Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Chippindale Manoeuvre

A Chippindale update: here it comes
Initial post: 27 Jun 2008 22:45 BST
SpellingBee says:
Yep, these are great little books

J. Chippindale says:
Yes they are very good value for money and packed with information

one-eyed Jack says:
J Chippindale and Spellingbee are one and the same person. The sadness reaches new depths.
:-))))) (I had to quote 'cause the guy most likely will delete and repost that thing.) I guess, upon givng this matter his careful consideration, J.Chippindale decided not to sue 1eJack after all and instead resort to supportive sock-puppets. Very wise, says I.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

W.Boudville read fourteen books today, 5,606 pages

Today (June 28, 2008) W.Boudville read at least eight (8) fourteen (14) books:

- Credit Risk: Models, Derivatives, and Management, 600 pages
- Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics, 432 pages
- RFID Technology and Applications, 242 pages
- Silicon Photonics: The State of the Art, 354 pages
- Geographic Visualization, 348 pages
- Market Risk Analysis: Practical Financial Econometrics, 426 pages
- Quantum Computer Science: An Introduction, 236 pages
- Energy Science: Principles, Technologies, and Impacts, 344 pages
- Exoplanets: Detection, Formation, Properties, Habitability, 314 pages
- Wearable Robots: Biomechatronic Exoskeletons, 358 pages
- Planet Mars Research Focus, 314 pages
- Automatic Speech Recognition on Mobile Devices, 404 pages
- Essentials of Programming Languages, 3rd Edition, 416 pages
- AutoCAD 2009 and AutoCAD LT 2009: No Experience Required, 818 pages
Total read: 3,204 5,606 pages of technical text read and reviewed today. All books four stars, very good books, W.Boudville liked them quite a bit.

PS. This is not after a half a year silence: he reviewed books yesterday, and the day before too, and so on...

Harriet Klausner Likes Blogs on

Turns out that our hero, Harriet Klausner, has set up not one, not two, but six different blogs on (here, that is; on this very server) alone. All dedicated to book reviews, needelss to say. Remarkable, isn't it? I knew there was one, but six? Actually, this is a great venue, because this sort of blog shows the monthly number of posts, which, in HK case, means the number of reviews. It's consistently in low 200s. Harriet's no slacker.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

W.Boudville's Quest for Credibility

As is well known by now, W.Boudville possesses an impeccably positive (four stars) reviews record of a humanly impossible gigantic size. Having reviewed half a dozen scientific treatises a day for a very long time, he probably realised at last that no one can believe he actually reads these books, especially since his ratings are overwhelmingly positive (he likes four stars, probably in a mistaken opinion that an all-four- , rather than all-five-star record will make his record look less absurd).

Could this be an explanation of his strangest ever habit of, once in a blue moon, picking a book or two and slamming it on most idiotic grounds? Just so he has some negative reviews? Today we have another recurrence of this inexplicable pattern: he reviewed two books, one, a computer book published in 1980, which he slammed for being obsolete, and another one, titled Teach Yourself Basic Computer Skills, which he slams for being too basic ! :O

You just can't make up stuff like that. Truly.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Those Harriet supporters can be found in the strangest places

Interesting discussion on Harriet and her reviews on the Amazon Romance Forums, it's always refreshing to read comments from those who haven't been jaded by the whole Harriet reviewing machine. I did see one comment that gave me a few good chuckles,

"I have trusted Harriet's reviews for years and I have seen lots of negative reviews from her." Now, if I'm not mistaken we've only seen one three star review from Harriet and nothing lower.

"If she gives a book a great review especially if it is a new author I have never heard of I buy it and she is usually hits it right on the nail." Really and truly?

"I find her reviews accurate and compelling and not a copy of the back cover........ " I'm not even touching that one.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Is there a Harriet wannabe in the top rankings at Amazon UK?

Horrors! Can it be true? Is it Klausnergate? A top reviewer at Amazon UK (current ranking #18) who pops out a healthy number of reviews on an almost daily basis and even states on his profile page in part, "All I can do is give a brief synopsis of the contents of the book and the author's background (if I know it). Criticism is a dangerous area. After all just because I do not like a book does not mean that everyone else will think the same. " Now doesn't that have a familiar ring to it!

But wait, there's more. According to recent comments on said reviewer's reviews, it appears the Brits may finally be on to him and discussions are quite lively at times and in defending himself said reviewer may have opened up another can of worms. Every one remember top ranked Gunny who gave nothing but glowing five star reviews and then turned around and sold those very same books as like new? See his comment here when challenged about whether he'd read the book (and I'll quote in case it's deleted),

"If you would like to give me your e-mail address I will forward the electronic receipt for sale of the said book by me on Amazon. The same goes for the Terry Pratchett book Sourcery. I am sat here wondering why I have to justify myself to you, but to clear things up once and for all I am prepared to make an exception. I always sell books after I have reviewed them, there is no point in keeping a book that you have read and anyway"

Interesting, is he receiving free books from the publishers and turning around and selling them? Thoughts?

Monday, June 2, 2008

"The HARP Variations"

Have others noticed a striking change in the instant growth of Grady Harp's surreal vote totals? Time was he'd break 150 to 200 or so 'helpfuls' within a couple of days, even were he reviewing a used kleenex or a burnt out match. Nowadays, the same absurd vote totals continue to occur, but never within a few days or on his opening page. There one sees, instead, the new tactic of slow, steady, though finally still preposterous growth. Are we to find it probable that hundreds of people who used to vote for Harp astonishingly quickly and oddly in sync have on their own suddenly decided to take it slowly and let the numbers climb into the stratosphere only on less visited older pages? The hypothesis of a single Wizard of Oz serving as his own principal voter - but now seeking to deflect criticism from persons not born yesterday - emerges as the most economical explanation.