The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

They have the option of terminating the user. Author pages. Just delete them. You think they haven't already done the data mining? I'm pretty sure that's the first thing they did. Collected info and found out who does what. Yes, it's also true of GR.

Matthew wrote: "Gamal wrote: "The fact that Amazon isn't willing to rework the algorithm makes them complicit in the deceit."

How would you propose Amazon identify these sock puppet accounts such that their algor..."

I'm not smart enough to understand how Amazon identifies sock puppet accounts, I'm just a writer. But if Amazon's policy is to eliminate sock puppets, then they have to have some way of identifying them, right? They can't surgically eliminate something they cant find.

So if Amazon can identify the fradulent accounts, then they can minimize their effect in the algorithm. If they can't identify them, then the policy to eliminate them doesn't have any teeth and everyone needs to understand that a paid sock puppet review is just as influential to search results as an authentic review.

Gamal wrote: "But if Amazon's policy is to eliminate sock puppets, then they have to have some way of identifying them, right?"

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. I'm very much against cancer, but that doesn't mean I have a foolproof way of detecting and removing it. It can be Amazon's stated policy that they don't tolerate sock puppets, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they can wave a magic algorithmic wand that identifies, then eliminates all of them.

I would agree with you that Amazon could certainly do more, even if it were on the punitive side and not the front end/algorithmic side (e.g., why are Stephen Leather's books still being sold after he publicly admitted to using sock puppets? I think we know why...).

But I wouldn't take the leap that Amazon just needs to tweak their algorithms on the back end database and suddenly all these fakers will be revealed. Algorithms work on hard data and rooting out puppets has some soft sides to it, like deduction and inference. You can't just eliminate everyone who created an account, bought a $.99 song, then posted a dozen 5-star reviews. This might be a sock puppet...or it might be my grandma.

Matthew wrote: "You can't just eliminate everyone who created an account, bought a $.99 song, then posted a dozen 5-star reviews. This might be a sock puppet...or it might be my grandma."

*giggle*

I can't get my grandma to write reviews on Amazon. I can hardly get my mom to send a text message.

I will admit that I don't know enough about search engine algorithims to know if Amazon can or can't weed out sock puppets, but if they can't do anything about it, it makes no sense for them to have a policy that says they don't tolerate sock puppets. You might be against cancer, but I don't think you go around telling people you're going to prevent them from getting it.

Matthew wrote: "Gamal wrote: "But if Amazon's policy is to eliminate sock puppets, then they have to have some way of identifying them, right?"

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. I'm very much agains..."

Hi Gamal. Basically, it works like this. Every computer on the net is connected to a server and assigned an IP address. Every communication to recipient goes along a server path. It might take 17 servers for you to receive this. That path is easily tracable to its origin. This isn't a great one, but you can try it for yourself. http://www.appsverse.com/SignUp
Suspect reviews who that post only, say, 5 start reviews, can easily be traced along that server place to the computer that generated them. Even without purchasing software, if you look at any particular email to you, you can find the server path. I've traced people to their home addresses and even been able to learn their names. And I'm just a dummy sitting on his couch with a laptop. Imagine what a major corporation can do with its resources. And methods are becoming more sophisticated. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek...
So,to conclude, everyone culpable in book review fraud and related matters can easily be found. It's only a matter of the will to do so.

Gamal wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Gamal wrote: "The fact that Amazon isn't willing to rework the algorithm makes them complicit in the deceit."

How would you propose Amazon identify these sock puppet accounts such ..."

Hi Gamal, I think Appverse was the wrong link. Try this: http://www.ip-adress.com/member/

What's a sock puppet review?

Ed wrote: "What's a sock puppet review?"

Hi Ed, go to my blog and read this article http://www.jamesthompsonauthor.com/bl...
and it will give you an overview.

James wrote: "Ed wrote: "What's a sock puppet review?"

Hi Ed, go to my blog and read this article http://www.jamesthompsonauthor.com/bl...
and it will give you an overview."

Wonderful article James. You clearly explain the situation. I do use reviews as a guideline for reading a book although the most important thing for me is reading the first page or first chapter. I have to like the author's style.

James wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Gamal wrote: "But if Amazon's policy is to eliminate sock puppets, then they have to have some way of identifying them, right?"

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. I'm ..."

Thank you James. So if Amazon can find out who is creating sock puppet reviews, what do you think it means when they decide not to?

Gamal wrote: "James wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Gamal wrote: "But if Amazon's policy is to eliminate sock puppets, then they have to have some way of identifying them, right?"

I'm not sure how you arrive at this co..."

It means they're a corporation. The equivalent of a shark that eats money. They've likely found that the practice is so widespread that deleting the accounts of authors (and vendors of all kinds) would mean immediate financial loss, and losses further down the line as a result of consumer confidence. If you look at my blog about fraud authors (pillory or gallows) a data miner states his statistical estimates. In defense of Amazon, their rules clearly state that they are not obligated to punish infractions, and also, that they may cancel accounts without reason or explanation. All their bases are covered. They don't have to do anything, and by using their services, you are agreeing to their practices. You however, as a consumer, are empowered to press charges against fraudulent advertisers if you wish (but not Amazon). It's a crime in both the UK and US. I'll cite the statutes for anyone who wishes to pursue the issue. So far, to my knowledge, no one has chosen to do so.

Bill wrote: "This has been a thread in one of the other groups I belong to. I guess ultimately if you're concerned about fake reviews, trust your own judgement. Read the blurb on the book and if it interests yo..."

I read a book after reading the blurb. A review does not sway me. In fact, I read the reviews after I've read the book to see if other people enjoyed or hated as I did.

I only review books I read and like. I will not pan another author. I think I'm strange after reading a lot of the responses. I read for enjoyment. I don't analyze or dissect books. It's either entertaining or not. That simple.

I'm trying to reply to James Thompson's post, but Goodreads won't let me. As you experience life (a euthanism for getting older) you learn that absolutely EVERYTHING is about money. I have never paid much attention to any type of reviewer. If I'm intrigued (to read, watch, eat, play, travel, whatever) I do.

Judi/Judith wrote: "This may be on he other end of the sockpuppeting spectrum but I would like to make a comment on people who write, what they must consider, a review and rating when they are actually upset with the ..."

Judi, I so agree. If the price of a book that one wants to read is not a price that person wants to pay, then check it out from the public library! Then review the book.

I usually read whatever blurb or synopsis info is available and then if I'm still on the fence about whether or not to read a book I'll read a sample from the best and the worst ratings list.

I look for reviewers who have more to say than "It was great I loved it." or "This book totally sucked I hated it."

I haven't written many book reviews but I try to stick with why a story did or didn't resonate with me... I used to belong to a peer review site for aspiring screenwriters (actually I still do, I just don't visit often these days) that stressed honesty in all reviews with an emphasis on the positive over the negative -- even in bad reviews -- so I try to stick with that formula.

Of course, those were critiques of works in progress. Out of curiosity, what do the published writers in the room think of as a constructive negative review of a finished work? Is there such a thing?

Out of curiosity, what do the published writers in the room think of as a constructive negative review of a finished work?

Mike, nice question.

It goes without saying that the "I didn't like it" comments with no rationale are not helpful and ignored.

The comments I pay attention to are from readers who understand writing. They know what plot, characterization, conflict, point-of-view, and closure are (among many other issues) and can tell me where I screwed up using those concepts.

(And I don't care about the jargony words, I just need to know my reviewer is someone who understands the mechanics of what I'm trying to accomplish--and it's of equal value coming from someone who's speaking from the gut or from 8 years of graduate work in English.)

Pointing out grammar, typos, and inconsistencies are nice-to-haves, but some readers mistake that for true critique. I need to know why you didn't like my book on a much more profound level than I missed a couple their/they're/there's.

The readers on Goodreads are definitely a cut-above and I've gotten some nice critiques from many of them. Book bloggers, on the other hand, could use a Best Practices guide. It might be cheeky of me, but I wrote a blog post on reviewer decorum entitled Six Suggestions for Book Reviewers that several bloggers told me helped them see things from my POV. ;)

Matthew wrote: "Out of curiosity, what do the published writers in the room think of as a constructive negative review of a finished work?

Mike, nice question.

It goes without saying that the "I didn't like it" ..."

I spent several Food Network next star things figuring out what POV meant. I don't know how long it took for PDA, but it was a frustrating time not knowing what people were talking about. If we keep this up, shortening for texting type of stuff, we may end up like Babble, no one understanding. Words mean things, three capital letters don't always. I don't like discussing a book with someone who read/listened to an abridged edition. Am I being too picky? Am I alone with these thoughts?

I don't look at reviews in newspapers or marketeers (I.e., B&N, Amazon). I stick to reader's sites and friend recommendations. I also follow authors I enjoy. I understand "The Twelve" isn't getting great professional reviewer reviews, but look at our Goodreads discussions. A lot of 4-5 stars, also lower, but a real reader's thoughts. I find that most badly reviewed movies are the ones I like. The payback thing reminds me of the DJ scandal decades ago. We need to bring ethics classes back into our schools. Book stores are also guilty of hiding books with ideas they don't agree with, kind of like censorship, and I don't like that either. Bottom line, due diligence, not marketing bizzaz.

Matthew wrote: "Gamal wrote: "But if Amazon's policy is to eliminate sock puppets, then they have to have some way of identifying them, right?"

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. I'm very much agains..."

Why did Oprah have the author who had totally lied in his first book, an Oprah selection, back as an Oprah selection on his second book?

Matthew wrote: "Out of curiosity, what do the published writers in the room think of as a constructive negative review of a finished work?

Mike, nice question.

It goes without saying that the "I didn't like it" ..."

Mathew. Ditto. Like/don't like is useless to me. Reviews by educated readers who can articulate why they like/don't like are valuable. My situation is different. My publisher/publicist arranges reviews and I've had near 1000 of them in English alone, not counting international reviews. I seldom respond to a reviewer, only when I'm impressed by something insightful, for good or ill. My pet peeves: Saying my work sucks, when in fact, the reviewer simply dislikes the genre. Thus, it's a review of the genre, not the book. Addressing me by name and lecturing me on what constitutes good and bad writing. Feel free to lecture, free speech and all that, but not AT ME. I'm not your student. It's really rude and arrogant. Saying I've made a mistake, when I haven't, as I'm writing about Finland, and the reviewer assumes everything from police procedure to medical procedure to child rearing is done as in the U.S., and focusing the review around said non-existent mistake. I appreciate noted errors, typos, etc., but readers often mistakenly asssume it's the fault of the author. I'm not the last one to proof a book. The last two books I've written, I've scanned and emailed about 60 pages to my publisher, noting missing periods and similar, mostly tiny things. Occasionally, something in the notes slips past the copyeditor. It's beyond my control at that point. However, I have a small spacial relations problem and will flip a map in my head once in a while. I confused east and west twice in my last book. A reader pointed it out, for which I was grateful, so I could have it corrected for the paperback. In general, I'm mostly just pleased and honored when someone takes the time and energy to not only read a work, but give it enough consideration to write about it.

Sandi wrote: "I spent several Food Network next star things figuring out what POV meant...."

Sandi, sorry for using an acronym. POV isn't texting shorthand, however; it's writing and film-making speak for "point of view" and has beene used for many years. It's the first hit you get if you Google "POV and writing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrativ...).

Regarding your comment about Oprah, I don't get what you're driving at.

James wrote: "In general, I'm mostly just pleased and honored when someone takes the time and energy to not only read a work, but give it enough consideration to write about it."

This makes sense to me: it's positive whereas getting all grumpy, depressed, and bent about a review only damages a writer's soul.

Elle wrote: "James wrote: "In general, I'm mostly just pleased and honored when someone takes the time and energy to not only read a work, but give it enough consideration to write about it."

This makes sense ..."

If a book has no intelligently written negative reviews, it probably hasn't been thought provoking enough to upset a few people. My overall star rating on GR is 4, based on about 1700 ratings, but I've received a few scathing critiques. I read every review of my work that i find. Sometimes I agree with a negative comment and think, yes, I could have done this or that better, and I learn something. There is no such thing as a perfect book.

James wrote:"My overall star rating on GR is 4, based on about 1700 ratings . . ."

That's an amazing number. Did you have a particular strategy (other than writing a good book) for generating so many ratings?

James wrote: "Elle wrote: "James wrote: "In general, I'm mostly just pleased and honored when someone takes the time and energy to not only read a work, but give it enough consideration to write about it."

This..."

There is a lot of wisdom in this approach. I don't have as many bad reviews (or good ones) but the one I did get helped me deal with a negative critique.

http://bit.ly/WpTlMS

Matthew wrote: "Sandi wrote: "I spent several Food Network next star things figuring out what POV meant...."

Sandi, sorry for using an acronym. POV isn't texting shorthand, however; it's writing and film-making s..."

James Frey wrote something about miracles stating it was a true story, hence Oprah's club. When it was discovered it was all a lie she was furious and had him on her show. He writes another book and he's back.

Thanks S.J. They've deleted a hell of a lot of fake reviews. Beyond that, I think they'll do nothing.

That's why I really like the "Look inside" feature. I read for enjoyment like Marian and I can usually tell by reading one page whether I'll like the author's style or not.