them down. Quality checking would also reduce the uploading of junk that can only earn significant credit through click farms.

I actually think the current KU system, which incentivizes keeping a reader's attention, would have been brilliant if there had been a real way to count pages. That said, if we have to go back to the KU1 flat fee formula, that would be better than the mess we have now. It would be easier to police scamphlets than all the KU 2 problems. At a 40K minimum, would it lead to the proliferation of novellas? Maybe, but I have to think that readers who wanted to read novels would seek out novels. However, if that's a concern, the minimum could be raised to more like a novel length. Novellas and short stories could be offered in KU as part of collections, but no duplicate content could be offered. (Any piece could only be available in one collection on KU.)


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Desmond X. Torres said:


> I fully agree w/ you. That's why I'd be willing to shell out a finski to have someone go thru my book to find that I'm legit and clobber the scammers.


How about if you pay a sum to have your book checked, but the money is returned through a royalty payment if it passes?  
Would suit the writers who can't afford to pay much because of the the exchange rate.


----------



## Atunah

As a reader, I unsubscribed to KU when it was KU1 because of all the short stuff in there. I came back when it became KU2 and full novels were put back in. Even if someone packs a bunch of shorts into a collection, they are still shorts. Just in a different dress. Then it would be even harder to sift out the books because then the page count wouldn't tell me anything anymore. Then novel writers pull their stuff back out and its right back to the mess that KU1 was. For the reader that is. 

I said this before, I would make KU more exclusive. Curated if you will. A larger version of whats the prime reading right now. Give me 100,000 decent works over 2 million sea of junk any day. Because right now I can't find those 100,000 decent books. Start with established authors first. Anything else will be checked by an actual person first. Pen names of established authors can be checked easy. Any new author/publisher will have to wait 3-6 months before they get to go in. In that time frame, they can show they are serious authors/publishers. I mean not just opening an account and just waiting 3 months. The books the author applies to go in KU, must be published for that time frame. For this exclusivity, payment can be higher then per page read. No bundles, no duplicates. I am sure they can find some other perks for those authors that will go through this vetting. None of this affects the regular store, just for KU.


----------



## 75814

I'm pretty confident in saying we'll never see a curated KU. Amazon wants as many authors as possible to sign up for KDP Select and grant them exclusivity, and those page reads and rank boosts (and if you're one of the lucky few, All-Star Bonuses) are the carrot they use to get authors to tick that box. Take that away and you return to the days when authors found Select to be a total waste of time.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson

Atunah said:


> Any new author/publisher will have to wait 3-6 months before they get to go in. In that time frame, they can show they are serious authors/publishers. I mean not just opening an account and just waiting 3 months. The books the author applies to go in KU, must be published for that time frame. For this exclusivity, payment can be higher then per page read. No bundles, no duplicates. I am sure they can find some other perks for those authors that will go through this vetting. None of this affects the regular store, just for KU.


I like the idea of the books having to be on sale for a number of months before becoming eligible for KU. Trad published books could perhaps bypass this requirement.


----------



## alawston

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I like the idea of the books having to be on sale for a number of months before becoming eligible for KU. Trad published books could perhaps bypass this requirement.


They'd draw a distinction between Select and KU then, I hope. While page reads have never been a major plank of my income (I write short), I do tend to release exclusively to Amazon to take advantage of Countdown and Free promos. Waiting until the second 90 day cycle to get access to KU, fair enough (or if not fair enough, then "no skin off my nose"), but other Select benefits are a lifeline to a new release from an unknown author.


----------



## Crystal_

sela said:


> Just for sh*ts and giggles, I went through the top 100 bestselling romance novels today and found six examples of stuffed books. These authors appear to all use the same cover artist, and the same formatter, same author branding style. Multiple duplicated books at the end of the titled content with special stories at the end. All with man chests and most miscategorized. One was even a top seller in Literature & Fiction / CLASSICS FFS!!!
> 
> The balls...
> 
> That's where you can find a lot of these "classic" works of literature and fiction.


Only six? Last time I checked the top 20, ten of the books were stuffed, some with entire catalogues


----------



## danepaul81

I recently came across a popular post: Scammers Breaking The Kindle Store : Skyrocketing to #1 Overall (MERGED)

It raised some really good points and the author has a very intelligent insight into his area. But he has also raised attacks on some authors, I believe without knowing the full facts, it seems they are guilty until proven innocent. He maybe right, but isn't this the nature of prejudice?

I think, if that was me, would it be right?

Examples: 
1. The author may not of known why their book is skyrocketed? Does that make them wrong.

2. What happens is we write a book and when we hire a marketing team, they do things for results we are not aware of, does that make the author wrong.

3. What happens if a competitor wants to ruin an author? and many more examples.

As I said, I think the writer has a good knowledge, but the naming and shaming of Authors without evidence is, I believe not the correct way to deal with issues we face and can destroy potentially innocent people. Because any author can be a victim of 'bad practice' and they may not be aware what actually is happening. Open to all feedback on this, anything you want to say just say, I value honesty.


----------



## Crissi Langwell

I felt the same way. Then again, I tend to think everyone's intentions are for the best....


----------



## David VanDyke

"Is it right to abuse your pets?"

You beg your own question, of course (that means, you provide the implied answer within the question). Nobody wants to see innocent authors caught in the net. I don't see anyone in that other thread calling for anyone's head, just a crackdown on the methods used to scam. Those screaming "witch hunt!" and "fake news!" seem to me to be using passive-aggressive psychology to try to make these efforts out to be worse than they are, probably to try to derail them.


----------



## Used To Be BH

It would have been better for David not to have identified an author by name in his original blog post, which afterwards got linked to here. That said, he originally approached Amazon privately. I think the intent was more to shame Amazon for not doing anything than to shame the author. By the way, the author could have responded by offering an alternative explanation, but joked instead. Is that what you would do if you were falsely accused?

The scenarios you cite are all possible ways in which an innocent author could get caught. What we should probably all do if we see a really odd pattern, particularly in our KU borrows, is to report it to Amazon ourselves. Taking that step might make it easier later if Amazon started threatening dire consequences. I know some authors have also unpublished a book temporarily before reporting to Amazon. That's more difficult, especially if it was a popular book, but it also demonstrates that an author is as baffled by what's happening as anybody else.

Click farms do sometimes target the books of innocent authors as a way of disguising their activities. Knowing that, we all need to be proactive if we see something really strange. Sales and borrow figures go up and down; they aren't constant. However, a massive surge, particularly of borrows alone, isn't usually a natural phenomenon. If an author isn't doing anything that might have provoked that boost, that author needs to be proactive about figuring out what's happening. (If $100,000 suddenly appeared in someone's bank account, *and they didn't question it*, could they really claim innocence later?)

We also need to vet potential promoters carefully. Avoid red flags, like companies guarantee a certain number of pages read. If I haven't worked with someone before, I look for red flags, check for info on places like this forum, see if everything looks OK. Then I start with a small promo and check for odd patterns. Only if I don't see any do I do business with that promoter again. Yes, that kind of thing takes time, but knowing some marketers are untrustworthy, we have to be careful. Results that seem too good to be true usually are.

All of that said, in general, yes, it's better to discuss the very serious issues involved without finger-pointing at specific authors. Some people don't do the level of research David did. They look at far fewer variables and then draw conclusions that may be erroneous.


----------



## sela

Crystal_ said:


> Only six? Last time I checked the top 20, ten of the books were stuffed, some with entire catalogues


Nah there's only one there currently. It has about seven books stuffed in it and a special short story at the end. It's categorized as women's fiction and sagas, short stories. All the stuffed books are published on Amazon and they're stuffed too.


----------



## going going gone

In this case, they are in violation of the terms of service, which is a contract, which they signed. Do your due diligence and you won't get yourself banned from publishing.


----------



## MattHaggis

Give it up. There is plenty of evidence these scammers knew what they were doing.


----------



## MonkeyScribe

LilyBLily said:


> Any author with a book in KU is a victim of these unethical people.


Anybody with a book for sale on Amazon, period. They suck up visibility, which is finite in the store. Also, readers are victimized by scam techniques that keep legit books from being seen because they're wading through bogus stuff.


----------



## JRTomlin

*bites tongue on original comment about the OP*

As far as the thread David started, he has been leading the fight against scammers for years. Maybe _you_ should know more about him before you accuse him of wrongdoing.


----------



## Flay Otters

Interesting first post.


----------



## Cecelia

On the other hand, the negative thread was something of a downer on KBoards. I avoided reading it, and it made me worry that KBoards was full of negative people, watching, blaming and hating on Amazon. I opened this thread because it sounded positive.


----------



## unkownwriter

> Examples:
> 1. The author may not of known why their book is skyrocketed? Does that make them wrong.
> 
> *Yes, in Amazon's eyes it does. We are responsible for knowing what's going on with our books, and taking action to make sure all promotional efforts are within the TOS.*
> 
> 2. What happens is we write a book and when we hire a marketing team, they do things for results we are not aware of, does that make the author wrong.
> 
> *Then we will pay the price, with either a blocked book, rankings removed, loss of KU earnings, or a terminated account. As I said, we are responsible for whatever happens with our book, so it's best to know what to avoid to stay within the terms of our contract.*
> 
> 3. What happens if a competitor wants to ruin an author? and many more examples.
> 
> *Frankly, there's not much that can stop this if someone is determined to do it. Letting known scamming slip by won't prevent that. If you think it will, then you're naive.*
> 
> 
> 
> Cecelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, the negative thread was something of a downer on KBoards. I avoided reading it, and it made me worry that KBoards was full of negative people, watching, blaming and hating on Amazon. I opened this thread because it sounded positive.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess if you'd rather keep your head in the sand and let all these things continue, and continue to harm _your_ career, as well as all those other innocent authors, then forge ahead. Some of us would rather these things come to light so we can know what we're getting into, and hopefully to shine a light Amazon can't ignore. These sorts of things need to be cleared out, and the perpetrators punished. It does none of us any good to let people continue to steal thousands and even millions of dollars from all those innocent authors that keep being brought up.
> 
> And for the record, innocent authors have already suffered. There's no way to avoid it happening in the future, because of the way Amazon handles things. If you want to complain, don't do it here, ask Amazon why they seem unwilling to hire and train competent human beings to look at these books going into Select, and disallowing them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Becca Mills

I'll be merging this thread into the main thread on Dave's post, where danepaul81 will be able to see Dave's own answers to the questions he's asking.


----------



## unkownwriter

But, Desmond, it's not the readers who are being hurt. They just skip over this stuff. These "authors" don't care about real readers, they want the page reads. The only way to stop that is to make it hard for them to scam, and that will require live human beings. Amazon seems to be living in the 30th century already, where people don't have jobs, only machines and software do.

There's really no way to clean up KU without people. They have to be people who know what they're looking at, not someone in a third world country who is being paid by the day and has little knowledge not only of English, but of books in general. The best we can hope for is better programs to catch some of the worse offenders, but that would likely only drive the scammers deeper under cover. They've gotten awfully bold lately, cashing in on KU like the robber barons of old.


----------



## 39416

My impression is exactly the opposite, that posters on Kboards go out of their way NOT to name and shame, even when the culprit is dripping in culpability.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

she-la-ti-da said:


> But, Desmond, it's not the readers who are being hurt. They just skip over this stuff. These "authors" don't care about real readers, they want the page reads. The only way to stop that is to make it hard for them to scam, and that will require live human beings. Amazon seems to be living in the 30th century already, where people don't have jobs, only machines and software do.
> 
> There's really no way to clean up KU without people. They have to be people who know what they're looking at, not someone in a third world country who is being paid by the day and has little knowledge not only of English, but of books in general. The best we can hope for is better programs to catch some of the worse offenders, but that would likely only drive the scammers deeper under cover. They've gotten awfully bold lately, cashing in on KU like the robber barons of old.


I'm just tagging this for later. I totally get your point, and I'll tell ya in the am.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Atunah said:


> I said this before, I would make KU more exclusive. Curated if you will. A larger version of whats the prime reading right now. Give me 100,000 decent works over 2 million sea of junk any day. Because right now I can't find those 100,000 decent books. Start with established authors first. Anything else will be checked by an actual person first. Pen names of established authors can be checked easy. Any new author/publisher will have to wait 3-6 months before they get to go in. In that time frame, they can show they are serious authors/publishers. I mean not just opening an account and just waiting 3 months. The books the author applies to go in KU, must be published for that time frame. For this exclusivity, payment can be higher then per page read. No bundles, no duplicates. I am sure they can find some other perks for those authors that will go through this vetting. None of this affects the regular store, just for KU.


That is another way to stop scammers, at least the ones with the junk that gets click farmed. Their books wouldn't be able to accumulate a sales history from actual readers and would thus never make KU under this model.

I know Amazon is hung up on promoting exclusivity, but I really can't see why. If I'm shopping on Amazon, do I care whether the same book is for elsewhere for the same price? If I shop elsewhere, am I likely to move to Amazon just because a particularly indie writer is exclusive? (In that scenario, the most I'd do is zip over to Amazon to buy works by that particular author and then return to my preferred venue.)

Actually, with over 80% of US ebook sales, Amazon shouldn't be looking to expand its piece of the pie any more than it already is. Sooner or later, the Justice Department is bound to start looking at Amazon from an antitrust perspective, and a 95% market share is not going to look good. People forget this, but when Apple was struggling (difficult to believe, but there was a time), it was bailed out by...wait for it...Microsoft. One of the reasons people speculated Bill Gates might have gone along with this was that M was already in antitrust trouble, and having Macs disappear would have given it an even larger share of the OS market. Gates wisely made a move to keep a competitor in the game. Though indie authors aren't a big part of the sales at a lot of other outlets, trying to corral all of them really isn't in Amazon's interest anymore.


----------



## wingsandwords

This may be my naivete talking, and I hope I don't get laughed/shouted out of the room for it, but...

Well, people have come up with some pretty great ideas for how to stop the issue. Ideas that might not be too terribly difficult for Amazon to implement. And, that's all well and good, but sharing those ideas with each other doesn't actually get us anywhere.

What I think would be a better use of our (procrastination) time, would be to figure out how to get those ideas to someone who can *do* something. There has to be a way to get the ear of someone in Amazon capable of doing something--whether or not we can get them to do something is an entirely different beast, but I think finding that person should be doable, and would definitely be a first step. Maybe it's a person the average author can't talk to, but then there must be someone that _can_, someone big enough that this hypothetical person would be willing to talk to. Which, would be someone that we could try to talk into talking to this hypothetical Amazon person.

Obviously, reporting books isn't actually working in the grand scheme of things. Petitions will get you absolutely nowhere, it's a waste of energy. Using the kdp help interface to send a message to a tier 1 tech isn't going to do anything. Bezos isn't going to waste his time talking to anyone. But, there has to be someone somewhere in the chasm between those two that can do something, or at least get the ball rolling.

I'm just a little tired of either waiting for the sledgehammer to fall(as everyone keeps saying will come soon...and then it doesn't, but then people say oh no, it'll come soon still), or having everyone go around and around in a circle talking about what _they_ would do to fix it, to no fruition.

Like I said, maybe I'm being naive. I just have a difficult time believing that, if we put man hours into it, we couldn't find someone capable of doing something. Or maybe someone's already found that person and is working with them, and we just don't know about it because they're keeping quiet. Or maybe I believe in hard work a little too much and overestimate its power.


----------



## Rose Andrews

wingsandwords said:


> This may be my naivete talking, and I hope I don't get laughed/shouted out of the room for it, but...
> 
> Well, people have come up with some pretty great ideas for how to stop the issue. Ideas that might not be too terribly difficult for Amazon to implement. And, that's all well and good, but sharing those ideas with each other doesn't actually get us anywhere.
> 
> What I think would be a better use of our (procrastination) time, would be to figure out how to get those ideas to someone who can *do* something. There has to be a way to get the ear of someone in Amazon capable of doing something--whether or not we can get them to do something is an entirely different beast, but I think finding that person should be doable, and would definitely be a first step. Maybe it's a person the average author can't talk to, but then there must be someone that _can_, someone big enough that this hypothetical person would be willing to talk to. Which, would be someone that we could try to talk into talking to this hypothetical Amazon person.
> 
> Obviously, reporting books isn't actually working in the grand scheme of things. Petitions will get you absolutely nowhere, it's a waste of energy. Using the kdp help interface to send a message to a tier 1 tech isn't going to do anything. Bezos isn't going to waste his time talking to anyone. But, there has to be someone somewhere in the chasm between those two that can do something, or at least get the ball rolling.
> 
> I'm just a little tired of either waiting for the sledgehammer to fall(as everyone keeps saying will come soon...and then it doesn't, but then people say oh no, it'll come soon still), or having everyone go around and around in a circle talking about what _they_ would do to fix it, to no fruition.
> 
> Like I said, maybe I'm being naive. I just have a difficult time believing that, if we put man hours into it, we couldn't find someone capable of doing something. Or maybe someone's already found that person and is working with them, and we just don't know about it because they're keeping quiet. Or maybe I believe in hard work a little too much and overestimate its power.


Hear, hear! I've been wondering this same thing lately. Thank you for putting this out there. Somehow, I don't think anyone at Amazon wants to waste their time with us but I do believe in hope, even if it's ever so tiny a thing.


----------



## Lummox JR

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I like the idea of the books having to be on sale for a number of months before becoming eligible for KU. Trad published books could perhaps bypass this requirement.


That's not what Atunah said, though; that was about new authors/publishers, to prevent them from just hopping onto new accounts.

If a book has to be on sale for so long before KU activates, that's very bad. My book did pretty decently in KU in June, compared to sales. If I'd had to wait 3 months, that money would never have come through and I doubt I'd have had the page reads. New books deserve their spot in KU too, as long as they're not cheating. Isn't the whole point of this thread that none of us want our income to suffer because of cheaters?


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Silly Writer

wingsandwords said:


> This may be my naivete talking, and I hope I don't get laughed/shouted out of the room for it, but...
> 
> Well, people have come up with some pretty great ideas for how to stop the issue. Ideas that might not be too terribly difficult for Amazon to implement. And, that's all well and good, but sharing those ideas with each other doesn't actually get us anywhere.
> 
> What I think would be a better use of our (procrastination) time, would be to figure out how to get those ideas to someone who can *do* something. There has to be a way to get the ear of someone in Amazon capable of doing something--whether or not we can get them to do something is an entirely different beast, but I think finding that person should be doable, and would definitely be a first step. Maybe it's a person the average author can't talk to, but then there must be someone that _can_, someone big enough that this hypothetical person would be willing to talk to. Which, would be someone that we could try to talk into talking to this hypothetical Amazon person.
> 
> Obviously, reporting books isn't actually working in the grand scheme of things. Petitions will get you absolutely nowhere, it's a waste of energy. Using the kdp help interface to send a message to a tier 1 tech isn't going to do anything. Bezos isn't going to waste his time talking to anyone. But, there has to be someone somewhere in the chasm between those two that can do something, or at least get the ball rolling.
> 
> I'm just a little tired of either waiting for the sledgehammer to fall(as everyone keeps saying will come soon...and then it doesn't, but then people say oh no, it'll come soon still), or having everyone go around and around in a circle talking about what _they_ would do to fix it, to no fruition.
> 
> Like I said, maybe I'm being naive. I just have a difficult time believing that, if we put man hours into it, we couldn't find someone capable of doing something. Or maybe someone's already found that person and is working with them, and we just don't know about it because they're keeping quiet. Or maybe I believe in hard work a little too much and overestimate its power.


Totally agree. We need a voice for Indies to speak to someone in charge. David and Phoenix kind of sorta seem to be the obvious choices, but they can only figure out and do so much alone. Maybe we need to get our [crap] together and nominate an Indie Board of Cat-herders. My picks for the perfect combination on the board would be:

David G.
Phoenix
Becca (the mod/writer)
Sela
Elizabeth West
and 
Atunah (reader pov)

We could open a thread with real issues and possible suggestions to fix the issues, and once we got those ironed out and agreed upon by the majority, let the board speak for us by proxy. (we'd sign something to present to The Amazon Gods showing the board was speaking for us). We could have a confidential sign-up that only the board saw that listed our YTD gross earnings individually, and then added them up at the end to show Ammy it's not just a few whiners... that together, we bring a [crap] load of money to their bottom line, and we're not happy with the Scamazon Unlimited or KDP as it is.

Go get 'em, guys.


----------



## Becca Mills

Atlantisatheart said:


> Only allow books in over 40,000 words into KU, well, that will kill Paranormal Romance, a lot of the most popular authors in the store, and lose a great big chunk of KU revenue right there as readers run away screaming that they can't read their favorite authors anymore. And the novel writers strike to kill off the novella writers once more.


Well, thinking it through ... combining two 20,000-word stories into one 40,000-word book and earning $2.50 if someone reads 25% of that book would net an author more than complete read-throughs of two separate 20,000-word books under the current system:

150 words/KENP = $.56 for a 20,000-word book (assuming June 2017's .00422/KENP)
200 words/KENP = $.42 for a 20,000-word book
250 words/KENP = $.34 for a 20,000-word book

Under even the most generous words/KENP figure, earnings for the author would more than double with the $2.50 flat payment, even if only a quarter of the book gets read.

I don't know if the system I proposed is workable or not, but those who would lose money under it would, I think, be people who write long books and currently get mostly complete read-throughs of them. Those who write shorter should do better (unless my math skills are even more tragic than I think they are, which is ... er ... certainly possible).


----------



## Going Incognito

Becca Mills said:


> Well, thinking it through ... combining two 20,000-word stories into one 40,000-word book and earning $2.50 if someone reads 25% of that book would net an author more than complete read-throughs of two separate 20,000-word books under the current system:
> 
> 150 words/KENP = $.56 for a 20,000-word book (assuming June 2017's .00422/KENP)
> 200 words/KENP = $.42 for a 20,000-word book
> 250 words/KENP = $.34 for a 20,000-word book
> 
> Under even the most generous words/KENP figure, earnings for the author would more than double with the $2.50 flat payment, even if only a quarter of the book gets read.
> 
> I don't know if the system I proposed is workable or not, but those who would lose money under it would, I think, be people who write long books and currently get mostly complete read-throughs of them. Those who write shorter should do better (unless my math skills are even more tragic than I think they are, which is ... er ... certain possible).


Lord forgive me for stirring the pot as I've been up for about 36 hours straight and I'm feeling frisky, but does that not bring us full circle? (Minus the bots) Sounds to me like that would be them romance/erotica writers stuffing their books again to be able to take advantage of the system. God forbid they list both stories in the table of contents and some reader is only interested in the second one, triggering a 50% read, jumping past that 25% mark with unread pages and getting a full pay even if the reader only read 2 pages of that book she thought she was interested in.


----------



## sela

I think people are forgetting that Amazon designed the system to benefit Amazon, not authors. Sure, it gave KU authors the rank boost for borrows even if the book is not read, but I'm sure everything else about KU is all about customers and Amazon's bottom line / long term goals.

People are coming up with solutions based on what authors might like to see.

Customers want lots of content, period. They want to download lots of books and read at their leisure, paying as little as possible for content.

Amazon wants to attract as many customers to Amazon store as possible, where they will spend that extra book money buying stuff. Amazon uses indie books as loss leaders to get those KU customers with extra money in their pockets into the store.

Any fix that Amazon develops will only be because there is some legal issue or some customer complaints. The fix will benefit Amazon or customers and preferably both. 

Indies will be, as usual, swimming in Amazon's wake, trying to grasp onto whatever flotsam passes by.


----------



## Going Incognito

I must admit that I'm still giggling over Becca recommending stuffing to adapt to the anti stuffing system ya'll were just trying to work the wrinkles out of.


----------



## unkownwriter

> What I think would be a better use of our (procrastination) time, would be to figure out how to get those ideas to someone who can do something.


But, we have been trying to do this. David and PhoenixS have been trying for almost two years! I don't know how many others have been trying for whatever length of time. The problem is, Amazon isn't listening, or if they are, they either don't see a need to act, or whatever they're trying isn't working.

We're pretty sure -- or maybe positive -- that Amazon reads this forum. They know what's going on. They've been given any number of workable ideas about what could be done. It's up to them to stop the fleecing of their own store.


----------



## Atlantisatheart

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Anarchist

sela said:


> I think people are forgetting that Amazon designed the system to benefit Amazon, not authors. Sure, it gave KU authors the rank boost for borrows even if the book is not read, but I'm sure everything else about KU is all about customers and Amazon's bottom line / long term goals.
> 
> People are coming up with solutions based on what authors might like to see.
> 
> Customers want lots of content, period. They want to download lots of books and read at their leisure, paying as little as possible for content.
> 
> Amazon wants to attract as many customers to Amazon store as possible, where they will spend that extra book money buying stuff. Amazon uses indie books as loss leaders to get those KU customers with extra money in their pockets into the store.
> 
> Any fix that Amazon develops will only be because there is some legal issue or some customer complaints. The fix will benefit Amazon or customers and preferably both.
> 
> Indies will be, as usual, swimming in Amazon's wake, trying to grasp onto whatever flotsam passes by.


I want to make love to this post.


----------



## AixenPixel

Going Incognito said:


> I must admit that I'm still giggling over Becca recommending stuffing to adapt to the anti stuffing system ya'll were just trying to work the wrinkles out of.


I'm doing more than giggling. I'm roflmao. 
Like, I think somehow the overall toxic mentality over here stems from the resentment of a lot of authors writing to market and doing it hella fast. VERY fast. And some people want to buck the trend (which is fine, just have a reasonable outlook about income.) Heck, once upon a time I did the same thing... here on this forum. LOL

It's like this place hates sorta short Romance writers.... **my feeeeleeeengs**

Oh god, I have stirred the pot too. <3333

Bottom line is, people who write to market will 90% always win. We'll adapt and make even MOAR money. But this 40k and up for KU would only either destroy it... or cause short form people to make a lot of money for charging MOAR than 2.99 and more for bundles, plus masssssssss bundling.

Cue the fast writer. Go with your bad self, fast writer. <3333 Can i touch your hands? **Touches her own hands**


----------



## Used To Be BH

sela said:


> I think people are forgetting that Amazon designed the system to benefit Amazon, not authors. Sure, it gave KU authors the rank boost for borrows even if the book is not read, but I'm sure everything else about KU is all about customers and Amazon's bottom line / long term goals.
> 
> People are coming up with solutions based on what authors might like to see.
> 
> Customers want lots of content, period. They want to download lots of books and read at their leisure, paying as little as possible for content.
> 
> Amazon wants to attract as many customers to Amazon store as possible, where they will spend that extra book money buying stuff. Amazon uses indie books as loss leaders to get those KU customers with extra money in their pockets into the store.
> 
> Any fix that Amazon develops will only be because there is some legal issue or some customer complaints. The fix will benefit Amazon or customers and preferably both.
> 
> Indies will be, as usual, swimming in Amazon's wake, trying to grasp onto whatever flotsam passes by.


I never forget where Amazon's priorities lie, but I think you might be misinterpreting what customers want.

I'm a reader, too, and I don't want lots of content, period. I want lots of _good_ content. To the extent that scammers make it more difficult to find that good content, that hurts me as a reader. Atunah made that point quite eloquently, and she's not an author. I wonder how many more people there are who have stopped browsing on Amazon and just dart in to buy or borrow books from authors they already know. That doesn't sound like the model Amazon wants to promote.

Amazon has also demonstrated it cares about its reputation. Hypothetically, enough national news coverage, such as we saw with fake reviews, would cause Amazon to act. Allowing the scammy behavior to continue undermines reputation (and hence consumer confidence).

I may be naive. Amazon may not solve the problem no matter what we do. However, there's no point in basing a strategy on hopelessness. And yes, David and Phoenix have been trying for a long time--as part of a very small group. Indie authors need to start acting more like a large group (one that produces the vast majority of the KU content).

The first step is agreeing among ourselves. We can hardly blame Amazon for failing to act if we ourselves can't figure out a decent solution. To that end I would suggest we try a practice that I've sometimes seen used in other contexts: don't criticize someone else's solution unless you have one to offer in its place. That keeps injecting new ideas into the conversation instead of the current pattern, which looks more like everything gets shot down by people who have something to lose--and someone would lose through almost any change. (That's a general observation, Sela; I'm not suggesting your advice is based on your own personal situation.) (Speaking of which, people are evaluating the impact on them without considering the positive impact of constraining scammers. The payout might improve considerably, compensating for other potential losses.)

I'd like to suggest everyone unchecking their autorenewal boxes, but I won't. It's hard to get enough people moving in the same direction at the same time. Besides, I understand why authors whose primary income is writing wouldn't want to make that kind of sacrifice. It's easy for me to suggest it because I'm not in that situation; if I had to worry about paying my bills, I wouldn't be onboard with it. It's too bad, though, because if everyone really did it, the vast majority of the KU content would be gone in 90 days. Something tells me Amazon would fix the system within that time.


----------



## Used To Be BH

AixenPixel said:


> I'm doing more than giggling. I'm roflmao.
> Like, I think somehow the overall toxic mentality over here stems from the resentment of a lot of authors writing to market and doing it hella fast. VERY fast. And some people want to buck the trend (which is fine, just have a reasonable outlook about income.) Heck, once upon a time I did the same thing... here on this forum. LOL
> 
> It's like this place hates sorta short Romance writers.... **my feeeeleeeengs**
> 
> Oh god, I have stirred the pot too. <3333
> 
> Bottom line is, people who write to market will 90% always win. We'll adapt and make even MOAR money. But this 40k and up for KU would only either destroy it... or cause short form people to make a lot of money for charging MOAR than 2.99 and more for bundles, plus masssssssss bundling.
> 
> Cue the fast writer. Go with your bad self, fast writer. <3333 Can i touch your hands? **Touches her own hands**


I have nothing against fast writers or against people writing to market. My concern (and, at the risk of speaking for others, probably the concern of most writers) is unethical behavior that basically steals from everyone else. Writing fast doesn't steal. Writing to market doesn't steal. Exploiting loopholes in the system steals. Let's keep those issues separate, because they are separate.


----------



## AixenPixel

Bill Hiatt said:


> I have nothing against fast writers or against people writing to market. My concern (and, at the risk of speaking for others, probably the concern of most writers) is unethical behavior that basically steals from everyone else. Writing fast doesn't steal. Writing to market doesn't steal. Exploiting loopholes in the system steals. Let's keep those issues separate, because they are separate.


My thing is, as long as you're NOT using a clickfarm or stealing other peep's work, then you're golden.
Wanna mass bundle? That's that person's choice. As long as it's their OWN work then it's fine.
As long as they don't repeat that same bundle, it's fine. 
I don't think anyone wants zon telling them how to do their own writing or structuring of things.

My concern is that if we complain too much about things like bundling, that Amazon will just all HIT us upside the head realllllly hard without solving a darn thing.


----------



## 75814

AixenPixel said:


> I'm doing more than giggling. I'm roflmao.
> Like, I think somehow the overall toxic mentality over here stems from the resentment of a lot of authors writing to market and doing it hella fast. VERY fast. And some people want to buck the trend (which is fine, just have a reasonable outlook about income.) Heck, once upon a time I did the same thing... here on this forum. LOL
> 
> It's like this place hates sorta short Romance writers.... **my feeeeleeeengs**
> 
> Oh god, I have stirred the pot too. <3333
> 
> Bottom line is, people who write to market will 90% always win. We'll adapt and make even MOAR money. But this 40k and up for KU would only either destroy it... or cause short form people to make a lot of money for charging MOAR than 2.99 and more for bundles, plus masssssssss bundling.
> 
> Cue the fast writer. Go with your bad self, fast writer. <3333 Can i touch your hands? **Touches her own hands**


I write to market. I write fast. That's not what I have a problem with. I don't care if people write to market or put out ten books a month. I don't care what genre people write or even if they like writing in that genre. Doesn't bother me one bit if people use ghostwriters to get their books finished.

This isn't about writing to market. This isn't about writing fast.

This is about gaming the system in order to double-dip and get illegitimate page reads for your books.

Why is that distinction so hard to understand?


----------



## Becca Mills

Going Incognito said:


> I must admit that I'm still giggling over Becca recommending stuffing to adapt to the anti stuffing system ya'll were just trying to work the wrinkles out of.


It's not "stuffing" if you combine Books 1 and 2 of a series and make that clear on the cover and in the book's description. It's just a collection/omnibus. If a two-book collection is the only way for people get the first two books of a series in KU (and it would be, if you can't duplicate text from book to book), I don't see much reason for readers to skip Book 1. They'd be reading Book 2 cold, without having read what came before.



sela said:


> I think people are forgetting that Amazon designed the system to benefit Amazon, not authors. Sure, it gave KU authors the rank boost for borrows even if the book is not read, but I'm sure everything else about KU is all about customers and Amazon's bottom line / long term goals.
> 
> People are coming up with solutions based on what authors might like to see.
> 
> Customers want lots of content, period. They want to download lots of books and read at their leisure, paying as little as possible for content.
> 
> Amazon wants to attract as many customers to Amazon store as possible, where they will spend that extra book money buying stuff. Amazon uses indie books as loss leaders to get those KU customers with extra money in their pockets into the store.
> 
> Any fix that Amazon develops will only be because there is some legal issue or some customer complaints. The fix will benefit Amazon or customers and preferably both.
> 
> Indies will be, as usual, swimming in Amazon's wake, trying to grasp onto whatever flotsam passes by.


I think that's largely true, so I tried to think about what Amazon seemed to aiming for when it moved from KU1 to KU2: longer books and books people actually want to read. Any system that doesn't give (or seem to give) Amazon what it wants isn't going to work.

The one caveat I'd offer is that Amazon does seem to be at least somewhat sensitive to negative PR. I can see why: companies like their costs to be predictable, right? The costs of KU scamming are probably predictable, which is why Amazon has probably decided largely to accept them. But you never quite know how negative PR is going to play out. Will it be a blip, or will it snowball into the kind of disaster Uber is struggling through right now? That's why Dave's post made Amazon do a little something. So they MAY have some interest in making KU less vulnerable to spinning off bad PR, so long as the cost isn't too high.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Becca Mills said:


> The costs of KU scamming are probably predictable, which is why Amazon has probably decided largely to accept them. But you never quite know how negative PR is going to play out. Will it be a blip, or will it snowball into the kind of disaster Uber is struggling through right now? That's why Dave's post made Amazon do a little something. So they MAY have some interest in making KU less vulnerable to spinning off bad PR, so long as the cost isn't too high.


I think you're making a good point about Amazon being responsive to bad PR. The one thing I'd point out is that it isn't Amazon who's paying the paying the cost of scamming; it is the vendors (us) who pay--unless we assume Amazon adds to the pot to compensate for the scamming. Because we don't have the raw data, we can't be sure. For instance, we don't know how much the payout would have shifted based on legitimate pages read alone, and we don't know exactly how large the impact of scamming is. If the pay rate was fixed rather than fluctuating, then Amazon would be bearing all the cost.

I wonder what happens with vendors of physical goods in a brick-and-mortar store. If items get shoplifted, who bears the cost: the supplier or the store? I'm pretty sure it's the store. In the KU situation, it may well be the supplier.


----------



## Becca Mills

Bill Hiatt said:


> I think you're making a good point about Amazon being responsive to bad PR. The one thing I'd point out is that it isn't Amazon who's paying the paying the cost of scamming; it is the vendors (us) who pay--unless we assume Amazon adds to the pot to compensate for the scamming. Because we don't have the raw data, we can't be sure. For instance, we don't know how much the payout would have shifted based on legitimate pages read alone, and we don't know exactly how large the impact of scamming is. If the pay rate was fixed rather than fluctuating, then Amazon would be bearing all the cost.
> 
> I wonder what happens with vendors of physical goods in a brick-and-mortar store. If items get shoplifted, who bears the cost: the supplier or the store? I'm pretty sure it's the store. In the KU situation, it may well be the supplier.


Yeah, there are lots of unknowns, here. Personally, I suspect Amazon is adjusting the pot to keep the page-read payment somewhere in the realm of acceptability, despite the scamming. But who really knows? Authors do seem to be more vulnerable to covering the cost of KU scamming than wholesalers are to paying the cost of brick-and-mortar shoplifting, and the opaqueness of the system keeps us from knowing what's going on. It all leaves a lot to be desired, from the author's perspective. Of course, it's still a far sight better than the systems we had in 2006, which were trad pub or 10,000 paperbacks to sell out of your car trunk. The "whole lot better than nothing" argument implicitly underlies all our engagement with Amazon, doesn't it?


----------



## Ann in Arlington

Gentle reminder that healthy, even passionate discussion is fine.

comments that feel like personal attacks are not.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## sela

Bill Hiatt said:


> I never forget where Amazon's priorities lie, but I think you might be misinterpreting what customers want.
> 
> I'm a reader, too, and I don't want lots of content, period. I want lots of _good_ content. To the extent that scammers make it more difficult to find that good content, that hurts me as a reader. Atunah made that point quite eloquently, and she's not an author. I wonder how many more people there are who have stopped browsing on Amazon and just dart in to buy or borrow books from authors they already know. That doesn't sound like the model Amazon wants to promote.
> 
> Amazon has also demonstrated it cares about its reputation. Hypothetically, enough national news coverage, such as we saw with fake reviews, would cause Amazon to act. Allowing the scammy behavior to continue undermines reputation (and hence consumer confidence).
> 
> I may be naive. Amazon may not solve the problem no matter what we do. However, there's no point in basing a strategy on hopelessness. And yes, David and Phoenix have been trying for a long time--as part of a very small group. Indie authors need to start acting more like a large group (one that produces the vast majority of the KU content).
> 
> The first step is agreeing among ourselves. We can hardly blame Amazon for failing to act if we ourselves can't figure out a decent solution. To that end I would suggest we try a practice that I've sometimes seen used in other contexts: don't criticize someone else's solution unless you have one to offer in its place. That keeps injecting new ideas into the conversation instead of the current pattern, which looks more like everything gets shot down by people who have something to lose--and someone would lose through almost any change. (That's a general observation, Sela; I'm not suggesting your advice is based on your own personal situation.) (Speaking of which, people are evaluating the impact on them without considering the positive impact of constraining scammers. The payout might improve considerably, compensating for other potential losses.)
> 
> I'd like to suggest everyone unchecking their autorenewal boxes, but I won't. It's hard to get enough people moving in the same direction at the same time. Besides, I understand why authors whose primary income is writing wouldn't want to make that kind of sacrifice. It's easy for me to suggest it because I'm not in that situation; if I had to worry about paying my bills, I wouldn't be onboard with it. It's too bad, though, because if everyone really did it, the vast majority of the KU content would be gone in 90 days. Something tells me Amazon would fix the system within that time.


I completely agree that KU subscribers want good content but what constitutes good varies from person to person. I'm sure Amazon considers "good" content to be anything that its customers don't complain about. Hence, unless readers despise stuffed books, they probably won't do anything about those stuffed books even though they may contravene TOS -- as long as the customers don't complain.

My complaint is that now, with botting and fake reviews, none of us can tell if the top books actually belong there. It used to be that the books at the top of the charts were there because actual people liked them in such numbers that they hit the top. Now, who can say?

Maybe those books are truly popular or maybe they're botted to the top.

I don't care if books at the top belong there due to actual sales and borrows, but if they're botted? That makes me mad.

As to solutions, well, I got none other than Amazon needs to make its TOS clearer and police them properly.


----------



## C. Gockel

> Simply make it so that new accounts can't put books into KU. Easy. You have to get screened or have a history before you can enter books into KU. If you launch your first book to be a bestseller (ala Fluency), then you get screened and you're in KU. If you've been publishing normal and legit books for a year, then you're white-listed and can go into KU anytime you want with any book, new or already published.


This sounds like an idea that benefits writers that have been around awhile and completely screws over writers that haven't. KU is a huge benefit to new authors who don't have a platform yet.


----------



## My_Txxxx_a$$_Left_Too

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## Guest

Maybe I'm just out of touch with what the new generation of indies are up to. Book stuffing, click farms, all that sounds like short term BS to me. A way to a quick buck. My career has had its ups and downs, no doubt about it. But one thing I've always done is focus on long term success. Expanding my brand and improving my stories has been my primary focus since my first book was released in 2011. I'm out to make a name for myself. So far I've done very well. But I'm not where I want to be yet. And perhaps I'll never get there. But if I do it will be on the strength of my skills and talents -  together with business savvy I've picked up along the way. 

In truth, I don't really give a tinker's d*&n what the scammers do. They never stay around very long. Why? Partly, because they usually get caught. But mostly because they are not writers. They're scammers. People buy my books because they like them. They enjoy what my imagination produces. They appreciate the work I put in to creating a quality book and are willing to pay for it. They see the value in what I do. No scam can outlast or overshadow that approach. 

I intend to be around a very long time. And try as I might, I've found only one way to make that happen. Write good books that people want to read. It begins and ends there.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot

This_Way_Down said:


> People buy my books because they like them. They enjoy what my imagination produces. They appreciate the work I put in to creating a quality book and are willing to pay for it. They see the value in what I do. No scam can outlast or overshadow that approach.
> 
> I intend to be around a very long time. And try as I might, I've found only one way to make that happen. Write good books that people want to read. It begins and ends there.


I love this, and I feel exactly the same way.


----------



## C. Gockel

> It doesn't screw over new writers at all...because Amazon tends to favor a new author in terms of showing the book to others.


No, it doesn't. It favors *RANK* and publishing date. But for new writers without a platform, the easiest way to get rank is to be in KU.


----------



## C. Gockel

> In truth, I don't really give a tinker's d*&n what the scammers do. They never stay around very long. Why? Partly, because they usually get caught. But mostly because they are not writers. They're scammers. People buy my books because they like them. They enjoy what my imagination produces. They appreciate the work I put in to creating a quality book and are willing to pay for it. They see the value in what I do. No scam can outlast or overshadow that approach.
> 
> I intend to be around a very long time. And try as I might, I've found only one way to make that happen. Write good books that people want to read. It begins and ends there.


Yeah, there are a few scammers who've done very well ... but most probably don't have long term success. And you know what, I don't want the success of the scammers who superficially managing to pull it off.

I like my books even though they are (rarely) bestsellers, I've made great friends in the indie community, I love my fans, and I don't want the kind of "love" the scammers are getting. I have more than enough, when so many work so hard to have so little. I am constantly in a state of, "This is not my beautiful life."


----------



## Sam Rivers

> In truth, I don't really give a tinker's d*&n what the scammers do. They never stay around very long. Why? Partly, because they usually get caught. But mostly because they are not writers. They're scammers.


That is not true. Scammers will stay around as long as they can make a buck and will stay around until Amazon changes the rules to make it impossible for them to survive.


----------



## jaehaerys

I've read this entire thread and unfortunately I'm beginning to see the logic in gatekeeping. Never thought I'd ever say that.


----------



## DrewMcGunn

Was looking in the top 100 of Alternate History and found an interesting egg on the 5th page (81-100).
It was a book, in Russian, with 2967 pages.  The first page starts in the middle of a conversation.  I'm no expert on the language, but found that it is a cut and paste of an old Russian translation of an 1887 novel by H. Rider Haggard, called "Her."
Additionally, I found a bunch of "stuffed" books in AH's hot new books, where the scammers had put the same book from Frank Baum, one of his many Oz books.  The title in Amazon was vaguely Russian, as was the author's name, but when I looked at the "look inside" it was verbatim from the Oz book.  I found around 15 books with the exact same filler, in the top hundred of the hot new releases.  They were easy to find, as none of them had a cover.

After reading most of the content on this thread, it appears that this scam is designed around putting several dozen books up and clickbotting page reads enough to have the books fall within 30,000-100,000 or so.  Doing this across dozens of books, and I can only imagine that they're making bank, if the scam is allowed to continue.

I know we'll not likely ever know, but I'd love to find out how much of the global fund is going to scams like these two.


----------



## Guest

wingsandwords said:


> Well, people have come up with some pretty great ideas for how to stop the issue. Ideas that might not be too terribly difficult for Amazon to implement. And, that's all well and good, but sharing those ideas with each other doesn't actually get us anywhere.
> (...)
> There has to be a way to get the ear of someone in Amazon capable of doing something--whether or not we can get them to do something is an entirely different beast, but I think finding that person should be doable, and would definitely be a first step. Maybe it's a person the average author can't talk to, but then there must be someone that _can_, someone big enough that this hypothetical person would be willing to talk to.


With regards to the second call-to-action, spend 30 minutes on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook and you'll find a bunch of Amazon employees to reach out to (Indie ERC Managers, KDP Program Managers, Digital Product Managers, etc.). I did. Also, if hybrid authors are reading this, call your publishers and ask them to call their contacts at Amazon. The current scam is bad for everyone because it pushes legitimate books out of bestseller lists, so for once indie and big publisher interests are aligned!

Now, I went through all 37 pages of this thread and compiled a list of 10 suggestions. Feel free to use it when you write Amazon / your agent / your publisher.

*1. Count the actual pages read.* It is clear that the current system does not do that - it can only register the last page. This should be fixed.

*2. Quarantine new KDP publishers.* Any new KDP publisher will have to wait X months before they can enroll in Select. In that time frame, they must sell X copies of their book to demonstrate they are serious about publishing and there is a market for their books.

*3. Cap the payout-per-borrow at the payout-per-buy:* If you have a 99-cent book, you will earn 34 cents per sale, and no more than 34 cents per borrow, even if your book is 3000 KENP.

*4. Charge $10 (or less) to publish an eBook and screen submissions to Select.* It would be a small expense to publishers but it would pay for hundreds or thousands of college-educated workers to actually look at every book submitted.

*5. Implement an automatic red-flag system *that would notify KDP Content Supervisors every time a book has an outlier sales-to-borrows ratio (i.e., gets way too many borrows per sale). Chances are it is a botted book.

*6. Make it so that a book only gets a ranking boost once it is actually read to 20% or more.* That would at least take care of the click bots that scammers use for ranking boosts only.

*7. Hire an indie author/publisher as a special advisor.* It could be someone like Phoenix Sullivan or David Gaughran, or another publisher who's intimately familiar with the problem.

*8. Cap the payout at X borrows per sale to keep borrows proportionate to sales.* Anything above that would just be ignored - no rank uplift, no pages read counted. There would be no benefit for large scale scamming; no benefit to scam-target rival authors; legitimate authors would be unaffected.

*9. Use the filter software that catches duplicate content* to check if the duplicates published from the same KDP account are legitimate bundles or stuffed singles.

*10. Limit the number of books that can be published in a month.* No legitimate author needs to publish 1000 books in a month. Create a separate system for publishers who handle multiple author's books, who would publish above the limit, and vet them.


----------



## 31842

DrewMcGunn said:


> Was looking in the top 100 of Alternate History and found an interesting egg on the 5th page (81-100).
> It was a book, in Russian, with 2967 pages. The first page starts in the middle of a conversation. I'm no expert on the language, but found that it is a cut and paste of an old Russian translation of an 1887 novel by H. Rider Haggard, called "Her."
> Additionally, I found a bunch of "stuffed" books in AH's hot new books, where the scammers had put the same book from Frank Baum, one of his many Oz books. The title in Amazon was vaguely Russian, as was the author's name, but when I looked at the "look inside" it was verbatim from the Oz book. I found around 15 books with the exact same filler, in the top hundred of the hot new releases. They were easy to find, as none of them had a cover.
> 
> After reading most of the content on this thread, it appears that this scam is designed around putting several dozen books up and clickbotting page reads enough to have the books fall within 30,000-100,000 or so. Doing this across dozens of books, and I can only imagine that they're making bank, if the scam is allowed to continue.
> 
> I know we'll not likely ever know, but I'd love to find out how much of the global fund is going to scams like these two.


Ah jeez... If you haven't already, please report these and note that there is other books in the books you're seeing. With the noise earlier this year that all KU books have to have exclusive content licenses, you might actually see some action on getting it pulled. But man... the fact this is going on In that Cnet article, it stated a scammer had earned over $2M in fake reads from the KU pot.


----------



## David VanDyke

jaehaerys said:


> I've read this entire thread and unfortunately I'm beginning to see the logic in gatekeeping. Never thought I'd ever say that.


There is a logic in a minimal amount of gatekeeping. Scammers always go for the easiest, low-hanging fruit. Raising that fruit slightly will help.

It's the same logic that makes you lock your doors when you leave your home for a while, even though most burglars can get figure a way to break in anyway. There's no reason to make it too easy for them. The same applies to all other areas of crime deterrence of shoplifting, grift, pickpocketing, income tax fraud, etc. Nobody believes these will go away entirely, but reducing them to a minimum is a Good Thing.

If KU becomes less scammer-friendly, maybe the scammers will move on to some other area of the internet and leave us alone. To me, that's the main goal.


----------



## MmmmmPie

Reformed Pantser said:


> Now, I went through all 37 pages of this thread and compiled a list of 10 suggestions. Feel free to use it when you write Amazon / your agent / your publisher.


That's a GREAT list, and would go a long way in reducing the scamming. Even if Amazon didn't yet have the technology to implement all of these, they could surely tackle some of these immediately. Thanks for compiling this!


----------



## MmmmmPie

David VanDyke said:


> There is a logic in a minimal amount of gatekeeping. Scammers always go for the easiest, low-hanging fruit. Raising that fruit slightly will help. It's the same logic that makes you lock your doors when you leave your home...If KU becomes less scammer-friendly, maybe the scammers will move on to some other area of the internet and leave us alone.


Exactly! Right now, it's like Amazon left the front door wide-open and a pile of money sitting just inside the entryway. Worse, this is our money being stolen, and yet we have no way to protect it. Hopefully, Amazon will implement at least some of the ideas listed above. Each of these would be a barrier to deter the scammers. And combined, they would be a powerful deterrent.


----------



## Jo Lane

2. Quarantine new KDP publishers. Any new KDP publisher will have to wait X months before they can enroll in Select. In that time frame, they must sell X copies of their book to demonstrate they are serious about publishing and there is a market for their books.


@Reformed Pantser. This one bothers me as a new author. From what I've read on these boards, it's hard enough as a new author to get visibility and sell books -- it's not just a case of whether there's a market or not but more about visibility. A lot of people won't take a risk and buy books by new authors but will give them a chance in KU. Scammers, on the other hand, would have the funds to buy multiple copies of a book with different accounts and get it through into Select. I see this as punishing legitimate new authors when the fault is hardly theirs. 

I wholeheartedly support many of your other ideas though.


----------



## DrewMcGunn

This evening, instead of text editing my book , I spent a couple of hours going over the new releases in Alternate History, and what I have found is devastating to the KU payouts.

Of the 100 New Releases in Alternate History Science Fiction, I was able to identify that 57 of the books are clearly fraudulent.  They are a mixture of copy-protected English language material, Russian knockoffs of said material and gibberish that has been run through google translator.  What I found interesting is that this particular scam was very consistent, in every situation there were 13 books by each "author" all 13 books were identical in their material, only changing the title.

Most of these books have KU reads that place them 30,000 to 100,000 in the paid store.  This was just the number that I was able to find in a couple of hours.  I cant imagine how wide this scam runs,  I just looked in a single genre, but it makes me wonder if a sizable chunk of the Kindle Select Global Fund is being stolen by similar rackets.

edit: Yes, I turned in 3 separate accounts where I was able determine the origin of the material being posted.  But it's sad that it will all be posted back up within a day or two under different accounts.


----------



## Becca Mills

DrewMcGunn said:


> This evening, instead of text editing my book , I spent a couple of hours going over the new releases in Alternate History, and what I have found is devastating to the KU payouts.
> 
> Of the 100 New Releases in Alternate History Science Fiction, I was able to identify that 57 of the books are clearly fraudulent. They are a mixture of copy-protected English language material, Russian knockoffs of said material and gibberish that has been run through google translator. What I found interesting is that this particular scam was very consistent, in every situation there were 13 books by each "author" all 13 books were identical in their material, only changing the title.
> 
> Most of these books have KU reads that place them 30,000 to 100,000 in the paid store. This was just the number that I was able to find in a couple of hours. I cant imagine how wide this scam runs, I just looked in a single genre, but it makes me wonder if a sizable chunk of the Kindle Select Global Fund is being stolen by similar rackets.
> 
> edit: Yes, I turned in 3 separate accounts where I was able determine the origin of the material being posted. But it's sad that it will all be posted back up within a day or two under different accounts.


I think it's important to keep in mind that scammers may not be lowering the KU payouts at all -- Amazon may have already determined what the payouts will be each month from now through 2020, adding whatever they need to in order to hit their predetermined number. The direct impact of the scamming could be major, or it could be zero.

That said, I just don't understand why KDP isn't embarrassed by the kind of thing Drew is describing, here. I mean, more than half the books in a genre bestseller list are plagiarized, in Russian (not an allowable language for Kindle publishing), or both? How can Amazon bear to appear so profoundly incompetent? Why isn't Jeff Bezos sending his famous "?" emails over to KDP?

Sheesh. Everyone's going to go to Mars with Elon Musk instead, at this rate. Who's going to want Bezos's big dangerous doohickeys if he can't make his small mundane doohickeys work right?


----------



## Seneca42

DrewMcGunn said:


> Most of these books have KU reads that place them 30,000 to 100,000 in the paid store. This was just the number that I was able to find in a couple of hours. I cant imagine how wide this scam runs, I just looked in a single genre, but it makes me wonder if a sizable chunk of the Kindle Select Global Fund is being stolen by similar rackets.


I'll never understand how people can not conclude KU is a train wreck after finding out *one* guy scammed it for $3M. The losses must easily be up around $5-10M a year. Easy. I'm too tired, but someone can probably do the math in terms of how that affects the KU pot.

I mean, sure, it can be argued Amazon just sets the page reads to whatever they want and authors aren't losing money. But Amazon is still light $3M that otherwise would have gone to something. It's like all fraud, the cost eventually gets passed on to the supplier or the customer (and we all know that with Amazon it's going to be passed on to the supplier 100% of the time).

A number of scam books that I looked into when this thread started are still chugging along just fine.

Clean up on aisle 7 is complete, please return to your shopping, nothing to see here.


----------



## Guest

Jo Lane said:


> 2. Quarantine new KDP publishers. Any new KDP publisher will have to wait X months before they can enroll in Select. In that time frame, they must sell X copies of their book to demonstrate they are serious about publishing and there is a market for their books.
> 
> @Reformed Pantser. This one bothers me as a new author. From what I've read on these boards, it's hard enough as a new author to get visibility and sell books -- it's not just a case of whether there's a market or not but more about visibility. A lot of people won't take a risk and buy books by new authors but will give them a chance in KU. Scammers, on the other hand, would have the funds to buy multiple copies of a book with different accounts and get it through into Select. I see this as punishing legitimate new authors when the fault is hardly theirs.
> 
> I wholeheartedly support many of your other ideas though.


@Jo Lane, I understand, and maybe there's a better alternative that wouldn't affect legitimate new authors. But considering how easy it is for scammers to open new accounts and continue stuffing and botting like there's no tomorrow, something must be done at that level.

And, by the way, those are not MY ideas -- I just compiled them. It's the KBoards hive mind. 

@MmmmmPie, Thank you! Took me almost 5 hours that I didn't spend writing, but that was my choice. It's time to fight back, people!

@David VanDyke, Agreed and seconded.


----------



## Doglover

Seneca42 said:


> I'll never understand how people can not conclude KU is a train wreck after finding out *one* guy scammed it for $3M. The losses must easily be up around $5-10M a year. Easy. I'm too tired, but someone can probably do the math in terms of how that affects the KU pot.
> 
> I mean, sure, it can be argued Amazon just sets the page reads to whatever they want and authors aren't losing money. But Amazon is still light $3M that otherwise would have gone to something. It's like all fraud, the cost eventually gets passed on to the supplier or the customer (and we all know that with Amazon it's going to be passed on to the supplier 100% of the time).
> 
> A number of scam books that I looked into when this thread started are still chugging along just fine.
> 
> Clean up on aisle 7 is complete, please return to your shopping, nothing to see here.


It's not a train wreck to the honest authors who make a majority of their income from page reads. Those people can't afford to resign from KU in protest because scammers are getting away with a huge sum they didn't earn.


----------



## DrewMcGunn

Doglover said:


> It's not a train wreck to the honest authors who make a majority of their income from page reads. Those people can't afford to resign from KU in protest because scammers are getting away with a huge sum they didn't earn.


I would disagree with you about its status as a train wreck. This is especially true for the authors that can't afford to resign from KU. Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I suspect that the amount of money that Amazon sets aside for the select global fund has a lot to do with the number of Kindle Unlimited subscribers revenue. If there is a shred of truth to this (and I can't claim anything more than "it seems reasonable to me" as my train of thought), then the scams, like the ones I detailed yesterday, take money from you by lowering the amount of money that you would otherwise receive.

I have no idea if it's 5%, 10% or 20%. No clue. But it seems likely that you, and other authors whose income is primarily derived from the KU ecosystem are the scammers' true victims.

Circling back to Becca's earlier comment, it would be nice to look under the hood of KU and the Select Globabl Fund and understand more precisely where those funds are coming from, because all we have at the moment is educated guesses and conjecture.

Edit: This morning, using the Alternate History new releases, I found 59 books in the 100 listed there. There were 13 "authors" there, each with 13 books in their total "backlist" as they had posted in multiple niche markets. In total, they included around 210 books, all of which were put up within the last 5-7 days.
I reported all 13 accounts (yes... I created a cut and paste report). I don't know that I'll keep this up, as it takes time that would be better spent writing. But it really does highlight the systematic assault by scammers against KU.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Well, apparently Amazon has time to figure out yet another way of computing KENP, even though it doesn't have time to stop the scammers. https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/AI3QMVN4FMTXJ

Fearing another pageocalypse, I checked all my titles. One went up 76 pages for no apparent reason. One went 1 page. All the rest remained exactly the same. I'm getting the feeling the new way of calculating isn't all that different from the old way of calculating. I'm not sure why anyone bothered. It's being announced as an improvement in the way authors are rewarded. 

I don't understand why Amazon doesn't see that a bestseller list filled with botted books is bad for the user experience. Maybe when people find a way to bot onto the list in Amazon Charts...


----------



## 75814

Bill Hiatt said:


> Well, apparently Amazon has time to figure out yet another way of computing KENP, even though it doesn't have time to stop the scammers. https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/AI3QMVN4FMTXJ
> 
> Fearing another pageocalypse, I checked all my titles. One went up 76 pages for no apparent reason. One went 1 page. All the rest remained exactly the same. I'm getting the feeling the new way of calculating isn't all that different from the old way of calculating. I'm not sure why anyone bothered. It's being announced as an improvement in the way authors are rewarded.
> 
> I don't understand why Amazon doesn't see that a bestseller list filled with botted books is bad for the user experience. Maybe when people find a way to bot onto the list in Amazon Charts...


It often takes some time before changes like this affect every title. So while one of your books may have gotten affected and the others not, it might just be that the change hasn't gotten to those titles yet.


----------



## Used To Be BH

Perry Constantine said:


> It often takes some time before changes like this affect every title. So while one of your books may have gotten affected and the others not, it might just be that the change hasn't gotten to those titles yet.


Yes, that's a possibility, but I'm assuming they may have been quietly rolling out new pages for days. Theoretically, they are using the new counts starting today, even for readers who are mid-book. I'm not sure how they could do that if they didn't know what those counts were. If I recall correctly, all of my titles were affected by KENP 2.0 by the time the announcement was made.


----------



## jaehaerys

We already know that KU brings people into the Everything Store, and obviously KU hasn't been damaging enough to the customer experience for Amazon to make any drastic changes, but what about the measured time spent per customer within Amazon's ecosystem? I'm not certain, but I think it's fairly probable that Amazon does measure this time spent and I wonder if the reason Amazon doesn't seem to care about the scammers so many of us notice is because most of that scamming does little to harm the average number of minutes spent by individual customers in Amazon's system? Or maybe in some strange math formula somewhere Amazon has determined all of the scam products have increased that time spent per customer and in some equation that equals greater potential for profit just based on that increased average number of minutes alone?


This is all conjecture of course, but just throwing this out there to see if anyone has an opinion on that. It could be that with some of the metrics that Amazon measures in terms of how it calculates its own success that the things we see as terrible or complete detriments may in fact to Amazon look like something else entirely. We want change and yet without knowing it we could be tilting at taller windmills than we realize.


----------



## Used To Be BH

I need to correct myself. After looking at the KENP 3 thread, it appears Amazon may have added some verbiage that seems aimed at scammers. Whether that makes any real difference remains to be seen, but at least it sounds like a step in the right direction.


----------



## Seneca42

Bill Hiatt said:


> I need to correct myself. After looking at the KENP 3 thread, it appears Amazon may have added some verbiage that seems aimed at scammers. Whether that makes any real difference remains to be seen, but at least it sounds like a step in the right direction.


If I could bet on it, I'd put every single cent I have on the scammers winning 

There's a book I know is scamming. When the DS drama unfolded they stopped. Dropped down to 250k in rank. Then today... BOOM... 3k in rank. Back to botting now that they think the coast is clear. If I ever see Amazon ban that book, then I'll know they are getting serious.

Until then it's all just talk on their part.


----------



## Atunah

LilyBLily said:


> You may have struck on it. What if Amazon wants people who are looking for books to get frustrated and click away to a higher margin product?


Or we just go to other sites to look for the books. I don't browse for books on amazon anymore so I spend less time on the site. I go to goodreads and other reader sites to find books, then add them to my wishlist which I access on my kindles. I spend less on Amazon I think if I spend less time on there. In the past when I found the browsing for books to be an enjoyable leisure time, I did browse around other parts more, while I was checking out the books. Even the recommendations on my kindle via amazon/ku and goodreads are way better than any sifting through the masses of junk.


----------



## alawston

jaehaerys said:


> We already know that KU brings people into the Everything Store, and obviously KU hasn't been damaging enough to the customer experience for Amazon to make any drastic changes, but what about the measured time spent per customer within Amazon's ecosystem? I'm not certain, but I think it's fairly probable that Amazon does measure this time spent and I wonder if the reason Amazon doesn't seem to care about the scammers so many of us notice is because most of that scamming does little to harm the average number of minutes spent by individual customers in Amazon's system? Or maybe in some strange math formula somewhere Amazon has determined all of the scam products have increased that time spent per customer and in some equation that equals greater potential for profit just based on that increased average number of minutes alone?
> 
> This is all conjecture of course, but just throwing this out there to see if anyone has an opinion on that. It could be that with some of the metrics that Amazon measures in terms of how it calculates its own success that the things we see as terrible or complete detriments may in fact to Amazon look like something else entirely. We want change and yet without knowing it we could be tilting at taller windmills than we realize.


Actually, this tripped something in my head that I think you should bear in mind.

We're very good at viewing Amazon as a monolithic organisation with clear objectives, and we tend to anthropomorphise its actions as Jeff Bezos's divine will made flesh. But the reality is that it's a huge multinational company which will have various internal interests and agendas beneath the umbrella. So there's probably some little KU team somewhere who've been set a target to generate so many pageviews per week, and they're high-fiving and bro-hugging every time a 3,000+ stuffed behemoth goes online, because it's just nailed their monthly bonus for them. And elsewhere, there's a QA team who do a full choreographed show tune routine every time they nail a botted book, projecting the saving to the bottom line. And even though these teams are nominally all pulling in the same direction, they will have very different views on the whole situation.

This really is just a thought, and certainly isn't condoning any of the behaviours we've been discussing, but it might be something to bear in mind next time you think we're getting some mixed signals from the Zon.


----------



## David VanDyke

alawston said:


> Actually, this tripped something in my head that I think you should bear in mind.
> 
> We're very good at viewing Amazon as a monolithic organisation with clear objectives, and we tend to anthropomorphise its actions as Jeff Bezos's divine will made flesh. But the reality is that it's a huge multinational company which will have various internal interests and agendas beneath the umbrella. So there's probably some little KU team somewhere who've been set a target to generate so many pageviews per week, and they're high-fiving and bro-hugging every time a 3,000+ stuffed behemoth goes online, because it's just nailed their monthly bonus for them. And elsewhere, there's a QA team who do a full choreographed show tune routine every time they nail a botted book, projecting the saving to the bottom line. And even though these teams are nominally all pulling in the same direction, they will have very different views on the whole situation.
> 
> This really is just a thought, and certainly isn't condoning any of the behaviours we've been discussing, but it might be something to bear in mind next time you think we're getting some mixed signals from the Zon.


This is quite true. For example, I know for a fact that Kindle Worlds and KDP are not the same sub-org. They have different bosses and different agendas and they are having intermittent power struggles.

From this I can extrapolate that other parts of Amazon also work at cross-purposes from time to time.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

David VanDyke said:


> This is quite true. For example, I know for a fact that Kindle Worlds and KDP are not the same sub-org. They have different bosses and different agendas and they are having intermittent power struggles.
> 
> From this I can extrapolate that other parts of Amazon also work at cross-purposes from time to time.


I never was an employee of a corporate behemoth, but for seven years I was a 'Special Vendor' to Walt Disney World. And the power struggles within just Merchandise was unreal- Licensed vs Unlicensed, Epcot v the other parks, etc etc. And that's not even counting the wars between Ticket Sales, Food, Merchandise, Attractions, etc. So yeah, I agree w/ your take.


----------



## Guest

alawston said:


> We're very good at viewing Amazon as a monolithic organisation with clear objectives, and we tend to anthropomorphise its actions as Jeff Bezos's divine will made flesh. But the reality is that it's a huge multinational company which will have various internal interests and agendas beneath the umbrella. So there's probably some little KU team somewhere who've been set a target to generate so many pageviews per week, and they're high-fiving and bro-hugging every time a 3,000+ stuffed behemoth goes online, because it's just nailed their monthly bonus for them. And elsewhere, there's a QA team who do a full choreographed show tune routine every time they nail a botted book, projecting the saving to the bottom line. And even though these teams are nominally all pulling in the same direction, they will have very different views on the whole situation.


`
Which is why reporting botted and stuffed books to KDP Support is probably a waste of time. Instead, go to LinkedIn and type these search terms: Investigations specialist Amazon, Risk management specialist Amazon, Fraud Investigations Amazon, Content reviewer Amazon, Content quality Amazon, Quality analyst Amazon. 
You'll find a bunch of profiles. Those are the people to contact, and if you have LinkedIn Premium, you can send them an InMail.


----------



## Mxz

The bonus stuffing argument has been put to rest.

KU V 3.0



> We always support our authors' efforts to promote their books, but at the same time we work to prevent any manipulation of the Kindle platform.
> 
> We *do not permit authors to offer, or participate in marketing that incentivizes Kindle Unlimited or Kindle Owners' Lending Library customers to read their books in exchange for compensation of any kind.* This includes payment (whether in the form of money or gift certificates), *bonus content*, entry to a contest or sweepstakes, discounts on future purchases, extra product, or other gifts.
> 
> Because we're always looking to improve our authors' experience, we have systems in place to monitor for potential manipulation.


From https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/AI3QMVN4FMTXJ


----------



## Desmond X. Torres

Mxz said:


> The bonus stuffing argument has been put to rest.
> 
> KU V 3.0
> 
> From https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/AI3QMVN4FMTXJ


We can only hope... 
But the fact is that these policies have existed in one form or another and have not been enforced in any meaningful, consistent way.


----------



## Crystal_

Mxz said:


> The bonus stuffing argument has been put to rest.
> 
> KU V 3.0
> 
> From https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/AI3QMVN4FMTXJ


According to a friend of mine, that's been there for awhile. Besides, we could easily change the name of bonus content to anything else. It doesn't have to be a "bonus book." It can be "also includes the novel X for your reading pleasure" without a mention of bonus.


----------



## Shelley K

The 'bonus content' thing isn't new. And it never meant what people seem to want it to mean. Wishing and hoping doesn't change that.

We're probably all going to have to wait at least a few days to see what comes out in the wash. I have to admit I find it interesting that they've made this supposed big change that isn't going to affect most people's earnings (according to them, because of course they _control the payout_) and that didn't involve lowering the cap of 3000 KENPC. People are reporting that skipped pages still count. Doesn't seem like much of a change, given.

Color me not terribly shocked, but still fairly disappointed.


----------



## alawston

Reformed Pantser said:


> `
> Which is why reporting botted and stuffed books to KDP Support is probably a waste of time. Instead, go to LinkedIn and type these search terms: Investigations specialist Amazon, Risk management specialist Amazon, Fraud Investigations Amazon, Content reviewer Amazon, Content quality Amazon, Quality analyst Amazon.
> You'll find a bunch of profiles. Those are the people to contact, and if you have LinkedIn Premium, you can send them an InMail.


This is my weekly reminder that LinkedIn is still a thing


----------



## Lummox JR

Huh. I had no idea they were rolling out KU 3.0 but I rechecked my recent book and it went from 653 KENP to 686. Not sure how they're calculating pages now, but that's quite interesting.

For me, I find it heartening that they're rolling the new version of KU out. That suggests that at least _a_ plan to deal with some of the scamming is underway. Will it be enough? Probably not, but it shows something other than inaction and I'll take the win for now.


----------



## Becca Mills

Lummox JR said:


> Huh. I had no idea they were rolling out KU 3.0 but I rechecked my recent book and it went from 653 KENP to 686. Not sure how they're calculating pages now, but that's quite interesting.
> 
> For me, I find it heartening that they're rolling the new version of KU out. That suggests that at least _a_ plan to deal with some of the scamming is underway. Will it be enough? Probably not, but it shows something other than inaction and I'll take the win for now.


It seems to be a tweak to how KENPC is calculated, rather than any substantive change.


----------



## Mxz

Crystal_ said:


> According to a friend of mine, that's been there for awhile. Besides, we could easily change the name of bonus content to anything else. It doesn't have to be a "bonus book." It can be "also includes the novel X for your reading pleasure" without a mention of bonus.


 But even if they changed the title or included a novel without mentioning bonus, it would still be bonus content.

Well, I hope they change something. I thought, before, only a few handfuls of people were doing it, but it is insane and out of control. There are certain characteristics to these books, and from randomly clicking on them, 19/20 books were all stuffed that were in KU. Out of the wide books, none were stuffed (about 4 books). If they don't do something, I'm pulling all of my books and going wide.


----------

