Why Amazon's vetting is so primitive?

[Nik]

We are talking here about one of the mightiest corporation. They acquired goodreads, createspace, many more. They lead the biz. For example, invests millions of USD in perfecting its algorithm and they claim to invest in detecting and fighting fraudulent reviews.
But not in vetting.
Undoubtedly, there are technologies that can do a much better job. We hear a lot of complains that many self-published authors offer half-baked stuff. Amazon is their accomplice.
Sure, accessibility is important. But is it the only concern? Amazon probably doesn't care - they have people enrolling, who would try to promote their work and Amazon can only win from few or many sales. And there are side-effects: authors and readers probably join Amazon prime and stay within Amazon's orbit for more reasons. But even the formal presentation quality is not observed that much.
If a store owner - would you sell anything at your store or inspect a little what you offer? Why Amazon is not particular, in your opinion?

[Alexis]

Hmm. Amazon is probably acting like a player on the free market. It acts as an intermediary, allowing buyers and sellers to connect, while at the same making it so that it's brand is not in jeopardy. The company is probably hoping that ultimately the system of supply and demand will make it so those that offer inferior quality will stop doing so when they realize there is no demand and their investment (time) has been wasted.

[Nik]

If we take an app world from what specialists tell me: they have two general models: Android - much more open and accessible and Apple's IOS, much more closed with rigid criteria for partnering.
In self-publishing we only have 'Android' with lax attitude. The void is filled by sites, having in place some serious selection, which if you manage to pass and they accept your book for listing and promotion - you are almost guaranteed to have considerable sales ...

[M.L.]

I don't fully understand the background to the question. But would 1) I sell stuff on Amazon? Yes. 2) I disagree: they are particular. As far as 'experts' and 'specialists,' I take what they espouse with a grain of salt - usually they have their own agenda and place their own title of 'expert' on themselves. That's been my observation. Delve a little deeper and the one fact you might agree with often conveniently leads to another fact that is not quite as well-supported. The upshot is that they want to you accept the whole ball of wax and accept their expertise. The term itself is almost a red flag.

I have seen labels/seals on certain book covers and those are to give an impression the book has a mark of excellence or choice or award of some type. Not so. It's just an arbitrary sticker.

[Tara Woods Turner]

I look at it this way: without indie authors nearly 85% of the books in Kindle Unlimited would disappear. Amazon makes a *lot* of money from KU and Prime subscribers...

[Nik]

M.L. Roberts wrote: "I don't fully understand the background to the question. ..."

I'll explain. When you upload your book file onto Amazon, it has some vetting mechanism, which obviously doesn't catch so many issues, otherwise we wouldn't have that many complaints about poorly edited books, lots of typos and so on. Also, there is an interval of a few hours before the book goes live, which I understand serves for someone to have a look at the file.
With all that - pretty much any stuff of any quality gets online with minimum fuss...

[J.J.]

You know the saying, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It also seems to be a trend these days that people like the story behind the sale more than the item they're actually buying. You don't know if that "poorly edited book" was put out by someone with dyslexia or Down's Syndrome or some other condition/situation that makes it difficult for them to formulate "proper English." While I'm sure that's not the case most of the time, I have no doubt if someone used their author's space to spin such a hard-luck, overcame the odds to fulfill my dream tale, reviews would be a lot kinder and buyers would open their wallets to support someone born disadvantaged.

Sure the problems with books muddy the water, but if you were to remove them from the shelves, you run the risk of censoring a diamond in the rough, you run the risk of blocking one of those head-scratching hits, and for Amazon who wants this image of democracy when it comes to publishing, they run the risk of looking like the big publishers who try to tell the public what to read and what not to read.

Maybe you look at it like crowdfunding where everyone gets a shot, and it's the people with the money to spend on those books who are the ones that decide which books they like and which ones succeed. After all, it is the review system that ultimately marks a book as worth buying, as trash, or as one that "depends on the person."

I think too, as it's been pointed out, you would need a pair of human eyes looking over the process since genres like Sci-Fi and fantasy tend to make up words and place names that would red flag the book if run through some computer algorithm.

[Ian]

Personally, I would be against vetting, other than machine vetting for things like formatting errors, which I believe Smashwords does. Machine vetting for typos is terrible - look at Microsoft Word - you can get some awful errors in their vetting.

Amazon has a great idea in having reviews from readers - the [public does the vetting. Except only too many don't. So, there we are. I would prefer the present to some panel of "experts" .

[Tara Woods Turner]

The moment Amazon starts vetting content they turn into another ig five and no thank you lol. Besides, they have their own private imprints. And again, Amazon is making millions because anyone can publish. They can offer KU subscribers countless titles to gorge on and there is no downside because if those readers come across a dud they just move on to another, better book. In addition, the big five don't have their books in KU and must keep their digital prices uncomfortably high as a filter. Amazon is winning all the way around. They're making money from the great, good and bad books.

[Nik]

Haven't returned to this issue for a few years. A question for those who published recently, is Amazon's vetting still very basic?

[J.J.]

They banned one my books a year and half ago when I tried to publish it. And I think they've been scrutinizing my books ever since, because it's taking longer than ever, it feels, for a book to go live when I hit publish.

Last year, they tried pulling my titles from a couple categories they found success in. They put them back in when I complained, but ever since, I've been reporting everything and anything in those categories that doesn't belong. Sometimes Amazon pulls those titles from the categories, sometimes they ignore them.

I also started reported pornographic titles that pop up in these categories, and Amazon seems to refuse to pull them despite their ban on pornography...and I've reported the same titles over and over just to be sure...

I put up a silly title under a new pen name a week or two ago, and people were saying their reviews had to be "verified" before they were published.

It might not seem it, but Amazon is very active behind the scenes, and they know what's going on a lot more than it looks. Do not underestimate them...if books with issues are available for sale, it's because Amazon wants them.

[Nik]

J.J. wrote: "....It might not seem it, but Amazon is very active behind the scenes, and they know what's going on a lot more than it looks. Do not underestimate them...if books with issues are available for sale, it's because Amazon wants them."

Can be. BTW, heard rumors that they were active behind the scenes on Goodreads too.