Interesting view of Amazon through a writer/publisher's eyes

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I've been quite critical of them actually. I just don't go so far as to post speculation as fact.

And whose responsibility, do you suggest, is to let us know what exactly, is "fact?"

If Amazon, cannot formulate and state some sort of clear policy, then we just have to rely on the likes of Salon.com, and Publishers Weekly.

Or do you prefer that you neither see, nor hear, any "evil" relating to Amazon? Should Google filter its searches too, to exclude such critical "speculation"?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sonist

And whose responsibility, do you suggest, is to let us know what exactly, is "fact?"

If Amazon, cannot formulate and state some sort of clear policy, then we just have to rely on the likes of Salon.com, and Publishers Weekly.

Or do you prefer that you neither see, nor hear, any "evil" relating to Amazon? Should Google filter its searches too, to exclude such critical "speculation"?

Google does filter it's searches. Often it absolutely refuses to honor exclude terms. It is a paid business.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Google does filter it's searches....

Do you have any proof, that in the US at least, Google purposefully excludes items from searches, without telling the user?

[pking36330]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You seem to have a particularly bleak view of the ethics of most businesses. If you really hold such views, you must be a fan either of much increased government regulation, or outright public ownership of all businesses.

At least in my experience, many businesses do play by certain ethical rules, and do not engage on deceptive practices. Most of us had assumed that Amazon is not a Brooklyn-based, fly-by-night outfit.

Wow! I'm actually 180 degrees out from what you assume. I don't think Amazon is acting unethically at all. They are operating as a business and I hope the government keeps their nose out of such dealings. All I'm saying is that you must put yourself in the shoes of the Amazon staff. The shareholders demand increasing profits, even if the economy is down. So they can proactively manage the media assets they own and control (including ALL facets of their website) or they can answer to sthe shareholders who will no doubt fire them if they don't. That is business. They own it, they'd better control to make sure they obtain EVERY advantage from it since Amazon is paying for the server space and personnel that maintain it. If it doesn't lead to profits, cut it off...no customer comments.

So I don't think they are being deceptive or unethical, I think they're being business managers.

[pking36330]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

I need to back this up. I've been out doing errands and in thinking about this and I realized that there there is a major mis-understanding here.

daffy4u, mea culpa, there was a major misunderstanding. I read your post as a FoS complaint against Amazon for editing one of your reviews. After reading your clarification, I did misunderstand and apologize for commenting on something when I had the story askew. My sincere apologies.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by pking36330

daffy4u, mea culpa, there was a major misunderstanding. I read your post as a FoS complaint against Amazon for editing one of your reviews. After reading your clarification, I did misunderstand and apologize for commenting on something when I had the story askew. My sincere apologies.

Thanks pking36330! My apologies as well, I wasn't clear enough in my posts. We're good in my book.

[pking36330]

Originally Posted by Phogg

They do have that right, and I have made the same statement before.
However, their customers and suppliers also have a right to criticize and - if they so choose - impose a monetary consequence on Amazon's behavior.

What's good for the goose, as it were.

Yes they have the right. Vote with your wallet if you don't like that they are doing. But don't think for an instant that if you take your business away from Amazon and buy from company Xyz instead that they haven't also done the same filtering of search results and administrive clean-up of customer comments on their website. EVERY company is doing that, if they're not they're not going to be in business long.

There is an entire sub-industry that does this for companies called Search Engine Optimization and it works on external and internal websites. You can even get a degree in how to do this for a living. This IS NOT DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, its modern business. And I think everyone in this thread complaining about this is bashing Amazon for some other potentially valid reason. Bash them for your bad customer service or for not carrying your favorite vegemite toothpaste but not for managing their own website in a manner that's leads to increased revenue...that's business.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by pking36330

EVERY company is doing that, if they're not they're not going to be in business long.

Now, that's something different. When we take discussion out of "what is ethical, expected or norm of behaviour" waters, one could argue that it is questionable if this business practice is beneficial for Amazon itself.

- Amazon is not any XyZ company. They are huge, and further growth of their business is quite a different proposition from "any XyZ" company.

- Customer reviews are beneficial for Amazon.

- Only a fraction of their visitors leaves a review.

- I can not easily judge what is the net effect of occasional lost sale vs. the PR effect of holding an uncensored, de facto first place for all things related to books.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by pking36330

Wow! I'm actually 180 degrees out from what you assume....

I in fact assumed the opposite (that you are a "free-marketeer") and this is why I made this statement.

Unethical business practices, such as surreptitious tampering with search results, or deleting reviews for no valid reasons, require a remedy, particularly for a business which controls a large share of the US online market. (Amazon't large share of the market is also the reason why one can argue that it is also a "public forum," since there may be no comparable alternative forums.)

These remedies are either the product of self-policing, or of policing by the government.

You obviously do not condone government intervention, and neither do I.

But "caveat emptor" is a really simplistic argument, and doesn't cut it in many such cases. If it did, we should also assume that all politicians are corrupt, and legalize bribery. Or, that shareholders should just accept, that management will govern a company in a manner most beneficial to such management.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Do you have any proof, that in the US at least, Google purposefully excludes items from searches, without telling the user?

It isn't excluded if it is moved to item 342,866 of 578,349 query matches. Even though it was a dead on match.

As for my assertion on refusing exclusionary terms, why don't you just spend 30 minutes on Google shopper?. That proves my point in and of itself.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Phogg

It isn't excluded if it is moved to....

Then it's different from what Amazon is doing.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Do you have any proof, that in the US at least, Google purposefully excludes items from searches, without telling the user?

Google's filtering policies are described here. They aren't mentioned on the front page but are explained if you're looking for it and willing to click through to the Advanced options.

Many users prefer not to have adult sites included in search results (especially if kids use the same computer). Google's SafeSearch screens for sites that contain explicit sexual content and deletes them from your search results. No filter is 100 percent accurate, but SafeSearch should eliminate most inappropriate material.

You can choose from among three SafeSearch settings:

•Moderate filtering excludes most explicit images from Google Image Search results but doesn't filter ordinary web search results. This is your default SafeSearch setting; you'll receive moderate filtering unless you change it.
•Strict filtering applies SafeSearch filtering to all your search results (i.e. both image search and ordinary web search).
•No filtering, as you've probably figured out, turns off SafeSearch filtering completely.

Amazon's filtering is pretty basic too - anything with an 'adult' tag gets filtered out of searches from the front page. What items get the 'adult' tag is the unclear part and appears to not be very consistent.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Google's filtering policies are described here. They aren't mentioned on the front page but are explained if you're looking for it and willing to click through to the Advanced options. ...
Amazon's filtering is pretty basic too - anything with an 'adult' tag gets filtered out of searches from the front page. What items get the 'adult' tag is the unclear part and appears to not be very consistent.

Glenn, there is fundamental difference between the two:

1. Google gives you the option to REMOVE filtering. Google has a message next to the search results, telling you what your filter preferences are set to, for image, etc. searches.

2. Amazon does NOT tell you, that they are filtering your searches, which is a deceptive practice, in my book. Amazon also does not give you the option to remove their filtering.

[Tattncat]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And as they have a right to do what they will, I also have a right to take away my business from them when I consider their tactics unfair, biased, and wrong.

Yo tambien.

[pking36330]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Unethical business practices, such as surreptitious tampering with search results, or deleting reviews for no valid reasons, require a remedy, particularly for a business which controls a large share of the US online market.

We are fundamentally opposed on this issue and we will just have to agree to disagree.

You are making a value judgement that Amazon filtering searches or deleting user posts on their website is 'unethical' and requires a 'remedy' of some sort.

I make exactly the opposite value judgement that this is an ethical and necessary business practice and as sole owner of their web presence, they don't owe consumers even a mention of how they do it or what they do.

You have the right to visit and participate in their website, or not. They aren't forcing you, you can go to B&N for your books or BBB for your housewares. But even considering that some government entity should control how Amazon manages their website is just more socialist government fervor that is currently costing us billions a day in added tax burden. Pretty soon we'll have Sinead O'Connor appointed as the Deputy UnderSecretary of Underwear telling us how many squares of toilet paper we're 'allowed' to use when we wipe. We'd better back off and let business operate or we'll be buying our ebooks from Amazonia out of Brazil soon.