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.'"
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.
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-
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.
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.
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')
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"
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 ----
..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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
"...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
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.
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
-
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.