This is why Merikun's view of history scares the shit out of me...

[Dappleganger]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2W2VSCHMB6HYU/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxEL9RZNWS4014&cdPage=1&newContentNum=7&cdThread=TxP8YUJS8Y0L9Z&newContentID=Mx19ELD77D0I3EG#Mx2967WAJ8FPR3L


Read this 'reviewer's' post about a book she never read, and her comments which follow. FTR my review name on Amazon is 'Basye.' It would probably make sense that many more so-called 'reviewers' are skewing a number of other books on Amazon as well.

[Dappleganger]

1. And sadly, this is how most conservatives digest and give out information as well

by getting their Rush daily news then going out to multiply the lies to anyone who is dumb enough to listen.

[HughBeaumont]

2. Just added my 2 cents.

"Fiction". Ignorant. What absolutely IGNORANT shit. Reaganites really do have their fuzzy bunny world and don't want to venture outside of it.

[Fresh_Start]

3. I've frequently thought that Amazon's reviews would be better

if they could only be added by ppl who had purchased the product.
Amazon has order history. Make it a requirement for posting a review that the person has the necessary knowledge.

Or at least, add a flag which checks whether the person is a purchaser.

[Dappleganger]

4. That sounds good except I don't purchase every book through Amazon.

Used bookhound, here. :)

[Fresh_Start]

5. I understand that as well

another used bookhound here.

But why should someone who may not have bought the books opinions be published on Amazon?
As I said at a minimum flag whether the person is a purchaser.
Make the opinion writer answer a few simple questions:
where did you get your ____________
how long have you had your ____________
how many times have you used your _________________

[Dappleganger]

6. Agreed, it's a start.

[Fresh_Start]

7. I think the blowhards would be delighted to reply

that they never purchased or used the ____________
Its a point of honor with them that they wouldn't deign to spend the money.
Then Amazon should offer to filter reviews by whether those questions.

[Posteritatis]

9. My personal favorite instance of that...

..was a book where a few dozen reviews showed up at once. It was a junior high or high-school level class; the teacher told his students to one-star a book for a few cliched reasons as an assignment.

[Posteritatis]

8. I judge Amazon reviews by what the one-stars react to a lot of the time

There's no shortage of "this book is so fantabulous I wet my pants twice" type responses, that being the nature of reviews when people like the product. However, if a herd of ideologues descend upon something obviously attacking it unread or minimally read, I can usually glean a decent idea of what it contains by reading between their lines.

To use an example I toss out here now and then, if a book has a bunch of simultaneous one-star reviews by Turks, I know it discusses the Armenians, even if it does so as an aside, in a way that might not be totally sympathetic to the Ottoman Empire. For another, an historical novel set in Greece I was looking at got flooded by reviews of people outraged that it wasn't all glorious egalitarian Athenian democracy, which convinced me the book was a grittier and thus probably at least slightly more accurate look at things. (I was right on one of those two parts, but the author admitted outright that he was novelizing Herodotus, so hey.)

I'll occasionally review Amazon books that I own but purchased elsewhere; I'm not sure how you'd be able to properly test who could and couldn't say anything about them there. As is, the reviews on their own are worthless, but they can be pretty interesting if you read them for things other than just their words.

[pscot]

10. Agreed

While many one-star reviews are of the Princess-and-the-pea variety, there are plenty that highlight glaringly obvious short-comings ignored by the herd. It isn't hard to exclude the obvious loonies. With regard to Zinn, there are a number of sound critiques that take on Zinn's relentlessly one sided view of our history.

[Posteritatis]

11. Well, yeah. I meant that I can learn from the princess-and-the-pea ones, too

I can tell a lot about what a book's about by the particular pea they're freaking out over (even if it's not necessarily in the book at all, which happens from time to time). If the mere existence of a book outrages the right set of people, I take it as a hint to put it a few slots higher on my personal curiosity list to either read or look for actual educated responses to it, when otherwise something may have been completely off my radar.

[Caliman73]

12. Good theory, but...

I have thought that way as well, but I realize that not everyone purchases all of their books at Amazon. The review is of the book, not the store. The thing is that one would expect, and hope that people would be honorable in the way they approach reviews. This stupid person was not and needed to be confronted about it. I don't think that more rules or restrictions should be imposed just because some jerks aren't willing to use sense. I would just as soon ridicule the fool than ban her.

[Fresh_Start]

13. I understand that as well

A used bookhound here.

But why should someone who may not have bought the books opinions be published on Amazon?
As I said at a minimum flag whether the person is a purchaser.
Make the opinion writer answer a few simple questions:
where did you get your ____________
how long have you had your ____________
how many times have you used your _________________

[proteus_lives]

14. I don't think much of Zinn either.

But I've read his books and articles, so I can say that.

You shouldn't review something you haven't read, seen or heard.