Amazon knows who your friends are

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by 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

I completely disagree because I know of authors who actively get/put up bogus reviews. I checked. They haven't been caught so far. So the consumer is still unprotected. I've seen discussions for how to get around any of the algorithms too--so it isn't going to change the quality of reviews.

Yelp keeps asking me to do reviews. I've done a few here and there for restaurants or hotels when I was particularly happy with them. But I can never remember my password and so I stopped doing them there too. I've just about given up doing reviews anywhere even though I know they are valuable. Too many hoops, too much spying, and the algorithms for "suspect" don't seem to work at all.

I do agree there is a problem, but they ain't on the way to solving it.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I completely disagree because I know of authors who actively get/put up bogus reviews. I checked. They haven't been caught so far. So the consumer is still unprotected. I've seen discussions for how to get around any of the algorithms too--so it isn't going to change the quality of reviews.

Are you saying if a system isn't perfect, it shouldn't be in place at all? I never said a system such as Amazon's or even Yelp's is 100% effective at weeding out the bogus reviews. Just because a system meant to protect consumers isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't doing a great job otherwise at protecting them from a lot of harm.

Yelp keeps asking me to do reviews. I've done a few here and there for restaurants or hotels when I was particularly happy with them. But I can never remember my password and so I stopped doing them there too. I've just about given up doing reviews anywhere even though I know they are valuable. Too many hoops, too much spying, and the algorithms for "suspect" don't seem to work at all.

I do agree there is a problem, but they ain't on the way to solving it.

How do you know these systems aren't protecting consumers right now? I suspect there would be a tenfold amount of bogus reviews than what currently exists if no system or inferior systems were in place.

When I go to Amazon (or Yelp) to read reviews, I appreciate that they have taken many measures to help ensure valid, honest reviews. I believe for the most part, what I am reading are honest reviews. That's all I can ask for. If I have to turn on my BS meter to weed out some of the rest, so be it. That doesn't detract from the tremendous value these reviews provide me.

--Pat

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Are you saying if a system isn't perfect, it shouldn't be in place at all? I never said a system such as Amazon's or even Yelp's is 100% effective at weeding out the bogus reviews. Just because a system meant to protect consumers isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't doing a great job otherwise at protecting them from a lot of harm.



How do you know these systems aren't protecting consumers right now? I suspect there would be a tenfold amount of bogus reviews than what currently exists if no system or inferior systems were in place.

When I go to Amazon (or Yelp) to read reviews, I appreciate that they have taken many measures to help ensure valid, honest reviews. I believe for the most part, what I am reading are honest reviews. That's all I can ask for. If I have to turn on my BS meter to weed out some of the rest, so be it. That doesn't detract from the tremendous value these reviews provide me.

--Pat

Actually, my only beef is that there is no excuse to troll into people's privacy for the sake of perhaps finding a few bogus reviews. If any company is going to lurk on FB or GR or blogs or whatnot in the hopes of determining whether a review was done by a friend or relatives, I don't appreciate that kind of action from a company where I do business--or leave reviews. Such invasive action fails to work so the invasion of the privacy is for naught.

Now I've read all the arguments about people don't care or they shouldn't post private information and so on. While that is all true, I do not agree with the policy of companies intruding simply because they can. It's especially onerous because such invasion doesn't work the majority of the time.

I think it is entirely possible that companies could come up with a review system that would work. I think it could be done without lurking about the web like some kind NSA spy. Their current way is probably the easiest, cheapest and most invasive. I get that they are trying to make money so I understand the implementation. I just happen to disagree with the method.

Companies value reviews because they are free recommendations and the companies don't have to pay to get the input. Consumers value the reviews when they believe there is no ulterior motive behind the reviews. That's becoming more difficult to obtain. I just don't care for the choices these companies are making to achieve their goal.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Actually, my only beef is that there is no excuse to troll into people's privacy for the sake of perhaps finding a few bogus reviews. If any company is going to lurk on FB or GR or blogs or whatnot in the hopes of determining whether a review was done by a friend or relatives, I don't appreciate that kind of action from a company where I do business--or leave reviews. Such invasive action fails to work so the invasion of the privacy is for naught.

Now I've read all the arguments about people don't care or they shouldn't post private information and so on. While that is all true, I do not agree with the policy of companies intruding simply because they can. It's especially onerous because such invasion doesn't work the majority of the time.

I think it is entirely possible that companies could come up with a review system that would work. I think it could be done without lurking about the web like some kind NSA spy. Their current way is probably the easiest, cheapest and most invasive. I get that they are trying to make money so I understand the implementation. I just happen to disagree with the method.

You've said at least twice that whatever "invasive" action Amazon took to bar the review from that indie author, it doesn't work. But you have no basis for saying that, unless you know the extent of the problem Amazon had with bogus reviews of that nature. I doubt you know. So you can't say that.

Perhaps this was a bigger problem than anyone is aware of, and so they adopted aggressive measures to combat it. Maybe it's working spectacularly well. If a few reviewers who are honest get deleted, what's the big problem? The reviews exist not for the benefit of the reviewers or to make them feel good, but to help consumers make better informed choices.

Companies value reviews because they are free recommendations and the companies don't have to pay to get the input. Consumers value the reviews when they believe there is no ulterior motive behind the reviews. That's becoming more difficult to obtain. I just don't care for the choices these companies are making to achieve their goal.

Companies welcome the reviews insofar as they put out a good product. Generally, if they put out a bad product, then the reviews will be bad and hurt sales, and I doubt the company welcomes the reviews.

As for it being more difficult to obtain honest reviews today, I disagree. In fact, I think this whole thread is proving otherwise. The abuse of the review system was likely far greater in the past and before they implemented more advanced steps to weed out the bogus reviewers.

--Pat

[BearMountainBooks]

I'll just agree to disagree. I review less than ever before because of the invasive nature of trolling that goes on. I'm happy with that decision. I'm sure you'll be equally happy with your decisions.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I'll just agree to disagree. I review less than ever before because of the invasive nature of trolling that goes on. I'm happy with that decision. I'm sure you'll be equally happy with your decisions.

Do you know for a fact that Amazon goes trolling on SM to sniff out bogus reviewers? If you notice, what the indie author claimed Amazon did and what Amazon stated it did in its email to her are not the same thing. The author actually misquotes Amazon in her blog post. Amazon never said they determined her friendship with the author of the book by examining "online" activity, yet the indie author claims that is what Amazon said. Amazon said "account" activity which would likely mean only things related to her account at Amazon (like past reviews, wish lists, comments left under other reviews, etc.).

At any rate, there is no excuse for misquoting someone, and that appears to be what the indie author did. It makes me question her entire story just because of that one misstep -- whether innocent or not.

--Pat

[BearMountainBooks]

The two posts I saw on this topic were actually from reviewers/readers who posted on FB--unrelated to this thread. The one specifically mentioned that while he was a longtime fan of the author, he was shocked to have gotten the email saying his review was being removed. He did say he followed the author on fb and did visit and comment on the author blog now and then. He was actually asking if anyone knew where Amazon came up with the connection and listed those two things as the only things he knew of where he was "in contact" with the author. The author may or may not have been indie. He didn't want to name the author for fear he was being "watched."

The other post was similar. In neither case do I know if the author was indie or trad.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else about whether or not to leave reviews or like or dislike the policy. I merely stated my own issues with the policies. I base my conclusions on the letters I've seen posted, the questions on various forums I've seen and also on author behavior and discussions on reviews as well as having had one review deleted from my own book (and that could be unrelated. I don't even remember the review or know who wrote it, whether it was good or bad. I just happened to notice that my reviews for the book were at 20 and are now at 19.)

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The two posts I saw on this topic were actually from reviewers/readers who posted on FB--unrelated to this thread. The one specifically mentioned that while he was a longtime fan of the author, he was shocked to have gotten the email saying his review was being removed. He did say he followed the author on fb and did visit and comment on the author blog now and then. He was actually asking if anyone knew where Amazon came up with the connection and listed those two things as the only things he knew of where he was "in contact" with the author. The author may or may not have been indie. He didn't want to name the author for fear he was being "watched."

The other post was similar. In neither case do I know if the author was indie or trad.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was referring specifically to this one indie author -- Imy Santiago -- and her blog post at the below link which the OP in this thread and much of the ensuing discussion is based on:

http://imysantiago.com/2015/07/02/am...r-big-brother/

I believe it is this blog post which has also spurred much ensuing discussion on the matter at other blogs around the web. Yet, Santiago actually misquotes Amazon in her blog post, choosing a word to put in quotes that is much more provocative than the word Amazon actually used.

I still wonder if there is any evidence at all that Amazon routinely trolls SM sites such as FB, Twitter or IG to proactively weed out bogus reviewers -- or is there simply just suspicion?

--Pat

[DiapDealer]

The problem with using loaded terms like "invasive" or "trolling" is that there is no objective definition for them in this regard. One person's "invasion" is another's "examination of data you put out there." Is it "invasive" to use data from Goodreads when one uses their Amazon account to log into GR? Nevermind that there's no hard facts about how Amazon's algorithms determine a personal relationship between author and reviewer in the first place. "Trolling" I'll give you (though I don't believe it carries a negative connotation in this usage--which I liken to the fishing technique of the same name), but "invasive"?... I don't think it applies. Not without some evidence that they're dipping into areas where they have no legal permission to be.

[BearMountainBooks]

The one guy on FB posted the Amazon letter--I don't remember the wording specifically, but I don't think he changed anything. Nothing stood out and he was asking more than telling when it came to "how they found out."

I have no idea where they are trolling or how. The problem is that almost NONE of the criteria they use can ever yield correct answers.

Just an example: I often gift review copies to reviewers. I don't do this as a bribe, I do it because the vast majority of them have NO IDEA how to side-load or mail a book to their kindle. When I gift it, they simply click and it goes to their kindle. If Amazon decided that action constituted some sort of smarmy relationship between the author and reviewer, they could stop accepting reviews from said reviewer. They have already changed it such that when I gift a book and a review is left, it no longer shows as a "Verified purchase." (It used to and no longer does.) Most of the reviewers I approach have review sites and agree to post on Amazon and GR as ADDITIONAL places, but generally speaking, the most expedient way to get a review copy to them is to gift it. Anything that makes it harder for them to get their copy reduces the chances that the book will ever be looked at.

I get that Amazon (and other companies) are trying to stop bogus reviews. It just isn't working and additional crawling about or assumptions aren't going to solve the problem.

From what I have seen, I tend to believe the posts where bewildered readers are wondering why their reviews were deleted. From the number of posts I've seen on various social media, it appears to me that Amazon is getting it wrong quite a lot and their letter isn't going over very well either.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I have no idea where they are trolling or how. The problem is that almost NONE of the criteria they use can ever yield correct answers.

Of course it can. Getting it wrong sometimes is no evidence that it's not ever going to get it right.

I get that Amazon (and other companies) are trying to stop bogus reviews. It just isn't working and additional crawling about or assumptions aren't going to solve the problem.

Again ... your definition of "not working" seems to be based on the loopholes that allow reviews to slip through the cracks. How do you know that hundreds or thousands of purchased reviews and backscratching campaign reviews aren't being thwarted as well?

There's no doubt that some reviews that shouldn't be removed, will be removed (and that some that should be removed, won't be removed), but any claims that it's not working at all have no basis in fact.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course it can. Getting it wrong sometimes is no evidence that it's not ever going to get it right.


Again ... your definition of "not working" seems to be based on the loopholes that allow reviews to slip through the cracks. How do you know that hundreds or thousands of purchased reviews and backscratching campaign reviews aren't being thwarted as well?

There's no doubt that some reviews that shouldn't be removed, will be removed (and that some that should be removed, won't be removed), but any claims that it's not working at all have no basis in fact.

Sorry, I should have said it doesn't work for me. I feel that they they are invading privacy, getting it wrong more often than not and therefore I participate less in reviews.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Sorry, I should have said it doesn't work for me. I feel that they they are invading privacy, getting it wrong more often than not and therefore I participate less in reviews.

Fair enough.

I feel that they probably wouldn't pursue it at all if they were truly getting it wrong more often than not. There's no advantage for them to remove more valid reviews than bogus ones (unless they're trying to unload crap that needs all the help it can get). An algorithm that "gets it wrong more often than not" is certainly not in keeping with Amazon's track record thus far. Love 'em or hate 'em; they rarely fail miserably at what they try to achieve. Still, there's always a first time, I guess.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Fair enough.

I feel that they probably wouldn't pursue it at all if they were truly getting it wrong more often than not. There's no advantage for them to remove more valid reviews than bogus ones (unless they're trying to unload crap that needs all the help it can get). An algorithm that "gets it wrong more often than not" is certainly not in keeping with Amazon's track record thus far. Love 'em or hate 'em; they rarely fail miserably at what they try to achieve. Still, there's always a first time, I guess.

Their track record is very good--but not really on this whole review thing. It's been a mess for a long, long time. I hope you are correct. I do take offense whenever they sent out emails that have that line about not discussing anything further/taking any more emails on a subject. I got one (completely unrelated to reviews. I asked a question about a search issues) and I was really trying to understand the issue. After the first response, where the response clearly was not in answer to my question, I sent a second email. I was then told "We won't discuss this further."

It's rude, unseemly and not a good customer experience. It's also a little too easy to essentially say, "Sorry. We're not interested in your problem so we won't be responding."

I understand why they do it and that they feel it necessary in some cases, but in my own experience it's overused and rude. It's also insulting when they get it wrong. I have not received such a notice as a reviewer, but I'd be steamed if I did get such a notice. (Not because the review would be taken down but I'd be mad if they got it wrong and then had the nerve to send such a note.)

[conan50]

When you finish reading a book on Kindle it asks you to leave a review. Maybe they should add in small print:

"Unless you are in any way affiliated with the author, know the name of his/her dog, have seen photos of their cat, or have ever seen their name anywhere prior to reading the book."

Seriously, I get even one of those reject letters from Amazon about anyone I remotely know or not--it will be my last review ever on Amazon. I doubt they have enough detailed information to reject very many reviews. And if they are using Goodreads info to gather profiles, time to drop Goodreads.