SI cover features area model
Winter weather photos
Madison vs. Waynesville
Book Nook provides readers with insights into the world of books. Vick Mickunas takes you into the center of the publishing world with the latest book buzz, book reviews, and exclusive chats with authors..Home > Blogs > Book Nook > Archives > 2007 > April > 14 > Entry
Amazon.com book reviewer shakeout
Here’s an update on the customer reviewer hubbub that I have been monitoring over at Amazon.com.
I have written a couple of blog posts about this situation. These posts stirred up a storm of comments, over 100 to date.
My first post, The Mysterious Harriet Klausner, was inspired by some research I conducted. Harriet Klausner is the #1 customer reviewer at Amazon.com. She reviews an astounding quantity of books. Apparently, I’m not the only person who has doubts about her prodigious reading. A second post, Bogus Book Reviews on Amazon.com?, attracted more comments and information.
As comments came rolling in there were two other Amazon Top Ten customer reviewers who were mentioned. These reviewers also aroused skepticism for their reviewing “feats.” The #6 reviewer, John “Gunny” Matlock, reviews many highly technical books. His reviews are frequently filled with spelling errors. It was pointed out by some commenters that this reviewer also had a presence on Amazon as a bookseller where he routinely sold the same obscure books he claimed to have just reviewed. Most tellingly, he described the books he had just reviewed as “unread.”
The #9 reviewer, a fellow named Grady Harp, attracted attention because every time he posted a review he automatically got 30 to 40 votes of approval of his review from other Amazon “customers.” I checked and it is true. Rather suspicious.
So, what has happened since this little investigation was launched? Well, as of this moment, the prolific Harriet Klausner, has written only 2 reviews in the last 5 days. To put that number in perspective; Harriet has posted as many as 40 book reviews in one day in recent weeks. 2 reviews in 5 days is a significant reduction. Is this merely a coincidence? Hard to tell.
An e-mail was sent to “Gunny” the #6 reviewer. It was sent to the seller of the books that “Gunny” had supposedly reviewed. The e-mail asked how “Gunny” could review books and then sell them as “Unread.” The book in question was a cookbook.He responded. Here is his reply: “Good Question. As I said, it was ‘inspected.’ I flipped through it, inspecting the quality of the paper, the printing, and to a lessor extent the content. It’s pretty easy to see how she did recipies. On other books, multiple copies.”
Harriet Klausner has not responded to her critics. “Gunny” has shown some courage and has posted comments on Amazon in response to the criticism. The other day he was asked (on Amazon) if he actually reads the books that he reviews. Here is his response as it appears on Amazon: “John Matlock- In reply to an earlier post To answer your $64,000 question — No. At last count we have some 27 reviewers. Some list reviews on Amazon under their own name. Most don’t want their name used in public (and after watching you guys at work I can see why), and their reviews are listed under my name. We only put the reviews on Amazon as a public service. The reviews are written for our newsletter and our own web sites. Since it seems to cause you so much grief, we’ve decided to stop sending the reviews to Amazon. It’s been fun.Bye”
I just looked at the most recent reviews from #9, Grady Harp. Suddenly, they are not getting 30 to 40 positive votes right away. They are only getting 10 to 12 positive votes now. Very interesting, eh?
So, Harriet Klausner has severely curtailed her reviewing for the moment. John “Gunny” Matlock has admitted that his reviews were actually being produced by a consortium of 27 reviewers and he claims to be resigning as an Amazon reviewer. Grady Harp has suddenly started getting fewer votes of approval for his reviews.
The majority of comments that have been posted on these threads indicate that the Amazon customer reviewer system needs to be changed so that these perceived abuses by reviewers can be curtailed.
Obviously, Amazon is in the business of selling books, and millions of other items. The Amazon system of customer reviews is a wonderful idea and a great way for Amazon to enhance revenue and create a sense of democracy among their clientele.
As in any democracy, there are abuses. Amazon owns this particular democracy and any meaningful attempts to prevent abuse of the customer reviewer system must come from Amazon.
Which begs this question: DO THEY CARE?
Permalink | Comments (48) | Categories: in the Amazone
Comments
By John D.
April 20, 2007 11:54 PM | Link to this
A Harriet Klausner backlash? It’s about time! (See http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/000112.html)By Misfit
April 20, 2007 10:39 PM | Link to this
JJJS, you are right. The five star rating is for the seller, not the review. However, the seller, has some interesting ratings when you look at the details, http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-5252214-5336844?ie=UTF8&orderID=&asin=&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A1M8PP7MLHNBQB The books are in great(new) condition (surprise) but the DVDS, videos, etc. are poor copies.By JJJS
April 20, 2007 10:08 PM | Link to this
Here’s the same article as an HTML page (no need to download anything): http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_3/david/index.htmlBy JJJS
April 20, 2007 9:34 PM | Link to this
Misfit, what you’re seeing is probably the VENDOR’s rating, not the book’s. Iow, Gunny is a five-star vendor. ** He may be writing his review for some other place, who knows. These guy are proliferating their garbage as far as possible; there’s a ton of online “reviewing and rating” sites and services. Just because JMG got bumped off the Top Reviewer list doesn’t mean he’s out of commission. This blog software is annoying: I’m trying to insert a newline and I just can’t, all gets jumbled together in one huge ‘graph. Hard to read, damn it.By Misfit
April 20, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this
Ah, but Gunny’s online book store is still in full swing, with new books offered daily. Perhaps the publishers of those books haven’t figured out that he can’t review them for him? Interestingly, I went to his online store, clicked on the first book (about San Francisco). I saw that there are no reviews, yet the “advertising” from Gunny’s online store (click on available from these sellers) says it’s a five star review. How does that work?By JJJS
April 20, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Check out the first paper (“Six Degrees of Reputation”) at this address http://www.shaydavid.info/papers.html (Gunny is mentioned, and more.)By vick mickunas
April 20, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
ah, Gunny, we’ll miss your wacky reviews, all 27 of you!By JJJS
April 20, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Btw, Gunny’s reviews still show up with the “Top 10 Reviewer” label. Check for yourselves: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Time-Embedded-Multithreading-Using-ThreadX/dp/1578201349/By JJJS
April 20, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
JMG is gone only as a Top Reviewer. His stuff is still there and, as I understand, Amazon doesn’t mind if a team of reviewers posts under a single name, except that this name then cannot be rated as a reviewer. Just like what reviewer “Midwest Book Reviews” does. *** P.D. Harris: you didn’t read my note. Nowhere did I say you’ve been nice to HK.By vick mickunas
April 20, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
John “Gunny” Matlock, the #6 reviewer over at Amazon is gone. His listing vanished today.By Peter D Harris
April 20, 2007 5:56 AM | Link to this
As far as reviews appearing on multiple sites is concerned, be aware that the Amazon Assoiates system allows other sites to take direct copies of reviews from Amazon and post them on their own sites subject to certain conditions. If Lonnie or any other Amazon reviewer tries a Google search, they are likely to find their own reviews (not always attributed) in places they never knew existed.By Peter D Harris
April 20, 2007 5:45 AM | Link to this
Dear JJJS - In response to your comments at the end of the previous discussion here. I have never said anything nice about HK. The fundamental problem is that she hasn’t broken any of Amazon’s rules so they can’t and won’t take any action against her. Perhaps Amazon could change things to reduce her motivation. Let’s see what that might be. Changing the rules to impose some kind of quality standard is impractical and unenforceable as well as being too costly. It’s easier to do on a specialist website like Epinions and those who want to can go there. Not that all the reviews on Epinions are good but it’s fair to say that the average standard is far higher than on Amazon. HK certainly wouldn’t be good enough to post there but neither would you or I. Changing the ranking algorithm so that somebody else is #1 is possible but while I’d like to see changes, doing so just to stop HK is the worst reason. In any case as I’ve found in previous debates on the subject, any radical changes arouse strong passions. And any change that would drop HK from #1 would certainly be radical. Back in November, strange things happened to Amazon’s rankings. Prisrob posted a top 50 on the Amazon DB, taken from that period and showing HK at #2. Some people think it was just some kind of glitch but I think Amazon may have been experimenting with a modified ranking algorithm. Sadly, the experiment (if that’s what it was) didn’t last long enough for me or anybody else to carry out research that might have yielded clues to what was going on. But if my theory is right, the price of dropping HK even one place in the rankings is a huge shake-up in everybody else’s ranking. As I indicated earlier, I’m happy to drop down if I can see that it serves the greater good. There are plenty of reviewers better than me who have a lower ranking but there are also worse reviewers (including HK) who are higher than me. But there is no formula that could ever determine quality with any accuracy. Length could be factored in but that of itself is no measurement of quality, albeit longer reviews tend to be better than shorter ones. As to Erika’s reviews, they are indeed mostly five-star reviews, just like most reviews on Amazon. We are just amateurs reviewing what we like for the fun of it. If I were employed as a professional reviewer, a lot of things would be different. Like, I’d be told what to review instead of choosing my material. Also, I’d be working to deadlines so I wouldn’t have the luxury of waiting till I’m in the right mood. Thus the ratings I would give would differ markedly from what I post on Amazon. Actually, Amazon’s five-star system with no halves is difficult to take seriously. If you like something, you only have a choice of four or five stars. Two choices isn’t enough to cover the range of how much I like something. Amazon once had a ten-star system (long before my time) but abandoned it because most customers didn’t use the middle values. So I never take anybody’s star ratings on Amazon too seriously. I always read the text. Anybody who reads my reviews will see that I regard some as more worthy of five stars than others. No doubt the same is true of Erika’s reviews. So maybe you are missing the whole point of the Amazon reviewing system. It works for Amazon because the vast majority of customers review what they enjoy and it will ever be thus.By Lonnie E. Holder
April 20, 2007 12:33 AM | Link to this
Vick: Yes, I do agree that collectively we have had an affect on Harriet. Gunny had stated, per his post copied by and posted by several individuals in various places, that he was leaving Amazon. However, I am wondering, as are several others, whether Harriet is laying low and waiting for the furor to die down. I find it difficult to believe that Harriet is going to cease 8 years of reviewing on Amazon just like that.By Lonnie E. Holder
April 20, 2007 12:29 AM | Link to this
JJJS: I disagree that it changes nothing (noting that Harriet posts on numerous other sites). I think it makes her dozens of reviews even more ludicrous. How can anyone post dozens of reviews in multiple locations on a daily basis? lol…I think the brand name idea is funny - but it could well be true.By JJJS
April 19, 2007 11:18 PM | Link to this
Please check out my next favourite reviewer, No.16 Top Reviewer, W. Boudville: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AG35NEEFCMQVR/. ** Tell me how, in your opinion, he is different from John Matlock “Gunny”.By JJJS
April 19, 2007 11:08 PM | Link to this
Yes. But you know, I wonder what would happen if we took a “sabbatical” too and went away say for a couple of weeks. In other words, how long would it take HK and maybe JMG to return to their regular reviewing pattern. Or, or maybe to surface under different names. So, yeah, there’s some impact, but its real meaning is unclear yet.By Wayne Klein
April 19, 2007 10:03 PM | Link to this
To answer your question Vick does amazon care? Only if they get negative publicity. Interestingly, I found that since I posted my comments about some of these issues I’ve been slammed with negative votes all on the same day for five different items (some of them pretty obscure).By vick mickunas
April 19, 2007 9:36 PM | Link to this
Harriet Klausner seems to have gone on hiatus. “Gunny” seems to have retired. Grady Harp keeps on going like the voter turnout in Cook County. There seems to be an impact here, at least on HK and “Gunny.” don’t you agree?By JJJS
April 19, 2007 8:47 PM | Link to this
I think most people simply aren’t aware of what’s going on. I’d guess that a regular Amazon customer goes straight to the book he’s interested in, maybe reads reviews (maybe not), makes (or doesn’t make) a purchase — and then goes away. At least that’s how I used Amazon at the beginning — and for a very long time. And let’s remember that 80% of Americans read less than one book A YEAR (I can’t remember where I saw that, so don’t hold me to it… but I think it’s uncontroversial that few people read 40 books a day .) Iow, it’s easy not to notice what kind of reviewing HK and friends do.By Barbara Delaney
April 19, 2007 8:00 PM | Link to this
It seems that JJJS has been aware of questionable reviewing practices at Amazon for quite a long time. Since Amazon has not responded to inquiries about any of these individual’s activities it seems that it must be concluded that Amazon is satisfied with the current state of affairs. It seems then that there is very little to be done. Other than seemingly endless poring over Harriet Klausner’s nearly 14,000 reviews or those of any other top reviewer and leaving comments that have no effect at all on the situation. Ultimately it seems that an infinitesimal number of people out of the millions that purchase items from Amazon have any interest at all whether the reviewing system works or doesn’t.By vick mickunas
April 19, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this
This is one journalist who doesn’t believe that Harriet can read that fast. As I stated in my first post on March 29: “Which begs the question, is Harriet really reading all those books? Is Harriet really reviewing all those books? I cannot fathom how that could be possible.I have the highest respect for Amazon.com and I have to think that they might wish to consider doing a little bit of checking here. Who is Harriet Klausner? How does she read and review 6 books a day? If she really doesn’t read them then how can she review them?” If anything, I am even MORE dubious about HK now than I was when I began writing about her. Those doubts now extend to some other Amazon “reviewers” as well. Vick MickunasBy JJJS
April 19, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Lonnie, at this point, I’m sure that “Harriet Klausner” is a brand name rather than a person. I’m sure there’s an army of copywriters doing this Harriet-Klausner-reviews-books thing. 40 reviews a day on Amazon is enough for me, if it turns out that “she” posts another thousand reviews daily on other sites, that changes nothing as far as I’m concerned.By JJJS
April 19, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
All right, enough already of this Lonnie Holder vs Barbara debate. I kind of agree with Barbara in general, but that said, it’s largely irrelevant and our going on and on about it doesn’t help the issues here. (Just a suggestion of course, a wish; I’m not telling anyone what to do.) ———— Mark White: of course, you’re right, ‘born with a gift of speed-reading’, what a joke. But notice how the journalists just took it at face value.By Shirley Martin
April 19, 2007 12:14 AM | Link to this
I use Amazon’s reviews a lot to help me choose books and things. I ran into one of Harriet Klausner’s reviews and found a comment by Lonnie Holder. Lonni’es comments weren’t very complimentary of Harriet. I would say he ripped her review apart pretty good. I might still buy the book, but I am going to wait until another review comes out. What I don’t understnad are Barbara Delaney’s attacks on Lonnie. Lonnie rips one of Harriet’s reviews and then Barbara has this childish attack on Lonnie. I thought Barbara did not like Harriet, but the way she carries on about Lonnie you would think she and Harriet are the best of friends.By Lonnie E. Holder
April 18, 2007 11:28 PM | Link to this
Barbara: I am not trying to be all things to all people. I enjoy how you, and increasingly JJJS, like to read motivations into my actions that somehow align with any particular group or activity. As I have told JJJS a couple of times, I have my own motivations and my own reasons for being critical of Harriet. Sometimes those reasons align with others, sometimes not. I am not on anyone’s “side.” As for being “deeply offensive,” I am beginning to find you personally obnoxious. You will note that my comments were directed to NPerz. I did not call for the “pack” to bring him down. His comments were inappropriate and I called him on them. I do sometimes intrude when others are being horribly unfair to other people and there are no other comments supportive of that person. If that person is holding their own or if others are helping, why should I be part of the feeding frenzy? I have even supported Harriet when certain people have been inappropriately critical of her. As for comments regarding Vick, I believe I have already made similar statements here. If not, let me repeat them. Vick is a newspaperman. Vick is in the business of selling newspapers - or more generally, his employer is. When Vick generates controversy, he helps get hits, which increases traffic and improves the possibility of revenue. Vick found a great subject with discussions of Harriet. While I do not recall precisely what I said, I believe I said that Vick’s comments were muck-raking, but they were fun muck-raking. I stand by those statements. So Ms. Barbara, do you have anything else to say to me, or are you finished now?By Mark White
April 18, 2007 8:51 PM | Link to this
There’s something I don’t think anyone has mentioned. Harriet claims on her Amazon profile page to be a “speed reader, a gift I was born with.” What I want to know is, who is born knowing how to read? And 80 books a day, for that matter?By Barbara Delaney
April 18, 2007 8:02 PM | Link to this
Lonnie E. Holder writes, “Thankfully, I am not easily offended…” and then goes on to tell me to “crawl back into my hole”, accuses me of having a God complex,etc. At the risk of engaging in a protractedly acrimonious debate I feel I must answer. First of all the accusation that I interfered in a private conversation is ludicrous. You cannot have privacy on the comment section on an Amazon review. Also, of your four comments concerning your notification to Amazon of nefarious activities by top reviewers not all were addressed to Misfit, several were to readers at large. Secondly, your continuing efforts to be all things to all people has crossed over from being an annoying personal quirk to being a deeply offensive practice. You take the attitude that you are in search of dispassionate truth, striving for objectivity and that is what allows you to stand by while others call people names. Yet when n.perz left a derogatory comment about you , you reacted like a scalded cat.But when your dear friend Eileen/Minotaur calls Vick “a third rate hack” that’s acceptable to you.Your claims to want “a code of ethics” is strangely at variance with your behavior. What is ethical about attacking a journalist’s reputation?By Lonnie E. Holder
April 18, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this
JJJS: Has anyone even mentioned that Harriet posts reviews in many locations? I do not know if they are the same reviews, but that then begs another question. Even if she were reading the ludicrous number of books per day that she reviews, she then has to take the time to post those reviews at all the sites where her reviews appear. How long does that take? How many days in the week are there? How many people is Harriet Klausner?By JJJS
April 18, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Patrick Murray wrote: I look forward to the national news >coverage Don’t hold your breath :-) This stuff has been going on for years, which is plenty of time for the national news coverage to have occurred. It hasn’t. Moreover, there’s a number of articles in major media outlets (for example, WSJ, Time) whose authors appear to have taken HK’s reviewing activities at the face value and, strangely, believing her unbelievable accounts without a trace of scepticism and/or verifying facts (even if she does read two books a day, as she is reported to have said, she still reviews like 40 books in the same time period. No one just noticed that somehow, you see.) In fact, Vick Mickunas is the first member of the media that I know of who wrote something that actually makes sense about HK and the rest. And still it’s just a couple of blog entries, not an article in WSJ. Could it be that this online shilling industry is much bigger than just HK & friends and that the media are actually complicit, at least inasmuch as they look the other way and/or act as if they were gullible.By Office Lover
April 18, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this
I know a lot of people play games on Amazon (obviously including Gunny and Harriet), but only 2 people have really offended me with their absolute lack of subtlety. For some reason Gunny and Harriet never got to me because they were like a running joke—no one took them seriously. The first went under the name of Todd M. Squires. In a few months, he had 110 reviews—every one of which had over 100 votes. It was obvious nonsense. One day in January, I saw that a review site accused him in a comment of borrowing their material. I then researched all of his reviews, each one plagiarized from one of a dozen sources (Toronto, Seattle, other online venues). I called him on it—he immediately deleted all of his reviews and changed his name to Film Dude. It was my greatest victory! The other is Grady Harp. Grady is hard not to notice (for me, anyway). A year ago, every review he wrote went instantly to 13/13 positive votes—then a few months later 18/18, then 26/26, then 33/33, then 36/36—now they are registering over 40 since this latest bit of attention. I have challenged Grady on many occasions on comments, on the DB, and to Amazon—but he keeps going strong. My issue with Grady is that people defend him. On 12/7/06-I posted a query on the DB about his suspicious voting pattern and was dismissed by many. “Grady has a following.” At that time it was 18/18 votes. By the end of January, when I started commenting on his reviews, it was 33/33. On February 14, it was 36/36 and I watched and timed his votes, made comments on them, sent a letter to Amazon, and posted that letter on the DB. Nothing has yet to be done. You can see my stalking of Grady on his comments (check out the letter on the DB under a thread entitled Vote Manipulation in the Top 10). Although I have always tried to be civil, I was just trying to get him to stop the manipulation. It is also interesting to note that every time I mentioned irregularity in voting—the pattern changed (just as it has now) which just proves that there are not “real” people voting. Again, Grady isn’t the only one—I could name 2 others off the top of my head with double digit votes instantly—he is just the most blatant. It is his complete indifference to even appearing legit that has always rubbed me the wrong way. Thank you for seeing the same thing that I have been plagued with for a year. Hopefully, the added heat will make a difference!By Patrick Murray
April 18, 2007 6:42 AM | Link to this
Just last night I happened into the Amazon reviewers list, saw HK at the top, noted she loves everything she reads and was shocked that so few found her reviews helpful. Then I looked at the comments. Not long after I wound up here. Bravo to the caper uncoverers. I look forward to the national news coverage and wonder how to promote that.By Lonnie E. Holder
April 17, 2007 11:29 PM | Link to this
JJJS: Her comments have some foundation, but many do not. She exaggerated a situation, and reacted with self-righteous indignation and a holier-than-though attitude that thoroughly angered me. People who live in glass houses should avoid throwing bowling balls. Their are two sides to every story, and I was accused, convicted and hung without her ever understanding my side of the story. How humorous. I was not trying to take credit for anything, that was merely the way that she saw it. What arrogance. How sad that she has to decide for others how they will run their lives.By JJJS
April 17, 2007 8:16 PM | Link to this
Kelly, are you “scotdog”? And what did you post that you now see may have qualified as spam? I myself posted a lot of comments stipulating the same thing you say you did (that a human cannot possibly read 10-20-40-80 books a day, every day since the beginning of time), and that, even if read over a longer, less unrealistic time period, it just cannot be that all these books were five-star good and not one of them turned out to be a clunker. I can’t see how this is spam.By JJJS
April 17, 2007 8:13 PM | Link to this
Lonnie, if I were you, I wouldn’t be getting too up in arms about Barbara ‘cause while she may or may not overstate issues, her comments are not altogether without foundation. So let’s lighten up and just see what happens.By Kelly
April 17, 2007 7:18 PM | Link to this
I’m still reading even though I can’t post. My posts were deleted for spam. At the time I didn’t see it as spam, just thought I was informing people that Harriet could not possibly have read so many books from the start of the year until Feb. 18 (my first post). Now I can see how it was considered spamming. I never mentioned this blog in any post. Also Vick even though Harriet has been suspiciously quite I noticed this trend when I was researching her numbers for my first post. She did seem to have quite periods. If we don’t see another batch soon I will begin to believe Amazon has done something about it.By JJJS
April 17, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this
Barbara, let’s not worry about giving credit here :-) , this simply doesn’t matter. Better watch what will happen now. My guess: nothing (I’ll be very happy if the events prove me wrong). Why has scotdog been exterminated? Any ideas? All his comments are gone, yet I don’t remember him doing anything remotely inappropriate.By Lonnie E. Holder
April 17, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this
I find Barbara Delaney’s comment interesting, and humorous. I was having a discussion with Misfit and failed to recall whether anyone had reported to Amazon regarding Gunny’s statements. So I advised Misfit that I had done so - which I had. I guess that would be Barbara Delaney’s equivalent of having done nothing. I also guess that Barbara is perfect and has never made a mistake before; I am sure she is blessed with perfect memory. Barbara also somehow decided that it was her place to interfere in the conversation between Misfit and myself and bring into it issues that were irrelevant to our conversation. I guess next time I should check with Barbara Delaney on all my communication to be assured that I am not violating the Federal Code of Barbara before posting. Furthermore, I take umbrage many of Barbara’s other statements. Thankfully, I am not easily offended or I might be upset at the uncalled for rancorous nature of her comments, which I normally associate with meddling, obnoxious people who have nothing better to do with their time than be critical of others. I also see that Barbara has now become and expert on what is appropriate to review and what is not. Apparently Barbara has become God in the last few days. Sorry, I do not pray to your religion. Crawl back in your hole, lady - and pull the door shut behind you. - LonnieBy JJJS
April 17, 2007 4:09 PM | Link to this
Vick Mickunas writes: “Which begs this question: DO THEY CARE?” The short answer is no, the long answer is the question itself is incorrect. It is completely impossible that Amazon doesn’t know what’s going on with their review system. Moreover, they CREATED this system. That’s why I feel it’s funny when people say the system is “abused”. No, it’s not abused, it’s used as intended. Amazon is a great company when it comes to order fulfillment, but I suppose it’s too much to expect from a business that their ethics match the operational prowess as soon as there’s a conflict of interest. I’ve also noticed that a lot of comments by “scotdog” and ALRR have been removed by Amazon. In my view, neither poster’s comments gave any basis for it, especially scotdog’s.By vick mickunas
April 17, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
This story has legs. Since April 10, the mysterious Harriet Klausner (Numero Uno) has posted only 2 reviews on Amazon. The #6 reviewer, Gunny, has apparently bailed out on Amazon? I guess the kitchen was getting a bit warm for his taste. An Amazon reviewer who has posted a number of comments here is now being exposed as being somewhat of a hypocrite. Has Harriet Klausner ever reviewed a bumper sticker? Doubtful. So, the story continues to grow and I will update you when there is more of interest. The wheels they do grind slowly but they grind so mighty fine.By Barbara Delaney
April 17, 2007 1:21 AM | Link to this
Lonnie E. Holder writes: “I would not consider what we have done to be a win-yet.” As Mr. Holder’s contribution to Gunny’s premature retirement was exactly zero I’m puzzled by the use of the pronoun “we”. Mr. Holder did make an appearance after JJJS, M. Krysztofiak and a few others had succeeded in their efforts.Everyone agrees that JJJS was the deciding voice in the matter, the linchpin and most effective of those involved. Mr. Holder did very eagerly volunteer his efforts to be the first to notify Amazon of Gunny’s confession of sorts. When told that the notification had already been performed Mr. Holder conveniently “forgot” that and made said notification again. Then he scurried back to the Harriet Klausner review site and in not one, not two or even three, but on four separate reviews he left a comment saying that he had notified Amazon of John Matlock’s perfidy,and was awaiting a response which Cap’n Lonnie would then convey to us grunts. Never before have I seen such an audacious attempt to steal credit from another and misappropriate it to himself. His gross misrepresentation of his involvement coupled with his wilful distortions to the people at HK’s reviews who knew nothing of these events was one of the uglier manifestations of glory-seeking I’ve ever seen. Lonnie has also been busy at his discussion board with his good friend Minotaur a.k.a. Eileen. When not engaged in shameless flirtation they are busy dissing the rest of us. Lonnie has manipulated HK’s detractors in an attempt to boost his own standing at Amazon. He has accused me of giving his reviews negative votes. His playmates at the discussion board left personal attacks on my reviews until I took them down. I gave his reviews neither helpful nor unhelpful votes, although the one where he explains that Cheetos leave orange dust on your fingers was a very astute analysis. And all three reviews of Oreo’s, ( regular, double stuff, snack packs), contained some memorable prose.By Kelly aka scotdog
April 15, 2007 8:42 PM | Link to this
I have been booted off Amazon. I can no longer leave posts in the comment section. I really feel like this is “illegal” (not sure what word to use here) my posts were fairly straight to the point & non - harassing.By Misfit
April 15, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this
Interesting. Sometime between 12:30 and 2:30 Pacific time Grady Harp posted a review of an obscure foreign film. Yet, despite that obscurity, as of this writing it has garnered 14 of 16 helpful points. How does he do that? I doubt even the latest Steven King release could get postive votes that quickly.By vick mickunas
April 15, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
Well, since I posted this it seems that #9, Grady Harp is right back to his old tricks with 35 positive responses from “customers” on the reviews that I cited in this post. If and when there are further developments of note with this situation I shall address them when appropriate. Thanks, for all the comments! VickBy Kelly Curtis
April 15, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this
We have been noticed by Amazon, not sure how or when but I received this email from them: Greetings from Amazon.com. Recently, your posts on our Customer Discussion Forums and Review Comments were brought to our attention. Please know that posting the same comment repeatedly is considered as “spam” and violates our guidelines. As such these posts have been removed from our web site. We would ask that you please review our guidelines below before posting again. http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/content/db-guidelines.html Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Best regards, Peter Amazon.com Customer ServiceBy Steve Savage
April 15, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Great work, Vick. You deserve a big bonus from the Dayton Daily News for bringing this scam into the light of day. I, too, received some negative votes on my Amazon reviews from persons unknown after my comment on your first post. I feel that Amazon is complicit in this fraud. March 28th, I wrote a review of “Muses, Madmen and Prophets,” by Daniel B. Smith. I would have been the first to review the book. Amazon never posted my review. They have chosen, instead, to post a review by Bruce Trinque, a top 500 reviewer, who has managed to misidentify the author of the book as Robert, instead of Daniel, and dated his review 2 days before mine was written. Yet, my allusion to Julian Jaynes is included in his review. For all intents and purposes Bruce Trinque’s review is a rewrite of “Can You Live With the Voices in Your Head?” An Article for The New York Times Magazine by Daniel B. Smith, the author. (March 25). There appears to be a whole nest of “Harriet Klausners” diligently at work writing sales pitch reviews for whatever reason. The kicker is, Mr. Trinque’s review arrived on the scene already accompanied by 27 Helpful Votes. I have since removed all of my reviews, but three, and posted them on my Blog: http://sskotb.blogspot.com/By Barbara Delaney
April 15, 2007 12:36 AM | Link to this
It’s clear that at some point the issue of Amazon’s complicity will have to be addressed. And before fifty people needlessly inform me that Amazon is in the sales business, I’m well aware of that. But Amazon also chose to have this reviewing system set up. They put up guidelines and devised this particular system. If they are in collusion with individuals who are circumventing their system they should be held accountable.By Misfit
April 14, 2007 8:30 PM | Link to this
Vick, thanks for bringing some light and publicity to this issue. We are all still anxiously awaiting a comment from Amazon, which I doubt will not come. SusieQ, you give me credit where it’s not due. I didn’t receive any emails or phone calls, only one incidence where some disgruntled fan (Harriets? Gunnys? we’ll never know) gave the first two pages of my reviews negative votes. Kudos to all for starting this campaign and keeping on it. Reviews should be written honestly and sincerely or not at all.By Lonnie E. Holder
April 14, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this
I would not consider what we have done to be a win - yet. I suspect that after the attention has died down that one or more of these three will go back to what they have been doing. Thanks to Vick for spotting the fraud and pointing out that reviews are not just helpful reviews from a disinterested party, they are scams foisted on an unsuspecting public by people with varying motives.