THE Group for Authors! discussion
Publishing and Promoting
>
Amazon reviews being rejected
date
newest »
newest »
I really don't understand Amazon's stance on too connected. Rumor (seriously I have no idea if true or something passed around by someone whose review was not disclosing real connections or payments like getting a return review, free review copy, fees, etc.) has it that just liking Facebook pages or being in same Facebook groups can be considered "too connected" by Amazon.I really do applaud wanting trusted customer reviews -- but, of course if someone feels strongly about an author/book they are quite likely to like/fan/follow. And have opinions to express. It's not necessarily nefarious consumer fraud — just how many readers, particularly fans, use social media, author trackers, groups/bookclubs, etc.
Reviews that deservedly get removed sure have spread some creative reasons in the past but the "too connected" and "deemed a fan" phrasings are buried in all the Amazon help screens, guidelines and posts where I do believe that happens. Unless review discloses something like "free for review" "from xyz blog tour" "from abc arc program" type of things, it can seem odd when an author was expecting a review or knows one was rejected.
Tealeaf wrote: "My comment is as a reader who tried, unsuccessfully, to give a five-star review to a new author I really liked. Amazon repeatedly, and swiftly, returned my review along with a cryptic list of cri..."
I assume you know that Goodreads is owned by Amazon. You haven't really gotten away from the Amazon machine. Personally as a reader I prefer that Amazon errs on the side of caution. Gushy positive reviews may make authors happy but they do me no good at all. For a book with few reviews, I usually assume the reviewers who give 5 stars have some undisclosed relationship with the author.
Tealeaf wrote: "My comment is as a reader who tried, unsuccessfully, to give a five-star review to a new author I really liked. Amazon repeatedly, and swiftly, returned my review along with a cryptic list of cri..."
There might be a clue in the phrase " a new author I really liked". Maybe.
We don't know how Amazon chooses which reviews to block and which to allow. What we do know is that Amazon largely works through automation. They keep their operating costs really low by not having many human beings in the process. This means that authors can publish books for free and readers can get a wider range of books more cheaply than ever before.
That's the good news. The downside of this automation is that Amazon will occasionally do something which looks downright stupid and/or mysterious.
What we think is happening with the blocking of reviews is that Amazon have built a system in software which assesses the review and takes a decision about whether to allow it or not. We're pretty sure that this system looks at things like facebook friends and browsing history - after all, Amazon holds a lot of information about each of us. When we join a site like goodreads, amazon or facebook we are giving them a huge amount of data about us.
So if you have been blocked trying to give a review to an author that you "really liked" it is possible that the system has picked up a connection between you and that author - say being friends on facebook.
The root of the problem is that Amazon needs to do something about the fake reviews which are bringing the rating and reviewing system into disrepute. But because it has to work through automation, it cannot be as subtle or reasonable as a human-based system would be. So we are getting reports of reviews being unfairly blocked.
And we have to ask ourselves which is worse - a small number of reviews being blocked or a review system which is open to abuse?
Not easy. Definitely not easy.
Well it was a genuine review. As I said "new author I really liked" meaning I'd never heard of the guy until I tried the sample. I have never had a FB, G+ or other account of that type. Whatever Amazon knows about me they got from their own site. So I return to my point: for a reader who wants to give a review to an author with whom they have no nefarious or backdoor connection Amazon assumes the worst. Well no more attempts at reviewing for me. I've learned my lesson. Too bad for you authors though. How can you succeed when Amazon knee-caps you?
Tealeaf wrote: "Well it was a genuine review. As I said "new author I really liked" meaning I'd never heard of the guy until I tried the sample. I have never had a FB, G+ or other account of that type. Whatever Am..."By chance was this author on GR and you left feedback for him\her here to which Amazon may have picked up on and prevented a "double review"?
No. It was the other way around. In my frustration with Amazon I Googled around and discovered GR inter alia. The review on GR came after the unfortunate Amazon experience. Sad to know that Amazon to GR is just jumping from the pot to the frying pan.
Tealeaf wrote: "Sad to know that Amazon to GR is just jumping from the pot to the frying pan. ..."Goodreads doesn't have same automated algorithm rejecting reviews at least.
I don't think either goodreads or Amazon block/remove reviews because also echoed to other sites if that's what was meant by "double review." Neither site requires exclusive reviews; only that reviews are your own and don't violate site policies.
It's extremely common for bloggers and reviewers to post reviews on several book sites and blogs.
Despite both being owned by Amazon, your Amazon reviews do not auto-post to goodreads nor do your goodreads reviews auto-post to Amazon.
If you saw wording about "double reviews" it more likely referred to prohibiting creating multiple accounts to rate same book or trying to review/rate book multiple times (like rating each and very edition). One person = one rating policy.
A lot of the retail sites, including Amazon, do have automated algorithm checking for various things that cause review to be rejected. None of which seem to make much sense (one of the earlier incarnation of Amazon's seemed possibly to be interpreting odd phrases as leading readers to competitor sites and was refusing many reviews for pretty inexplicable reasons; better nowadays and no where near as wonky as Barnes and Noble algorithm but still not clear. I haven't gotten Barnes and Noble to accept a review in so long I've quit trying, and I tried hard for a while with some pretty bland positive reviews that seemed in line with accepted ones. When Barnes and Noble rejects, they give you edit links that don't even work making it extra frustrating for this nook girl).
D.A. wrote: "I really don't understand Amazon's stance on too connected. Rumor ... has it that just liking Facebook pages or being in same Facebook groups can be considered "too connected" by Amazon.."My new book Fifty Shades of Talmud: What the First Rabbis Had to Say about You-Know-What is officially coming out next week and already it's #1 on Amazon [in its admittedly tiny niche]. I have about 800 Goodreads friends and followers, and over 2500 Facebook friends, all of whom are are fans since I'm only on social media under my pen name. Please don't think I'm bragging; I'm pointing out that if Amazon disallows reviews from any of these folks, they are essentially leaving out the very people who are most likely to read and appreciate my new book.
Now I want Amazon to reject bogus or paid reviews as much as any author, but it sounds like a Catch-22 to me.
Maggie Anton
Tealeaf wrote: "No. It was the other way around. In my frustration with Amazon I Googled around and discovered GR inter alia. The review on GR came after the unfortunate Amazon experience. Sad to know that Amazon ..."Looking at your review here, I think it's just plain and simply your use of "faggot." Amazon is very conservative in the commentary it allows on its site and relies primarily on automation to weed out anything even mildly 'controversial.' GR doesn't have those types of limits (generally.)
Yeah could be. It was a gay novel reviewed by a gay guy presumably for a gay audience. So of course the review should read like it was written for Gardening Weekly /sarc. I think you're right. It came back so quickly it was likely auto-rejected. And having read the story 'finger' + 'hole' all I can say is Puritanism lives! Well I'm past caring. My reasons for writing a review are: 1 help other users/readers 2 as a way of thanking other reviewers (kind of pass it on I guess) 3 feedback (positive or negative but hopefully constructive) to the author/supplier. Note that making Amazon eBay whatever happy isn't on the list. I really feel sorry for indie authors. More so after reading this very thoughtful (and flame free!) thread.
They're sort of in a tough spot though--in your context the word makes perfect sense, but realistically there are still saddos who would use it as an insult. Just easier for them to create master lists of no-gos for bots to block. Amazon is more about the sledgehammer than subtlety.
Not impossible to contact Amazon to ask for a human eye reconsideration because you feel the automated script rejection took something out of context (and there are contexts where faggot would be considered hate speech or a personal attack so against site policies of goodreads, Amazon and many others). Or to ask if "faggot" was replaced could review be posted.I don't need everything Sunday School Puritan clean but I do understand automated checking for potential hate speech terms.
Of course I tried to contact Amazon to seek clarification. Emails ignored. A chat with "Antonio" was fruitless though he seemed sympathetic.As a gay man reviewing a gay book I was relating the author's storyline to my own life experience to show how he effectively conveyed the universality of the gay experience. Sure we're gay and sure we're also unique as individuals. Having said that I'm sure it's safe to generalize and say we've all been called faggots at one time or another. Hate speech? Sure. Described by the victims and therefore used appropriately in context. Oh well, even if PG Wodehouse and Mark Twain used the N-word (suddenly very hot in contemporary hip hop) I guess we can't use it in a review. Even to point out it was used then but not now in ordinary conversation.
And yet ... both amazon and goodreads refused to delete reviews from an acquaintance turned socially-challenged-groupie turned online stalker whom I blocked on Facebook for racist, sexist, aggressive comments and messages, and who responded with a barrage of offensive emails telling me he'd reduced my amazon and goodreads ratings and changed the language to make it more negative, but that he'd reconsider if I "came to my senses." A quick google revealed that he's behaved similarly elsewhere; and he had even tried to extort amazon when it kicked him off of Vine for soliciting a seller (how do I know? he tried to use me in his scheme, threatening them that his influential writer friends would "expose" them.Crazy how something violates their stated policies of no quid pro quo and harassment, but they go after other reviews that are far less problematic. Very, very disappointing to see how trolls are condoned.
Michele wrote: "he'd reduced my amazon and goodreads ratings and changed the language to make it more negative, ..."Edited the reviews you wrote and changed the ratings? That's a whole other can of worms than just what Amazon/goodreads allows members to write in their reviews. They'd have to actually hack the sites.
I wouldn't bother trying to get their reviews removed -- I'd report the hack and get their account removed (and with that their reviews would go). Hacking the site 100% violates TOS.
I wouldn't just report them to staff, I'd also report them to law enforcement and Safe Harbor.
Michele wrote: "And yet ... both amazon and goodreads refused to delete reviews from an acquaintance turned socially-challenged-groupie turned online stalker whom I blocked on Facebook for racist, sexist, aggressi..."Since the alleged bad behavior was on facebook, not Amazon or Goodreads, there was nothing for you to flag on those sites. GR can't just take an author's word for it that a bad review is the result of personal animosity. If that were the case, authors would just flag every bad review they get (and I'm sure that some do try that approach). You're going to have to offer some proof to GR that a review violates their toc.
proof .. like a barrage of emails with his repeated extortion attempts?and the bad behavior related to the extortion occurred on amazon and goodreads -that's where he changed the reviews
They can easily enough check in their system where the reviews were changed
D.A. wrote: "Michele wrote: "he'd reduced my amazon and goodreads ratings and changed the language to make it more negative, ..."Edited the reviews you wrote and changed the ratings? That's a whole other can ..."
no, he said he edited the reviews HE wrote
Michele wrote: "proof .. like a barrage of emails with his repeated extortion attempts?and the bad behavior related to the extortion occurred on amazon and goodreads -that's where he changed the reviews
They can ..."
If the emails came to you via Goodreads all you have to do is flag them and GR will take care of it. If not, you need to show GR some proof.
The emails came independently. I've sent them excerpts but they don't care. I would be happy to send them the entire set of emails. I pointed out the policies that he has violated but they have ignored that.
We've had several back and forth emails and the message is clear: extortion is A-OK. They have no intention of doing anything about it.
I even asked if they would simply revert the emails to the state before he made the changes.
Same with amazon. So disappointing.
The double standard -removing reviews based on suspicion of connection ever so tenuous is ok, but nope they won't discourage harassers and extorters- is appalling.
Repeated requests for review resulted in Amazon UK posting my. short version review. The changed faggot to f***** which was fine with me. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/cr/m/r...
Amazon USA is still in full reject mode. Seems to be auto-reject. I appealed yet again. Yes I used f***** in the US version since Amazon UK supplied it as acceptable.
Hm, As a long-term Amazon reviewer I have had reviews rejected, sometimes read and re-read the rules, but in the end got them through the loop. Once I simply needed to delete or *** an obscene word, which I did happily enough. Another time I explained my connection to the writer. It went through. I think the proctors tend to be heavy on 'bad' words.
There does seem to be a profanity filter in Amazon/GR. I recently reviewed this book:F**k It – Do What You Love
It took me several attempts to find a version of "f**k" that the system would allow. It wasn't a major problem. It just took a little experimentation.
I'm okay with that. Some censorship is a good thing as we surely don't want profanities plastered over everything that we read. And we ought to make allowances that an automated system isn't perfect. Sometimes it will do annoying things, but that's a price worth paying to get a reasonable balance between censorship in everyday and freedom for adults to view adult material if they want it.
This is where they need actual people to make decisions. Ideally non-homophobic people... We can all agree being called a faggot is unacceptable. OTOH describing an experience of being called a faggot is a horse of a different colour altogether. Machines can't make these useful distinctions. Some people can.
Well, sure, but that would push the price up. Amazon is cheap because it uses a lot of automation. If we add more people to the process it becomes a lot more expensive.Can't we all just be a bit more tolerant and understanding? If the software stops us from using a particular word, it's no great hardship to find another word.
Gee Will I was trying to agree with you...
It's always nice to have someone agreeing with you, but I think we are arguing for different things. I like to see both sides of every story. So when a large organisation like Amazon does something that I am not expecting, I don't automatically assume that they are a nasty organisation which is out to hurt me. I try to work out why they are doing the thing that has annoyed or surprised me.
In this instance it seems that Amazon has some form of filter which blocks reviews when they contain a word that some people find offensive. Fair enough. I don't find that a difficult concept to understand or to agree with.
It also seems that the US version of Amazon has a different set of rules to the UK. And that's fair enough too. Words have different meanings on either side of the pond.
Do we want a human involved in the process checking every review? Not really. This would add time and expense to the process. It could also add a degree of bias - one person might take a different opinion to another.
All things considered, I can't get too excited or worried about Amazon having a software filter to catch naughty words. It seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
And if the system has a different opinion to me about what is or is not a naughty word, well that's not exactly the end of the world, is it? It doesn't take much effort or respect for other people to go along with it.
Just use a different word in the review and smile. All is well.
I didn't mind the automatic script checking things so much when I was a top reviewer there. But I do wish they'd make two changes.(1) if review is rejected because of a certain word or phrase, spell that out so you have a chance to easily, voluntarily edit if wanted.
[Particularly needed for words deemed offensive in one country but not another where it might be an unintentional use of a word with an offensive meaning on that country's site. There's a huge difference between my wanting to say it in my words and my not knowing that certain of my words are "translating" differently than I intended.]
(2) I understand the automated script, the logistics of handling such a huge volume of content being added without something of that sort, and how costly it would be to replace machine eye with human eye for that purpose. But, throw more humans into the "appeal" over misinterpretation by the automated script. And in the training of the humans, don't prioritize scripted polite phrases over actually reading what your customer is talking about. [ I have no problems with customer service being polite -- I think that courtesy is a necessary part of any customer service job -- but Amazon takes it too far in many conversations/tickets/appeal where they are politely spouting stuff but completely ignoring your actual issue where not being responsive to topic at hand. Very nice with no answer in a conversation you feel just took a weird turn into Twilight Zone with pat phrases versus a more terse answer actually addressing the issue = I'll take actually answering the question and addressing issue I contacted them about.]
Barnes and Noble's script is a whole other can of worms. It's been years of a reported bug and they still haven't gotten their "edit your review" and " contact us about this" links working on the screen you get when your review is rejected. I now try just once to echo a review (which I first carefully proofto see if I can spot a possible objectionable phrase) there and if it doesn't take I just move on. I no longer keep changing and re-trying or contacting their support about it. Seriously, a gushing review saying nothing but nice things, a couple of paragraphs long, no links, no profanity, no possible hate speech and quite innocuously deliberate in order to test their system won't always post there. Barnes and Noble has one tough bot for review submissions to get thru.
It's like playing a video game that won't let you get to Level 1! I just tried again, more for the humour I guess, nada. The paragraph with ALL the personal comments and the offending word was deleted. I reposted the rest. Near instant i.e. machine rejection. With faggot removed I thought it would pass. With the parts where I try to show how the book relates to my life experience removed I thought it would pass. I thought wrongx2. So it's neither bad words nor wrong country. Quite the Twilight Zone Amazon algorithms.
Tealeaf wrote: "It's like playing a video game that won't let you get to Level 1! I just tried again, more for the humour I guess, nada. The paragraph with ALL the personal comments and the offending word was dele..."I can't tell you why your review was rejected by Amazon, but I wouldn't accept your review on this site and that's where I pick books. Your GoodReads history leaves me cold. I would not consider your review worth anything based on the following:
1. You just joined but did not set up your library (not a reader).
2. You didn't provide any personal information (not required).
3. You have recorded 6 ratings - all 5 star (only 1 review).
4. Your only review is rated 5 star, but you point out problems with the book, and the need for editing. (doesn't sound like a 5 star product)
5. Your review has more to do with you and your experience than it has to do with the book. (review is no help to other readers - wonder if you read it).
I'm a reader and your review here doesn't pass my smell test. Amazon uses complex algorithms but even I don't buy your rating or review and I'm just a human.
If you've followed this silly saga you will recognize the sarcasm in this APPROVED review. Approved in six minutes. This is a great book for gay teens. It's impossible to describe how well written the dialogue is. There are minor flaws a good editor could have caught. Overall the story is compelling.
Tealeaf wrote: "It's like playing a video game that won't let you get to Level 1! I just tried again, more for the humour I guess, nada. The paragraph with ALL the personal comments and the offending word was dele..."Maybe it is you who are being flagged now and not the content of your review. I doubt that many people make so many attempts to post a review. Like making too many attempts to enter your password.
If you really want to know what the issue is, you could try removing more of your review and seeing if you can find the word or words that the system is objecting to. The Amazon guidelines say that they will reject reviews with inappropriate content:http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custome...
So my guess is that there is still something in your review that the system is not allowing.
It's a machine, not a person. It doesn't have a grudge against you. There will be one or more words in there which is triggering a rejection. They might be words which you find acceptable but the machine doesn't (eg faggot).
Hi Christine. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. In order: 1 I just stumbled on GR looking for a place to post my happy thoughts on the book in question. So TBH I don't know what setting up a library involves. Guess I better find out. 2 I don't even use FB or G+ and I keep identifiable info private. This relates to # 5. 3 Ratings. To join the site you have to rate five books. A list was auto supplied. I rated books I'd actually read instead of just clicking on whatever in order to sign up. 4 It's a 5-star for content. There's not a lot of thoughtful content out there for gay teen boys. Does it matter that the Germans didn't actually get nukked in WWII? Someone my age, 60s might know or care, but the target readership would be unlikely to. 5 Well how can I say I'm excited by this book with any sincerity unless I show some connection between my own experience and that of characters from the book? Sadly it was the review devoid of personal connection (and the bad word) that was swiftly accepted.Going back to the if it needs editing it can't deserve five stars question, a perfectly legitimate one, maybe if there were dozens of quality offerings in this genre I could have knocked it down to four stars. But there aren't. Brining gets the full five.
Again thank you for your comments Christine. I'm pecking this out on my phone so I apologise for any spelling, punctuation or formatting errors.
Will remember it was resubmitted with that paragraph removed entirely. No faggot. No f****t. And I sure don't find the word acceptable! Its use is sometimes necessary. For example explaining that I've been called one many times. Its use in the review was to show how Brining is able to relate a near universal experience of gay people, fictional or real.
Faith The bland one passed so I don't think I'm on the Amazon Blacklist.
Christine. Evidently profiles have to be set up using a desk top PC. How quaint. This thread has been fun. As I said earlier it's not easy for authors to get reviews and it was eye-opening to learn how difficult it can be to give a review. Think of how hard it is for Ipsos et al to find survey respondents for example. I think I should sign off this thread now. Thank you all :)
Tealeaf wrote: "Christine. Evidently profiles have to be set up using a desk top PC. How quaint. This thread has been fun. As I said earlier it's not easy for authors to get reviews and it was eye-opening to learn..."I never use my computer to access Goodreads. I use my phone or tablet, using the desktop version of the site rather than the mobile version, and I can do everything I need to do. GR tries to push you to the app, but I never use it. GR has many uses. Explore, you might like it.
Automated scripts may not hold grudges. But they can be set to refuse a review being repeatedly submitted or too frequently within a set time frame -- no matter how changed. No idea if that's what Amazon algorithm is doing or not; but, it's not impossible.Goodreads lets members use ratings however we want; but, Newbies to goodreads don't always notice that a 5-star rating on Amazon scale is equivalent to only a 4-star rating on the goodreads scale. Goodreads assumes most readers pick books they'll like (and only has books and not other products customers can buy/rate to consider) where the 5-star rating here is intended to be that amazing, as near perfect as humanly possible reading experience.
Authors apparently don't always notice the rating scale differences either. Judging by many over-reactions to having a reader rate their book as merely "I liked it" ...
Faith. Thanks. Yes I'm using the app on my phone. Can't access Settings. Nice people on GR!
Tealeaf wrote: "Faith. Thanks. Yes I'm using the app on my phone. Can't access Settings. Nice people on GR!"The app is not our friend. Use the full site, even on a phone that works better than the app.
THE Group for Authors!
Books mentioned in this topic
F**k It - Do What You Love (other topics)Fifty Shades of Talmud: What the First Rabbis Had to Say about You-Know-What (other topics)
Sportsman's Bet (other topics)
After my sister's reviews of my books were taken down after they'd been there for years, I conducted a little experiment. I found..."
It's the Matrix. :)