Slate has an interesting piece on the top "reviewers" at Amazon. I use that term loosely, as I don't really know what it is these people are doing. Surely they're not reviewing books in any meaningful sense.
(The article cites that infamous fraud Harriet Klausner's statistics: "[an average of] 45 book reviews per week over the last five years." Perhaps someone actually believes a person can review over 2000 books per year. I am not one of those people.)
The part I found most interesting is how the article explains that the whole premise behind Amazon's reviews -- customers helping customers -- is bogus.
I used to post my reviews to Amazon, as a sort of public service to buyers, but eventually I decided there was little point in it. I do love the company in general, though. I buy most of my books, and a ton of other stuff, there.
I had two books reviewed by her and it took me until the second review to figure out how that is done. The Klausner review is always posted after PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and LJ have spoken. There are noticeable similarities between hers and some of theirs. Of course, from an author's point of view, a good review is a good review. :)
Posted by: I.J.Parker | January 25, 2008 at 09:55 AM