KINDLE OASIS2

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I've seen enough postings from authors who have removed their books from KU due to the effect that various scams have had on their income. When Amazon lets you know that your books have had more checkouts from KU, the pages read have gone up but your payment has dropped, you might begin to suspect that Amazon is being gamed successfully.

Enough postings to justify what? Nobody ever complained about making too much money. Not every read on KU translates into a lost sale. Also XX amount of KU reads won't necessarily translate into extra sales. If the reads are from people like me, then it won't effect sales at all. I am not looking to discover interesting books to buy, all I am interested in is books to read.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Enough postings to justify what? Nobody ever complained about making too much money. Not every read on KU translates into a lost sale. Also XX amount of KU reads won't necessarily translate into extra sales. If the reads are from people like me, then it won't effect sales at all. I am not looking to discover interesting books to buy, all I am interested in is books to read.

Where did I mention sales? You do realize that authors are paid by KU based on a page read algorithm which seems to buried under more security than the Manhattan Project enjoyed. We've seen enough postings to the effect that "more people are checking my books out from KU and the KENPC pages read has increased but my income from KU has dropped". Nothing to do with sales rather that the income from KU has dropped for whatever reason. This has some authors removing their books from KU and having them available on other ebook retailers to see if this will increase their income.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Where did I mention sales? You do realize that authors are paid by KU based on a page read algorithm which seems to buried under more security than the Manhattan Project enjoyed. We've seen enough postings to the effect that "more people are checking my books out from KU and the KENPC pages read has increased but my income from KU has dropped". Nothing to do with sales rather that the income from KU has dropped for whatever reason. This has some authors removing their books from KU and having them available on other ebook retailers to see if this will increase their income.

If the money from KU is insufficient, then you need to generate more sales. It may work to go wide into different stores, but until you build enough fans you will lose what you had in KU. Outside Amazon a writer will compete with others that rely on sales. Inside Amazon you also compete against those that are (partially) in KU. KU can be used to attract sales, but not by doing nothing and just hoping for the best. Sales (and borrows) only happen repeatedly to those that (1) have good enough writing skill and (2) have enough eyeballs on their books.

[fjtorres]

kj

Originally Posted by DNSB

I've seen enough postings from authors who have removed their books from KU due to the effect that various scams have had on their income.

Perceived. "Perceived effect."
Anybody can claim anything but proving it is a wee bit harder.

At most they might be able to show correlation but causation? That *their* lost income was due solely to the scammers?
Doubt it. Simple order of magnitude analysis suggests not.

First, the way KU funding works any scammer is going to hit Amazon, not authors.
Second, Amazon sets the payout pool after the fact, based on total recorded page reads. So any "scam page reads" are *added* to the legit page reads and then Amazon sets the pool size to keep the per page payout within their desired range. They will grow tbe expected pool size if the payout falls below estimates. So, more page reads = bigger payout. Any scam pages simply trigger a bigger payout. And if the growth is too big, alarms will trip and Amazon will look at where *their* money is going.

Nate the great pointed this out months ago:

https://the-digital-reader.com/2016/...per-page-scam/

Courtesy of Nate's site, here's how the payouts roll:

Here's a list of the monthly funding pools. It does not include the bonuses paid out each month.

July 2014: $2.5 million (Kindle Unlimited launches early in the month)
August 2014: $4.7 million
September 2014: $5 million
October 2014: $5.5 million
November 2014: $6.5 million
December 2014: $7.25 million
January 2015 - $8.5 million
February 2015: $8 million
March 2015: $9.3 million
April 2015: $9.8 million
May 2015: $10.8 million
June 2015: $11.3 million
July 2015: $11.5 million
August 2015: $11.8 million
September 2015: $12 million
October 2015: $12.4 million
November 2015: $12.7 million
December 2015: $13.5 million
January 2016: $15 million
February 2016: $14 million
March 2016: $14.9 million
April 2016: $14.9 million
May 2016: $15.3 million
June 2016: $15.4 million
July 2016: $15.5 million
August 2016: $15.8 million
September 2016: $15.9 million
October 2016: $16.2 million
November 2016: $16.3 million
December 2016: $16.8 million
January 2017: : $17.8 million
February 2017: : $16.8 million
March 2017: $17.7 million
April 2017: $17.8 million
May 2017 :$17.9 million
June 2017: $18 million
July 2017: $19 million
August 2017: $19.4 million
September 2017: $19.5 million
October 2017: $19.7 million
November 2017: $19.8 million
December 2017: $19.9 million
January 2018: $20.9 million
February 2018: $20 million
March 2018: $21 million
April 2018: $21.2 million
May 2018: $22.5 million

Notice the steady growth *and* seasonality.
Every spring for several years we hear plaints that KU payouts shrank in Feb and March...
...from big boosts in December and January.
Growth resumes in April.

Again, KU has been around long enough to stabilize.
Massive scamming would be immediately noticed by Amazon as a massive surge in page reads which is something that has never happened.

Now, has somebody scammed their way to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars?
Almost certainly. And been flagged and banned and worse.

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/...d-from-amazon/

But in a business paying out tens of millions a month, hundreds of millions a year, any scamming sneaking by would amount to fractions of a percent in losses to *Amazon*. Even if the scammed money were coming out of a fixed pool instead of an expanding pool, the hypothetical losses would be spread across tens of thousands of authors. (Remember: 1.5 million titles!) Those mythical losses would come to a few bucks per author. (Run the numbers! At half a cent per page, how many scam pages would be needed to generate even 1%/$3M? Think Amazon wouldn't notice the spike hitting their bottom line?) So an author would have to have a pretty lean KU reader base to be noticeably impacted. Which they wouldn't be because the scammers are ripping off Amazon, not authors.

KU is a strange beast poorly understood.
And one oft forgotten thing is that it is recency driven.

A major portion of reads go to recent uploads. Which is why the most successful KU authors with deep backlists don't dump all their books at once and instead release them steadily as a monthly stream to maintain a presence in the new releases listings. Because once they fall out of those listings their reads will take a big hit. This is well documented. But not all authors track things like seasonality or recency effects.

Finally, remember that on the internet you're most likely hearing from the squeaky wheels, the disgruntled. The happily gruntled prefer to keep quiet and count their loot in private.

(Which is why Author Earnings Data Guy got into such a crapstorm when he started publicly naming the six and seven figure annual income indie ebook authors. He had to backtrack within hours. Torches and pitchforks. There is such a thing as too much transparency.)

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

First, the way KU funding works any scammer is going to hit Amazon, not authors.

Second, Amazon sets the payout pool after the fact, based on total recorded page reads. So any "scam page reads" are *added* to the legit page reads and them Amazon sets the pool size to keep the per page payout within their desired range. So, more page reads = bigger payout. Any scam pages simply trigger a bigger payout. And if the growth is too bigs, alarms will trip and Amazon will look at where *their* money is going.

Last time I looked, I was given the impression that Amazon set the payout based on the pool divided by total pages read during the 30 day period. The per page rate is set after the fact though it has remained moderately stable in 2018. If that information was correct, if a scammer manages to generate a high page read number, it reduces the payout to everyone else. Of course, Amazon is liable to catch on to this and the scammer will have to move to new user names and a new set of books. Given the various news stories in the last couple of months (i've added links to a few below):

Scammers Break The Kindle Store

Kindle Unlimited Book Stuffing Scam Earns Millions and Amazon Isn't Stopping It

Kindle Unlimited snafu: scammers, suspended accounts, and page read reductions

etc. It sounds as if Amazon has the usual problem of being reactive not proactive.

As for the book stuffers? As mentioned in an earlier post, a series my wife checked out turned out be be 3 80-89 page novellas and a 135 page novel. Sadly the ebooks that novellas were in ran to 450-800 pages while the novel had ~110 pages with the other 25 consisting of advertising for other books by the author and friends plus a 2 page acknowledgment that read like an Oscar speech (I want to thank—by name—everyone who has been within a metre of me during my life). She did complain to Amazon and received a "nice" form letter response. When I wrote the previous message in this thread mentioning that series, it was still on Amazon and shows as KU available. Amazon -- with the blinding speed of a giant tortoise...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DNSB

It sounds as if Amazon has the usual problem of being reactive not proactive.

Of course they are.
All retailers have to wait for the shoplifter to steal from them before calling the cops.

The issue isn't whether there is some scamming.
It is whether it amounts to anything significant.
A few readers are annoyed, they complain, Amazon looks into it and bans the scammer. They might give the annoyed reader a free month.

All businesses get scammed.
It's part of the cost of doing business.

Have you heard of the Walmart that sold a returned iPad box that actually had a brick inside? Every store has their issues.

Nobody knows for sure how much net Amazon makes from KU but it's a safe bet that if they're paying out $250-300M a year they are netting at least 5% of that and possibly as much as 30%.

They are reactive because a few hundred thousand out of *their* pockets is nothing they sweat. They see no need to go looking for trouble; trouble will find them on its own.

Big businesses are really, really different.
If they don't sweat their own losses why should we?
Some idealistic vision of a world without thieves?

[Apache]

Employees are supposed to open the boxes and make sure everything is inside and in new condition. Of course if employees are busy or don't care they skip that part. A cousin of mine used to brag about buying computer parts from Wal Mart and returning the box with his used part in it.
Apache

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Of course they are.
All retailers have to wait for the shoplifter to steal from them before calling the cops.

I take it you have never worked in retail? Most retailers of any size have staff in the store whose job is shrinkage prevention. They may be watching cameras, walking the floors, etc. but they are present. You know, the folks who grab you as you walk out the door with your ten-finger discount. Next time you are in a Walmart for instance, take a look at the collection of ceiling mounted cameras, check the people on the floor who are seem to be spending more time watching the shoppers than shopping, etc. Admittedly, they are probably watching the staff more closely than the shoppers -- the majority of shrinkage is due to staff.

I would suspect that Amazon does have people who do the type of work for KU and I suspect many scammers work hard to stay below their horizon. Then of course, we have prawning which has hit quite a few non-scammer authors. See Dangers for Prawny Authors for a bit more information.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I take it you have never worked in retail? Most retailers of any size have staff in the store whose job is shrinkage prevention. They may be watching cameras, walking the floors, etc. but they are present. You know, the folks who grab you as you walk out the door with your ten-finger discount. Next time you are in a Walmart for instance, take a look at the collection of ceiling mounted cameras, check the people on the floor who are seem to be spending more time watching the shoppers than shopping, etc. Admittedly, they are probably watching the staff more closely than the shoppers -- the majority of shrinkage is due to staff.

I would suspect that Amazon does have people who do the type of work for KU and I suspect many scammers work hard to stay below their horizon. Then of course, we have prawning which has hit quite a few non-scammer authors. See Dangers for Prawny Authors for a bit more information.

Amazon has a business model that lends itself to being gamed and people have been gaming them for a long, long time. Google has the same basic problem. If you depend on computer algorithms to make decisions, then eventually someone is going to figure out how to game it.

The flip side is that both Google and Amazon have the issue that they are monetizing by showing customers things based on what they were paid to show rather than based on what matches the customers' needs.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I take it you have never worked in retail? Most retailers of any size have staff in the store whose job is shrinkage prevention. They may be watching cameras, walking the floors, etc. but they are present. You know, the folks who grab you as you walk out the door with your ten-finger discount. Next time you are in a Walmart for instance, take a look at the collection of ceiling mounted cameras, check the people on the floor who are seem to be spending more time watching the shoppers than shopping, etc. Admittedly, they are probably watching the staff more closely than the shoppers -- the majority of shrinkage is due to staff.

...

I believe fjtorres is correct, at least here in the U.S.: the police won't get involved unless the customer walks through the door with an item. I occasionally put things in my coat pockets for convience, pay for them before checking out, and the police have never been called.

[Apache]

In the US you can not be charged with shoplifting unless you walk out the doors without paying. You may know the customer is planning on stealing something, but you can not stop them in the store and accuse them of stealing store merchandise.
Apache

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by John F

I believe fjtorres is correct, at least here in the U.S.: the police won't get involved unless the customer walks through the door with an item. I occasionally put things in my coat pockets for convience, pay for them before checking out, and the police have never been called.

As I said, grab you when you walk out the door. In Canada, until you remove the item from their premises, no crime has been committed and the police will not get involved. Of course, store security may be keeping a very close eye on you just to make sure you don’t get too far.

Edit: While what I wrote above is generally applied in Canada, there have been cases where the perpetrator was heading towards an exit and away from the cashiers and was stopped by store security. This behaviour was considered sufficient to establish that they were not planning to pay for whatever they have in their hand or concealed on their person. To quote section 494 of the Canadian Criminal Code:

Spoiler:

Arrest without warrant by any person

    494 (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

        (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

        (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

            (i) has committed a criminal offence, and

            (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

    Marginal note:Arrest by owner, etc., of property

    (2) The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property and

        (a) they make the arrest at that time; or

        (b) they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.

    Marginal note:Delivery to peace officer

    (3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

That aside, one friend of mine used to have a nasty hobby. if the alarm went off as he was exiting a store, he would starting running and duck around the nearest corner. This was a real hoot to him until one day, a store staff member who had been a university level sprinter caught him and tackled him to the ground causing some nasty injuries to both parties (full contact sports are not meant to be played on concrete? ). He attempted to sue for compensation for his injuries but lost. Basically the court ruled that his running would be considered as sufficient evidence under section 494(2) as the store staff were acting as representatives of the store owner in their actions and no evidence of excessive force was given.

Regards,
David

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The flip side is that both Google and Amazon have the issue that they are monetizing by showing customers things based on what they were paid to show rather than based on what matches the customers' needs.

You keep repeating this over and over as a mantra. And yet, the recommendation are in essence advertisements. It is a big sign that says: "Here, we have these for sale, they might interest you since you bought and looked at similiar items." If you fail to understand recommendations from a store that wants to sell things as advertisements, then I don't know which world you live in.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You keep repeating this over and over as a mantra. And yet, the recommendation are in essence advertisements. It is a big sign that says: "Here, we have these for sale, they might interest you since you bought and looked at similiar items." If you fail to understand recommendations from a store that wants to sell things as advertisements, then I don't know which world you live in.

I live in the real world. Maybe you should try to think about what is being said. The issue with Google has been in the news for a while. People got so dissatisfied with the fact that the first page of search results didn't really match the search criteria, but rather were paid placements, they started moving to other search engines.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/...claims/135824/

Yes, I do understand that recommendations are Amazon trying to sell me something, but that's not what I'm talking about. The original idea of recommendations was Amazon saying "Hey you bought a new book by John Ringo, you might like this book by David Weber". That was fine. I understand that recommendations aren't perfect. The issue is that Amazon shifted from making recommendations based on what you buy, to making recommendations based on who is paying them for priority in placement. Rather than recommend David Weber, they started recommending various indie authors because they make more money on placement service with those authors.

My current recommended authors are Christopher Nutall, Lauerence Dahners, Terry Mixon, Evan Currie, Issac Hooke, Peter Grant and Jan Allan. Hum, what do all those authors have in common? Well, it's certainly not that they are authors that I have heard of, or am likely interested in! Rather, they are all indie authors, who might be paying Amazon to pimp them.

Amazon's recommendations tend to be better in more obscure categories such as ancient history. I assume that they don't sell placement to as many authors in that category.

Try googling recommendation ad.

[DuckieTigger]

@pwalker8: I do not have the problem with first page Google showing exclusively sponsored ads. If I don't find what I need on first page, I will adjust my search words more specific until I do. Remember ask.com? You could ask sentences. Google can do that too now. Appears to give better results sometimes.

Amazon showing too many Indies for your taste? Well, that is the advantage Amazon has over other stores with much more limited selection of books. Maybe the new Apple Books store would align better as a discovery tool for you.

By the way, I always chuckle when after a marathon search on Google and Amazon ads pop up about it everywhere. Say, I am researching new lenses for my camera. For the next week or so I see ads left and right about lenses. And I hear about it too from my wife: "You been looking up lenses." "How did you know? *insert big grin*.