Monday, September 9, 2013

Goodreads/Amazon Deceptive Practices

Recently, STGRB did a report on Goodreads Review Fraud where they showed how Goodreads was deceptive in their practices where ratings and reviews are concerned. Part of what STGRB says is that Goodreads fails to post a disclaimer to their customers warning them that some ratings and reviews on books are fraudulent, fake, and misleading. A disclaimer that is apparently required by law, as is explained here. FTC Statement On Deception.

The situation appears to be escalating as is evidenced by this warning I received from a source.

Clearly, a warning to me and others who are covering this story. Apparently, Amazon / Goodreads is fighting back to stop this information of their unlawful practices from getting out to the public. What they (Amazon and Goodreads) fail to understand is that this information is already out there for the public to learn and will continue to reach the public once the criminal charges are filed against them, leading the way for the class action law suit to be filed shortly thereafter by the many authors who have been violated by Goodreads actions of not addressing the bully situation and the harm left behind those attacks. 

This is not an issue that Amazon and Goodreads can just "sweep" under the carpet like they did with the sexual role play scandal between adults and minors. There are more eyes upon them than what they can even fathom at this point and time. The long time practices by Goodreads to misinform the public about the fraudulent ratings and reviews that run rampant on their website is coming to an end very soon. 

One good example of this practice is seen here in the next screenshot where I will show you Goodreads Top 100 Reviewers For The Week where you will notice that J Eddy "reviewed" 392 "books" for a "week". (And others who claim to have reviewed 100 or more books for a week)

Really? Are you trying to sell me on one person reading 392 books in one week? .... Really?

Okay then, let's do the math. Since there are only seven days in a week, that gives us 168 hours for the whole entire week. In order to read 392 books, this J Eddy would have had to read over 2 books an hour without sleep. 

Are we getting the picture here?

So, what does this tell us? Other than J Eddy being one hell of a fast reader, could this be the deception in book reviews that Goodreads fails to acknowledge to it's customers? 

I think it is.

Another issue that has been mentioned is Goodreads using copyright material on their website that they have no authority to use. The defense is, that any author who sells books on Amazon automatically authorizes Amazon to use that book on any of their affiliated websites. Since they bought Gooodreads, it is now okay for Goodreads to use that copyrighted material. However, in this next screenshot taken from the Goodreads Help Topic, we see something very interesting. Take a look. 

Now, as we see from the screenshot above, Goodreads announces that since Amazon bought Goodreads, Goodreads is now legally allowed to use those book cover images. However, is this an admission by Goodreads itself that prior to being bought out by Amazon that they were not allowed to use those covers? Thus, wouldn't this be Goodreads "admitting" that they knowingly posted copyrighted material on their website without the copyright holders permission? 

I do believe it is.

Since these are words written and posted by Goodreads on Goodreads, one can safely assume that before Goodreads was bought out by Amazon, Goodreads was indeed violating copyright laws. (Their words, not mine) 

Thanks for the confession, Goodreads. 

And thanks to my source for warning me of what Amazon / Goodreads may intend to do, which is, to maybe try and shut down STGRB and The Looking Glass, as well as other blogs and websites that go to great lengths to get the truth out to the public about Amazon's and Goodreads' deceptive and illegal practices. 

I'm Carroll Bryant .... and this is (was?) The Looking Glass.

Things We Learned Today:

* Goodreads fails to act according with law to post a disclaimer on their site warning customers that ratings and reviews on their website are not accurate or truthful and could be deceptive and fraudulent. 

* Ammazon / Goodreads are going to try and silence the truth by attacking websites and blogs that speak of their deceptive practices. 

* There's more to this story than meets the eye

* J Eddy is the worlds fastest reader and doesn't need sleep 

* J Eddy must be superhuman or a robot

* Amazon and Goodreads are breaking the law, and may be trying to use their lawyers to cover it up and keep this information from getting out to the public


  1. I see that GR believes in free speech when it comes to reviews that trash authors, but they have a problem with it when people trash them?

    1. Welcome to the world of today. That's exactly what it means.

  2. Just in the interest of fairness, I'm quite certain the first couple of weeks after I joined GR I was probably among those ranks. When people first join, they will rate books they've read in the past (or that is what I did), and those ratings all show up as "reviews". J Eddy actually sent me a friend request, and is new on the site, so that explains J, at least. So, when I first joined the site, I was probably being listed as several several dozen books a day as I added books I'd read to my shelves.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.