Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
First and foremost, I am a realist. I accept that lying, cheating and stealing goes on throughout society, business and marketing, and I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over one more straw on a 50-story haystack.
|
You are a realist? So am I. I am realistic enough to realise that if the ONLY valid criterion for assessing the value of Amazon books, the Amazon review system, is sabotaged, eBook buyers are likely to stop using Amazon for eBook purchases. This will affect an enormous number of new authors as Amazon is probably the most useful platform for a novice writer.
In the past, if you wanted to buy a new book, you would look at the various media reviews. We all knew that some reviewers had biases and quirks, but if they all agreed that a new author was worth a look, then generally you could rely on that. In the case of eBooks, the only reviews are semi-anonymous and aggregated. If that system accepts cheating, we have nothing to rely on.
What people like Locke are doing is destroying credibility, damaging the genuine hard earned positive reviews, tarring all with his sordid little brush. It really isn't just a matter of "Oh well, just another blip on the e-literary horizon" it is a death knell. How do you propose to overcome a system where no one trusts reviews? The integrity of the reviews system must be protected, and hopefully as it is a flaw in Amazon's business machine, they will take steps to tighten and control their review system. It has been failing for some time, this last issue has just focused some attention on the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
As far as my image to others, I'd like to think the fact that I don't participate in any of those practices--even if it means two years' hiatus from writing while looking for a workable promotional system, and zero sales for a dozen perfectly good and well-received novels--counts for something. If not... c'est la vie. (Makes you wonder why I bother to write, doesn't it? Yeah, me too.)
|
The problem is that for the last few hours you seem to be openly supporting it. It is great that you would not consider traveling down that path yourself, but it probably wouldn't hurt to distance yourself from such people - or say nothing on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
VSo my opinion is, if this is what sets you off on a righteous rampage to fix the world... well, you probably haven't been paying enough attention. But either way, John Locke is one guy... he does not represent all independent artists, any more than Barry Bonds represents all baseball players. He's one bad egg in an otherwise good basket, and despite what alarmists say, his presence will not make the rest of the basket go bad. He's a blip that will fade away. Stop fanning the flames, and let it fade.
|
Not me, I don't rampage. I observe and comment, but very little gets me excited - at least very little that isn't feminine and cute. (My wife is feminine and cute.)
To reiterate, it can't be brushed off as "
John Locke is one guy... he does not represent all independent artists" as he is doing damage. It doesn't take much more than one guy. How many aspiring authors are right now looking for ways to buy reviews based simply on the publicity that has surrounded him in the last couple of days? "Cheat and sell a million books. Sound tempting? You can be pretty damned sure that there will be more than just a few of them stampeding down the trail that he has blazed.