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.'"
Submitted reviews are also used by software companies to promote their products. Its pretty blatant usually.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
...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..."
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.
Although most take privacy as something only criminals doing dirty deeds would need... Here is an excerpt of a doc I wrote...
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.
MoFscker
. . . 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.
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.
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.
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'
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.
OOC, where does that phrase (astroturfing) come from? I don't think I've seen it before.
Twenties Retirement
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.
MoFscker
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}$/
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.
Twenties Retirement
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?")
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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 :)
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.
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.
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"
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.
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!
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.
Find free books.
>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.