Today's fail prize goes to Amazon

Apr 12, 2009 18:24

(The Fail Prize bears a strong resemblance in appearance, texture, weight and odor to what comes out of my dog's hind end after a extra tasty meal of liver and mineral oil. And or what the cat throws up.)

Also, see that icon? That's because there's no way I'm using my 'Buy the Book' icon, that's for sure. Because all the money I would have spent on ( Read more... )

fail prize

Leave a comment

Comments 31

beadattitude April 13 2009, 02:46:29 UTC
Well, now I'll spend it on sex toys and a Dreamwidth account.

OOOOOH, yes, that! That's what I should do with the money!

And man, we need to get people writing, I tell you. I can devour a novel a day if I set my mind to it. We need to get fanficcers crackin' I tell you.

Reply

auburnnothenna April 13 2009, 03:00:47 UTC
You know what else pisses me off? (It's a long list but I'll pick out something pertinent to Amazon.)

The argument these are 'adult' books.

When the hell did adult become synonymous with censored/should be censored/is dirty/bad/wrong/perverted/we don't your kind hanging around our young'uns?

I've been an adult legally since I was eighteen. I was proud and happy to become an adult. My parents, teachers, etc always encouraged me to behave in an adult manner. Adults vote, have jobs, kids, pay taxes, and serve their country. Adults read and watch adult entertainment and educational material. Adults decide what those things are. We don't need or want Big Amazon Brother to decide for us or our children. That's our responsibility. That's what being an adult means: being responsible for yourself and your actions.

Reply

beadattitude April 13 2009, 03:10:53 UTC
I totally agree. And even if - as there has been some conjecture - this is a bug brought on by some sort of Amazonian software feature that allows customers to complain if something is inappropriate - SOMEONE should have caught on. Someone should have been overseeing the list of items that were being flagged and then stripped of rank, looked at the scope of items being tagged and said, "hang on." Sloppy sloppy.

Reply

auburnnothenna April 13 2009, 03:04:12 UTC
I can devour a novel a day too. It does tend to cut into my actual writing time, though. Which, I'm trying to get the next part of the AU epic of doom done. I've nearly got the first thread done, but there's still the entire second thread to write up for Sam.

Reply


rez_lo April 13 2009, 07:06:24 UTC
Wow. Fuck that noise.

I just renewed my Amazon-linked Visa card. Looks like I'ma have to call those folks and explain why I'll be switching to that sweet deal UBOC's offering.

One of my high school friends kept trying to explain to me that people are no damn good. At this late date I'm starting to believe.

Reply

auburnnothenna April 13 2009, 07:15:36 UTC
I'm fond of the species, humanity has done such amazing things. But large groups (particularly those that are members of gangs or corporations or religions) are horrible and make me hate people. But then, one on one, there are amazing, astounding, wonderful individuals.

You gotta wonder at the level of fail where Amazon, which is based on the internet, doesn't get that first, this will be noticed, and second, it will propagate across the social media like ebola through a sack of blood. Seriously, their customer base is readers and if there is one thing that makes readers crazy it's censorship. Way to alienate your entire customer base even if ninety percent of them have no sympathy with GLBT issues at all. Because we're bright enough to get that it's a censorship issue, not just a homophobia one (not that that isn't ugly and important enough).

So, they get a big steaming pile of fail prize.

And you know, I really loved that it seemed like they had anything I could hound dog out of a bibliography, one way or the other, before this.

Reply


ratcreature April 13 2009, 08:32:17 UTC
Yeah, even if the extent of it affecting LGBT is due to tagging by trolls or some automated system gone wrong, that they have implemented this net nanny on their search and display function in the first place (and don't even offer you to opt out of their net nanny!) is enraging ( ... )

Reply

auburnnothenna April 13 2009, 19:39:42 UTC
I could accept if they said: we cannot publically - i.e. show to those who aren't logged in with authenticated ID and age or location validation - list certain products which are restricted in some of the countries which we do business in. I wouldn't like it, but I would understand the legal necessity.

But the arbitrary/targeted nature of the rank disappearances reeked of prejudice.

I'm kind of holding on to the idea that, yes, someone at Amazon did this, but it was (I hope) an end-run. A small clique of people who thought they could implement this and no one would notice. Which would be stupid, but then I'm convinced prejudiced people, especially those who feel they must act on their prejudices, are stupid.

Apparently, it's been happening slowly, since February, and only reached the boil over point this weekend, though. So who the hell knows. Internet wise, Amazon has poo on it's face and it looks like whether it was a deliberate from the CEO down policy or not, its being recanted.

Reply

ratcreature April 13 2009, 20:10:32 UTC
What I'm wary of is that they'll backpedal some now so that it affects fewer titles and do that in public, but stick with this "adult content filtering" policy, so that in the end it'll still affect books that are less well known and/or have actual gay sex in them, that need the search functions and related books displays and such the most for their exposure compared to books that won awards and had movie deals. But because it'll only be fewer titles again, and Amazon "fixed" the hack'n'slash method of removal the outrage will have died down, when they quietly mess with the rankings again and you don't even notice that they filtered some gay romance you never heard of from your suggestion list again.

Reply

auburnnothenna April 13 2009, 20:19:30 UTC
Arrgh. Yes. Just like Six Apart/SUP has done repeatedly.

It's such a moronic policy, though. The rankings and suggestions of other books you may like are a marketing tool, to get people to buy other books from them. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

Aside from the tiny fraction of people who might boycott them over this, deranking will cost them sales. So not only will it hurt specific authors and publishers, ultimately it will hurt Amazon. The more interlinked every title is, the more likely someone browsing like me will buy a book they never set out to.

Reply


hah! dossier April 13 2009, 11:18:47 UTC
from the Associated Press about 2:00am ( ... )

Reply

Re: hah! dossier April 13 2009, 16:35:24 UTC
And re: the Brutal Honesty rumour about it being a bantown attack? I didn't think so:

http://bryant.livejournal.com/672165.html

Reply

Re: hah! auburnnothenna April 13 2009, 19:44:32 UTC
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's just a glitch.

Though, automated responses to complaints are a glitch (or a disaster) waiting to be abused. Everyone was up in arms with the 'flag this content' abuse link LJ instituted back during one of the Strikethrough brouhahas, remember?

For a while yesterday, about the time I posted, the Smart Bitches link was Google #1. It will fall fast as people stop propogating the meme today, though. It's not enough to Google it. The link has to be posted so that a Google search finds it more often than anything else. Some people seem to have missed that. :)

Imma gonna ignore it all today anyway. Makes for bad digestion and I'm running out of Tums.

Reply


chloe_tambell April 17 2009, 02:06:01 UTC
I'm sorry, I have a monster headache, I don't understand.

Did they stop selling the books, or just make the books harder to find?

It seems that the bigger you get and more successful you are, the more you find yourself vulnerable to outside pressure to conform to the conservative perspective of morality, because, right now, those with the money are very conservative.

That's my theory.

Reply

Amazon Rank auburnnothenna April 17 2009, 02:15:26 UTC
They stopped ranking a buttload of books they deemed 'adult' - including such volumes as Heather's Two Mommies and numerous literary books, as well as many nonfic books on sexuality, but mostly GLBT titles.

Without a rank, the titles and authors don't show up on an Amazon search unless you input them specifically.

So if you don't know the book specifically and are just trying to find something new in, oh, say, gay erotica, none of the deranked books would show.

That will tend to cut down on people buying those books, sure enough.

The thing that flipped me out is that it was so targetted. In contrast a book of Playboy centerfolds wasn't deranked. Books on de-gayifying your kid weren't deranked ( ... )

Reply

Re: Amazon Rank chloe_tambell April 17 2009, 02:38:11 UTC
Oh, I see. I didn't realize how ranking affected their display results. That sucks a great deal; I do a lot of my shopping through Amazon, including a healthy supply of lesbian sex manuals. It's great, I can find a ton of them, get reviews, and put them on my wishlist, so that my best friend can get them for me for my birthday (she gets a kick out of buying that stuff for other people. Living vicariously I guess ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up