Slashdot Mirror


Amazon.com Pierces Reviewer Anonymity

theodp writes "Amazon reviewers who anonymously posted book reviews or signed their critiques only as 'a reader from (fill in the city)' lost their anonymity this week when their identities were revealed on Amazon's site. Among those named were prominent authors who posted glowing five-star reviews of their own work. The weeklong glitch, which Amazon fixed after outed reviewers complained, provided a rare glimpse at how writers and readers are wielding the online reviews as a tool to promote or pan books when they think no one is watching. An Amazon spokeswoman told the NY Times the problem was 'an unfortunate error.'"

333 comments

  1. Out of the closet by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Flamebait

    Serves 'em right. No such as anonymity on the 'net, right John Ashcroft?

    1. Re:Out of the closet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go, tunnel vision is best when firing a weapon, you have to aim at the target NOT THE SHIT THAT CAME BEFORE IT LIKE JANET RENO!! HELLO PREDATOR REMEMBER ANY OF THAT OTHER STUFF PRE JAN 2001??????? So blame the Justice Dept in general, kthxdie

    2. Re:Out of the closet by Bishop923 · · Score: 1, Funny

      +5 Flamebait

      Only Thing better is the coveted +5 Troll...

    3. Re:Out of the closet by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on your +5 High Quality Flamebait :)

    4. Re:Out of the closet by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      There is always the elusive +6 flamebait... Speaking of flamebait...check out the link in my sig!

    5. Re:Out of the closet by Scoria · · Score: 0

      "5, Flamebait" is the pinnacle of trolling on Slashdot. The moderators must be having an _enormous_ crisis...

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    6. Re:Out of the closet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You wrote:" "5, Flamebait" is the pinnacle of trolling on Slashdot. "

      Uh, wouldn't that be the pinnacle of flaming? I thought +5 Troll was the pinnacle of trolling.

    7. Re:Out of the closet by josephgrossberg · · Score: 1

      If you can pan a colleague's work without ruining your personal relationship ...

      If you can praise gay literature without coming out of the closet ...

      If you can say The Matrix (the first one) was pretentious and overrated without losing all your friends ... ... then the terrorists have already won!

  2. Software by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Submitted reviews are also used by software companies to promote their products. Its pretty blatant usually.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Software by Winkhorst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just recently realised that online reviews of merchants are being pumped by stooges of the same merchants, so this doesn't really surprise me at all. It just shows how important online evaluations have become when the parties themselves start putting their thumbs on the scales, so to speak.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    2. Re:Software by ted_nugent · · Score: 5, Informative
      Blatant and fully disclosed plugs I can tolerate. But out and out deception is reprehensible.

      It's ironic that this request comes from an executive officer of a security company. OTOH, their credibility had already bugun to slide since they changed their focus to litigation and Microsoft press releases.

      --

      Free the West Memphis Three!

    3. Re:Software by Saven+Marek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't really fear this too much. If there's a drastic difference between reviews of a book it's obvious something odd is going on, and a quick google will usually find what people truly think. More often than not a publication that's been out for months already has hundreds of reviews online, and nobody can get to ALL of those reviewers. The net is just like that.

      And if it's a new book I'm buying with only a few reviews? It's probably one I've been waiting for expectantly and any number of reviews won't matter. Besides, it's not like my only source for decision making on buying something is amazon reviews.

    4. Re:Software by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I usually discount any review I see that doesn't mention a downside to the product... I have yet to see a Perfect product that truely meets everyones needs in the manner which they want...

      I usually also discount Good things people say about a product without no Information to back it up... and I lean towards reviews that follow my mindset...

      I highly doubt when i read reviews what I actually take into consideration is tainted.. I have a hard time seeing a company saying anything at all bad about their product and also backing up "Marketing Claims" with logical statements that I would follow my way of thinking.

      But also on another note.... Amazon should see some heavy legal feedback about this oops...

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    5. Re:Software by S.Lemmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      CNET's download.com is really bad for this. If you ever wonder how some of the ultra-crappy spyware-loaded apps get such a high rating, just look carefully. You'll see an endless stream of almost identical reviews singing it's praises intermixed with a few honest ones warning people it's a load of e-turds. I'm sure the number of downloads (which companies and news articles love to quote) is similarly inflated.

      Really, it makes me wonder if there's some "service" out there that specializes in spamming reviews.

    6. Re:Software by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1

      I have software on download.com. Last year they sent me an email that specified how I could get better rankings for money. Since my software is under the GPL and I give it away for free, I told I was not going to pay them to promote my software. But I suspect commercial developers take them up on this. So rankings on download.com are not to be trusted anyway.

    7. Re:Software by Alphtoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't think you were shooting for 'funny' but that 'e-turds' comment cracked me up. It is so damned appropriate... a load of e-turds. I gotta remember that one so I can use it later! Thanks!

    8. Re:Software by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " I don't really fear this too much. If there's a drastic difference between reviews of a book it's obvious something odd is going on, and a quick google will usually find what people truly think."

      Not only that, but whenever I'm looking for reviews online, I'll always look for negative reviews before I look for positive ones. But I think one skill everybody develops to some degree on the internet is (well, hopefully) is learning to take things with a couple of grains of salt, and to take all the vast information provided and make your own educated decision. That's why forums like Slashdot work so well.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    9. Re:Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm amused by the "To:" line of the internal memo you cited.

      "To: Consult; Ops; Con; Sales; SE"

      Lot of guts to come out and address the "Con" department. :-)

  3. Hmm... by Raindance · · Score: 4, Funny

    "theodp" is probably the NY Times journalist who wrote this article about astroturfing-- astroturfing his article here on slashdot. ;)

    1. Re:Hmm... by wmspringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OOC, where does that phrase (astroturfing) come from? I don't think I've seen it before.

    2. Re:Hmm... by turnstyle · · Score: 1
      "theodp" is probably the NY Times journalist who wrote this article about astroturfing-- astroturfing his article here on slashdot. ;)

      It's Valentine's day, so I feel obliged to note -- it's her article...

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    3. Re:Hmm... by greenrd · · Score: 4, Informative
      It means "fake grassroots". Kind of obvious when you think about it. As to wear it comes from, I don't know, but it used to be a fairly common term of abuse on Slashdot in the early years. :)

    4. Re:Hmm... by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      *doh* You're right, it is kinda obvious when you think about it. Thanx!

    5. Re:Hmm... by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Informative

      By analogy with the distinction between grass and astroturf (artificial grass used on football fields), it denotes a fake "grass-roots" campaign. That is, it gives the appearance of there being a movement of normal, everyday citizens concerned about an issue, while it is in fact wholly manufactured by corporate propoganda.

    6. Re:Hmm... by CaptBubba · · Score: 1
      It refers to the practice of trying to mke it look like there is a grass-roots movement afoot about a particular subject or person. Often it involves fake letters of praise that are designed to look like they came from normal people. Paid reviewers and such can also be used.

      The term Astroturfing fits because what is happening is a fake grass-roots movement. Fake grass = astroturf.

    7. Re:Hmm... by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Informative

      OOC, where does that phrase (astroturfing) come from? I don't think I've seen it before.

      Astroturf is the fake grass used in (American) football stadiums -- especially those with roofs -- in place of real grass, because it's more durable and doesn't require sunlight or watering.

      A "grass root" action or campaign is one that is started spontaneously, and is largely sustained, by private persons, as opposed to politicians, corporations, or public relations firms; a "grass roots" campaign comes about because of the popular feelings of some mass of people, as opposed to being the creature of the powerful.

      "Astroturfing", then, is a campaign crafted by politicians or spin-doctors, but in such a way as to appear it's the result of popular feeling rather than crafty manipulation by political or corporate elites.

      Astroturfing to one degree or another is increasing common in American politics (and business). In reaction to the (often correct) cynicism that politicians and corporations are not acting in the best interests of "the people", an astroturfing campaign attempts to gain legitimacy by appearing to spring forth spontaneously from "the people", like Athena from Zeus's forehead; when it's discovered that the campaign was meticulously crafted and manipulated by the same spin-meisters that public has learned to distrust, the astroiturfing adds to the very cynicism it was designed to circumvent.

      One technique of an astroturfing campaign is to induce a number of its supporters to write email, letters to the editor, or in this case, Amazon reviews, in support of the campaign's goals. The campaign instructs the supporters on what to say, how to say it, and where send it, and above all, to make it appear that their indignation, appreciation, joy, or hate is entirely spontaneous and independent -- and thus "real" -- and not at all the product of an orchestrated campaign.

      The idea is that the public at large will see lots of apparently "uncoordinated", "spontaneous" and "objective" viewpoints all in line with that of the astroturfing campaign, and will come to believe that if so many of their fellow "citizens next door" believe something, they should believe it too, for all those "independent" viewpoints couldn't have been faked.

      With the advent of the internet, it's become even easier to whip up an astroturfing campaign, as the cost of emailing -- especially of emailing a pre-written, sign your name at the bottom email -- is so low. Anonymity, as in the Amazin case, makes it even easier, as one person can play the role of a whole group of like-minded people.

    8. Re:Hmm... by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a great write up. You should add it to Wikipedia's Astroturfing entry.

      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    9. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos to you, Mr. Condescending. It's not that obvious.

      As to wear it comes from,

      Now this is a little more serious. Are you really this illiterate?

    10. Re:Hmm... by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a great write up. You should add it to Wikipedia's Astroturfing entry.

      Hey, thanks!

      Ok, I added it, with the caveat that's it's rough and less stiff than my usual form for Wikipedia entries.

      Now watch as some mod comes along, sees the prior post with the Wikipedia astroturfing url, and mods me as a plagiarist. ;)

    11. Re:Hmm... by noewun · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Astroturfing to one degree or another is increasing common in American politics (and business). In reaction to the (often correct) cynicism that politicians and corporations are not acting in the best interests of "the people", an astroturfing campaign attempts to gain legitimacy by appearing to spring forth spontaneously from "the people", like Athena from Zeus's forehead; when it's discovered that the campaign was meticulously crafted and manipulated by the same spin-meisters that public has learned to distrust, the astroiturfing adds to the very cynicism it was designed to circumvent.

      Great comment, but I have one nit to pick: Astroturfing is nothing new in American politics. At the turn of the 20th century is was common to have newspapers in major American cities sponsored by local political parties. Some were open about this practice, but many of these relationships were hidden under the guise of journalism. Numerous other examples abound: political "clubs" which were fronts for voter fraud and intimidation, letter-writing campaigns organized by local ward bosses, workers fired for voting for the wrong candidate, etc.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    12. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Astroturf is the green surface used in indoor football arenas in the US, among other things.

    13. Re:Hmm... by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      Great comment, but I have one nit to pick:

      Nit added to the Wikipedia astroturfing page.

      Now go and edit what I wrote there. ;)

    14. Re:Hmm... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Don't worry,the "last modified date" of February 15th, 2004 puts in the clear. (-;
      February 15th? I guess they're a day ahead in Wikipedia.

    15. Re:Hmm... by RPoet · · Score: 1

      You know, the entire world has not yet adopted American World Standard Time or whatever you call it ;)

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    16. Re:Hmm... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, Astroturf was merely the first artificial surface. It has long since been superceded by other, better playing surfaces. The latest, FieldTurf, has been praised as being actually better than a natural grass surface.

      The reason for Astroturf's rise was the world's first indoor stadium, the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. Anyone who has spent so much as a single day in Houston between March and November will understand immediately why they chose to build a fully air-conditioned, indoor stadium. At first, they tried planting grass, but the grass died due to lack of light. Then, the Aggies at Texas A&M University developed the artificial turf, ostensibly to fill this new need. But, the real reason was to stop their cheerleaders from grazing at Kyle Field.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the wikipedia entry for AstroTurfing and AstroTurf (wow, you never stop learning!) I dont see you addition...

  4. Let's just hope... for our sakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot never suffers a glitch when it comes to Anonymous Cowards like me.

    1. Re:Let's just hope... for our sakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh fuck, the copyright infringement charges alone from all those NYT articles I've reposted...

    2. Re:Let's just hope... for our sakes... by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed, why, without the option to post as an AC I wouldn't have the guts right now to tell you how moronic most of your posts are, stupid git.

      Nanny, nanny, poo poo, yoooou caaaaan't seeeeee me!

      KFG

    3. Re:Let's just hope... for our sakes... by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      No shit, CmdrTaco! ;)

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
    4. Re:Let's just hope... for our sakes... by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Slashdot never suffers a glitch when it comes to Anonymous Cowards like me.

      As another slashdotter who hides behind anonymity, I want to tell you that you smell like pea soup and you can't do anything about cause im unknown! :P

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    5. Re:Let's just hope... for our sakes... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Suffers a glitch, no. Remember the endless dupes last April 1st? Guess what I hear is scheduled for this April 1st.. Bwahahaha!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:Let's just hope... for our sakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, why, without the option to post as an AC I wouldn't have the guts right now to tell you how moronic most of your posts are, stupid git.

      Nanny, nanny, poo poo, yoooou caaaaan't seeeeee me!


      Yes, but I can mod you!!

  5. Unfortunate Error or... by dj245 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    an unfortunate error, or Necessary feature?

    Glowing reviews posted by the author of the book perverts the system. I would welcome such a useful and eye-opening feature.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I'd like to see some anti-abuse feature put in to make sure that authors aren't reviewing their own work. Even if Amazon doesn't publish the identity of the writer, they should at least verify it themselves.

    2. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      And how in the world are they going to do that? You can't truly verify anyone's identity on the Internet.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    3. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that you shouldn't trust information you find on-line if you can't verify the source as someone you trust. Simple as that, really...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I'd like to see some anti-abuse feature put in to make sure that authors aren't reviewing their own work.

      Then rejoice at the brilliance of whoever was behind the "unfortunate error". They just dope-slapped a whole bunch of authors and reminded everyone that anonymity is almost always an illusion, while keeping their anonymous posting feature. Genius!

    5. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it's wrong of amazon to call them anonymous reviews when they aren't anonymous. Anonymous to me would be NO POSSIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE AUTHOR OF THE REVIEW AND THE REVIEW. Clearly amazon has data correlating one to the other - so at best, it's "hidden"... and not anonymous.

    6. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Unfortunate error". Yeah right.

      Somewhere in the programming department at amazon...

      "My, this bastard writes flashing comments about his own books and I can't do anything to stop him... Oh wait let's imagine for a second that I inadvertantly comment this 'unless ($anonymity_check)' thing...?"

      Thomas Miconi

    7. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would an astroturfing author bother an amazon programmer so much that said programmer would be willing to risk their job or at the very least look incompetent? Doubtful.

    8. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by __past__ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure you can. Just ask the RIAA for some tips.

    9. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by dboyles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with your sentiments, but I feel that the moral of this story has to do more with online privacy, or the lack thereof. It's kind of tough to defend an author who unethically posts a review of his own book, but it's not a slippery slope to think about how a simple error could cause privacy problems.

      --
      -- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
    10. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

      Well, the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that you shouldn't trust information you find on-line if you can't verify the source as someone you trust. Simple as that, really...

      Online or offline. This isn't anything new here kids. If you put your trust in information whose source or quality can't be confirmed - you are an idiot.

      Let me put this into terms that even a slashdot geek could understand:

      Would you buy a dual Opteron workstation from some mysterious Romanian in a dark alley? Of course not, because its probably full of potatos. Would you buy a dual Opteron workstation from here or from here? Of course, because these are trusted sources.

      Get it now??

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    11. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 5, Funny
      Well, the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that you shouldn't trust information you find on-line if you can't verify the source as someone you trust.

      Definitely good advice.

      Doh! Wait a minute, that's just something I read online from someone who's trustworthiness I can't verify. Ha! I'm on to your little game, and you're not gonna catch me that way! I'm gonna go and trust anything I read online.

      Double-doh! Now I've gotta trust your advice again. Errrr, so I'm not going to trust your advice. So I am going to trust your...

      Infinite recursion detected, process Raven terminated... AT$@AA#-^%%%

      CARRIER DISCONNECT

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    12. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ....Well, the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that you shouldn't trust information you find on-line if you can't verify the source as someone you trust. Simple as that, really...

      Hmmm, hang on there a damn cotton picking minute dude. How can I trust your own advice?!?! :-)

    13. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I'm glad someone got it... :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    14. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, the moral of the story, boys and girls, is that you shouldn't trust information you find on-line if you can't verify the source

      +5, informative. Oh the irony.

    15. Re:Unfortunate Error or... by bracktra · · Score: 1

      They should have taken a cue from Slashdot--no modding and posting on the same article.

  6. Sickening. by Tokerat · · Score: 4, Funny

    The weeklong glitch, which Amazon fixed after outed reviewers complained, provided a rare glimpse at how writers and readers are wielding the online reviews as a tool to promote or pan books when they think no one is watching.
    Even the people without webcams on the Internet are whores...
    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  7. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    An INSIGHTFUL review, totally correct!! Mod +1, Informative.

    - A reader from Chapel Hill, NC

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! by ePhil_One · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Wow!

      I just have to give mad props to the parent for acheiving a rare +3 Flamebait!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  8. Should have kept the change.... by mnassri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Amazon would keep that "mistake", I'd be tempted to pay for it. It seems like the people (in the article) that confessed to writing good reviews in bad faith did so to "rebut" bad reviews. If the original reviews weren't anonymous, the authors wouldn't have had to use an underhanded tactic.

    -Maher-

    1. Re:Should have kept the change.... by SpaceRook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen several cases where the author has posted a review for his book to defend it and used his own name. Why do some authors think they have to log in anonymously? Personally, I don't think Amazon should allow anonymous reviewers. Or at least they shouldn't count when the average is calculated.

    2. Re:Should have kept the change.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If Amazon would keep that "mistake", I'd be tempted to pay for it"

      That is, if you weren't boycotting them anyway, because of the One Click Shopping Patent, right?

      Patents are more dangerous then SCO, vote with your wallet.

    3. Re:Should have kept the change.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IOn that case people will just create fake accounts. Nothing will really change.

    4. Re:Should have kept the change.... by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      ...for many a reminder that anonymity on the Internet is seldom a sure thing.

      At least Slashdot has got that right,.. or have they???

    5. Re:Should have kept the change.... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favorite was when someone filled in the "I am the author" review option for the Bible.

    6. Re:Should have kept the change.... by Zerakith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Track it against orders.. so reviews can only be submitted if a purchase has been made for that book, or is somehow related... adds a fincancial aspect.. Doesnt help against authors tho i suppose, as they can buy the book, and gain more money from selling more copies as a result of their "review"

    7. Re:Should have kept the change.... by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      They should add in Review Moderation Factors aswell to discourage Astroturfers... Everyone that Buys a book ect from Amazon should be able to go and moderate reviews of that product... So when you do see a glowing review but they have virtually no/bad history on their reviews you know they carry little weight with you.. Also being able to see what other reviews they have written will help Big aswell.. Everyone has their opinion on everything which can be wildly diffrent.. but if you look at other reviews and find some common ground you can weigh their reviews based on history of common ground between you and the reviewer aswell.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    8. Re:Should have kept the change.... by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      Have a link for that?

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
  9. I don't see a problem by Doc+Squidly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, there's nothing wrong shameless self promotion. How else can an author get people to read his cappy books?

    On an unrelated note, I will now mod this post as +2, 100% Insightful.

    --
    I think I think, therefore I think I am.
    1. Re:I don't see a problem by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What happens when when an author has a whole vanity press publishing company and cult to promote the crappy books like (dead) Elron Hubbard?

      Without all that, Battlefield Earth might never have happened!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:I don't see a problem by IamLarryboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      dude. Thats just the karma bonus. It's not a bug.

    3. Re:I don't see a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't think you understand.

      he's able to promote his own comment above those of others.

    4. Re:I don't see a problem by dave1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

      L. Ron Hubbard.

  10. Likewise... by Chordonblue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...nasty reviews made by rivals should be revealable as well. The one author interviewed said that he did it to couteract rivals who he felt were trashing his book.

    What to do, what to do...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Likewise... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..nasty reviews made by rivals should be revealable as well. The one author interviewed said that he did it to couteract rivals who he felt were trashing his book.

      Cynical me wonders how much of that statement is really truth, and how of of it's trying to mitigate looking like a total butthead. How do they know if the other posters were their rivals...when they were anonymous, too--or at least anonymous at the times of the postings.

    2. Re:Likewise... by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      Cynical me wonders how much of that statement is really truth, and how of of it's trying to mitigate looking like a total butthead. How do they know if the other posters were their rivals...when they were anonymous, too--or at least anonymous at the times of the postings.

      Well, perhaps professional writers hang in the same circles and gossip among each other like everyone else.

    3. Re:Likewise... by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      ...nasty reviews made by rivals should be revealable as well. The one author interviewed said that he did it to couteract rivals who he felt were trashing his book.

      What to do, what to do...

      Um, maybe rank the reviews according a measure of the author's previous posting history?

      Anyone that spends their time trashing books mindlessly will ruin their chances of boosting their own book; astroturfers that write insightful comments will still be free to lose objectivity once in a while, but the overall average of lots of insightful comments will still give people a good idea of the consensus.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  11. You have to wonder.. by TimTurnip · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If Amazon.com is repeatedly stating that anonymity is guaranteed for book reviews, what the hell is the purpose of collecting full names from their creators?

    Seriously, I'm sick and tired of every major website requiring me to either a.) register for an account or, b.) fill out all of my personal information, before I can actually take advantage of the website's features.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah..I know: marketing. But, come on. Requiring an e-mail address (with an opt-out radio button) is fine; do they really need all the other crap?

    Ugh.

    --

    Chicks dig my good /. karma.

    1. Re:You have to wonder.. by phrasebook · · Score: 1

      True. I'm tired of filling out fake information. I usually use:

      John Connor
      Cyberdyne Systems
      1 Cyberdyne Lane
      Terminator Town
      USA 90210

      90210 is the only US post code I know, because of the television show.

      Works for me.

    2. Re:You have to wonder.. by AsmordeanX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Simple solution.

      When a website requires anything other than an email address I name myself after the websites. If I ever get spam directed to Amazon DotCom I know who sold my address and can block future emails from it. I remain anoymous (Well as close as I can given my email is out there, but it is only a temp address anyway) and a foulup like this would have revealed only that I used a fake name.

    3. Re:You have to wonder.. by glpierce · · Score: 1

      If they find that the majority of users are from the west coast of the US, or are middle-aged, or are female, etc., they can either refine their content towards the present users, or expand content to reach new target groups. It's vital to the success of many sites. That said, I think they should drop the street adress and make age more general; name, gender, year of birth, and city/state/country are all they really need.

      --
      G
    4. Re:You have to wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If Amazon.com is repeatedly stating that anonymity is guaranteed for book reviews, what the hell is the purpose of collecting full names from their creators?

      There's at least one technical explanation: if Amazon didn't link each review with a reviewer, it would be harder to prevent someone from filling out a hundred reviews of the same title to skewer the average rating.

      You may have come across this if you reviewed the same thing twice: you would have received an error telling you that you've already reviewed the item and can't do it again, even if you reviewed it anonymously.

    5. Re:You have to wonder.. by LuxFX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Reminds me of my own technique. When a site asks for an email I give them a unique email address that names their site, but with a standard prefix, such as spamlocator_amazon-com AT mydomain DOT com. Then, in my server's mail filters, I filter everything that starts with "spamlocator_" to the address spamlocator AT mydomain DOT com.

      Your method is easier but I think I'll stick with mine. It works even if only my email address is sold, and doesn't matter if my name was used. It also gives me a unique email address for the registration emails to be sent to, or the spam if the email has been sold -- and doesn't clutter my normal inbox.

      (but since I get more than 600 spams a day, taking a little extra effort to set up the filter is worth it to me)

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    6. Re:You have to wonder.. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Requiring an e-mail address (with an opt-out radio button) is fine; do they really need all the other crap?

      s/opt-out/opt-in

      Opt-out is not an acceptable way for companies to use my e-mail address, ever.

      (Said the person who had just once again received an e-mail, even acknowledging its source, claiming that he had given his permission for the e-mail address to be used for marketting purposes, when he had done nothing of the sort.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:You have to wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, this site isn't much better: I'm posting this without account, but my IP address is logged, even though I'm supposed to be an ANONYMOUS coward. People are still afraid of anonymity because there are too many people who forget that an anonymous statement is worth much less than one for which the author can be held accountable. An anonymous statement should stand for itself. Everything on which the statement is based needs to be verified. Correctness should not be inferred from writing style or the assumed identity of the author.

    8. Re:You have to wonder.. by TimTurnip · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I can see what the benefits of info collection is for Amazon; I think that's fairly obvious.

      My point is that they can accomplish the same thing through use of e-mail addresses, or fictitious usernames/passwords; if they don't HAVE my full name, they can't commit an "unfortunate error" with it.

      --

      Chicks dig my good /. karma.

    9. Re:You have to wonder.. by knobmaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's an annoyingly inevitable quality to these accusations. It's the sort of thing you always suspect about any issue involving ruthlessly ego-driven professions like writing.

      Here's how dumb I am: it never occurred to me to write glowing reviews of my books. Evidently I am not a marketing genius. On the other hand, I was too obscure for rivals to bother trashing me, so maybe that's why I never thought about it.

      Anyway, no matter how depressing these revelations are, I don't think the solution is to strip away the anonymity of reviewers. In almost every case, the best solution to bad information is not to restrict the free flow of information. Far better to increase the flow of information so as to drown the bad information in a sea of better information. In this instance, making people verify their identities before reviewing a book is just going to discourage people from taking the time to share their thoughts. Better to put a disclaimer up for visitors to let them know that a great review might have been written by the author, and then let them react if they find a bad book with a glorifying review. That'll be far more effective in promoting actual opinions about books than restricting reviewers to the group that's willing to put up with intrusive registering requirements. Besides, authors, being both clever and desperate, will quickly find ways to circumvent any identity check, so that their bad information will gain prominence in comparison with everyone else, who will not be as likely to take the trouble to post.

      I don't know if information wants to be free, but it seems obvious that the world works better when information is free.

    10. Re:You have to wonder.. by n3k5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > "what the hell is the purpose of collecting full names from their creators?"

      They collect your name when you sign up for an account, and usually you give them the real one because you want the books you order to arrive. I assume they keep data on who posted which review so they have it when they discover inappropriate language of something, so they can ban that user.

      I'm also sick of sites collecting my data, and accidents like that one confirm that my concerns are justified. However, I have never been denied any service or content when I supplied a pseudonym. On the Amazon site, you could use one account with your real data for ordering, and another one with a pseudonym for everythig else (community features etc.)

      By the way, most of the discussions I saw at this page are totally pointless for exactly this reason: Amazon can't check if every review was postet by someone who seriously is of the opinion stated and not related to the author in any way. That some authors used their own accounts for reviewing their own books was dumb, dumb, dumb, but if the 'anonymous' feature hadn't been there, they'd have used a different account from the start.

      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    11. Re:You have to wonder.. by Krunch · · Score: 5, Informative

      When you need a temporary adress for registration, other useful solutions are Mailinator and TrashMail.

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    12. Re:You have to wonder.. by Battlegeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      I used the name Satans Third Nipple, but entered my real address to see how long it would take me to get junk mail from the site selling my information. Within a few weeks, I got an email promoting a 'Third-Nipple Family Reunion' and a credit card application for Satans T Nipple.

      --
      Apathy...make it a way of life.
    13. Re:You have to wonder.. by jp10558 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually pay for spamex.com's service - not getting spam for $10 a year without worrying about giving out an e-mail address is worth it to me. Anytime I got spam that I couldn't opt-out of I just turned off the disposable address. Funny - I've been using spamex for a year and only got spam on one address. Makes me think that either I'm still pretty careful where I give out an address at all - or spammers just don't bother with @spamex.com addresses cause they know they just get turned off and the e-mails bounce.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    14. Re:You have to wonder.. by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      Well, this site isn't much better: I'm posting this without account, but my IP address is logged, even though I'm supposed to be an ANONYMOUS coward.

      Not to mention that Slashdot also adds auditing code to the posting page that uses a web bug. Fortunately, as you'll see below , Proxomintron eats web bugs (well, replaces them with a local file).

      <!-- image audit code -->
      <script LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT">
      <!--
      now = new Date();
      tail = now.getTime();
      document.write("
      <Match: Block Web Bugs > <--- this isn't part of the page, it's Proxomintron's debug output, showing it found a web bug. In order to not mess up page layout, Proxomitron using a replacement image
      <IMG SRC='http://images-aud.slashdot.org/pc.gif?l,");
      document.write(tail);
      document.write("' WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0 ALT=' '>
      </Match> <-- what follows from here is Proxomitron's replacement for what it matched.
      <IMG src=file:///X|/Program%20Files/Proxomitron%20Naoko -4/ProxN45j/html\clear.gif document.write(tail);
      document.write("' WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0 ALT=' '>"); //-->
      </SCRIPT>
      <noscript>

      <Match: Block Web Bugs > <-- the Slashdot page make provision for people not using javascript, but Proxomintron sees this alternative bug too
      <IMG SRC='http://images-aud.slashdot.org/pc.gif?l,111' WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0 ALT=' '>
      </Match>
      <IMG src=file:///X|/Program%20Files/Proxomitron%20Naoko -4/ProxN45j/html\clear.gif WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0 ALT=' '>
      </noscript>
      <!-- end audit code -->

    15. Re:You have to wonder.. by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      I tried this approach for a while, but gave up when I coudln't figure out how to tell which email address they were sending it TO. I dug through all the headers and couldn't find any of my names. How do you deal with that?

    16. Re:You have to wonder.. by elemental23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention that Slashdot also adds auditing code to the posting page that uses a web bug.

      So? Sending an HTTP get request for that tiny image isn't going to give them any more information than they, and every other web site administrator out there, already have in their access logs.

      IMO, "web bugs" are only an issue when it's a third party advertiser doing the stats collecting. If you don't want the people running the site to know anything about you, either don't visit the site or use a real anonymous proxy.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    17. Re:You have to wonder.. by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Its pretty interesting to see how Canada's PIPEDA act can carry over to on-line forms... Its against the law to requre personal information from canadian citizens when it is not required for the goods/services you provide.

      I would like to see Websites take this into account when you select the Canada Drop down Box then all the Required information fields disapear :)..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    18. Re:You have to wonder.. by hikerhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a software developer if I were ever required to implement some sort of anonymous feature I would make damn sure I wouldn't write any code to keep track of the anonymous user. To do otherwise is stupid, unethical, and, in my opinion, fraudulently representing your product.

    19. Re:You have to wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have to wonder if using two separate accounts would help, if you are using the same computer to access both. What once happened to me was that I did a search on Amazon to check the prices of Buffy DVD sets. I wasn't logged on or anything, just did a few related searches on amazon. Imagine my surprise when soon after, I received spam from amazon, about a sale on Buffy and Angel merchandise, to the e-mail address I use when ordering stuff from amazon.

      Since I've set all cookies to expire in one week, and I visit amazon very rarely and order stuff at most once a year, I am pretty sure the only way they could have connected my amazon account to the anonymous search is by IP address.

    20. Re:You have to wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have no idea what Amazon is. This is the company that profits from collecting bunch of data from people and analyzing. Sure it wants to sell a lot of things to a lot of people, but the biggest bet of Amazon is on the promise that Amazon will provide the cutting edge marketing techniques to the partners. I don't know how productive Amazon is in this regard as of now, but I am sure it will be soon, if it is not now.

    21. Re:You have to wonder.. by n3k5 · · Score: 1
      I have to wonder if using two separate accounts would help, if you are using the same computer to access both.
      Amazon will in fact use other means to determine who is who when you're not logged in. I don't know if they only use cookies, or even a bare IP address, and I can't confirm that they send spam based on what I browsed. I just noticed when you open the site two times, the second time a sidebar will contain items you browsed previously. This is rather harmless, but can be unpleasant if you check out some porn movies and afterwards your mother uses the same computer and also uses Amazon. Logging in is a way to avoid this. They can't rely on the IP address, since it's common that many people share one. So if you log in as Mr. Big Spender one time and as Mr. Anonymous Reviewer the other time, they will believe you and not correlate data they have about the two.
      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    22. Re:You have to wonder.. by JWhiton · · Score: 1

      Spamgourmet is also a good site for creating disposable e-mail addresses. Took me a few minutes to figure out how the system worked but after that I've been using it whenever necessary and it works quite well.

    23. Re:You have to wonder.. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " Yeah, yeah, yeah..I know: marketing. But, come on. Requiring an e-mail address (with an opt-out radio button) is fine; do they really need all the other crap?"

      Customer information is a lot more valuable when you have more than an email address. If they can verify that information in any way, well, that just makes it even more valuable. I wonder how much money they actually make off of this.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    24. Re:You have to wonder.. by demi · · Score: 1

      Use qmail.

      Then have a ~/.qmail-default file pointing at your real mailbox. Then armorfiend-anything@armorfiend.com will be delivered to your regular mailbox, with the To: header intact. If you start getting spam at one of your disposable addresses, dispose of it by creating a ~/.qmail-amazon with /dev/null in it.

      There's a few addresses I can't turn off in this way (like hostmaster@), so I use an opt-in filter for those.

      --
      demi
  12. NY Times article by Weird+O'Puns · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those who have no newborns to sacrifice: Google link

    1. Re:NY Times article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, that was my joke...

  13. Reviews by Jabber3776 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've actually written a couple of reviews myself, under my Internet name since I've only done a few. One of the authors actually published the review, so I think it is a neat way to get your name out in your industry if you really want to, especially since the books I reviewed dealt with my "real" job. Only he promoted my internet name. I also noticed that several authors I have met through work and know of them b/c of their books have openly wrote their own reviews on Amazon. Authors should not do that under a veil of secrecy. Just my two cents.

    1. Re:Reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hopefully you know that the plural of virus is viruses, and never virii.

  14. "Outted" authors by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 4, Funny
    Slashdot is aweome. This Amazon story of reviewers who got "outed" is so kewl. Slashdot is the best. I'm going to pay and subscribe right now.

    -Eric_Cartman_South_PaR#@J::: [MSSQL Error: Author "CmdrTaco", Action "PostAs: User 594330" not valid]

    1. Re:"Outted" authors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow you actually have good karma. did your brother get on the computer or something?

    2. Re:"Outted" authors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh i just got the joke. that was funny. good work, yeah.

    3. Re:"Outted" authors by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      "MSSQL"?

      Begone, heathen!

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
    4. Re:"Outted" authors by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Sooo..."CmdrTaco" is actually the name his mother gave him at birth, and "Rob Malda" is his internet pseudonym?

      --
      ...
    5. Re:"Outted" authors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sooo..."CmdrTaco" is actually the name his mother
      > gave him at birth, and "Rob Malda" is his internet pseudonym?

      That's one sick mamma.

    6. Re:"Outted" authors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh i just got the joke. that was funny. good work, yeah.

      Took you 4 minutes to get that joke? Little slow, eh?

    7. Re:"Outted" authors by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      "MSSQL"?

      Begone, heathen!

      Hey, it beats the shit out of Microsoft Access!

    8. Re:"Outted" authors by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

      The point is that Slashdot doesn't use any MS database. Assuming this is correct, they use MySQL.

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
  15. privacy.... by segment · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Greplaw has a neat poll this week...

    • Real Names When Registering Domains?
    • Yes, will decrease online crime!
    • No, privacy intrusion!
    • Don't know, I am a clueless mammal.

    Although most take privacy as something only criminals doing dirty deeds would need... Here is an excerpt of a doc I wrote...

    Well, did you know Choicepoint claims to have about 16 billion records on American citizens? 16 billion is a hell of a lot considering there are only about 300 million citizens, so average that out for yourself and ask yourself, what do they have on me? They claim they can track everything and anything known about someone: where they lived, how much money they made, what kind of car they're driving (insurance records), etc. Sure you signed some 'passport' disclaimer on some site that stated they wouldn't sell your information, did they implicitly specify they wouldn't sell your information, and if so to whom, and will they sell your information? Think about law for a second here. If someone stole your automobile in Texas, sold it to someone in Utah, who in turn sold it to someone in New York and you found it, do you lose the right to your car, even if the buyer purchased what he thought was legitimate? How can companies get away with redistributing the most sensitive and vital information of your life with ease? Every step you take...

    But heck who the hell am I kidding... Only you, yourself are to blame for giving your privacy away. Instead of only whining about not having privacy, don't some of you think it's time to wag the tail instead of keeping it tucked under your asses. Write to your lawmakers, start complaining. Simply crying about it does nothing, and companies will continue walking all over you.

  16. Slashdot wouldn't do that to us.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would they?

    1. Re:Slashdot wouldn't do that to us.. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and yet you can't mod up a message you posted as AC :)

    2. Re:Slashdot wouldn't do that to us.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You've tried that!?!? People these days...

  17. No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by bushboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I feel cheated !
    I got a Britney Spears CD based on 18 rave Amazon reviews and really tried to like it !

    I feel vindicated !

    Britney, I'm sorry, but you suck ! (or does she blow ?)

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
    1. Re:No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucks.

    2. Re:No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1

      Depends on how much you are willing to pay.

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    3. Re:No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Whoops, I guess ACs can't post links.)

      Sucks: http://content.collegehumor.com/img/n/next_years_s uperbowl.jpg

      (remove the space, not safe for work)

    4. Re:No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I got a Britney Spears CD based on 18 rave Amazon reviews...

      And reading "awsum!!!" didn't tip you off to the fact that Britney wrote it, huh?

    5. Re:No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:No wonder I hated that Britney CD ! by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      I'd sure like to find out!

      Chris

  18. right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    because it's so fucking hard to fill in bogus information.

    why do these posts get modded up as insightful? it's a clear case of karma whoring.

  19. Oh, the scandal! Oh, the horror! ;) by Txiasaeia · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sure, book reviews are nice, but usually I know what I want to buy even before I check out reviews on Amazon.com. I do this by reading reviews in print (usually), talking to friends/colleagues, and by generally purchasing books written in genres that I enjoy.

    Authors reviewing their books anonymously pretending to be a reader are just hurting themselves in the long run, esp. now, after their "anonymous" reviews have come to light. HOWEVER, I would definitely welcome posts from authors that post as theirselves and try to rebuttle defamatory comments/reviews. The whole purpose of the Amazon system is ACCURACY, not making sure every book scores 5/5.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  20. user reviews not worth the electrons. by mlush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For pitys sake does anyone take 'user reviews' seriously??? Even if there not written by interested partys, the chances of them being written by someone clueful are scant and its more trouble than its worth to establish any track record for a given reviewer.

    A system of meta moderation would add credibility to the system, if someone buys a product get them to evaluate a few reviews (if encouragement is needed pay them in 'loyalty points')

    1. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by Phoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On this I would have to disagree. The review of one demented fanboy or a smegged off critic by themselves have no value. But in aggregate, the collective reviews will point what things many people liked about the book/movie/cd/electrical appliance as well as what things annoyed people.

      I'll always trust in my feelings on something, but my feelings will be based on the description of the item, my need for the item, my penchant for items of that nature, and influenced by the good/bad ratio of the product.

      --
      -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    2. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't have to have Ph.D for god's sake. if you've read the book, you are welcome to offer your subjective opinion.

    3. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does the word "smegged" mean?

    4. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by mlush · · Score: 3, Informative

      from the Red Dwarf FAQ

      What does "smeg" mean?
      It's a word made up by Grant Naylor for the characters to use as an all-purpose profanity. Some fans have theorised that it was derived from "smegma" (a particularly unpleasant bodily secretion), but Rob and Doug deny this. In the interview on the CD included with the Six of the Best box set, they state that "we wanted to invent a futuristic curse word which had the right sort of consonant and vowel arrangement to make it sound like a genuine . . . curse word." In an online chat session, Doug Naylor said "I think it's Latin for clean, also there's an Italian washing machine company called Smeg. Also each of the letters S-M-E-G stand for smelting metal and something to do with the washing machine process." A detailed list of "smeg" references in the show is available at http://www.bristol.u-net.com/smegweb/docs/smeglist .html

    5. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by knobmaker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Even if there not written by interested partys, the chances of them being written by someone clueful are scant

      It's pretty easy to tell who's a "clueful" reviewer, because reviewing a book is an act of writing. If the reviewer likes the book but is illiterate, the book might still be good, but if the reviewer writes well, you can give her opinion more weight.

      Of course, that gives sneaky authors reviewing their own dogs a little bit of an advantage, because even the lamest hack has to write a little better than average to get widely published. But life ain't fair. That's probably why I have excellent karma, in spite of my cranky personality.

    6. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      except most of the times, the people who bother to write reviews are either og the 'like it know matter what craowd' or the 'hate it no matter what crowd'.

      I judge books the same way I have always judged books...by their cover.

      actually, work of mouth.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by Kwil · · Score: 1

      I also find the star system on Amazon can be worthwhile.

      You just have to realize that the "average" is actually 4 stars, not 3, and know that unless there are 50 ratings or more, it's probably not accurate.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    8. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by miu · · Score: 1
      if the reviewer writes well, you can give her opinion more weight.

      I wrote a several paragraph review on amazon about 4 years ago. The review itself was filled with misspellings and grammatical errors, but got a couple hundred positive votes. After the review had been there a couple years I saw that some tech book review site had lifted the review, corrected the writing errors and posted it as their own, then the review had been picked up by amazon and attached to the book I had reviewed.

      The moral of my little anecdote is that just because the reviewer writes well doesn't mean that they aren't a plagiarizing weasel.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    9. Re:user reviews not worth the electrons. by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      For pitys sake does anyone take 'user reviews' seriously???

      Well, I do. It's just like Slashdot. Most of the times, I don't even read the book, the user comments are more than sufficient and in some cases much more insightful.

  21. Cowards? by Lindy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would anybody posting a review on Amazon be afraid of putting their name to it? It's not like there going to mod'ed as "troll" or "flamebait" or something....

    Oops I thought I was posting this as AC...

    1. Re:Cowards? by segment · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Imagine if you had something of say a corporate whistleblower who made comments on the contents of a book. Don't you think they'd be in danger of sorts... Consider the following case...
      Whistleblower law gets unlikely first test
      By ADAM GELLER
      The Associated Press

      FLOYD, Va. - When lawmakers set out to protect investors from another Enron, they probably never imagined a company - or a controversy - like the one stirring inside this one-stoplight town's namesake bank.

      ...

      David Welch, fired from his $60,000-a-year job as the bank's chief financial officer, is the first whistleblower granted protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, thanks to a little-noticed decision by a Department of Labor judge two weeks ago.Source

      Now imagine if you were him, and you were posting something to correct false information... Don't you think you deserve to have the right of privacy?... Suppose you were a woman commenting on some book about rape and revealed you were once raped, and you were a prominent figure... Wouldn't you want your identity protected? Life is not always cut and dry there buddy, there are valid reasons for wanting privacy.
  22. The Authors by Phoenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Author who said: "That anybody is allowed to come in and anonymously trash a book to me is absurd," Rechy told the Times. "How to strike back? Just go in and rebut every single one of them." is a fool.

    It is the right of everyone in this country to have an opinion on the quality of work of art. There are always going to be people who enjoy something and people who will dislike it.

    Get over it and start living in the real world.

    Frankly I'm suspicious of anything or anyone who doesn't have a bad review of it. I'll buy from anyone who has a smidgeon of negative feedback on Ebay because I know that this is a real person who has had to (just as I have in my store) deal with some moron who cannot be pleased no matter how far you bend over backwards. I trust reviews that have a critic because many of thier points are valid ones. I may not agree that the point detracts from the work of art, but they are often valid points nonetheless.

    You can't please everyone and these authors need to realize that, move on, and create to please themselves. If they do that there will always be someone to appriciate thier works.

    --
    -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    1. Re:The Authors by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      I also factor in the number of used books for sale.

      If there are a lot, it might (combined with many negative reviews) IMHO indicate a really suck-ass book.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
  23. On the other hand . . . by Nakito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    . . . I tend to discount the reviews of those people who use real names and are labeled as "Top 100" or "Top 500" reviewers on Amazon. I tend to think that those people are major wannabes who wish that they were professional reviewers and therefore try too hard to be clever or literary. As a result, I find the reviews of such people to be among the most pretentious, overblown, non-credible reviews on Amazon. I no longer read them and skip past them to the anonymous reviews, which I find much honest and credible.

    1. Re:On the other hand . . . by JW+Troll · · Score: 1

      i pity you, f00. check out Henry Raddick and learn the fine art of literary appreciation. Exempli gratia:

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
  24. Why Act Suprised? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On either count..

    What person doesn't promote his or her own work? That's just normal..

    Also, we all know there is no true anonymity out there, so why be surprised with *yet another* 'glitch' publishes peoples identities...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Why Act Suprised? by FePe · · Score: 1
      What person doesn't promote his or her own work? That's just normal..

      Many authors and artists have published their work under a different name. One of the authors that I know of is Stephen King who has written five books under the name Richard Bachman. That the audience later found out that it was Stephen King is another matter.

      --
      "Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -- Leo Tolstoy
  25. I've begun to notice this phenomenon... by 0m3gaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, this type of screwup is a good thing. I've read way too many glowing, breathless reviews of absolute CRAP books, and was beginning to suspect the fix was in on these reviews...especially the reviews of those inane, fluffy 'financial-self-help' and marketing/management books.

    1. Re:I've begun to notice this phenomenon... by kurosawdust · · Score: 4, Funny

      True, but don't forget to correct for the "People Are Fucking Morons" factor.

    2. Re:I've begun to notice this phenomenon... by saden1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you guys but I look at the negative reviews first and work my way up to positive ones.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    3. Re:I've begun to notice this phenomenon... by panck · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Why do people trust reviews from people they've never met, have no reason to believe, and who are posting "anonymously" on the internet?

      I'm a lot more inclined for or against a movie/book/CD if i read a review from somebody I've come to trust a bit because I've found in the past that their opinions hold some merit...

      --
      "What thou shalt not, I shalt did!" -Bart Simpson
    4. Re:I've begun to notice this phenomenon... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      But I haven't had any problems with lost cheese lately, even when people move it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:I've begun to notice this phenomenon... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't get it. Why do people trust reviews from people they've never met, have no reason to believe, and who are posting "anonymously" on the internet?

      That's what people do. You do it to. Your brain is wired for it. Somebody looks up and cringes, you're damn well going to do it to. Everybody suddenly starts running, there's no way you're just going to stand there. As a matter of survival, it pays to give credence to what other people think. That instinct slops over when reading noise like the Amazon reviews.

  26. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see what the big deal is. When I read amazon reviews of books - and even software, movies and regular products, I assume that the author/creator is reviewing their own item in the reviews. In fact, I assume that probably half of all the positive reviews for an item are from the author/creator, their publicist, editor, publisher, family, friends, etc.

    That's before we even get to the issue of people who are specifically PAID to provide good reviews for all of a company's products site-wide on amazon. I only feel bad for regular users who were not posted anonymously for the last week. For authors and such in the business reviewing their own material... well... fuck them. I'm glad they were outed. Fucking cheats.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that for many of us, seeing the author review their creation anonymously lowers our opinion on the author, even considerably. I would prefer to assume that the gloating anonymous reviews are from uncritical people unassociated with the author, until it becomes blatantly obvious that I'm reading the work of an unethical author. In which case, the author is most likely not going to get their hands on my money.

  27. Certainly not... by Mathonwy · · Score: 1

    Of course they wouldn't...

    Mister Marcus Buckly, of 5426 Millhouse street, apartment 37B, Danbury Nebraska.

    Nothing like that ever happens on the internet!

  28. Review. by Trillan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm surprised it took this long to discover...

    "Insightful! Trillian's comments show a true understanding of the situation!" -- Some Anonymous Reviewer.

    "Interesting! Why didn't I think of that?" -- Some Other Anonymous Reviewer.

    "Ha ha ha! +1 Funny!" -- A Third Anonymous Reviewer. Definitely not the same as the previous two. Oops!

    1. Re:Review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overrated. ;)

    2. Re:Review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!!

    3. Re:Review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful.

    4. Re:Review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful! Trillian's comments show a true understanding of the situation!

  29. Sometimes. by lazypenguingirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You asked if anyone takes user reviews seriously... I will on occasion. Both on Amazon etc, as well as sites such as New Egg (about a particular hardware product). I am generally interested to see what others think. It's just another sliver of information to potentially support my decision for or against a purchase. If there's either a solitary (or a handful of) glowing or panning review(s), that usually doesn't tell me much. But if there is a large pool of comments, it can be helpful. I can discard the high and the low, and still get a general view of what others think. And I'd like to think I can pick out the intelligent responses from the useless. "i licked this bok b/c it was gud" versus "This was a very well-written book (inserts reason here and supports it well)" in addition to drawing comparisons to other books and related subjects or offering further recommendations. And come on, did we not think before that some of these could be faked? I leave comments on sites sometimes with the hope that perhaps someone may find them helpful, and I often find the comments of others to be interesting and informative. It's not a perfect system but can indeed be used to support the other research I've done about the product prior to purchase.

    1. Re:Sometimes. by arkanes · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You should be aware that NewEgg only permits positive reviews - check the policy sometime.

      In addition, no story about Amazon reviews is complete without a mention of this review, on the book Ping. Quite possibly the most-rated review on the entire site!

  30. Bad news but we all knew it was going on by jlechem · · Score: 1

    This happens all the time and it pisses me off. Just let your work stand for itself. Not everyone is going to like it and that's ok. And if it truly is a piece of shit well people deserve to know about it before they buy it. And this doesn't just happen on Amazon. I've been looking into hotels and resteraunts in Europe and have been reading the major travel sites user reviews and after a while you can tell when it's a plant. IMO it really undermines the ratings system and sometimes things get rated highly when they're nothing but crap.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:Bad news but we all knew it was going on by Grey_14 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but thats only if you think of an Author as an artist, or someone not so concerned about money, (The way, I think, An author should be). If you think of them as a Business person, trying to make a couple more dollars on their product, you cant blame them specifically, just our culture, which makes it OK, and even encouragable to cash in on ANYTHING, now matter how sacred it once was.

  31. Slashdot has done this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So what is the big deal? Slashdot has, on occasion, revealed anonymous posters site-wide for hours or days at a time. Sometimes when you post as anonymous, it shows you as the author instead. Other times, previously posted anonymous messages *become* authored.

    The only way to avoid all this is to stop tracking posts with UIDs for sites like this. Either ANONYMOUS... or "hidden username". Don't call one the other.

  32. In a related story.... by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    When a similar error occured at Slashdot it was revealed that Cowboy Neal does in fact have 18,137 first posts with Goatse links.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:In a related story.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When a similar error occured at Slashdot it was revealed that Cowboy Neal does in fact have 18,137 first posts with Goatse links.

      Backlinks? :)

  33. I take reviews seriously by utawoutau · · Score: 1
    Reader reviews are just like professional reviews in that authors have their own biases and such. In both cases it is up an intelligent reader to look for more substantial information than "I give it two thumbs up" or "it stinks".

    Whenever I read a review I always look for the reasoning behind the reviewer's overall rating. And if the reasoning seems sound and plausible I take the reviewer's rating seriously. However, I should say that more likely than not reader reviews boil down to a simple yeah or nay without providing sufficient rational to back up the reviewer's opinion.

  34. Re:Oh, the scandal! Oh, the horror! ;) by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

    spot on - I have never, ever based a purchase on amazon on the review that was posted there. Let the authors waste their time fudging them if they want.

    At the same time, anyone who would base a decision on an *anonymous* review is likely to waste a lot of money in life.

  35. Anonymous Ratings by atomic-penguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anonymous reviews have no credibility.
    For example, there is a Dr. of Psychology here at my shool who is doing a study on the value of a rating system on sites like http://www.ratemyprofessor.com. I am not sure what her stance is on the topic, but most others at the school feel that it would be easy to sabotage her study.
    Movie studio representatives have been caught giving reviews of their films under false identities. So is it surprising that authors would not stoop to the same level as those who produce movies?

    There is no way to ensure that a College Professor cannot go to ratemyprofessor.com and give a review of him or herself (it is all anonymous). In the same way there is no way to prevent authors from giving anonymous reviews of their work to boost sales.
    It is my not so humble opinion that openly anonymous forums lack credibility in this sense.

    --
    /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
    1. Re:Anonymous Ratings by cev · · Score: 1


      Anonymous forums are pretty much useless until the numbers get sufficiently large. It's something along the lines of the "law of large numbers."

      I try to use Amazon to check big-ticket items before I buy, irrelevant of where I buy them. If there are only a few reviews, I give little credence to what the reviewers have to say. If there are 10 or more reviews, you will often find a consistency among the threads even though they are written in diverse styles. At that point, the information becomes useful. If the same person wrote many of the reviews, it's not hard to tell.

      For example, I had a crappy ice cream maker. I checked Amazon's reviews, and my appliance had about fifty. At least ten of them had exactly the same problem I did, and that is plenty to determine that the product is Not Worth It.

  36. An ethical question... by LighthouseJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's unethical for authors to promote their own book in comments on amazon.com or some similar medium. Generally, I think reviews on amazon.com, Yahoo Movies, et al is unbiased. That the reviewer does not financially gain from the sale. When someone with bias tells me "this book is best book I've ever read" and I think they are unbiased, that's where the line of ethics is crossed.

    In the same vein, it's why the media, if they report on something newsworthy happening that they might be tied to, they explain the tie to the company. For instance, if some news happens on say Sourceforge.net, Slashdot is ethically bound to say "Slashdot shares a parent company with Newsforge" so that we are told some biases might exist.

    Flame on because I know I've probably missed some nuance...

    1. Re:An ethical question... by starling · · Score: 1

      I think it's unethical for them to do it anonymously. AFAICS there's nothing wrong with the author explaining why they think their work is so wonderful so long as they're posting as themselves.

      In fact that can be downright useful because the author can explain things that other reviewers can only guess about.

    2. Re:An ethical question... by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      Well, my point was that it's unethical to do it anonymously, at least if it was non-anonymous, I had a chance of knowing if they were biased. If they didn't declare they authored the work, at least I can find out.

      About explanation, I believe it's the literary norm to let a piece of literature stand on it's own merit. You shouldn't explain why certain passages say things. But that's another ball of wax.

      Ideally, the only people allowed to review a book are those that won't receive financial compensation for the sale of the book.

    3. Re:An ethical question... by starling · · Score: 1

      About explanation, I believe it's the literary norm to let a piece of literature stand on it's own merit. You shouldn't explain why certain passages say things

      Norm or not, needing to explain outside the bounds of the work can certainly be taken as an admission of failure on the author's part. Maybe that's why they like the anonymity...

    4. Re:An ethical question... by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      that's what I'm saying, but still, giving clarification or qualification for a piece of literature is much different than pretending to give an unbiased critique.

  37. Wikipedia by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  38. True, but to a point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for freedom of speech and having an opinion, but mass producing that opinion as propaganda crosses the line.

    For example, I knew of some books on Amazon where the same anonymous reviewer would trash the book in 10 different reviews. Similar sentence structures and phrases were used in each review.

    If you repeat something enough, those who don't know any better will start to believe it.

  39. Something like what sony did? by whiteranger99x · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I recall correctly, Sony got nailed for using a fake critic by the name of David Manning to doctor favorable reviews for their just released movies

    It would not surprise me if authors were INDEED promoting their own works courtesy of public forums like amazon and the like.

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  40. What type of person? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    SCO

  41. Bad reviews? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By some coincidence does every bad review happen to be written by a competitor? It's amazing that because it's sooo easy then to just post a rebuttal...

    Okay, it's a shame to have your work rubbished but maybe it's because the book is actually crap? Do none of the authors realise this?

    I propose Amazon only do non-anonymous reviews that are backed by a copy of the reviewers birth certificate, DNA sample, photo, home address, finger prints and political affiliation...

    I take the comments in Amazon reviews with a pinch of salt. Nearly everything I've seen has had glowing reviews even though I know for certain that the book/product is terrible.

  42. Metamod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They do have a form of meta moderation where you can mark a review as helpful or not. When I see one tagged as "0 out of 23 readers found this helpful" I tend to take that review with a pinch of salt.

  43. Not relevant by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    It's just like a politician voting for himself.

    1. Re:Not relevant by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Assuming he was voting under an assumed name, as well as using his regular vote.

  44. Which authors? by wmspringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The NYT article names John Rechy and Dave Eggers as authors who have admitted posting anonymous reviews (Rechy of his own book, Eggers of a friend's book) Who else is trying this?

    On another note, how should the knowledge of which authors are reviewing thier own books affect our purchases? Amazon gives a specific space for authors to review thier own work; posting anonymously about it strikes me as pretty dishonest. If I ever write my own novel and have it published, obviously I'll promote it, but anything I write about it will make it clear who the author is.

    1. Re:Which authors? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Oops, someone pointed out that they no longer have an "I'm the author" option - how'd I miss that? Still, if you're the author reviewing your own book, I think it's only fair to put something like "Disclaimer - I wrote the book" at the top. Might even get you points for honesty..

    2. Re:Which authors? by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      William Dembski, the Intelligent Design pusher, was caught using this to pan a book critical of him. See this talk.origins thread. Apparently some people saw Dembski's name attached to the comment, some just saw "A reader from Riesel, TX". This might explain why.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  45. Easy solution: the old system? by BTWR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember back in "the day" (1999ish) there were 3 options for reviewing a book: "I am a reader and I would like to comment," "I am the author of this book and I would like to comment" and "I am the publisher and I would like to comment."

    Now, perhaps it was too hard to verify the true author comments or they simply had too many fake "I'm the author" reviews, but allowing the author to actually say his/her piece might be helpful/insightful (perhaps, even... "+5 insightful?")

    1. Re:Easy solution: the old system? by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      Oh, did they get rid of the author comments option? Geez....I really gotta pay more attention, I shop on amazon.com regularly and I never noticed!

    2. Re:Easy solution: the old system? by eggboard · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used to run the review system at Amazon (96-97) and we did get way too many fake author reviews and interviews, even back in 1997.

      I had put in place a system later dropped that had the reviews checked by human beings for sense (not content) before they went live. Of course, with thousands of reviews posted each day, that became untenable.

      There's no good way to build a system that can't be gamed.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    3. Re:Easy solution: the old system? by Looke · · Score: 1

      Hm, the author/publisher review options are still there on amazon.co.uk.

      I've posted a few (reader) reviews myself, and on one occasion I actually got a polite email from the author herself, thanking for a nice review.

    4. Re:Easy solution: the old system? by nehril · · Score: 1

      I think you would have to ditch anonymity altogether. i.e. a system like"you can only review if you have an account" and "you can only get an account if you buy something, so we have your real name, shipping address and credit card number."

      then simply put (name, city) on every post. you would have to go through some hoops to game that. admittedly many would still try.

    5. Re:Easy solution: the old system? by eggboard · · Score: 1

      That's already what Amazon does, I believe. Try posting without being logged in as an Amazon user.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
  46. DAMNIT! Now I've been found out! by whiteranger99x · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought I clicked that post anonymous button! :P

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
    1. Re:DAMNIT! Now I've been found out! by slipgun · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not just karma whoring?

      (That was just a joke :-)

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
    2. Re:DAMNIT! Now I've been found out! by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      well YEAH, that was the idea! ;)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
  47. The answer is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Use a moderation system.

    Incidentally, the same problem hits ebay reputations. And it's also easy to fix.

    There's a reason why no-one takes AC posts seriously on Slashdot.

    - AC from (fill in City)

  48. But they don't lead to spam! by gidds · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've done the same for several years, and find that none of the spam I've ever checked has come from a web site. None. All the hundred-odd I get each day has just my plain unadorned address, which much have come from a couple of unwise Usenet posts way back, or the limited period of time it was on a couple of friends' web sites before I asked them to remove it.

    Of course, I'm sure some web sites aren't too careful about who gets their email list, but from my experience, the vast majority don't pass their list on to spammers, and the vast majority of addresses to spam comes from other sources.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    1. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've done the same [given email addresses that incorporate the web site's name to web sites asking for email addresses] for several years, and find that none of the spam I've ever checked has come from a web site.

      Me too. If a web site wants my address it's always website.tld@mydomain.tld.

      And like you, I've almost never gotten spam back -- the only mail to these addresses is from the web sites I've given them to.

      But. Let's adjust our tinfoil hats.... ;)

      Does that mean that the we sites don't sell the email addresses they get to third parties, or does it mean they don't sell the addresses that contain their site name, and would serve to tip off where a spammer got the address?

    2. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by randyest · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use the same system, and sometimes I get spam, sometimes I don't. I can usually guess whether I will be spammed or not by the apparent sliminess or lack thereof of the site.

      I've also signed up using an encoded name (random string, really, that I just link to thier site name in a text file). The 20 or so sites I tested either spammed both (sold the emails) or neither. I didn't find any sites that spammed a random name but didn't spam a name including their name.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh, Mr. gidds@NOsPAm.cix.co.uk. You don't think the spammers regularly suck down all of /. and parse the email addresses? I would, if I were one of them. A *lot* of email addresses, and all you need is a human to look at the obfuscation system once a day.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    4. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      I have had exactly the same experience.

      about 95% of my Spam comes from an old email address I have not used for 4 years or so.

      About 1% comes from DNS records, and about 3% is things like info@, sales@, webmaster@ which the spammers have just assumed would exist.

      The weirdest is one for someone called Tressia at my domain....and all the spam to that address is russian.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    5. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by gidds · · Score: 1

      Come off it... You think spammers are interested in piddly little lists of a few thousand addresses, when the automated harvesters pull in millions upon millions? Even if they could pull down /. addresses in an automated fashion, it wouldn't be worth their while to spend the time automating it. And as for having a human scan stories and recognise and enter addresses manually... forget it!

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    6. Re: But they don't lead to spam! by gidds · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I guess I just don't visit enough slimy sites :)

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    7. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by S.Lemmon · · Score: 1

      maybe someone just happened to use your domain when coming up with a fake email. Domains with very common names tend to get a lot of that.

      Also, the recent spate of mydoom clones not only forges from addresses, but also shuffles the name and domain. I'm getting tons of AV bounces from addresses that never even existed at my domain, and have also started seeing spam with similar user names.

      Makes me wonder if, since these viruses are often suspected to be the work of spammers, if they actually use the random AV bounces as a way to collect addresses.

    8. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      I disagree on both counts. While I doubt that anyone is entering addresses manually, a (new) confirmed email address is worth about $0.10. Do you really think there aren't *any* coders in the entire world who would bother to automate a /. email scraper, because it would only make a couple of thousand dollars a month?

      And, of course, such a scraper could easily monitor every board that runs on slashcode, not just slashdot.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    9. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      No, the address getting all the spam definitely doesn't have a common name.

      I'm making the guess that the Tressia one is a result of that though....assuming Tressia is a common russian name ;)

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    10. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have been doing the exact same thing for many years know and so far there have been four major incidents:

      1) ABC Stores (familiar to locals and tourists in Hawaii) had their customer database stolen. Or at least that's what I think happened. I bought some mac nuts from them because they were the cheapest online place and I really had the cravings for da kine from back home. 6 months later, I started getting porno spam with my REAL name in it sent to the address I used with ABC. When I contacted them and spelled out all the details, they passed it on to their "IT department" who denied that anything had happened, instead tried to blame packet sniffers between their smtp server and my smtp server.

      The fact that the spammers had my name meant they also probably had my credit card, address and phone and that of all of their other customers too. (I use one-time use credit card numbers online so I wasn't too worried). Consequently I will never do business with ABC stores again online or b&m (only tourists shop at the ABC b&m anyway). If they don't care about their customer's security, I sure as hell don't want to be their customer. Neither should you.

      2) TigerDirect These guys are infamous. Once they get your email address you can not shake them. I bought one thing from them years ago, I must have "unsubscribed" via email and their website 10 times before giving up and shitcanning that address. But before I completely routed it to /dev/null, I discovered they were "renting" their spam list out to legit companies (in this case a bank) and claiming it was totally opt-in. Well, I took the opportunity to follow up with the bank that had spammed me using Tigerdirect's mailing list and actually talked to the VP in charge (which is how I found out that it was being misrepresented as opt-in) and based on my conversation with the VP, they immediately cancelled their contract with Tigerdirect. Score one for the little guy!

      3) Inktomi Once upon a time I signed up for a contest to win an SUV. That was stupid because that address got passed around the spammers for years, all kinds of weird spam I got on it too, not the standard penis-enlarger low-grade stuff, but AARP solicitations, timeshare solicitations both domestic and foreign, etc. Finally, long after the dot-bomb after Y2K I got some marketing drivel from Inktomi (remember them? an early search engine) and I was in a bad mood that day. So I scoured their website for every single email address I could find, figured out their standard email addressing scheme (like firstname_lastname@inktomi.com) went to Edgar, got all their C* people's names, the BoD's names and spammed them back with a nasty old flame. One of them must have forwarded it to one of their engineers because all I got back was some guy congratulating me for tracing how they got ahold of that address and then bitching at me for giving them a taste of their own medicine. I told him to fuck off and die like the dirty spammer his company had turned into. I guess he did because shortly afterwards the company got bought for chicken-scratch (I think it was by yahoo), I figured their sinking to spammerhood was a sign the end times were near anyway.

      4) Viruses I've received a couple of viruses sent to vendor-specific addresses over the years and used that info tell the vendors that not only did they have a virus infection, but in most cases the specific machine they needed to start with. However, whenever this happens I make a note never to business with that vendor again (even when they've given me a special "discount" as a reward for alerting them to their problems) because if a virus can dig up my email address on their system that means there is a good chance that a virus could dig up more confidential details as well so it speaks to them having poor information security practices.

      Most recently I've been mydoom bounces (and direct emails too) from the home computer of this little one-woman ditzhead li

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:But they don't lead to spam! by xSquaredAdmin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, RoadRunner will take a customer offline if they do detect that the customer is spamming, or has a virus which is attempting to spread. Try sending an e-mail about her to security_AT_rr_DOT_com. You would probably want to include the message headers, as well.

      --
      Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
  49. Did anyone get the info on... by Trikenstein · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:Did anyone get the info on... by mabu · · Score: 1

      OMG.. That's hilarious... which makes me think that Amazon may have unwittingly become the "American Idol" of comedy writing. You post a really funny review of a book or album, and then the public votes on it and the funniest reviews make it to the top. Brilliant.

  50. What? by cubicledrone · · Score: 0

    Authors promoting their own books? The horror!

    </sarcasm>

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:What? by ScarletEmerald · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the authors, by not identify themselves as such, are implicitly claiming to be normal, unbiased readers, and are thus being deceptive.

  51. Hypocrites on /. by WaKall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The majority of the /. crowd screams when they have to identify themsevles online - you want anonymity. Except when it's others - you want the reviewers to have to identify themselves. Nice double standard.

    Repeat with me: technology can be used for good OR evil. The same applies to any innovation, even book reviews.

    I read this book review on the internet, so it MUST be true.

    1. Re:Hypocrites on /. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nice double standard.

      Thank you, we try.

    2. Re:Hypocrites on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think those folks who *wish* for anonymity would like to deny others' anonymity, based on what? nice assumption.

      Screaming the obvious while criticizing the liberals on the false assumptions, and trying to appear cynical was cute, for a while. Sort of like saying "I can beat you in your own game" but really proving the opposite. Having seen so many of these, I am sick of them now.

  52. Astroturf everywhere by Salamander · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, astroturf is common on Amazon. I've long known and tracked one author (Robert Stanek) who has written dozens of glowing reviews for his own incredibly-bad books, and adds reviews of other books "casually" mentioning himself in the company of Tolkien or Martin. He even Googles regularly for comments about himself elsewhere, which is how I found him on my own site once, trying to discredit me because I had written about his unethical behavior. I recently noticed another example, where an excellent book by Charles Perkins got several identically 40-column-formatted slag reviews in quick succession - probably an author or publisher of a competing book.

    The problem is that it's too easy to establish multiple identities on Amazon. It would be trivial for me to create a hundred identities and use them to have a significant effect on the ratings of books I like or dislike. . .and you'd better believe I'd be less obvious about it than Stanek. Any claim Amazon might make about policing such abuse is a joke. Let's face it, folks: anywhere that online identities can be created basically out of thin air, fraud will be rampant. Yeah, that means Slashdot too. Pseudonymity is great, but anonymity is too often a cloak for abusers.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    1. Re:Astroturf everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As a former Amazon.com-paid-monkey, I can tell you that it's not THAT easy to create 100 identities for review purposes. They keep a constant database of every IP and computer that a certain login uses. By doing this, they maintain a constant list of logins that you are "connected to" in some way. If doesn't work for people who use computers in a library setting, where hundreds of people have visited the site, but it still works pretty well. Submitted reviews are checked against this list, to prevent this exact thing from happening.

      Don't get me wrong, the programmers at Amazon.com are idiots, but this is one thing they have done a good job on.

      Now just don't get me started on the day I discovered ALL their files are set to 777 permissions.... (I swear)

  53. Anonymous Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, well anyone who posts anonymously is a coward who deserves to be outed anyway.

  54. John Rechy?! by mec · · Score: 4, Informative

    The same John Rechy who wrote "City of Night" and "The Sexual Outlaw" ?

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he was hustling reviews on Amazon the same way that his characters hustled and tricked their ways through his books.

    Rechy's books disturbed me, which is a good quality in a book. How can I describe them for a Slashdot crowd? Start with William Gibson or Bruce Sterling; subtrace all the "cyber" part of "cyberpunk"; and replace it with gay sex. LOTS of gay sex.

  55. Simple indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it has always been like that. Remember the days when getting online required a neuron or two, and your average surfer actually knew better than to blindly trust whatever words he found?

    Oh well...

  56. Well that explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well that explain all those scathing reviews on Linux books from an anonymous reader in Redmond, Washington...

  57. Just stop removing "bad" reviews by MoggyMania · · Score: 5, Informative

    A far nastier problem I've experienced firsthand on Amazon.com is the tendency of authors to go through the reviews and demand all of the "bad" ones be removed. Amazon.com's policy is to remove negative reviews upon author or publisher request, even if the points stated by the critic were clearly logical, reasonable, and within the guidelines. I know quite a few other people that have had it happen to as well.

    The really disturbing thing in the case of the book I was reviewing was that it advocated emotionally & physically abusing adults with disabilities. Regardless of who pointed it out, the author would have any review that wasn't sterling removed, so the book still has a great rating. Most of the ones remaining are either mindless "I know the author and she's really nice" comments that have nothing to do with the book itself, or testimonials from other wives/husbands that feel it's cool to throw things at, scream in the face of, and emotionally one's disabled partner into feeling deeply inferior. VERY disturbing.

    1. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by eggboard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll out myself: I've asked for "bad reviews to be removed from my books -- but we're defining bad differently. I never ask for factually correct critiques of my work to be removed, but I have seen an unfortunate trend to have reviews posted that talk outside of the book, critiquing what the book is not when the book clearly doesn't say it is.

      For instance, a book I co-wrote on GoLive was criticized for not explaining at length how to install, configure, and run database systems like MySQL and Microsoft SQL. Beyond the scope of the book, and not fair comment. (We had included 10 pages on the basics, too.)

      In other cases, if people don't like my writing or they attack the words, that's what the reviews are far and I don't complain

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    2. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For instance, a book I co-wrote on GoLive was criticized for not explaining at length how to install, configure, and run database systems like MySQL and Microsoft SQL. Beyond the scope of the book, and not fair comment. (We had included 10 pages on the basics, too.)

      Ah that explains it !! Well Mr C.Ensor, those 10 liteweight pages of fluff were mostly diagrams not text. So next time your can be bothered to update your out of print book please be sure to include some decent pages on installing databases.

      Thanks

      Anthony James Oker
      P.S If this reply disappears... we know who to blame now don't we folks ;)

    3. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your honesty, but I don't buy your argument. You're not denying the charges leveled in the review (that your book doesn't explain how to run the databases), just that such criticisms are relevant. The reasonable response, in my opinoin, is to add a review of your own (I believe Amazon will priviledge reviews by the author by automatically sticking them on the front page) and explain why your book doesn't deal with the subject. That way, no more people will mistakenly buy your book believing that it deals with a subject that it does not address. Instead, only the true target audience, those who want to learn about GoLive, will actually purchse it.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    4. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by eggboard · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't let authors add explanatory text and it's hard to get changes made.

      An easier example is that some people accuse the book of NOT including things that are in the book -- in some cases covered in 80 pages in the book.

      Or one reader wrote to say that 32 pages from the book were missing -- don't buy it! It turned out one carton was faulty and tracked down. If the reader had written Peachpit, us, or Amazon, it would have been instantly replaced without shipping charges.

      Should that remain as a review of the book forever?

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    5. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Okay, I could have SWORN there used to be a link for authors and publishers to submit information that would appear in the "Editorial Reviews" section, immediately above "Customer Reviews." I just went to Amazon.com though, and I can't find such a link, so maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe they took it out. Either way, I guess maybe you're right.

      Yes, I agree when a review is factually INACCURATE (or obsolete, in the case of missing 32 pages) then the author is justified in having it removed. The person I was replying to conceeded that the reviewer spoke the truth, but felt that the reviewer had inappropriate expectations for the book. As far as I'm concerned, that's all the more reason to leave the review up, so that no one else will buy it with similarly inaccurate expectations. Whenever I buy from Amazon, I always sort lowest ranking first, specifically so that I can understand what people were disappointed about, and decide if those are things that are important to me.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    6. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by danila · · Score: 1

      If there was even a slim chance that I would need a book about databases, or GoLive, or whatever, I would take the time to find your name and make a note to never buy anything written by you.

      There is no fair reason for the author to demand that any reviews are removed. If a negative review is biased enough, someone else ought to do it, never the author. Unless he only cares about money, in which case there are easier ways to earn it.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:Just stop removing "bad" reviews by rkuris · · Score: 1

      I agree. This happened on a book that plagerized confidential forum posts that is sold on Amazon.com. Obviously, the publisher or the author just had them removed, and now the book has a 4 1/2 star rating!

      --
      Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
  58. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent post is extremely +1, Insightful and +1, Informative! A real masterpiece! If you have mod points, spend them on the parent post!

  59. Sloppy design by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1, Redundant

    If Amazon had any intention of keeping this information a secret, then why did their database even preserve information on who posted what? I would think if you post something anonymously, the posted_by attribute for that entry in the database would be set to anonymous, and that would be that. I hope that's how it works here at slashdot...

    --
    25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    1. Re:Sloppy design by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Informative
      Obviously, the authors of anonymous posts are remembered to eliminate duplicate posting. So if you make a review anonymously, you can't make another review on the same book with the same account.

      Slashcode can store the IP addresses of non-logged-in AC's. (I obviously have no idea if they do, or if so, how long this persists, but the code is there.) I'm not sure if logged-in AC's are tracked by account, though. (I'd sorta wish they were - sometimes I would like to see replies to AC posts.)

  60. Normal Practice by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Among the reasons I left a certain former employer (besides gross incompetence) was that they had me implement a review system on one of our sites, then the phb proceeded to enter 2-4 glowing reviews for everything in the database, and pick those as the ones that showed on the front page. As of the time I left, not a single review on the site was legitimate. On the plus side, I'm not the only one who didn't like the site, it's a specialized meta-search engine which is now blocked from using all the largest search engines in it's category. It didn't even pull results, it sent the traffic on to the originating sites, so you know they were doing something seriously wrong to get blocked. Actually, looking at it again for the first time in a while, it looks like they've got some real reviews now, since every search engine has a bunch of negative 'This site sucks' reviews :)

  61. kyw by kyw · · Score: 1

    Linux or swrate? No idea I wouldn't understand that type of review. Anonymous is great, I hold on to my privacy, see I am wild. I certainly wouldn't of appreciated Amazon giving out my name. Caution in the web, that's my approach, because so anonymous and widely spread. One has the right to know who is using one's material when where, what for! The reviews: isn't it logical that souls who actually know the writer, musician, and therefore are familiar with the work speak/write about it? Ok, its my first post brought here by strange karmas ;) the one that keeps me from posting pics or too personal info. The "other" karma posted a pic, it was a shock for me.

  62. points at worse things by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What this unfortunate incident really shows is that Amazon actually tracks everyone. Even anonymous postings are kept in their histories! This should be alarming to everyone out there. I wonder if Slashdot does this too? What if the anonymous postings on slashdot are not anymous at all? What if Slashdot records everyone's IP addresses? Workers posting stuff anonymously (to prevent them from being fired) might be hurt. Of course, I am speculating. Slashdot may not keep the IP addresses. But if Amazon can, anything is possible...

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:points at worse things by real_smiff · · Score: 1

      slashdot, like amazon, doesn't need to record your IP if you're logged in.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  63. Wasn't this obvious? by mabu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you see a book with reviews of 1,1,2 and then a bunch of 5s with flowery, glowing-yet-ambiguous praise, it's pretty obvious they're shills. That's why I've always made it a practice to prioritize the most realistic reviews by clicking "yes" to "Did you find this review helpful?"

    Beyond this, if you're going to write a review of your own book, the least you can do is register anonymously. That's too funny.

    Once thing that annoys me about Amazon reviews is that they'll clear the slate for subsequent editions. I spent more than a month compiling notes on some Oracle manuals that really exposed their horribly-documented publications, and then they came out with a new edition that was more of the same crap, but Amazon obsoleted the reviews. I know sometimes new editions are really "new" but most of the time they're not. If there are reviews of previous editions of a book, they should be prominently featured on the latest edition review page.

  64. That may be the policy, not the reality... by lazypenguingirl · · Score: 1

    I am actually engaged in an issue with New Egg right now over a motherboard. I've used them for years, and I do trust them if anything happens, I've RMAed a few things that have arrived dead. I have a mobo right now which I had ordered from another vendor and was on death's door. Ordered the same one from New Egg, and it will not POST. Reading the comments on New Egg (after the fact), I saw that a LOT of people had similar problems, receiving 2-3 of these dud boards before receiving a working one. So.... that's supposed to be a positive review? "New Egg was GREAT!!! They sent me THREE of these dead boards before one worked!" Sure it's a great testiment to New Egg's SERVICE. But I have read MANY reviews on New Egg that were negative about the PRODUCT (which is not necessarily New Egg's fault, and that's what I'm interested in reading). So while their policy may be to play nice, I've read many "Don't go with this one, go with X instead because of Y" and they have been helpful and saved lots of headache.

  65. It gets worse by nairolF · · Score: 1

    the "Anonymous Coward" account sure seems to get spoofed a lot around here ;)

    --
    "...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
    1. Re:It gets worse by general_re · · Score: 1
      the "Anonymous Coward" account sure seems to get spoofed a lot around here ;)

      You laugh, but when I first registered here - which was, you know, back in the day, before everybody and their mother knew what AC was all about - it actually took me a couple of weeks of reading to figure out that "Anonymous Coward" wasn't just another poster.

      I distinctly remember thinking "Damn, this 'Anonymous Coward' guy sure has a lot of free time - he's all over everything around here..."

      I'm sure I'm not the only one who did that, but I may be the only one to admit it ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  66. if (0 == strcmp(reviewer_name, author)) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unfortunate that they are stupid.

  67. haha. so, to get straight to the point... by real_smiff · · Score: 1
    has anyone got a list of authors caught by this? The famous (authors) and enthusiastic (reviews) most welcome ;)

    P.S. This is just for research purposes... something to keep in the back of my mind, for, oh! the rest of my life, when i'm perusing the local bookshop ;)

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  68. DO NOT BELIEVE HIM ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    its all a lie, i can't trust anyone anonymous

  69. Close Observers? by p0rnking · · Score: 1

    "Close observers of Amazon.com noticed something peculiar this week ...."

    "The weeklong glitch, which Amazon fixed ..."

    Is it just me, or is there something wrong with these 2 lines from the article?

  70. Re:Oh, the scandal! Oh, the horror! ;) by Mard · · Score: 1

    The whole purpose of the Amazon system is ACCURACY, not making sure every book scores 5/5.

    Are you sure about that? 5/5 scores sell a lot more books. This *is* Bevos we're talking about; the five-billion patent man.

    --
    DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
  71. other sources by pcgamez · · Score: 1

    Of coulrse, you could just do it the easy way and check other sources like the Internet Book List previoously mentioned on Slashdot.

    http://www.iblist.com

    (gee, I hope nobody finds out that I run the site)

    ok, that was pretty blatant spamming, but it is somewhat on topic.

  72. Amazon.com rating problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The problem with Amazon.com is that people are asked to rate a book with five stars whether it's "good" or "bad". But likes and dislikes for books are subjective. A better approach is something like www.Allreaders.com uses (Allreaders) which asks reviewers what the book is about rather than what is in the book. That way the author of a book can safely review the book, since the system is only asking for objective criteria, such as plot, setting, and character info, rather than subjective info, whether one "liked" the book.

    1. Re:Amazon.com rating problem and solution by HP+LoveJet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...is only asking for objective criteria, such as plot, setting, and character info."

      Information which is completely useless in determining whether I would actually enjoy reading the book.

      Roger Ebert always says: "What's important is not what the movie is about; it's how it manages to be about it." I submit that this is even more true with fiction.

      --
      spawn_of_yog_sothoth
    2. Re:Amazon.com rating problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roger Ebert always says: "What's important is not what the movie is about; it's how it manages to be about it." I submit that this is even more true with fiction.

      Yet that smarmy bastard is brilliantly making a living doing reviews.

  73. Solution to Amazon.com rating problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with Amazon.com is that people are asked to rate a book with five stars whether it's "good" or "bad". But likes and dislikes for books are subjective. A better approach is something like www.Allreaders.com uses (Allreaders) which asks reviewers what the book is about rather than what is in the book. That way the author of a book can safely review the book, since the system is only asking for objective criteria, such as plot, setting, and character info, rather than subjective info, whether one "liked" the book. (My apologies if this message appears twice--I didn't see it the first time I posted)

  74. MOD PARENTS BUTTOCK CHEEKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 clenching

  75. David Hasselhoff... by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 1

    ... has to be pissed now. I mean, who else posted 800+ raving reviews of "Looking For-Best of David Hasselhoff" ?

    --
    Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
  76. But what about Slashdot...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could the same happen to ./? Are the posters
    stored if they are logged in but decide to click
    on "Anonymous Coward"?

  77. Could be worse... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    At least they didn't post credit card numbers of the reviewers. Now THAT would be a bummer (and not really that unlikely a mistake/scenario).

  78. The review by John Rechy by FePe · · Score: 1
    This is the review by John Rechy from the book's page on amazon:

    Rechy at full power, February 14, 2004 Reviewer: A reader from California This tour de force from one of our best writers, could become a classic. It's a compelling, intelligent and fascinating book, I loved it. Bravo!

    And it has received one helpful vote. Maybe from himself?

    --
    "Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -- Leo Tolstoy
    1. Re:The review by John Rechy by smart.id · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't the story say that he was a reader from Chicago? If so, THIS is the review:

      A reader's feast, October 19, 2003
      Reviewer: A reader from Chicago, IL
      This book is moving, hilarious, sad, laugh-aloud funny, touching, and very, very sexy--a feast. The characters are all memorable, Lyle the cowboy who never rode a horse; his Miss America mom--and the minor characters! A finicky female porn entrepreneur and her detested husband and their nasty director, Za-Z La Grande; a "poster" woman whose image is all over the city, "the sexy chicano." The names of the minor characters will knock you over--real names only slightly disguised. Also "Mr. Fielding," an eccentric gambler and the corrupt evangelists, who are vile and at the same time hilarious. Lyle, like Tom Jones, is in and out of unique situations--accidentally in a magician's show, at the playboy mansion "saving" Miss Universe," confronting an exploiter of Star Maps sellers, teenagers--(...) There are poigant moments, with Sister Matilda, gospel singer, and Clarita, the Mexican housekeeper. The song Amazing Grace recurs, and the ending is unforgettable, starting with an Academy Awards ceremony you won't forget.


      And yes, funny joke there, but Amazon probably doesn't let you rate your own reviews (I could be wrong, though.)

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
    2. Re:The review by John Rechy by FePe · · Score: 1
      And yes, funny joke there, but Amazon probably doesn't let you rate your own reviews (I could be wrong, though.)

      No, you are right. But he could create a new account ("another reader from Chicago") and vote from that account.

      --
      "Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -- Leo Tolstoy
    3. Re:The review by John Rechy by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Kinda embarassing for this review to include two comma splices. Are you sure this is the right one?

  79. Not jsut authors by overworked+underpaid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I was recently asked by an anonymous friend to post a review of a beek that he had recently published. I refused to post a review before reading the book, but I am sure that the review I posted was a little biased.

    He also asked several other people to do the same thing, and I am aware of at least two who "reviewed" the book without reading it.

    It's hard to deny that this behavior is deceptive, but how can you police it? Sure, you can prevent an author reviewing their own work, but how can you prevent that review being posted by proxy?

  80. There's no Hypocracy by Sangloth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I post as an AC, you know that I'm an AC, nothing more, nothing less.
    When you read a review on Amazon.com, you are expecting an unbiased review. The person making a self-interested post is actively decieving you.

    There is a difference between wishing to preserve your anonimity, and trying to pretend that you are something that you are not.

    Sangloth
    I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

    1. Re:There's no Hypocracy by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      When you read a review on Amazon.com, you are expecting an unbiased review. The person making a self-interested post is actively decieving you.

      ah c'mon. it would have been surprising if this kind of stuff didn't happen - but so what: it's not about one review, it's about the general impression you get from reading all the reviews. /t

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    2. Re:There's no Hypocracy by harmonica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you read a review on Amazon.com, you are expecting an unbiased review. The person making a self-interested post is actively decieving you.

      Actually, no, I don't expect an unbiased review. I'm very careful with statements in those reviews because I know about the spin somebody might add (in either direction).

      I got contacted once because an author thought I had given an unfair rating. It wasn't me who wrote it, but since then I know how closely authors may follow their Amazon reviews.

      I find those TOP 100/500/1000 reviewer labels useful when I'm reading reviews. Those reviewers have built up a certain credibility. Most of them can also express themselves well in written form so it's more pleasant to read them.

    3. Re:There's no Hypocracy by LauraScudder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's funny, cause I explicitly avoid those top reviewer labels. I find them overwrought and too full of praise most of the time. If a review doesn't have both something positive and something negative to say about a book, then I simply click the "No this review was not helpful" button and ignore it.

      I've heard that the same thing goes on in some graduate admissions offices with letters of recommendation. If the recommender doesn't have something bad to say, then it's assumed they don't know you well enough.

    4. Re:There's no Hypocracy by harmonica · · Score: 1

      That's funny, cause I explicitly avoid those top reviewer labels. I find them overwrought and too full of praise most of the time.

      Maybe I was lucky so far? I remember most of the top reviewers including both praise and criticism.

    5. Re:There's no Hypocracy by ckedge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >That's funny, cause I explicitly avoid those top reviewer labels. I find them overwrought and too full of praise most of the time.

      DITTO! Whenever I look into the reviewing histories of most any "top x00" reviewer, I find stuff that smells.

      Example: looking through the profile of a "top 100" reviewer, I found that she claimed that she was a librarian who could speed read. She reviewed on average 30 books a week, and ALL were given glowing 4-5 star reviews. I found a sci-fi book that I knew was an absolute stinker (I regret ever buying it), and her review was 2 paragraphs. The first paragraph was A WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT of the back cover. The second paragraph COULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT ANY BOOK AT ALL, and matched the style and general content of ANY of the 2nd paragraphs from ANY of her reviews.

      Damn shame amazon doesn't have a "friends and enemies" list, so I could give a -4 modifier to any such reviewers, and do the same for enemies of my friends of friends. Etc.

    6. Re:There's no Hypocracy by harmonica · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I've never encountered that.

      But isn't it relatively easy to spot "generic" texts of the kind you described? If there is no "meat" in a review, it's not helpful and therefore I continue reading.

      By the way, given that this particular reviewer copied texts in verbatim, I guess Amazon would be interested.

  81. Time to go back to original method to pick a book. by crotherm · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. by its cover.

    --
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
  82. A new slashdot effect by prodangle · · Score: 2

    On "A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius : A Memoir Based on a True Story", one the books mentioned in the article, we have Customers interested in this title may also be interested in: Genius Computer Products Mice, Keyboards, Trackballs Tablets... Is this a new slashdot effect?

  83. Why in the world would this surprise anyone? by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

    On a site that allows anonymous reviews the author and/or publisher is probabbly going to pull something like this. It shouldn't surprise anybody.

  84. Anonymous Cowards by MBraynard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Some see web anonymity as a solution to problems. It is also creating a problem in the case of honest product reviews.

    Amazon should seperate their reviews into two groups - one with a proof-positive name and contact info, making the writer liable for slander or lible, and another for 'anonymous cowards.'

    If you aren't confident enough to stand behind your words, your words have much less value.

  85. Jokes aside by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many of you ACs that posted in the MS Source Code Leak story
    the other day with your reports of what's in the code you downloaded
    got a bit nervous when you read this story today?

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Jokes aside by 1vs0 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot doesn't know my real name and will never know my real name, so neither will Microsoft. I'm surprised that people who logged in under their own name on Amazon.com actually though "HEY! EVEN THOUGH AMAZONG KNOWS WHO I AM, I WILL GIVE MY OWN BOOK A GOOD REVIEW AND THEY WILL NEVER FIND OUT! HOORAH FOR SELF MARKETING!" Too me, its simple logic.

      --
      http://www.psikon.com/
    2. Re:Jokes aside by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      Good thing you don't use an IP address nor are related to the links in your profile and .sig.

      Right?

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    3. Re:Jokes aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex. You moron.

    4. Re:Jokes aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

      Too bad i am not a /. member or i would have modded this up. Now it will probably be buried in the rest of the comments. But it is a fine example to show that even people who think they know how to remain anonymous on the net screw up.

    5. Re:Jokes aside by 1vs0 · · Score: 1

      all circumstantial evidence. Well, really, I have nothing to hide. If I did, I wouldn't be as open as I am with my identity.

      --
      http://www.psikon.com/
  86. ATTENTION MODS!!! PLAGARIST!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol sorry i just had to.... :D

  87. Author and Publisher Abuse by smack.addict · · Score: 4, Informative
    When my book, Java Database Best Practices first came out, before anyone could possibly have read it, someone posted a recommendation instead for another, competing book that had not yet been published.

    In spite of this obvious attempt to mislead readers, Amazon chose to do nothing. That recommendation is still up there!

  88. Large pinch of salt required. by madpierre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is this any different to the 'blurb' normaly printed
    on book jackets by the publishers?

    In this case the authors are writing their own BS hype
    online instead of bribing someone else to do it for them.
    Its just a fairly typical cheesy marketing ploy.

    The best way to judge a book is to check it out for yourself
    in a bookstore. If you're hooked in the first few paragraphs
    its probably going to be a good read.

    Reviews, best to treat em with a bucket of salt.

    --
    siggy played guitar
  89. In other news by nazsco · · Score: 1

    Slashdot predicts new wave in book review. Amazon follows.

  90. Doesn't it balance out? by westendgirl · · Score: 1
    If there are people heaping unwarranted praise on a book and people heaping unwarranted criticism on a book, shouldn't these things balance out? For example, if *I* had a book on Amazon, I would ask all my trusted friends, marketing buddies, and family members to post positive reviews. However, I would think my ex-boyfriends, childhood enemies, competing authors and competing publishers would publish negative reviews. In the end, this should leave only the Amazon reader opinions. Some of which will praise the book, and some of which will tear it apart.

    While the Internet offers a low-cost medium for publishing propaganda, I think freedom of speech still wins out. Publishers romance reviewers in much the same way that pharmaceutical companies toy with doctors. Even the "independent" journalists (from publications that refuse to mingle with publishers) need to be loyal to their editors, advertisers or, at the very least, their perceived readership. Reviews are just as much a marketable commodity as the books themselves.

    When I minored in publishing during my undergrad, the profs trotted out all sorts of publishers who admitted to wining and dining reviewers. And, in my career as a technology marketer, I've put together strategies for capturing the positive attention of software magazine writers. Lately, I have noticed my peers are starting to pitch to bloggers. Yes, even blogs and Amazon reviews are tainted by commercial interests. But at least the little guy can still publish reviews or put up a website. It's such an awful pain to tack one's protests to the door of the castle church at Wittenburg.

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  91. Robert Jordan by stangbat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Think how many positive reviews Robert Jordan would have to post to improve the rating of his last several drivel filled snoozefests.

    1. Re:Robert Jordan by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Whadyousay? I was busy sleeping in my Bed of Time...

      --
  92. More self-promoters than /.? Impossible! by ishmalius · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Slashdot has daily examples of guys pushing articles, reviews, or papers they wrote.

    Why would /. readers feel any outrage?

  93. Don't worry by sircrown · · Score: 3, Funny

    It happened to Amazon Canada so only like 5 people saw it.

  94. Censorship at Amazon--a Catch 22 by shanen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Okay, I've reviewed all of the highly ranked comments, and don't see ANYONE addressing the real root of the problem here.
    • Q: Why is Amazon doing any of this?
    • A: To make a buck.
    The "customer" reviews are just part of that purpose. For example, from my own experience I can assure you that Amazon does not want honest and negative reviews, because such reviews might discourage some people from buying the book. I've submitted a couple of such reviews, thoughtful pieces that covered both sides, but which ultimately came down on the negative side, and which were rejected with various doublespeak explanations. The REAL problem was that I made a persuasive case against buying those books.

    From their perspective, a totally bogus but glowing review is fine, just as long as it will sell more books.

    Amazon claims an impartiality that is totally lacking in practice, but I say they are shooting themselves in the foot--or maybe in the head. I think the people who most want to buy and read books are the same people who most strongly object to censorship. Actually the desire of those people for access to all of the data is likely to cause them to read more books from all angles. (And I really don't think the fans of the goddess of hate could actually be reading more than one book a year.)

    Amazon's money-grubbing slanted policies have so damaged their credibility that I actively avoid buying anything from them (unless I really can't find another source--but unfortunately they are also abusing their market influence to become an increasingly monopolistic sole source).

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Censorship at Amazon--a Catch 22 by danila · · Score: 1

      Sorry, can't find the link, but some time ago, an employee of Amazon posted here and pointed out that Amazon has neither the resources, nor interest to do what you describe. He went as far as to claim that Amazon doesn't (didn't) actually need/want the reviews, but the users demanded them. So, according to that guy, nobody at Amazon wants (has time) to police the reviews, except to remove the most blatantly bad ones. I am not sure we can trust his account, but that would actually make sense.

      Personally I had written exactly one negative review on Amazon and it is still there. That also was, AFAIR, the only book I ever bought there.

      P.S. Amazon's search sucks. (a honest an unbiased opinion)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  95. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    Wasn't John Lott from the American Enterprise Institute outed for this (writing reviews for himself) just recently?

    --
    [o]_O
  96. Re:Time to go back to original method to pick a bo by slothman32 · · Score: 1

    I quote I never thought I'd get to steal and use: "You can't tell a book if the title's covered."

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  97. A bookstore by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

    So let me be sure I've got this right: you are going to trust these dingbats with your credit card number? What have you been smoking?

  98. Re:Ceren Ercen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic is right. Ceren is older than I am, and I have to avoid jailbait. She's pretty hot.

  99. Re:Software (names obscured to avoid plugs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Take a look at [xxx]'s new stuff also. They have a few new products (like a professional version) and the prices are really on par with everyone else's - plus their performance is better in a lot of key areas (speed, scalability). [Zzz] mag just did a review with 11 vendors -check that out too"

    If they simply wrote this in the first person admitting who they are, it would be much more honest (and hold more credibility than an obvious tout pretending to be just an anonymous user). For example:

    "I'm with xxx. We have a few new products (such as yyy 0.1 professional version) and our prices are really on par with everyone else's - and we offer performance is better in a lot of key areas (speed, scalability). See the product review in zzz magazine [url]."

  100. Potential Solution by BrianWCarver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not give two ratings:

    Registered Users Rate this Book: 2.2
    Anonymous Users Rate this Book: 4.8

    To prevent multiple sign-ups as "registered users" you would restrict the class of "registered users" to those who have made at least one Amazon.com purchase with a unique name on their credit card.

    Such a system could be gamed, but only at a much higher cost and level of effort.

    Brian

    --
    Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
  101. Well well well by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    I rated my aunt's book on Amazon, but I didn't pretend to be some random party who had just happened to read the book.

    I think that it's great that they accidentally "outed" the authors who pretended to be other people when they reviewed their own books.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  102. Amazon.co.uk has a good example... by +SummitWolf · · Score: 1

    I've seen what I believe to be an example of this on the Amazon.co.uk site, involving Listmania lists (user-generated lists of favourite books, recommended to others). The 'turd' in this case appears to be a book called 'The Wisdom of Shepherds' by one 'R. Ellis' that has garnered mediocre reviews (3 stars), although at least one reviewer saw the deception and mentions it in their (one star) review. It appears to be one of these generic inspiring/insightful story things (to quote the blurb: 'Out of the much-loved tradition of wisdom literature comes The Wisdom of Shepherds, a story full of astute observations and deep insight. Like all great wisdom literature, The Wisdom of Shepherds touches on the themes of self discipline, patience, understanding, and fulfillment. Like all great stories, The Wisdom of Shepherds will keep you guessing until the end.' Yech.)

    This product appears at the top of a number of recommendation lists, all of which appear to have used a similar formula for their generation.

    Examples:

    Brilliant Minds Need Brilliant Books - A list by seanpc11, Consultant: 'Truly Unique and Enjoyable Book. Excellent on Every Level. Do click The Wisdom of Shepherds icon.'

    Know What Others Know - A list by shelleysmith319, Administrator: Extraordinary book. Best wisdom-book on the market. Be sure to click the Wisdom of Shepherds icon.

    Intelligent People Only - A list by erjones3, Management Trainer: You simply MUST Click this book's icon. Truly excellent. A must read, and a must click.

    A List for Smart People to Click - A list by Michael, Administrator: Excellent story, deep wisdom. If you click no other icon on my list, let it be The Wisdom of Shepherds icon. Truly.

    Smartest List on the Net - A list by Michael, Administrator: Excellent story, deep wisdom. If you click no other icon on my list, let it be The Wisdom of Shepherds icon. Truly. (Hey, were did we read that before??!)

    Hmm. Can you see a pattern? :) I imagine the author and maybe some deceitful (and not very bright) friends are trying to pump the sales of this turkey...

    Perhaps this 'wisdom book' includes sage advice on the morality of ballot stuffing. Too bad I'll never read it.

  103. Harriet Klausner by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The NY Times article has an interesting reference to someone named Harriet Klausner, who has achieved a rating as #1 reviewer on Amazon.com. "Many prolific reviewers speculate that Harriet Klausner, 55, who has long reigned as No. 1, cannot possible read all the books she reviews."

    I was interested to see the reference to her, because she's been cross-posting all her reviews in various places all over the net, including my own site, which catalogs and reviews free books. I didn't realize until I read the Times article yesterday that she was also posting them on Amazon, which is a big problem for me, because when you post a review on Amazon, they make you turn over your copyright to them. So I'm potentially liable for violating their copyright on my site. She did this despite some very clearly worded warnings on my site not to do that. Now she's started crapflooding my site with reviews containing false information. Really nice.

    More info on my site. It's amazing what an ethical cesspool online book reviews (and movie reviews, and software reviews,...) are.

    1. Re:Harriet Klausner by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      I want to post here again because she e-mailed me (I didn't e-mail her because she hadn't made her address publicly available), and it sounds like what I perceived as crapflooding was just carelessness and repeated failure to read the instructions on my site. Her explanation of her actions sounds reasonable, and I thought I should say so here because she presumably doesn't read Slashdot, and wouldn't be able to defend herself here.

  104. DUH by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Why does it take a news flash to tell people what they already know ?

    It is obvious that lots and lots of authors/designers/people-who-have-shit-to-sell will post favorable reviews and heavily-biased opinions on forums because they can hide their identity, just like they "buy" reviews in magazines. That's how the world of capitalism works: brainwash them until you have their money.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  105. Hollywood by nzilla · · Score: 1

    If you think about it, it doesn't sound any worse than what the movie studios do. I was looking at a poster for a movie that had a rave review from a Fox station. The movie was made by Fox.

    --
    Ignorance is bliss and I'm suicidal.
  106. A solution? by The+Jon · · Score: 1

    How about disallowing a user to submit a review unless they have made a purchase from Amazon.
    One would assume that they would have at least made their mailing address truthful, and therefore can be verified by Amazon (and can still choose to be shown as anonymous).

    --
    umop apisdn aw pow f,uop aseald :umop aw pow 'dn aw pow
  107. Re:Paranoid Delusional Nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound first of all so full of shit that your eyes must be brown and you must wear waders all the time. Spoke directly with the VP...pfftt. Those people employee secretaries to screen calls/mail to keep whackoz like you away from them. I think you need to try *READING* a privacy agreement before just cliking away and pounding on the mouse like a wild monkey.

    I think you have a beef against these businesses for whatever reason and have chosen this venue as your means of extracting a revenge to help you feel better. You try to insinuate that you have some sort of knowledge and industry experience, but to those who really do your fine talent at being a Schmuck and spewing bullshit really shines. Your virus example is prime! Your story starts off bashing this person personally and moves on to show your ignorance. I don't think you know the sender IP anymore than you bothered to look at the headers of the email before running to McAfee's site to cry wolf. Even if you had no idea how to look up an IP block being static or dynamic and who is the owner, even the most green geek should know about checking a domain's registration to at the very least get a technical contact or a NOC to email an abuse complaint to which is always abuse at domain. You should also know to email your entire email including headers to show the origin. If you are so familiar with their Terms Of Service, I would think you should know how to contact their abuse team. I think you need to change Aluminum Foil brands.

    So leave the nerd site for the nerds, and try investing your time in learning how spammers harvest addresses such as dictionary attacks and how they apply tactics such as bouncing emails to bypass filters and using the same username on several domains.

    Fucking Whining Simpleton and Knucklehead Moderators for not putting you in your proper place.