Our Blog Comments are of high quality! [...] Our promise to you is that the comments will look very real, from real people (which they are from). The blogger won't recognize that its a paid post.1. JP Picks comment
2. JP Picks comment
3. JP Picks comment
4. JP Picks comment
5. JP Picks comment
6. JP Picks comment
7. JP Picks comment
8. JP Picks comment
9. JP Pics comment
? Uhm.... I mean.... If the shoe fits... :-) :-)
16 comments:
He's all over Amazon. For instance, I was reading reviews of Michael Moore's newest movie and JP weighed in on several reviews, in addition to writing his own. (he has 403 reviews posted) In one comment he complimented the reviewer for his comparison of "Sicko" with Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 451". (!)
I've noticed other Gradyites sucking up to GH, trying to get the crumbs from the rich man's table, so to speak. He could just be another in that long tradition. Some of them used to be quite bold, like MJ Leonard, or Mike Leonard, or whatever he's calling himself these days. In his comments on the great Grady's reviews he used to remind readers to go vote on his review of the item, (usually a movie), next. I'm sure Mr. Callahan would be shocked at such conduct.
Well, the characteristic thing about JP Picks's comments that strikes me most is that they all appear, uhm... perfunctory. Like he wants to leave a trace there but doesn't really have anything to say. That's what makes them look like Quality Comments (TM). Posting a comment for the sakes of having posted a comment sorta thing...
You mean incredibly insightful comments like, " I find your review very interesting" and "Good job" and "this is a great review" and "I enjoyed your synopsis"?
This is the same type of comments GH's other sycophants make to massage his ego. Grady Harp's reviews trivialize all that he touches upon, be it a movie, (sorry, I meant film, the word movie is for rubes), books, or C.D.'s. By declaring himself an expert on all things it soon becomes apparent that outside of his devoted inner cicle he has very little of worth to say to the general public.
I'd feel better if JP's comments turn out to be of the paid variety. Otherwise, I'd begin to worry about the depths of servility to which current human nature can actually sink. How about this blog's setting up a Uriah Heep award for the most shameless ass-kissing of the month by a Klausner/Harp groupie?
By the way, the comments section for Harp's review of the film "Paris, je t'aime" has some good critiques of the obvious vote inflation we're dealing with, and they're from readers either new or who've been silent for a time. They're worth checking out. The usual groupies appear there as well, for example, Foureur (?) whose English seems suddenly and surprisingly immaculate along with some doctor writing to same in halting, suck-up French and spilling the beans that Harp liked and presumably will promote a book of his. Sacre bleu!
Gregory Callahan also makes his predictable appearance, as a man of intelligence, but at the same time one too broad-minded to take what should be his own side in an argument. Typically, he'd rather fuss with the Gordian knot than cut it. How does he ever come to any decision and vote, say, in an election, I wonder? There's always the slight possibility that his conclusions even if on the side of strong probability could still be the wrong ones. Such undue skepticism as he habitually demonstrates, I'd argue, is a paralyzing academic vice more than it is a necessary restraint for those honestly searching for the truth. I imagine, had he been Solomon, he'd have cut the baby in half, thus demonstrating his own "fairness"
toward each mother in that classic dispute. I mean, after all Solomon couldn't be really SURE to whom the baby belonged, given each mother's testimony. Callahan's remarks, then, tend once again toward encouraging readers to make light of the overwhelmingly probable, or even to recognize the honorable, because of the relatively "small" issue that is vote inflation. They really, and sadly, wind up being just all about him and the chance to demonstrate his supposed "liberality" of mind.
Man, this is so bad... sad!
Off topic, (don't punish me moderator, please!), has anyone looked at Boudville's chosen reading matter lately? "Acute and Chronic Wounds: Current Management" is one of his beach reads, and another is a list of Bede manuscripts which is out of print, and written in 1943.
He talks about the color photos of the wounds...who reads that type of thing for pleasure? Who sits around saying, "Wow, cool! Here's the four types of debridement. Awesome necrotic tissue, dude." And then for a change of pace catches up on a 1943 list of writings by one of the Latin Fathers of the Church, best known for his "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" written in the Middle Ages. Boudville must be a laugh riot at parties.
And another off topic observation, did you see that Office Lover is back? The original Grady Harp vote counter, who pointed out that in the early days Grady used to receive THIRTEEN votes automatically. You've come a long way, baby.
No, no punishments (only for volunteers :-) ).
About Boudville, yeah, I did notice he's not much into technical literature anymore -- which is very good. Same with Gunny, btw.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but maybe after seeing our two friends Top Reviewers JMG and WB unmasked, their publishers quit sending them books? Which, if true, is great: congratulations.
Let them switch to the Klausner stuff, although I also see that Boudville likes to review a medical book every now and then. And I will admit that this I can't disapprove of -- Boudville playing a doctor is hilarious.
In the Harp realm I see a lot of comments by someone called "Riviera Reviewer" massively 'deleted-by-Amazon'. Anyone remember what specifically that guy was saying? Is it another 'final solution' by TNGHVM via the 'report abuse' button?
Yes, I was online when R.R.'s comments were being deleted. It amazes me how quickly Amazon can act if one of their precious top reviewers is being questioned, which is what this individual was doing. He or she was remarking on the extremely high vote totals and the speed with which these votes accrued.
But when two of Grady's defenders left some really filthy and abusive comments directed at Office Lover it took months for Amazon to remove those comments. Both of those individuals are still around, still commenting. They were not removed for being profane even though the remarks they left were off-color and personally abusive. One of them has commented on HK's reviews, pretending to be the sweet voice of reason. Do these people think everyone suffers from short term memory loss?
Office Lover is back, btw., posting good stuff as before. I wonder if his comments will be disappeared via 'deleted-by-Amazon' next.
Stanley, where have you been? The Doctor(TM) has already been serviced: Grady has already reviewed his book (Terror or something). Now The Doctor(TM) owes him eternal gratitude and will support Le Maître forever. He had, in the past, shown a lesser committment, but now everything's settled, I guess.
Being an author really sucks: first you need to ingratiate yourself with some imbecile to get your book positively reviewed, and then you must be careful not to piss anyone off lest they pan your book. Oh man, am I happy I ain't got no literary ambition....
Remember when the Doctor spammed all over Harriet's reviews? His comment was something like "Let's all join the A.K.C., the anti-Klausner club" and then he would sign it with his name and "author of TerrO.R." He must have put that same comment up at least two dozen times. At one point MK gently told him that he was spamming and that Amazon frowned on that. But the best comment was KrossD's, "Okay, we get it. You wrote a book. Congratulations.". But it did serve a purpose. It brought him to the attention of some Amazon shills. Lonnie reviewed his book in between gumballs and toilet bowl cleaners. And now the big man. He must be in heaven.
Yeah, I remember, KrossD's comment and everything. How do they get these guys to actually review their books? Do these reviewers vulgarly get paid or it's somethign more subtle and nuanced?
Malleus:
I'm a relative novice to the endless byways of Amazon corruption, so this was actually my first exposure to the ecstatic Doctor, who you point out already has a track record that's anti-Klausner, but pro-Harp. Thanks for the information. I'll have to read the comments sections on Klausner and Harp more widely before I post in future.
By the way, the Riviera Reviewer posted a single comment numerous times at the foot of a slew of Harp's reviews. He(?) complained of having been subjected himself to an improbably sudden rash of negative votes on his own reviews shortly after questioning the legitimacy of Harp's totals. I think most of us have experienced this same phenomenon. The Riviera Reviewer, however, should not be considered simply a martyr to justice in protesting vote inflation as his language was too direct and unnecessarily inflammatory. Amazon has a long history of censoring words it doesn't like, as most people whose reviews have been rejected are well aware. Riviera chose to address the gay mafia aspect of the Grady Bunch which is, in fairness, an element never discussed, but hard to overlook. Some of the Harpies, I suspect, are voting for self-affirmation of the tribalist sort when they routinely click "Helpful for Harp." Such tribal thinking may well be the source of their often frenzied loyalty to Harp and uncalled-for invective toward his critics, a mindset which I find otherwise inexplicable.
What the Riviera Reviewer did, though, was to call Harp directly "her highness" and brand all those who vote for him "lady-boys." The Riviera Reviewer, I'm afraid, gave in to anger, and verbal subtlety was not his forte. Amazon might well have chosen to delete his remarks for dissing language, if nothing else. He wasn't smart to give them such a pretext.
I'm still baffled at your banishment, Malleus, as nasty cracks did not distinguish your commentary, so I'm at a loss to see what sort of convincing case "Report Abuse " clickers could have made to Amazon. Is it mere numbers of such clickers who determine Amazon's decisions in such matters? Who knows?
No one knows, so the hell with it.
Btw, speaking of spam: interestingly, Amazon obviously has no problem with our friend Marc-O (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1SPSG3C94HVH8/) and his posting the same blurb of spam thirty-four times as a review for thirty-four different books. (The books also happen to be all from the same publisher -- and he also just happens to be selling them.)
There are several instances of spamming that Amazon has turned a blind eye toward. It all depends on who is doing the spamming and to what end. They can be quite tolerant of it at times.
I did not see the "her highness" comment of R.R.'s. The most inflammatory language that I saw being used was something concerning a dog returning to its own vomit. But whatever yardstick they use to measure violations of their own guidelines is arbitrary at best, and questionable by any definition.
Interestingly, that's the one that remains.
Post a Comment