Amazon removing reviews

[hidari]

Unfortunately, You have to weed through many amazon reviews before you get to one or two that are balanced.... such is life...

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I think that the OP was referring to the "verified purchase" criterion. Someone who hadn't purchased from Amazon but still wanted to review the book.

Why would you think that? It says nothing about that.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by ApK

(if..ahem...anything actually has....)

One is definitely missing from my book, and I have never paid anyone for any review. I just wish I kept a log of them or something so I would know WHICH one disappeared. I just know I had 30, and now I have 29.

[Xanthe]

It could be possible that someone removed their own review. If you go in on your profile there, you have the ability to delete your reviews. Perhaps someone decided to start their own book blog and pulled all their reviews off Amazon. Or maybe there was something in the review that made it clear that the person hadn't read the book and someone reported it.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by owly

What should be removed are 1-2 star reviews that are given because of delivery problems. Just because a book arrived 2 days late it shouldn't be given one star.

I desperately wish that people introducing any factors at all not having to do with the book into their "reviews" were automagically banned from ever posting another. After all, if you're incapable of grasping that you're supposed to be reviewing the book and not Amazon, Whispernet or the postal service, then you're very likely too dimwitted to contribute anything of value anyway.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I desperately wish that people introducing any factors at all not having to do with the book into their "reviews" were automagically banned from ever posting another. After all, if you're incapable of grasping that you're supposed to be reviewing the book and not Amazon, Whispernet or the postal service, then you're very likely too dimwitted to contribute anything of value anyway.

Yeah, there's that.

[VydorScope]

Or, I love the one on my page that says basically "I hate sci fi, and this is a sci fi book so it sucks," and he gave it 2 stars. Come on really? You did not notice that you were in the sci-fi section when you bought it? Grrrr.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I desperately wish that people introducing any factors at all not having to do with the book into their "reviews" were automagically banned from ever posting another. After all, if you're incapable of grasping that you're supposed to be reviewing the book and not Amazon, Whispernet or the postal service, then you're very likely too dimwitted to contribute anything of value anyway.

The opposite side of that is that the reviews for different versions are aggregated. If the Kindle conversion is terrible but the book is good, the Kindle version will be over-scored, and the paper versions will be dragged down by the conversion.

Personally, I'll always check the dissenting reviews. If the complaint is something stupid, it won't put me off. (If the dissenting reviews are the good ones, I'm probably not planning to buy the book. )

[ApK]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Or, I love the one on my page that says basically "I hate sci fi, and this is a sci fi book so it sucks," and he gave it 2 stars. Come on really? You did not notice that you were in the sci-fi section when you bought it? Grrrr.

I recently got my poorest review so far...two stars. The complaint was the piece was too short and light.

The piece is listed on Amazon as 18-page brief introduction to the topic. I'm not sure how long and deep the reviewer expected an 18 page brief introduction to be. Oh well.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by ApK

Why would you think that? It says nothing about that.

No?

What is this? "the review didn’t say Amazon verified purchase"

It was the first item on the list of reasons suggested in that article.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

No?

What is this?

It is a totally out of context mention of a unsubstantiated guess from earlier in the piece with no connection to the section I quoted. And if that WAS the writers intention to link the part I quoted with that, then I'm doubly of suspicious of the writers composition abilities, and their ability to make arguments and draw conclusions.

ApK

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by ApK

It is a totally out of context mention of a unsubstantiated guess from earlier in the piece with no connection to the section I quoted. And if that WAS the writers intention to link the part I quoted with that, then I'm doubly of suspicious of the writers composition abilities, and their ability to make arguments and draw conclusions.

ApK

Ok, I get it. Unsubstantiated suspicion is ok, but unsubstantiated suggestions as to possible reasons for a review being removed aren't. I'll try to remember that.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Ok, I get it.

No, I see no indication of that.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ApK

It is a totally out of context mention of a unsubstantiated guess from earlier in the piece with no connection to the section I quoted. And if that WAS the writers intention to link the part I quoted with that, then I'm doubly of suspicious of the writers composition abilities, and their ability to make arguments and draw conclusions.

ApK

I agree that the sentence you refer to (starting "But what if someone got the book from a library or borrowed it from a friend?") does not follow as any sort of conclusion from the immediately preceding paragraph - as the "But" would have you expect. So yes, that is a definite fault.

However there is the paragraph "If removing reviews does have to do with Amazon verified purchases ..." just a short distance above, in the same section of the post, so the context was present and (I thought) easily understood. It just needed an editor to tidy it up a bit, though I'm not sure how common place it is to get blog posts professionally edited. I know that I did not go to extremes editing this post, so there could be some (hopefully minor) faults.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by gmw

I agree that the sentence you refer to (starting "But what if someone got the book from a library or borrowed it from a friend?") does not follow as any sort of conclusion from the immediately preceding paragraph - as the "But" would have you expect. So yes, that is a definite fault.

However there is the paragraph "If removing reviews does have to do with Amazon verified purchases ..." just a short distance above, in the same section of the post, so the context was present and (I thought) easily understood. It just needed an editor to tidy it up a bit, though I'm not sure how common place it is to get blog posts professionally edited. I know that I did not go to extremes editing this post, so there could be some (hopefully minor) faults.

Yes, quite. However, there are two factors that make a blog post like that very different than a post here, and make the minor error significant in context.

1. It's professional writer (a "Master Wordsmith", in fact) writing about writing professionally. To be taken seriously, that should be held to a higher standard than a bunch of folk conversationally chatting on a forum.
I expect my son to get a better haircut from a barber than if he let's his little sister try it at home....(don't ask....)

2. The message of the article seems to be "Is Amazon doing something evil here? Question Authority, people!"

Even if the reference to the Verified Purchase issue was coherently placed, it's utterly irrelevant, and raises no concern worth questioning.
Amazon never said that was the reason, there's no reason to suspect that was the reason (not even an indication that the supposedly removed reviews WEREN'T by Verified Purchasers, so why waste electrons writing about arguments against that being the reason? It's a red herring at best, FUD-mongering at worst, and a sign of less than compelling reasoning in any case.

Combine the two, and I stand by my original (and hardly earth-shattering) opinion: I'm suspicious of that author's claims.