From author Michelle Gagnon:
Apparently these fans tried to submit reviews of my book on Amazon, and their reviews either a) never appeared, or b) were abruptly taken down.
Two of the fans sent transcripts of the reviews, and they were standard (and positive, thankfully): nothing offensive at all in terms of content.
One of the fans took the time and trouble to write to Amazon, asking why his review was removed. He received this form letter reply:
I’m sorry for any previous concerns regarding your reviews on our site. We do not allow reviews on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product. This includes authors, artists, publishers, manufacturers, or third-party merchants selling the product.
We have removed your reviews as they are in violation of our guidelines. We will not be able to go into further detail about our research.
I understand that you are upset, and I regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. However, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on this matter.
Now, I’ve known this fan for years–he’s read (and reviewed!) all of my other books. And he has no financial stake in my work. He also doesn’t sell anything on Amazon, ever–never mind competing products (which would be what, exactly? Other books? Does this mean that I’m no longer allowed to review thrillers by my contemporaries?)
From there, it became even more disturbing. When the fan wrote back and pointed out that he’s never sold anything on Amazon, and doesn’t have any financial interest in my books, they sent another letter–and in this one, the powers that be declared that if he tried to contact them again about reposting, they would REMOVE MY BOOK FROM THE SITE.
That’s right, remove my book. Even though, had he not written, I wouldn’t have a clue that any of this was transpiring.
Link to the rest at The Kill Zone and thanks to R.L. for the tip.
Michelle thinks this is an attempt by Amazon to deal with sock puppet reviews that has gone badly wrong. PG is inclined to agree.
A badly-designed algorithm combined with second-rate human backup is not a good solution to any problem.