By JJJS

May 4, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

So, Peter, I see, you’ve changed something on your page on advice from Amazon. But: have Amazon changed anything as a result of your suggestions?

By Peter D Harris

May 4, 2007 4:59 AM | Link to this

Some of my suggestions can be found in this guide, last updated in February, and which is the result of years of debates with other Amazon reviewers. Some of these ideas first appeared on the Amazon discussion board and they aren’t all my ideas. Indeed, if you look in the FAQ folder, you’ll find a thread titled something like “Will community Eric’s replacement?” in which you’ll see a few of my suggestions as well as the late Bob Zeidler’s among others. It’s certainly not the only thread on which I posted ideas but it’s the easiest to find (there aren’t many threads in the FAQ folder). I could direct you to the debate about how rankings are calculated, but I’ll only do that if I see clear evidence that you wish to be constructive. My guide’s link is http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/RX7FC2W3HQEAI/ref=cmsyltbyauthortitlefull_7 I’ll update it again eventually. As to who has seen it, I got an e-mail from Amazon soon after I set it up, pointing out certain things. Where I’d made errors, I corrected them. Where Amazon were wrong, I left things as they were. Some of those ideas are used as the basis of a survey I’m conducting along with one or two others not in the guide. I don’t suppose you’ll want to take part in my survey but here’s the link to my survey. http://uk.geocities.com/peterdurwardharris/amazon-survey.html So you can take back your sarcastic comment about the bathroom mirror. Now, how about YOUR suggestions. If you haven’t got any, your complaints are exposed as rants against Amazon. If you have some good ideas, a lot of people would like to know them. You can post them here or send them to me via my survey or you can post them on the Amazon DB.

By Barbara Delaney

May 4, 2007 1:55 AM | Link to this

P.D. Harris suggests our time could be better spent in looking for solutions than in “endless whining”.That’s fairly amusing coming from the least concise of the posters here. We are looking for solutions. Business as usual isn’t one. That’s all you have offered.

By JJJS

May 3, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

P.D. Harris wrote: “Over the years, I’ve suggested (and will continue to suggest) improvements. ” ——- Where did you do this? To whom did you suggest your improvements? To your bathroom mirror? Have you achieved any tangible results?

By Peter D Harris

May 3, 2007 5:36 AM | Link to this

I’ve been studying Amazon’s system for several years. There’s a lot that I don’t like about it (far more than you might imagine from my posts here). Over the years, I’ve suggested (and will continue to suggest) improvements. However, I’ve also learned that it’s a lot easier to complain than it is to find satisfactory solutions that will gain widespread approval. For example, there’s a lot of useless (or worse) reviews on Amazon but the only way to block them is some form of censorship. Amazon’s British website screen all reviews but they don’t staff the system properly. They don’t bother posting any reviews that they don’t have time to check so a lot of good reviews don’t get posted (and some that are posted are mutilated by the censors). Those of us who post reviews there often have to re-submit the same reviews many times to get them posted, resulting in many reviewers giving up on Amazon altogether - they buy elsewhere. If you don’t have censorship of this kind, you can’t stop useless reviews appearing (and even Am-UK don’t stop all of them). Do you have constructive and workable suggestions for changing Amazon’s system? Maybe this should be the subject of your next thread. It would be much more interesting than endless whining.

By JJJS

May 2, 2007 8:41 PM | Link to this

Here’s another one years old: http://www.dancingbadger.com/amareview.htm

By vick mickunas

May 2, 2007 8:37 PM | Link to this

The mysterious Harriet Klausner, Amazon.com’s #1 customer reviewer has published 68 book reviews today. Is there anybody who believes that she actually read all of those books?

By JJJS

May 2, 2007 8:37 PM | Link to this

Kelly, you’re right. That’s why the damn thing should be moderated. (That was a hint again.) * Btw, the Amazon reviews problem seems older than we think: “The top reviewer at Amazon [posted June 22, 2001 at 04:54 pm] The top reviewer at Amazon has written almost 2200 reviews. Amazon has only been around for approximately 2100 days and soliciting reviews for a lot less than that.” http://www.kottke.org/01/06/the-top-reviewer-at-amazon . This note was posted SIX years ago. So…

By Kelly Curtis

May 2, 2007 8:03 PM | Link to this

This is exactly what Harriet & Crew are excited to see. The focus shifted away from themselves. You won’t win with these asinine arguments.

By Augey Doggy

May 2, 2007 7:35 PM | Link to this

MK: Q E D Doggy: Even is you were a teenager your vocabulary seems limited. Senior Krysztofiak who can’t decide if he is from Düsseldorf, Illinois, or [most likely] Dayton, Ohio. QED

By JJJS

May 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

W.Boudville goes full monty: he dumped NINE (9) reviews today. M. Krysztofiak got the count: it’s about 3,000 pages. THREE THOUSAND PAGES W.Boudville wants us to believe he read today.

By M Krysztofiak

May 2, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Augey Doggy, Three letters for you: Q E D. You argue my point regarding your character better than I ever could. Better than anyone here, you are the grand illustrator of the truth: the truth which are you incapable of grasping yet simultaneously attempting to soil. Once again, you prove your idiocy with an impotent attempt to misrepresent the issue. Try again, please. We all look forward to your next outburst—it is like watching an ant run from concentrated sunlight. I believe it is YOUR panties which are in bunches—forced chastity tends to do that, doesn’t it? But then, you are already eminently familiar with celibacy, now aren’t you? Bat those eyelashes of intellectual dishonesty elsewhere; intelligent minds here crave substance, and your rants are profoundly lacking in this regard. Good luck, MK

By vick mickunas

May 2, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

At this point it seems that defenders of the current Amazon reviewer system are few and far between. I have heard from a number of high ranking customer reviewers who have expressed their qualms with the system as it currently exists. They have written me privately.These individuals are decent folks who use their real names. I have learned a lot.

By Augey Doggy

May 2, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

Krystofiak: “excrement-level accusations” Doggy: Sorry the truth puts your panties in a knot kid. Maybe it will make the interviews better.

By Augey Doggy

May 2, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Vick: “The jury is still out on the current system. “ Doggy: Do tells us what part of “Clearly, the campaign to clean up the Amazon customer reviewer system is starting to bear fruit.” means that your jury is still out? Looks a lot more like somebody bucking for a salary to me.

By JJJS

May 2, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

[Applause] M.Krysztofiak blows Auggie Doggie out of the water! :-)

By M Krysztofiak

May 2, 2007 1:17 AM | Link to this

Augey Doggy, Well, well, look at what we have here. “Minotaur” has returned: the writing pattern is the same, the venomous deposits of excrement-level accusations are the same, and the laughable spelling mistakes—written in his/her/its (last option most likely) impotent fury are the same. Just how many critical reasoning classes you have failed in your lifetime? I’ll spell this out for you one more time, “Augey Doggy,” and then I’m afraid it’s back to electroconvulsive shock therapy for you again. Vick’s status—whether legitimate journalist or hack—does not invalidate the subject on which he reports. JJJS’s status—as pseudonym of Vick (Lol, off your medications again?) or just pseudonym—does not invalidate his criticisms of various Amazon reviewers. The ages of those critical of Harriet, “Gunny,” Grady, Boudville, or others does not make their arguments any more or less valid. Look at you: with your menopausal rants, endless “batted eyelashes” (suggestive of serious limitations in your approach to adult-level conversation, sad attempts at humor, or both), and labile moods, I would put you at 52. You have proven yourself to be a bitter, sad little insect who resorts to wrath when your tiny mind is not sufficiently appeased by the approval of your even more pathetic sycophants. Either that, or you are a virginal 29-year-old with a BMI of 45—hey, YOU started the ad hominems and non sequitors, remember? In either case, you yourself have proven that age has nothing at all to do with accumulated wisdom. Please, find someone in your inbred little group who allows their reason to dictate their posts’ contents, rather than their emotion. You are sadly transparent and utterly ridiculous. By the way, accusing JJJS of being Vick without “any evidence” (your friend’s favorite request) could just be construed as “libel” (your favorite word), don’t you think. Well, obviously, you don’t think, which is why I am now doing your thinking for you—go away and be quiet. There’s a nice doggy. MK

By Barbara Delaney

May 2, 2007 12:00 AM | Link to this

Augey Doggie, Hint: the word is spelled “complimentary” when you are speaking of flattering speech, the way you attempted to use the word. It is spelled “complementary” in mathematics when speaking of angles,etc. Boy, if I didn’t know any better, with your blatant ignorance I would think you were Harriet Klausner herself.

By Barbara Delaney

May 1, 2007 11:53 PM | Link to this

I read and comment on Harriet Klausner’s fraudulent reviews in the hope that either someone at Amazon might take notice or that a critical mass of people would object to this behavior and that would get Amazon’s attention. Misfit objected to the smut in Harriet Klausner’s reviews for the same reason I did. And Amazon agreed with us. The filth she wrote in reviewing one book has been removed. And another review where she mentioned fecal matter in an extremely crude fashion twice has been removed in its entirety. That gives me hope. As to my identity, I’ve made no secret of who I am, neither has Vick. We are both using our own names. You, on the other hand, hide behind a series of false identities. Come to Dayton, you can meet Vick. I’ll drive up from Cincinnati. We can show you the infamous Hangar 18. I’m sure you would enjoy it. Anybody who believes in the validity of Harriet Klausner’s reviews undoubtedly has faith in aliens and space ships as well.

By vick mickunas

May 1, 2007 7:42 PM | Link to this

The mysterious “Augey Doggy” seems to have strong opinions about the Amazon customer reviewing system. The jury is still out on the current system. I’m looking forward to further discourse on this emotional subject.

By Augey Doggy

May 1, 2007 7:26 PM | Link to this

“I think one of the advantages of moderated boards is that the outright nonsense can be filtered out” Erm, so all the posts here have been checked out, right? I’ve been meaning to ask you - The word for a soso media hack who lures teenagers into attacking reviewers and carrying out his crusades — It’s not exactly a complementary term, is it? (hint: begins with a p….)

By JJJS

May 1, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

I think one of the advantages of moderated boards is that the outright nonsense can be filtered out. (Hint!) —- Interestingly, W.Boudville has posted a professionally written review today, smooth and near flawless. He became a littérateur overnight! Well, that’s good, I’m not complaining. Check it out. * Vick, is there a way to make this blog accept newlines?

By Augey Doggy

May 1, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

V. Delaney - ” If you find Vick’s writing is so troubling to you why do you keep coming back? ” Augey - “If you find HK’s review’s so troubling why do you immerse yourself in them?

By Peter D Harris

May 1, 2007 6:34 AM | Link to this

Dear JJJS, So you’re a student, huh? Well, you have much to learn, not just about Amazon but about much else too. And when you get into the real world, you’ll find there’s a lot of books that people don’t start at the beginning and work their way in page number order to the end.

By Peter D Harris

May 1, 2007 4:52 AM | Link to this

I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again - I don’t like HK’s reviews BUT she hasn’t broken any of Amazon’s rules. As to reviewing adult stuff, I remember one former top ten reviewer posted about fifty or a hundred reviews of condoms and suchlike. Some of those reviews broke the rules because of what the reviewer said in his reviews. Those were removed but I suspect that if I bothered to look, the rest would still be there if Amazon still stock them. Amazon allows you to review whatever they stock including stuff intended only for adults. Many people have questioned Amazon’s policies in this area and I have no idea whether they still sell these things but I won’t be reviewing them even if they do. Of course, if Amazon were caught selling adult stuff to children, that would cause them problems.

By Augey Doggy

April 30, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this

Dear Ms. Vick Delaney; It doesn’t surprise me that you would miss Mickunas’s mistatements, you made them, after all. Why are we here? Because people that make up false ID’s and do negative vote campaigns need to have their face rubbed in it. Have a nice day, whoever you are.

By Augey Doggy

April 30, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this

Misfit; You get a 0 IQ score for blaming Harriet for Amazon’s selling habits. Since you know all those books are pornography we can assume that you read them, right? Several times? Just maybe you are on a self propelled rant, no?

By Barbara Delaney

April 30, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this

It’s good to see Eileen/Minotaur/AugieDoggie is back. What is it supposed to sgnify when you spell the word really as “Reeely”? I’m not aware of any “false statements” in Vick’s blog. If you find Vick’s writing is so troubling to you why do you keep coming back?

By Augey Doggy

April 30, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Reeely Vick - what you should say is that the same small handful of posters have posted 200 comments. If it is inded even a handful. I don’t think this is going to enhance your career much. And the false statements in your blog… I can see why you’ve gone freelance.

By JJJS

April 30, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

So, P.D.Harris thinks that a guy who posts a review every day “has practically quit reviewing”. (?) Another pearl: textbooks don’t need to be read in order to be reviewed — because that’s not how they’re read by the student. (Both parts of this statement are wrong). The amount of nonsense grows relentlessly. When an apologist for shilling wants to make excuses, you can expect any degree of irrationality.

By vick mickunas

April 30, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Wow! Readers have made over 200 comments (so far) on these Amazon reviewer threads. Clearly, there is a bit of interest in the subject. Thanks, to all of the folks who have taken the time to post their thoughts here.

By Misfit

April 30, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Peter, thanks for your input, it’s appreciated. On Sunday 4/29 Harriet Klausner spewed forth again, about 25-30 reviews as best as I could tell. A fair amount of those books reviewed were books that could tactfully be deemed erotica, or better yet soft core porn or smut. Books that I suspect you wouldn’t even be able to find on the shelf at B&N without showing some ID. And since those books have no plot outside of the sheets, and since HK always has to tell the entire story, those reviews are most inappropriate to say the least. While I understand that everyone has a right to read what they wish, I would like to point out that it would be very easy for a young child to stumble across these books, through the #1 reviewer. Since HK occasionally reviews christian books and other books meant for young teens, it is possible. Imagine your 12 year old looking at reviews for a christian book, sees AMAZON’S #1 reviewer (a former librarian no less) there and all he/she has to do is click on see all my reviews and there you have it, instant exposure to smutty books and tacky reviews commenting about the sex acts contained in those books. Is this really what Amazon wants as their #1 reviewer? See for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AFVQZQ8PW0L/ref=cmtrtrlmr1/102-4421097-9253744?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview

By Peter D Harris

April 30, 2007 5:34 AM | Link to this

Reviewers are sometimes motivated by rank but that’s not why they started reviewing. It’s something that people pick up on once they’ve been doing it a while. Some just aren’t interested at all - that number is very few indeed. A lot of people who say they aren’t are among the first to complain if Amazon change the algorithm in a way that damages their ranking, or if somebody suggests a change that would - so their assertion that they’re not interested can be taken with a pinch of salt. I don’t like the ranking system because it’s based on lifelong accumulation of ranking points. If golf rankings were done on lifelong ranking points, Jack Nicklaus would be #1, not Tiger Woods. How stupid is that? But the system is what it is and Amazon know that any dramatic change would upset a vast number of reviewers so they won’t do it even if they wished that they’d set the system up differently. One result of the current algorithm is that all reviewers reach a ranking level around which they stabilize. Eventually, whatever motivation rank provided, it ceases to do so because they can’t move any higher. If reviewers get a really high rank, movement is so rare (in either direction) as to be an event in itself. At such levels, it’s actually easy to maintain rank. I’ve hardly posted any reviews in the last few months but only W Boudville has overtaken me. I don’t begrudge him that because he’s posted far more reviews than I have. It was always going to happen eventually. There are many reasons for reviewing but ranking is only one of them. When I post my backlog, there will still be an overwhelming majority of CD reviews but the proportion of book reviews will be higher than before. This is because I find reviewing books more interesting than reviewing music. The act of reviewing has rekindled my interest in various topics that I was once interested in but had forgotten about. Yes, I trawl through books and libraries looking for stuff to review. Some of it is out of print but a lot of such books are listed on Amazon. And although reviews of such books generally attract little attention and votes are hard to come by, the pleasure of seeing the occasional review attract votes against expectations is always encouraging.

By Peter D Harris

April 30, 2007 5:06 AM | Link to this

As to W Boudville, I see he reviews text books. Therefore, he doesn’t need to read them from cover to cover because that’s not the way people read text books. I know that if I use a text book, I’m normally interested in learning a particular aspect of the subject so I’ll use the contents at the front and / or the index at the back to find what I want. I think most people do that. Are you different? If I read a review of a textbook, I want to know if the textbook is good or not. Is it well presented? Is it accurate? Can I find what I want easily? Is it easy to understand? Are all the essentials there? A reviewer who has read a textbook from cover to cover may have some of the answers but not all of them. The textbook isn’t any good to me if I have to read it that way, especially if the index is rubbish. I’ve never looked at W Boudville’s reviews closely so I’m not going to pass judgement on them.

By Peter D Harris

April 30, 2007 4:56 AM | Link to this

Neither I nor anybody else has ever figured out what motivates HK. Given the speed with which she gets through each book, I doubt that she revisits many of them so it’s reasonable to assume that she’s found some way of getting rid of them.

By Peter D Harris

April 30, 2007 4:53 AM | Link to this

As far Grady being a friend of various authors, top reviewers sometimes receive friendship invitations from authors especially if they don’t publicly display their e-mail address. I receive such invitations but not usually for stuff I’m interested in so I decline them. If Grady accepts them, fine. If an author offres me a book or CD and I accept the book or CD, it would be strange if I declined the friendship invitation. But I will say this about the friendship system - most of the people on my list of friends aren’t friends at all. There are actually only a very small number that I maintain contact with. You shouldn’t place too much significance on people’s lists of friends.

By Peter D Harris

April 30, 2007 4:44 AM | Link to this

Dear JJJS, What I actually posted was that Lawrance more or less quit reviewing. Prior to his becoming upset at comments on his reviews, he was more prolific than HK but since then he has posted sporadically. I think that constitutes “more or less quitting” even if you don’t.

By Barbara Delaney

April 29, 2007 10:33 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bernabo said he would delete one older review for each new one he wrote in protest of Amazon’s decision to allow comments on reviews. This was a move on Amazon’s part with which Mr. Bernabo strenuously disagreed.

By JJJS

April 29, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this

Peter, could you then tell me, WHY would anyone want these thousands of books and CDs? Regardless of the quality of reviews, it’s a lot of work to review, say, three thousand items. Are you saying that, for example, W.Boudville really wanted to get free copies of those 3,000+ books that he’s reviewed? What for? What can one do with this pile of stuff ? To sell it would be unethical, and moreover, you say it’s not really worth it. Well, then?

By JJJS

April 29, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Gunny is back. Only one review so far. Content-free as always and rated five-stars. Well, let’s see…

By JJJS

April 28, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

P.D.Harris, why do you say that Lawrance Bernabo quit reviewing? Just because his total stays at the same tastefully selected number of 6666 doesn’t mean he does not review stuff: he simply deletes one old review for every new review. Why one would do this I have no clue, but he reviews stuff alright, pretty much every day. Like you say, you gotta be careful with what you allege. Lawrance Bernabo the No.2 Reviewer is well and alive, altough he seems to be constantly performing a somewhat queer maneuver. Oh, also: why would one stop reviewing because of the comments readers write for one’s reviews? Another news: W.Boudville’s profile no longer contains an invitation to publishers to send him books for review. That’s a good first step! The next step would be to start reading books before reviewing them. Oh wait, then he MAY have to take three months before posting a review… yet he promized he wouldn’t do that. Of course he no longer promises that in his the profile, but surely the understanding remains, even though it’s tacit now. Notice another thing: turns out, Grady Hatch is an Amazon Friend of Bill Bradley. What’s that about? Bill Bradley has a book out, is that it? Assembling a team of reviewers or something? Check it out.

By vick mickunas

April 28, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Peter, thanks, as always for your insights. As a top reviewer at Amazon you are privy to info that we ordinary mortals can only imagine. I guess when I make the supposition that some top reviewers at Amazon must consider their status to be a form of business I would regard that “business” like any other. Some are profitable, others are merely hobbies. Nevertheless, anybody who devotes that kind of time and effort to maintain their top reviewer status must treat their endeavors as significant, particularly when it comes to the time they probably devote to it— especially, if they are actually reading the books, watching the films, listening to the music, applying the bumper stickers, and what have you. Would you agree?

By null

April 28, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Very curious, I have been looking at the In My Own Words comments on several of the top reviewers and some of them appear to be openly soliciting reviews from publishers. In the most blatant instance I sent an email to Amazon via their help department and received confirmation that this practice is indeed against their guidelines and the offending words were removed from the profile page. I may have to look at more of these top reviewers as time permits and see how many others are openly soliciting reviews for “hire”. I wonder how the IRS would treat these freebies? I’m not a CPA but I think it should be considered as income, unless the freebies are given to charity afterwards. Or, do they give them to charity and claim it as a tax deductible chartiable contribution?

By Peter D Harris

April 28, 2007 5:57 AM | Link to this

Even where reviewers receive free copies of books or CD’s, they don’t get paid for reviewing them. The only benefit they get is that they don’t actually have to pay for the books or CD’s in question. A few reviewers (such as HK) receive large numbers of free copies and presumably dispose of them to charities or sell them as used copies but they aren’t going to be able to earn a living that way. Indeed, those that receive a lot of free copies may be liable to pay tax on them, which is likely to wipe out what little money they fetch as used copies.

By Peter D Harris

April 28, 2007 5:36 AM | Link to this

Dear Vck, You say “One thing seems to be clear here; those who are rated as the top reviewers on Amazon, say the top 50, are running a business.” Maybe some of them are (those hand-picked by you and JJJS for particular criticism). I’m not running a business. Indeed, I’m not employed either. Most of the top 50 aren’t running a business either. I really think you have to be careful what you allege. I see a lot of bad practises on Amazon and I’ve even reported some of them in my time but I’ve learned that although Amazon sometimes take action, it’s actually quite rare for them to do so. You scored a victory over John Matlock only because the evidence was clear and unequivocal. That’s the kind of evidence that Amazon likes. All the allegations about other reviewers are just that - you have no proof, only suspicions based on circumstanstial evidence. And as for HK, she was pre-ordained to be #1. “Harriet Klausner” is (as I pointed out on the Amazon discussion board a few years ago) an anagram of “I as the rank ruler”. So however much we might wish it, she ain’t likely to disappear. Even if she does, the boo-boys will merely direct their attention to the current #2 reviewer, Lawrance Bernabo, who has more or less quit reviewing because of the nasty comments posted on some of his reviews. Campaigning against Amazon reviewers (who are mostly amateur hobbyists) could be never-ending for you and JJJS. There’ll always be somebody at #1, however many people quit or are removed by Amazon.

By JJJS

April 27, 2007 9:17 PM | Link to this

Oh man. Interesting indeed. Of course it’s just a net posting, but somehow I don’t have any trouble believing this.

By null

April 27, 2007 8:37 PM | Link to this

Rather interesting results when I googled Grady Harp Los Angeles, CA. http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=%22grady+harp%22+los+angeles+ca&start=0&area=earthlink-ws&channel=totalaccess I haven’t looked at them all yet, but he’s almost as prolific as HK posting his reviews everywhere. Also an interesting posting from a disgruntled artist about her experiences with the gallery. On page 2 of the searches.

By JJJS

April 27, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Well, (1) first and foremost, people who review on request should begin their reviews by saying so. Conflicts of interest should be avoided as far as possible, but when impossible, they should be clearly identified. (2) It should be possible to filter them out. And look at the other reviews in isolation. The average rating should reflect this too.

By null

April 26, 2007 7:02 PM | Link to this

From his profile: “I review books on Computer Science and engineering, especially Java, algorithms and networking. If you are a publisher and have books that you want me to review, send me email. I furnish solid, independent well-written reviews, written in a timely manner. That is, if you send me a book, I won’t take 3 months to review it.” A top 15 reviewer who is soliciting publishers on his Amazon profile page.

By JJJS

April 26, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Could WB be Gonny’s brother? Sure looks like that to me. A younger and a bit shyer perhaps. A JMG Jr. sorta thing. Btw, I’ve started a thread on Amz “discussion board” (http://forums.prosperotechnologies.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=am-custreview&msg=25945.1 * Now watch all the trolls there log in and evade, and justify, and twist words, and switch topics — anything to avoid admitting the obvious: one can’t read that much. Why? ‘cause they themselves do the same thing. Watch the spectacle, it’s instructive.

By vick mickunas

April 26, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

JJJS, W Boudville looks like he might be Gunny’s brother? He reviews highly technical, very expensive books really, really fast. Thanks for shining a light in that direction.

By JJJS

April 26, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Does this guy read what he reviews? http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AG35NEEFCMQVR ?

By JJJS

April 25, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

He may be reviewing them for some other place, who knows.

By Misfit

April 24, 2007 8:36 PM | Link to this

For the record, Gunny’s online book store, http://www.amazon.com/gp/shops/index.html/002-5252214-5336844?sellerID=A1M8PP7MLHNBQB, is still going full swing. New books are added on a regular basis. I just looked at the first 5-6 new additions, none are available directly through Amazon, and only one book is available through the seller (AS NEW) New Books in Print. I wonder how long before the publishers realize he can’t give them those five star ratings anymore and stop sending him books to shill?

By Peter D Harris

April 24, 2007 5:39 AM | Link to this

The Amazon system is far from perfect but the main reason I started contributing to their websites is quite simple. There wasn’t (and still isn’t) much information about a lot of the music that I like. I figured that I couldn’t complain if I didn’t do my share. When I started to take reviewing seriously in June 2002, nearly all the top 100 were specialist book reviewers. Now the situation is very different and this itself causes resentment among some (not all) bookish people who think that other stuff isn’t worthy enough to review. In my time observing Amazon, I’ve seen many nefarious practises and many cheats exposed. I’m also aware of many others who I regard as cheats but who Amazon doesn’t. My attacks on one of them caused my temporary ban from the discussion board. That reviewer (who hasn’t been mentioned here) is still active. But despite all of Amazon’s faults, I never forget why I contribute - to tell people about the music that I like. I started with listmanias and it was more than two years later before I took reviewing seriously. Yes, I also post reviews of more popular music as well as a range of books (so far exclusively non-fiction) so that hopefully more people are drawn to my reviews and thereby discover the more obscure music. Some don’t. One reviewer used to complain that I only ever review popular stuff, proving that he never looked at my review pages and his criticism was based only on those reviews he came across accidentally. Comments on reviews weren’t available in those days (they only came in last year). I regard all the other things (like rankings) as an amusing side-show but I have spent a lot of time studying how the system works and what its limitations are. My past experience with computers (I used to be a programmer) gives me an insight into such matters that comparatively few customers have. The challenge of working out how to cope with the quirks gives me an interest in Amazon that somehow compensates for all the irritation. With Amazon’s software continuing to evolve, there will always be something new to discover. So I’ll continue to put up with all the madness and use whatever expertise I have to help others unravel the mysteries of Amazon’s websites as best I can.

By M Krysztofiak

April 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Peter, I sincerely believe that your assessment of the Gunny situation is fundamentally flawed. The cessation of Gunny’s reviewing came along after the reviewer engaged several critics in direct (well, perhaps indirect is a better term) conversation. After multiple volleys from both “sides”, Gunny finally “fessed up”, stopped reviewing, and was gone from the ranking system within another week or so. No one knows for sure WHO decided that Gunny should depart, or even if it was the man himself. What is certainly apparent, however, is that numerous “report this” votes were sent to Amazon before Gunny’s dialogue with several of us, with no noticeable result. My point is that attention begets attention, and passivity begets passivity. “Report[ing] this” comment has proven essentially useless as far as affecting real change is concerned. Gunny is gone because critical comments/questions were mixed with critical question/answer sessions, and topped with a smattering of blogs and “report this” votes thrown in. Maybe it is also possible that Gunny was simply tired of the facade, although, judging from his many evasive answers, I would wager the man possesses not a shred of insight with regards to the fraudulent nature of his activities. To summarize, a slew of “report this” votes were NOT (alone, or even partially) responsible for Gunny’s departure. MK

By John Sollami

April 23, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Sorry, Peter, but I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing to Amazon or anyone else. The fact is Amazon owes its honest members a huge apology for permitting their site to be ridden with fraudulent reviewers. Amazon serves not as a place for booklovers but for booksellers. That’s fine, but Amazon itself is unwilling to say this. They’d rather rope in dopes to read rubbish reviews posted solely to sell bottom-dwelling titles and pass such promotion pieces off as honest assessments. Why should I want to participate in a club like that? Why do you want to? I have also found Amazon unresponsive to complaints. So good luck. I still plan to post reviews there, only written for my own gratification. Anyone else who happens to get something from them is a bonus.

By Peter D Harris

April 23, 2007 5:01 AM | Link to this

I see that some people have been banned from using the “Comments on reviews” feature on Amazon. It’s sad but I’m not surprised. The feature is intended to provide just that - comments on reviews - and is not intended as a forum for personal attacks. Anybody who has a complaint about a particular review can complain directly to Amazon via e-mail and they will take action if the complaint is upheld, as with Gunny’s removal from the rankings. I was once banned from posting on Amazon’s discussion board (summer 2003). I was reinstated a couple of weeks later (after others protested and I sent a groveling apology) but I don’t know of anybody else who has been banned and subsequently reinstated. Eventually (February 2005), I quit posting regularly on that board altogether though I still lurk there. Still, my experience of being banned gives me first-hand knowledge of Amazon’s attitude to certain types of comment. So if you want to continue being allowed to comment on reviews, restrain yourself in public and vent your anger in private - or at least not on Amazon’s website.

By Kelly J. Scotdog

April 22, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

Vick you wrote: well, Kelly, I guess it shows that when Oprah picks a book that people care. By the same token. when Harriet picks books (and lots of them) some people are outraged. Thus, the disparity in the response to those posts I suspect. Oprah has a credibility that is a given. Harriet’s credibility would seem to be in some dispute. My answer: Thanks Vick, I would think that authors would be in an uproar over this. Harriet’s reviews show up on a lot of genres, a lot of authors. I can’t understand how authors allow this to happen.

By vick mickunas

April 22, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

well, Kelly, I guess it shows that when Oprah picks a book that people care. By the same token. when Harriet picks books (and lots of them) some people are outraged. Thus, the disparity in the response to those posts I suspect. Oprah has a credibility that is a given. Harriet’s credibility would seem to be in some dispute.

By Kelly J. Scotdog

April 22, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

Hey Vick, Hard to believe that your March 28th blurb on Oprah received 1 comment & Harriet has garnered so many.

By John Sollami

April 22, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

I just want to inform folks that I have been banned from making any further comments on Amazon, allegedly because I repeated the same comment earlier, which was a warning to anyone reading a Klausner review that this “reviewer” didn’t read the book and is a fraud. These repeated comments were considered “spam” by the mavens at Amazon, and so I have been gagged and silenced. I wonder if my earlier initial suggestion that HK really is a front for a consortia of publisher-sponsored off-shore reviewers had anything to do with this blatant act of censorship. In the meantime, HK marches on, defying any intelligent person’s sanity by posting 34 reviews yesterday, all of the same illiterate quality, expressing nothing but admiration for every pulp fiction trash considered. Quite extraordinary. Fortunately for me, I have literature to keep me warm and happy, and the fools who are running Amazon’s business have their money to keep them cozy as they continue to conduct their business as usual, relying on huckster practices and insulting their users with their dirty practices and disreputable site. Too bad they lack a conscience and ethics, but that’s very convenient for them, I suppose.

By Barbara Delaney

April 22, 2007 12:20 AM | Link to this

As we all know the time for Harriet Klausner’s 14,000th book review draws near. In an effort to remove the sting from this inauspicious date, I’m having a contest. It’s open to anyone except the top one hundred reviewers at Amazon. Choose the date on which Harriet achieves this dubious milestone and you win a twenty-five dollar Amazon gift certificate. First person who chooses a date that’s his/her entry. One entry per person. It’s absolutely acceptable to study past patterns of review dumping. Currently people are putting guesses up at HK’s review of “The Wooods” by Harlan Coben dated April 21st. The following dates are taken: Misfit, May 12th, S.A.M. May 8th, Kelly/Scotdog May 13th, and I wasn’t going to enter but S.A.M. kindly offered to buy a gift certificate for me if I won, so I took June 17th. So pick your fiance’s birthday, or the date you totaled your new car- usually I like to wait for the numbers to come to me in a dream. It’s never happened though. Enter now while there are still “fresh dates”.

By Peter D Harris

April 21, 2007 4:20 AM | Link to this

I’m glad “Gunny” is no longer ranked. As has been pointed out elsewhere, he and his consortium are free to continue reviewing on Amazon without a ranking, but maybe he’s soured off enough to not bother. And I won’t miss him. As to HK, I’ll be very surprised if she quits but I can assure you that I’ll be as happy as the rest of you if she does.

By Barbara Delaney

April 21, 2007 3:54 AM | Link to this

While Mr. Matlock’s departure may have led to some optimism, I would caution you not to break out the champagne. His leaving was contingent not only upon the steadfast questioning of JJJS but also the serendipitous remark of Stephanie Caruana. Without this author’s revelation of Mr. Matlock’s book sales this would not have come about. How often can you reasonably expect a set of fortuitous circumstances like these to occur? Cleaning up corruption in the Amazon reviewing system is a task like the cleaning of the Augean Stables, and Hercules is nowhere in sight. Without action from Amazon on a major scale no real lasting change is likely to come about. Also, how can you know that John Matlock, like Kelly, won’t be back tomorrow under a different name?

By Kelly J. Scotdog

April 20, 2007 8:08 PM | Link to this

I still don’t understand the voting on helpful/unhelpful issue. Why? I don’t care if someone likes my review or not. It’s still out there & I was glad that I was given the opportunity to comment on a book but why the vote? This still bugs me. Also in order to post comments again (under a different name) I actually had to buy something. What a racket Amazon has going! I’ll admit it was a book that my youngest son wanted and I can kind of see the reason but boy, oh boy, what a great empire they have built.

By John Sollami

April 20, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

This is a very good first step, but Amazon still needs to stand up and clean their site. Certainly they can’t police people’s personal integrity, but the reviewer system itself is well worth reforming. In fact, Barbara Delaney turned me on to Powell’s Books, out of Portland, I believe. Their site permits reviews to be written,commented on, and voted on for helpfulness, but without reviewer rankings. So the sad and tawdry spectacle of “reviewers” like Harriet Klausner or Gunny organizing a concerted assault on this cultural marketplace for their own or their backer’s fraudulent gains will not take place at Powell’s Books. For me this whole experience has been very disappointing. My only interest in Amazon was to write reviews, buy items at good prices, and perhaps learn from other reviewers who have my aesthetic point of view. Instead, I feel like I’ve been dragged into slime and gone to war with hucksters who are allowed to thrive in every public venue.

By vick mickunas

April 20, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

Air brushing “Gunny” off the Amazon site will take a little while but the process has begun. Who’s next?

By Lonnie E. Holder

April 20, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

Wow.

By M Krysztofiak

April 20, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

To all those who have demanded accountability and truth-in-reviewing: congratulations. To all those convinced that the status quo is an immutable entity: your protestations are for naught. Kudos to Vick, JJJS, Barbara, and many others—your efforts have borne fruit. Persistence shows itself to have merit, after all. Some group, whether it was Gunny himself or Amazon, acted with honor when they chose to remove Gunny’s reviews. Kudos to you, as well. Cheers, MK