This seems to be happening to some hetero books marked as "erotica" as well, but not to Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds (Hardcover), hetero romance with sexually explicit scenes and various other things that seem pretty "adult" to me.
So, Playboy Centerfolds keep their sales rankings, but the children's book Heather Has Two Mommies does not.
This effectively keeps stories with gay or lesbian characters from getting recognition for their sales. I could see limiting the visibility of erotica or sexually explicit materials, maybe, but this isn't doing that -- it's just trying to bury the gay.
This makes me grumpy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is annoying. It's bad enough that they are selling To Train Up A Child (Which should be called how to abuse and torment your children.) and that Helpmeet book (Which should be called how to end up in an abusive relationship) And they kept deleting my reviews of Ezzo and Dobson.
If they keep that up, I may have to use some other ordering service.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Right now searches for "homosexuality" bring up anti-gay material.
I suspect that someone at Amazon changed an algorithm somewhere and didn't know it would snowball, and I seriously hope that it gets cleared up with an apology tomorrow morning.
Is Amazon the one that also would say "Did you mean Adoption?" when you searched for Abortion (but didn't recommend Abortion when you said Adoption)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
How interesting. I just looked up Torchwood, to see if the GLBT-ban applies to dvd - apparently not. So watching two men kiss is okay, but reading about it is not? Weird.
ETA - Oh and Chris, I'm with you on getting Breaking Dawn de-ranked. I far prefer my 'love' scenes without the bruises, thanks. That's so much more important than whether said love is between two men, women, or one of each.
[ April 12, 2009, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
That makes me angry. Also, I agree with everything Syn says.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Amazon Rank is a Google Bomb, which I think is awesome. Instead of complaining to email bots, we can actually embarrass the folks. May not be much, but it IS rather satisfying.
Blame the winsome wenches at Smart Beeyotches(cleaned up because I didn't know if the profanity filter would censor their real site name -- it's a romance novel and erotica review site).
Here is an extensive list of books stripped of their sales ranking that are not erotica, and many don't have sex scenes, just characters in gay relationships.
Apparently, only the US and Canada sites are currently affected.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I've also heard people suggesting alternate online book stores, such as:
I believe it is a Portland, Oregon store with a web presence. I'm sure there are others -- please share yours. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Powell's is a marvelous store, online or off.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
According to Publishers Weekly, Amazon has said it was a glitch, not a new policy, and is being fixed.
In the meantime: Rowling has said that Dumbledore was gay, so let's get those highly profitable books properly tagged so Amazon can do the right thing.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm getting re-Tweeted all over the place because of my single comment:
quote:In response to outcry on Twitter. Amazon.com is henceforth removing the ranking of any book with the word "Twitter" in it. #amazonfail
I feel so special.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm sure it is a glitch, but it is also a well-deserved poo-storm.
That's a good one, Nighthawk! Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I got retweeted by Steven Gould. Woo!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thinking about tagging all affected books with "amazonfail"
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Cool! What was the tweet?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My Harry Potter idea Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Cool! What was the tweet?
Its funny, this whole drama makes me want to go book shopping. And now I even have a prepared list of titles!
Some Barnes and Noble coworkers at other stores have already told me that the newest titles are prominantely displayed on their "New Arrival" table.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Just tweeted: Gonna be hilarious tomorrow to see everyone's automatic Amazon recommendations after we've been searching for gay books all day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, Twit-storms are so funny to watch from the outside.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Outside, hell. Ride the winds, man!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Hey, when I went to amazon just now and typed "gay" in the search engine it totally just brought up gay porn on dvd! But "homosexual" still just brings up textbooks.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
It's still not fixed (not that I expected it to be too quickly, even if it wasn't a glitch, they'll still have to change a lot of code). They certainly seem to be trying to avoid saying anything about it though. I can't find anything on their site about the problem "glitch" or otherwise. I never shop through them anyway, since they don't give Upromise rewards or ebates or mr. rebates or anything like that. If I buy a book online I go through a seller that will give me the credit back.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Well, a side-by side comparison of the tags on books seems to indicate that things tagged as gay or lesbian were de-ranked along with things tagged erotica. This explains why the tame-by-contemporary-standards Lady Chatterly's Lover was de-ranked but Laurell K. Hamilton's last... I can't remember the title but I mentally dubbed it Boring Threesome Marathon... was not. Chatterly had the "erotica" tag, but none of the LKH stuff does, even though the distinction is purely semantic where her recent stuff is concerned.
That also explains the random de-ranking of one edition of a book, but not others (John Barrowman's biography hardcover and paper back-- one was de-ranked but not the other, and the one that was de-ranked had the "gay" tag).
It probably is a glitch of some sort, or the mistake of some over-zealous person who didn't know what they were doing. However, I will reserve judgment until I see how it is handled. I don't think anything short of restoring all sales ranks will satisfy me, though. Otherwise, it's too subjective.
It's a UK site, but does free worldwide delivery. Plus it has an almost hypnotic Watch People Shop feature. While i was there, I saw someone in France buy French Women Don't Get Fat, which amused me greatly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Every time Amazon makes a high-profile mistake, it seems like it launches a hundred conspiracy theories. All these conspiracy theories are wrong, because they all start with the assumption of a deliberate act. I personally have made an innocent mistake which adversely affected a certain class of books (I won't tell you which), and it sparked accusations of prejudice and censorship from that community. The accusations were of course wrong; it's just that the particular programming error I made happened to adversely affect their books far more than any others, and non-programmers have trouble understanding how this could be anything other than a deliberate act (especially when Amazon refuses to explain what really happened).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
How about a series of checkboxes in their search criteria...
I'm ok with searching for: [X] Gay stuff [ ] Religious stuff/Hate groups
or whatever else might be offensive to someone.
Probably what happened was, some religious nutjobs complained with the "but what about the CHILDREN" line and they were so worked up that kids might be exposed to teh ghey (cuz ya know, exposing kids to gay people would be bad because gays are bad because children might be exposed to them.) and Amazon thought "Well, jeez, there are tons of religious crazies out there and not nearly as many gay people. Let's placate the 'phobes and hope the gays don't notice."
Now we've noticed and Amazon is backing down.
Thing is though, if the fundies pitch a hissy what can Amazon do? If we get into dueling boycotts, the crazies win because there's so many more of them than us.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think that the fact that several authors were advised that they were de-ranked because their books were considered "adult" is as much the issue. Not that there wouldn't have been talk and conspiracy theories if they hadn't told authors that, but that it makes it seem unlikely to many people that it was an accident. Too many non "gay" books that should be listed as adult are still findable, and books like Heather Has Two Mommies were de-ranked for having "adult" content. Heather Has Two Mommies is a children's book for heaven's sake.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest
Are you seriously putting "religious stuff" and "hate groups" in the same category???
You don't see a problem with that kind of bigotry?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kat: Not since they amended the California constitution to take away our rights. Not at all.
I pushed for the "let's get along" path for years. Now I see we can't.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
That's unfair Pixiest. You can't lump all religious organizations into the same category. Several denominations, including the United Methodist Church, support equal civil rights for the GLBT community, even if they do not wish to marry them in religious services.
The United Methodist Church isn't alone in its support for civil rights for the GLBT community either, but I have to leave for work in 4 minutes and don't have time to look up the list. I believe it may be available through the HRC though.
Edit: Here is a link to the HRC page that give a non-comprehensive list of religious organizations supporting civil rights for GLBT members of the community.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
andi: it's true, there ARE good christians who take the words of Jesus, "love thy neighbor as thyself," seriously. Boots springs to mind.
But they are a minority. It took the bad ones a serious, expensive and united effort to push through their hate in a secular state like California.
Are you sure the UMC is tolerant? I seem to remember them defrocking someone for sanctifying two lesbians. I would have used the Episopalians (the American branch anyway) as a symbol for tolerance.
Pix
(Was raised Methodist)
Edit: Read the HRC page on the UMC. Looks like they're either playing both sides of the issue or are simply unsure where they stand. In any event, better than I thought. And certainly better than it was when I left the church.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest: Then your opinion is utterly useless. Your bigotry has blinded you and you are living in a fantasy land.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kat: Hey pot! I'm kettle!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Worth reading. I'm fairly certain that the implication in the full comment is correct, that this is all some unintended consequence of a recent change to the algorithm that they use to detect adult material. Perhaps some undue weight on user reviews and comments (which may be anti-gay)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Seriously - if you automatically equate the two, then you have a tenuous grasp on reality. Since you seem in all other respects to have greater maturity and intellectual power than a seven-year-old, it must be your bigotry that is blinding you.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
mucus: That article makes sense to me. Especially since I know (knew? I guess it's been a while) someone who works at amazon. She said it's a great environment for people like us.
Plus it means I don't have to cancel any of my outstanding orders. (I use amazon just all the time...)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
kat, could it be that she's mainlining crack?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pixiest: Then your opinion is utterly useless. Your bigotry has blinded you and you are living in a fantasy land.
katharina: somehow I doubt that is going to persuade Pixiest that she's wrong.
Pixiest feels extraordinarily passionate about this topic. You can't blast out that sort of fire with flames of your own. If you're not peddling hate, don't do it with disdain.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Naw, it's pretty clear what her problem is.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kat: And your faith in your invisible sky wizard is firmly grounded in reality?
How is me calling religion a hate group someone more whacky than people of "faith" denying civil rights to an entire class of people via Constitutional Amendment?
You ARE a hate group! You mess with people who have never wronged you just because they're different from you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you even know what a hate group is? You don't, clearly, since you have such trouble identifying them.
You have all the nuance and knowledge of social groups and history as patio furniture. Even putting them in the same category proves that you aren't interested in improving Amazon's search nearly so much as attempting to push your own bigotry-laden world view on everyone else.
You can't even distinguish between different religions. You've lumped every single religion ever with all hate groups - if you can't see the problem with that, then your opinions are invalidated forever, because you've blinded yourself.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
From wikipedia: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a racial group, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. "
I think I would categorize denying civil rights as both hate and hostility.
Please note, I have not sought to deny rights to any religious group. I simply applied the label of "Hate group."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Please note, adding that to all and every without any distingusing (leaving out the fact that you clearly can't identify a hate group anyway) means you don't care about any particular religion's beliefs, since they don't all believe the same thing.
Do you really think that ALL flavors of all religions teach the exact same thing? Or that your pet issue is the most defining issue for all religions?
It is your failure to see outside of your self-centered bubble that make you such a poor judge of this and a miserable search designer.
You can claim that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia all you want - it doesn't make it true.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kat: Just the majority. Since they're the ones that screwed us over in California so royally. Though I happen to know what your religion (and you in particular) believe. So while Unitarians and Episcopalians get a pass, you don't.
The rest of your post is a jumbled mess.
Lunch time! You get the last word, Pot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Though I happen to know what your religion (and you in particular) believe.
Bullshit. You most certainly do not.
More of your blindness problems caused by your bigotry.
If you are ever interested in truth about people not yourself, there are places for you to learn. If you want to continue in your prejudiced Humpty Dumpty world, by all means, continue as you are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I understand it, the Methodist Church and the Anglican/Episcopal Communion are not so much wavering as split. Whether they end up actually splitting as denominations is a hot question right now.
I think there are a lot of denominations that are in the "we are there in spirit but can't quite let go of that technicality yet" stage like the Presbyterians. More welcoming in practice than in official policy.
The UCC comes to mind first as supportive of GLBT rights.
Pixiest, thanks. I don't think that the conservative religious folks are that much more in the majority than the liberal ones, though. It is just that the liberal ones are not, for the most part, politically organized. The Religious Right is powerful politically because they got organized. That organization is being challenged, but it is slow work.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Pixiest, I'm an atheist, and I would have to agree that you're unfairly judging religion here. Most Americans are religious to some degree, while only about half of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. And not all of those people actually care all that much, it's just a vague gut instinct as opposed to serious belief that they've thought about and acted on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Worth reading. I'm fairly certain that the implication in the full comment is correct, that this is all some unintended consequence of a recent change to the algorithm that they use to detect adult material. Perhaps some undue weight on user reviews and comments (which may be anti-gay)?
Another theory floating the 'nets is that someone figured out how to game their system, and deliberately did so over a holiday weekend for maximum effect.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do you really think that ALL flavors of all religions teach the exact same thing? Or that your pet issue is the most defining issue for all religions?
Kat, are you saying that your religion doesn't teach this? That it didn't throw its support behind Prop 8? Because if your religion did that, then arguing the point that not all religions did is a little on the sneaky side.
I'm Jewish. About 70 years ago, the government of Germany started taking away the rights of Jews for reasons that seemed reasonable to them. It started small and it escalated. If the government of Illinois or the US were to do the same, I would fight back. And unlike OSC and his threats to bring down a government that grants right to people, I would work to bring down a government that denies rights to me and mine by any means necessary.
Kvetching at Pix for some hyperbole in the face of a situation where people had rights removed for religious reasons shows a serious lack of proportion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Thinking that one is bogus, though. Someone already pointed out that his code doesn't work, and I don't recall ever seeing a "Report this book" link on any book at Amazon.
The fact that it's hitting books in specific meta categories indiscriminately suggests it is a glitch, but the letters sent out to author beforehand suggest that it's a matter of degree, not policy. As in, they had planned to do something to reduce the public presence of "adult" books but hadn't planned to be this widespread. And this post explains why it might not be fixed very quickly.
However, the continued lack of an apology beyond "it's a glitch" astounds me. Their PR department should be all over the Web today, explaining the problem (or the direction of the problem) and stressing their appreciation for their GLBT readers (and authors). Inexplicably they have not, and the longer they take the less it will be believed.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Why should Amazon even care? Are they going to lose that many sales from a minority of book buyers? For once I would like a high profile company to shrug their shoulders and ignore (no matter how angry they might be) the homos. In fact, I predict such open actions would actually end up INCREASING sales.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Swap 'homos' for 'blacks' to see what is wrong with the above paragraph.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The only "report inappropriate content" on Amazon pages that I can see is on reader comments. You can report a comment as inappropriate, but not a book.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Swap 'homos' for 'blacks' to see what is wrong with the above paragraph.
One shouldn't have to swap anything to see what was wrong with that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(*Psst* When Katharina is calling for moderation in rhetoric, it may not be the best time to pretty much shoot her in the back by literally providing an example of what The Pixiest is railing against. With friends like these ... and all that)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
To kmbboots:
No, but I find that a lot of people who make unpleasant comments against gay people are not racist. Sometimes it helps to illustrate the point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed, Mucus.
Occasional, the dismissive name-calling is exactly that, and that's bad.
----
What do I think of all this? I think we don't know the story yet - I'm waiting to find out what's happened.
I mean, the top result for "Mormon" and "LDS" is anti-Mormon stuff, but I don't think that's a conspiracy led by people like Pixiest. I think we'll get more actual information soon.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Why should Amazon even care? Are they going to lose that many sales from a minority of book buyers? For once I would like a high profile company to shrug their shoulders and ignore (no matter how angry they might be) the homos. In fact, I predict such open actions would actually end up INCREASING sales.
Whistled.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*rolls eyes* But religion = hate groups you're okay with?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
So long as gays see themselves as the "new blacks," then maybe I should seek to take away the "rights" of blacks so that the gays can't accuse me of discrimination.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only "report inappropriate content" on Amazon pages that I can see is on reader comments. You can report a comment as inappropriate, but not a book.
Its possible they may have tried to data-mine the reviews/comments for particular books for information on which books may be inappropriately adult. Since (using examples from the OP?) books like the Two Mommies books may attract angry comments disproportionately from more obvious adult heterosexual books, its possible that a glitch amplified the problem and caused them to fall right out.
rivka: Someone gaming the system is possible too, but I'm having difficulty thinking of ways myself. As a total guess, maybe they're experimenting with an algorithm that measures how many adult sites link to a particular book to identify adult books and someone did the equivalent of a Google-bombing? I dunno. Sounds interesting though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occasional, for one, that's just saying you agree with their characterization. For another: why would advocating racism ever be okay? Ever? It isn't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *rolls eyes* But religion = hate groups you're okay with?
You can disagree with her, but she's made a case. Using ethnic slurs like "homos" (no different than "kikes" or "niggers" or "ragheads") is the mark of a true scumbag.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: So long as gays see themselves as the "new blacks," then maybe I should seek to take away the "rights" of blacks so that the gays can't accuse me of discrimination.
So your goal would be to be the new...what? What would be the "new" equivalent to the people who discriminated against black people? I do not understand your thinking here.
If you are concerned with being accused of discrimination, you could try not discriminating against people. Thjat seems a more obvious choice than discriminating against more people.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: So long as gays see themselves as the "new blacks," then maybe I should seek to take away the "rights" of blacks so that the gays can't accuse me of discrimination.
Doesn't surprise me at all. Bigots are bigots.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My point, kmbboots, was that I wasn't worried about getting accused of discrimination. It was a snarky response to the chestnut; What if this was said about blacks, Jews, etc.? Homos aren't blacks (although blacks can be homos), they are homos.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not a chestnut. It's an illustration. Sometimes people have a blindspot and don't realize that they're being bigoted, and an illustration is useful. In your case, of course, it's unnecessary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: rivka: Someone gaming the system is possible too, but I'm having difficulty thinking of ways myself. As a total guess, maybe they're experimenting with an algorithm that measures how many adult sites link to a particular book to identify adult books and someone did the equivalent of a Google-bombing? I dunno. Sounds interesting though.
Not my theory. IMO, it replaces one conspiracy theory with another. But it's at least as plausible as most of the other theories people are ranting about.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Occasional, please refrain from the slurs. Argue your point if you care to, and believe what you wish -- I'm not thought police -- but Lisa's point (regarding your diction) is well-taken. Check that language at the door.
--PJ
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: andi: it's true, there ARE good christians who take the words of Jesus, "love thy neighbor as thyself," seriously. Boots springs to mind.
But they are a minority. Pix
(.
No, no we aren't.We just aren't as newsworthy as the bigoted ones.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: I find it unlikely too, I would have expected someone to claim credit by now and its a pretty non-obvious prank. (Non-obvious in the sense thats its a lot of work for little obvious gain, as opposed to say converting all listings for homosexual books to rickrolls or something)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My point, kmbboots, was that I wasn't worried about getting accused of discrimination. It was a snarky response to the chestnut; What if this was said about blacks, Jews, etc.? Homos aren't blacks (although blacks can be homos), they are homos.
Instead of being snarky, you could answer the question. What if it were? Or you could try to show how the analogy is not apt although why you think that discrimination against either group is okay is beyond me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest hasn't made a case anymore than Occasional has. It's a case only a child could believe holds anything like logic. She could argue in a kangaroo court, but that's it. It holds as much validity as the argument that the earth is flat.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: andi: it's true, there ARE good christians who take the words of Jesus, "love thy neighbor as thyself," seriously. Boots springs to mind.
But they are a minority. Pix
(.
No, no we aren't.We just aren't as newsworthy as the bigoted ones.
I see, the great silent majority.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or more importantly from TP's point of view: the great silent non-voting majority.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: rivka: I find it unlikely too, I would have expected someone to claim credit by now and its a pretty non-obvious prank. (Non-obvious in the sense thats its a lot of work for little obvious gain, as opposed to say converting all listings for homosexual books to rickrolls or something)
It wasn't being suggested so much as a prank as the work of some conservative religious group. Confessing would be counterproductive in that case, neh?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: andi: it's true, there ARE good christians who take the words of Jesus, "love thy neighbor as thyself," seriously. Boots springs to mind.
But they are a minority. Pix
(.
No, no we aren't.We just aren't as newsworthy as the bigoted ones.
I want to believe that, but...
Where were they when we needed them in November?
When it was time to stand up and be counted at the ballot box, the more religious someone was, the more likely they were to vote for Prop Hate.
How is that loving one's neighbor?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: andi: it's true, there ARE good christians who take the words of Jesus, "love thy neighbor as thyself," seriously. Boots springs to mind.
But they are a minority. Pix
(.
No, no we aren't.We just aren't as newsworthy as the bigoted ones.
I see, the great silent majority.
Not so much silent as not inclined to political organization. The "Christian Right" made a very concerted effort to organize in the 70s and 80s. "Think" tanks and marketing strategies and PACS and so forth. They have a thirty (or more) year head start on us. And, being liberal, we are harder to herd.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with all of that but the last sentence. There are and have been plenty of liberal herds.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man, Twit-storms are so funny to watch from the outside.
What in hell are they? Suddenly I feel like I was transplanted into 2007, and I don't know what facebook is. I've heard of twitter, but exactly how immense is it now?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: andi: it's true, there ARE good christians who take the words of Jesus, "love thy neighbor as thyself," seriously. Boots springs to mind.
But they are a minority. Pix
(.
No, no we aren't.We just aren't as newsworthy as the bigoted ones.
Or as worrisome. It's like anything. I try and notice when my daughter behaves well and praise her for it as much as I notice when she misbehaves and criticize her for it. But it's hard. What we consider to be appropriate tends to fade into the background, while what doesn't tends to jump out at us. And maybe Pix is remiss in not noticing Christians like you as much as she notices Christians like Occasional, but it's human nature.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In my opinion, liberal Christians aren't taking a lead on this civil rights and social justice issue - as they did during civil rights and abolition and workers' rights and education and poverty and so forth - partly because it deals with sex. The intersection between Christianity and sex has long been complex and weird.
ETA: That is a reason, not an excuse.
[ April 13, 2009, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That explanation makes some sense but it doesn't address the "why Playboy was still ranked" issue.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my opinion, liberal Christians aren't taking a lead on this civil rights and social justice issue - as they did during civil rights and abolition and workers' rights and education and poverty and so forth - partly because it deals with sex. The intersection between Christianity and sex has long been complex and weird.
ETA: That is a reason, not an excuse.
I accept it as an excuse. I don't see why they should have to lead the pack. I'd be happy enough with keeping all religious sentiments out of the issue, since it's a purely civil one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is as purely a civil issue as were the other social justice issues I noted.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think a Playboy book (not periodical or newsstand item) was still ranked.
Some companies put Playboy in an exception list for porn filters. Strange but true.
I think it's entirely plausible that they used a mechanism to flag adult content that was insufficiently vetted by competent humans. Perhaps they used review content keywords, perhaps tagging keywords, perhaps they outsourced the work to incompetents...perhaps they track complaints about content and happened to have categorized those complaints internally in an unfortunate way. Lots of ways this could happen that don't amount to any person at Amazon making a judgment about "heather has two mommies."
It's also plausible that they employed someone who simply was too naive or judgmental to realize that not everything "gay" was "adult."
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
On the upside, if I hadn't gone a-searching for Fingersmith to see if it had been de-ranked (it has - I really hope this is a glitch because it's idiotic), I wouldn't have discovered that Sarah Waters is releasing a new book at the end of this month!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's been determined by several sites runnning analyses on which books kept their rank and which ones did not that books in certain meta categories, determined by the publishers, got the axe. Gay & Lesbian, erotica, sexuality, etc. So a nonfiction book on suicide prevention got deranked because it was also listed under Gay & Lesbian, as well as other categories, whereas the book on Preventing Homosexuality in Your Child stayed ranked because it was listed under nonfiction. Ron Jeremy's explicit porn career bio stayed because it was Non-fiction and Biography, while the innocuous Ellen Degeneres bio was deranked.
Still a massive screwup, but not necessarily anti-gay.
quote:This is an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error for a company that prides itself on offering complete selection.
It has been misreported that the issue was limited to Gay & Lesbian themed titles – in fact, it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine, and Erotica. This problem impacted books not just in the United States but globally. It affected not just sales rank but also had the effect of removing the books from Amazon's main product search.
Many books have now been fixed and we're in the process of fixing the remainder as quickly as possible, and we intend to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.
Doesn't explain the responses authors received last week indicating that Amazon had a policy about adult material, but at least it does address the current issue. And books are slowly getting their ranks back.
I still suspect that someone at Amazon is working on just such a filter to make more family-friendly searches possible, and were that an opt-in function (like Google Image Search has) I'll be all for it. But doing it wholesale by category plainly does not work.
"Why should Amazon even care? Are they going to lose that many sales from a minority of book buyers? For once I would like a high profile company to shrug their shoulders and ignore (no matter how angry they might be) the homos. In fact, I predict such open actions would actually end up INCREASING sales."
Occasional, why is the world would you think only gay people would be upset?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yes, Occ. Many of us are merely "homo enablers."
*smirk*
Actually, I merely have a knee-jerk anti-censorship reaction. It comes from my Christian School days, when we read about Thoreau in lit class, but were not given any of his actual work to read. Then the school closed and I went to public school, where I got to read Thoreau for myself and found that I had been misinformed about the content of his ideas by people who, in their misguided way, were trying to protect me.
I get grumpy and ornery when anyone tries to keep me away from information or ideas. It just sticks in my craw.
Chris, I would be very happy if this became an opt-in type of thing, for searches, but everything else remained the same. I could work with that. The Book Depository is filling my head with its hypnotic charm, though.
*swirly eyes*
I'm signed up as an Amazon Affiliate for my website, so it would be decidedly inconvenient for me to change it now. But I will, if this doesn't become an opt-in search filter thing instead of a lets-pretend-*stuff*-doesn't-exist for-general-searches thing. I'm just contrary enough to do it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Doesn't explain the responses authors received last week indicating that Amazon had a policy about adult material"
There's a very simple, very likely reason for those responses: Amazon, like pretty much every other big company, employs hordes of poorly trained customer service reps who are given a limited set of canned responses, and required to respond to between 12 and 20 customers per hour using that content. Except when a machine responds first to the ones that look familiar to the machine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: like pretty much every other big company, employs hordes of poorly trained customer service reps who are given a limited set of canned responses, and required to respond to between 12 and 20 customers per hour using that content. Except when a machine responds first to the ones that look familiar to the machine.
Too, too true.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But the Probst guy had Publisher status with Amazon, and used that to get the answer that he got. I wonder if they have the same pool of CS reps for publishers.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Judging by the kooky, garbled, nonsensical emails I've personally gotten from obviously over-worked and under-trained Amazon staff in the past, I wouldn't doubt he got in touch with someone who had no real idea what they were doing or saying. No matter what his status.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Probst's more recent blog entry states that he thinks it probably was a glitch.
quote: I’ve been contemplating how to respond to the statement from the Amazon representative as reported by Publisher’s Weekly. Of course, the knee-jerk reaction was – They're lying. After some careful thought, I realized, no I don’t think they were. Amazon is undoubtedly embarrassed, and they are trying to set things right.
He goes on to say that there is no "new" adult policy (but Amazon has always had one) and that probably someone tried to be lazy when rewriting code to better enforce it.
Maybe it was a glitch, maybe it wasn't. Unless amazon becomes more forthcoming about exactly what happened, I suspect that most people will assume it was deliberate. If only for Amazon's own sales and business, they should be more forthcoming about what happened, because as it stands most people seem to be assuming that it was not a glitch, and that the company was deliberately removing GLBT books from their rankings and lists. This is going to alienate a lot of people who use Amazon. As I stated in a previous post yesterday, I don't generally use amazon, I shop online through companies that will give me money back through Upromise, Mr. Rebates, or Ebates whenever possible. Amazon doesn't participate in those programs, so they get very little of my online business.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The problem, I think, with assuming it was deliberate is that there is no apparent reason to suspect Amazon (by which I mean any representative chunk of its management) would have thought this was a good business decision.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The problem, I think, with assuming it was deliberate is that there is no apparent reason to suspect Amazon (by which I mean any representative chunk of its management) would have thought this was a good business decision.
Right. I think this was a bad call by someone lower down on the food chain.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Even better, Simon Bradshaw's blog talks about the fact that one coding error causing this massive problem is an indication that Amazon's structure may open them up to more problems in the future.
quote:I don't think for a second this was an evil reactionary plot by Amazon to purge itself of LGBT publications or to appease the Religious Right. Whilst that, if true, would have been very bad for Amazon's reputation, I think the actual explanation may in the long run be even worse. If it turns out that such an embarrassing incident could have arisen from a single coding error, and that Amazon's infrastructure allowed the error to pass undetected, propagate around the world and then take days to fix, then it rather makes the world's best-known online ordering brand look like a massive house of cards. At the very least, it will be an object lesson both in scalability of architectures and in corporate image management in the age of Twitter.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think "coding error" is slightly misleading. It was a cataloging error - it was misapplied metadata.
I think "house of cards" is rather overstating the case. What it indicates is that Amazon apparently does not have strict process controls for all metadata changes, and that in some cases important application logic hinges on that metadata. I really doubt there are many cases other than "adult" categorization where anything as important as inclusion in general search hinges on the category, and you can bet that Amazon is implementing the missing process controls now.
I suppose this could relate to scalability, in that it shows that you shouldn't have ALL of the following: -uncontrolled metadata management -important application functionality tied to metadata -be really big
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)