Stupid amazon cross posting!

I know a lot of people have a major problem with amazon's cross posting of reviews but it never really bothered me too much because most of my reviews are non format specific. But I was only ever considering it as DVD to Blu Ray or CD to MP3, and though that can make your review seem inaccurate and unhelpful at least it's still the same film or the same song - or at least that was my reasoning.

But I just posted a review on the Wyrd Sisters Illustrated Screenplay only to realise that the 35 other reviews there have ALL been cross posted from the novel! That's not like taking the reviews from the paperbacks and putting them on the hardbacks or something, the screenplay is something COMPLETELY different. That's like taking the reviews of the Hogfather novel and posting them on the Sky One live action adaption.

But seeing that has made me think more about the cross posting of films and music and how much it can lead to unnecessary negative votes, so I'm now yet another voice speaking out against cross posting. Is there anyway to complain about it or start a petition to have it stopped?

I know people in the past have said they've emailed amazon to complain about it, and there are several threads about it scattered across the forums on the site. I've never heard of any responses from these emails however.

I'll bring out a couple of examples I've listed before on this forum;

The Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes (The Sandman, Vol. 1)

All three of the highlighted reviews for the first Sandman collection are actually for volumes further in the series, apart from being inaccurate reviews, it's needless to say that inadvertent spoilers are highly possible, though not the case in this instance.

The Programme

The problem is also here.

Surely this problem can easily be over come by linking more to ISBN numbers for reviews? When ever I review something I don't just type in the name of the product, but the ISBN number to make sure I get roughly the right edition, so I can comment on the appropriate extras for it.

Good points. I'll add reviews of one translation of a book reviewed with editions who have different translators (who are invariably referred to as if they were co-authors). This can make a huge difference--a clunky or amateurish out-of-copyright translation which seems to be given good reviews could put a reader off a translated author for life.

I once emailed Amazon about a review that hadn't been cross-posted (it was just the paperback edition of a book, so not format-specific) and they informed me that cross-posting couldn't occur unless advised or approved by the publisher. But it seems strange in a situation like that, when they are so clearly different entities.

Thanks for this post Hollie. You've hit on a real minefield though. Amazon has a high definition forum, which I frequent. A big concern of many people there is whether the film is a good transfer or not. They will get lots of sources for information about the film, but for a specific product they want to know how good the picture quality or sound quality is.

It becomes even more complicated when there are two versions of a Bluray. Because the HD fans are so hung up on quality there have been several cases where a studio has been criticised for a poor transfer, which doesn't then sell, and the studio goes back and does a new transfer. The most recent example of that is Gladiator, where people with the original flawed transfer will be able to swap the disc for a new version. Conflating the reviews will confuse people, because you will have some people saying its terrible, and others saying its great, when they are referring to two different products.

There are other problems as well. I have got two Bad Taste Bears figurines and these are under toys. Therefore when you do a review for them you have to give a star rating for being educational and durable. Lets face it these aren't toys. And they aren't suitable for children. I have a Lara Croft one which has a dildo in her backpack, and a Kylie one which has a boob hanging out and a 'cameltoe'. I wouldn't let my children have these if I had any. I did email Amazon and tell them as I thought parents would get onto them come christmas time, they said they would look into it and it is due to the distributors rating their items. There is a company called Toy, so anything they distribute automatically goes into the toys section. So far Amazon haven't taken any action to rectify the matter.

As monica pointed out the same happens with books. I have written reviews for books that are print on demand. Some of these reviews I have mentioned about the poor and or good quality of the edition, but these reviews go on any edition so someone may see the review and not order it when it may not be the actual book I am talking about. If 3D takes off we could end up with the same problem as HD, there are more than one process into making a film 3D depending on whether it has been adapted later or like 'Avatar', made in 3D. Even on normal dvds, because of crossovers I have written a bad review for a French film due to poor image quality and erroneous sub-titling, whereas someone else has written a review saying how brilliant it is.

Perhaps the best compromise is for Amazon to continue to use reviews of "other versions" of a product, but make it clearer, perhaps with sub-headings like

Reviews of the this product
Reviews of this product in other colours
Reviews of this product in other formats
Reviews of this product in other contemporary editions (e.g. hardabck vs paperback of same book)
Reviews of this product in previous editions

Although there are times when the cross-posting is inappropriate, there are also times when MORE cross-posting would be useful. I've put up separate reviews of crossword books which are the latest in a series, and had to copy or cross-reference the previous book in the same series because all or most of the review needs to be identical.

Interesting point about when cross-posting can be helpful.

I have actually seen a note indicating that a description refers to another edition of a book. Usually the product description notes whether a book is cloth or paper. . . but you've made me think of another example of needed cross-posting: Some books are given different titles in US & UK, and some even re-titled over time. It would be helpful to know that A Traveller's Guide to Las Vegas is the same book, say, as The Kitsch Oasis.

But not knowing which edition in translation is being referred is to me the biggest problem.

Another case in point is At Home: A Short History of Private Life: Complete and Unabridged (BBC Audio). Its clear from reading the reviews that AZ have imported reviews of the book into the reviews of the 14 CD audio version. As one reviewer particularly points out in her very well constructed review the experience of reading a book is completely different from the experience of listening to an audio book!

Thanks Lady F - yes I was disappointed that the audio cds were lumped together with the book and so carefully wrote my review about the experience of listening to it rather than reading 'At Home'. Perhaps this discussion will generate a change of plan at amazon hq.

I agree, I love Audio CD's of books, it means you can do other things whilst listening, and Audio CD's are a boom for older people or visually impaired. In a review they need to know what the narration is like. It is unabridged. It is only basically someone reading a book for you. These reviews should obviously be seperated. They are completely different.

Found another odd one, The Colour of Magic: Graphic Novel only seems to have reviews of the prose novel attached to it, seeing as they are two totally different mediums that does not make sense.

Yes indeed Mrs KK yours was the review!

And yet you then have the DAFT examples where exactly the same book goes to a later (unaltered in any way) printing, yet reviews don't get carried over. I've spotted this by chance with a couple of my reviews, as i wanted to post links to other books, only to discover there were no reviews of those books, yet I knew there were, as I'd done them - yep, reprinted, exactly the same, but Az not carrying them over. To be fair, with the huge numbers of items they carry, mistakes will happen. Perhaps the answer is for affected reviewers to say 'Oi - is this a mistake or what? - only perhaps a little more politely! - to the Az powers that be!

Alas, they are deaf to reason.

I tried it with several items. Just get boilerplate replies with a tiny bit of personalisation, but no action. I don't bother any more. As a sales promotion opportunity missed, it is their funeral, not ours.

When ever I've noticed these I've been emailing Amazon directly if the link's particularly inappropriate. In the worst case I also added a review to the product warning about the cross linking and potential misunderstandings. That was for a copy of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide for the Galaxy (single novel) that only had reviews for the 5-in-1 versions attached.

Getting 1/5th of what you expect isn't going to be a nce experience for anyone.

I have now discovered another irritating and idiotic cross posting. I reviewed the graphic novel 'Claymore Volume 1' some time ago. When I attempted to review volume 2 I found my review for volume one was there. I am unable to write a review becuase it says 'one review per product'. This is utterly ridiculous!

I reviewed a football book about Scottish teams that are no longer around. It's in three volumes and they used my review for Volume 3 for the first two even though the teams I mention aren't included in those two.

Anyone reading the 'review' of Volumes 1 and 2 will think I don't know what I'm talking about.

I had a similar happening just recently. I got the download to my Kindle for the new James Patterson novel, "The Postcard Murders". This was a very extensive amount of content for a Kindle sample and I thought people would like to know that. Once the book was released my review of the free Kindle preview immediately went onto the book page. Even though I had stated in my review that I was reviewing the free Kindle download only and had not read the book I still instantly got negative votes. I finally went back and put an edit at the beginning of the review to explain in short, easy words that it was a Kindle sample only. That seems to have worked. I won't ever bother to review a "preview" from Kindle again.
Judy

Edit: Sorry, I neglected to say that this happened on AmazonUS. I can't receive Kindle downloads from the UK.

It bothers me when I want to read a BOOK review, and all the reviews are about the Audio CD. It's not the same at all!

Don't know whether this is strictly cross-posting, but. . .

There was an American satirist named Ring Lardner who today is known for his short stories, many of them about baseball players and small-town Americans. He wrote a few wonderful dada playlets and was a journalist as well. The product description of The Best of Ring Lardner is 'The most popular rewritten version of Shakespeare's plays.'

If you want amazon to stop mixing formats, keep pestering them by going to the help section and contacting customer services. If they get enough complaints, perhaps they'll listen and do something about it. I did that a few minutes ago as a book (hardback) I was interested in had several one star reviews which had nothing to do with the book itself but all related to formatting and poor readability of the kindle version. It's also a case with DVDs/Bluray reviews being combined - often you're reading a review waxing lyrically on how great the extras are and then you're left crestfallen because you don't have a bluray machine and are only interested in DVDs (and then it might be a specific edition of a DVD, eg, Director's cut, 2 disc edition, 1 disc vanilla edition, etc). So, if you want change, keep pestering.

It bothers me when I want to read a BOOK review, and all the reviews are about the Audio CD. It's not the same at all!

I disagree, it's exactly the same content, just someone reading for you, rather than reading yourself. Some people, due to problem with eyesight, rely on audio and IT IS the same BOOK being reviewed.

I'd beg to differ a little regarding your view that "it is the same book being reviewed" as it depends what kind of review you're after. I'd agree that there is usually little or no difference if you were comparing an English version of a hardback fiction book with its paperback version. Uncorrected proof copies can often vary, however, from the final publication. If a version is a translation of a book then the quality of translation might be a factor right down to the difference between a Modern English version of Chaucer, an eighteenth century translation or one in the original Middle English, or, as another example, an English translation of a Russian book compared to the original in cyrillic script. If it is just a review of the story then it doesn't matter. However, if you want a review of the version and any variations, the ability to choose format makes a big difference.

Audio books are frequently abridged versions rather than the full versions which you'd get with the paper book. Also, the narrator can make a HUGE difference to your enjoyment of an audio book - some voices appeal and others do not.

If you were simply to review the plot, characterisation, etc, perhaps mixing formats would be ok but when you're also reviewing format, ie, narrator, abridged/full text, sound quality, translation, background music, etc, etc, then the ability to separate reviews into exact format is important. In the case of DVDs it's useful to know what "extras" are included in a specific version or whether it's an extended or director's cut and so forth.

Even if amazon introduced a form of filtering system it would improve searches. If you could click "audio book" or "hardback" / DVD or Bluray it would help hugely as you could read the reviews YOU want about the format you're interested in. It would just save time and effort to be able to specify exact formats.