Amazon deleting one star reviews of Clintons new book

[rokzilla]

Lol....
ByPariShopson November 10, 2016

He's not doing any of the things in this book hahaha

ByAmazon Customeron December 28, 2016

Would not read this book.
Would not vote for this person to clean my toilet.

ByIanaon December 27, 2016

This man is delusional

By*^*on December 23, 2016

How to tank America again.

Glad to see amazon is just so absolutely committed to cleaning up all the reviews from unverified users. Guess which book that's from?

 

[rokzilla]

The mind of a Trump supporter.

This fails the quickest bullshit test immediately. There is zero, point zero fucking chance that the OP would have suspected any foul play by Amazon had these been troll reviews of a Coulter book. OP should go suck all of the things.

See my above post. Go fuck yourself.

 

[rokzilla]

From the Yahoo article :

"The online retail giant has a "verified purchase" option to signpost whether reviewers have bought a product, and none of the 42 reviewers leaving comments on Tuesday had done so."

Soooo... what's the problem with them deleting the reviews? Does it say anywhere that these people couldn't re-post a review and make sure they click the "verified purchase" option?

Look, I can see how this can be viewed as Amazon taking a political stance, but I think this is a poor place to hang your hat and say "this is the battle I want to fight." If people are reviewing the book without reading it, why should their reviews even be on the website? The amount of hate and discontent, on both sides of the aisle, is pretty over the top right now, so I have no issue with Amazon doing at least the bare minimum of moderation to ensure their rankings are relevant.

Do you have any evidence they are just straight up deleting 1-star reviews by verified purchasers?

Look at the unverified reviews of Trumps book I posted. Why weren't those deleted?

 

[Rational Poster]

Are they deleting five star reviews written by people who would rate it a 5 even if it was the most tedious bullshit they've ever read? There are two opposite ends of this spectrum on almost any popular and divisive movie/game/book/whatever, and wiping only one side of that equation out is going to skew things pretty wildly.

If there is an actual intent to keep the review weighted by legitimate praise/criticism, both the externally motivated one star and five star reviews should obviously be culled as much as they can. If the intent is more to protect someone the company wants to cast favourable light on for ideological or otherwise reasons, then obviously only the one stars should get culled. I wonder which one is going on here?...

Amazon is probably serving their customers that were complaining about the bogus reviews like they did previously for Megn Kelly's book.

I doubt it's as sinister as you wish it was.

 

[ehtheist]

Amazon is probably serving their customers that were complaining about the bogus reviews like they did previously for Megn Kelly's book.

I doubt it's as sinister as you wish it was.

So they're serving their customers by deleting only the negative bogus reviews, but not the positive?

You know, you're right. Sounds legit. My bad.

 

[Rational Poster]

So they're serving their customers by deleting only the negative bogus reviews, but not the positive?

You know, you're right. Sounds legit. My bad.

I really doubt Hillary is in Bezos's ear crying about the reviews on her book that hasn't started shipping.

 

[ehtheist]

I really doubt Hillary is in Bezos's ear crying about the reviews on her book that hasn't started shipping.

Did I suggest she was?... I'm pretty sure she isn't tickling the bumholes of many on this forum either, but more than a few here would likely draw pistols at dawn to defend her honor.

 

[Rational Poster]

Did I suggest she was?...

You seem to be suggesting some bias is at play, when there probably is no more than regular human bias.

IE, the customer service jockey fielding the complaint at Amazon.

 

[Fawlty]

See my above post. Go fuck yourself.

I refuse to go fuck myself. Now what? That's right, you're going to sit there and observe me not fucking myself. And then you're going to get mad at the words I'm typing.

Your post doesn't address what I said, in any way. I can try again. If Coulter, or whichever one of your preferred con artists you'd like to substitute, received obvious troll reviews, and Amazon deleted them for being troll reviews, you would not, at all, not even a little, have an objection to that. That's how you're full of shit here. Your objection is not to Amazon's behavior, but Amazon's behavior as it pertains to your bias. You're playing a dumb game that produces no winners. Your father played a similar game with your mother some time ago, but that was before you were born.

 

[usmctanker242]

Look at the unverified reviews of Trumps book I posted. Why weren't those deleted?

I don't know... do you? As for your original argument, do you have any evidence of them deleting 1-star reviews of "verified purchasers?" If not then this whole argument is pretty silly.

 

[ehtheist]

You seem to be suggesting some bias is at play, when there probably is no more than regular human bias.

IE, the customer service jockey fielding the complaint at Amazon.

What kind of bias do you think I'm suggesting, exactly, beyond "regular human bias"? I think "regular human bias" is quite adequate to explain what we are seeing here.

 

[Rational Poster]

What kind of bias do you think I'm suggesting, exactly, beyond "regular human bias"? I think "regular human bias" is quite adequate to explain what we are seeing here.

I guess you can't remember the bullshit you type.

I'm talking about this bullshit.

"If the intent is more to protect someone the company wants to cast favourable light on for ideological or otherwise reasons, then obviously only the one stars should get culled. I wonder which one is going on here?..."

That Amazon as an entity has some preference here. The only preference here is money.

Amazon wants to sell books, bad reviews hurt book sales. They could give a shit what the book is about. If they get reports of phony negative book reviews I will guarantee you that they will service those complaints before they service complaints of phony positive book reviews because that hurts sales.

 

[Scheme]

It's pretty reasonable to delete reviews written by people before the book is released.

Shouldn't they remove all the reviews then?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It's pretty reasonable to delete reviews written by people before the book is released.

So your complaint is that Amazon is deleting fake reviews written by people who didn't read the book?

Then why allow the 570 reviews still up?
It's pretty much 50/50 5 star/1 star @ this point.

Clinton collects reviews like she did super delegates: in advance

 

[ehtheist]

I guess you can't remember the bullshit you type.

I'm talking about this bullshit.

"If the intent is more to protect someone the company wants to cast favourable light on for ideological or otherwise reasons, then obviously only the one stars should get culled. I wonder which one is going on here?..."

That Amazon as an entity has some preference here. The only preference here is money.

Amazon wants to sell books, bad reviews hurt book sales. They could give a shit what the book is about. If they get reports of phony negative book reviews I will guarantee you that they will service those complaints before they service complaints of phony positive book reviews because that hurts sales.

Oh? The only preference here is money? Why do they stop where they do then? Why not just wipe out more of the 1 star reviews - even most of the totally legit sounding one? Hell, probably plenty of other ones too? I mean, if their book scores keep on going up, that has to translate to more sales somewhere along the way...

I don't suppose you have some verification that the only interest of Amazon is money? It is hardly unheard of for a company to show clear political biases - or would you suggest Koch brothers holdings don't have a clear political bias that may go beyond simply economic? I mean, the company itself has made small (around $200,000), but fairly even, donations between the Democrats and the Republicans, but Bezos himself?

"Now, Amazon the company is different from Bezos himself. As David Graham outlines here, Bezos has made his own donations over the years, largely to Democrats like Washington's two senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. He and his wife also donated $2.5 million to support a referendum on gay marriage last year in the state and opposed an effort to raise taxes in Washington on those making over $200,000 per year."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-lobbies-for-in-d-c/?utm_term=.2779a832feb5

I guess old Bezos must just think all the money is on the Democrat side, since that's where he donates.

But again, I don't think any specific or insidious bias is really required to explain why a company might fudge the numbers, so to speak, in favour of someone they like. I'm not sure why you even suggested it? It's perfectly reasonable for just regular human bias to explain favouring one political side over another...

 

[Rational Poster]

Oh? The only preference here is money? Why do they stop where they do then? Why not just wipe out more of the 1 star reviews - even most of the totally legit sounding one? Hell, probably plenty of other ones too? I mean, if their book scores keep on going up, that has to translate to more sales somewhere along the way...

I don't suppose you have some verification that the only interest of Amazon is money? It is hardly unheard of for a company to show clear political biases - or would you suggest Koch brothers holdings don't have a clear political bias that may go beyond simply economic? I mean, the company itself has made small (around $200,000), but fairly even, donations between the Democrats and the Republicans, but Bezos himself?

"Now, Amazon the company is different from Bezos himself. As David Graham outlines here, Bezos has made his own donations over the years, largely to Democrats like Washington's two senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. He and his wife also donated $2.5 million to support a referendum on gay marriage last year in the state and opposed an effort to raise taxes in Washington on those making over $200,000 per year."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-lobbies-for-in-d-c/?utm_term=.2779a832feb5

I guess old Bezos must just think all the money is on the Democrat side, since that's where he donates.

But again, I don't think any specific or insidious bias is really required to explain why a company might fudge the numbers, so to speak, in favour of someone they like. I'm not sure why you even suggested it? It's perfectly reasonable for just regular human bias to explain favouring one political side over another...

Again, you're blaming the entity rather than the individual customer support person handling the complaints.

 

[ehtheist]

Again, you're blaming the entity rather than the individual customer support person handling the complaints.

I see... So, when one of the people who seems to have a particular political bias in operation, as evidenced by Bezos's significant donations to almost exclusively Democratic political figures, is the actual head of the company, it's totally unreasonable to look at the organization as a whole when the organization does things like favourably edits reviews of the book of major democratic figures?

Oh boy, this is enlightening. When companies owned by the Koch Brothers do shady things that seem to be wildly biased in favour of the Right it'll be awesome when I can come in, tell everyone to take a step back and say "Guys, guys - it's totally unfair to pain the company as a whole as Right leaning - that's entirely on the person who is in charge of this particular action!" Boy will that thinking just revolutionize the way we think about corporations in politics around here Can I tag you for backup on the "Now now - it's not the company, it's just one guy who's biased here..." brigade?

 

[Jack V Savage]

When companies owned by the Koch Brothers do shady things that seem to be wildly biased in favour of the Right it'll be awesome when I can come in, tell everyone to take a step back and say "Guys, guys - it's totally unfair to pain the company as a whole as Right leaning - that's entirely on the person who is in charge of this particular action!" Boy will that thinking just revolutionize the way we think about corporations in politics around here Can I tag you for backup on the "Now now - it's not the company, it's just one guy who's biased here..." brigade?

There's nothing shady, but note that Amazon is a public company. Bezos founded it, owns a little under 17% of the shares, and is the CEO, but he doesn't have the kind of power over it that the Kochs have over Koch Industries (or the privately funded propaganda outlets they sponsor). Also, Bezos has never shown the same level of interest in creating political propaganda, and I sincerely doubt he'd be involved in anything at this petty level. I mean, at some point, don't you read what you're saying and think, "what the hell am I doing?" You don't *always* have to go down swinging for your tribe. Save your energy for a battle you can win.

 

[ehtheist]

There's nothing shady, but note that Amazon is a public company. Bezos founded it, owns a little under 17% of the shares, and is the CEO, but he doesn't have the kind of power over it that the Kochs have over Koch Industries (or the privately funded propaganda outlets they sponsor). Also, Bezos has never shown the same level of interest in creating political propaganda, and I sincerely doubt he'd be involved in anything at this petty level. I mean, at some point, don't you read what you're saying and think, "what the hell am I doing?" You don't *always* have to go down swinging for your tribe. Save your energy for a battle you can win.

You know, that's literally never what I think when I read what I'm doing... I have a very clean intellectual conscience.

 

[Rational Poster]

I see... So, when one of the people who seems to have a particular political bias in operation, as evidenced by Bezos's significant donations to almost exclusively Democratic political figures, is the actual head of the company, it's totally unreasonable to look at the organization as a whole when the organization does things like favourably edits reviews of the book of major democratic figures?

Oh boy, this is enlightening. When companies owned by the Koch Brothers do shady things that seem to be wildly biased in favour of the Right it'll be awesome when I can come in, tell everyone to take a step back and say "Guys, guys - it's totally unfair to pain the company as a whole as Right leaning - that's entirely on the person who is in charge of this particular action!" Boy will that thinking just revolutionize the way we think about corporations in politics around here Can I tag you for backup on the "Now now - it's not the company, it's just one guy who's biased here..." brigade?

It think it's disingenuous to suggest there is any parity between the Koch brothers and their operation vs the retail sales outlet that Amazon is.