This Is Why I'm Going to Publish Under a Pseudonym...

I haven't had much to say about the Amazon customer review glitch, because I don't like linking to New York Times stories that will just disappear from view a week later, but Amy Harmon's article was reprinted in the Houston Chronicle, so here you go. (Across the Atlantic, the Observer files its own report with a bit of cribbing).

Customer reviews aren't a new problem at Amazon; they were being used as this kind of personal battleground back when I worked in the editorial department four years ago. And though my perspective will almost certainly be seen as tainted on this issue, I don't think anybody would find it unusual that the decision to lay off 20 percent of the book review editing staff in early 2000 roughly coincided with an increased reliance on customer reviews to shift the merchandise.

This is about the time you started seeing things like the "is this review helpful?" query, the reviewer rankings, and personal profiles for customers. Hell, I've got one floating around the system somewhere, even though I never use it...and the only time I can remember using the customer review option was when I gave a one-star review to Bergson's Laughter, which I found "one of the least funny books ever written about comedy." But that was an actual review which had been rejected by the editor who had assigned it to me as part of their tribute to the 100 best nonfiction books of the 20th century. Obviously, I disagreed on its merits, and I didn't mind saying so, even if the editor then accused me of trying to tank her project; that line of reasoning was broken off when the colleague who was trying to mediate between us asked me, "Well, how would you feel if one of us posted a negative customer review of a book you had featured?" and I replied, "What the hell do I care what anybody else thinks about the books I review?" I just tried to sell the books as best I could, with whatever I had at my disposal, and if somebody disagreed with my tastes, they either (a) had a cogent counterargument worthy of respect or (b) were obviously incoherent and/or not to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately for Amazon customers hoping to use "reviews" as a guideline for their own purchase decisions, too many "customers" are increasingly falling into the (b) category. Amazon has cut back on its own reviewing and though a licensing deal with PW delivers thoughtful consideration of much of the new releases, the customers more than dominate the space. And given the general lack of restraint from Amazon's "management" of the customer review system, I'm not at all surprised that authors like John Rechy would try to counter bad "reviews" with good ones, or that David Eggers would leap to his friend's defense. Nor can I criticize them; it's not as if the customer review database is some noble turf they've sullied with their boosterism. It's anything-goes territory which serves mainly to prove that Amazon has lots of customers using its website.