By JJJS

April 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

P.D. Harris, you’re correct, it’s not Jessica, it’s Erika Borosos. Reviews and comments — along with P.D. Harris’s contributions — at http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2SRZQU1SZG4RR/002-2532714-3560069?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=3

By JJJS

April 18, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Peter, trust me I read your note. I know you and your friends apologist like to start by ingratiating themselves with the reader, that is by saying something that sounds nice, like that you don’t like HK reviews etc. Then, quite interestingly, you proceed to justify, substitute issues, twist matters, etc. thus effectively negating your nice introduction. So we know what’s what. Oh yeah, sorry if I misspelled Jessika’s name. I don’t think the argument you’ve hastened to build on this fact is a valid one though. Jessika Borsos (please correct the name if it’s incorrect) writes plot-summary reviews — the kind that, at least in my view, no normal human would waste his time on writing. They also tend (charitably) to be all five-star ones. So she’s probably another on-demand “reviewer” helping publishers move their wares. My getting Jessika’s name wrong doesn’t change this fact.

By Peter D Harris

April 18, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Dear JJJS If you read what I said, you would know that I don’t like HK’s reviews. I certainly don’t condone what she does. But she hasn’t broken any of Amazon’s rules. That doesn’t say much for Amazon’s rules but such is life. And I don’t know of anybody called Jessika Borsos though I do know who you are referring to. If you can’t even get her name right, what hope for you to read what I write without twisting it to suit yourself? Maybe you should take a look at my guide “Expose cheating on Amazon” that I mentioned previously. Do that but read it carefully, then maybe you won’t misconstrue what I said. Or maybe I’m hoping for too much.

By JJJS

April 17, 2007 10:43 PM | Link to this

Misfit, no it doesn’t sound to me like it’s written by JMG. I think ‘null’ (along with P.D. Harris) sound like typical apologists for the review frauds like HK. Like MK had once said, you can see them immediately by their ever-present bad logic and a clear undelying agenda to justify unjustifiable. That is probably because they belong to the same crowd. P.D. Harris I remember from the past, when he did a bang-up job defending one Jessika Borsos who, although she doesn’t post inhumanly high number of reviews, still writes reviews that read like back-cover blurbs, plot summaries sort of thing. I find this suspicious too. P.D. Harris didn’t, oh no, not at all. Bad logic, turning to personalities, injecting and insisting on discussing of irrelevant issues, etc. were his weapons of choice that time. I don’t see much change today. If you try to discuss any of the review fraud on the Amazon board, that is the kind of response you’ll get: they seem to be very protective of themselves and their friends.

By JJJS

April 17, 2007 6:45 PM | Link to this

I doubt the story of JMG’s consortium. And I wouldn’t particularly care about such a thing if it were true (which I don’t think it is). The problem is that JMG — whether himself, or his mythical 27 collaborators — do not read what he/they review. It’s clear that JMG reviews are concocted by looking at the first/last page, table of contents, and the back cover. That’s why he could produce five-to-ten reviews a day. No one can read that much, and I think the touching story of 27 Willing Slaves of JMGunny is just a weak attempt at explaining away JMG’s inhumanly high output. He always gave his books the top rating — every goddamn single one of them is five stars. The man is a publisher shill — THIS is the problem, not that he supposedly fronted a reviewing operations. Even if these mythical 27 people were in fact real BUT WROTE GOOD AND OBJECTIVE REVIEWS, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Please be clear on what the problem is.

By Misfit

April 17, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

Is it just me, or does it sound like the comment below by Null sounds like it was written by John “Gunny” Matlock? And I can definitely tell someone’s been looking at some old, very buried in how many back pages and given me not helpful votes. JMO.

By Peter D Harris

April 17, 2007 4:58 AM | Link to this

1) If Gunny really has said that he is a consortium, send the evidence to Amazon (or point me it it abnd I’ll send it). Amazon’s rules stipulate that group reviews (such as Midwest Book Reviews) are allowed to vote but cannot be included in the rankings. Thus, if they deem that “Gunny” is a group of 27 reviewers, they’ll remove his ranking and everybody below him will move up 1. 2) Before coming to conclusions, you might care to read some of my “So you’d like to …” guides as follows :- (a) Learn about Amazon’s reviewer rankings (a detailed look at how Amazon’s ranking system actually operates) http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/L1KFFD7OYDYV/ref=cmsyltbyauthortitlefull_42 (b) Expose cheating on Amazon (whatever you say about Amazon, there aren’t many corporations who would allow this sort of thing to be posted on their own website) http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R1OYK4GFOEOPRE/ref=cmsyltbyauthortitlefull_3 (c) Look at votes and rankings in the real world (compare Amazon with politics, sport, etc - then realize how difficult it is for Amazon to come up with a satisfactory ranking system remembering that a lot of customers have a vested interest in the system as it is) http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/RN7UR4RVZ551B/ref=cmsyltbyauthortitlefull_1

By null

April 15, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this

I know everyone will disagree, but, for me, this is a bit of a loss. I’ve only read a couple books that Gunny reviewed, but he’d done a couple I liked. I’ve read a several mysteries reviewed under HK’s name and have found her reviews short, concise and helpful. I suspect that some of her ‘unhelpful’ votes may be from folks simply tracking her reviews. I still maintain that unless you’ve read the books, it would seem to be difficult to disagree with the ratings and identify them as bogus. Unless there is a reason why a group of people can’t get together and publish reviews under one main name, perhaps the solution would be to include that information on the profile page leaving the other members as anonymous if that would be their choice. I, just me personally, could absolutely see myself writing reviews and happily posting them under someone else’s name. I’ve always been a fan of low visibility and it would certainly appeal to me. We’ve lost 27 reviewers. I’ve never read reviews from the folks posting comments here, and I’m 99.99% certain they haven’t read mine. I peeked at a few and we definitely have different interests in books. So, unless the folks here plan on going into a review overdrive that will include some mysteries, nature, retirement and gardening I’m going to miss out on reading some books I might have enjoyed. Just my two cents.

By vick mickunas

April 14, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Thanks, to everyone who has posted on this Amazon reviewer thread. With over 100 comments on the two posts (so far) I have come to some conclusions about the Amazon customer reviewer system as a result of this input. There was a major development the other day; the #6 Amazon reviewer declared that he was actually a consortium of 27 reviewers and that he was withdrawing as a reviewer because of the comments he was getting. So, I’m working on another Amazon post that will gather some of my thoughts together on what I have observed (so far). If you have more comments, please post them here. I’ll be putting up my new post this afternoon. Thanks, again. Vick Mickunas

By Peter D Harris

April 14, 2007 5:51 AM | Link to this

As a postscript to my previous comments, I should add that the idea of Amazon restricting reviews to products purchased from Amazon is a complete non-starter, not least because Amazon has internal firewalls between its various sites. That would prevent people reviewing products at Amazon.com if they purchased them from Amazon.co.uk. More importantly, publishers (especially of books) like to send out advance review copies in the hope that reviews will appear on Amazon soon after (if not on the day of) release. For Amazon to limit reviews to products purchased from them would be commercial suicide. Although I’ve had a few advance review copies, the number is very small and I certainly can’t accept any in my current circumstances. So it’s no problem for me if the privilege of advance review copies disappears, but it would certainly stop HK in her tracks :-)

By Peter D Harris

April 14, 2007 5:04 AM | Link to this

I haven’t got time to read all through these posts. I will say right away that I don’t like the reviews posted by HK or “Gunny” but I very rarely look at them and have never voted for or against them. I was a prolific reviewer on Amazon but am less so now because I don’t have a home link to the internet. (I’m posting this from a library.) As a result of my previous reviews, I am a top 20 reviewer on Amazon.com and I’ve spent plenty of time studying Amazon’s system. Without going into all the complexities, it is sufficient to say that Amazon’s ranking system is based primarily on positive votes, which carry far greater weight than negative votes. Thus, a review that says “5 out of 20 customers found this review helpful” is unlikely to damage a reviewer’s ranking while one that says “50 out of 200 customers found this review helpful” is likely to help a reviewer’s ranking, albeit marginally. I don’t particularly like Amazon’s ranking system and would be happy to see changes (even if my own ranking suffered) providing those changes make sense and reward those who write high-quality reviews at the expense of those such as HK and “Gunny”. That said, I’ve had plenty of debates with people about what those changes might involve and there is no easy solution. It’s also worth remembering that Amazon long since ceased to be just about books. I’ve reviewed books and will do more. Most of my reviews are about music. Though there are exceptions it generally takes less time to review a CD than a novel. Where non-fiction books are concerned, it is not always necessary (or even in some cases, desirable) to read a book from cover to cover to do a proper review. Think bibles, cookbooks, dictionaries and puzzle books to name a few. Potential buyers of cookbooks want to read reviews where the reviewer has actually tried out some of the recipes (enough to know whether the others are likely to work). Reading the book from cover to cover proves nothing. As to the number of reviews posted in one day or one week or whatever, that’s never a reliable guide (though one year might be). I’m still writing reviews and saving them on my home PC. When I eventually connect it to the internet from home, I’ll unleash them all. So if you think that the more reviews you post in a short time, the bigger cheat you are, then on that basis I’ll become the biggest cheat on Amazon. No, you have to look at the bigger picture. In the case of HK, I agree that she can’t have time to properly read all the books she reviews but I think that she also posts her reviews in batches (you’ll find plenty of days when she posts no reviews). This may be an attempt to stop the spiteful voters from doing their dirty deeds but it clearly doesn’t work.

By JJJS

April 13, 2007 11:35 PM | Link to this

Here’s an interesting article, check it out: Bogus online reviews face EU ban, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/14/euonlineshill_ban/

By JJJS

April 13, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Where did you, guys, get this idea of prohibition of consortia of reviewers posting under a single name? Here’s a reviewer who openly states it’s several dozen individuals: http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A14OJS0VWMOSWO As of today, these guys (Midwest Book Review) have posted 31,357 reviews.

By JJJS

April 13, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

Barbara, I doubt this is a question of glory. That is, perhaps, some vanity is involved, but mostly the situation is created by publishers. Read the top reviewer list: they openly solicit books to review. How will anonymity solve anything here? What’s the difference if HK posts 13K reviews or an anonymous reviewer does that? With names at least you can check a man’s record… If everyone was completely faceless, how would you know when someone writes a thousand reviews a day? I probably do not understand what you exactly mean — could you explain what you mean by this anonymous reviewing you seem to be in favour of.

By Barbara Delaney

April 13, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

So Gunny has gone into retirement again? So, one down and several thousand to go. I liked what JJJS proposed. Something must be done. I would like to see a return ro reviewer anonymity. The huge egos and their pandering sycophants will leave when there is no “glory” in being #1.

By JJJS

April 13, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

It’s the tip of the iceberg. What I resent is that Amazon just sees no evil, patronizingly allowing private citizens such as us to waste their time in hopeless in general attempts to stem the worst of the review fraud. Who’s got time? At some point the posse will disperse and the Amazon-review comedy resume. We need to come up with a more systemic approach.

By Misfit

April 13, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

I encourage everyone who is as outraged at Gunny’s confession as I am to contact Amazon and demand that his reviews be invalidated and removed, and his ranking revoked.

By JJJS

April 13, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

How to fix the system: (1) reviews by people who actually bought the book on Amazon should be somehow marked, (2) reviews written on request must be marked, (3) standard quota (upper limit) of five book reviews a month should be applied to everyone. Also allow a dozen CD/DVD reviews. An increase may be requested, but the requester’s reviews then must be marked somehow. An increase must still be reasonable, it can’t be forty books a day. Nothing more than, say, ten books a month. Selling review copies should be illegal. A book’s average rating should not be shown as readily, ‘cause it’s potentially — and very likely — misrepresenting the book and misleading in general.

By M Krysztofiak

April 13, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

Sisyphus may actually roll his boulder to the top of the hill! John Matlock “Gunny”, after a long period of silence, finally responded to several critics over the last week. After an unsurprising series of misleading comments and attempts at subject-shifting, “he” finally answered JJJS question-do you actually review your books-with THIS: “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” A revelation! Gunny has admitted that he is a consortium of reviewers! Let’s see what else is revealed with continued pressue on Harriet Klausner, Grady Harp, and other “reviewers”. Cheers, MK

By Misfit

April 13, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

agree with your thoughts on the abuse by some of the top reviewers, and that something needs to be done. Clearly something needs to be done about this, but I would hate to have to return to anonymous postings. There are two reviewers that were continually popping up reviewing the same books I was reading and I took the time to look at their other reviews, and by doing so I have discovered several books that have been wonderful reads. I would hate to see that opportunity go away. What then can we do to fix the system? Perhaps a Code of Ethics for the top reviwers? Once you qualify for the higher echelon of the Amazon kingdom you must first agree to a set of terms and conditions, and if you fail to follow them you are bumped back to last place?

By Barbara Delaney

April 13, 2007 4:41 AM | Link to this

Amazon needs to return to the days of the anonymous reviewer. The current system is broken. While it’s not possible to accurately discern the motives of every top reviewer, I think it’s a pretty safe bet to say that for most this is about self-aggrandizement and not out of any love of literature. In the last few days I’ve had it pointed out to me that there are other reviewers whose activities are as suspect as Harriet’s. One who receives thirty to forty helpful votes within hours of posting any review. One who pads out his reviews by evaluating Q-tips and foot powder for those of us unable to form an opinion on those products. Let’s ask Amazon to scrap this notoriously unreliable system and go back to anonymity.

By Steve

April 12, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Harriet reminds me of Ron Brewington who used to write “reviews” praising various lousy movies. Since he liked everything, he was guaranteed to get his name in the ads, but his opinion was virtually worthless. It is obvious that something is going on with Harriet…there is some sort of cheat occurring. Whether she has others doing the work and she merely edits for consistency or she just paraphrases the summaries is not as important as the fact that she likes EVERYTHING. She is little better than Brewington; the only difference is that Brewington’s praise was lavished only on bad movies (if a movie could merit praise from a legitimate critic, it wouldn’t be using Brewington’s hype). At least with the stuff that Harriet praises, there are typically a lot of other reviews that the buyer can look at. I am a “top 500” reviewer and admittedly I have a lot of 4 and 5 star reviews, but I am really only reading (or watching) things that I think I’ll like, so I’m inclined in that direction. Even if Harriet were legitimate, it’s obvious that she is not as discriminating. Since I enjoy my little “badge” and feel I’ve earned it, I would hate to see rankings go away. My proposal is that Amazon keeps the rankings but gives greater scrutiny to the top reviewers (say top 10 or 50). Then folks like Harriet will only retain their ranking if it is honest. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s a need to weed out all cheaters; if someone is desperate enough to cheat himself into the top 1000, so be it. There is little reward beyond pride for that. If you’re top ten, though, you can get all sorts of freebies, and those should be earned honestly.

By Susiq2

April 12, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

My husband is so distressed about about all of this he is refusing to order any more books from Amazon. I got pulled into this when I started writing reviews again, after years of rearing my children, and pursuing my nuring career.In college I had loved working on the school newspaper, and I had my own column, as I did in high school.I left my writing behind as I worked as a nurse(R.N.), married, and started our family.Now that the children are all in school I find myself with time on my hands, and I had hoped to write reviews about some of the books that I was reading as a pleasurable way to pass time, and to do something constructive outside of home management.Well,after writing 2 pitiful reviews(IMOHO) I noticed that some reviewers were “ranked” by numbers, as in the top 1,000, top 500 and so on.I started reading these reviews, and on one review I liked the story line, and I thought that it was an okay review. I left a comment saying that I enjoyed the review, and that I was planning to purchase the book.Well, much to my surprise I found out that I had stumbled into what I now call the “HK debacle.” I had erroneously thought that the “top” reviewer had to know what she was doing, right? Wrong!I quickly found out that very passionate reviewers were horrified at HKs reviews, and thought that I was a “SHILL”, and I did not even know what that meant?!! Luckily, hubby{wise man he} came home and told me what it referred to, and I, for the life of me, could not understand what the commotion was all about.I hung in with the group, defending myself, and trying to grasp what had happened. I soon realixed that the people I was in contact with were really “on a mission” to expose what they sincerely feel is a “crime”,a”fraud”,and a misrepresentation of what true reviews should be about. I went from tears to laughter after I was able to clear up the confusion regarding my “comment” on HKs post. I studied the reviews, and the reviewers, and soon realized that no one is humanly able to read and review that many books that quickly. I do think that it is wrong for Amazon to award a person the honor of being the top reviewer when it is impossible for her to have done these reviews.Come on, guys, right is right, and wrong is still wrong…….Susiq2

By M Krysztofiak

April 12, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

How apt a title is that chosen by this new disciple of Harriet: Minotaur. Similarly to the Minotaur of legend, this new apologist resides in a labyrinth—in this case, however, the labyrinth is a metaphor for how this individual argues his/her agenda. Switching from point to point to point, this modern Minotaur evades the jabbing of Theseus’ spear with entertaining, but ultimately idiotic, misrepresentations, straw-men, and appeals to authority. The Minotaur’s maze could also be well represented by the labyrinthine logic required to puzzle out this individual’s motivations for posting in the first place. First, it was that all comments directed against reviewers were inappropriate, with particular emphasis placed upon the comments of Barbara and I. Additionally, our new friend proclaimed, “many” authors had chipped in, and an innocent poster (who had defended Harriet) had been bullied. After several here disagreed with our friendly Minotaur, showing that his/her statements were exaggerations at best, suddenly the topic morphed into the non-democratic nature of Amazon. According to his/her proclamations of doctrine, no one has any right to anything at all on Amazon. One comment noticed that this new tactic was simply a red herring designed, seemingly, to throw us off the track of the original topic: that Harriet Klausner is not writing the books she claims to have read. After that, suddenly Barbara and I became critics of “little substance”. While I hardly expected accolades from this side-stepping court-jester, this last position amused me for an entirely new reason. If Barbara and I, having few reviews, were of “little substance”, than what in God’s name was your reason for bringing up our names in the first place in your original tirade? If we were of so little concern, being essentially ticks on the back of Amazon’s noble hide, then why go out of your way to point us out by name? Your positions and arguments hold less water than a thimble. By the way, whether I have three reviews or three million, it matters not a fig with regards to the soundness of my statements: the message needs to be evaluated separately from the messenger, please try to understand this simple concept. Most people who criticize Harriet, I would argue, are offended both by her blatant lies, and by the logic and manner of those who support her. I have yet to hear any argument supporting Harriet Klausner’s activities that makes sense in any rational way. Therefore, by extension, this mean’s that ALL people who defend her are coming from a position of ignorance, malice, secondary gain, or a combination of all three. None of these reasons merit respect from thinking persons, which is why, unfortunately sometimes, ridicule is heaped upon the persons who argue from these positions. There is such a thing as requiring a burden of proof, and none of Harriet’s defenders have provided a shred of evidence supporting that she is actually doing what she claims to be doing. Therefore, Minotaur lashing out while purporting to be a “defender of civility” and “public interpreter of Amazon-user’s rights” is hardly impressive. It is a convenient façade, and nothing more—a false platform by which s/he comes to the rescue of a beleaguered ally. Try again, friend. As an aside, after many years of debating various topics on Amazon and elsewhere, I have noticed one curious habit of the person with the “weakest position” for topic . “Well, you are at least nice and understand me, this’ll be my last comment, but I’d LOVE [sic] to chat with you privately. Email me for further discussion.” 99% of the time, when this little gem is directed at me, when I write this individual to continue our conversation, no return email is ever forthcoming. Tip: it is much easier and less verbose to simply say “I’m saving face now, see you.” Good luck with that world perception. MK

By Misfit

April 12, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Wouldn’t hurt to try, would it Vick? I know Amazon is aware of the blog, because I sent it to them. It might be interesting to see what they have to say to the press.

By vick mickunas

April 12, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Kelly, I am a journalistic flea exploring a zillion pound elephant, Amazon. With over 100 comments (so far) in this reviewer thread, and many more comments at Amazon one might hope that they might notice? Who knows? I have not attempted to contact Amazon directly (so far).

By Kelly Curtis

April 12, 2007 1:40 AM | Link to this

Hi Vick, Have you contacted Amazon? Hopefully you have. Did they answer? Kelly

By Lonnie E. Holder

April 12, 2007 12:10 AM | Link to this

Minotaur: Thank you again for your comments. I understand your comment about poor defenseless Vick’s blog ending up as a discussion board. Somehow I think Vick is fine with this. The “get a life” comment may have been close to inappropriate, but I succumbed to peevishness when I read the comment to which I was responding - okay, I got angry and a bit annoyed. That sort of thing tends to happen from time-to-time to humans. Anyway, I fear that the longer Harriet avoids her public, the more intense the comments will become. She could do all of us a favor and speak on her own behalf, but I suspect that is unlikely to happen.

By The Minotaur

April 11, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this

Lonnie, I never included you in my reference to the worst offenders for two reasons. One, you are a top reviewer with a vested interest in the reputation of top reviewers, whereas the other two have written few reviews and are all noise and no substance. Two, you have indeed been critical of Harriet’s reviews, but as you yourself said, your criticism is largely factual and seldom brought down to an insulting personal level (although you did overdo it with your “get a life” comment). You are correct in that no one is being forced to read the comments. However, there are rules for those comments, and customers only have a right to post comments that do not violate those rules. Here are two items that are not allowed, in Amazon’s own words: 1) “Profane or obscene, inciting, or spiteful comments.” I have seen many spiteful comments. And before you argue about what constitutes a spiteful comment, the definition in my dictionary is “showing malicious ill will and a desire to hurt; motivated by spite.” Amazon has not granted you the right to hurt others. 2) “Messages that harass, abuse, or threaten other participants.” Anyone who has come out either in defense of Harriet or who has objected to the tone of the comments has been harassed to some degree or other. Comments saying such things as “Harriet, you’re a fraud” or “get a life” certain apply as harassment as well. Finally Lonnie, I enjoy having a spirited debate on this topic as long as the participants are as civil as you have been. However, I don’t want Vick’s blog turning into more of a discussion board than it already has, so this is the last post I will make here. You are welcome to email me personally if you wish to continue this discussion with me.

By JJJS

April 11, 2007 8:09 PM | Link to this

Here I see a red herring thrown in that is the size of an elephant. Minotaur writes, I quote: “there will be good reviews, mediocre ones, and bad ones.” Sure, but that’s not the only system Amazon reviews can be categorized. Here another taxonomy, completely orthogonal, and more relevant to our conversation here: there are honest and dishonest reviews. Honest reviews can be good, middling, and bad, and none of it has anything to do with what we’re talking about here. The Harried Klausner Problem is not that her reviews are bad (though they are, and ridiculously so), but that she doesn’t read what she reviews, cannot possibly read what she reviews, and she doesn’t even care to AT LEAST look legitimate: she thinks nothing of posting sixty reviews in one day. No human can read this number of books daily. So she’s a fraud, and THAT is the crux of the matter.

By JJJS

April 11, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this

Minotaur, why don’t you then leave it to Amazon to decide what can and cannot be done on their site ? Instead, that is, of trying to appear speaking on their behalf. They can take care of themselves, I trust; meantime, self-proclamed diviners of the Mysterious Will of Amazon.com have no traction with me — nor anyone else, one hopes. To summarize: speak for yourself, speak clearly, and be brief.

By Lonnie E. Holder

April 11, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this

I cease reading comments for a few days and all heck breaks loose. I guess I should drop in here more often. MINOTAUR, I find you comments interesting. Some are extremely appropriate. One thing everyone needs to remember that reviewing and comments are a matter of perspective. MINOTAUR: I noticed that you thought it was appropriate that Barbara and M Krysztofiak had comments removed, and somehow my name failed to come up in that conversation. I will point out that I have had some of the longest and harshest comments for Ms. Klausner; yet not one of my comments has been removed. I would like to believe (self-delusional person that I am) that the reason I have had no comments removed is that my comments are largely factual. Do I point out spelling and grammatical errors? Yes. Why? Because Harriet makes so many of them that she misleads and angers potential buyers. Far more reviews from Harriet have been removed for violating guidelines than comments from Barbara Delaney and M Krysztofiak, put together. I agree with you that Amazon has excellent reviews, average reviews and bad reviews. Fortunately, most of the “top reviewers” are sincere individuals who want to write a helpful review. Are some of those reviews “bad”? Likely. The words that flow from these fingers are not all gems (actually, most or all are not). I admire most of the top reviewers I have encountered. I have communicated with some of them and have received appreciative messages when I have pointed out errors. I too have thanked people for spotting mistakes in my reviews. Harriet, on the other hand, writes consistently poor to bad reviews. Her facts are wrong, her grammar is difficult if not impossible to read, and when she is relatively coherent, she often makes no sense. I could pull out dozens of examples from recent reviews, but I will spare you. You also pointed out that the entire review system and the privileges granted by Amazon are part of a gimmick that helps sell books. You are 100% correct. One of the privileges that Amazon has granted is the privilege of commenting on reviews. Since that privilege is an extension of the review privilege, I am unable to see that anyone has the “right” to criticize any comment made about a review unless that comment is inappropriate. Incidentally, that includes authors. I am the person who said “get a life,” and I stand by that statement. If authors do not like the system, they have the right to complain. Everyone has the right to complain. Amazon does not have to do anything about the complaints. Let me add at this point that one of the people I attempted to engage in rational conversation was “MM,” who you claim was bullied into removing her comments. I disagree. Several of us tried to ask questions about the quality of Harriet’s reviews and the points we raised, and the response was completely misaligned with the questions. MM left for MM’s reasons. I would have preferred MM, or Harriet, for that matter, remain and engage in intellectual discussion of her reviews and why they are written so poorly. Alas, Harriet has yet to come down from Mount Klausner to engage in this type of conversation, the only top reviewer who has rejected communication from me. To me such behavior speaks of arrogance (you may argue otherwise, but I think a person most often fails to communicate because that person thinks they are better than everyone else). Amazon may or may not be happy or unhappy about the comments left for Harriet. My thought: too bad. I buy products on Amazon and have for many years. I use the amateur reviews rather than the professional reviews to guide me in my buying decisions. I seek out what appears to be the best written reviews. I am annoyed when I only have one or two reviews to choose from and they are written as poorly as Harriet Klausner’s. I personally think top reviewers should have a certain level of quality - or at least try to - and I am embarrassed to be a top reviewer alongside Harriet. I have recently been thinking about no longer writing reviews on Amazon and no longer purchasing products from them precisely because of Harriet. I get to make that decision. Until I make that decision I plan on continuing to provide suggestions to Harriet, even if she continues to ignore me. I should also point out that no one has to click on the comments button to read what Barbara Delaney, M Krysztofiak and I, or the slowly building group of other people providing comments, have written. Just like everything else related to Amazon, it was a personal choice they made that is allowed by Amazon.

By Barbara Delaney

April 11, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Amazon writes the guidelines and I adhere to them. You say you haven’t taken a stand on the morality of posting dishonest reviews because ” it doesn’t matter”. It matters to me and to others who have commented. Where is the social ettiquette in comparing someone to a child murderer or to a mob of witch burners? What does Emily Post say about filling my inbox with obscene and threatening comments? How about the phone call I received from a Friend of Harriet? I don’t hide behind a fake name. You will find that those of us who object to HK’s activities have the courage of our convictions to say in public and in our own names what we think. We do not resort to the anonymous phone call to be heard.

By The Minotaur

April 11, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Scott, you are being naive. You say “I don’t think they adequately counter the points made by those who think dishonest reviewing on Amazon is not right, and the right those of us who use the system have to actively fight it.” First of all, I never took a stand either for or against dishonest reviewing because in this case it hardly matters. Those of you who write Amazon reviews may think that you are a “part of the community” but you are forgetting that Amazon is a commercial web site. You are not a community or culture at all. You are willing volunteers in an advertising gimmick that Amazon is using to draw customers to their web site and keep them there. Amazon permits you to vote on reviews, participate in forums, and create profiles and other personal items. But they do it solely so you’ll spend your money there. The fact that people take Amazon reviews so seriously and express such righteous indignation for something so trivial is indicative of how well Amazon’s gimmick is working. But regardless, it’s still just a gimmick, and one that Amazon can set the rules for as it chooses. Since reviewing is open to everyone, there will be good reviews, mediocre ones, and bad ones. No one is forcing customers to read Harriet’s reviews or to trust them. The same applies to every other Amazon reviewer. Secondly, being that Amazon is a business, freedom of speech does not apply to their web site. You are entitled to no rights other than those which Amazon grants you. That means you do not have the right to fight for a reviewing standard. You do not have the right to define which reviewer should be number one, number two, or number two million. You have no more right than Harriet to write whatever kind of reviews you choose, as long as all of you adhere to Amazon’s guidelines. You have no right to use the review comment feature to malign a reviewer or Amazon customer personally, and it also violates the most basic social etiquette. If Harriet throws a spoiler into a review or uses obscenities, then fine - report the review to Amazon. But other than that, you have absolutely no right to “fight” or to dictate which reviewers should or should not be allowed to post reviews. Amazon writes the guidelines. You don’t. Accept it and move on.

By Barbara Delaney

April 11, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

How typical for a Friend of Klausner to resort to the hyperbole of comparing our comments to the Salem Witch Trials. Fourteen women lost their lives during those trials. Hundreds were imprisoned and half a dozen men were executed as well. That is a ridiculous and completely outlandish comparison. I never posted a single comment on HK’s reviews until I first read hundreds of them. The immeasurable monotony of her reviews coupled with the high error rate soon convinced me that I was not reading the dispassionate appraisals of a literary critic but that of a huckster. When I read her post where she pretended to have read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn I finally had enough of her naseous twaddle. She is a liar. I don’t like liars. I think having all of her reviews available at Amazon has had a corrosive effect on that site. If Amazon or Harriet’s champions want to feign belief in her supposed super-powers and act in full complicity with her mendacious activities they should expect skepticism.

By M Krysztofiak

April 11, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Minotaur, How surprising that your vitriolic and preposterous assault on the likes on Barbara, Lonnie, and I (as well as implied accusations against some others) comes equipped in a convenient package of anonymity. Your message can be succinctly described as nothing but spin—albeit presented in an entertaining collage of vividly portrayed ad hominem attacks and misrepresentations. One key principle of this world of which you should be made aware, my pseudonymly-inclined friend, is that truth is not dictated by a consensus, or even via one individual’s delusional, but persistent, rhetoric. In light to this, perhaps a brief lesson in logic will allow reason to sprout roots in that brain of yours. A critic’s number of reviews does not invalidate his/her arguments. A critic’s response to the multi-layered and frequent attacks of an internet troll does not invalidate his/her arguments. A critic notifying an author “to get a life” (in context, appropriate, since the author was politely, but also impudently, spouting absolute nonsense as to where comments should be placed) does not invalidate his/her arguments. A critic’s motives (as proposed by you) do not invalidate his/her arguments. Or, more correctly, what you THINK someone’s motives are does not invalidate what they say in any logical (and therefore important) way. By extension, it can safely be stated that all of your comments are unimportant mischaracterizations and misrepresentations. In addition, you seem to delight in employing one of the oldest, but still quite fallacious, illogical arguments known to humanity: the appeal to authority. Read my words: just because a romance author said the “bloodletting” was “icky” does not, de facto, MEAN that our comments are, 1) “icky”, 2) vicious, or 3) unwarranted. Simply because you FEEL that our criticism of Harriet is “bad” does not make it so; likewise, simply because “some romance author” FEELS that our criticism of Harriet is “icky” does not make it so. On the other hand, by any objective measurement, Harriet’s reviews are: inaccurate, grammatically incorrect, implausibly numerous, etc. Your comment flies in the fact of all respectable logic—I kindly ask you to leave facts to those who are fit to recognize them. Here are some FACTS for your consciousness to ponder before redoubling your assault on rationality. 1) Harriet reviews books in a numerically-implausible, grammatically-incoherent, and plot-inconsistency-filled way that is simply divorced from reality. 2) The “one defender” which we “taunted” was systematically targeting EVERY single one of our comments, and replying in a cough manner that revealed his/her ignorance and/or illiteracy, take your pick. S/he was hardly an innocent bystander, and I strongly suspect that the main reason she removed her comments was so that our comments would appear to be arguing with thin air. 3) The “many” authors which have “complained” about our comments have been exactly TWO in number. One, whose comment appears in this blog, showed her true colors with a quite unseemly display of bile directed against a critic of John Matlock “Gunny’s” review of her book. The second kindly directed us to post our comments regarding review content in some other place; wherefore should that be, besides the space marked “COMMENT”, seen at the end of every Amazon review? 4) Although I think I may have a steal your “Dirty Dozen” nomenclature for my own uses, being quite amusing, you are again incorrect in your estimate of the Harriet/Gunny/etc-critical population. I have noticed new names commenting literally every day for the past three weeks or so: let me help you with that calculation, 12 (original, by your count) + 1/day for 21 days = 33 persons. This is, itself, a conservative estimate. 5) It is indeed true that one each of Barbara’s and my comments have been removed in the last week, both for dubious reasons which, as yet, remain unexplained. Both Barbara and I never violate Amazon’s comment guidelines regarding profanity, slurs, etc., so the one conclusion (until answers from Amazon present themselves) is that the comment removal was politically expedient. Needless to say, although the name-dropping of such illustrious individuals as myself and Barbara may increase your status in the eyes of your peers, please note that none of “us” stoop to such depths—so please, for ease of your understanding, keep your mouth shut about specific individuals’ names. Additionally, it was a rather strange thing for you to judge Vick’s status (i.e., journalist versus rabble-rouser). I would postulate that it is a rare renter indeed who openly disparages his landlord. The rest of us see no difficulty separating Vick from the stories that he covers: having a hard time keeping your focus? Try showing a little objectivity and less bombast next time. MK

By Scott Stratton

April 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Minotaur and Brockheim(?), Your points are not unreasonable, but I don’t think they adequately counter the points made by those who think dishonest reviewing on Amazon is not right, and the right those of us who use the system have to actively fight it. I am not the smartest or most eloquent of the debaters here, but I would ask you to begin by discussing the points I’ve made. I still argue that unless you are going to hole up in your house and refuse to engage the world, you have the right to try and shape the culture of the groups you join. Amazon has clearly set up a place for such a culture to be formed. I want it to be one of honesty and fairness. Maybe some of the “anti-Harriet’s” have gone too far. I would oppose that too. But I haven’t heard anyone craft a convincing argument as to why it doesn’t matter. I haven’t heard a convincing argument that dishonest reviews are a non-issue and those of us protesting are just spitting in the wind or indulging ourselves. I’ll repeat my arguments briefly: Amazon created and invited people to a place where people could exchange ideas about books and other products (I think we can all agree books are biggest part of this debate). Millions of people are daily shaping the culture of that “place”. Some of them are obviously, purposefully, and casually LYING. If you think that cannot be reasonably deduced from the evidence, then I guess we have no common ground. It is obvious that some are lying for personal gain and maybe lying for fun. Who knows for sure why? But, in my view, that is WRONG. If I was the only one of millions who felt that way, then I’d probably pack my bags and go. But I’m not; therefore that encourages me that the culture I want to be a part of can and should be fought for. Why don’t you two think it is? Ignore, if you can, anyone who is anti-Harriet for reasons you think are spurious. I agree with you that being insulting, stalking, etc. is also inappropriate. That is another part of the dialog we should all have. But let’s stick to this point - what is wrong with my argument, summarized above and detailed in other posts? I am truly interested in your thoughts. Scott

By The Minotaur

April 10, 2007 9:54 PM | Link to this

What conclusions can we draw, Vick? Besides the obvious one about the quantity and quality of Harriet’s reviews, the next most important conclusion is that Amazon has been far too lenient with the recent comments. The display of rudeness, sarcasm, and insults in the Amazon comments has been incredible. This mass hysteria can be described as the cyber version of road rage. The critics are angry, and Harriet just happens to be a convenient target upon which to vent their spleen. Why are they angry? Well it can’t be because Harriet’s reviews insult their integrity as reviewers, since the majority of them have only written a handful of reviews themselves, if any. It can’t be that they feel misled, since they know that a single customer review is not the be-all and end-all recommendation. Whatever the reason, they are going for the jugular not only with Harriet, but also with anyone who defends her or appreciates the books/genres she reviews. They taunted one defender for using poor English and for being Harriet in disguise, and the defender was bullied into removing all his/her responses. In spite of the fact that the offenders feel that their anti-Harriet movement has gained a lot of momentum, in reality you see the same dozen people posting most of the comments. In spite of what others may have said here, there are as many authors upset by the rude comments as those who agree with them. One author recently asked the offenders to move their comments elsewhere (and one of the responses to this was “Get a life”). On a romance writer’s web site, one author referred to the Amazon bloodletting as “icky.” As for you Vick, I wouldn’t exactly call this book blog an example of investigative journalism. It’s more like stirring the pot to see what bubbles to the surface. That’s not a bad thing, however, since it has deflected at least some of the nastiness from Amazon to your blog. I assure you that Amazon is aware of the Salem Witch Trials being conducted against poor Harriet, and they’re not happy. They assured me that they will continue to remove comments. It’s not surprising that Barbara Delaney and M. Krysztofiak, two of the worst offenders, are among the first to have their comments removed.

By Brockeimia - The Absurd World of Brockeim

April 10, 2007 9:53 PM | Link to this

Harriet Klausner seems to cause much unusual distress among readers. The best solution is for someone to write better reviews. Find a book she has reviewed and review it better. Simple as that. As an Amazon reviewer, I understand that not all reviews meet a level of quality all prefer. Hers meet the needs of some customers, not all. The next reviewer, Lawrance Bernabo, does so with great skill and obvious knowledge. He has flown under the radar, but deserves accolades. Reviewers, whether on Amazon or a small town paper, always have gotten free books. No one is obligated to read them, or to review them positively. Sing Along With Brockeim: “Stairway to Heaven” parody (Stairway to Amazon Or, the Battle of Lawrance and Harriet) http://brockeim.blogspot.com/2007/02/stairway-to-amazon-or-battle-of.html http://brockeim.com

By Barbara Delaney

April 10, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

Amazon has now begun to remove some of our comments from Harriet Klausner’s reviews. So far at least one of M. Krysztofiak’s has been removed and one of my own. I know that I read Amazon’s guidelines very carefully and adhered to them strictly. Other comments that are in obvious violation to their own guidelines remain up. The activities of the Friends of Klausner, or FOK’s, have continued unabated. I’m amused by the fact that they call us stalkers, yet I’ve had to block unwanted email from them, change settings on my caller I.D. and notify the phone company about calls of a harrassing nature. These are incessant automatons of such ignorance and credulity and they have placed their faith in this implausible reviewer. Their anonymity has made them significantly more aggressive than I feel they would be if they had to identify themselves.

By Maura

April 10, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

Was kind of intrigued when I stumbled on the Harriet Klausner conspiracy so I started by looking her up on barnesandnoble.com. She doesn’t have very many reviews and they are all very old but what I found interesting is that some of her comments appear under the “From the Publisher” section. Also, she seems to have posted more than one review per book. I encountered at least three different e-mail addresses for her. I’m going to keep watching this story!

By JJJS

April 9, 2007 9:08 PM | Link to this

I think the system operates exactly the way it’s designed to. Amazon has obviously pulled a major PR coup by selling this review system to the public as some kind of community service, but in reality it’s no more than a large promotional machine intended for the publishing industry to use. The reviews by unattached, honest readers probably constitute only a small minority of the overall mass of reviews, the rest being written to order. Top Reviewers, nearly all of them, solicit reviews, now, what sense does this make if they’re not being compensated for it in some ways? The whole system is a joke and a paragon of willful misrepresentation. What to do about it? I’m not a lawyer (would be interesting to see one analyze the situation). But perhaps simply try to always be aware and, in addition, spread the word so as to increase the ranks of the aware. There should be more permanent page on the net with this sort of discussion, and, it’s very easy to set up a blog or a personal page, so please go ahead and do just that; don’t just rely on Vick Mickunas (whom I thank for his articles: the first ever that address the issue AND make sense at the same time).

By Office Lover

April 7, 2007 2:42 AM | Link to this

I have been quite vocal about Grady Harp and his voting pattern, and often times people try to dismiss my observations as inconsequential. I first started noticing Grady about a year ago. Every time a review posted, within a half hour it would instantaneously rack up 13/13 votes. Then a while later, it was bumped to 18/18, then 26/26, then 33/33, then 36/36—every review, every day. It might be 3-4 items a day—a classical music CD, a coffee table book, a foreign DVD, it doesn’t matter and the votes instantly accrue. Every time I would say something via comments and the discussion board, though, Grady would start varying his voting pattern. One day, I tracked the votes as they came in 4 blocks stretched over the day until he reached the necessary 36/36. Anyone who is interested can check Grady’s comments as I left a record of that particular occurrence on the reviews. But when the attention dies down, he’s back to all votes being cast instantly. This variation, based on comments, is proof that different people are not doing the voting! If 40 individuals were casting separate votes, they would not all stop dramatically at the same time. A lot of people don’t care because they don’t improve his ranking. However, the larger ethical question that is being posed here has to do with integrity and manipulating the system for profit. Grady’s high vote totals are a signal to potential suppliers that this is someone who might be good to review their products. “Oh, look at this guy—he has almost 40 votes in one day, he must have a following!” Wouldn’t you want to put your product in the hands of someone who would give it the most exposure? Grady’s fake votes are a fraud perpetuated for his own gain—anyone that thinks it’s just about rankings is being short-sided. Not even Harriet or Gunny is this blatant. Not one other review in the top 1000 has this kind of voting record. Check it out.

By Wayne Klein

April 7, 2007 1:09 AM | Link to this

First disclosure: I’m ranked at #25 (I made it to that spot after writing reviews for seven years) for reviewers at amazon.com. While I’ve rarely read (or voted on)Harriet’s reviews(or any others for that matter unless they’ve helped me to decide to make a purchase), I would agree that amazon’s system is flawed. It would be pretty easy to get away with voter fraud. The system has become a popularity contest and positive votes reflect more that the reader of the review agrees with the reviewer rather than if the review was helpful to the consumer in making a purchase (which is what this sytem was set up to do). In many respects, Amazon.com’s reviewer system has become a marketing tool. I can’t tell you how many unsolicited review requests, offers to receive free items, etc. that I’ve received over the years. In 9 out of 10 cases I turn them down unless it’s something I’d truly be interested in reviewing but in most cases I’ve purchased the items on my own. A number of suggestions for fixing the review system; 1)the reviewer system is reset every year. You can only count votes for the current year. 2)Require the scanning code on the back be input before a review is published. 3)Don’t carry over reviews of earlier editions to current ones. 4)Require something be purchased within the last year to register a vote. 5)Tally votes based on buying habits, i.e., if a positive review was given and the item was purchased by the voter give a point to the reviewer. It’s not a perfect system and Amazon.com has tried to change the system to prevent fraud but the way the system is current set up hanging chads abound. Implimenting some of these changes will prevent trolls from giving votes to manipulate the ranking system.

By Lonnie E. Holder

April 6, 2007 11:39 PM | Link to this

JJJS: I am currently reviewer #107 - assuming that the pervasive neggenators have not driven me higher. I seem to have acquired several since criticizing Harriet. Anyway, I mostly read books, CD’s and VHS/DVD’s that I (gasp!) purchased. There are other top reviewers who are sincere in what they do and try hard to write helpful reviews. I have written reviews with only one star up to five stars. If you think I am like reviewers like Harriet Klausner or Gunny Matlock, I would be pleased to engage in a dialogue via e-mail so that I can attempt to disabuse you of that notion. My e-mail is lonholder@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you! Lonnie

By Susiq2

April 6, 2007 7:24 PM | Link to this

Yesterday I was very concerned about the possibly of a “Scientific;Medical;or Chemistry manual not being reviewed properly.I talked to my husband who reassured me that he, and his partners, only buy “Peer” reviewed medical and pathological chemistry; and diagnostics manuals.In his small world they probably know each other anyway. ( I once had “Mayo Clinic” call our home by mistake.Yeesh)I am still distressed that people are not doing honest reviews, but at least no one is dying because of it.( That I know about!) Susiq2

By JJJS

April 6, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

You know, I’m wondering if this Top Reviewer hierarchy isn’t more like a reviewers’ directory than anything else. Just so that any publisher/author could have easy access to just the right kind of individual. And all the supposed honorifics that go with a reviewer “status” is just mimicry — an attempt to cover the bare commercial interest with some politically correct, baby-talking BS. Just out of curiosity, check out any number of Top Reviewers and tell me who from amongst them does look legit to you? To hell with NK personally: find one “top” reviewer who’s NOT like that.

By Susiq2

April 6, 2007 6:37 PM | Link to this

I was sincerely distressed about the possibility that my husband may have purchased a science/Pathology/ chemistry book through Amazon that could have false reviews. If someone is cheated on a (say) “work of fiction”, no one dies; in medical tomes, that is different. My hubby said that he never buys a Medical Book that has not been reviewed by his “peers”. Okay, That means that he reconizes the person who WROTE the book, and the person who reviewed it. In his small world, they probably all know each other:>).I was sincerely thankful to hear that good news. However, people are being cheated, and ,frankly, lied to, and I do not think that is right, and it should be stopped……..Susiq2

By Scott Stratton

April 6, 2007 6