[Note: This is the first post in a three-part series.  Enjoy!]

Amazon has gone over the top with their change in book review policy.  They have responded to the egregious practice where some authors ask family members and friends to write glowing reviews of their books.  These reviews often are little more than attempts to stuff the ballot box because Amazon’s algorithm counts positive reviews.  This practice, of course, offers no real service to readers and hurts authors who receive few but thoughtful reviews.  Amazon’s first attempt to correct this was to weigh negative reviews more than positive ones.  Now they’ve gone over the top.

Amazon, of course, caused its own problem.  It’s the biggest bookseller in the world, I suppose, so the ranking of a book on Amazon is a big deal.  It’s inevitable that some authors will try shenanigans to game the system.  There are two opinions here:  (1) That’s OK, because Amazon forces authors to do this; and (2) it’s morally ambiguous at best.  I suppose there’s a whole spectrum of thought between those extremes.  Joe Konrath, for example, one of the champions of self-publishing and now eBook publishing, has said he sees no problem with such chicanery (this is from the NY Times article mentioned below, so I won’t use quotes—I’m surprised Joe would say such a thing).  I tend to the second extreme.  You’ll find I don’t have many reviews (maybe a consequence of being too moral?).

I suppose Amazon would conclude that I don’t have too many family members or friends?  While that’s true, most of the ones I do have are generally too busy to write reviews.  I also think there’s a natural hesitation among them—they want to write a good review and they know that takes time and effort.  First, they need to read the book.  That takes time too.  Hopefully, it’s a pleasurable time, because my aim is to entertain.  Second, they need to go over the book a second time with a critical eye.  In my reading for pleasure, I usually don’t do that either.  I finish one book, say to myself, “That was a good (or bad) read,” and go on to the next.  I understand the reluctance to review a book with a critical eye.

Due to Amazon’s past myopia, I’ve been tempted to stuff the ballot box myself.  If you want to review one of my books, I’ll gift you a copy—or, if available as a trade paperback, I’ll send you one of those.  This is standard procedure.  If the Big Six (Five? Four?) can do it, why not indie authors?  I’ve even put into place a new policy to sweeten the deal: the reviewer can name a shut-in, disabled person, or favorite charity, and I’ll gift an eBook to them (snail mail postage will kill me here).  Is that a bribe?  I don’t think so.  If I ever have any takers, the first book for review will be counted as marketing and PR; the second will be listed as a charitable deduction—that’s what it is.

In my own way, I have suffered from Amazon’s new policy.  They removed a positive review of Survivors of the Chaos made by a reviewer at Sift Reviews, an independent online reviewing site specializing in sci-fi.  (You can read the review on my website and, of course, at Sift Reviews.)   I don’t understand this action.  Perhaps Amazon is trying to eliminate independent reviewing sites too?  I know that some months ago they started eliminating re-posts of reviews other reviewers and I made for Bookpleasures—we had to start eliminating the phrase “This review was written for Bookpleasures.”  If Amazon is truly a supporter of indie publishing, though, this reason seems hypocritical, greedy, and monopolizing.  (More on this in Part Two.)

David Strietfeld in the article “Giving Mom’s Book Five Stars? Amazon May Cull Your Review” (on the front page of Sunday’s December 23 edition of the NY Times, no less) summarizes the new policy.  As the title indicates, the reason discussed in my first paragraph is the principal one.  However, the article mentions that Amazon wants also to eliminate the practice of authors reviewing other authors.  Absurd!  While I appreciate good, honest reviews from any of my readers, other authors are versed in the tools of the trade.  Both Full Medical and The Midas Bomb had honest reviews removed by the Amazon censors applying this more restrictive and absurd policy.

I had one reviewer-author indicate my weakness with POV (point-of-view); I learned from this review.  It’s helpful to me to receive a critique on a book from another author.  On the other hand, I’m also a reviewer-author and resent Amazon even hinting that I just hand out positive reviews for my author acquaintances.  That would not be helpful to my friends!  I do emphasize storytelling and will forgive a few technical slips (these are often subjective anyway, i.e. personal prejudices), but I’ll often mention them in my Bookpleasures reviews as nits to pick.

Moreover, my reviews tend to be about the same length as my blog posts.  Recently, Amazon also became a stickler about the word-length of a review.  As a consequence, I often have to strip out information that could be very useful to a reader when I re-post to Amazon.  Apparently, Amazon only wants a simple thumbs up or thumbs down to make life simple for their algorithm (dare I say that the algorithm is not very well designed?).  Many people think readers are just interested in whether the book is a good buy.  I disagree.  I think readers are discerning and want as much information about a book as they can get.  I use good reviews as a buying tool.  I can generally tell when the reviewer is just giving Mom’s book five stars.

Amazon is also guilty of not screening reviewers.  I had one negative review of The Secret Lab by a reviewer who also reviews shoes and women’s apparel.  Mind you, I don’t take this personally, and blame Amazon more than the reviewer.  (Some might consider her three out of five stars a good review, but Amazon’s algorithm doesn’t.)  My readers know that The Secret Lab is a YA (young adult) novel.  I studied how to write YA for over a year.  I controlled both vocabulary and sentence length because the target audience is comprised of young adults 12 to 18.  The reviewer’s complaint?  The sentences weren’t long enough!  Again, I insist, this reviewer is entitled to her opinion and probably moves in an exclusive circle where she knows many precocious young adult readers.  My complaint is directed at Amazon.  Maybe this reviewer shouldn’t be reviewing YA books?

Most of the other online reviewing sites screen reviewers.  Their policies vary, but, generally speaking, reviews on them are more positive than negative.  Let me explain why, using my experience at Bookpleasures.  Fact: There aren’t enough reviewers (I’m being loose with the term, including all people who make it a habit of reviewing books, independently of their qualifications to do so).  Every week we’re offered many more books than we can ever read.  We pick and choose those we want to review.  That already represents a filtering.  In fact, depending on the percentage accepted, it can be a heavy filtering, probably more stringent than the one applied to the old slush pile at traditional publishers.

For some reason, a book catches the reviewer’s attention and he or she asks for a copy of the book (greatly simplified nowadays for eBooks since we can generally avoid snail mail by downloading online).  So, right from the start, I’m inclined to say something good about the book.  Occasionally, I can’t.  I don’t know about other sites, but Bookpleasures is brutally honest.  If a book is terrible, the review states that.  This is why, when we re-post to Amazon, Goodreads, or elsewhere, we ask the author’s permission to do so.  Presumably, he or she will not want to re-post a negative review.  My own tactic is to say something good about a book if I can, but I often find nits to pick too.

I often review books on my own as well, especially those I read in Spanish (sometimes I even write the review in both English and Spanish).  Again, choosing those books is already a filter.  I also read many more books than I review, but reviewing is much more than just reading.  As a reviewer, I’m examining a book through a writer’s microscope (and sometimes a scientist’s).  For fiction, I might emphasize story, but I’ve also reviewed non-fiction.  You put a different hat on.  I might still be in my recliner with my two fingers of Jameson, but that hat is now the hat of a professional writer.  In fact, I daresay Amazon is being stupid:  Professional writers are often the best critics of other writers’ books, as long as jealousies don’t enter.

By the way, I think reviewers who charge for their review should suffer a slow death from ricin, arsenic, nightshade, or some other nasty poison.  I’d especially like to see this happen for the big review services.  Kirkus, for example, charges $425 ($575 for express).  Come on!  I’ve never charged for a review in my life.  My payment is first in reading a new author (usually), and second in downloading a free eBook (I never review ones that are actually free).  Of course, I also review ARCs (advanced review copies), paperbacks, and hard-bounds, but authors must be prepared then to wait for snail mail.  (I read one trade paperback that was watermarked once—neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow was trumped by Mother Nature’s soaking on my front stoop).

Tomorrow: A New Years gift for my readers…the novella Flight from Mother World.

Next Thursday, Part Two: How Amazon is Destroying Indie Publishing.

In libris libertas….

[If you enjoyed this post, support this blog: buy, read, and review my books.]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 1st, 2013 at 4:00 am and is filed under Book Reviews, Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.