The Wayback machine has shown that there is a scintilla of truth to Aaronovitch’ claim, in that one single one star review was posted before his procured five star reviews arrived. But it also shows that four one star reviews, which arrived no earlier than a larger number of five star reviews and appear equally genuine, were deleted by Amazon. No five star reviews were deleted.
I therefore contacted Amazon’s press office to ask for their reaction to Aaronovitch’s admission of posting fake reviews, and asked who initiated the deletion of his poor reviews. They asked me to put my questions in writing by email. This I have done. Answer came there none.
Re: Voodoo Histories
“Something like half of all book sales are now made through Amazon, and when you find a book on Amazon it is accompanied by reviews from “readers” who give it a 1 (lowest) to 5 star rating. So, almost before my book was published, the first 1-star reviews started to appear, from people who had never read it. After a week, even I wouldn’t have bought it.
There is only one thing you can do in this situation. You ask every friend and family member to go onsite PDQ and 5-star your baby. You get your frauds to balance off their frauds. Ce n’est pas magnifique, mais (grâce à Amazon) c’est la guerre.”
These are my questions:
1) Do you agree it is a reasonable practice for authors to persuade friends and family to post favorable reviews on Amazon? Do you agree with Mr Aaronovitch’s implication that Amazon’s policy forces authors to do this?
2) A wayback archive search shows that in fact a number of poor reviews of Voodoo Histories were deleted by Amazon. Did Mr Aaronovitch contact Amazon to initiate these deletions?
3) In fact, the poor reviews deleted were not, with a single exception, posted any earlier than similar quantities of five star reviews. Why was it decided to delete several one star reviews and no five star reviews? Who took this decision? Was it in any way motivated by Amazon’s own political sympathies? Was it motivated by a desire to boost sales?
4) Now Amazon has been informed by Mr Aaronovitch that the five star reviews were procured, will it be taking action to delete these early five star reviews, particularly those posted on the very day of publication?
5) Do you agree that Mr Aaronovitch’s boasting in the Times of his action in procuring false reviews for Voodoo Histories may, if Amazon will not decry it, encourage other authors to do the same?
I would point out to you that Mr Aaronvitch has himself put these matters into the public domain by publishing his actions in The Times. It therefore makes no sense for Amazon to refuse to answer any of these questions on the grounds of Mr Aaronovitch’s privacy.
Craig Murray
Well said Craig…
See… i collect Mountain Quartz …and Hebridean Stones…
but i really should have them looked away when certain smuck faces bare on News night….Aaronvitch being one of them… AAAgggg…gave up watching new night now…
too painful…on the ol ticker
You’re like a terrier Craig. Keep going.
I’m not surprised that some authors get their family, friends and colleagues to post favorable reviews on sites like Amazon, and could well imagine that more of this goes on than one would imagine. Wasn’t Orlando Figes involved in something similar a couple of years ago?
More surprising is that Amazon would delete bad reviews, whether off their own bat or on the suggestion of the author. On the other hand, perhaps they think that bad reviews might put people off from buying, which would mean fewer sales.
But does any of this say anything about the quality or otherwise of his book? That, I’d suggest, is something one should make one’s own mind up about, preferably after having read it (or at least a good part of it)? Personally, I might listen to what a body of professional reviewers had to say (and even there one would have to be careful since professional jealousy or brotherly back-scratching or diffferent politics might have influenced them), but I wouldn’t dream of letting a collection of anonymous amateur reviewers on Amazon influence whether or not I read a book.
TBN – the above applies more to non-fiction than to fiction.
You could always put in a subsidiary about the working conditions for their employees. 🙂
25 November 2013
Amazon workers face ‘increased risk of mental illness’
Online retailer Amazon employs more than 20,000 people across its eight warehouses during its peak Christmas season
Amazon ‘will convert many temp jobs’ Watch
Amazon creates 1,500 seasonal jobs
Union holds protests at Amazon sites
A BBC investigation into a UK-based Amazon warehouse has found conditions that a stress expert said could cause “mental and physical illness”.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598
Germany too and everywhere else the same I guess.
Amazon, Zalando under fire over working conditions
Reuters | Apr 18, 2014,
FRANKFURT: Working practices at the German operations of two of Europe’s largest online retailers have come under fire this week, with more strikes at Amazon and Zalando being forced to defend its warehouse operations after a critical TV report.
Hundreds of workers walked off their jobs at Amazon distribution centers in the German cities of Bad Hersfeld and Leipzig in a year-long pay dispute, and labour union Verdi warned that more walkouts were to follow.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Amazon-Zalando-under-fire-over-working-conditions/articleshow/33907789.cms
They pay hardly any tax.
16 May 2013 – Amazon’s UK unit paid £2.4m in corporation tax last year, despite making sales of £4.3bn, the online retailer’s accounts show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-
Amazon. Amazing.
The link to the tax payment is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549434
Think it’s taking Aaronovitch, Amazon, stars and reviews a bit too seriously.
Serirus readers know it’s largely bunk. The stars mean nothing unless they are backed up by words from recognized people which give substance to either positive or negative ones or stars.
I can say this because reviewers choose not to review my efforts.
Never forget when Professor Reba Sofer refused in print to review my biography of gross manipulator A. V. Dicey in the AHR because it didn’t fit into her views about Britain’s Victorian academe. Gave me the unprecedented chance to review my own work in response.
I’d be interested to see the response, if any is forthcoming. The Press Office may have to seek permission to respond from a higher authority.
Postscript – in the same way, if I read your books, it would be because the subject matter interested me and I wanted to learn more, not because some posters on here said they were wonderful. Conversely, I would not not read them because I’d met some former FCO people who smiled when I mentioned your name in a different context and muttered disparaging words (this actually happened, but several years ago, not recently).
And thereafter I might come across other material and information and in the end – with a bit of luck – be able to make my own mind up about what you had written. The same goes for Aaronovicz’s book on conspiracies.
When I was writing my first one, the counter stood at “Have your say” (or something similar) and I thought “gosh, don’t tell me I’m going to be the first one in!”.
Push send button.
Quelle déception! I had, of course, reckoned without…..Mary.
and the Black-Belted One
Oh, and from the review I read in the Observer, I think Arronoviitch has written a crappy book about dubious, if not crappy, conspiracy theories, starting with the facts that both the JFK conspiracy and the 9/11 one turned out to be terrible cockups, as with most conspiracies, because of surprises, plotters changing their minds about them, those not involved learning about them and somehow spoiling them, etc.
I can assure you that I shall not look any further about the book, much less buy yet more zoo do history.
“You’re like a terrier Craig. Keep going.”
I see him more as my number 125 bus.
Commenting on here is not a competitive Limp Ic sport, yet. Calm down! You will soon catch up.
Just saw this and smiled. On the same level of idiocy as Miliband D with his banana.
Two robots bow to each other.
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2014/4/24/304642/default/v1/486384341-1-778×437.jpg
http://lastditch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451f09b69e20120a8cc708e970b-popup
@Habbabkuk
No, the Orlando Figes case was far worse than asking your family to review the book, which, as you say, probably happens a lot. Orlando Figes was found out pseudonymously trashing the works of his rivals while praising his own books. Pretty low behaviour, in my opinion, and he was roundly condemned and humiliated when it was discovered.
It makes you wonder what else he is being dishonest about, doesn’t it?
I’ve found you can’t rely on the Amazon star ratings at all. My strategy is usually to sift through them for people who seem to know what they are talking about.
Having read both Voodoo Histories and Murder in Samarkand all I can say that Aaronovich admitting to posting fake reviews on Amazon in order to counter poor reviews, which I suspected Amazon deleted because they were no doubt libellous (just look at the type of comments made here on the very mention of his name) is hardly the worst offence that an author has had the courage to admit to publicly. Is it Craig?
I’m afraid that Aaronovitch has a different world view to most on this blog and to his credit he argues it well and consistently. Those who are fair minded and grown up are quite capable of understanding that others may have different views from their own and can still be decent people and just confine themselves to the arguments that they raise – others cannot.
KoWN
Yes, you’re right, I’d forgotten the detail! Can’t remember which book it was either, but I do remember finding his book on the Russian revolution/civil war well-written and researched and impressive.
Anyway, I stand by my point that to base one’s decision on whether to read a book or not – and a fortiori to praise or condemn a book without having read it – on the comments of God know who on Amazon is not a very intelligent approach.
Aaronovitch is a gatekeeper.
To be accepted in mainstream journalistic circles, you must offer Tribute. Tis the Roman way.
Yet he is a villain. A scoundrel who supports the establishment, drones, a once lefty turned neocon warmongerer-in-chief, whether Iraq, Afghanistan or even to destroy the poor people of Syria.
He is a stooge of Israel and never ceases to defend them.
He is old and soon his writings will be consigned to the dustbin of history. Real history is written by the living. No one will remember him. His impact will be inconsequential. His reach, nought. Expose him for what he is but never believe him anything than a fraud.
Marcus Smith
“Real history is written by the living.”
_________________
Leaving aside the fact that “real history” is the header of David Irving’s blog/website, I would point out that there are no attested examples to date of a work of history having been written by a dead man or woman.
It could, on the other hand, be argued rather plausibly that many of the comments on here are written by zombies (the living dead). Just kiddin’!
I think we all know by now Aaronovitch is programmmed straight out of Chatham House or the RUSI.
We are in a time when their shite has never been so obvious and morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Bit like Frank Gardiner and Melanie Sykes/Nick Cohen et al.
Intersting times y’all eh?
Habbabkuk,
“It could, on the other hand, be argued rather plausibly that many of the comments on here are written by zombies (the living dead). Just kiddin’!”
*********
Bereft of a coherent argument as ever Habba it’s duly noted you regress towards abstraction,sniderism.
You’re a smart cat Habba.Why on earth do you demean yourself defending the indefensible?
Money? Hubris?
Pray tell?
Jives
Well, Craig has on occasion warned against attempting to ascribe motivation, but still:
Certainly not money. Hubris – possibly, but who is without some element of that?
What about you – why do you keep banging on about the same things, without any particular status or expertise on or knowledge of those things? Do you feel that your interventions make any difference to anything, or do you just enjoy the echo-chamber sensation?
Another example here of the 5 Star treatment for a book.
Re ‘Under the Wire’ by the Sunday Times photographer who was injured in Syria. He accompanied the Marie Colvin who was killed.
All but two or three of the 27 reviews are 5 Star! The odd ones out are 2,3 or 4 star.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Under-Wire-Paul-Conroy/dp/1782065253/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
5.0 out of 5 stars Riveting, inspirational, searing and brilliantly written
Paul Conroy is the real deal – a war photographer who has risked all on many occasions to travel into the world’s worst places where the suffering of the locals is at its most extreme to reveal to the world what the world needs to know, but so often chooses to ignore. As such he takes far greater risks than any one individual should ever have to, with little specialist…
Read the full review ›
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews versus
2.0 out of 5 stars A great story but a terrible book.
I don’t often write reviews but in this case I felt I had to offer a balance to the baffling amount of 5 star reviews this book received, because a couple of chapters in I was annoyed that I’d been encouraged by them. I can only imagine they were given by friends and family of the author.
Here’s the thing: Under The Wire is a great story but a terrible book…
Read the full review ›
Under the Wire by the Sunday Times photographer who was injured in Syria. He accompanied the Marie Colvin who was killed.
All but two or three of the 27 reviews are 5 Star! The odd ones out are 2 or 3 star.
…the reporter, Marie Colvin,……
I disagree with Habbabkuk and Trowbridge. I write and read a lot of reviews on Amazon, especially on the US site where the reviews are frankly usually of a better standard, as I read a lot and the reviews help me decide which books to buy. It is not necessary to know what the reputation of the reviewer is, you can usually tell from the way the review is written whether it is genuine in intent.
Btw I have no axe to grind about Aaronovitch, I don’t like him much having seen him on Question Time once, but i don’t know much about him.
Here is the shipping forecast.
Storm warnings have been issued for sea area Teacup…
Marcus Smith; Bravo.
CAPTCHA has now erroneously prevented many times a reasoned reply from appearing.
All I will attempt now is stating that I just do what conjunction does in his research.
And I object to Aaronopvitch using the paranoid state of today’s world to dismiss the role of conspiracies and those professionals who try to document them rather than writing an expanded critique of what Ricard Hofstadter wrote about America’s political tradition
A few years ago, Zionist groups targeted a book by prof. Mona Baker, and entered many derogatory one-star reviews for one of her books. It was evident that many of these comments were statements against her, and had nothing to do with the book. Even so, Amazon refused to remove the negative comments.
There is a Zionist operator, Alyssa Lapen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alyssa_Lappen), who has made a little industry out of biased book reviews at Amazon and other book retailers, and she spreads derogatory / laudatory “reviews” according to her ideological preferences. Books portraying the Palestinian narrative/history are denigrated; any pro-Israeli book receives the mandatory 5-star
Amazon has allowed the review section to be an ideologically polluted battleground.
In doing so, one should add that Amazon has just made record profits.
And speaking of conspiracies, a witness of the South Korean ferry sinking has claimed that its sterling gear went out of control when it was directed to change course by 5 degrees, doing 45 degrees instead, and starting the process which caused it quickly to fill with water, capsize, and sink.
Was it too sabotaged, and is it part of America’s pivot to the Far East?