# Learning but the Petition against Amazon bullies



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Hi Everyone.
    I am sorry if this has already been posted about. If it was then I missed it but I guess Amazon has released the names of authors that signed the Petition to force them to release the names of reviewers who have been basically bullies instead of allowing them to just be "Amazon customer" or something like that. Anne Rice was targeted after it became known she signed this petition and I guess other authors have been as well. 
    I see nothing wrong with what these authors want and I do think it would make some people stop their actions and such personal attacks.  I am not sure how I feel about Amazon releasing the names of authors to the general public but I am starting to see a LOT of backlash from people on Facebook and they are saying they will NEVER shop Amazon again for books or ANYTHING... It makes me wonder if there will be a significant drop in sales in the coming months from Amazon. 

Thoughts?


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Wasn't the petition on Change.org where the names of the people who sign are already public?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Rae Scott said:


> I am starting to see a LOT of backlash from people on Facebook and they are saying they will NEVER shop Amazon again for books or ANYTHING... It makes me wonder if there will be a significant drop in sales in the coming months from Amazon.


Backlash against the authors for signing, or backlash at Amazon for releasing the list?


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Isn't a petition a matter of public record anyway? I don't see a problem with the authors complaining about anonymous reviewers, and I don't see a problem with Amazon releasing the list.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Where did they release these names? That doesn't sound like something Amazon would do. 

Anne Rice has been speaking publicly about this, so people already know where she stands on this issue.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I have a real hard time believing Amazon is involved in any way. Do you have a link?

I don't remember if the petition was change.org or not, but I'm sure the actual petition site was the source of the names and people should have realized this (since it was mentioned early on).


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

I guess there is backlash against authors who have signed it and READERS are backlashing against Amazon for releasing the names and doing nothing about the bullying and threats in reviews.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Old Japanese proverb:

_The nail that sticks out gets pounded._


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

Since I saw this mentioned on my FB and people actually linked linked linked, I followed the trail and came here:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/top%20reviewers/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2Z5LRXMSUDQH2&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx834OENQYWMIZ

It seems like this is just a person disagreeing with the petition. The list could have been gotten from anywhere, including socialmedia where people were posting because they signed it.

The refund they talk about has also been around for a while. I know people on this forum talking about refunding books for many reasons for a long time, even after the 7 day period, I just don't see Amazon anywhere actually posting about refunding books by these authors specifically.

That post is the only thing I see linked in discussions about this subject.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Why do you need my real name? Should you know the name of everyone that buys your book?


It's _reviewers_ they want to use real names, no? I haven't really been following.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

While I disagree with the petition in every way... I seriously doubt Amazon has bothered even reading it at the upper levels, much less made the decision to release it. Especially since the names were already public knowledge, as mentioned. I have heard on a few tech sites that a lot of reviewers (mostly top reviewers) are deleting their reviews they've left for authors who signed on to the petition to demand they give their personal info to the world. 

But... on the off chance Amazon did release it, so what? The cosigners want the reviewers "revealed" so it's only logical that authors play by the same rules. (That could even include your real names being printed next to your pen names.)


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

That petition was sponsored by StoptheGoodreadsBullies, a website which is devoted to doxxing book reviewers it does not like.

STGRB has published personal information of reviewers, including the names of their minor children, online in their crusade to crush reviewers they deem bullies.

I find it ironic that authors who publicly sign a public petition sponsored by people determined to violate the privacy of readers object to those readers paying attention.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

So the Anne Rice petition was sponsored by that group?


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Alessandra Kelley said:


> I find it ironic that authors who publicly sign a public petition sponsored by people determined to violate the privacy of readers object to those readers paying attention.


Seriously. And where is the evidence that Amazon has done anything? You can see the signees at the petition itself.


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

Joshua Dalzelle said:


> So the Anne Rice petition was sponsored by that group?


If you have the stomach, you can go to the STGRB site and read them crowing about it.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Do you want my honest opinion?
> I think it is great that Amazon published their names. They want my real name then yes theirs should be revealed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Agreed. If the point is that reviewers on the attack shouldn't be anonymous, then by extension I think neither should the petitioners. Then again it's not clear Amazon actually released anything. Plus the signers' names were already public.



> Why do you need my real name? Should you know the name of everyone that buys your book? For what purpose? I have been called names by author's friends. Are you saying that is ok behaivor? Because I expressed my opinion.


I'm of two minds about this. The act of reviewing is a public act, and while I support anonymous free speech, review space is also run by Amazon; they have the right to make it... er... nonymous. Authors and reviewers alike certainly have the right to complain if they don't like whichever option Amazon chooses. But as much as I think reviewing is the kind of thing you ought to attach a name to, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be your _real_ name so much as some sort of consistent persona. (Although any name you take for yourself is a real name, just not necessarily a legal one.) If someone's a bully across all their reviews, it seems to me like that'll become well known and they'll get downvoted into oblivion anyway. So why fuss over it?

I have a much bigger problem with review factories that churn out hundreds or thousands of absolutely fake reviews under many different accounts, because then you're creating the appearance of consensus where there is none. Ending anonymity would do nothing to prevent or punish this kind of trolling.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

From my understanding the petition isnt against ALL reviews, just the ones that become harassing and abusive and are anonymous. I can understand from an author point of view that when someone makes an attack and says your going to burn in hell, or that your deserve to die or have some other kind of violence done to you you would like to know WHO the individual saying those things is. If you are criticizing the book it is one thing but an attack on a person is something different. I also understand from a readers view that you like having your anonymity. Maybe you use a screen name so you dont have to put your real name out there? thats fine by me.

My BIGGEST concern in all this and maybe I am not saying this correctly or clearly enough, is that there may be a good chunk of readers that no longer will do business with amazon or there will be a decent amount of authors that will refuse to publish on Amazon due to all of this.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Kia Zi Shiru said:


> Since I saw this mentioned on my FB and people actually linked linked linked, I followed the trail and came here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/top%20reviewers/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2Z5LRXMSUDQH2&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx834OENQYWMIZ


If that's what it's all about, that's not Amazon releasing a list. That's a list put together by someone on Amazon's forums.

From what looking around I've done, I don't see where Amazon itself released a list. I suppose it's possible, but I tend to doubt that they would. If they did, I'd like to see a link.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

My biggest concern is that most of this is simply not true.

Spreading misinformation/unverified rumors is irresponsible and helps no one. The issues involved are convoluted enough with added a few extra slices of baloney.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Several points to be made....

1) I haven't seen any evidence that Amazon has released any names.  I do see a discussion post on Amazon by an individual who is naming names of people who signed the petition.

2) Unless one checked a box for one's name to not be published, the names of anyone who signed the petition are visible at the petition site, last I checked.

Let's not fan the flames on this one...it's smacking of WHOA.  Discussing in Admin.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Rae Scott said:


> My BIGGEST concern in all this and maybe I am not saying this correctly or clearly enough, is that there may be a good chunk of readers that no longer will do business with amazon or there will be a decent amount of authors that will refuse to publish on Amazon due to all of this.


So there's backlash against Amazon for publishing a list of authors who signed the petition, when there's no evidence (so far) that Amazon actually released such a list?

If some authors stop publishing on Amazon over this, that's just less competition for those who will continue to publish there.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Rae Scott said:


> My BIGGEST concern in all this and maybe I am not saying this correctly or clearly enough, is that there may be a good chunk of readers that no longer will do business with amazon or there will be a decent amount of authors that will refuse to publish on Amazon due to all of this.


Amazon needs buyers more than it does sellers. They have more than enough of the latter right now.

That being said, I have yet to see any evidence of any authors even saying that if this petition fails they'll pull their business from Amazon.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Because I think this is a WHOA situation, and because I think Monique  is right--there's too much misinformation in this thread--I'm going to lock it while we discuss.

Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK....

I've removed some links.  I see no need to have a whole 'nother discussion about the petiton and Ann Rice and Goodreads Bullies...there's a thread somewhere about that.  Use our new search function if you want to read the discussion.

I've left a link to the discussion in the Amazon forums about the names, which again, were NOT released by Amazon in any evidence I've seen here.

I've removed one post and edited some others.  I've no problem being ruthless as this thread goes forward.  No personal attacks, no posts designed to cast aspersions on individuals...

If someone wants to look up and post KBoards threads about the petition, I've no problem with that.

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

By the way, the new search function ROCKS!


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

For the record, I dislike trolls and bullies in all their myriad forms, and wish that Amazon would require a purchase of the product in order to leave a review. It seems simple: You want to review something, prove you bought it, and aren't simply making it all up/have zero basis for creating a review.

That wouldn't stop really determined A-holes from buying a book, reviewing it negatively, and then returning it, but it would make it less easy, and would flag Amazon with a serial offender. It would also presumably up the cost of having a bogus verified purchaser review a book, either negatively or positively, solely to make the review, which might stop the types of reviews that are clearly BS, again, both positive and negative.

In the end, though, it seems that the US is caught up in a flurry of anti-bullying hysteria. You never even heard the word outside of schoolyards a few years ago, and now it's all the rage to get offended at whatever and claim it's bullying. If someone posts a review saying my book sucks [crap], guess what? Deal with it. I have plenty of those. I trust that readers who are bright enough to read my books and like them will be bright enough to figure out whether a one star review, filled with misspellings, saying the book sucked, is helpful, just as they'll be able to determine whether a 1000 word dissertation on why the book is the most worthless pile of dung on the planet is in fact a compelling rebuttal to hundreds of positive reviews, or the work of a disgruntled wannabe author/envious pr#ck who is desperately trying to demonstrate how smart he is by trashing my work.

I'd be just fine having all the non-verified purchases taken off. I think the whole, "but I do ARC copies so I personally would be discomfited" argument is a shallow one - you want your advance readers to have the book and their reviews to appear? Have em pre-order it for .99 for a limited window of time wherein you alert them that to leave an ARC review they need to do so. If they aren't willing? Life's never been fair. Deal with it. Find another way to make it worth a buck to them to do so. Get creative. Don't be part of the problem because it's convenient for your personal marketing approach.

The only reason I care is because I believe that the review system is badly broken, and no longer serves as a positive for many readers - they distrust the reviews because they suspect some are fake, which undermines everybody: reviewers, who will figure why bother, and authors, who might have a genuinely good product (which the reviews make clear), but which readers believe at some level are bogus.

And don't get me started on this being an indie author issue. I've read plenty of genuinely unreadable trad pubbed books that have hundreds of five star reviews appear on them with clockwork-like regularity, worded almost as though a list of ten talking points or sample reviews were circulated and they simply cycled them, so it's obviously one of publishing's dirty secrets that it's done early and often.

Now back to the WIP. As always. Have at it.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Whew! I was really worried that we wouldn't have another thread about this petition. I was starting to get the shakes from withdrawal.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Now I can agree that using a screen name is better than anonymous.  I only object to the real name part.  I might not want my Aunt Sally to know what I am reading.


Hey Russell question, what if I had bought your paperback at B&N or Hastings?  Would you not want me to tell everyone everywhere that you are fabulous?  Or what if I checked you out of the library?


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

It appears the petition is doing more harm than good -- reviewers are deleting the reviews for the authors who they know signed the petition (and I mean 4 and 5 star reviews). The gentleman who started it has indicated he doesn't want to exacerbate the problem. Smart move.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> For the record, I dislike trolls and bullies in all their myriad forms, and wish that Amazon would require a purchase in order to leave a review. It seems simple: You want to review something, prove you bought it, and aren't simply making it all up/have zero basis for creating a review.


Amazon does require a purchase before reviewing, just not necessarily of the product in question.

Personally, I have no problems with people reviewing a product that they purchased elsewhere or received for free. That being said, I very much agree about trusting readers to be smart enough to judge a review for themselves. If we can spot a questionable review, then they certainly can, too.

Also to add, even if individual reviews themselves are questionable I find that trends are much less so. If multiple people are complaining that characters are shallow, I'm more likely to pay attention than if it's a lone voice out of one hundred (assuming the one hundred don't scream "fake" of course .

As for trolls, everyone is going to have their own definition of what that means. I don't want to see anyone criminally harassed. At the same time, I don't want to see the masses unjustly punished just because someone else has a thin skin.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Ok I am LOLing right now and cant help but liking Blakebooks take on it. do we have a like or star button for posts or is that only facebook?

I see both sides on this. I truly do. I think its sad that people think its fun or funny to bash or attack an author. I think Blakebookshas a good idea but as has been pointed out how do you account for people who buy from physical stores or borrow from the library?


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Cini: I'd take that risk. Why? Because to me, a review on Amazon limited to what Amazon verified purchasers think of it is just fine. If I lose reviewers who got it at the library, fine, because the tradeoff would mean a much more potentially truthful review system. Right now you can leave the same basic review for 50 books because you feel like it, or are a mental defective, or are 12 and giggling as you do so. I've seen those. Gotten those. You click on the ID and it's the same review for page after page. It's obvious the person never read any of the books in question, and yet they drag down the rating. Who is served by that? 

There's no one solution fixes everything for everyone answer, so the answer I'd prefer is the one that most limits the likelihood of fake reviews, positive or negative. Having a review system nobody believes is worse than having one where people browsing the site sponsoring the forum for the reviews, who might have gotten a book at the library, can't leave their opinions. My logic is that since Amazon saw no revenue from that person for that product, they didn't contribute to the infrastructure that supports the forum in the first place for that product, and thus, aren't entitled to leave a review of that product - they didn't buy the right, so to speak.

But nobody's asking my opinion. It's an imperfect world. Good people sometimes do bad things, and bad people routinely get away with doing worse things. I just am of the opinion that petitions are useless ways for the powerless to feel like they actually did something, when in fact they did nothing but sign their possibly real, or not, name. As such, they're a waste of everyone's energy.

I'll be creating a petition to end online petitions shortly. Be sure to sign it.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Now I can agree that using a screen name is better than anonymous.


Does Amazon even allow truly anonymous reviews? I know B&N do, but I thought you had to have at least a screen name on Ammy.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Russell as always you make perfect sense.  I can always say you are fabulous on facebook and goodreads.  Though I think I am gonna have to knock you down a star. Your new book is taking too long to arrive.  I mean I ordered it last week.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

The keyword in Russel's post is "tradeoff" (or is that two words?)

If readers see fewer reviews but can trust them, who wins? We all do, including Amazon (and,in the end, Amazon will do what's good for Amazon)

Re screen names: I would suppose the petition meant whatever name is on the Amazon customer's credit card, no?
If I set up an account called "Tweedledee" and leave useless reviews, how's that helping anyone? Reviewers ARE using screen names now.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Hey Russell, You've always had lots of good advice on these boards but this is one issue we strongly disagree on. You say losing unverified reviews wouldn't hurt you - and you are right - they would not hurt someone at your level of success. But removing the ability to get reviews for giving out free copies would hurt us writers who are just starting - and hurt us a lot. It's hard enough to get reviews when you are starting out as it is. At your level of success you don't have to worry about chasing down people to get reviews - they come naturally. 

In fact it is hard to understand why you have such a strong opinion on this one since even with fake reviews they can't be more than a blip on the radar for someone at your level. Have sales really ever tanked the day after somebody posted something that you knew was a fake review?

You say the review system is broken and that reviewers don't trust it - but I fail to see anyone providing any real evidence of that. The review system is a big part of what made Amazon the giant that it is. The bestseller lists are populated with books with lots of reviews, suggesting people still do value reviews (or at least the statistics showing rating and number of reviews) in picking books.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Quiss said:


> If readers see fewer reviews but can trust them, who wins? We all do, including Amazon (and,in the end, Amazon will do what's good for Amazon)


But what evidence is there that readers trust reviews less now than in previous years? We as a writing community are tuned into ever instance and article about fake reviews and trolling - but does the mass reading public really know or care?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Quiss said:


> The keyword in Russel's post is "tradeoff" (or is that two words?)
> 
> If readers see fewer reviews but can trust them, who wins? We all do, including Amazon (and,in the end, Amazon will do what's good for Amazon)
> 
> ...


Amazon has my name. Why does everyone need my name? 
Ok here is the thing and I am using Quiss as an example only.
Let's say I buy your book at Amazon. Let's say I don't like it and give you a one star review. Now you have a fan by the name of John Smith. John decides that 1 star reviewer needs taught a lesson. He puts me in the hospital and poked my eyes out so I cannot read anymore.
Who should be responsible for the attack? John or Quiss? 
Can you guarantee your readers safety if the reviewers names are revealed?
Just something to think about.

Not that I could really give Quiss a bad review but you all see my point.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

1. I think it's ludicrous to force reviewers to use their real name; I would never support that. 
2. With all due respect, Russel, I can't agree with you about verified reviews. In practice it's nice, but you are well past the point of needing ARC's for promotion. Debut and newer authors NEED those unverified reviews to get started. 
3. There's talk of tradeoffs in this thread; but I think we already have one. The current system is a tradeoff just as much as any other system that could be incorporated.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Daniel: It wasn't so long ago that I was just starting out. And here's what I'll share: the convenience for you of loading up on positive reviews by unverified reviewers is outweighed by the damage it does to the integrity of the system. Yes, it would be a drag if you had to not only give away ARCs, but think up a creative way to make it worth the reviewer's time to buy the book and become verified. I mean, it would be harder. More trouble for you. But in my opinion a system shouldn't be set up based on whatever makes it easiest for some subsection to get reviews with the least amount of effort. It should be set up based on what will ensure the integrity of the system.

The reason you disagree is not because it wouldn't strengthen the integrity of the system. It's because it would make it harder for you to get reviews. I'd prefer, regardless of what stage I am in my sales growth, to have a system with real integrity than a virtually worthless one that's really easy to game, but consequently easy for me to get reviews. One has value. The other has less.

As to how we know that readers tend to view the Amazon review system as broken and lacking integrity, articles have been written about it, surveys have been done. I don't have time to dig them up, but they've been posted. I remember commenting on them at the time.

And KB: As stated above, I was not too long ago just starting out. I didn't NEED ARCs. I didn't do them. I think you mean it's EASIER to get reviews with ARCs, not that you NEED it to be easier, hence your self-interest in whatever is the easiest thing for you overrides strengthening the system so it has integrity. I'm okay with you stating that, but it's not about what authors _need_. I have many friends who are successful indies now, who started around the same time I did, and virtually none of them used the ARC thing. And yet here they are. To me it's yet another argument for entitlements: "I'm entitled to reviews, my readers who didn't want to buy the book are entitled to affect the review rating, and anything that makes that entitlement hard or impossible is bad, even if it's actually good for the system." Again, I find that a shortsighted, hollow stance based entirely on short-term self-interest, which gladly trades integrity for ease of obtaining reviews, legit or not.

So on this we must disagree. Nobody owes us anything. There are no entitlements. And what makes it easiest for me to get reviews shouldn't determine the integrity of the system. It should be what's best for the integrity of the system. Otherwise we become no better than special interests that lobby constantly for whatever is best for them, even if it's worse for society. Then again, we get the system of government we deserve, so perhaps I'll leave that alone and sign off. As it is, though, your or my wishes mean nothing, as nobody's asking.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> There's no one solution fixes everything for everyone answer, so the answer I'd prefer is the one that most limits the likelihood of fake reviews, positive or negative.


I'm going to chime in to agree with this very reasonable opinion. Verified purchasers of your book, using any screen name they choose, should be the only ones to review. If they return the book, their review should be deleted. Yes, this would reduce total reviews dramatically, but as BlakeBooks said, increase the veracity of those that are there. People could still scam the system, but it would be a lot more expensive and complex to do so. As far as giving away books to get reviews, you can still do that via gifting; this counts as a verified purchase on Azon's system. The gifting expense, which only amounts to 30% of the cost of the book, would just be another cost of doing business (and still cheaper than sending free paper books to reviewers as was done in the pre-digital era).

Note that Amazon does not have to use this same system for reviews of all their products, just books (although I would argue it should be done for movies, music, and apps, i.e. all "creative" products).


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Using the word "bully" for angrily disappointed reviews is disturbing to me. Applying such a serious label to somebody's opinion of a book (no matter how vitriolically expressed) diminishes the seriousness of REAL bullying, such as that faced by gay kids, to provide one example of true, destructive bullying out of many.

However, That Website, which published the names, home addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, and children's names of readers on Goodreads who had dared to express a negative opinion of books, and then encouraged people to harass those readers, most definitely is bullying. That Website is associated with this petition. I'd think very carefully if you want to declare that you're in support of a group that attempts to terrorize readers into silence.  It's not a group of people I'd ever ally myself with, personally.

In short: bad reviews are not bullying. Period. Real people commit suicide and have their lives otherwise ruined by real bullying. It is unjust to compare a pissed-off reader's rant to something that causes the deaths of other human beings.


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

According to Anne Rice, it was posters from an Amazon discussion board who actually posted a list of authors who signed the petition. Supposedly so the trolls could retaliate by targeting these authors' books.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hey Russell, another quick question.  I have most of your first books.  I picked them up at Amazon when they were free.  If I review them, would that be a legitimate review in your opinion?  
Come to think of it, I got them about a year before I ever met you.  
So I am curious should perma-free or 5 day select freebies get reviews?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Mandy said:


> According to Anne Rice, it was posters from an Amazon discussion board who actually posted a list of authors who signed the petition. Supposedly so the trolls could retaliate by targeting these authors' books.


Anne Rice is allies in this petition with a group that has done far worse than that, as ElHawk has just posted.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> And KB: I was not too long ago just starting out. I didn't need ARCs. I didn't do them. I think you mean it's EASIER to get reviews with ARCs, not that you NEED it to be easier, hence your self-interest in the easiest thing for you overrides strengthening the system so it has integrity. I'm okay with you stating that, but it's not about what authors need. I have many friends who are successful indies now, who started around the same time I did, and virtually none of them used the ARC thing. And yet here they are. To me it's yet another argument for entitlements: I'm entitled to reviews, my readers who didn't want to buy the book are entitled to affect the review rating, and anything that makes that entitlement hard or impossible is bad, even if it's actually good for the system. Again, I find that a shortsighted, hollow stance based entirely on short-term self-interest, which gladly trades integrity for ease of obtaining reviews, legit or not.


Self interest? Jesus. It's not about me, it's about the countless authors who HAVE had their careers jumpstarted with the assistance of ARC's. I've always been very prone to listen to and absorb your advice, but I don't agree with you on this subject.

Entitlement - Self-interest - Integrity - 
Whatever.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Maria Romana said:


> As far as giving away books to get reviews, you can still do that via gifting; this counts as a verified purchase on Azon's system. The gifting expense, which only amounts to 30% of the cost of the book, would just be another cost of doing business (and still cheaper than sending free paper books to reviewers as was done in the pre-digital era).


I had forgotten about the 'gifting' function, but it doesn't work for ARC's because the book has to be live in order to gift it.


ElHawk said:


> Using the word "bully" for angrily disappointed reviews is disturbing to me. Applying such a serious label to somebody's opinion of a book (no matter how vitriolically expressed) diminishes the seriousness of REAL bullying, such as that faced by gay kids, to provide one example of true, destructive bullying out of many.
> 
> However, That Website, which published the names, home addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, and children's names of readers on Goodreads who had dared to express a negative opinion of books, and then encouraged people to harass those readers, most definitely is bullying. That Website is associated with this petition. I'd think very carefully if you want to declare that you're in support of a group that attempts to terrorize readers into silence. It's not a group of people I'd ever ally myself with, personally.
> 
> In short: bad reviews are not bullying. Period. Real people commit suicide and have their lives otherwise ruined by real bullying. It is unjust to compare a p*ssed-off reader's rant to something that causes the deaths of other human beings.


I think the word is being used towards those who post negative reviews for books they haven't read because of something an author did or said. Or just out of spite. Still, I agree that it's a sensitive word and should be used only when it's truly applicable.


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

Could someone please PM me the link to the original Amazon discussion board topic that started all this mess? The one with the trolls allegedly bullying authors? I'm just curious since Anne Rice has been hawking the petition every single day.

I certainly understand the community of authors wanting to do away with being targeted by trolls, but I don't think forcing reviewers to use their real names is the answer. Forcing customers to use their real name is going to greatly diminish the reviews you do get. However, some repercussions should absolutely be in place for trolling/bullying behavior, such as a temporary ban as a warning, and a permanent ban when repeated warnings are ignored.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

No need for a PM. Here it is. http://www.amazon.com/forum/meet%20our%20authors/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2UYC1FC06SU8S&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx161FOLX8OXP8L

I was in the thread and really all I've been asking is for people to do their homework, read through some of it, and decide for yourself whether this was bullying or just a series of discussions (even arguments).


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Maria: Well said.

EL: I believe that the tactics you describe amount to persecution, not bullying. The site in question, assuming it does what you say, is persecuting readers. Whether those readers deserve it or not is a different question - that site apparently believes that they do, just as some reviewers apparently believe that some authors deserve persecution via the review system. I'm sure there are #sshats on both sides of this - sh#tty reviewers who delight in abusing their ability to review, and sh#tty authors and author groups who abuse whatever they can to chill free expression of opinion. So I'm all in favor of limiting reviews to those who have paid with their hard earned cash for the product, who have earned the right to make their opinion known with their wallet, and leave the rest of them to bait and hate each other, as humans have been doing since time immemorial, elsewhere. 

Cinisa: If you downloaded the book in an Amazon approved manner, you earned the right to make your opinion known on Amazon via a review, as far as I'm concerned.

KB: It seems that you know countless authors who have had their careers jumpstarted with ARCs. I know very few. I'd suggest that if it was that big a deal, they could gift the book to their fan base the day it releases to achieve the same result in my scheme. Be that as it may, I do think that the integrity of the review system is one thing, and what makes it easiest for authors to start careers is another entirely different thing. It's not being on a high horse to understand that having an approach that denigrates the integrity of the system so a special interest group (in this case, beginning authors who NEED advance review copies to jumpstart their careers) can more easily achieve their narrow, self-interested objective, is, well, bad, in my opinion, regardless of how it helps that special interest group achieve its objective. I'd argue that it's not a high horse at all - it's divorcing my special interest needs from the question of what would best ensure a review system with integrity. What's best for the special interest group is not best for the system. That's the fundamental problem and the reason we disagree. I can keep them separate. But it's not human nature to do so, and so we have these objections.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

I'm releasing a list as well:

1. Hot dogs
2. Hamburgers
3. Nachos
4. French fries
5. Chips and dip

If you're on the above list and AREN'T offended then I sincerely apologize.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

I find everyone discussing the pros and cons very informative. I can see the positive in having a strong reviewing item where you are assured the person DID purchase that item and read it.  

At the same time I see the draw backs where someone who maybe got the book at a library or ARC or a bookstore ends up cut off from writing that review.

My biggest thing is I would like to see a firmer stance on the reviews that are not reviews. The ones that go into the threatening territory. I feel one is free to criticize a book if they want as badly as they want but when that person makes the review a personal attack on the author maybe because they dont like an ending or they have an opposing view of some personal issue, I find that going to far.

So I guess that leaves me to wonder which is better? A more closed, controlled review system where the reviewer is REQUIRED to have purchased that item and supposedly read it or an open one where you dont have to prove any ownership of anything (or that you read it) and can say whatever?  Quite a quandary eh? I do wish there could be some middle ground where everyone could be happy but I guess that is wishful thinking.


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> No need for a PM. Here it is. http://www.amazon.com/forum/meet%20our%20authors/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2UYC1FC06SU8S&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx161FOLX8OXP8L
> 
> I was in the thread and really all I've been asking is for people to do their homework, read through some of it, and decide for yourself whether this was bullying or just a series of discussions (even arguments).


Thank you! I saw that Betsy had been removing some links so I wasn't sure if this was one of them.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

K.B. Nelson said:


> Self interest? Jesus. It's not about me, it's about the countless authors who HAVE had their careers jumpstarted with the assistance of ARC's. I've always been very prone to listen to and absorb your advice, but I don't agree with you on this subject.
> 
> Entitlement - Self-interest - Integrity -
> Whatever.


I'm okay with my self-interest. HUGE freaking ocean versus little old minnow me? If I want to keep swimming, I can't think about what's best for everyone.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

I have to basically agree with Russell.  Amazon does not exist to make life easy for self-publishers.  They provide a platform that has given self-publishers a great opportunity, but they do not (and should not) model their customer-directed systems about what self-publishers want.  While I understand why someone would want to have a hand-picked group of people post reviews immediately upon release, it is hardly a legitimate argument for a decision either way about the rules of reviewing on Amazon.  There are sites like Goodreads where people can post reviews of books they've bought elsewhere (or didn't buy/read at all).  But it seems likely that the restriction would do a lot to squeeze out some of the illegitimate reviews.  People can still hate a book, but at least they bought the thing (and hopefully read at least some of it).  Restricting reviews to purchasers can only increase the overall integrity of the system.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

This is definitely an interesting conversation. I have one thing to add about the gifted copies: They don't show up as a verified purchase. Last year, an author gifted me a copy of his book. When I left the review, it didn't show anything about it being a verified purchase. Perhaps because it wasn't me that bought it. Either way, gifting copies wouldn't solve the problem if Amazon got rid of reviews that weren't verified.

On Facebook, a book reviewer posted that she heard Amazon was removing reviews that had the word ARC in it. She was telling all reviewers to make sure their reviews said "I received a copy in exchange for a review" and take out the word ARC. I don't know if that is true or not. But I have a hard time believing that simply because the big publishers hand out so many ARCs.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Reviews on free works are fine? What kind of possible verification could there be on free works? You download the book, and wham, you're entitled to review? That's not going to stop 'bullying' on free books. So I guess what you mean to say is that we should only have restrictions on paid books.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Mandy said:


> Thank you! I saw that Betsy had been removing some links so I wasn't sure if this was one of them.


No, that was not one that was removed....various blogposts and FB links. At least the Amazon links are "original source" so to speak.

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Well if you trust the reviewer, you could just send them a gift card to purchase your book.  Yes, I know that opens an entire other can of worms.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Well if you trust the reviewer, you could just send them a gift card to purchase your book. Yes, I know that opens an entire other can of worms.


And again, that wouldn't help with ARC's that are in fact, advance review copies. I agree that there are problems with the system, I just don't think it needs to fixed with these aggressive tactics. As most of us are aware, readers tend to be smart enough to sniff out the true vs false, or malicious reviews.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Well if you trust the reviewer, you could just send them a gift card to purchase your book. Yes, I know that opens an entire other can of worms.


Hah, just as easy to email it to them and say "if you like it, tell a friend."


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

I don't understand why some authors would prefer Amazon allow reviews only from verified purchases. I'm genuinely curious - is bullying really that big of an issue with SP authors? How many have received reviews or comments that were not just a bad review, but a clear form of bullying? How many of these nasty reviews are from unverified purchases? The thing is, we readers can almost always spot the malicious reviews and we don't give them any credence. I don't consider verified purchase reviews any more credible or valuable than unverified purchase reviews. It's easy to tell which reviews are sincere and that's all that matters to me. I leave reviews on products I didn't purchase from Amazon because they impacted me enough -whether positively or negatively- to share my experience. I think Amazon's got a pretty good system in place, and, instead of punishing all its' customers by placing restrictions or forcing customers to reveal personal identification, it would be best if they come up with a way to target the true abusers who are few among Amazon's millions of customers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> As to how we know that readers tend to view the Amazon review system as broken and lacking integrity, articles have been written about it, surveys have been done. I don't have time to dig them up, but they've been posted. I remember commenting on them at the time.


Perhaps someone can post these articles and surveys?

Most of what I see here about customer attitudes toward the Amazon review system is:
1 Speculation 
2. 
3. Appeals to #2 above.
4. Conclusion


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

K.B. Nelson said:


> Reviews on free works are fine? What kind of possible verification could there be on free works? You download the book, and wham, you're entitled to review? That's not going to stop 'bullying' on free books. So I guess what you mean to say is that we should only have restrictions on paid books.


Since I am the queen of freebies, I will answer you. Whether I pay $0.00 or $5.40, it shows up as a verified purchase. I could have easily got it on special or permafree.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

K.B. Nelson said:


> And again, that wouldn't help with ARC's that are in fact, advance review copies. I agree that there are problems with the system, I just don't think it needs to fixed with these aggressive tactics. As most of us are aware, readers tend to be smart enough to sniff out the true vs false, or malicious reviews.


Well, you could still give someone a free ARC copy before publishing and then give them the suggested gift certificate to buy on the day of release. And yes, as Cinisajoy pointed out, that is indeed a sticky wicket, but no less so than the mess we've got now.

I also have to disagree with the characterization of such a change as an "aggressive tactic". I know Smashwords is small potatoes next to Amazon, but they have always had such a policy with their reviews, and many other online retailers do the same. It's not really a crazy idea.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Since I am the queen of freebies, I will answer you. Whether I pay $0.00 or $5.40, it shows up as a verified purchase. I could have easily got it on special or permafree.


That was my point. Since you have to have an Amazon account to download free books, and to review a product, the only extra step to leave a review on a free book is to click the download button. That's not verification in any true sense.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

Rae Scott said:


> I am not sure how I feel about Amazon releasing the names of authors to the general public but I am starting to see a LOT of backlash from people on Facebook and they are saying they will NEVER shop Amazon again for books or ANYTHING... It makes me wonder if there will be a significant drop in sales in the coming months from Amazon.
> 
> Thoughts?


My thought?

There will not be a significant drop in sales in the coming months from Amazon.

There are millions of people who don't know anything about this petition. We authors are a hysterical bunch who throw things way out of proportion.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

K.B. Nelson said:


> That was my point. Since you have to have an Amazon account to download free books, and to review a product, the only extra step to leave a review on a free book is to click the download button. That's not verification in any true sense.


Ok then let me ask you this, if not for exposure why should an author make his book free? Either temp or perma. 
Oh and yes for better or worse, I have been given books strictly for my opinion. I prefer picking them up when they are free for everyone, that way no one is out anything except for my time.
Now if I beta read a book I won't review it.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Okay, now you know that "PeachTree Reviews" is really Sally Henderson, now what?  I'm really trying to understand what knowing the reviewers real name is going to do, except inhibit reviewers from reviewing any books--positively or negatively--at all. 

Does this anonymity then extend to authors? No more pseudonyms? I'm seeing this as a very slippery slope.  

If there is "actual" stalking and harrassing going on, can't you just contact Amazon--who btw has their real name, address and cc#--and see what they can do to help?


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Ok then let me ask you this, if not for exposure why should an author make his book free? Either temp or perma.
> Oh and yes for better or worse, I have been given books strictly for my opinion. I prefer picking them up when they are free for everyone, that way no one is out anything except for my time.
> Now if I beta read a book I won't review it.


I understand why authors make their books free (limited or permanent), I'm just saying the 'verification' that some users here are pushing for wouldn't work for free books, because you're always a mouseclick away from being able to leave a negative review. A review on a paid book requires cash. Good or bad, the system wouldn't prevent any reviewer from leaving a review on a free book whereas it would place restrictions on paid.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

I propose that from now on, Amazon only allow a review of a book by the author of the book.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> We authors are a hysterical bunch who throw things way out of proportion.


Pretty much


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> I propose that from now on, Amazon only allow a review of a book by the author of the book.


But only if he or she purchased it from Amazon.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> But only if he or she purchased it from Amazon.


And the review MUST be written when the author has a verified blood alcohol level above 0.10.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Quite honestly I don't care how or why people review.  I'm all for choice.  The only reviews I have issues with are:

- reviews by (or paid by) authors with the purpose of gaming the system in any way
- reviews that are against a site's TOS (assuming said site enforces them)
- reviews that are blatantly, criminally threatening (and no "I hate you for writing this book" is not one)

Beyond that, I'm not in the business of telling people how they should do these things. I'm in the business of writing stories. It's up to everyone else to decide whether they love or hate them/me and how they want to express that.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> And the review MUST be written when the author has a verified blood alcohol level above 0.10.


And used a fingerprint scanner to validate identity!


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

If I were the queen of everything

Have Amazon let authors create coupons for specific books.
Author sends an ARC to reviewers
Reviewer reads book
Author publishes book and on that day sends a coupon for the book to the reviewer that read the ARC.
Reviewer downloads a copy of the book and posts a perfectly legit review asap, using whatever name they darn well want to call themselves.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Mandy said:


> I'm genuinely curious - is bullying really that big of an issue with SP authors?


The answer, in my estimation, is that it is NOT a big issue. Not for self-published authors. Not for traditionally published authors like Anne Rice. Not for ANY authors.

Look, I'm not going to deny that there are negative reviews out there that occasionally drift into questionable territory, but the standards for deciding whether a review qualifies as bullying or not should be a lot higher than "It hurt my feelings." Bullying is defined as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively impose domination over others." Are authors REALLY claiming that large numbers of negative reviews meet this definition? Because I have been on the receiving end of plenty of 1 star reviews, and I cannot think of a one that demonstrates any of these characteristics. I have never, ever felt that a reviewer was trying to exert domination over me by virtue of expressing distaste for my book. They just didn't like it. And, you know, that's okay. And I couldn't give a rat's ass whether the person expressing that opinion is a verified purchaser, uses his/her real name, or goes to church on Sunday. None of it is relevant.

Yes, there's lots of concern expressed that some reviewers are "out to get" self-published authors or that people post negative reviews because they have a vendetta against the author. Others firmly believe many of their negative reviews come from "jealous" fellow authors who are trying to one-bomb their books into oblivion. Personally, I feel that's mostly malarkey. I'm inclined to think most readers don't give two shits about my career; they just want to read a book they enjoy. If they don't enjoy it, they have the right to say so.

(And, by the way, I'll also add that although I wouldn't leave a review for ENDER'S GAME because I haven't read it, I have no problem with other reviewers giving the book one star because they don't like Orson Scott Card's position on homosexuality/same sex marriage. That's relevant information to some people, who might prefer not to buy books written by a raging homophobe. I think reviews that suggest readers steer clear of a book so as to not support behavior/political opinions they find offensive are perfectly reasonable.)

Is it possible for reviews to cross the line into bullying? Sure. But IMO, the onus is on authors who claim to have received such reviews to show that they ARE being bullied. Just SAYING it doesn't make it so. And I believe if authors alert Amazon to reviews that are genuinely threatening, Amazon will remove them. There's really no need for a petition. If you're bullied in a review, contact Amazon and make your case.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I am one click away from a paid  book too.
So how is it harder?


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> "I hate you for writing this book"


I'm waiting to get one of those reviews from the pope, but so far I haven't sold a copy on Amazon Italy.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> I am one click away from a paid book too.
> So how is it harder?


You have to push the key slightly harder for a paid download.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I am one click away from a paid book too.
> So how is it harder?


Because you're paying for it. In a recent example, that women who bashed J.K. Rowling and now has hundreds of one star reviews on her books, most of those wouldn't exist because they would have to pay to bash her. If her book was free, all those reviews would still exist under the proposed system.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Or Amazon could only allow one person to review books: Chuck Norris.


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

K.B. Nelson said:


> Because you're paying for it. In a recent example, that women who bashed J.K. Rowling and now has hundreds of one star reviews on her books, most of those wouldn't exist because they would have to pay to bash her. If her book was free, all those reviews would still exist under the proposed system.


Not that it makes those drive-by 1 star reviews right, but she is a public figure and should have thought twice about openly bashing a well-known and beloved author for pretty much no reason. The backlash was inevitable. Wrong, but inevitable.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Mandy said:


> Not that it makes those drive-by 1 star reviews right, but she is a public figure and should have thought twice about openly bashing a well-known and beloved author for pretty much no reason. The backlash was inevitable. Wrong, but inevitable.


Oh no, I agree. I was just using it as an example to point out that the system wouldn't work as well for paid and free books if verification was required. When I said that the loss of ARC reviews would harm debut authors, I was told I was sacrificing integrity for the betterment of the system, and that I didn't want to lose those reviews because of self-interest.

But then, there's this flaw in the proposed system that would still allow anyone (without paying anything) to freely review a free book, whether or not they read it (just clicking the download button). That's okay though. And that sounds like self-interest to me.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

I recently reviewed _The Sun Also Rises_. I read that one in 1977.


----------



## Alessandra Kelley (Feb 22, 2011)

K.B. Nelson said:


> And again, that wouldn't help with ARC's that are in fact, advance review copies. I agree that there are problems with the system, I just don't think it needs to fixed with these aggressive tactics. As most of us are aware, readers tend to be smart enough to sniff out the true vs false, or malicious reviews.


Ooh, flattery. (Yep, if you look at my signature, I point out that I am not an author. I am in fact a reader. Why am I hanging around here? Ehhh, long story.)

Anyhow, I have no idea if I'm a typical reader or not. But I do apply my intelligence and judgement to reviews. Obvious malice tends to make me roll my eyes. If something is snarky but I know nothing about the reviewer, I am likely to give it little weight. Salient facts about the reviewed book or other product may get my attention, but not necessarily in the way the reviewer intended.

I use my thinker, is what I mean, and I suspect a lot of other potential buyers do too.

I get a lot of my book recommendations from people I know and trust, or publications I know and trust. But reviews are still very important to me. They are how I find surprises, serendipity, and things my friends didn't already know about.

Removing reviews, I suspect, would leave customers and readers at a loss, and removing unfavorable reviews will make us trust all reviews less. It won't magically make us buy more books.

We aren't opponents here. We are all interested in getting good books into the hands of readers.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Everyone: Note that I'm not suggesting getting rid of negative reviews, or outing peoples' information. Quite the opposite, I'm saying get rid of all reviews that aren't verified purchases, both positive and negative, leaving only those that legitimately downloaded the product from Amazon. That seems easy to do, sensible, and like a reasoned step: You want to review on a product? Prove you got it here. Otherwise, scram, and review it wherever you got it, or on one of the countless sites that will allow you to post your views.

KB: No system would be perfect. But if the system sees that a book that was downloaded for free, I'd say it is treated as a purchase/download for the purpose of determining whether it's verified - exactly as it does now. Because it conforms to the Amazon guidelines of a verified purchase. The reviews I dislike are the ones, positive or negative, where the reviewer didn't even bother to do that. 

Other than what is clearly self-interest to preserve the ARC advantage you believe authors need, what reason do you have for not wanting the integrity of the system to be as good as possible? I'm curious. Every objection I've heard boils down to, "I didn't download at Amazon but I want to express my views on their site," for which I can find no justification other than a sense of entitlement, and "I want to be able to have my coterie of advance reviewers leave reviews on the site, thereby affecting the rating and hopefully buying me an advantage," using the ARCs, which is purely driven by self-interest - hard to argue it isn't.

Now, you may take umbrage for me calling it like I see it, i.e. preserving that loophole being a self-interested desire driven by wanting to affect visibility via plentiful, presumably positive reviews. And that's your right, which I don't begrudge you. We can disagree and I'm fine with that. But other than entitlement or self-interest, what other reason is there for wanting to maintain a system that's largely broken, as in lacking integrity?

Look, you can go on Fiverr right now and hire someone to write torpedo reviews to drive down ratings on a book. The reason there are people offering to do that is because there's money to be made doing it. So the inference is that it's happening every day.

How is the veracity and integrity of the review system helped by that being easy as throwing five bucks at the problem? In other words, you can buy Fiverr reviews for your books that are glowing five star, and against your hated enemies or rivals that are one star, both improving your rating, and dragging down their rating. How is the discovery process helped by that being simple and easy? How is it desirable to keep it so, so that a small segment of people (beginning authors) can get more positive reviews via ARCs? How is the integrity of the system improved by that being the current state of affairs, and why would anyone believe that most positive reviews AREN'T that, on a beginning author's work? I contend this system as it exists hurts authors, because it paints everyone with a broad brush of doubt, and lessens the impact of a genuine review, just as a counterfeit dollar reduces the value of all other dollars in circulation - it calls them all into question, and creates something that's supposed to have value, and is passed off as such, but which doesn't in actuality have any.

Note I'm not dissing ARCs. I just haven't found them to be necessary. At any point in my career, even when starting out. What I found was that if you wrote books that resonated with your audience, they told friends and left positive reviews, and at some point that snowballed. I did ARCs on one book, and it was after I was selling tens of thousands per month, and I noticed no net effect, so I don't bother. Or I should say I went back to not bothering. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm leaving huge money on the table. Dunno. I'm okay with that risk.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Everyone: Note that I'm not suggesting getting rid of negative reviews, or outing peoples' information. Quite the opposite, I'm saying get rid of all reviews that aren't verified purchases, both positive and negative, leaving only those that legitimately downloaded the product from Amazon. That seems easy to do, sensible, and like a reasoned step: You want to review on a product? Prove you got it here. Otherwise, scram, and review it wherever you got it, or on one of the countless sites that will allow you to post your views.


That is an easy, sensible, and reasonable way for Amazon to manage their review feature. But it is not the only sensible and reasonable way to do it.

The idea seems similar to all the calls we heard a few years ago for filters that would keep KDP from becoming a tsunami of crap. People were concerned consumers would shun KDP, the integrity of the collection would suffer, and the professional class authors would be smeared by association with books they considered of lesser quality. I have heard the same objections to having me at a dinner party.

Another reasonable way to manage is to treat it as a free market and see where the social interaction of millions of people leads without favoring any particular self-interest.

Amazon is far more concerned with catering to consumers rather than suppliers. If they determine consumer dissatisfaction with reviews is affecting sales, they might change things. But integrity of the system? What does that mean?.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> That is an easy, sensible, and reasonable way for Amazon to manage their review feature. But it is not the only sensible and reasonable way to do it.
> 
> The idea seems similar to all the calls we heard a few years ago for filters that would keep KDP from becoming a tsunami of crap. People were concerned with the integrity of the collection and the potential for being smeared by association with books they considered of lesser quality. I have heard the same objections to having me at a dinner party.
> 
> ...


Yes, but that assumes that totally unregulated content is in the best interest of Amazon (by way of providing the most useful resource to customers). But this isn't true. For example, I hesitate to imagine what KB would be like without the mods. Certainly not much of a resource for anything but studying petty squabbles that get nasty.

I'm a free speech fan...if you want to go out to a street corner and scream that a book you never read is crap (because the author annoyed you on some message board or just because your inner demons are running wild) then go for it. But that doesn't give you automatic access to Amazon's proprietary web site or its review system. I've seen complaints about how more requirements might interfere with indie marketing activities (legitimate or otherwise...honestly, it would affect both). But I haven't seen anything to suggest that it wouldn't tend to clean up the reviews and make them a better resource for readers.

The likelihood of someone buying a book elsewhere, reading it, and then going to Amazon to post a review is very small. I'd submit the vast majority of reviews posted on Amazon by non-buyers (on Amazon) are bogus in some way. Yes, there are probably some that are legit, but I seriously doubt there are all that many.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Jay,  I buy 99% of trad authors at the thrift store.  Would you object to me reviewing them with the video feature to prove I have the book? 
Seriously they usually have so many reviews that I usually don't bother.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

My take as a newbie here and as a long-time Amazon customer is they shouldn't require a real name. No other side does. I fail to see the point.

However, I do think if the purchase isn't verified, the seller (in this case, us) should have the option to pull unverified reviews. Sure, it might weed out negative reviews that were indeed legitimate from other sites, but if the user wants to voice their opinion in a manner which will remain on Amazon a verified purchase should be required.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Jay, I buy 99% of trad authors at the thrift store. Would you object to me reviewing them with the video feature to prove I have the book?
> Seriously they usually have so many reviews that I usually don't bother.


If every case was reviewed one on one, no, of course I wouldn't. But that's not feasible for Amazon to do in this case. And removing your legitimate review along with a dozen illegitimate ones actually improves the quality of the data set.

It's not people like you that are the problem, but I'd wager a much larger cross-section of non-verified reviews are in some way bogus or poor quality (again, I am NOT saying that is true of yours).

To be clear, Amazon does not seem to have an issue with this. I have a one star review that starts with, "I haven't read the book, but..." and goes into an incoherent rant, and they still wouldn't remove it. So all this is speculation on ways Amazon could change their policies to improve the quality of the review system.

Trying to keep a system from being corrupted is not easy.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Yes, but that assumes that totally unregulated content is in the best interest of Amazon (by way of providing the most useful resource to customers). But this isn't true. For example, I hesitate to imagine what KB would be like without the mods. Certainly not much of a resource for anything but studying petty squabbles that get nasty.


It doesn't assume anything. Amazon can determine if it is in their best interests. Nothing stops them. There is no need to apply the practices of KB to Amazon.



> But that doesn't give you automatic access to Amazon's proprietary web site or its review system.


Agree. Nothing gives access to Amazons proprietary web site other than Amazon. Its their decision.



> The likelihood of someone buying a book elsewhere, reading it, and then going to Amazon to post a review is very small. I'd submit the vast majority of reviews posted on Amazon by non-buyers (on Amazon) are bogus in some way. Yes, there are probably some that are legit, but I seriously doubt there are all that many.


I don't know. Anyone know?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Daniel Dennis said:


> My take as a newbie here and as a long-time Amazon customer is they shouldn't require a real name. No other side does. I fail to see the point.
> 
> However, I do think if the purchase isn't verified, the seller (in this case, us) should have the option to pull unverified reviews. Sure, it might weed out negative reviews that were indeed legitimate from other sites, but if the user wants to voice their opinion in a manner which will remain on Amazon a verified purchase should be required.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk




So, you would pull five star reviews that you didn't approve of as well as negative ones? 

Betsy


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

FYI, I also think that requiring real names would be a mistake.  I know that I, for one, would never post a review with my real name.  I started using the Internet once, but it wasn't yesterday.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> However, I do think if the purchase isn't verified, the seller (in this case, us) should have the option to pull unverified reviews.


Its easy to forget we aren't the sellers. Amazon is. The seller currently removes reviews at his discretion.



> FYI, I also think that requiring real names would be a mistake. I know that I, for one, would never post a review with my real name. I started using the Internet once, but it wasn't yesterday.


Then Federalist Papers were signed by Publius. Worked pretty well.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So, you would pull five star reviews that you didn't approve of as well as negative ones?
> 
> Betsy


No.

If the purchase is not verified, you have the option of removing. Meaning, you keep good ones and discard bad ones. And you have no control over verified purchases.

Sure, a bad review from someone who bought the book secondhand is going to happen. The only other reasonable alternative is to do away with unverified purchases, which no vendor wants to do.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Everyone: Note that I'm not suggesting getting rid of negative reviews, or outing peoples' information. Quite the opposite, I'm saying get rid of all reviews that aren't verified purchases, both positive and negative, leaving only those that legitimately downloaded the product from Amazon.


Amazon owns the spice, so they can do whatever they want. However, I certainly can't agree with this approach.



> The likelihood of someone buying a book elsewhere, reading it, and then going to Amazon to post a review is very small. I'd submit the vast majority of reviews posted on Amazon by non-buyers (on Amazon) are bogus in some way. Yes, there are probably some that are legit, but I seriously doubt there are all that many.


I have no idea what the actual number is, but I happen to personally know two 20-somethings who own a combined 1,000 or so books. Both have posted quite a few reviews on Amazon. Neither have bought more than two or three books from Amazon. They buy all of their books at the local used bookstore, where they can get them for much less than they can get them on Amazon.

I've also reviewed products on Amazon that I didn't purchase on Amazon. In fact, I don't rate products on any other sites at all. Everything I've ever bought from Overstock.com has been rated at Amazon.

Again, I don't know the numbers, but I like Amazon much better than I like Overstock.com or HomeDepot.com or other sites I buy from. The only site I've rated anything on beside Amazon.com is Angie's List.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Betsy - yes, for my part, I say all non-verified reviews should go, good or bad.  It's no better for the integrity of the system for 20 friends of a writer to post reviews without even buying the book than it is for drivebys to leave one stars because the author p*ssed them off on a message board.

No one would like to lose good reviews, but if we're being honest about making the system work the best it can, I think the net would be positive.

Remember, Amazon can't possibly have someone police the reviews the way you guys do KB.  There are lots of threads where a judgment call is made on whether it is inappropriate/incendiary/whatever.  That works well here, but isn't feasible on Amazon.  So if you're going to try to maintain the integrity of reviews, there's no way to do it but broad stroke methods.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Daniel Dennis said:


> No.
> 
> If the purchase is not verified, you have the option of removing. Meaning, you keep good ones and discard bad ones. And you have no control over verified purchases.
> 
> ...


You do realize that the author isn't the retailer, right? I mean, the author really shouldn't even be involved in the review process at any specific retailer's site. I also sell hard goods on Amazon through the Amazon Seller program. In the case of the seller program I'm the actual seller. The buyer can rate the PRODUCT that I sold them AND can rate me as the seller.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

What do the Federalist Papers have to do with wanting your real name posted on the Internet on a review?  I'd be willing to sign my name to important documents, less likely to do so on a review of a book on the Internet.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> What do the Federalist Papers have to do with wanting your real name posted on the Internet on a review? I'd be willing to sign my name to important documents, less likely to do so on a review of a book on the Internet.


It is an example of a very successful use of anonymous reviews and commentary.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Perhaps Amazon could require a sample of the reviewer's DNA.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> Perhaps Amazon could require a sample of the reviewer's DNA.


I was going to suggest dental records, but yours is more state of the art.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> I was going to suggest dental records, but yours is more state of the art.


If real names are required for reviews, how is Amazon supposed to obtain these "real names" or verify them?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> If real names are required for reviews, how is Amazon supposed to obtain these "real names" or verify them?


Duh. The NSA?


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> Duh. The NSA?


I guess. I mean... what are they going to do, require everyone who registers an account to produce a birth certificate and two forms of photo ID? I just don't understand how they would be able to confirm real names.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> I guess. I mean... what are they going to do, require everyone who registers an account to produce a birth certificate and two forms of photo ID? I just don't understand how they would be able to confirm real names.


Well, you have to use a credit card to open an account, so I guess the assumption is that the name on the card is your real name.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> It is an example of a very successful use of anonymous reviews and commentary.


Well, going back far less than 200+ years, most anonymous, unmoderated items on the Internet are examples of extremely unsuccessful uses of anonymous reviews and commentary. I think a political document drafted by a small group is hardly comparable to the Internet.

Nevertheless, I don't argue with the anonymous character of reviews; I simply suggest that they would be a better resource with somewhat tighter (and reasonable) requirements to post.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> Well, you have to use a credit card to open an account, so I guess the assumption is that the name on the card is your real name.


Not so. My youngest daughter, who is 21, has an Amazon account with MY credit card as the payment card. She doesn't own a credit card.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> Not so. My youngest daughter, who is 21, has an Amazon account with MY credit card as the payment card. She doesn't own a credit card.


As I said, the _assumption_ is that it's your real name. Assumptions can be wrong.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

This is getting silly.  The majority of accounts have the account-holder's name and address.  Yes, some might not.  But the vast majority will.  Simply pointing out that a small number will not is pointless and irrelevant to the overall discussion.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

The business model for sites like Amazon and Newegg includes reviews for obvious reasons. Newegg wants techies like me to review things I use regardless of whether they sold it or I bought it elsewhere. I don't see Amazon doing away with unverified reviews. It's an imperfect system. If I were Amazon, I'd take the hard line and tell people you opted to sell here under our review system. I think they'll take the approach that we need them more than they need us. Regardless, the whole thing sucks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LeeBee said:


> As I said, the _assumption_ is that it's your real name. Assumptions can be wrong.


So, if they use a credit card as verification, and the same credit card is on more than one account, how would that work. Couldn't Steve be accused of a sock puppet account?

Betsy


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> As I said, the _assumption_ is that it's your real name. Assumptions can be wrong.


But who is assuming that? Certainly not Amazon.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So, if they use a credit card as verification, and the same credit card is on more than one account, how would that work. Couldn't Steve be accused of a sock puppet account?
> 
> Betsy


Actually, three sock puppets, Betsy. My wife and both of my daughters, who are all adults, have accounts with MY credit card as the payment method. My oldest daughter doesn't even have her actual name on the account, she refuses to use her actual name or address online. And I've lived my whole life in Florida, but at Amazon I have two shipping addresses in Texas where I don't and haven't ever lived.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So, if they use a credit card as verification, and the same credit card is on more than one account, how would that work. Couldn't Steve be accused of a sock puppet account?
> 
> Betsy


Therein lies one of the inherent issues with the cry for reviewers to use "real" names. As Steve said, there's no way to verify that names are "real" built into the Amazon system, although I've seen other commenters mention the credit card thing I just repeated. But that is also not foolproof when someone is using another person's card to open the account. These illustrate some of the reasons that this campaign is not practicable.

I like the word "practicable." Sounds vaguely wrong, but isn't. (Kind of like myself.)


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Don't forget, Amazon sells gift cards. To the best of my knowledge you may not even need an account or credit card in their database to make a purchase using a gift card.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Daniel Dennis said:


> Don't forget, Amazon sells gift cards. To the best of my knowledge you may not even need an account or credit card in their database to make a purchase using a gift card.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Good point. Someone brought that up several days ago. Edited to amend: Not in this thread, but one of the various others that discussed reviews and Anne Rice's petition.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

By the way, I have a business seller account as well. Which is my "real name"? My given name, or the legal name of my Amazon business?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> By the way, I have a business seller account as well. Which is my "real name"? My given name, or the legal name of my Amazon business?


Silly. Everyone knows that your real name is what your mother calls you.


----------



## The world would be prettier with more zebra strip (Apr 20, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> So, if they use a credit card as verification, and the same credit card is on more than one account, how would that work. Couldn't Steve be accused of a sock puppet account?
> 
> Betsy


what about real names of readers that are actually names (or pen names) of authors too. That could potentially get those authors into trouble, and they do not even know it.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

LeeBee said:


> Silly. Everyone knows that your real name is what your mother calls you.


Azzhole?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

GearPress Steve said:


> Azzhole?


YMMV. (Your mother may vary.)


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I don't have a name.  Is that normal or when mom is mad?


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> I don't have a name. Is that normal or when mom is mad?


In that case, consult your birth certificate. Or the inscriptions in your high school yearbook.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> In that case, consult your birth certificate. Or the inscriptions in your high school yearbook.


I crawled out from under a rock and didn't get a yearbook.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

My yearbook staff slipped a couple of phony students into the yearbook. It was funny.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> I crawled out from under a rock and didn't get a yearbook.


Then if the rock is not your mother, you get to name yourself.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> Then if the rock is not your mother, you get to name yourself.


Hi I am cin is a _____ 
You can fill in the blank with the word of your choosing


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Hi I am cin is a _____
> You can fill in the blank with the word of your choosing


What am I, your mother?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> What am I, your mother?


Well no but I am pretty sure not everyone finds me a joy.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's quote about democracy: _It has been said that Amazon's Review System is the worst form of product evaluation except all the others that have been tried._

But that doesn't mean we can't try and improve it. If Amazon would enforce the TOC fairly and quickly, then I wouldn't have an issue. They don't, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If anything comes out of Miss Rice's efforts, I hope Amazon at least makes some effort to improve their review management and enforcement.

As far as gaming the system for promotion, that's another issue that will have to be addressed. It's really getting silly now. I recently published a book, and the first 15 reviews (or so) were 5 stars. I found myself praying for a 4 or a 3 because it was beginning to look a little fishy. One finally came in, but doesn't that make a statement? 100% of my reviews are clean as a whistle. Yet, I'm hoping for a lessor opinion to be posted? Think about what that says.

Real names? On the net? No frigging way. As a security professional, I know that is just asking for trouble. Craig's List killers would have a field day. Hugh's spider (for author income) would have so many siblings roaming the Amazon web site for marketing data, there wouldn't be any bandwidth to buy a book.

Either fix the system, or get rid of it.

As I stated so many times, I'm not worried about stalkers (let me give you my address... please), or bullies or anything else. Attack, non-legit reviews take money out of the writer's pocket. *They.* *Hurt. Sales.* And sometimes the amount of money involved can be serious. Amazon can assume the reader will move on to another book. We, as authors, can't assume the reader will return to see if a review has been taken down some weeks later.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Much ado about nothing. Amazon is the retailer and can conduct their business in whatever way they see fit. Self-publishers are the wholesalers of the content, not the vendor to the end user. Those authors who don't like the system can pull their product off of the platform and do business exclusively outside of Amazon.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> Daniel: It wasn't so long ago that I was just starting out. And here's what I'll share: the convenience for you of loading up on positive reviews by unverified reviewers is outweighed by the damage it does to the integrity of the system. Yes, it would be a drag if you had to not only give away ARCs, but think up a creative way to make it worth the reviewer's time to buy the book and become verified. I mean, it would be harder. More trouble for you. But in my opinion a system shouldn't be set up based on whatever makes it easiest for some subsection to get reviews with the least amount of effort. It should be set up based on what will ensure the integrity of the system.
> 
> The reason you disagree is not because it wouldn't strengthen the integrity of the system. It's because it would make it harder for you to get reviews. I'd prefer, regardless of what stage I am in my sales growth, to have a system with real integrity than a virtually worthless one that's really easy to game, but consequently easy for me to get reviews. One has value. The other has less.
> 
> As to how we know that readers tend to view the Amazon review system as broken and lacking integrity, articles have been written about it, surveys have been done. I don't have time to dig them up, but they've been posted. I remember commenting on them at the time.


Russell, you are right - my viewpoint is influenced by self-interest, but how is yours not? You don't want unverified reviews because of the stupid reviews that show up - that is self-interest. I also fail to see how the integrity of the system would be improved by your suggestion. If somebody still wants to game the system it will cost them a few more dollars - but they can still game it. Right now we have a system that clearly labels reviews that are verified - why is this not sufficient?

Also, as others and myself have said your suggested change would make it harder on new authors, which in turn decreases your competition - that is also in your self-interest. You keep saying that the current system benefits a small subsection of writers, yet your proposed change would equally benefit a different small subsection of writers - and I see no evidence that one has has more integrity than the other. From what I've seen the majority of non-verified reviews are still "real" reviews. I've written a number of non-verified reviews myself and I know I was giving an honest review.

And if you really want to get into the integrity aspect how would system that restricts peoples ability to express their opinion have more integrity? You are basically saying only those who pay the price of admission have the right to voice their opinion on the book. So the people who were given the book, borrowed the book from the library or friend, etc. don't have the same right to share their opinion?

The bottom-line is the current review system is the one that Amazon figured out will help them sell the most products. So while there are certainly instances where individual authors are getting screwed, that suggests to me that the current system is the one that benefits the majority of authors the most.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Daniel Knight said:


> Russell, you are right - my viewpoint is influenced by self-interest, but how is yours not? You don't want unverified reviews because of the stupid reviews that show up - that is self-interest. I also fail to see how the integrity of the system would be improved by your suggestion. If somebody still wants to game the system it will cost them a few more dollars - but they can still game it. Right now we have a system that clearly labels reviews that are verified - why is this not sufficient?


Everything basically comes down to self-interest, but some folks would like to level the playing field for all of us. Nothing will eliminate people gaming any system, but it's possible to get rid of some of those folks.



> Also, as others and myself have said your suggested change would make it harder on new authors, which in turn decreases your competition - that is also in your self-interest. You keep saying that the current system benefits a small subsection of writers, yet your proposed change would equally benefit a different small subsection of writers - and I see no evidence that one has has more integrity than the other. From what I've seen the majority of non-verified reviews are still "real" reviews. I've written a number of non-verified reviews myself and I know I was giving an honest review.


I'll admit, I have no easy answer for the ARC issue. That's something that Amazon will likely have to make a system for. I'm not holding my breath on that.

You may know you were honest, but how do I know? There's no way to be sure, I can only read reviews and use my judgement. I'd much rather the reviews be verified purchases, though.



> And if you really want to get into the integrity aspect how would system that restricts peoples ability to express their opinion have more integrity? You are basically saying only those who pay the price of admission have the right to voice their opinion on the book. *So the people who were given the book, borrowed the book from the library or friend, etc. don't have the same right to share their opinion?*


No, what people are saying is that if you want to leave a review _on_ Amazon, you should buy the item _from_ Amazon. Nothing is stopping anyone from leaving reviews at the many sites that exist for this purpose. There is no inherent right to leave a review.

Someone mentioned not leaving reviews for products they bought on Overstock. That sure explains why I couldn't find a single review for something I was looking to purchase there. Not a single one, on a rather expensive item. Not a review about customer service, product quality (it was a refurbished item), shipping times. Nada. How does it help me to have to go to Amazon to see what people thought of that item -- if Amazon even sold an equivalent version at the price I was prepared to pay?



> The bottom-line is the current review system is the one that Amazon figured out will help them sell the most products. So while there are certainly instances where individual authors are getting screwed, *that suggests to me that the current system is the one that benefits the majority of authors the most.*


No, what it suggests is that the system is benefiting Amazon the most, or is at least causing them the least amount of work/money/time.

While I disagree with the petition in question, I do think there are things Amazon could do to improve book reviews at least. They could enforce the guideline about the review being about the product, and not the author, for one thing. As it is now, it all depends on who answers any complaints.

If someone receives reviews that are personally threatening, then those should be reported to law enforcement. No need for everyone in the world to know the real name, as Amazon knows, or at least knows their ISP, which should lead to the person doing the bad thing.

No solution will be perfect for all people. But things can be improved, which will be better for most.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Daniel Knight said:


> The bottom-line is the current review system is the one that Amazon figured out will help them sell the most products. So while there are certainly instances where individual authors are getting screwed, that suggests to me that the current system is the one that benefits the majority of authors the most.


You're correct on one point: there are going to be instances where individuals get screwed. But you're mistaken if you believe Amazon cares whether the review help you more than the reviews help them sell a product. Amazon bleeds cash like any other business. If any change to the current system hurts their bottom line there's a _really_ good chance it won't happen. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong. I'm pointing out the nature of the beast. This is the reality of big business.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

If you want to get mad and throw a hissy fit because Amazon took away your anonymity because your were being a horses ass then good riddance! "Because I cant be an a-hole from the safety of my computer I'm gonna stop using Amazon." Wow, thats the most childish and asinine thing I ever heard.

An authors book is like a child to them and throwing mud on a book you haven't read is beyond disrespectful. That bad review could seriously impact their financial welfare and deter other readers down the line. Goodbye trolls, you wont be missed.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## Howietzer (Apr 18, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Everyone: Note that I'm not suggesting getting rid of negative reviews, or outing peoples' information. Quite the opposite, I'm saying get rid of all reviews that aren't verified purchases, both positive and negative, leaving only those that legitimately downloaded the product from Amazon. That seems easy to do, sensible, and like a reasoned step: You want to review on a product? Prove you got it here. Otherwise, scram, and review it wherever you got it, or on one of the countless sites that will allow you to post your views.


I think this solution would cut down on the drive by one star, but wouldn't work on someone really intent on harm. Also, it kind of kills two options for getting reviews: People who borrow the book from a friend and want to leave a review. Also, soliciting reviewers directly (emailing them a free book). I know that you can create coupons to give free books to people but that seems like adding another step that isn't necessary. Not to mention Goodreads only allows hardcopy giveaways; reviews from those don't get proof of purchase as far as I know.

From what I can tell one of the big issues is the star-rating thing. Since most of the "satellite" sites like ENT require at least a 4 star rating to even consider your book, a one star zinger can be really harmful. That is not Amazon's problem but a problem with the approval criteria of the "satellite" sites. Granted, the time it would take to look over reviews would be massive, but hey, for $200 to $600 a pop you'd think they could afford it. 

As far as readers being turned away by a bogus one star&#8230; I think that's rare.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

von19 said:


> An authors book is like a child to them and throwing mud on a book you haven't read is beyond disrespectful.


I'm not a big fan of people picking on my actual kids. My books, though, they're all grown up and moved out. They don't need me fighting their battles for them. Throw as much mud as you please, I say.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

von19 said:


> If you want to get mad and throw a hissy fit because Amazon took away your anonymity because your were being a horses *ss then good riddance! "Because I cant be an a-hole from the safety of my computer I'm gonna stop using Amazon." Wow, thats the most childish and asinine thing I ever heard.
> 
> An authors book is like a child to them and throwing mud on a book you haven't read is beyond disrespectful. That bad review could seriously impact their financial welfare and deter other readers down the line. Goodbye trolls, you wont be missed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


I'm sorry, I find it incredibily ironic that you would post this anonymously. Just sayin'. And I find it incredibly insulting to the reviewers y'all say you want to imply that someone couldn't be posting legitimately that they don't like a book. I say this as a reader.

Betsy


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I'm not a big fan of people picking on my actual kids. My books, though, they're all grown up and moved out. They don't need me fighting their battles for them. Throw as much mud as you please, I say.


THIS!


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

von19 said:


> An authors book is like a child to them and throwing mud on a book you haven't read is beyond disrespectful.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


Well, my books are not like my children. And my son is not like a book. I can easily tell them apart because my son has no page numbers.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

The NAME isn't the issue at all. Call yourself Azzhole if you wish. The fact is that Amazon knows who you are. They use IP addresses and of course your credit card and shipping address.
So THEY know what you're posting on what products. They don't care if the author knows who these people are.

If they had an interest of hunting down evil reviewers, they can do so, no matter what the posters call themselves. They decided (so far) not to, or they use very broad sweeps now and again to show who's boss.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Amazon's review system is for more than just books and I would think it would be difficult to justify as well as maybe not too easy to implement a review system whereby book reviews are managed differently from reviews on everything else.

For example, if you only allow reviews from verified purchases that took place on Amazon, you leave out a lot of potential reviews.  Let's say I'm looking to buy a XYZ Model 123 Washing Machine.  It's quite expensive and maybe a lot of people buy it at a local store.  There may not be a lot of people who bought it through Amazon.  Let's say Mary Jones bought on Amazon a couple weeks ago.  She's used it for a week and thinks it's great.  She leaves a glowing five-star review.  Now let's say John Smith bought the washing machine at a local appliance store.  He's had it for a year.  It broke down after 90 days.  The warranty was expired so he keeps it together with duct tape and a washer that doesn't quite fit right because the manufacturer used a custom size that's neither metric nor standard.  He has to run loads through the machine twice just to get them clean.  Sometimes he has to do an extra rinse cycle so he doesn't itch all day from excess soap.

If he can't leave a review because he's not a verified buyer, because he didn't buy it through Amazon, all I will see is Mary's glowing five-star review.  As a potential buyer, how does that benefit me?  I see Mary's review, I see that she's a verified buyer and I may be thinking, well, this washing machine looks pretty good and the reviewer is very happy with it.  So I buy it.

And three months later, it's too late to return it and I'm not a happy camper.

So non-verified purchase reviews can be valuable.  And not allowing non-verified buyers to leave reviews is not going to stop people from gaming the system.  If I'm ethically challenged and determined to sell crummy books or crummy washing machines, all I need to do is find willing participants that will leave positive reviews for my product in exchange for reimbursing them for their purchase plus maybe paying them for the actual review.

One could argue that buyers can go elsewhere for reviews, but why would Amazon want them leaving their site to look elsewhere?  Plus, if buyers are looking elsewhere for reviews, doesn't that just create a much larger battlefield for authors to worry about?  It's one thing to try to fight fake negative reviews on Amazon, but quite another if you have to keep track of dozens of review sites and keep on top of which ones are showing up in the search engines when people go looking for reviews they would no longer be able to find on Amazon.

Restricting reviews to verified purchases doesn't really solve the problem of fake reviews.


----------



## Rae Scott Studio (Jan 26, 2014)

Here is another thing I an wondering as I am reading all of this.... Say Amazon does nothing. Leaves everything as it is... Ok that is their choice in the matter. Now an author puts out  a book and lo and behold along comes someone who decides that the author is an evil vile person and deserves to be punish and goes into a terrible rant about that author on that books page in a review. 
  This happens every time the author publishes another book, sometimes this person leaves SEVERAL of these reviews that are just full of hate and Amazon does nothing. The author frustrated at this and frustrated at Amazon for doing nothing goes to a signing event, this "fan" attends. The fan sees the author smiling and conversing with other fans of their work, loses it and attacks the author possibly causing serious physical injury. 

This of course would be a worst case scenario. BUT if Amazon had done something is it possible that it could have been avoided? What if it wasnt someone who wrote the reviews but was already mentally disturbed and READ the reviews and decided they were going to be the ones to do something? Rather scarey thought isnt it? And who would be liable? The person who attacked? The person who wrote the reviews? (if they are different people) Amazon for not doing a better job when they author alerted them to the problem? 

So how do you know those nasty vile reviews wont cause an incident like this? You dont. Would changing the way amazon polices the review system help? I dont know. Would it keep this from happening? Maybe, but I cant be sure. We all know there are some people out there that need some serious help or that take such a zealous stance on something they forget right from wrong. So you cant say this will NEVER happen cause at some point I am quite sure it will, but it is something to think about. 

  I am an over thinker, I admit it but I try to think of ever possibility that could come out of something that way I can always figure out the best option for me. I have a feeling this whole thing is going to become a lot messier then anyone ever anticipated. Which is a very sad thing indeed. The simplest thing I can think of in all this was, if people had treated the reviews with respect and acted accordingly then none of this would have happened.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Rae, you aren't wrong. As I've pointed out earlier, big business is messy. Fixing this problem means creating other issues and those issues will likely cause them to lose money. They care more for their bottom line than the individual authors. Approaching it from a purely monetary perspective, it's understandable. A real fix to the problem would require some investigate every report of abuse to the system. That is costly. It just won't happen.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Rae Scott said:


> Here is another thing I an wondering as I am reading all of this.... Say Amazon does nothing. Leaves everything as it is...


Way too many "What Ifs" there with no details. Did the author complain about these reviews and Amazon did nothing, etc etc?

Conversely, if this does pass, how do we know that big-name Author X won't one day see a one star that particularly gets their goat. They write about it on Facebook and set their fans loose upon this reviewer. However, one of the fans has a few screws loose and, seeing the reviewer's real name there, decides to track down said reviewer and teach them a lesson in respect.

The What If's go both ways.

I only know this: we all have a choice to be here. Despite knowing that there are crazies out there, I'm not signing myself up to be a target in somebody's crosshairs, but there is always that possibility. However, the tradeoff for me is that if I do make it big the whole risk/reward will pay off. If I sell a million books, then fame and fortune is mine. There is no such risk/reward on the reviewer side. Should I write 1 million reviews than perhaps I will get a Christmas card at year's end by Jeff Bezos. Add additional risk to that side of the equation and I think you'll find which one is the easier to walk away from.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Rae Scott said:


> Here is another thing I an wondering as I am reading all of this.... Say Amazon does nothing. Leaves everything as it is... Ok that is their choice in the matter. Now an author puts out a book and lo and behold along comes someone who decides that the author is an evil vile person and deserves to be punish and goes into a terrible rant about that author on that books page in a review.
> This happens every time the author publishes another book, sometimes this person leaves SEVERAL of these reviews that are just full of hate and Amazon does nothing. The author frustrated at this and frustrated at Amazon for doing nothing goes to a signing event, this "fan" attends. The fan sees the author smiling and conversing with other fans of their work, loses it and attacks the author possibly causing serious physical injury.
> 
> This of course would be a worst case scenario. BUT if Amazon had done something is it possible that it could have been avoided? What if it wasnt someone who wrote the reviews but was already mentally disturbed and READ the reviews and decided they were going to be the ones to do something? Rather scarey thought isnt it? And who would be liable? The person who attacked? The person who wrote the reviews? (if they are different people) Amazon for not doing a better job when they author alerted them to the problem?
> ...


I think this is basically letting one's imagination run wild. For one thing, I don't think Amazon would let "terrible rants" that are "full of hate" on book after book stand. And I believe that the idea of this anti-fan physically attacking the author at an in-person event is a "Misery"-inflected paranoid fantasy.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Rae Scott said:


> What if it wasnt someone who wrote the reviews but was already mentally disturbed and READ the reviews and decided they were going to be the ones to do something?


What if someone ignored the reviews, read a book and became so incensed by the content of the book that they decided to do something to ensure the author would stop publishing books like that? Should Amazon stop selling books so as to prevent that?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Well most readers are not mentally disturbed.  Do you really mean that you would be more concerned with 1 person than the 100 that would know better?

Do you know what I have gotten out of this thread?  
Some authors seem to think readers are too stupid to tell a legit review from a drive by.

Some of you are more concerned about people that wouldn't buy your book than the ones that do SUPPORT you.

Little food for thought: if readers don't buy your book, you might not eat.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Some of you are more concerned about people that wouldn't buy your book than the ones that do SUPPORT you.


*sigh* I really wish the new design for Kboards had included a "like" button.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Well most readers are not mentally disturbed.


But maybe most authors are.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> But maybe most authors are.


I like to consider it... therapy.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> (And, by the way, I'll also add that although I wouldn't leave a review for ENDER'S GAME because I haven't read it, I have no problem with other reviewers giving the book one star because they don't like Orson Scott Card's position on homosexuality/same sex marriage. That's relevant information to some people, who might prefer not to buy books written by a raging homophobe. I think reviews that suggest readers steer clear of a book so as to not support behavior/political opinions they find offensive are perfectly reasonable.)


So you're saying that you think it's okay for a reviewer to review the author rather than the book? Does that mean it would be okay for a reviewer to one-star a book written by a gay author because they didn't like the author's sexual orientation?


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Sheila_Guthrie said:


> Everything basically comes down to self-interest, but some folks would like to level the playing field for all of us. Nothing will eliminate people gaming any system, but it's possible to get rid of some of those folks.


I disagree that eliminating reviews from non-verified people levels the playing field. In fact I think it is pretty clear that it tilts the playing field in the favor of established authors.



Sheila_Guthrie said:


> You may know you were honest, but how do I know? There's no way to be sure, I can only read reviews and use my judgement. I'd much rather the reviews be verified purchases, though.


But if you think being verified is a mark of honesty - we already have that tag included on reviews. So if a reader agrees with your assessment they are free to give more weight to those reviews that have the Verified Purchase tag. Getting rid of those non-verified reviews is sort of like saying the reader doesn't know any better, and needs someone else to weed out certain reviews for them.



Sheila_Guthrie said:


> No, what people are saying is that if you want to leave a review _on_ Amazon, you should buy the item _from_ Amazon. Nothing is stopping anyone from leaving reviews at the many sites that exist for this purpose. There is no inherent right to leave a review.


I agree that "right" isn't really the correct word given that Amazon is a commercial website and can do whatever they want (within the boundaries of the law). Maybe a better way to phrase it would be are the reviews from someone who purchased the product somewhere else or got it for free any less valuable (to the consumer, to Amazon, and to the author), than verified reviews?



Sheila_Guthrie said:


> No, what it suggests is that the system is benefiting Amazon the most, or is at least causing them the least amount of work/money/time.


I agree, and I guess it didn't come across clearly but what I was suggesting is that right now the interests of Amazon and authors are aligned. Amazon wants to sell lots of books, and so do authors.

I agree that bullies and people that game the system suck - but I don't see the rational in creating additional restrictions to deal with a few bad apples at the expense of lots of honest reviewers - and I'm thankful that for now Amazon sees things the same way.


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

Greer said:


> So you're saying that you think it's okay for a reviewer to review the author rather than the book? Does that mean it would be okay for a reviewer to one-star a book written by a gay author because they didn't like the author's sexual orientation?


Looks like that's exactly what he means. Total BS, by the way. The book should be reviewed apart from the political views of the author and not suffer because of them. This is what's wrong with people. We can't disagree in a civil manner anymore. We can't like a book and disagree with some content. We have to hate the book regardless of content because of the author's opinions.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Daniel Dennis said:


> You're correct on one point: there are going to be instances where individuals get screwed. But you're mistaken if you believe Amazon cares whether the review help you more than the reviews help them sell a product. Amazon bleeds cash like any other business. If any change to the current system hurts their bottom line there's a _really_ good chance it won't happen. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong. I'm pointing out the nature of the beast. This is the reality of big business.


Actually I agree with you, and I guess it didn't come across in my post but I was trying to say I think Amazon's interest and authors interests are aligned. Amazon wants to sell lots of books, and so do authors. Amazon has found that having a fairly restriction free review system helps them towards that goal. If at some point it doesn't anymore I'm sure they will change.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Daniel Dennis said:


> The book should be reviewed apart from the political views of the author and not suffer because of them. This is what's wrong with people. We can't disagree in a civil manner anymore. We can't like a book and disagree with some content. We have to hate the book regardless of content because of the author's opinions.


This is already covered by Amazon's current review policies. The review is supposed to be about the product itself.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> I'm not a big fan of people picking on my actual kids. My books, though, they're all grown up and moved out. They don't need me fighting their battles for them. Throw as much mud as you please, I say.


Well I didnt mean for it to be taken that literally lol >_<
But wouldnt you be upset if someone never read your book and reviewed it anyway? And on top of that gave it a scathing review?

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

von19 said:


> But wouldnt you be upset if someone never read your book and reviewed anyway? And on top of that gave it a scathing review?


It's already happened. Had someone (another writer no less) decide he didn't like me and wrote a one star that was basically all of the above.

Not worth my time getting upset over. As I've said before, trust readers to decide for themselves if a review has merit or not.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Coming in as a reviewer.  Daniel Dennis brought up the point of leaving "bad" reviews about authors personalities.  If I didn't like an author because of his beliefs, I would #1 not buy his book #2 I would not leave a review.  
The reason being is someone might see it and think this is exactly the type  of person I want to read.  So by leaving any review I have supported him indirectly.

Now having said that, here is the flip side. If I have left you a fabulous review and I later discover that you approve of say domestic violence then I will take down my review.  Yes I am that big of a bitch.

I hope I made my point.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm sorry, I find it incredibily ironic that you would post this anonymously. Just sayin'. And I find it incredibly insulting to the reviewers y'all say you want to imply that someone couldn't be posting legitimately that they don't like a book. I say this as a reader.
> 
> Betsy


Well, I cant do much about that unless you want me to post my full name and address lol. Although, my username isnt completely anonymous, its part of my actual name.

Sorry, I didnt mean someone couldn't dislike a book, you can. But a lot of the time I see authors upset because reviewers admit they never got past page one, and bash them anyways.

I just dont think its fair to bash something you didnt even try to read. However, if they attempted to and said this isnt my cup of tea thats perfectly fine.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Well now von, here is the thing.  If your firt pge loks someone licks those.  I am not gonna read beyond that and will leave a review about the spelling.

That sentence actually says "if your first page looks something like this."


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Daniel Dennis said:


> The book should be reviewed apart from the political views of the author and not suffer because of them. This is what's wrong with people. We can't disagree in a civil manner anymore. We can't like a book and disagree with some content. We have to hate the book regardless of content because of the author's opinions.


If I could like this a million times I would.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

von19 said:


> Well, I cant do much about that unless you want me to post my full name and address lol. Although, my username isnt completely anonymous, its part of my actual name.
> 
> Sorry, I didnt mean someone couldn't dislike a book, you can. But a lot of the time I see authors upset because reviewers admit they never got past page one, and bash them anyways.
> 
> ...


Well, actually, a lot of authors do use their full name here, as you can see by this thread alone. You can change it by going to your Profile. If you weren't aware, I apologize! In the top menu, click on Profile and select either option. Choose Modify Profile from the page that appears. Choose Account Settings. You'll see Name as an option. You can change what's in Name to be your actual author name or other name--it doesn't have to be the same as your account name.

And your comments above make much more sense to me compared to your earlier comment, thanks! I think Amazon needs to be more responsive to complaints about reviews. That's not to say that I agree with every author assessment of a review I've seen here; on the contrary, I don't very often agree with an author's take on a "Bad" review as posted here. But I realize it is more difficult when it's one own work to be objective, and that, as a reader, I have different considerations than does the author of the book.

Betsy


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

von19 said:


> I just dont think its fair to bash something you didnt even try to read. However, if they attempted to and said this isnt my cup of tea thats perfectly fine.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


There's a big difference between 'didn't read at all' and 'started but disliked and couldn't finish'. In the first case, leaving a review would be unfair. In the second, that's a reasonable review for a perfectly good reason.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Something is broken when it fails to achieve its intended purpose after demonstrating that it can. Purpose is determined by whomever created it, financed it, owns it, and manages it. In the case of the Amazon site, that is Amazon. They determine the purpose of their site and its various elements. They determine if elements of their site are broken.

Others may want someone else's site to meet their self-interest, but its a mistake to presume their self-interest defines Amazons purpose for Amazons site. It essentially comes down to property rights.

Its a mistake to think the other guy is not meeting his objectives when he knows he is. It leads to selection of the wrong strategy if one wants to influence him to change.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Here's an example of my frustration with this debate and the Amazon review system:

I got this review the other day:
________________________________

*I read part of the sample
*
But that was about it. I had to stop after he attended "Airborne School" in Fort Bragg, NC.
I lived on Fort Bragg for 5 years and Fort Bragg is the 82nd Airborne Division. NOT AIRBORNE SCHOOL.

FORT BENNING, GA is Airborne SCHOOL. I should know. Because I live here and my husband is an Airborne instructor. Also, it's not "skydiving." It's called Static Line Jumping. Oh, and you defiantly do not get to fly the plane. *rolls eyes*

I'm sorry but their is no way in hell I am going to pay $10 for a KINDLE book when the facts are all wrong within the first 2% of the book.
I make it a point to not get gung-ho into my husbands career, because I have my own. So the fact that I could so easily point this out makes me want to pass on the rest of your story. Do some research for goodness sake!!
_______________________

Now, that's a fair review? Right? They didn't buy the book or read it, but she claims to have read the sample.

Just one problem... Most of what she wrote in the review isn't in the book. I was in the Eight-duce... I was at Fort Bragg for years. She's not even close in the review to what the book clearly states:

"One of the few positive experiences was attending the Jump School at Fort Benning. Nothing special or gung-ho here, as every Army officer had to go through Airborne School. He had never flown on a plane before, let alone jumped out of one. _Skydiving_ was actually fun."

Amazon won't take it down. They replied that it is "part of the reader's experience with the product," and is "within the review guidelines."

Am I mad? No. Are my feelings hurt? No. Am I being over sensitive because someone didn't like my preview? No. Am I being thin-skinned by trying to have that review removed? Would the readers following this thread _really_ have ignored this review and purchased the book anyway? Could you really have differentiated this from someone with an agenda?

I have near a dozen examples like this. This is what's broken on the Amazon review system, IMHO.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I have near a dozen examples like this. This is what's broken on the Amazon review system, IMHO.


I think there are two different standards in play. One is the standard Amazon actually uses. By that standard, nothing is broken. They said so. They define their purpose.

The other standard is the one some authors want to use. By their standard, the system is broken. Amazon has not created and maintained what authors want them to create and maintain.

I suspect we are in a situation where the interests of Amazon and the interests of a subset of authors diverge.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Here's an example of my frustration with this debate and the Amazon review system:
> 
> I got this review the other day:
> ________________________________
> ...


Reviews are opinions. If a customer at Amazon wants to leave an opinion that falls within Amazon's ToS, then that's their right, according to Amazon (and not you, the author). As a reader, I wouldn't have read a single one star review (the example you provided, for instance) and decided not to buy your book.

This goes back to cinisajoy's post a little above this about how it really makes it look like authors think readers are too stupid to understand how to breathe oxygen, let alone choose a book to read. As an intelligent reader, I would read her scathing review and noticed two things: #1 she didn't even read the book, and #2 so she's one reviewer. How many other reviews does the book have? Is it just this single 1-star review? Does it have any 3, 4, or 5-star reviews? If so, I'd have also read those to see what others have said.

Could I have differentiated someone with an agenda? I don't know. How would I know what their agenda was? Unless a review says "this book sucks and is factually inaccurate, buy mine instead" then I wouldn't really know anything about an agenda. The fact that you or any other author immediately (maybe not immediately, but this is kind of my perception based on the reactions I've seen here and at other places over this volatile issue) assumes it might be an agenda is really reflective of you, not anyone else.

But let's just say I did notice it might be an agenda (let's assume I'm a paranoid type, which I am, and I'm an author type, which I'd like to believe I am). In that case, I wouldn't give that review any weight. Since I don't believe or can't know it might be related to some agenda (other than to say that the person tried to read your book and immediately spotted what she considered errors or lies or whatever it was she didn't like in your sample), as an intelligent, capable reader, I would, again, look at the other reviews. Are there 3, 4, or 5-star reviews? If yes, I'll read them (repeating myself here, sorry).

This review that you've used as an example doesn't violate any of Amazon's rules. Frankly, I can't see a problem with it either. It's an opinion. This is what opinions are.

I would never presume to think that my readers, nor my potential readers, aren't smart enough to decide for themselves without being swayed by what someone random stranger on the internet said. In the cases I have presumed this, I've left a comment in the review.

Which brings me to the main point that I think is also being missed a lot: If your sample doesn't hook someone, it doesn't hook someone. If your sample has what a reader considers a factual error, then it has what a reader considers a factual error. You can be Hugh Howey / Elle Casey and leave a comment on the review rebutting the facts as you see them, or you can accept that people have opinions and even if theirs is wrong (according to you), it's their right to have opinions.

But to think that I might read this example review and suddenly click off your page thinking, "man, this author is stupid if he can't even get these simple facts right about something I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about and I'm going to take a reviewer's opinion into such consideration that I can no longer feel comfortable even downloading a sample of this trash to see for myself" is really, really insulting to readers. I'm an author, but I'm also a reader, and I'm feeling rather insulted by authors claiming that I'm too ignorant to make choices based on the work/product.

I mean, it's not like there's a seven day return policy and I'm totally screwed the instant I buy a book, right?

This is just another black eye / whine / negative storyline that we as a profession have to deal with. The unwarranted bad reviews (opinions) AND the perception that we're a bunch of neurotic, bickering, disagreeable, backstabbing jerks with zero self-confidence and a revenge-seeking mob mentality because of them is equal to or greater than the perceived one about the 'bullies.'



> Am I mad? No. Are my feelings hurt? No. Am I being over sensitive because someone didn't like my preview? No. Am I being thin-skinned by trying to have that review removed? Would the readers following this thread _really_ have ignored this review and purchased the book anyway? Could you really have differentiated this from someone with an agenda?
> 
> I have near a dozen examples like this. This is what's broken on the Amazon review system, IMHO.


So... if you aren't mad, your feelings aren't hurt, and you aren't being oversensitive, and you aren't being thin-skinned by trying to have the review removed, then how is the system broken? I mean, if you were mad or your feelings were hurt then I could totally see it being a broken system (I thought it was too when I got my first review because I didn't like nor agree with it).

You can't have it stacked in your favor (as your favor isn't necessarily what the rest of us want, and Amazon... that's like asking whether or not God likes the Yankees or the Red Sox, and on both of those questions we could argue until our last breath and it would still be an opinion because only God knows, and he's probably a Dodgers fan).

I believe the system works, much like our government. There's fraud, there's waste, there's cheating, but for the overwhelming majority of us in America, the system works. I've seen too much cable news and the talking heads that try to convince me that one welfare fraud = every poor person in the country, or that every police officer = racist, abusive, roid-headed good ol' boy.

I'm a smart reader. Please don't insult me by assuming I'm anything but an intelligent person. Even if I'm not intelligent, if you assume that I am, that's a positive thing and makes me more likely to read the books you write. Keep in mind I'm just one of millions of potential readers. We (readers as a community) tend to talk along the grapevine and use things like Twitter and Facebook to alert other readers when we feel our intelligence is being questioned by the very someones who wish us to spend money on their stories.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

AngryGames said:


> I would never presume to think that my readers, nor my potential readers, aren't smart enough to decide for themselves without being swayed by what someone random stranger on the internet said.


I am not infallible and neither are my readers. All of us can be swayed by one random opinion on the internet. It seeds doubt that can grow until we go look for a safer alternative. It doesn't have anything to do with smart vs not smart. It is simply how our (irrational) minds work.

This is why I consider the review Joe posted particularly damaging. It is very effective in seeding doubt. Could the author be incompentent? Does he even know what he's talking about? Maybe the other readers just missed it because they haven't been to Fort Benning? Etc ... Suddenly this one review gains a lot of weight in your mind and you leave the product page to find a safer bet.

Another assumption that has been made here several times is that you and your readers can spot fake reviews. You can't. Even if you are able to identify a fake review with 95 % accuracy, the prosecuter's fallacy guarantees that more than half of the reviews you deem fake are actually legitimate.

Authors or readers are not superhuman beings. We are all subject to the tricks of our minds.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

It goes against Amazon's overall culture to require verified purchases for reviews. 

Google Jeff B's review for milk.


Google the three wolves howling at the moon t-shirt.


There have been many, many products that gained popularity and exposure because of quirky reviews from non-purchasers. We used to have a wiki page highlighting some of the best reviews, and many - if not most - were from non-verified purchases. It's part of the fun. Books are a portion of the site, but some here seem to have tunnel vision and believe a large cultural change should happen because of a few bad experiences that a few authors have had.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

AngryGames said:


> So... if you aren't mad, your feelings aren't hurt, and you aren't being oversensitive, and you aren't being thin-skinned by trying to have the review removed, then how is the system broken? I mean, if you were mad or your feelings were hurt then I could totally see it being a broken system (I thought it was too when I got my first review because I didn't like nor agree with it).


Because dishonesty is taking money out of my pocket. The reviewer is impacting my income with false statements, and there's nothing I can do about it. From my perspective, it is different than Betty telling Mike "I didn't like that book - that Nobody fella can't get his facts straight." A review is available for every potential Amazon customer. It is more akin to Betty taking out a billboard on I-10 and posting false information about a book or business or store. Unlike the billboard, Betty can do the review for free and with little fear of repercussion. She can yell fire in the crowded theatre and get away with it.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Because dishonesty is taking money out of my pocket. The reviewer is impacting my income with false statements, and there's nothing I can do about.


I know that there are certain readers that will protest a 1-star review by giving you a 5-star review. Are they being dishonest? And possibly adding money to your pocket.

Just a thought.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I want to address a couple of comments. 
Now I will be the first to admit I know nothing about the army.  If I read that review on Joe's book, I would assume the reviewer only knows her little bitty part of the world.  I don't know if there is one jump school or 10.  Maybe the army moved it in the last many years.  But I would assume someone knows where they served.

To mb, if you really think that the average reader can be swayed by one review, this makes me wonder about the reading level of your books.

Here is my question: if you think readers are not bright enough to figure out reviews.  Do you dumb down your books or belabor a point so much the reader feels like they were hit with a cast iron skillet? 
Yes, those two things annoy readers.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> I know that there are certain readers that will protest a 1-star review by giving you a 5-star review. Are they being dishonest? And possibly adding money to your pocket.
> 
> Just a thought.


Very valid point. I don't think you'll ever see an author protesting a 5 star review that states, "I can't wait to read this book. It sounds awesome." And I say this because I've seen reviews exactly like this, especially on retail sites that allow reviews before the book has been released (iTunes in particular).


----------



## Jash (Apr 4, 2013)

Rae Scott said:


> Here is another thing I an wondering as I am reading all of this.... Say Amazon does nothing. Leaves everything as it is...


No company will (or should) going to base business decisions on an elaborate escalation of far-fetched what-ifs.

Obviously in your example Amazon would not be remotely liable for anything.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> To mb, if you really think that the average reader can be swayed by one review, this makes me wonder about the reading level of your books.
> 
> Here is my question: if you think readers are not bright enough to figure out reviews. Do you dumb down your books or belabor a point so much the reader feels like they were hit with a cast iron skillet?


Yes, my readers are not bright enough to "figure out" reviews, neither am I, you or your readers. Take a look at Bayes' theorem and false positives if you don't believe me. Even if you were able to identify fake reviews with an almost computer-like precision, most of the reviews you'd consider fake would actually be legitimate simply because the legitimate reviews greatly outnumber the fake ones. This is not an opinion but a fact, so unless you can disprove Bayes I'm not going to get into an argument about this.

My readers btw know all of that, so I'm not worried that they might take it the wrong way.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

books_mb said:


> Yes, my readers are not bright enough to "figure out" reviews, neither am I, you or your readers. Take a look at Bayes' theorem and false positives if you don't believe me. Even if you were able to identify fake reviews with an almost computer-like precision, most of the reviews you'd consider fake would actually be legitimate simply because the legitimate reviews greatly outnumber the fake ones. This is not an opinion but a fact, so unless you can disprove Bayes I'm not going to get into an argument about this.
> 
> My readers btw know all of that, so I'm not worried that they might take it the wrong way.


Just to point out that Cinisajoy's post did not address fake reviews. It addressed reviews making specious points. Or reviews for a book the reviewer themselves says they didn't read.

And yes, I think most people reading the reviews are capable of determining for themselves whether the point the reviewer is making something they care about. Yes, there are people who will be swayed by bad info. But many more will either never read the review or will discount it. My .02 worth as a reader.

Betsy


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Any reader who passes on a book because of one star reviews isn't gonna find much to read.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> First: I'm satisfied with Amazon's current system. I really don't care what they do with the reviews.
> 
> But something about the above quote struck me as interesting.
> 
> ...


I've seen some posts in the Writers' Café say that, but in the rest of the forum where the readers hang out, I haven't seen a lot of readers say that they find books that way. I see far more readers say that Cover, title, blurb, look inside AND reviews make them check out a book.

But I can really only speak for myself. I find most of the indie books I choose to download or buy here on KBoards. I find an author's posts interesting, so I check out their books. And in that case, the total number of reviews or review average has very little sway. If a book had really low average rating, I would look at the reviews to see why. But I have to say, I have yet to find an author whose posts here I like have a lower than 3.0 average star rating, so I don't really look at the reviews. I look at cover, title, blurb...just the way I would in a bookstore where I wouldn't have access to ratings...

Just one reader's viewpoint....

Betsy


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

So...here's something on my mind. How does what happened to Lynn Shepherd figure into all this? She's getting pummeled by these reviews that are motivated strictly out of revenge for her negative (and extremely ill-advised) article. 

Amazon provides a way to flag inappropriate reviews but in my watching the whole matter, I haven't seen any of the reviews removed yet. So much for Amazon's enforcement of the TOS.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

JJ Ash said:


> No company will (or should) going to base business decisions on an elaborate escalation of far-fetched what-ifs.
> Obviously in your example Amazon would not be remotely liable for anything.


Actually, it's not all that far-fetched. The current Yelp lawsuit is a perfect example of the can of worms that internet reviewing is now becoming. Granted, in that particular case, the injured party is suing the poster of the review, not Yelp, but it's only a matter of time before people start going after the deep-pocket sites that allow injurious remarks to stand, especially if there's some question about the review's veracity or intentions.

Amazon built their entire business on their powerful review system and search engine, and they will continue to handle it in whatever manner is in their best interest. The argument that some of us are trying to make here is that changes to the Amazon review system (either much better policing or verified-only or _whatever_) would not only be better for authors and readers, but ultimately for Amazon, too. I have no doubt this is a frequent topic of discussion in the Amazon board room, just as it is here.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Under Amazons standards, what is the review comment feature for?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I just had a brainstorm.  Here it what Amazon needs to do.
Title: This book is  _____________.  With a list of words to choose from.
Now in the body.
It is too hot/too cold/just right.  Circle your choice.  It was too soft/too hard/just right.
It was too long/too short/just right.
I enjoyed/couldn't stand/it was ok.
The spelling was good/bad/both.
This book was readable/unreadable.

Amazon sets the stars based on the answers.

This would solve all the author's problems.


Ps: i think that was a brain shorting out not a storm.


----------



## books_mb (Oct 29, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And yes, I think most people reading the reviews are capable of determining for themselves whether the point the reviewer is making something they care about. Yes, there are people who will be swayed by bad info. But many more will either never read the review or will discount it. My .02 worth as a reader.


Thank you for pointing out the misunderstanding.

I think many forget how easy it is to be swayed by bad info. It feels nice to claim that you and your readers are rational beings almost immune to the convoluted workings of the mind. Everybody likes that. We love to think of ourselves as being above all this and just point to "some people" who get caught by the trap. But the question is: if this was the case, how is it possible that the bullying actually harms authors? A lot of multi-million dollar political campaigns are based on spreading the seed of doubt and they seem to be effective. Again, if it just were some people, how can it be so effective? I dare to say that these "some people" are actually all of us and almost all of the time.

I believe my readers are educated and intelligent, but they are not immune to traps. I remember that Benjamin Franklin once said something along the lines of: "I would consider myself lucky if I were right 50 % of the time". If that's true for such an amazingly intelligent man, how do our stats look like?

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Whenever I buy something, I almost always take 5 star reviews with a grain of salt. Not just books, but everything. Why? It's pretty widely known that companies pay reviewers and people have friends and family give glowing reviews. 

Whenever I encounter an insanely golden review it makes me a little skeptical of the product. Like...

"X book is a thrill ride like no other and Y authors writing rivals that of Shakespeare! Hold on to your seatbelts, this is an excellent read!" 

Humans dont talk like that. Ever. Once I see something akin to that I immediately think the book or item is glorified trash. Sorry. 

However, I tend to think that 3 to 1 star reviews are more honest. Why? I dont expect someone to bash their own product and anyone  unsatisfied will leave a deeply critical review. Critical enough for me to make a better judgment call of its quality.

Thats just me though. 

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

anderson_gray said:


> So...here's something on my mind. How does what happened to Lynn Shepherd figure into all this? She's getting pummeled by these reviews that are motivated strictly out of revenge for her negative (and extremely ill-advised) article.


Just out of interest, I checked one of Lynn Shepherd's books on the Wayback Machine.

On Feb 3/13, before the stuff hit the fan, she had 3 1-star reviews and a 3.9 average, and a rank of 99,729
Today, she has 91 1-star reviews, a 2.4 average, and a rank of 75,585.

I'm just sayin'


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> Just out of interest, I checked one of Lynn Shepherd's books on the Wayback Machine.
> 
> On Nov 15/13, before the stuff hit the fan, she had 3 1-star reviews and a 3.9 average, and a rank of 99,729
> Today, she has 91 1-star reviews, a 2.4 average, and a rank of 75,585.
> ...


Looks like reviews are down, sales are up. I'd take that trade.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> This readers viewpoint is that I don't care about reviews until I've seen if a book looks interesting. I'm just as likely to look at a book with a bunch of 1 stars as I am a bunch of 5 stars, because as a reader, what's most important to me is the kind of story I want to read. Then I send a sample. Or in a bookstore I read a few pages, and the ending. I really wish I could read the endings of books at Amazon before buying. If I'm suspicious I might not like the end, that's when I look at reviews, and I try to find one that gives away or hints at the ending so I can tell if I'll like the book. So yeah, I'm a reader who _wants _to find those spoiler-laden book reviews. Otherwise I rarely look at reviews at all. If I like what I read, I buy.
> 
> Note to other authors: please quit trying to get Amazon to remove spoilery reviews. Those are the only ones some of us find useful.


I think we're not that far apart in how much we consider actual reviews, but I never sample and *shudder* read the ending? AAAARGH runs screaming from the thread at the idea.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Looks like reviews are down, sales are up. I'd take that trade.


I wouldn't say sales are up for her. The difference in sales between 99K and 70K is really negligible. That can be a one sale difference.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Donna White Glaser said:


> I wouldn't say sales are up for her. The difference in sales between 99K and 70K is really negligible. That can be a one sale difference.


They're still up, though.



cinisajoy said:


> Looks like reviews are down, sales are up. I'd take that trade.


A note on Lynn's books.

a.) Anybody can tell those reviews are not to be trusted, because they're not even reviews.
b.) Those people weren't likely to read her book anyway,


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

I really don't think we can know if her sales are up unless we had a way of viewing her daily averages before and after the mishap.  Just because she was at 99K weeks ago, doesn't mean she's steadily selling more now. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. If her sales had significantly gone up, she'd be in the 5-10K rank range or whatever. You can have a rank in the 200K range, have ONE sale that day, and pop back to 70K. It's just too variable to say that her sales have improved at all based just on those two numbers.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

Donna White Glaser said:


> I really don't think we can know if her sales are up unless we had a way of viewing her daily averages before and after the mishap. Just because she was at 99K weeks ago, doesn't mean she's steadily selling more now. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. If her sales had significantly gone up, she'd be in the 5-10K rank range or whatever. You can have a rank in the 200K range, have ONE sale that day, and pop back to 70K. It's just too variable to say that her sales have improved at all based just on those two numbers.


I agree, it's only one snapshot in time, at which time, her sales seem to be similar. However, the overloading of 1-star reviews doesn't seem to have had the devastating effect expected.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I am not swayed by a 1 star review. I am a reader, I like to think I have intelligence of average amount, I use my brain. I wish authors would give their readers some credit, just once. I don't know if I should be insulted sometimes at how stoopid we apparently are to read a review and decide for ourselfs. I have also never moved away from a book strictly based on a average star rating. If anything, I get turned off more by a unrealistic high rating. Its all a combination of things. A review does not stand in a vacuum. 

And yes, I can read a review and often determine if its a malicious low star or just a non satisfied reader. Again, I use my brain for that. The same way I decide if a 5 star is probably from the friends and family plan. Its one of those you know if if you see it. Its also a matter of patterns. I find any average of 3.5 to be a very good average. If its 3 and below, I take a look at the reviews and then can decide if it applies to me. If I am looking at a romance and there are two 1 stars for "filthy" sex scenes, I actually have seen that before, those will not be a deterrent to me. Again, each of us uses their common sense when reading them. If I see a 1 star saying there is a cliffhanger and its just a short story, then I am thankful for that reviewer as its something I stay away from. 

And that is how reviews are useful to other readers, often especially the lower starred ones. 

And as many years I have browsed and looked in the amazon store, and I do a lot of that, I have not come across many "attacking" anything reviews. Of course I don't consider someone telling me (other reader) how horrible they found a book, to be attacking anything, but just a readers opinion. I have though seen a lot of fangirls attacking reviewers in comments and also authors wading in and trying to argue away any kind of lower star review they get. In those cases its not the review that is a turnoff, its the author commenting and sending their posse from facebook over to the amazon reviews. The reaction to that review then has changed strictly because of the active actions of the author to fight it. Otherwise, it would just be one of many others to read.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Here's the thing that bothers me about this entire debate: it hinges on whether or not writers have the power to get Amazon to revise its reviewing system for books. The fact is, we don't.

It doesn't matter which side is right - the side that thinks the review system is broken and must be fixed, or the side that says it's either not broken or there's no point in worrying about reviews. The facts are such that only Amazon can make any changes, and for that to happen, they need a compelling reason to do so, one that is more in their self-interest than leaving the system as it is. Given that we would essentially be asking for them to a) change the reviewing system just for books (and maybe other creative works like music), or b) change their entire system for reviewing everything from ebooks to washing machines to headphones, does anyone _really_ see a change happening on Amazon's part? Seriously?

I will be publishing eventually, definitely before the end of this year. When I do, I know that BS reviews are part of my future. I can't predict how I will react to them emotionally, but I have gotten pretty good at compartmentalization over the years, and I intend to confine my emotional responses to the realm of the personal and not let it contaminate my business conduct. Whether I'm strong or emotional mature enough to do that successfully remains to be seen, but that is my plan, and I'm gonna try like hell to stick to it. Because I recognize, here and now, that unless things change pretty dramatically in the next few months, Amazon is going to figure heavily in my business model, and I will have to accept what they do as beyond my control.

In fact, I've learned in the last few years that the key to happiness in general is to stop sweating the things that I can't personally affect. With a business, that is more difficult, because things you can't control can actually put you out of business, but that's why it's so important to build flexibility into the model. Expect good reviews, accept bad ones, and if they are affecting your sales, figure out what YOU can do to work around them. Not what Amazon should do, but what you yourself have the power to do. And if the answer to that is "Nothing," then accept that and keep writing the next book, and the next.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

I'd only heard of the Lynn Shepherd/J.K.R debacle but looked up some of Shepherds reviews. Here's a sampling from a real gem:

[removed review content subsisted of a crass personal attack with admission of never reading reviewed book]

Clearly Ms. Shepherd p*ssed off legions of people. Maybe she deserves this kind of fallout with her J.K.R remarks? I dunno. But looking at this issue strictly from the point of valuing reviews, comments like this seem pretty counterproductive. This to me is a case of what you say says more about you than another. Are we really going to HATE Shepherd as much as this person because of their interpretations of her wrongdoings?

This may just me but reviews like this, which are nothing more than personal attacks, only remind me how many unsettling people live in this world of ours. It still stings to read public comments like this but as a writer who doesn't consider readers stupid (BigPub and the Legacy community do a perfectly good enough job of that. Don't need my help) they really don't carry any weight or sway with me.

_quotation deleted as WHOA -- please do not quote amazon reviews in whole or in part here. -- Ann_

[Oops...sorry. Brain-slippage. ]


----------



## Nebula (May 29, 2013)

I've never looked at the rating average when buying books. I didn't even really notice it until I wanted to list a book at one of those sites with a rating average requirement. When buying books, I read the blurb, look at the cover (though I've read awesome stories with awful covers) I skim the reviews for keywords or phrases that describe the reading experience and that show that the book resonated with the reader somehow - those generic “I love all books by this author” 5 stars are so boring. 

Then I read the one and two stars, because for some reason I love to read the bad stuff people have to say about why they didn't like the book. If it’s spelling and proofreading, I buy it anyway because after reading and enjoying the first published draft of “The Unwanted Wife”, I realized that it's really the story that matters. If it's about the author personally, then I don't care and I’ll buy it. If it says it’s a rip-off of another book, I’ll still buy it. I've enjoyed rip-offs, and rip-offs of rip-offs, FSOG, Crossfire, the Bastard series... they all share themes but read great. Even ‘poorly researched’ may not deter me. I enjoyed even the Dan Brown books where even I could point out where his claims were wrong.

So am I saying reviews don't matter? Not really. They just don't matter enough to the reader for us to worry so much about them that we think up drastic measures like getting rid of the review system. As a reader, I’ll miss reviews, as an author, I would too.
Telling me about scrapping unverified reviews is like telling me Leo will never win an Oscar, it makes me want to scream. What will happen to all my lovely ARCS readers eager to review my books (I wish). What if I want to review my old favorites I've had since long before Bezos was born (I'm kidding. I’m not that old.) What if I do a giveaway on Goodreads? What! No reviews?  @%?$ that!

Anyway, let's stop worrying about reviews. They only stay at the top of the page for only a short period anyway. I got some awful ones too, and though at the time it felt like icy water on my creative efforts, I survived, and now I can even read them without saying ‘@%?$ you’ under my breath.  

Okay, I'm done. The authors I most want to be like are not on this thread worrying about reviews anyway. They're out there releasing like a book every week.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

I agree with you LeeBee, and you may have an advantage when you publish, because you know they're gonna come. But wait until you get that first one. Ouch...


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> I agree with you LeeBee, and you may have an advantage when you publish, because you know they're gonna come. But wait until you get that first one. Ouch...


I know. That's what the bottle of Johnny Walker Black is for.


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

LeeBee said:


> I know. That's what the bottle of Johnny Walker Black is for.


Oh... so that's what's in your latte.


----------



## GearPress Steve (Feb 4, 2012)

Reviews are the reviewer's opinion. Amazon gives them a forum to make their opinions known.

- I don't have a problem with a review based on a sample.
- I do have dislike a review that says they haven't read the book or the sample.
- I wrote to Amazon about a review on my book that started with "I haven't read this but from the title it is obviously nothing but..." and Amazon took it down

We, as authors and publishers, DO NOT have the right to publish our work on Amazon. We publish there at their pleasure and profit. The fact is, reviews sell books. Even negative ones. If I'm not happy with Amazon (where I am exclusively so far) then there are other platforms on which to sell my books.

I think Amazon should remove reviews that attack the author and not the work.

I think Ms. Shepherd should have considered the possible consequences of her statements before she made them.

I think pen names are very helpful.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> Oh... so that's what's in your latte.


Hence the twitching eye.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I've never looked at the rating average when buying books.


I can't help it. The star score sits right next to the title.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> I want to address a couple of comments.
> Now I will be the first to admit I know nothing about the army. If I read that review on Joe's book, I would assume the reviewer only knows her little bitty part of the world. I don't know if there is one jump school or 10. Maybe the army moved it in the last many years. But I would assume someone knows where they served.
> 
> To mb, if you really think that the average reader can be swayed by one review, this makes me wonder about the reading level of your books.
> ...


No, I've never even considered dumbing down my books. On the instruction guides, I do keep in mind that my typical reader is not in prime physical condition and probably has a job/family so they can't train all day long. I keep the guides at a level where the "average Joe" can still accomplish everything and improve his skills. But dumbing down the writing - no. I think my average reader is probably a little brighter than I am. Lord, I hope so.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Thanks for answering me.  It is appreciated.


----------

