Anne Rice Vs Amazon: more on reviews (with flowchart)

Earlier this week, a member of the RWA, with a new book out, was quite hurt by a very nasty review which someone had posted about her new release. The members of RWA rallied around her, sharing their own experiences with such nasty-grams. Another member shared a link to this post, by KJ Charles, which really puts nasty reviews in perspective. But the very best part of this post, at least as far as I am concerned, is the flow chart which Charles provides at the end of the article, on how to deal with negative reviews on Amazon. I think all authors will enjoy KJ Charles post, and her flow chart!

KJ Charles

Anne Rice, among others, is calling for Amazon reviewers to be forced to give their real identities. ‘The Interview with the Vampire author is a signatory to a new petition calling on Amazon to remove anonymity from its reviewers in order to prevent the “bullying and harassment” it says is rife on the site,’ says The Guardian.

There’s no point going into the stupidity of this because it won’t happen. It would cause the number of Amazon reviews to drop like a rock (silencing not just those who don’t want to be harassed, but also anyone who doesn’t want their parents, partner or potential employer to see what they’re reading), and if there’s one thing Amazon likes other than gouging for gigantic discounts and exploiting workers, it’s onsite reviews. So that’s not what I want to talk about here. What I’m baffled by is…

Anne Rice reads her Amazon reviews…

View original post 513 more words


7 thoughts on “Anne Rice Vs Amazon: more on reviews (with flowchart)

  1. That does seem unduly narcissistic. I sometimes read my reviews, if I want to promote a book, and pick a couple to post on my author page, but to be honest, I don’t often think of it. To my mind it’s the money coming in that tells you more about how successful you are, and Anne Rice must have made a massive amount. I love the flow chart on the original. Very apt. One of my negative reviews had me laughing out loud; the reviewer, who was accusing me of ignorance, plainly didn’t know his subject. Morons are there to point at and giggle; the malicious should be pitied for not having a life; and those who didn’t like it are sad to waste their time reviewing when they could read something they do like.

    • What a perfect attitude! If the morons don’t like the book, why did they waste their time reading it, and even more time posting a review. Clearly a sign of diminished mental capacity!

      However, I did learn something interesting during the course of the discussions at RWA. Apparently, Amazon ranks books based on the total number of reviews they receive, not by the number of stars those reviews have. Which means even the nasty reviews are giving the books a lift in the rankings. So authors should value those one-star reviews, since they contribute to higher rankings for their books.



      • …. that’s insane.
        I have to say, I had always assumed that the rankings were based on sales. Which would seem to me to be the logical and sensible thing to base it on, rather than reviews, good or bad. Bums on seats, as it were, surely count for more than comments?

        • Actually, I think it is a good idea, since it helps to maintain a level playing field for all authors. Anyone with money, or a lot of family and friends, can jack up sales figures by buying a bunch of books. If ratings are based on review counts, the books that are generating the most buzz will get the best rankings. And it is nearly impossible for friends and family to stuff the review box, if you will, since it seems that Amazon has the means to determine if family or friends are trying to post reviews (probably based on email traffic) and they block them.

          Plus, if lots of people are writing reviews about a book, that means it is generating big interest. Not to mention that those same people are back on Amazon after they have read the book. More than likely, looking for another one, which they will almost certainly buy from Amazon. So, the Big A can tout that they have honest reviews, which is good for buyers, and writing those reviews will attract more buyers. Perhaps a bit Machiavellian, but effective for them.


          • I suppose so, but if anyone was rich enough to have people buying thousands of their own books, I wouldn’t have thought there would be a motive to get the ratings boosted because there wouldn’t be the need to boost sales by boosting the ratings… it seems counterproductive.

            • It is not all about money. For some authors, it is more about ego and prestige, which might be had, for a price, if ratings were based solely on sales.


              • Now that’s sad. How naive of me to assume that people who wrote had a life…. still, I suppose it would be no different in a way to those people who write LITERARY stuff that nobody wants to read but it wins prizes. The sort of thing that counterpoints the surrealism of the underlying metaphor if you know your Douglas Adams…

Comments are closed.