Amazon knows who your friends are

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I *very* seldom write reviews. I read for entertainment, but occasionally I read something that has a huge impact on me and I will write an Amazon review (maybe 5-6 over the many years I've been on Amazon). And I usually add "I don't normally write reviews" just because it's true and the particular book deserves my time to let folks know what I think.

Yep, same here. Unless it is something I am truly impressed with - good or bad I don't tend to even post ratings.....mediocre is for moo-cows.

[BearMountainBooks]

As a side note, there is some evidence/rumor that now the number of reviews can help with whether Amazon chooses a book for more visibility. Books with over 100 reviews can POSSIBLY/RUMOR cause a better ranking/more hebought/shebought shows. This is also true on GR and was before Amazon bought GR (the CEO/owner mentioned it during a speech a few years back).

Reviews have played a part for a long time in whether certain blogs would allow an author to take out an ad. For example, in the past, to get listed on DailyCheapReads, a minimum of 5 reviews was required. (Dailycheapreads no longer takes any kind of submissions for ads or otherwise). A couple of other sites used to require 10 reviews and a 4.2 average. This sort of thing contributed to the plethora of fake reviews.

If Amazon really does have some cutoff/benefit to getting 100 reviews (and there are always people tracking/watching/gaming) they will only be making the problem worse by sending out notices to people claiming "you are a friend of the author so we won't publish the review."

I think their reviews have become less relevant to readers in the last two or three years. This action is not going to help their cause because it's impossible for them to take down all the fake reviews and they will take down some real ones in the process.

[loco]

a loud haha. i knew this was coming any day. The problem of the web is that is is indeed a *web*. a mesh of connected strands. when one facebooks and goodreads and shelfaris and google nows, the trails can be connected pretty easily.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

Yes, many people understand on a surface level that their private information isn't all that private any more. But most don't think about it beyond that. They don't think about what it may mean in the future.

Let's stop right there.
You did (think about it beyond that).
And you do (think about what it may mean in the future).

So did/do I.

But I don't fall into the trap of believing I'm among an elite few with the skill-set and brain-power necessary to "see behind the curtain," as it were. I'm certainly nothing special. Sure there are foolish people out there who don't think farther ahead than the next few seconds. Always have been. But their lack of foresight in this particular regard is no more threatening to the rest of us than it ever has been throughout history, IMO.

Dummies do dumb stuff. Can't save them from themselves by worrying about (or legislating against) what companies choose to do with data they hand out voluntarily (through ignorance or apathy).

Unless you're off the grid; privacy's an illusion. Has been for a long time.

As far as Amazon using whatever algorithms/data they use to disqualify reviews: I don't care. Neither should anyone else posting reviews there (IMO). If someone takes an inordinate amount of pride in the reviews they write, they should be posting them somewhere where THEY control the content. Not giving them away to a retail giant who might break your heart by removing them (for whatever reason they choose to do so).

I can only think of two reasons someone would be upset because their review of a book was removed from Amazon:
1) They were proud of it (but not enough so to save/post it elsewhere for backup)
2) Their reason for writing it was something other than giving away their fair opinion of a book.

I can understand #1, but I suspect that doesn't represent very many people at all. Which leaves #2.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep, same here. Unless it is something I am truly impressed with - good or bad I don't tend to even post ratings.....mediocre is for moo-cows.

Generally I post reviews only when my reaction is at odds with the vast majority of reviews--either something has overwhelmingly great reviews and I hated it with a passion, or it's got rotten reviews and I loved it (the first is more likely). Usually I don't read the reviews till after I've read the book, just to see if others have reacted the way I have.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I totally agree with your assessment, and I will add this:

There's way too much incestuous cronyism involved, along with the back-slapping 'good ole boy [girl]' mentally going on when it comes to reviews posted on Amazon. It needed to stop, and Amazon has finally done something proactive about it.

I say, "Good for you, Amazon, and thank you for keeping an eye out on these bottom-breeding 'pay-me-and-I'll favorably-review-your-product' scammers.

And I will add this: "And Gramma just loves your new book."

It's a complete illusion. They will guess wrong, they will stop some valid reviewers from bothering and they will not improve the reviews that are out there. I don't even have a problem with them spinning their wheels and giving people the illusion that they care--but I do have an issue with them trolling the web and mining private details (or trying to guess about details). It's not necessary--because it adds nothing.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Let's stop right there.
You did (think about it beyond that).
And you do (think about what it may mean in the future).

So did/do I.

But I don't fall into the trap of believing I'm among an elite few with the skill-set and brain-power necessary to "see behind the curtain," as it were. I'm certainly nothing special. Sure there are foolish people out there who don't think farther ahead than the next few seconds. Always have been. But their lack of foresight in this particular regard is no more threatening to the rest of us than it ever has been throughout history, IMO.

Dummies do dumb stuff. Can't save them from themselves by worrying about (or legislating against) what companies choose to do with data they hand out voluntarily (through ignorance or apathy).

Unless you're off the grid; privacy's an illusion. Has been for a long time.

As far as Amazon using whatever algorithms/data they use to disqualify reviews: I don't care. Neither should anyone else posting reviews there (IMO). If someone takes an inordinate amount of pride in the reviews they write, they should be posting them somewhere where THEY control the content. Not giving them away to a retail giant who might break your heart by removing them (for whatever reason they choose to do so).

I can only think of two reasons someone would be upset because their review of a book was removed from Amazon:
1) They were proud of it (but not enough so to save/post it elsewhere for backup)
2) Their reason for writing it was something other than giving away their fair opinion of a book.

I can understand #1, but I suspect that doesn't represent very many people at all. Which leaves #2.

If you believe what you said, why say that privacy is an illusion? If everyone except dummies think about the consequences of parting with their private data, and believe - in essence - as you do, then there is no illusion. I think the illusion still exists for the majority of people.

I'm not sure why you have reservations about the number of people impacted by #1. I've read many excellent reviews about ebooks, and other products, that people have obviously put a lot of effort into. I don't know how many bother to save the reviews for use elsewhere, it's not obvious to me that they should.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm not sure why you have reservations about the number of people impacted by #1. I've read many excellent reviews about ebooks, and other products, that people have obviously put a lot of effort into. I don't know how many bother to save the reviews for use elsewhere, it's not obvious to me that they should.

They can't have it both ways. Either it's something they're proud of and they've taken steps to preserve, or it's something they don't really give a damn about (in which case it shouldn't matter if it gets deleted).

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by loco

a loud haha. i knew this was coming any day. The problem of the web is that is is indeed a *web*. a mesh of connected strands. when one facebooks and goodreads and shelfaris and google nows, the trails can be connected pretty easily.

Which is why I don't do Facebook or any of those. I even changed my name for my Amazon reviews back to "Amazon customer" because I knew that Amazon could use that to connect to my posts here, or use that information for something else. For a short time it was Purple lady. I don't do many reviews anyway though.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

As far as Amazon using whatever algorithms/data they use to disqualify reviews: I don't care. Neither should anyone else posting reviews there (IMO). If someone takes an inordinate amount of pride in the reviews they write, they should be posting them somewhere where THEY control the content. Not giving them away to a retail giant who might break your heart by removing them (for whatever reason they choose to do so).

I can only think of two reasons someone would be upset because their review of a book was removed from Amazon:
1) They were proud of it (but not enough so to save/post it elsewhere for backup)
2) Their reason for writing it was something other than giving away their fair opinion of a book.

I can understand #1, but I suspect that doesn't represent very many people at all. Which leaves #2.

You nailed it.
It is one thing to review functional products like computers and furniture, gadgets and stuff. Even CDs and DVDs have aspects where hearing somebody else's experience is useful beyond "I liked it/I hated it". And those kind of reviews cone from the Consumer Reports world of consumerist culture. Those reviews focus on the product and its suitability to mission.

But book reviews come from the incestuous tradpub world where reviews serve the interests of the publisher or the reviewer more than the consumer. And too often literary reviews have been instruments of power and nepotism and backscratching. A lot of that tradpub legacy has filtered into the online review system in places like goodreads and Amazon with cliques and promoters bringing things to the table that don't really help consumers. Promoting the work of a friend or acquaintance just because you like them doesn't help consumers any more than dropping one-star reviews on a title because it is DRM'ed.

Goodreads can tolerate some of it because it is a social network so some fanboyism is to be expected but there isn't much room for that kind of shilling (pro or con) at a commercial site.

No more than there is room for commercial activity and sockpuppet shills right here.

Mobileread has standards it enforces and so does Amazon.
And I can think of at least once when the mods here used forensics to unmask shills. Wikipedia, too.

Amazon having deeper pockets means they can afford further-reaching tools but the principle is the same: each site has a mission and a culture to protect as best they can. Any available legal tool is fair game and last I heard spiders were perfectly legal.

Neither side is going to be a hundred percent accurate but both have a right to draw the line as they see fit.

And, hey, if Amazon disallows your review, why not take it to Apple or Kobo?

[BearMountainBooks]

I wrote reviews from years and years back. I did it because I loved books. I did it long before I published any of my own writing/books. I would have been gravely disappointed if Amazon "disallowed" it for some reason. Just a pride thing (and possibly thinking my opinion mattered much more than it did). These days, I expect such silliness out of corporations because they think they can figure out relationships/shills and whatnot by crawling along the web. I still maintain that it doesn't matter and won't help solve the problem. And I do agree there is a problem.

I am pretty sure that if I wanted to be a fake reviewer, I could put a little effort into creating a persona and do a bang-up job of reviewing whatever I wanted--and not tie it to myself. It's possible I could even charge for it. NUMEROUS times I have had reviewers who charge approach me in one way or another and never publicly. I've even had reviewers LEAVE a review and THEN ask to be paid along with an offer to do more reviews. These folks can work completely behind the scenes, target those of us who don't have a lot of reviews, and they can make their work look completely legit. If they stick to email and don't friend on FB or other social media, they probably do just fine. They get free books, make a little money, get ignored by a few writers who won't pay for reviews, and work or not work on reviews as they please.

Amazon won't find these folks. And the more they "target" certain types of activities, the more the reviewers will go underground. So the problem changes and actually makes fake reviews harder to spot.

Just because people don't protect their privacy doesn't make it a good idea for corporations to go crawling around being nosy. I'm sure they think being nosy is legal and fine and benefits them. I happen to think they are incorrect. They are wasting their time on something petty that doesn't even solve the problem. It changes our culture and not for the better.

[tubemonkey]

Six Degrees of Relatedness

Dear Valued Reviewer

We recently removed your review of a Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens because you're related to him. Our algorithms have determined that you were both descended from Adam. We at Amazon strive to maintain impartiality for reviews. Please feel free to submit reviews for books by authors that are not related to you.

This decision is irrevocable and we will not answer any emails you send us concerning this matter. If you persist in attempts to contact us, we'll terminate your Amazon account.

As always, we value your loyal patronage and look forward to serving you in the future.

The Kindle Team

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

They can't have it both ways. Either it's something they're proud of and they've taken steps to preserve, or it's something they don't really give a damn about (in which case it shouldn't matter if it gets deleted).

You make it sound as if pride is a black and white thing, that a person must be as proud of their few paragraphs of review as they are of a doctoral thesis, or don't care in the slightest. You don't really believe that only those extremes exist, do you?

I would assume that very few people who have a review rejected will care so much as to bother to raise a fuss. Unlike the example from the OP, most will shrug it away with varying degrees of unvoiced disgruntlement. I suspect a goodly proportion will react to the effect of: "Well, if they don't want reviews I won't bother to give them any." Their silence on the matter will leave Amazon uninformed about the fact that they (Amazon) have made a mistake, indeed the silence may well be interpreted as a success "if they stopped posting reviews it must be because they were fakers that were caught out". This is what I meant earlier about the difficulties of even measuring the effectiveness of the strategy.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

[...] And, hey, if Amazon disallows your review, why not take it to Apple or Kobo?

If I bought from Amazon why should I think about going elsewhere? I realise that most people here have probably signed up with multiple stores, but I don't think MR is a good measure of the wider population. And if I sign up just to leave a review of a book I didn't buy at the store then the review loses credibility. (And since this sort of technology tends to spread I have no guarantee that my review will be accepted elsewhere.)

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Six Degrees of Relatedness

Dear Valued Reviewer

We recently removed your review of a Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens because you're related to him. Our algorithms have determined that you were both descended from Adam. We at Amazon strive to maintain impartiality for reviews. Please feel free to submit reviews for books by authors that are not related to you.

This decision is irrevocable and we will not answer any emails you send us concerning this matter. If you persist in attempts to contact us, we'll terminate your Amazon account.

As always, we value your loyal patronage and look forward to serving you in the future.

The Kindle Team

Welcome back monkey!

[PatNY]

Yelp has been restricting a lot of reviews for years. I've only left 2 reviews there and one of them was put in the restricted lot where they are still viewable but you have to click buttons to see them. And I had zero relationship to the business I reviewed other than I was extremely satisfied with the level of service I got from them.

I was irritated Yelp did this and felt their formula for weeding out bogus reviews was rather aggressive, but on the other hand I understood this was done solely to protect consumers and the integrity of their review system. Hence, I was on board. They erred on the side of consumers.

This is what Amazon is doing too. There is no perfect formula and some honest reviews are going to be caught up in the efforts to weed out the dishonest ones. In the end, it protects consumers so I'm glad they're doing this.

--Pat