Amazon Removed Gay Books from Rankings

[sirbruce]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

It was hardly a secret....

Hm, I must have missed the memo, since I was not aware of this, until I read it here.

But more importantly, this is a very disturbing policy.

Again, why "adult?" Because YOU think it's O.K.?!

Or is it because it's seen as sinful in the Bible Belt? But then, it should really be O.K. for Amazon to filter gay titles, since they are in fact seen as even MORE dangerous and offensive to certain sensibilities, than straight "adult titles.

And why filter "adult" titles on a site, where only ADULTS shop, by definition (since users need a credit card to purchase?)

And what exactly constitutes an "adult" title worth of being filtered without notice to the searcher? The Decameron? Or Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or Death in Venice? Or Lolita?

[GlennD]

I really don't understand why this is so disturbing to people. Amazon is under no obligation to even CARRY adult books, much less display them in a default search. They make no claim (that I have ever seen, and I just browsed through their front pages to verify) to carry every book ever printed. Yet you can find any of the books that they've filtered by doing a more specific search.

Amazon has made a business decision here. You and I have no idea what a completely unfiltered search looks like. Amazon does. At some point when they were designing the search pages/engines they looked at an unfiltered search and decided that filtering would help them sell more books. A brick and mortar store does the SAME THING - they decide what books are on the shelf when you walk into the store. They'll order anything they've got in their catalog, you just need to ask, but they make sure that the books you see in the store are the ones most likely to sell.

Money talks. Amazon decided that they'd get more money by filtering the initial searches. Vote with your dollars, let them know your opinion. In the end, they'll continue to do whatever they believe earns them the most money.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, I must have missed the memo, since I was not aware of this, until I read it here.

Everyone does it (here). Do you see any porn DVDs at Wal-Mart?

Originally Posted by Sonist

Or is it because it's seen as sinful in the Bible Belt? But then, it should really be O.K. for Amazon to filter gay titles, since they are in fact seen as even MORE dangerous and offensive to certain sensibilities, than straight "adult titles.

Because, as much as people like to characterize the Bible Belt as the source of all social conservatism, the truth is the majority of Americans still don't want to see porn mixed in with the "regular" stuff. Thanks to social progress, the majority no longer balks at LGBT literature, or doesn't care enough that they'll stop shopping there. But it doesn't all change overnight. Amazon made a *business* decision, and a very common one. The reason LGBT stuff is allowed is because the people who would be most offended, the Bible Belt, either don't use Amazon, don't read, don't care enough, or simply wouldn't be able to impact business as much as a progressive LGBT boycott would.

Originally Posted by Sonist

And what exactly constitutes an "adult" title worth of being filtered without notice to the searcher? The Decameron? Or Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or Death in Venice? Or Lolita?

I agree that these are problems on the edges, but these usually get sorted out one way or another to the satisfaction of most people.

[Sonist]

There is a fundamental difference between not carrying a product, and hiding a product you carry from search results, without informing the searcher.

The former is a business decision, the latter constitutes deceptive practice.

BTW, do you REALLY believe, that more Americans, "thanks to social progress," bulk at straight adult titles, than at gay titles?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Sonist

BTW, do you REALLY believe, that more Americans, "thanks to social progress," bulk at straight adult titles, than at gay titles?

"Balk", and your phraseology is deceptive which is why it looks invalid. More Americans would balk at seeing the DVD of "Dirt Pipe Milkshakes 2" displayed prominently next to a DVD copy of "Wall-E" than "Brokeback Mountain" displayed prominently next to a DVD copy of "Wall-E".

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Sonist

And why filter "adult" titles on a site, where only ADULTS shop, by definition (since users need a credit card to purchase?)

Not entirely accurate. My 14 year old daughter SHOPS on Amazon, and asks one of her parents to make a purchase.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by stormcloude

Really? Heather Has Two Mommies (aimed at 2-6 year olds) is adult and deserves to have its sales rank removed?

No it is idiotic and deserves to be laughed at.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

There is a fundamental difference between not carrying a product, and hiding a product you carry from search results, without informing the searcher.

The former is a business decision, the latter constitutes deceptive practice.

Exactly. This is the important point. I would never have guessed before this thread that Amazon sold books that could not be found by searching so I feel lied to.

[empink]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. This is the important point. I would never have guessed before this thread that Amazon sold books that could not be found by searching so I feel lied to.

Yes, me too. Also, for everyone advocating "trusting" Amazon despite what has just unfolded, NO THANKS. My money does not exist to give bigoted and unresponsive megacorps the benefit of the doubt, thank you very much. And yes, I think their recent action is sufficient proof that all is not well at Amazon; that it takes a so-called angry mob of concerned customers and partners to get them to even vaguely acknowledge a year-long policy is more than enough to prompt me to take my business elsewhere.

Also, I refuse to get into another derail argument about whether or not it is appropriate to filter out "adult" books from a search. I think it has been well established by now that WHO does the filtering and HOW they do it is much more important. In either case, *I* want to do the filtering in *my* own self-directed fashion; any store that tries to muscle into my filtering process in such a ham-handed fashion can go jump in a lake.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

"Balk", and your phraseology is deceptive which is why it looks invalid. More Americans would balk at seeing the DVD of "Dirt Pipe Milkshakes 2" displayed prominently next to a DVD copy of "Wall-E" than "Brokeback Mountain" displayed prominently next to a DVD copy of "Wall-E".

Dirt Pipe Milkshakes 2? That's not a real title is it? It can't be! If it is, that's someone with a very twisted sense of humour.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Dirt Pipe Milkshakes 2? That's not a real title is it? It can't be! If it is, that's someone with a very twisted sense of humour.

I did the research for your benefit!

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

"Balk", and your phraseology is deceptive which is why it looks invalid. More Americans would balk at seeing the DVD of "Dirt Pipe Milkshakes 2" displayed prominently next to a DVD copy of "Wall-E" than "Brokeback Mountain" displayed prominently next to a DVD copy of "Wall-E".

"Balk" it is. You won.

But it is your phraseology which is deceptive. Don't mix apples and oranges:

You should really compare most Americans' reaction to "Brokeback Mountain" with something like "9 1/2 Weeks."

And then, if you want "adult," compare the average American's reaction to "Debbie Does Dallas" with something named "Big Bill Does the Football Team."

Then tell me at which one your "Most Americans" would balk.

But the larger point, of deceptive search-manipulation, still remains.

[Krystian Galaj]

I found this blog post beautifully worded and very relevant to the topic.

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/04...of-amazonfail/

[Ea]

Hmmm. I like "Brokeback Mountain", and the Americans I know like BM, too, In fact, my "adopted american uncle" and I met via a BM fan group