Disappearing Reviews at Amazon makes NYT Front Page!

Hmmm...I see this was posted yesterday, but I've had several author friends say that they've had a couple of their reviews restored. So maybe they had a head up about the article? Or maybe they have someone checking the removed reviews as a sort of check and balances system....

Thanks for posting Ruth. Almost all of my book reviews disappeared. And, I promise, all of my reviews were legitimate-- I read the book and offered my truthful opinion. And I had no financial agreements with any of the authors. After a few emails with Amazon, I've given up trying to reinstate my reviews. Guess I'll stick to reviewing products like TVs and other mechanisms I don't understand.

Edward W. Robertson's blog is linked in the article, so he is likely getting lots of traffic to it, and lots of eyes on that link to his free book.

Thanks for the link. I think this might be the first article on the topic of reviews that Amazon offered comment on.

"A spokesman for Amazon, which published "The 4-Hour Chef," offered this sole comment for this article: 'We do not require people to have experienced the product in order to review.'"

And congrats to, Ed. He deserves the attention for all the hard work he did on this topic.

B.

I always knew I'd make the front page of the New York Times, but I always figured it would be for some sort of hideous crime!

This is pretty cool. What a weird year it's been.

Yes I just love that quote already mentioned:

A spokesman for Amazon, which published "The 4-Hour Chef," offered this sole comment for this article: "We do not require people to have experienced the product in order to review."

Right. Family, friends and fellow authors in the same genre can't leave a review but people who never read the book can.

I read the first paragraph:

Giving raves to family members is no longer acceptable. Neither is writers' reviewing other writers. But showering five stars on a book you admittedly have not read is fine.

Click to expand...

And then I became so annoyed, I could not read further.

@ED - congrats! And you do such great analyses, that I'm not surprised you're getting asked for quotes now!!

Not a particularly good article imo and the comments are at best absurd.

ETA: And they misquoted Konrath. He did not say that. It is a good summary of his opinion, but that is a blatant misquote.

JRTomlin said:

Not a particularly good article imo and the comments are at best absurd.

ETA: And they misquoted Konrath. He did not say that. It is a good summary of his opinion, but that is a blatant misquote.

Click to expand...

He said it in his blog comments. What an age we live in.

JRTomlin said:

Not a particularly good article imo and the comments are at best absurd.

ETA: And they misquoted Konrath. He did not say that. It is a good summary of his opinion, but that is a blatant misquote.

Click to expand...

Strange. I recall reading that statement in an article he wrote called "Enough" (or something like that) circa September 2012, but I can't find that post anymore. I only recall reading it because it put me off so badly. I remember it as being part of four or so single sentence statements near the start of the article. *scratches head* Maybe I'm going crazy?

B.

Edward W. Robertson said:

He said it in his blog comments. What an age we live in.

Click to expand...

I did a search of the page including the comments and see nowhere he used exactly those words and: YES, when the NYT puts words in quotes I expect those to be the exact words used. Whether you think I should or not.

It is a minimum degree of decent journalism.

ETA: I don't think it misrepresents his opinion, but I do expect the NYT to get quotes right and I am certainly not going to apologize for checking. I no longer take ANY newspaper's word for something.

B. Justin Shier said:

Strange. I recall reading that statement in an article he wrote called "Enough" (or something like that) circa September 2012, but I can't find that post anymore. I only recall reading it because it put me off so badly. I remember it as being part of four or so single sentence statements near the start of the article. *scratches head* Maybe I'm going crazy?

B.

Click to expand...

I think he said something very close to that several times. I don't think it misrepresents his opinion, but it is at best sloppy journalism (*sigh* What HAS happened to the once-good newspapers?) to put something other than an exact quote within quote marks. Doing searches within the posts, I can't find that he ever said exactly what they quote him as saying.

JRTomlin said:

I did a search of the page including the comments and see nowhere he used exactly those words and: YES, when the NYT puts words in quotes I expect those to be the exact words used. Whether you think I should or not.

It is a minimum degree of decent journalism.

ETA: I don't think it misrepresents his opinion, but I do expect the NYT to get quotes right and I am certainly not going to apologize for checking. I no longer take ANY newspaper's word for something.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Here's what I see quoted in the Times:

"Customer buys book because of fake review = zero harm"

Here's what I see in the comment Konrath wrote:

"Customer buys book because of fake review = zero harm"

Am I missing something? They look identical to me. Is there another Konrath quote I'm missing? I only see his name once, right next to that one.

You're putting words in my mouth. I freelance for a different newspaper and I expect quotes to be exact, too. But unless I'm missing something, the quotes are a perfect match.

Edward W. Robertson said:

Hmm. Here's what I see quoted in the Times:

"Customer buys book because of fake review = zero harm"

Here's what I see in the comment Konrath wrote:

"Customer buys book because of fake review = zero harm"

Am I missing something? They look identical to me. Is there another Konrath quote I'm missing? I only see his name once, right next to that one.

You're putting words in my mouth. I freelance for a different newspaper and I expect quotes to be exact, too. But unless I'm missing something, the quotes are a perfect match.

Click to expand...

I am simply not finding that quote. And I reduced my search first to "zero harm" and then just to "zero" to try to find it in case a stray space or something was messing up my search. If it is there, then I will withdraw that criticism, but I couldn't find it.

And I didn't put words in your mouth. That "what a world we live in" certainly implied that I shouldn't check.

ETA: I am willing to believe you more than a journo, but I *still* do not find that quote.

I'm sorry, that's my fault for being vague. I just meant it's a weird world where a comment in a weblog winds up quoted in one of the world's most respected newspapers. Wasn't on the attack.

Check out this comment of Konrath's--that's where the quote comes from.

Edward W. Robertson said:

I'm sorry, that's my fault for being vague. I just meant it's a weird world where a comment in a weblog winds up quoted in one of the world's most respected newspapers. Wasn't on the attack.

Check out this comment of Konrath's--that's where the quote comes from.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I was probably being oversensitive, but the horrible state of most of current journalism is one of my hot button topics.

ETA: And you're right. It is there and my apologies for not finding it. I tried multiple searches on that page and wasn't turning it up even reducing the search to "zero". I'm afraid these days there is no newspaper I absolutely trust to get things right.

You're right that it is a strange world.

I think (although I still don't think it's a very well-written article) that the article will probably help more than hurt. It definitely shows that Amazon is making an attempt to "clean up" reviews. Criticism from authors about how they're doing it aren't likely to impress readers/buyers.