Irate kindlers 1star carpet bomb Michael Connelly's new book

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Vandalism? It's not like they're carpet bombing his house, for gosh sakes!

No, they're just carpet-bombing his work.

[carpetmojo]

Collateral damage ?

[DiapDealer]

Collateral damage ?

More like intentional friendly fire.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

No, they're just carpet-bombing his work.

Your point being?

It's a PROTEST. I asked earlier in this thread, what other form of public protest do customers have recourse to?

How come it's all right to refuse to buy a book based on price (even though that hurts the author, who--we've been told--is just an innocent pawn in the wicked pricing schemes of the evil publisher), but it's not all right to criticize pricing publicly in a review? Price is an aspect of the product being purchased, and a legitimate area for comment.

[DiapDealer]

Price is an aspect of the product being purchased, and a legitimate area for comment.

I would disagree. Value is a legitimate area for comment in a product review, which can't be determined from price alone. A product must be used in order to honestly (and fairly) evaluate its value.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Your point being?

My point being that it's vandalism. It's no different than if they'd gone to his book's website and defaced it.

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's a PROTEST. I asked earlier in this thread, what other form of public protest do customers have recourse to?

1) Tagging
2) Comments on other people's reviews.
3) Posting in Amazon's forums.

Originally Posted by Catlady

How come it's all right to refuse to buy a book based on price (even though that hurts the author, who--we've been told--is just an innocent pawn in the wicked pricing schemes of the evil publisher), but it's not all right to criticize pricing publicly in a review?

I never said it wasn't valid to criticize price in a review. That's perfectly valid -- if you read the book. It's also perfectly valid to not buy a book. No one is forcibly compelled to buy books.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Price is an aspect of the product being purchased, and a legitimate area for comment.

Of course it is. If you wanted to write an essay on why you didn't buy a book based on its price, and put it on your personal site, or submit it as an editorial to the NY Times, I'd fully support that. Hell, I'd even support it if you put it on Amazon's site, as long as you didn't pretend it was a review (e.g., in the comments section of other reviews). But a review (however many stars you give it) from someone who didn't read the book is worthless. It doesn't matter if it's a "professional" review or not. People reading something labeled a "review" for a book expect it to be at least partially about the content. Otherwise, it's not a review. It's a price check.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would disagree.

That is your right and prerogative.

Value is a legitimate area for comment in a product review, which can't be determined from price alone.

Sorry, nobody got appointed comment police here; at no point are comments checked for "legitimacy". They are valid because somebody chose to make them and for that reason alone. You don't agree with a comment? Just ignore it.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

My point being that it's vandalism.

No offense, but you need a better dictionary. Or consult yours more often.

It's no different than if they'd gone to his book's website and defaced it.

I'm momentarily speechless here .... and back. I see we're facing other, deeper issues here. I am leaving this discussion for the sake of my own sanity.

[Fbone]

If this becomes a widespread problem, Amazon can discontinue the star ratings.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Your point being?

It's a PROTEST. I asked earlier in this thread, what other form of public protest do customers have recourse to?

How come it's all right to refuse to buy a book based on price (even though that hurts the author, who--we've been told--is just an innocent pawn in the wicked pricing schemes of the evil publisher), but it's not all right to criticize pricing publicly in a review? Price is an aspect of the product being purchased, and a legitimate area for comment.

No, not buying the book will not hurt the author as much as giving bad ratings. It also hurt other readers that want to buy the books but might not be able to do it in the future.

Also, the criteria for protesting is arbitrary and kind of not understandable. Were do people get this price the consider to be morally or objectively right? Why should some peoples opinion of the correct price destroy for a lot of other people. It is like vandalizing a shop instead of not just stop using the shop.

[anamardoll]

I'm a hobbyist reviewer on Amazon (Rank #122 as of today, lol) and these "Kindle Bombs" are certainly a source of contention among reviewers.

It's interesting to note that the Amazon review guidelines used to specifically prohibit including pricing information in a review because (and I'm paraphrasing) "prices change over time".

I actually had reviews in 2007 that had price information edited out by an Amazon editor before I understood that saying "for the current $10 price-tag, this is a good deal" was not allowed - they didn't want people providing ANY kind of price information in reviews. I presume this was because prices on Amazon fluctuate wildly on many items - Wootch and other programs are widely used to price-watch for the dips and dives. I also presume that Amazon didn't want customers looking at a $15 item, seeing a "great $10 deal" review, and deciding to wait for a price drop before buying.

Interestingly enough, not too terribly long ago - in fact, about the same time as the Kindle bombing started and the hobbyist reviewers started complaining that they were being hit by campaign votes - the Amazon review guidelines were edited to remove that prohibition against pricing. Can't imagine why - probably a coincidence. (Hitchhiker quote comes to mind that 'anyone who even notices, let alone calls attention to this fact, will be sued into oblivion', haha.)

I'm a big fan of boycotts and of using social media for public outcries. I've made Facebook and Blogger announcements in the past when I felt like a corporation was screwing me over, and I'm not ashamed of that. I get the "1-star if not $10" sentiment, completely. Unfortunately, a lot of the angry pitchfork mob seem willing to lash out at EVERYONE - the author, Amazon, the reviewers who rated the *content* instead of the price (and since Amazon has a habit of helpfully lumping all reviews for a book onto ALL the pages for that book, this means you could conceivably not even know a Kindle version exists and yet still get hit by Kindle bomb votes) - in their anger.

It's...frustrating for the people who get slammed, I can say that much. I've seen favorite authors of mine get Kindle bombed because a paperback edition from 2005 was priced at $6.50, but the new ebook version with the shiny new cover and corrections was priced at $6.99. When you're a fan of that author, and you're desperately praying that all her OTHER books get ported over to electronic form, it's painful to watch that - there's a fear that the publishers will just throw in the towel and say, 'eh, not worth it'. Especially when you believe, as I do, that the publishers would like ebooks to die anyway.

What's most frustrating is that Amazon is encouraging the bombing, even going so far as to change their own reviewing rules - rules that they'd had for years and years - to support it. And they only did that because so many hobbyist reviewers complained that Amazon wasn't abiding by their own TOC and wasn't taking down reviews that literally said "I haven't read this, but it's 1-star until the price goes down." That was against Amazon's review TOC for two major reasons - price discussion and open disclosure of no experience with the product - but they still won't remove them. Instead, they changed the reviewing guidelines.

I really don't know the answer to all this, but this is my perspective: I think the publishers love the Kindle bombing because they'd just as soon not have ebooks to begin with. I think Amazon loves the Kindle bombing because they'd love to bully the publishers into submission. I think SOME (not all) Kindle bombers do it for the thrill of defacement and for the social aspect (there are threads devoted to Kindle bombing and slapping each other on the back) and that a .50 cent difference between a 6-year-old edition and a new one with corrections and a sexeh new cover is a red flag for fun bombing for SOME of them. I think readers, reviewers, and authors lose out. That is just my humble opinion.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, not buying the book will not hurt the author as much as giving bad ratings. It also hurt other readers that want to buy the books but might not be able to do it in the future.

Also, the criteria for protesting is arbitrary and kind of not understandable. Were do people get this price the consider to be morally or objectively right? Why should some peoples opinion of the correct price destroy for a lot of other people. It is like vandalizing a shop instead of not just stop using the shop.

How is anything "destroyed" for anyone else? Is someone stopping you from buying the book or threatening you with mayhem if you do? All you need to do as a potential customer is READ THE REVIEW instead of only counting the stars on your fingers.

As far as I can tell, people are generally objecting not to the actual price, but the price differential between the paper book and the e-book.

Vandalism, my eye. This is really veering into the nonsensical now.

How many of you screamed bloody murder about censorship when Amazon removed some explicit self-published books? But now Amazon should censor reviews? Ridiculous.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How is anything "destroyed" for anyone else? Is someone stopping you from buying the book or threatening you with mayhem if you do? All you need to do as a potential customer is READ THE REVIEW instead of only counting the stars on your fingers.

As far as I can tell, people are generally objecting not to the actual price, but the price differential between the paper book and the e-book.

Vandalism, my eye. This is really veering into the nonsensical now.

How many of you screamed bloody murder about censorship when Amazon removed some explicit self-published books? But now Amazon should censor reviews? Ridiculous.

Publishers looks at the average rating when deciding if publishing more books of the author. For example.

It is like going into a bookshop and hide the books that you do not like the price of by for example mis-sorting them. According to you you can just look for the book (read the reviews) so it is OK to hide the books.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How is anything "destroyed" for anyone else? Is someone stopping you from buying the book or threatening you with mayhem if you do? All you need to do as a potential customer is READ THE REVIEW instead of only counting the stars on your fingers.

What's being destroyed is the value of the review system. As has already been said, anyone who is looking at the book on Amazon knows the price. That's what first comes up in a book list: the book, the price, and the average star rating.

Originally Posted by Catlady

As far as I can tell, people are generally objecting not to the actual price, but the price differential between the paper book and the e-book.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference. They're complaining about the e-book's price.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Vandalism, my eye. This is really veering into the nonsensical now.

It actually makes perfect sense. The review system is meant to help customers decide if they want to buy a book, based on the review. "Reviews" by people who haven't read the book add only noise. If you increase the noise in a book's reviews, without adding value, that's destructive, and that's vandalism.

Remember: A person looking at a book on Amazon already knows how much the book costs. The only thing that can make the price relevant in a review is if you compare it to another book, and you can only do that if you've read both.

Originally Posted by Catlady

But now Amazon should censor reviews? Ridiculous.

I don't think Amazon should censor the reviews. I think Amazon should segregate the reviews that aren't based on purchases from the ones that are. They've got the technology to do this, but they won't use it, because it's in their interest for people to bomb the reviews that way.

A similar thing happens on technology sites: People posting user reviews of products without ever having used them (and in some cases, posting the review before the product is actually released). It's offensive to me there for the same reason: You read a review based on the reviewer's experience with the product, not to help the reviewer vent his/her spleen on some ideological issue.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by tompe

Publishers looks at the average rating when deciding if publishing more books of the author. For example.

It is like going into a bookshop and hide the books that you do not like the price of by for example mis-sorting them. According to you you can just look for the book (read the reviews) so it is OK to hide the books.

Publishers look at sales figures and profit margins.

First we had people saying that these one-stars are useless because publishers DON'T pay attention to them, and now we've come around to claims that publishers base their decisions on them. So which is it?

Your analogy makes no sense. Nothing is being hidden. It's all right there in front of you.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

What's being destroyed is the value of the review system. As has already been said, anyone who is looking at the book on Amazon knows the price. That's what first comes up in a book list: the book, the price, and the average star rating.

The review system at Amazon might be the BEST thing about Amazon, because it is free and open. It is hardly being destroyed.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference. They're complaining about the e-book's price.

In relation to the paper price. This matters.

It actually makes perfect sense. The review system is meant to help customers decide if they want to buy a book, based on the review. "Reviews" by people who haven't read the book add only noise. If you increase the noise in a book's reviews, without adding value, that's destructive, and that's vandalism.

What's the proof that any reviewer actually read the book? Should the reviewer sign an affidavit? Submit to pre-review testing on the contents of the book? After all, we must keep out the charlatans and the "vandals"!

Remember: A person looking at a book on Amazon already knows how much the book costs. The only thing that can make the price relevant in a review is if you compare it to another book, and you can only do that if you've read both.

They are comparing the price of one version of the book to the price of the other version of the book. That's relevant.

I don't think Amazon should censor the reviews. I think Amazon should segregate the reviews that aren't based on purchases from the ones that are. They've got the technology to do this, but they won't use it, because it's in their interest for people to bomb the reviews that way.

Even if this were a good idea, which it isn't, they only know who bought the book from them (and they do indicate that with the "verified buyer" tag). They don't know who actually read it, of course, and they certainly don't know who bought it elsewhere, got it at the library, got it for a gift, borrowed it, etc. Why can't those people express their opinions?

A similar thing happens on technology sites: People posting user reviews of products without ever having used them (and in some cases, posting the review before the product is actually released). It's offensive to me there for the same reason: You read a review based on the reviewer's experience with the product, not to help the reviewer vent his/her spleen on some ideological issue.

Sometimes the pre-reviews are valid, sometimes not. That's why I'd READ them, not just look at the stars. I've seen plenty of pre-reviews at Amazon for DVDs--the reviewers are waxing poetic about, say, an old TV show that's coming out on DVD, talking about the show itself, not about the quality of the DVD transfer. Seems valid to me.