Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ChristinaGarner

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 36
Rex, I could be totally misunderstanding this, but my impression is that you missed out on the rank bump because only 8 out of the 10 copies you gave away were claimed quickly; had all 10 been claimed immediately, you would've gotten the bump. This is why some might feel the impulse to run 10 separate 1-book giveaways, rather than 1 giveaway of 10 books ... if only 8 out of the 10 1-book giveaways generate a claim, you end up with credit for 8 sales instead of zero, because 8 of the giveaways would hit the 100% rate of claim.

Exactly this.

Also, I've seen folks quoting Amazon saying giveaways that are returned don't count toward rank and extrapolating that means all giveaways don't count toward rank. That's not how it works.

So, it looks like the first rank change was probably from the first giveaway. The rank has changed again -- likely from the second giveaway.

Series: Age of Magic
Paperback: 234 pages
Publisher: Arnessan Ink (April 14, 2018)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0998938610
ISBN-13: 978-0998938615
Product Dimensions: 5 x 0.6 x 8 inches
Shipping Weight: 11.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #72,225 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
    #904 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Mythology & Folk Tales

Thanks, Phoenix. I think we can effectively put to bed the idea that giveaways don't affect rank.

Hoop--On the page regarding gifting on Amazon I'm reading this correctly, it seems to be saying that when you gift a book, the recipient gets the book itself. But they get a credit in the amount of the book? I wish Amazon would say so if that's the case. I'm involved in a multi-author promo right now and I'll be gifting my book to the two winners, since I'm in Select and can't put my book in BookFunnel. So I won't actually be giving my book to the two winners? I'll be giving them a store credit in the amount of the book? This isn't making me very happy about this promo. I wish I'd seen your post before I got involved.

My understanding is that they can opt to not take the book being gifted. From Amazon:

"If you already own the Kindle book you received, would prefer to have something else, or aren't eligible to receive the gifted book, you can exchange the Kindle book gift for an Gift Card, redeemable on millions of other items on Amazon, including other Kindle books."

This is why, in some circles, the reader might be incentivized to download the specific book in question. For example, the admin for a Facebook group made for book giveaways can post which book is being given away. Participants must prove they claimed the correct book by providing a screenshot of that same book downloaded to their Kindle. Doing so enters them into a drawing for an Amazon gift card. (Illegal lottery, anyone?) Claiming a gifted book and then not providing that screenshot proof results in being expelled from the group. (Hypothetically...)

I'm so glad you had the cojones to ride this through for this long. I know it's been a drain in more ways than one. I'm also glad that the judge has seen the oppositions motions for what they were. Baseless delaying tactics and intimidation. You are the avatar for all the good in the indie community. And we will all owe you a huge debt of gratitude when this is over.

I'm happy to support this, to help clean up the indie community.

I'm incredibly flattered by your characterization, but I'm the one with the debt of gratitude--for both you personally and the community as a whole. I continue to be humbled by and strive to live up to the trust that's been placed in me.

If you can show me where I have done so, please quote it and I will apologize for my bad behavior.

You came into a thread saying you didn't have time to read it and then said you weren't about to start while at the same time asking countless questions that have been answered. Personally, I find that more than a little rude. I'm not looking for an apology or anything else other than to continue this conversation with people who deem the topic important enough to keep up with.

Take care.

If anyone is doing multiple "separate" Amazon Giveaway orders (ex: 1000 individually submitted giveaways opposed to ONE giveaway of 1000 ebooks of the same ASIN--although the limit is 50, so they wouldn't be able to do that amount anyway) then indeed, Amazon does not allow it whether it boosts rank or not.

That is absolutely what people are doing and there is screenshot and video evidence of it. We've been expressly asked by the mods not to link to it.

Yes, you're right, I was not/am not following the conversation. Guess I was late to the party, lol. I really don't have time for it anyway, so I'm not about to do so now :)

Sounds good.

Hoop's description is spot on.

Adding that all copies of a giveaway must be redeemed within 24 hours to see a rank boost.

So, if you do one giveaway of 50 books, and all of those claim codes are redeemed in 24 hours, (which is very unlikely) you will see a rank boost. (How much, I don't know) More likely is that some will be claimed outside of that 24 hour window and some won't be claimed at all. Amazon then allows you to gift those free claim codes since you pre-bought the books for the giveaway. This is why most legitimately run giveaways will not see a rank boost. If even one winner claims in the 25th hour, you'll see no boost to rank.

If, however, a person or persons are running 1,000 giveaways of one winner each, it's far more likely they will be claimed, and any that are within 24 hours will boost rank. Any that are redeemed outside the 24 hour window will still count as a sale toward hitting a bestsellers' list.

(edited to clarify I don't know how much of a boost you get for a single 50 book giveaway)

It's interesting that people seem to think that everyone behaves/is motivated they are... they are sure you must have coordinated the effort because they certainly did.  And do.

Are the additional screenshots available publicly now as part of the lawsuit files? Or are those pending further action?

Pending further action. I hope this can be settled to avoid dragging others into it. But those screenshots are evidence of an organized effort to hurt both me and my career, so if I need to use them to prove my case, I will.

And thanks, EB and ev. I appreciate you both.

P.S., Someone just asked me privately if the group really was called, "Rebecca's Flying Monkeys."

It was.

I don't see the Plaintiff filing suit against any of the Defendant's supporters or donators, or doing anything to silence them. I don't see the Plaintiff's supporters emailing employers of those who support the Defendant, but I do observe the Defendant's supporters doing that very thing.

I know there has been discussion of posts being deleted. I've seen it happen on both sides. The fact is that we are all playing in someone else's playground when we are online. If KBoards mods want to delete something or edit it, that's up to them. Being a mod is a thankless job. Do I always agree with that or think it is justified? No. But it's not my playground, not my rules. If I want to play with my friends here, then I gotta suck it up and respect the rules of the playground. That's just life.

I agree about moderation. Of course I've had posts I didn't think should be deleted, but it's their forum and their rules. The mods have gone above and beyond to keep some very contentious threads open. I resent on their behalf the charge of bias--I've witnessed quite the opposite.

To your other point, I have always wanted to keep this just between the Defendant and myself. I didn't even pursue suing the person behind the twitter account that trolled and defamed me, advising others not to read my books. I have been vocal about how out of line I thought the countersuit was, in no small part because there was no conspiracy--no coordinated effort by me and those named. With some, I've barely exchanged more than a few posts here.

What went on inside "Rebecca's Flying Monkeys" displays the opposite. Participants agreed to unfriend authors that were friends of mine--or others named in the suit. That is a coordinated effort and not one I take lightly, especially given some of the more malicious posts--many of which have not yet been brought to light. I sincerely hope this can be settled soon. I want to move on with my life and forget the word "screenshot" exists. If that's not possible, my lawyer and I may need to discuss our options. 

Can you tell us anything about what happens next?  Any new filings or information?

There were a lot of screenshots posted showing TOS violations last night that reinforce how things have been run- do these strengthen your case?  Can they be entered as evidence?

My understanding is that discovery is only officially entered as evidence if one of the other side uses it as an exhibit. I turned over thousands of screenshots; I'm unsure how many will become evidence for either side.

I sadly don't have an update I can share at this time, but I'll say that I want what I've always wanted, a fair settlement and a full retraction. I'd like to put this behind me sooner than later, but will do what's necessary to clear my name. I'm humbled and grateful for the continued support from the community. It's allowed me to press on to do just that.

Happy to add to the pot. Wish it could be more. So proud of you, Christina, and moved by the generosity and character of the community in their support of her.

I'm equally moved by the generosity of the community and very grateful. Thank you, Monique.

Just upped the ante a bit. This craziness has gone on far too long.

Wayne, I continue to be humbled by your generosity, especially after it caused you to be sued for absolutely no reason. Most would have quietly slipped away and I wouldn't have blamed them. Please know you have my deep gratitude.

David, thank you so much for your blog post. I know in this climate it's risky just to tell the truth, and that's really a shame. Thanks for standing up anyway--as you so often do.

Thanks for the kind words, Elizabeth, and for sharing David's post. It really helps, and I'm grateful.



Thanks, Nick. I appreciate your continued support.

100% behind you, Christina. Will look for the updates & please hang in there.

Thanks, EB. I appreciate your fearlessness and continued support. And thanks to those who contributed today--it helps more than you know.

I've updated the fundraising page. You can read it here:

For those who feel comfortable, you can also donate directly via PayPal Friends & Family which avoids fees. My PayPal address is christina(at) I always update the funding page with donations received this way, listing them as anonymous unless given express permission to use the contributor's name.

I know this has gone on longer than any of us expected--believe me when I say it frustrates me too. Thank you for sticking by me; it's made all the difference.

Just a reminder that this case is still ongoing and needs the support of the community. Glad to see those who have been dismissed have received justice, but let's not forget this is far from over.

Thanks, EB. I didn't want to solicit donations while others were also fighting. That's part of the reason I've been quiet lately. I'm actually going to be updating the funding page with the newer developments of the case very soon so folks will know what's been happening. If you feel called to make a donation, thank you in advance. It's been an expensive few months and every dollar helps. I'm also grateful for the kind words, both public and private. Your support makes all the difference.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 10, 2018, 08:58:14 AM »
I'll add that the continued claim that "so many people" or "lots of people" in various closed/private groups are saying this or that means very little. That's the argumentative equivalent of stomping your feet and saying, "I'm right because all my friends said so!" People in closed groups ranting about the issue among like-minded individuals isn't verification of anything, nor does it substantiate your position. When anonymous posters make claims of fact, they should expect they will be asked to provide evidence just the same as the non-anonymous posters. Many of the authors in this thread have discussed this subject publicly on social media, websites, and blogs. By all means, add to the discussion, but be prepared to support any accusations or claims of fact that you make.


Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 11:07:23 PM »
The main violations I see, from most of these purported "sock puppets" are A) being anonymous and B) having an opinion that is unpopular.

The main violation (and objection to) sock puppets is that they are sock puppets. The problem isn't anonymity but deception, which is the point of a sock puppet.

When a lurker is moved to create an account or post for the first time because a particular thread inspires them to do so, that's not a sock puppet; it's a legitimately new member of the community. It's also pretty clear when that's what is actually happening. Refer to David's post for the very marked difference when a person creates a duplicate account just so they can express an opinion and not have to stand behind it in any real way.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 09:10:57 PM »
I certainly do agree that they could be clearer, and could act more decisively (or at all), if this is indeed not A-OK with them. The events of the past week seem to indicate that something is going on behind the scenes.

Agree with this. It's been said before, but Amazon doesn't care...until they do.

I'd add something though: The very explicit wording in the TOS prohibiting publishing a KU title under two accounts (your own and the publisher of a box set's for example) was put in place long before Amazon chose to enforce it. Just because people got away with it for a time didn't make it any less against the rules--however much people argued the opposite. It didn't make the people doing it right; they just weren't caught. Until they were.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 08:17:01 PM »

Depends on what "a throwaway account" means. If Cocker already has an account and started a new one just to comment on this thread, then he/she is in violation of our rules and will be subject to moderation. If he/she doesn't already have an account and started one just for the purpose of commenting on this thread, planning never to come here again, then he/she is not in violation of the rules. I have no way of knowing, but it will be looked into -- we always try to, on threads like this.

Hey Cocker-- can you please confirm this account you started today just to post in this thread is the only KBoards account you have?

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 07:18:33 PM »
It's not only the newness of the account. It's how it all adds up:

New account.

Highly articulate and apparently knowledgeable about the topics at hand.

On the gray or black side or, at best, ultra-libertarian (in a general, not a political sense) of the argument.

Defending practices that the vast majority of known, highly respected posters have exposed as deceptive, unethical, abusive, out of bounds, not in line with the letter or spirit of the rules, deleterious to fellow authors, etc.

Often, there are proven links with the person or website in question, e.g., personal FB friends, accounts from the same IP address, accounts using handles similar to or the same as the person or website in question has used before, and so on.

Rather like in a court of law, when there's a hostile witness or a witness with proven conflicts of interests, the cross-examining lawyer gets more leeway to grill them. That principle should apply here, subject to the moderators' considered judgment.

By analogy, a group of scientists should not be forced to the same standard of restraint and fairmindedness when a flat-earther tries to claim equal time and consideration. Some claims really should be dismissed with extreme prejudice and contempt.

This exactly.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 07:15:31 PM »
I post on a throwaway account because I'm not interested in making myself a target, and I assume that's the same reason all the other "sock puppet" accounts post this way.

Just pointing out that yet again you're admitting you break the rules to suit your own ends.

"Throwaway accounts." Thoughts on this tactic, Becca?

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 07:08:27 PM »
It is possible to evaluate ideas on their own merit, without knowing who put them forth. I post on a throwaway account because I'm not interested in making myself a target, and I assume that's the same reason all the other "sock puppet" accounts post this way. No one is going to willingly throw themselves into a pack of wolves.

Boy are you making that argument to the wrong person  ::)

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 06:41:45 PM »
I see no reason at all why you or anyone else should give equal weight to the comments of an anonymous newbie, compared to those of a known colleague with a long track record. But there's a big difference between reading a post and thinking to oneself, "I'm going to ignore all this because I don't find the poster credible," and launching an attack against that person based on their account status. The former is fine, the latter is not. And why should it be necessary, anyway? Are other members really less able to notice the newness and anonymity of certain accounts than you are? Everyone can see when accounts were created; everyone can notice a poster is anonymous. The forum software makes that info perfectly clear. The attacks degrade the tone of our conversation while providing nothing we don't all already notice.

Pointing something out does not strike me as an attack. Also, we have right here yet another 20 page thread thread with people still defending book stuffing as in line with Amazon's TOS so I'm pretty sure pointing out the obvious is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 06:12:39 PM »
Except in very limited circumstances, and with the forum's prior permission, only one. If you know someone is running a second account, please drop us a line.

I would think the mods would know better than us--IP addresses and all. Certainly those can be masked, but it would be a place to start.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 06:03:54 PM »

2) The choice to join KB anonymously solely for the point of articulating a pro-stuffing position in this thread should not be used as a point of attack.

With respect, I don't understand this at all.

Posters have the right to do so anonymously, but to be given the go-ahead to create accounts solely for expressing an opinion does nothing to add to the discourse. Whether Phoenix is her real name or not, we know that when she posts we can trust her data, because she's proven time and time again how accurate her research is. There is history there, and we can use that history to give weight (or not) to the post.

Sock puppet accounts have no history by which to assess their knowledge or character. You've asked that we not use the word "trolls" and I'm happy to comply, but I push back against the idea that a person can create an account 1 minute before posting and not have it called out. Your house, your rules, but I dissent.

Writers' Cafe / Re: Amazon Files Suit Against Book Stuffers [MERGED]
« on: April 09, 2018, 10:22:24 AM »
There's a difference between "different" and "unscrupulous." There are a million ways to promote a book and yet David consistently only highlights the ways that hurt other authors and/or are against Amazon's TOS. Is there room for clarification and even hair-splitting about the TOS as is happening in this thread and others? Of course. Spirited debate is helpful. Your statement is...not.

(Edited b/c my phone made those horrible symbols again.)

Edited to remove material quoted from a now-deleted post. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 36