In our last post, we said we were going to make a big announcement about Goodreads and why they keep protecting the bullies at the expense of readers and authors. Well, this is it.
In light of what happened recently to Nathan Bransford and his utter shock at the GR bullies’ attitude and sense of entitlement to double standards:
We thought this would be a good time to address this issue.
And it’s not what you think.
It’s worse.
Ever since we started our blog back in July of 2012, we were flabbergasted at the hatred directed toward our site for shedding light on a growing problem on GR. No matter how much evidence we published on our blog, Goodreads ignored our requests and the requests of their members to put an end to the bullying. Instead of enforcing their , they chose to silence and delete not only authors, but also readers. They have allowed the bullies to do pretty much whatever they want. They’ve allowed them free reign to stalk, bully, harass, libel, threaten… et cetera, et cetera. As more and more of us witnessed this happening, all we could do was step back, scratch our heads in shock and wonder: why? Why is GR blatantly censoring people to protect their abusive members? Why are they NOT enforcing their ?
You agree not to post User Content that: (i) may create a risk of harm, loss, physical or mental injury, emotional distress, death, disability, disfigurement, or physical or mental illness to you, to any other person, or to any animal; (ii) may create a risk of any other loss or damage to any person or property; (iii) seeks to harm or exploit children by exposing them to inappropriate content, asking for personally identifiable details or otherwise; (iv) may constitute or contribute to a crime or tort; (v) contains any information or content that we deem to be unlawful, harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, harassing, humiliating to other people (publicly or otherwise), libelous, threatening, profane, or otherwise objectionable; (vi) contains any information or content that is illegal (including, without limitation, the disclosure of insider information under securities law or of another party’s trade secrets); or (vii) contains any information or content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships; or (viii) contains any information or content that you know is not correct and current.
Well, fortunately, one man figured it out. Thanks to MT Dismuke, we finally know why they are doing this. And thanks to some insider information we managed to obtain, we were able to verify his theory.
In order to show you the origin of the problem clearly, we need to go back in time to 2006 and tell you a little story about a man named Otis Chandler and his vision for a website called Goodreads.
(Note: below we use the terms reviews and ratings synonymously. When you are rating a book, you are also reviewing it and vice versa.)
Anyhow, with this new site, Otis envisioned a place where all book lovers could come together and discuss their favorite books. He wanted to “”. In order to grow the site and make money, he did a couple things:
- Being a computer scientist with an eye for the media business, he knew the value of data. He knew that he would have to build up a “critical mass of book reviews” so he encouraged users to join the site and ensured that they would be safe to say WHATEVER they wanted. He grew his review database under the guise of “freedom of speech” and “not censoring”. Hence, GR’s .
- Then, he launched a “” or an through which phones, websites, libraries, online bookstores, etc. could link and access GR’s “critical mass of book reviews”. In other words, he wanted literally MILLIONS of people and websites to be able to link in to these reviews through the .
In this Digital Reader article, it says:
, Otis is celebrating the big-name websites using their API:
GR’s message to its members was clear:
Don’t like a book? Review it.
Don’t like a book cover? Review it.
Don’t like an author? Review him/her.
Even when people first create an account on GR, it prompts them to rate/review at least 20 books, regardless of whether or not they’ve actually read a book.
In other words, GR wanted its members to review, review, review! It didn’t matter if it was fake, they just wanted people to keep reviewing!
This laissez-faire approach is what created an ideal environment for bully gangs. They began to emerge and start stalking, threatening, bullying, libeling, etc., anyone who stood in their way or who didn’t play by their rules, especially authors who didn’t have the right to fight back. These gangs actually helped GR increase its membership numbers and draw more attention and people to the site.
The idea was build, build, build, build!
And why? So that GR could MAKE MONEY! Otis and his staff wanted to build up the site and sell it to the public as a legitimate book review site. Again, you see why he used the term, “critical mass of book reviews” and why he implemented the API. He learned it from Amazon. On , Otis says:
And ironically, the site was just recently sold to Amazon for 200 million as this article at Goodereader.com says:
So, you see, when GR silences authors and readers who speak out against the bullies, they are not protecting the bullies per se. They are protecting the “critical mass of book reviews” within their database. And once you understand that, EVERYTHING starts to make sense.
It makes sense now why our site was greeted with so much hateful opposition. It makes sense now why, when we brought national attention to the problem, GR started HIDING author-bashing reviews instead of REMOVING them from the database (like they should have). It makes sense now why the best-selling author Athena spoke to over the phone last year was deleted from the site even though she didn’t break any rules. If you don’t remember that, we published it in our Thinking of Joining Goodreads? post:
Athena just recently spoke to a best-selling independent author over the phone and what this author had to say was shocking. A few months ago, Patrick Brown approached this author to ask her if she would endorse Goodreads. Because this author had read our blog, she told Patrick that not only would she NOT endorse Goodreads, she would tell the media that the information found on GR about books and authors is unreliable and she would tell them why. The following day, this author’s GR account was deleted from the site.
It makes sense now why GR brushed Mercy Pilkington off when she pointed out that FAKE data was being passed through their API:
Mercy was talking about all the fake reviews/ratings on . It has 186 ratings and 52 reviews to date and the book is NEVER going to be released. Mercy was also talking about all the fake one-star reviews the bullies place on targeted authors’ books.
But we’re going off onto a tangent. Getting back to GR’s API, you may ask: why are we even mentioning it at all? Because for all those authors out there who’ve been attacked on GR and had their books trashed with literally dozens of FAKE one-star reviews, this isn’t just hurting them on the Goodreads website. These fake reviews/ratings, even if hidden on the site, STILL SHOW UP through the API on MILLIONS of phones, websites, online bookstores or in general, any site AROUND THE WORLD that uses GR’s API to link to their information on books and authors. People can even check their local libraries. The API will more than likely be there. And this is not just doing incredible damage to bullied authors, but also to consumers who are getting BAD information and to the API users who are linking into a database that has CORRUPT data.
Even but dismisses removing it under the phony banner of “not censoring”:
We all know this is a pretense because of the blatant censoring done to members on the site when they tried to protect themselves from abusive members.
Furthermore, if you read the page that advertises , there is NO disclaimer stating what Otis says above — that the data is invalid and this is really vital information to leave out. People need to know this!
By not placing a disclaimer on the API that states that the data in their database has the potential to be unreliable, fake, or invalid in any way, and by not placing this disclaimer next to the logo on all of the millions of phones, websites, libraries, online bookstores, etc., linking into the GR database, GR is doing A LOT of damage to A LOT of people. And unlike what Mike Mullin claims, dozens of fake one-star reviews on a book DO NOT help that book’s sales. It damages them. And this is only going to get worse when Goodreads integration with Amazon’s Kindle Paperwhite kicks in.
In short, GR is deliberately, recklessly, and fraudulently deceiving consumers. And don’t think that authors aren’t consumers here either. In , Otis says:
“We’re in the media business today. We’re in the business of helping authors and publishers market their books to readers. And that’s where we make our money. We sell book launch packages to authors and publishers and really help accelerate, build that early buzz that a book needs to succeed when it launches and accelerate that growth through ads on the site.”
You see that? Selling to authors and publishers is how they make their money. Which is why they actively recruit authors to their website:
So… at this point, has anyone been able to spot GR’s crime? Do you see how they are breaking the law?
If not, we’ll tell you. The crime against consumers that GR has been committing ALL of these years is called FALSE ADVERTISING. In other words, it’s DECEPTION and it’s a violation of the FTC’s rules and regulations governing commerce and e-commerce within the United States. What they have been doing is advertising a CORRUPT database as if the data within it has integrity and it doesn’t. They’ve even admitted that. And by not putting a disclaimer on their API, they are breaking the law. They are fraudulently making millions of dollars each year at the expense of bullied authors, consumers who are getting bad information, and developers who are linking into GR’s review database through the GR API, which in turn is providing even more advertising for GR through the logo and name that developers HAVE TO include. On , it states:
Up to this point, the only thing that has really been done to persuade GR to fix its internal problems are the petitions started during the whole Lauren Pippa affair. What else can be done? Well…
Report their crime to the FTC.
Report it to the Attorney Generals of California (GR) and Washington (Amazon). To file a complaint with the Attorney General in Washington click here. To file a complaint with the Attorney General in California click here.
Report it to the BBB.
And report it to IC3.
For the FTC complaint, you will need GR’s phone number and address:
Phone:
Address:
And Amazon’s:
, Inc.
WA Tel.
The people who are organizing and working to bring these allegations against GR (that we mentioned in our post here) have already filed complaints. We encourage others to do the same. If enough people do this, the FTC will investigate and GR will be fined and forced to act.
There have already been successful investigations like this. Example: the FTC’s investigation into Facebook when they used members’ private information without their knowledge or consent.
PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ON.
Great piece Johnny. You missed a very important factor in this API business. Goodreads steals intellectual property and absolutely refuses to remove content even after DMCA take down orders and against the direct wishes of the copyright holders. This too is crime.
Also by protecting the stalker trolls they are accessories to their crimes.
Sooner or later this is gonna blow up in their face. The site has been a criminal enterprise from the start by intentionally building a data base of shit and selling it as the real deal.
I think a couple of points need to be made here. If and only if an author’s books are not published for sale on Amazon, then yes, Goodreads is breaking copyright law if they continue to publish the author’s book covers, book descriptions, author bio, author videos, etc., without the author’s consent. That is, anything that is copyrighted material belonging to the author that the author does not want on the site. However, book titles and author names fall under the terms of fair use and they can use author names and book titles to make author profile pages as well as book review pages. They are not breaking the law there.
Now in the second case, if an author has books published on Amazon, then Goodreads is not breaking any copyright laws as it is stated in the publishing agreement/contract with Amazon that Amazon and any of its affiliates (Goodreads) have the right to use this material for promotion of said books. Sorry, but in order to have your copyrighted material removed from Goodreads, you have to also remove your books from Amazon.
All of this is laid out clearly in our post, GR & Copyright:
https://stopthegrbullies.com/2013/04/25/gr-copyright-part-2/
My books are not being promoted on goodreads they are being trashed. So the promotional clause is void right there. And the Amazon agreement refers to partners who also sell books, goodreads does not sell books.
Ultimately it comes down to who has control of an authors intellectual property? In all instances the copyright holder should have last say in the matter not some corrupt webiste.
Okay, let me see if I can explain this better.
Regardless of whether or not you have your books published on Amazon, Goodreads has a right to your author name and book titles under the terms of fair use. This means that they can create author profiles and book review pages without your permission. They are allowed this under US copyright law.
Now, as far as your copyrighted material is concerned, the material you own is your book covers, book descriptions (if you wrote them), author profile picture, author bio, and any videos you have made like book trailers, promotional videos, etc. IF you have your books published on Amazon, under the terms of the contract (see below), Amazon and all of its affiliates (that they call Amazon Properties) have the right to use your copyrighted material regardless of whether or not your books are being trashed on GR. When you e-sign with Amazon, you give Goodreads that right. It’s shitty, I know, but there it is.
Here are the terms you agree to when you publish with KDP or Createspace. This was sent to us by an author who has self-published on Amazon:
5.5 Grant of Rights. You grant to each Amazon party, throughout the term of this Agreement, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, right and license to distribute Digital Books, directly and through third-party distributors, in all digital formats by all digital distribution means available. This right includes, without limitation, the right to: (a) reproduce, index and store Digital Books on one or more computer facilities, and reformat, convert and encode Digital Books; (b) display, market, transmit, distribute, sell and otherwise digitally make available all or any portion of Digital Books through Amazon Properties (as defined below), for customers and prospective customers to download, access, copy and paste, print, annotate and/or view online and offline, including on portable devices; (c) permit customers to “store” Digital Books that they have purchased from us on servers (“Virtual Storage”) and to access and re-download such Digital Books from Virtual Storage from time to time both during and after the term of this Agreement; (d) display and distribute (i) your trademarks and logos in the form you provide them to us or within Digital Books (with such modifications as are necessary to optimize their viewing), and (ii) portions of Digital Books, in each case solely for the purposes of marketing, soliciting and selling Digital Books and related Amazon offerings; (e) use, reproduce, adapt, modify, and distribute, as we determine appropriate, in our sole discretion, any metadata that you provide in connection with Digital Books; and (f) transmit, reproduce and otherwise use (or cause the reformatting, transmission, reproduction, and/or other use of) Digital Books as mere technological incidents to and for the limited purpose of technically enabling the foregoing (e.g., caching to enable display). In addition, you agree that we may permit our affiliates and independent contractors, and our affiliates’ independent contractors, to exercise the rights that you grant to us in this Agreement. “Amazon Properties” means any web site, application or online point of presence, on any platform, that is owned or operated by or under license by Amazon or co-branded with Amazon, and any web site, application, device or online point of presence through which any Amazon Properties or products available for sale on them are syndicated, offered, merchandised, advertised or described. You grant us the rights set forth in this Section 5.5 on a worldwide basis; however, if we make available to you a procedure for indicating that you do not have worldwide distribution rights to a Digital Book, then the territory for the sale of that Digital Book will be those territories for which you indicate, through the procedure we provide to you, that you have distribution rights.
The problem with the Amazon agreement is that it covers the situation at the time of the agreement and doesn’t cover future agreements amazon makes, i.e. buying goodreads. It also clearly implies they are talking about sales venues and was never intended to include websites that damage the reputations of authors and sales of books.
Under the above agreement only my latest book, The GMO Killerz, is covered since I published that after the goodreads acquisition.
Unfortunately, that’s not correct. Any Amazon Property can use your copyrighted material (meaning your digital books and any portion of your digital books) if you publish through KDP regardless of whether or not that Amazon Property is actually selling the book. Also, date of publication is irrelevant and has no bearing on the terms and conditions set by the agreement. Meaning, as long as you keep your books published on Amazon, these terms and conditions apply. Even if you published a book before Amazon bought Goodreads, the fact that you keep your book for sale on Amazon states that you still agree to the terms and conditions stated in the contract. One of those terms and conditions is that Goodreads can use your copyrighted material. I wouldn’t recommend trying to fight Amazon on this in court. You would lose.
Please read the KDP Terms and Conditions carefully. One of my friends sent me a doc with the most current TaCs of KDP. I can email it to you if you need it, but I think you can access these TaCs in your KDP account online.
The TaCs start off like this:
Kindle Direct Publishing Terms and Conditions
This agreement (the “Agreement”) is a binding agreement between the individual or the entity identified in your Kindle Direct Publishing (“KDP”) account (“you” or “Publisher”) and each Amazon party. The “Amazon parties” are, individually, Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Services International, Inc., Amazon Serviços de Varejo do Brasil Ltda., and each other Amazon affiliate that joins as a party to this Agreement. An Amazon “affiliate” is any entity that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with an Amazon party. “Amazon,” “we” or “us” means, together, the Amazon parties and their affiliates.
This Agreement provides the terms and conditions of your participation in the KDP digital self-publication and distribution program (the “Program”) and your distribution of digital content through the Program (all such content, “Digital Books”), and consists of:
• the terms set forth below;
• the Pricing Page;
• all rules and policies for participating in the Program provided on the KDP website at and http://kdp.amazon.co.jp (“Program Policies”);
• the Amazon.com website Conditions of Use; and
• the Amazon.com Privacy Notice.
Any version of this Agreement in a language other than English is provided for convenience and the English language version will control if there is any conflict. Given the importance of this Agreement, we encourage you to study it carefully. We welcome feedback on this Agreement at and http://kdp.amazon.co.jp.
1 Agreement Acceptance. You accept this Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms by either (a) clicking agree or accept where you’re given the option to do so or (b) by using the Program, or any part of it. If you don’t accept the terms, you are not entitled to use the Program. If the Publisher is an entity, the individual person who accepts this Agreement for the Publisher represents and warrants that he or she is entitled to enter this Agreement as an authorized representative of Publisher and to bind Publisher to the terms of this Agreement.
2 Agreement Amendment. The Program will change over time and the terms of this Agreement will need to change over time as well. We reserve the right to change the terms of this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion. We will give you notice of the changes by posting new terms in place of the old at and http://kdp.amazon.co.jp with a revision date indicated at the top or by sending an email to the email address then registered for your Program account.
Athena’s right. It says it right here:
“1 Agreement Acceptance. You accept this Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms by either (a) clicking agree or accept where you’re given the option to do so or (b) by using the Program, or any part of it. If you don’t accept the terms, you are not entitled to use the Program. “
I don’t promote my books on GR. I have never promoted my books on GR. They’re still being trashed. That point is moot.
As usual, the bullies are dancing around legalities, trying to avoid the simple fact that they’re
wrong.
This seems to be a “catch me if you can” generation with more tech savvy than morals. Goodreads appears to be a Factoid site. At least CNN had the smarts to disclose their factoids may or may not be the truth. Caught.
This information needs to be shared with major newspapers as well as tabloids, especially in the USA. All it takes is for one to print it and they’ll all pick it up.
It also needs to be presented to all companies feeding off or considering feeding off GR. And of course advertisers, who are being boycotted for advertising on a criminal site.
Send it to the papers, now. There is no better way to bust this wide open and make it public.
Here we are – nearly two years later and it’s no better, if not worse. I totally agree with your suggestion about bringing the big media in on these illegal tactics.
This is one of the most informative and important articles to date.
We are also looking into the possible fraudulant misrepresentation by Goodreads of their active member/user numbers, promoted everywhere.
Many, many Goodreads accounts are dead/abandoned, or unclaimed author accounts, which Goodreads counts as valid members with reviews to tout. Amazon bought Goodreads for their data and their sheer number of users/members that they were possibly led to believe were active.
We are presently looking into this issue.
I keep coming across abandoned accounts (accounts that haven’t been active in 6 months or more) when I look through the book recs. You can also find tons of accounts with 0 friends or just 1 friend, which means they aren’t really using GR as a social networking tool. I think this point really needs to be driven home to paying advertisers.
This also explains a bit of information that has been stuck in my head for a couple of weeks now — the fact that a one-star rating can supposedly mean, not “I actually read this book and thought it was awful,” but “I haven’t read the book and I’m not interested in reading this book.” Of course, if a one-star rating means “I’m not interested,” then pretty much every book on the planet is a one-star book, since, no matter what book you’re talking about, the majority of people on the planet are going to be uninterested in it for one reason or another. So the Goodreads rating system is completely useless and meaningless for anybody looking for their next book to read — at best, the system is incoherent and confusing and misleading.
But this whole affair of padding your database with whatever nonsense and bullshit your badly-behaving amateur site visitors can come up with changes things. It means that Goodreads is fundamentally broken and can’t be fixed, and nothing that comes from Goodreads can be trusted. Goodreads will continue to attract the rats and the cockroaches of the online book-lovers’ community until somebody with enough muscle forces them to reinvent themselves or to shut down.
This really bothers me, as a reviewer, because the authors for whom I refer invariably ask me to post my reviews on GR along with the other places I normally post. These idiots make all of us real reviewers look bad and it just drives me crazy.
Who do we report this to if we don’t live in the US?
We’re looking into that. Will have an answer soon.
IC3 is internet crime, so this would be your first place to report GR’s crime. We provided the link at the end of the post. You can also report them to the BBB (link above). Just follow the instructions on the website. As for the FTC, you can try but you might now able to report it if you live outside the US.
Mike Mullen isn’t the only bully asskisser around:
http://www.jenniferarmentrout.com/troll-on/
and
http://www.jessicabrody.com/2013/09/you-have-the-right-to-remain-positive-my-reaction-to-goodreads-bullying/
I guess they love their New York Times ratings more than they love doing the right thing.
Jessica Brody’s post is one of the most ignorant I’ve seen. Okay, sure, let all the authors who’ve been targets just stick their heads in the sand and pretend all those FAKE one-star reviews aren’t there. This is so asinine, I don’t even have words for it.
Filed all 3 of mine; FTC, BBB, and IC3 (big one). Everyone has a right to file from businesses who used the API, to anyone who used it or viewed it, to any author who has books listed on Goodreads that would link to the API. That means everyone can file a complaint. You will need Goodreads information to file:
Phone:
Address:
Yeah, I’ve already reported the bullies and what’s going on at Goodreads to IC3. I did that a week or two ago. Haven’t heard back yet, don’t know if I ever will. I emailed to Jeff B., and I even reported the situation to NBC news through the link on this site. All on the same day.
I wish someone would listen. They’re starting to, but it’s a slow process. TOO slow.
I forgot to add that the BBB is a big fat waste of time, in my humble opinion. I’ve dealed with them before about other bad business practices (publishAmerica and others) and it fell on deaf ears. I’ll never bother with the BBB again, although I suppose having goodreads’ bullshit on record is better than nothing.
But it’s my opinion that the BBB is utterly worthless. Years ago I called them about a problem I had with a hotel chain, in which I felt the manager exhibited bias toward me for something I won’t go into. The BBB told me there wasnt anything they could do. Again, years later, I’d filed reports with them about other bad businesses and all they did was list it on their site with a grade. What the hell’s the point? Waste of time.
Additionally, I filed a report to the FTC about publishAmerica’s fraudulent practices, and again not a thing was done. If PA goes down the tubes, it will not be because thousands have complained about their fraud. It will be because ebooks have exploded in popularity and knocked print books off the face of the planet. Period.
Those are my personal experiences dealing with the FTC and BBB. And so far I haven’t heard shit back from IC3. Come to think of it, IIRC I even filed a report against PA to IC3 around 3 years ago.
Guess what happened?
It’s like a David vs. Goliath situation. Nobody higher up gives a shit, unless it happens to THEM.
It’s sad, isn’t it?
BBB reports result in them contacting Goodreads. They may or may not do anything but it’s a distraction and annoying and makes them aware of the situation. As for FTC, they work off patterns and total reports, so we need a lot to report the crime. IC3 is internet crime. It is important to file all 3. The more that file a complaint the better chance it will be investigated.
I wonder if they would support that view after finding out that all those fake/nasty bully reviews get downloaded into millions of API media outlets every second.
Wait, what? Otis Chandler admits they should take down books with no “serious intent” to publish? How about Lauren’s book, then? She had announced, openly, that she no longer plans to publish it. Why is it still there? How about… was it Rebecca Hamilton? that had the book being trashed and she wanted it removed because it was being completely redone with new name, new cover, and substantially rewritten, but they refused to remove it! How many faces does this guy have to talk out of when he says shit like this?
I also find it telling that among their list of things that should be avoided are “profane” things, but they also say “that WE deem to be…” Oh, man…
I don’t think that was Rebecca Hamilton. I don’t think she’s ever revamped her books.
So basically good old Otis created a carnival side show environment for the lowest of the Internet low where they could gang up and live out their hate fantasies while hiding behind fake names and identities. He also created an environment that promotes hate, vitriol, and bullying where no name people like Jane Litte and Looney could gain attention through this newest means of media technology that is allowed to function without restrictions of any kind whatsoever. All physical businesses in the real world are subjected to laws and regulations, but nothing online is expected to hold any standards at all. It’s a free for all that has been going on for so long some people think it’s their privilege to do whatever they want. And STGRB is the first website to call this to attention. Bravo.
It has occurred to me to wonder if this whole culture of attacking rival or unknown authors with fake one-star reviews began with Goodreads, or at least began right around when Goodreads was set up (in 2006).
Basically, you’re right. Otis knew exactly what he was doing. And the interesting thing is the bullies have been his best pawns and they are too dumb to know it. In the old days you had to pay the bearded lady and the clown wages. These sideshow freaks do it for free
Good one. “Sideshow freaks who do it for free”, I love that, and it’s so true!
For the authors’ books that the bullies hate, all those books are static targets with a big bull’s eye in the middle. Sitting ducks for the bullies to hate on, and they never miss a beat, do they?
They REALLY love targeting those books after an author’s already banned from goodreads. That shows them for the obvious cowards they are, that the lot of them wait until the author’s banned before REALLY piling 1-stars onto the books – otherwise known as 1-star carpet bombing IIRC.
The Bullies have it down to a science. They know exactly how to get away with it and how to do it. STRGRB has posted several times how they explain to others to get around the terms or blocking/hidding. One primary example is they leave a half-assed review of the book – short and sour. Then in the comment section they let loose. It’s their calling card and tactic and so far they have been successful with it. Goodreads knows about it because Goodreads staff tells them how to do it.
Unfortunately, authors attacking and taking down rival authors is a centuries-long
tradition. The internet makes this “tradition” more common and pernicious.
This is one of the best posts on the internet this weekend. You guys do excellent investigative work.
Thanks, Alex! We had LOADS of help though, thanks to MT, Gail and their friends.
You’re right. Sadly, authors attacking other rival authors is an old practice. I think we should all listen to Nathan Bransford when he recommends more civility, especially on the web.
“basically good old Otis created a carnival side show environment for the lowest of the Internet low where they could gang up and live out their hate fantasies while hiding behind fake names and identities.”
Excellent summary, anon-a-bus.
M.T. you’re correct on the methods. They have refined their crimes like finely tuned mobs. I’ve observed this many times on Amazon, during the carpet bombing process. The carpet bombing is an art to them now, they know what to do, and exactly how to do it in order to throw the hardest punch at an author.
I have also observed how they return over and over again, for months and months, picking out certain reviews they can leave COMMENTS on, then delivering final blows with carpet bombs everywhere.
MAKE NO MISTAKE PEOPLE—these sociopaths know what they are doing, they have planned it, and they have mastered their crimes.
I wonder how this will all play out in the next week. It will be a very enlightening experience for all, I am sure. Sad that the “bullies” have been USED so effectively.
wonder how GRs and big A would do if the majority of authors pubbed only on B&N and smashwords. Hurt them in their pocketbooks then see what type of changes would be made.
Amazon makes it easiest to upload. Smashwords demands you format according to their specs, and it’s easy to get all sorts of little things wrong. Then they don’t specify what or where the problem is, and even if you manage to fix it their system is fussy, so it just won’t upload for no particular reason. And if you have even one small formatting error, you won’t get included in the premium catalog that gets distributed to B&N and all the other retailers. Smashwords could definitely start getting more user-friendly.
Smashwords is precise so the basic document can be converted to all ereader formats.
Amazon will put any formatting into a book, I’ve seen some real messes in kindle books that Amazon has done. They take no care in the actual look of a books interior, they just do what it takes to make it fit.
I think the best advice when they attack is what STGRB have been telling newer authors all along – do not engage. At all.
Totally agree. Dismissal does work. When they know they can’t get to you, and they see you don’t really give a damn, they move on to other targets.
Hope all new authors really pay attention to this. Don’t let them suck you in.
Also why it’s important to show that sites that rate and review like GR and Amazon can’t ever be taken seriously. Even Yelp is full of crackpots.
I do think authors have a right to defend lies and slander. Trouble is, there’s an unwritten rule that authors are supposed to bend over and take the abuse but never breathe a word of it to anyone. Abusers always want to silence their victims. That’s why it’s so important to have a support site like STGRB.
As an author, I’ve a few weird reviews, some harsh, some just plain weird (like what kind of drugs is this person on type review). I even received one from one person on the BBR list. I ignored it and nothing happened. From her review, I could tell she has low reading retention. The majority of spots she swore wasn’t in the book were there. She either skimmed or skipped or simply conveniently forgot them as she was writing her gif filled review. I think a ton of them read without taking in the story between the covers. People like that show how juvenile they really are when they do that.
From what I’ve seen, the majority of people who endorse the BBA list have a low reading capability. I’ve looked at some of their profiles, and the majority of them have never even graduated high school. Just goes to show ya…
I see Rick is making a valiant attempt to unite the clans. Hats off to Bad Santa! His little buddy isn’t so valiant though, is he? Is he like the whiniest, most annoying little cry baby ever? He still can’t seem to get over his butthurt. Not even to join a good cause.
Maybe he needs to talk to his mommy again and change his mind. She could give him milk and cookies and everything will be better.
Rick may be making an effort to do something good and positive right now, but it doesn’t mean anything to the people he’s hurt and attacked until he apologizes for what he’s done. He owes an apology to a lot of people — Gail, Paula, Annabeth and pretty much every single admin and member of WIN. He also owes a huge apology to Melissa Douthit who he’s been cyber stalking and slandering for months now. Then he owes an apology to Athena and everyone at STGRB for the way he’s treated them. I refuse to listen to him or agree to anything he says until he does and even then, I will still only consider it. As far as I’m concerned, Rick can rot in hell.
WOW! What a fabulous, well-researched article! The thing that makes me the maddest is that there are people (Otis, Patrick, etc. cough, cough) who are getting rich off this Ponzi scheme while innocent targeted authors suffer declining book sales due to bully campaigns. Authors should have the right to remove their books from the site without hassle, and when there is clear evidence of a bully campaign (hundreds of one stars on a book with lines such as “Kill the author,” etc.), then those “reviews” should be automatically deleted. But NOooo. There is money to be made. Dirty money! Blood money! Not that dirty, bloody money has ever stopped fraudsters from making a buck before. To them, $$ = $$, no matter how shamefully it’s gotten.
This is actually one of the best, most comprehensive, root cause analysis pieces I’ve seen here, which is not to say the other articles aren’t enlightening. This one, however, goes further in providing guidance as to what an individual can do in order to be heard. I would ask, however, that Johnny B. Good post an update on the class action lawsuit. Would really like current status and possible links to sign on?