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.'"
Serves 'em right. No such as anonymity on the 'net, right John Ashcroft?
Submitted reviews are also used by software companies to promote their products. Its pretty blatant usually.
You can't take the sky from me...
Slashdot never suffers a glitch when it comes to Anonymous Cowards like me.
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-
...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..."
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.
Would they?
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 !
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...
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"
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.
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...
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!
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.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
all 849 David Hasselhoff reviewers?
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'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?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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.
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.
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