Quote:
Originally Posted by empink
Uh, HOW?
|
It was hardly a secret. In any case, as a publisher you should talk with your bookseller about such things in advance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empink
I think you and I are thinking different things when we say "filtered". When I say "filtered" in this content, I mean "stripped of Amazon rank, not showing in search results all over the site, not showing in sidebars and other nifty 'other people bought this' features, not even PAYING THE PUBLISHER ROYALTIES". What do you mean when you say "filtered"? If you mean what happened in this case, there's really no point in us continuing to talk past each other.
|
I mean everything but the not paying royalties part, which I've seen nothing about and which I do not believe took place. I'm sure they sold more once their titles were no longer improperly tagged as adult, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empink
OTOH, if you mean the (useless, imo) Google SafeSearch-type stuff, okay, whatever. It does raise the question of why you interpret the publisher's complaint as them whining about their book getting filtered in a legitimate and transparent manner; what does that have to do with this whole situation in the first place? It smacks of trying to refocus the conversation on the victims and paint them as at fault when that is blatantly wrong, and a pointless derail to boot.
|
The publisher was trying to tie their own issues with their GLBT books being filtered because they wrongly tagged them voluntarily as "adult" with the issue that Amazon temporarily and improperly filtered all GLBT books with non-adult tags. Frankly, it smacks as *them* trying to capitalize on victimhood and blame Amazon for ALL of their problems. Like I said, I have no sympathy for them; their wounds were 99% self-inflicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empink
I don't CARE if they "hide the porno" so long as I have control over what is hidden from me. In this case, it appears like I do not, so continuing to talk about whether it is appropriate or not that they "hide the porno" is useless. Until they show more of an inclination toward transparency than "it was a glitch, honest!", I am going to continue believing that they ARE filtering out things I don't know about, and mistreating publishers and authors and so forth.
|
So as long as they openly and admittedly filter *one* thing which you can't change, you'll suspect they intentionally and secretly filter many other things you don't know about? I suppose you can be suspiscious if you like; I have no rationale for being so.