Friday, October 24, 2008

Revolution At Amazon!

On October 23 Amazon changed its method of ranking reviewers. Unfortunately, its explanation of the changes I find largely unintelligible. If anyone has a clear understanding of the changes, a posting to that effect would be much appreciated. Its new way, as far as I can discern, is just about as opaque as was its old one. Apparently the only abuse targeted is positive or negative serial voting by individuals or gangs of Amazon "Friends." Why it retains reviewer ranking at all or whether it takes arms against other fraudulent practices rampant on the site remain issues of concern.

The good news for critics of Amazon's former method of ranking reviewers is the demotion from first place of Our Lady of the 'Speed-read' Trash Novel, Harriet Klausner, and from sixth place to twenty-fifth of Our Maestro of the Inflated Vote Totals, Grady Harp! An added bonus for lovers of schadenfreude is the brutal demotion of one of the chief cyberbullies and pompous asses from the top six hundreds to the lowly six thousands. For all his complaining about the evil influence of the HKAS and presumed negative votes from its members, it was the repeated positive votes either from himself or his own little gang of rubber-stamping yea-sayers which served to hoist this self-important miscreant on his own petard. Sic transit gloria mundi!

7 comments:

Malleus said...

Hah! All right! Our dear harriet is now No.442... Good riddance, says I.

Now, Stanley, where did you see this new way of ranking -- the description, I mean. I'd like to take a look.

Well, as they say, you (we) spoke, and we (they) listened! Took us about two years of raising stink, but still, better late then never. A good news: schadenfreude, and OF COURSE ave atque vale.

PS. Who's the last personage you talk about? Got a link there? Is it Steve or one of his voluble friends?

Malleus said...

Better yet, W.Boudfuck went from 11 to 512. Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Mr Bouville.

Malleus said...

Did you notice that Mr Grady Harp lost most of his votes, like 90% of them? I wonder if this guy from Slate who interviewed him so touchingly, would attempt a repeat. I'd love to see Grady pulled by the ear into the open and having to explain the disappearance of his megavotes. "It's the time thing", blah blah -- well, what do you say NOW?

Christopher Culver said...

I've gone from 176 to 235. That sucks, as I was enjoying my gradual rise to the top of the reviewers.

I don't understand this claim that we don't need reviewer rankings at all. Writing good reviews takes a lot of time and energy, and there has to be some reward for us, even if it's just a little number.

Stanley H Nemeth said...

Malleus, if you click the link for "top reviewers" on the left side of anybody's page of reviews, you'll see an Amazon posting and some comments in the discussion space under it. That's how I stumbled across the new but still mostly murky company explanation of its ranking policy. Maybe you can explain it more transparently than they've been able to.

The last personage I refer to is none other than H.Schneider, the Patronizing One, a Guardala Gang member who'd mistakenly assumed I was the leader of the HKAS! He seems to have suffered the most brutal demotion of any of these characters, and a person has to wonder why. Were most of his votes cast by himself in Harpster fashion? Inquiring minds want to know. By the way, while you're at it, check out what's happened to Steve's ranking as well as Betty "Keep your Pen Hot" Dravis.' Schadenfreude with a vengeance!

Stanley H Nemeth said...

Christopher Culver, why isn't the chance to exercise your prose style, to share favorites or else expose overrated items to others, and perhaps best of all to solicit from readers of your reviews comments of genius, wit, and charm reward enough?

Malleus said...

Oh, I see, Stanley, yeah, what a precipitious fall, he beats everyone I saw today.

Christopher, one of the reasons that ranking could profitably be removed is precisely what you described, where even a normal honest reviewer (you) gets addicted to specious honorifics and takes to watching his position like if it were his retirement account, whereas it's bullshit. I went up, btw (from like 299892798 to 155592798 :-)... no votes changed, as far as I can see. So, don't fret over your ranking: I agree with Stanley that the only normal, healthful reviewing is of the kind that you do purely for yourself: to have an opportunity to write something, to share your opinion, to warn others of a clunker or to gush about something you really loved. If it's anything else, you've been had by Amazon.