Amazon's latest policy: authors can't review other authors' books

[justbishop]

Does someone need a lesson in reading comprehension?

I suppose it's possible, I've been drinking for a few days straight at my inlaws' house...but I don't think I was misunderstanding.

You're saying that you agree with Amazon in that you believe it perfectly fine for me to review a YA title at this moment, but once I sign a contract for the YA novella I have out being read by publishers right now, it becomes unethical for me to ever review another YA title?

If that's the case, then yes, that seems ridiculous to me.

 

[bearilou]

Uh...what? So once I become published, it becomes unethical for me to make my opinion on another published author's work known on a public venue, simply because I happen to be one of the millions of published writers in the world?

You're saying that you agree with Amazon in that you believe it perfectly fine for me to review a YA title at this moment, but once I sign a contract for the YA novella I have out being read by publishers right now, it becomes unethical for me to ever review another YA title?

I just had to reread what Thoth said. No where did he indicate he thought it was unethical. He said he didn't see a need. He said that it could reek of reciprocation. He questioned the wisdom of applying not reading your own reviews to the wisdom of writing reviews for others.

Unethical never came up once.

disclaimer: I am not Thothguard nor am I a representative for Thothguard's estate.

 

[Gilroy Cullen]

While I understand the brunt of the policy (to stop the sock puppet reviews and attack reviews to make one's book look better), I believe that the policy is flawed and will encourage more sock puppetry rather than less.

If every review has to be a positive review on Amazon now, I'll find my reviews elsewhere... (Which I already do for most things anyway...)


Suddenly, Librarything reviews are looking very useful...

 

[jairey]

Loi McMaster Bujold's latest has two one star reviews from people who are upset that the publisher isn't doing e-book releases the way they want. They've been up for over a month -- I, for one, reported abuse (and I suspect others have as well) -- and they're still up. Also: BAEN had the book available from their site as kindle-format for $6 while (apparently) negotiating with Amazon. It's now available on Amazon for 9.99 -- and Baen is also 9.99 now.

 

[Rhoda Nightingale]

I just had to reread what Thoth said. No where did he indicate he thought it was unethical. He said he didn't see a need. He said that it could reek of reciprocation. He questioned the wisdom of applying not reading your own reviews to the wisdom of writing reviews for others.

Unethical never came up once.

disclaimer: I am not Thothguard nor am I a representative for Thothguard's estate.

If I might interject here:

I assumed that justbishop's first post was in response to the Amazon kerfuffle itself, not a direct response to thoth's opinion even though it happened to fall underneath it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I never got the impression that the pair of them were engaging directly until thoth made that "reading comprehension" comment.

 

[aruna]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Same here.

 

[thothguard51]

Rhoda,

JB quoted and responded to my comment, thus my polite reply compared to what I wanted to say...

 

[victoriastrauss]

If every review has to be a positive review on Amazon now, I'll find my reviews elsewhere... (Which I already do for most things anyway...)

I just got a very stupid two-star review from someone with delusions about their knowledge of history, and an even stupider one-star review from someone who admits they didn't read the book--so Amazon is definitely not barring negative reviews from non-authors.

- Victoria

 

[Phaeal]

Like others, I base purchases solely on my reading of an excerpt. Blazingly good reviews have no effect on my hand-to-wallet reflex. Neither do crushingly bad ones.

Well-written reviews, whether positive or neutral or negative, I read for their own entertainment value. GIFs of adorable kittens or cute guys in the throes of violent emotion are also a plus. Zon's got the excerpts, GR's got the GIFs. Fight on!

 

[Amadan]

I'm always amazed that people are still spouting this "Reviews are worthless because I read a stupid review and some reviewers are ignorant and blah blah blah" nonsense.

You can read a book and decide whether you think it's a good book, right? So can't you read a review and decide whether you think the reviewer know what they're talking about or has their head up their ass?

In most cases, even on Amazon, the difference between a worthwhile review and an uninformed stupid review is glaring.

I do sometimes read a book (or decide not to) based on reviews. Rarely based on a single review, but if several well-articulated reviews mention the same thing, it is likely to sway me.

I've also decided to read a book based on a very negative review. Or decided based on a gushing review that it's not my thing.

"Reviews are worthless" is the sort of thing embittered writers say.

Personally, I can accept Amazon's policy in this case. Why? I just don't see the need for a published writer to issues reviews for other published writers. It still reeks of wash my back and I'll wash yours.

Besides, if its not wise to read reviews of your own book, then why is it wise to write reviews of other writers books. I just think it opens a can of worms and why I no longer do reviews.

I just had to reread what Thoth said. No where did he indicate he thought it was unethical. He said he didn't see a need. He said that it could reek of reciprocation. He questioned the wisdom of applying not reading your own reviews to the wisdom of writing reviews for others.

Unethical never came up once.

I think there is a pretty clear implication of unethicality.

I am also boggled that "writers shouldn't review other writers' books" is becoming some sort of standard being advocated for nowadays. Writers have always reviewed other writers' books! Many book reviewers are also writers. It's ridiculous and absurd to say that you shouldn't be reviewing your "competition." We're not buying toasters here. If I buy your book, it doesn't mean I'm not going to buy that other book in the same genre that came out this month.

The only time I see unprofessionalism coming into it is when there are either Circles of Squee (most often occurring among YA authors) or when you get author feuds that turn into grudgey polemics about one another's work... and who doesn't like a good author-on-author smackdown.

(Back when author-on-author smackdowns were witty and intelligent and not Goodreads catfights, that is.)

 

[aruna]

I'm always amazed that people are still spouting this "Reviews are worthless because I read a stupid review and some reviewers are ignorant and blah blah blah" nonsense.

You can read a book and decide whether you think it's a good book, right? So can't you read a review and decide whether you think the reviewer know what they're talking about or has their head up their ass?



"Reviews are worthless" is the sort of thing embittered writers say.

Thank you. When I've read a book and either hate or love it, I DO read reviews, and I've never, ever, seen a review that says THiS BOOK SUX or THIS BOOK ROX. Perhaps because I don't read the sort of book that invites that kind of review? I look for detailed, intelligent, articluate reviews, and ALL books I read get that kind of review. I prefer to read reviews after I've read a book, not before. It's a substitute for a book discussion, maybe. I just like to see what other readers think about books I've read. Sometimes I go back months later to see what new reviews are up for particular books. Reader review reading is part of the fun of reading, and it doesn't matter if its on amazon or goodreads.

 

[justbishop]

Rhoda,

JB quoted and responded to my comment, thus my polite reply compared to what I wanted to say...

Yes, you are correct, my post was in direct reply to yours

And I understand that the word "unethical" was never used by thoth, but I felt it was implied in the following bolded. Maybe I should have asked why my review instantly begins to reek of "wash my back and I'll wash yours" at the moment I sign a publishing contract. But it's semantics, IMO. The feeling behind the post seems to me to be that published authors posting reviews of other writers' work on Amazon is somehow shady (or if we want to sound fancy, "unethical"), an idea which I find ridiculous. Apologies if I am misinterpreting:

Personally, I can accept Amazon's policy in this case. Why? I just don't see the need for a published writer to issues reviews for other published writers. It still reeks of wash my back and I'll wash yours.

Besides, if its not wise to read reviews of your own book, then why is it wise to write reviews of other writers books. I just think it opens a can of worms and why I no longer do reviews.

 

[thothguard51]

JB,

Not saying your wrong on how you feel about giving reviews. Not my intention.

To help you understand my feelings though, go to a site like Goodreads or Amazon's author pages, and you'll find hundreds of self published and small indie authors begging for reviews, in exchange for reviews. This is where the reeking comes in for me...

Is this unethical? I don't know because it has become a standard business practice amongst the self published, as pushed by the self publishing gurus. Of course, most readers who are not writers will not understand if there is/was a rub my back and I'll rub yours agreement between writers.

Another example are these author blog tours going around. Its self published writers supporting other self published writers. You only hear about the good in a book and never the bad. Have you read any of these blog tours where the blogger challenged the writer on the style, grammar, structure, pace, PoV, or any number of issues with a book? No. Why? Because they won't get any more guest writers on their blogs...

As to authors reviewing other authors, its how I found Bernard Cornwell from a GRR Martin interview with Cornwell. I have found many authors I have never heard of from reading reviews by other authors I admire in reputable review sites. I have nothing against these type of reviews. I have also found a few self published writers I have enjoyed, from sites that are not review sites, like AWC.

I got no problem with writers reviewing writers. But lets face it, Goodreads is not exactly a reputable review site anymore and Amazon is trying to stop the scratch my back and I'll scratch yours game...

I do find some of the flame wars over book reviews and threads on GR very amusing though.

 

[Sophia]

Even reading Amazon reviews is silly. They've never been the least bit trustworthy. Fake reviews, you review my book and I'll review yours, I hate this guy so I'm giving the book one star, I like her so the book gets a great review, and may someday I'll even read it, on and on.

It doesn't matter whether other writers, or a bunch of monkeys do the reviews. They're all useless.

And you're basing this sweeping generalisation on what, exactly? AW members have posted in this thread that they have written Amazon reviews. Perhaps you could visit one of their reviews, and show us the untrustworthy, fake, useless parts? Any review will do, seeing as how you know that ALL of them are such. And you know that because you've read ALL of them, even though doing such a thing is silly.

 

[EMaree]

Thoth, do you feel the same when reviews are traded with a promise of honesty? I know it's often difficult to be sure just how much personal connections are swaying a review but to me, trading an honest review for a honest review between two writers isn't that different from trading an ARC of a book in exchange for a honest review.

But I'll admit that I'm highly sympathetic towards authors looking for reviews because hey, it's tough out there.

Another example are these author blog tours going around. Its self published writers supporting other self published writers. You only hear about the good in a book and never the bad. Have you read any of these blog tours where the blogger challenged the writer on the style, grammar, structure, pace, PoV, or any number of issues with a book? No. Why? Because they won't get any more guest writers on their blogs...

Among the UK book blogger circles, 'author blog tours' are a common part of a trade published author's promotional efforts. The blog tour posts are usually guest posts by the author on a variety of subjects, and they're followed a day or two later by an honest review from the blogger.

It's not uncommon to see a touring author's books get a terrible review after their visit, but it would be considered impolite to insult the author in her own guest post/book tour post.

I haven't experienced these self-published author book tours so I can't comment, but since 'author blog tour' is a fairly common term I thought I'd give an opposing example.

 

[Calla Lily]

Even reading Amazon reviews is silly. They've never been the least bit trustworthy. Fake reviews, you review my book and I'll review yours, I hate this guy so I'm giving the book one star, I like her so the book gets a great review, and may someday I'll even read it, on and on.

It doesn't matter whether other writers, or a bunch of monkeys do the reviews. They're all useless.

Wow... Thanks for calling me a liar.

 

[thothguard51]

Emaree,

Explain to me how I as a reader know honest from a reciprocal review or a review of a friends book. Yes, I am somewhat the skeptical type...

As to the blog tours, I do find some here in the US to be fairly competent and honest, but I think they are too few. If a blogger pushes his or her own writing more than reviews of other writers books, then I see the site as just another advertising gimmick for the writer turned blogger. But that is just me...

Still, these may be things I will have to get used to and learn if I ever decide to self publish. Shivers...

 

[thothguard51]

Cally,

I'll read your reviews anytime. I know you put thought into giving honest reviews or you don't give them at all...

That does not mean we are going steady though...

 

[EMaree]

Thanks for the quick response, Thothguard! I can definitely understand being sceptical, though it's not an attitude I have personally -- partly I suspect because I'm picky about the book review blogs I follow, and partly because Amazon UK doesn't seem to have reached the same promotional frenzy as Amazon.com.

 

[Calla Lily]

Cally,

I'll read your reviews anytime. I know you put thought into giving honest reviews or you don't give them at all...

That does not mean we are going steady though...

Thanks.

 

[Amadan]

To help you understand my feelings though, go to a site like Goodreads or Amazon's author pages, and you'll find hundreds of self published and small indie authors begging for reviews, in exchange for reviews. This is where the reeking comes in for me...

Yeah, when it comes to self-published books, I do assume that any glowing review was the result of quid pro quo or review-begging or friends. But that's what I mean when I say that a discriminating reader can tell the difference between a real review and blatant fluffing. I look at a 5-star review for a self-published book and see that it is basically a plot synopsis with added superlatives, and that all the book's reviews are like that (especially if it's a self-published book and all the reviews are 4 or 5 stars) and it's pretty obvious what is going on.

That's not the same as reviews written for professionally published books.

 

[Filigree]

I can tell a junk review from a useful one inside of 20 seconds, just as I can tell if I'll be able to read a book without gagging within 3 sample pages. Put the two together, and they're an excellent filter.

As for catfight author-on-author scuffles, I'd be honored if my writing was skewered by some modern Dorothy Parker. I'd learn from it. The Amazon Temple of Positive Squee doesn't work for me, and I won't contribute to it.

 

[Calla Lily]

<snip> The Amazon Temple of Positive Squee <snip>

 

[justbishop]

Thoth, I totally see where you're coming from. Idk, I guess maybe I--like others have expressed--just feel like I can tell a "reciprocal scratching" review from a real one. I think the onus is also on the reader/buyer to do a bit of sleuthing for themselves if they are going to base their purchasing decisions on these crowsourced review systems, i.e. checking to see what other books the reviewer has reviewed, if they ever DON'T like something, whether the reviewer is a writer themselves, and if so who has reviewed THEIR books, etc.

I don't feel that all reviews by published authors (whether they came to the label via self or trade publishing) should automatically be approached as suspect, though, and I don't think that honest writers should have to feel like they are doing something shady if they want to review a fellow writer of their genre, that's all I'm saying. I guess I misinterpreted your first post as implying that we should feel weird about it.

 

[ishtar'sgate]

I never pay attention to reviews on sites that are selling that item. I look (if at all) for independent review sites or friends' recommendations.

Yes, this. I also use the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon.