The indie publishing world is now finally acknowledging what’s been obvious for some time.
Some of its best-known (and best-selling) authors paid for hundreds (or thousands) of glowing reviews to appear on the Internet and Amazon.
This New York Times story makes it clear that readers who blindly trust Amazon’s review system will eventually end up puzzled by the abominable prose filling the supposedly “five-star” book they just bought.
(Note: I’ve long been a member of Goodreads, a Google-owned book review site. I’m sure it’s being gamed, but it’s relatively easy to check the validity of reviewers, and it’s far more trustworthy than Amazon’s reviews.)
Long abused by family members, friends and authors trading glowing reviews with each other, Amazon’s reviews are to be trusted about as much as writer John Locke, the million-ebook-selling author who was outed in the NY Times article as having purchased 300 glowing reviews for his books — a fact not-surprisingly left out of his “How I Sold One Million E-Books in Five Months” ebook.
Sleazy, Locke. Sleazy.
The Hidden Backstory
Sure to be ignored among all the gnashing of teeth is how easy it was for the “entrepreneur” selling all those reviews to find writers willing to create them:
How little, he wondered, could he pay freelance reviewers and still satisfy the authors? He figured on $15. He advertised on Craigslist and received 75 responses within 24 hours.
Potential reviewers were told that if they felt they could not give a book a five-star review, they should say so and would still be paid half their fee, Mr. Rutherford said. As you might guess, this hardly ever happened.
Amazon and other e-commerce sites have policies against paying for reviews. But Mr. Rutherford did not spend much time worrying about that. “I was just a pure capitalist,” he said. Amazon declined to comment.
Mr. Rutherford’s busiest reviewer was Brittany Walters-Bearden, now 24, a freelancer who had just returned to the United States from a stint in South Africa. She had recently married a former professional wrestler, and the newlyweds had run out of money and were living in a hotel in Las Vegas when she saw the job posting.
Ms. Walters-Bearden had the energy of youth and an upbeat attitude. “A lot of the books were trying to prove creationism,” she said. “I was like, I don’t know where I stand, but they make a solid case.”
For a 50-word review, she said she could find “enough information on the Internet so that I didn’t need to read anything, really.” For a 300-word review, she said, “I spent about 15 minutes reading the book.” She wrote three of each every week as well as press releases. In a few months, she earned $12,500.
“There were books I wished I could have gone back and actually read,” she said. “But I had to produce 70 pieces of content a week to pay my bills.”
Drawing parallels to content mills (like Copify) is very easy to do — and probably appropriate. It’s clear that most paid book reviews are sourced from existing content and glued together (rewritten just enough to beat the plagiarism filters) — a reasonable approximation of what goes on when writers pound out SEO articles for $12.
Once again, an overabundance of labor on the backend is making wholesale manipulation of online engines (search and review) a wholly cost-effective opportunity.
Keep writing (just don’t be a jerk about it), Tom Chandler.






I am paid by AllBooks Review as part of their promo package.
I do not give glowing reviews unless the book deserves it, which isn’t many of the ones I read for AllBooks and authors, for which I am not paid.
The idea of reviewers being paid for their time is a subject for another time.
Robert(Quote) (Reply)
Robert:
Whenever a service offers to sell a review (and then post that review on Amazon, B&N, etc), an inherent conflict exists.
I’m willing to accept you write honest reviews, but the AllBooks itself says that 98% of its reviews are “positive and usable.” I’ll bet 98% of the books they receive aren’t all that good. Since authors get to request specific reviewers, the writers who regularly hand in negative reviews will eventually find themselves without work.
Of course, the subject of the article isn’t one-at-a-time reviews — it was the “buy them wholesale, hundreds-at-a-time” model that is so clearly designed to game Amazon’s review system. Promotion is one thing, cheating another…
TC(Quote) (Reply)
I helped a friend edit his book and he became a top-selling self-published author without paying for reviews. Even IF you pay for the reviews, if the prose stinks, it stinks; if it’s great, it’s great. Even paid-for hype can only buy you so much street cred.
Cynthia(Quote) (Reply)
It’s still something a numbers game. A book with 30 mostly five-star reviews on Amazon will likely get more impulse buys than a similar book with only three reviews. One problem is Amazon’s little bar chart summarizing the number of reviews and the ratings; even if the majority of those reviews are absolute rubbish, the numbers are all that most potential buyers will ever see.
And in Locke’s case, he not only gamed the review system, he also had reviewers buy books, thereby inflating his sales figures and moving him up the food chain.
I hope Amazon pulls his stuff.
TC(Quote) (Reply)
I am encouraged to see some media outlets acting like journalists & digging below the surface a little.
I think NYT had to do something because a few of the eBooks on indie pub bestseller list were–by any rational measure–unedited, poorly executed, atrocious, fiction writing. And all these great fake reviews played a big part in getting them there.
Joe Brewster Author(Quote) (Reply)
It was always clear that fraud was going on at some level; I recently looked at a self-published book that enjoyed nine glowing, five-star reviews… from other self-published authors (who seemed to be trading).
To say the prose was awful would be an insult to awful.
That it was this widespread — and a top-selling author was outed in the process — certainly brought the magnitude of the problem home.
TC(Quote) (Reply)
Hey Tom,
I wonder, as readers, if it might be better for us to ignore the 5-star ratings altogether? If, by just looking at the 1- to 4-star ratings, we could gauge better the quality of the book?
Perhaps while we’re at it, it might be worth dropping the 1-star ratings too. Have your read the 1-star reviews for “The Great Gatsby”, for example? Half of the reviews are based on the fact that the Kindle version costs more than the book. The other half, well, I’ll let you judge for yourself…
Quick experiment: when I look at just 2-, 3-, and 4-star ratings for “The Great Gatsby”, the 4-star ratings beat 2- and 3- combined by about 40%. When you do the same for John Locke’s “How I Sold 1 Million Books in 5 Months”, the 4-stars have a slight edge. (I haven’t read this one, so I can’t judge for myself, though I would expect that MOST books would be below Gatsby, since most books aren’t a classic…)
Of course, you’d have to do the research to see if there actually is a correlation. But proof of concept, it looks promising.
~Graham
Graham Strong(Quote) (Reply)
Ahh, the statistical approach. My plan is to largely ignore ratings, which I’d suggest I can’t trust. In fact, given the unconscionable ratings inflation I see online, I simply going to rely on reviews by people I trust (Nick Hornby’s columns, friends on Goodreads, etc).
Otherwise, I’ll read a sample and decide for myself. (The latter method was how I determined Fifty Shades of Grey was just a passing fad…)
TC(Quote) (Reply)
Graham Strong,
…to see if there is a *reliable* correlation. Of course it’s all subjective and there will be times when you’re in the 4-star camp even when most others are honestly in the 2-star camp. But then we should always take reviews with a grain of salt, eh?
~Graham
Graham Strong(Quote) (Reply)
TC,
Of course, at the earliest possible second I had to look up what you meant by “Nick Hornby’s column” — didn’t realize there was such a thing! I’m hooked enough I might have to buy a subscription…
I also came across this piece he did in The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3654739/How-to-read.html
In it, he talks about the fact that he hates writing bad reviews — tangential but related to the topic of your post here. I’m very much of the same mind, which is why I gave up writing reviews in GoodReads etc., and why I never “review” books I’ve read on my own blog.
Anyway, I won’t rehash it here — Hornby has captured it extremely well, so there’s no need to put my own spin on it. Thought it might interest you though — it’s from a few years back now, but he covers a lot of ground on the topic of “reading”, not just reviewing.
~Graham
Graham Strong(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve read that (I’m pretty sure that essay is in the first volume of The Polysyllabic Spree). I loved this graph:
I’m on a serious Nick Hornby jag, which is always a good thing.
TC(Quote) (Reply)