Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Ammy's been deleting a lot of comments lately

I've had a few deleted a while ago and have seen at least one person (Beachmama) that looks to be banned from posting, and, several others that have had some comments recently deleted.

I usually save all of my comments to a word document, one reason is for spell checking and the other is if Ammy deletes it, try to determine maybe what the reason was.

I know of others that have recently had their comments deleted. If there are any of you that can remember what was deleted, out of curiosity, I'd like to see them to maybe try to come up with a pattern as to why Ammy is deleting them?
Here is a link to one of them.


buck210 said...

Any deleted comments will be appreciated!

Malleus said...

Saving posts is very wise. I was always too lazy to do that, but it's great for when they whipe you off the face of the earth. Or Amazonia, anyway.

buck210 said...

This is from Beachmama:

Hey Buck: This is
Beachmama! I just tried to post a message on the blog to let you (and everyone else) know that around 7:00am this morning Amazon deleted every single comment I made on HK's recent batch of junk reviews and every other comment I have ever made on any review and left me with this message:

** You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.

Apparently I can spend hundreds of dollars on Amazon but I am no longer allow an opinion on this well know fake who has more freedom there than any of us who are actual customers do. I had three unproductive conversations with their idea of customer service, pointed out while they are monitoring our every move, Harriet is allowed to post reviews in numbers impossible for any thinking human being
to believe. While controlling my temper I also referred them to several websites and the NY Times’ article because it’s pretty clear what Hattie is doing and what Amazon is allowing is no longer a
well kept secret.

I read Embee's post here:
He's right; one by one they are shutting us down. Can I join the party where Amazon can’t
censor me?

Beachmama said...

Thanks Malleus and Buck for:

1. Noticing I was MIA at Amazon
2. Responding to my email
3. Allowing me to join this blog

I still think Amazon will reverse their decision because I know how to get what I want from customer service - stressing the long term relationship I have with them dating back to 1999 and indicating I would esclate my concerns above their little pointed heads.

Still, it probably won't take me long to get into trouble again but I will exercise some caution. I'll let you know how my talk with one of their supervisor today turns out.

Malleus said...

You're welcome, Beachmama -- and welcome aboard. Keep us updated on the proceedings there.

Embee said...


Amazon has been deleting some of my Klausner comments as soon as I've posted them. No trace of them or any comment from Amazon that they were removed. Interestingly enough, the tracking on the deleted comments is still active so I'm getting comments sent to me.

When they restricted you, did they delete your profile,too, and your reviews? I'm kind of curious because I may be next on their list and would like to know if I need to go back and save all my reviews to my computer.

Thanks and I hope you're back on Amazon soon.

Beachmama said...

OMG, while clicking on reviews I've saved looking for the names of other people who should/need to be here I found a lot of my comments have been restored ...... well all but the ones I posted on the 28th that Amazon deemed 'spam' and anything on the 26th and 27th. I checked yesterday and couldn't find a single comment of mine left.

I'm going to let the dust settle for 24 hours before I give posting a trial run.

Then while on my email account I found a new one from Amazon:

"Hello Ann,

We’ve reinstated your account for Discussions. If you’d like to review our Communities guidelines before posting, here is a link to our Help pages:

If this account is used to violate our guidelines in the future, the posting permissions will be permanently removed and we will not be able to reinstate this feature. We appreciate your understanding of our Communities Policies.

I hope this helps. We look forward to seeing you again soon.

Best Regards,

Haley T."

Color me completely surprised. Amazon and I are on a first name basis now? Just yesterday I was a deranged spammer.

Embee – Good to see you!!

They deleted ALL my reviews with this type of notation “[Deleted by Amazon 7 hours ago]” but I was also still getting notification when new comments were posted on a reviews I was tracking. I was busy posting on the 28th and didn’t save anything – my first clue was the dreaded (in red) ** You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post. No warning, I have never received a warning. By then I was toast and everything was gone.

buck210 said...

You're welcome Beachmama and good to see you here and that you got your posting privliges back on Ammy.

Embee, good to see you out here too!

buck210 said...

You're welcome Beachmama and good to see you here and that you got your posting privliges back on Ammy.

Embee, good to see you out here too!

buck210 said...

Not sure how I got that last comment out there twice?

Beachmama said...

I went to Amazon's public policy and discovered some interesting information that I plan to use the next time Harriet barfs up one of her signature obscene fake reviews.

There is nothing any of us have done that Harriet hasn't done much worse.

Ah, something to look forward to!! I wonder what you found so 'interesting'. She hairballed up at least one new review this morning.

buck210 said...

Embee, you mean something like
"Jake is an immature individual who thinks with his lower head only" or
"except for the lower heads of the two Doms" or
"The key to this engaging love fest is that the lead trio is each full blooded and not just in the engorged penises" or
"The lead pair is an intriguing coupling as Alexei's hardened heart is superseded by his hardened lower head" or
"thus she must work his lower head" or
"though his lower head argues with his upper head" or
"Christian and Mrs. Smith are fully-developed (beyond just his lower head)" or

I could go on and on...

Beachmama said...

LOL. Lewd Hattie at her best. What is this fascination she has with lower heads? Is that some sort of raunchy librarian speak?

Hallelujah, I can comment again and did so on her latest.

Question: What is the best way for us to react when our favorite fraud crosses the 'obscene' threshold? Commenting or hitting the abuse button?

buck210 said...

My opinion on the abuse button, it does nothing on Hattie's fake reviews. I can't prove it, but, I think that there are "special rules" for Hattie as she can post just about anything she wants and Ammy just slaps it out there. I didn't actually see these fake reviews, but, a while ago, Jason K pointed that she had a few fake reviews with the word "fuck" in them and they were allowed to stay, not rejected as anyone else’s would be. Later on, she must have been ordered to take the bad words out as they are not there anymore.

Comments, on the other hand, I think that we make quite a difference. 1) Others are being made aware of this fraud just as Manny/Duke/THE TRUTH/Guy the Gorilla taught me a while back. 2) It gets her some negs that tends to get her rank down. I just wish there was some way to educate noobs to this fraud to not vote on all her fake reviews and become a “fan” like the rest of us.

buck210 said...

Malleus, can you clarify something for me? When an account is banned from posting, can you still post reviews and just not comment on anything anymore? And, you can still post new reviews?

Since I don't write reviews, I'm not too worried, I was just wondering as it looks like Embee may be concerned. "When they restricted you, did they delete your profile,too, and your reviews? I'm kind of curious because I may be next on their list and would like to know if I need to go back and save all my reviews to my computer."

Malleus said...

Hey, Embee, great to see you here, welcome aboard. Love your commentary on amz.

> buck210 wrote:
>Not sure how I got that last comment out there twice?
Probably clicked twice on post. Sometimes it's sluggish and you tend to get impatient and click a few times too many. Btw, I think you should be able to delete your own comments. Or, I can remove one later on. Or, let it be, it doesn't bother anyone.

About the "abuse" button: I think it requires something like eleven clicks to get -- POTENTIALLY -- removed. Now, you understand that I've no idea how Amz actually operates, so whatever I say is 'cause it seemed so, or we tested it in the past and it worked like that -- back then (could have changed by now). YOu need this magic number of clicks and then it seems that perhaps someone looks at it and perhaps deletes it (but not necessarily). That Our Queen of Bullshit Reviews may very well have a special dispensation is totally plausible though.

> Malleus, can you clarify something for me? When
> an account is banned from posting, can you still
> post reviews and just not comment on anything
> anymore? And, you can still post new reviews?
Based on my exerience: they blow away all your reviews and prevent you from posting, however, you can still post reviews and, yes, people can comment on them, and you get notifications (provided you configured your account for them to be sent to you). YOu just can't respond, nor post anywhere else. That, btw., makes perfect sense: why would Amz not want more reviews? It's free content that we give them that increases sales and brings in more visits.

What I suggest you do (at least, try) is, when you get bumped off, just go ahead and set up another account. Meaning, buy something and don't log in; instead pretend it's your first time there, and set up an entirely new account. In the past, such accounts (any number could have been set up; not sure what it is now) -- such accounts in the past had posting privileges. I gotta say though that with me, they got fed up at some point and banned me good, so that even new accounts can't post. But, I quit trying a while ago, so maybe it's different now. So, if you get bumped off, try creating another account, see how it goes.

Beachmama, I'm surprised they reinstated you. It has never happened before, afaik. Otoh, I don't know that anyone tried real hard... maybe it's your persistence that got rewarded. Either way, keep in mind: if you kkeep up they'll bust you at some point, have no doubts about it. Matter of fact, if you want to keep your current account intact, don't use it to bash Hurried Klausner. Set up another one (buy something once) and use it for your subversive activities!

Malleus said...

I said "they blow away all your reviews" -- I mean "all your comments". The reviews have always been unaffected by any banishments.

Beachmama said...

Posted by Embee on August 28, 2012:

"The whole point of Amazon customer reviews is that they are supposed to be the unsolicited opinions of disinterested amateurs. (A quote from Iain Manson, the No Hoper).

Harriet Klausner is neither unsolicited nor disinterested and she is not an amateur. She is a reviewer who is paid by the publishing industry, receives free books in exchange for good reviews, or free advance copies, all of which she is supposed to disclose. Do you see that disclaimer anywhere? Of course not, because she WANTS you to believe that she is your ordinary reader just like you and me. The new ethic in today's world of reviewing is that reviewers don't have to read the books they review, in spite of the consumer's belief that a reviewer has read the book. In fact, reviewers say that because they don't have to read the books they review, they aren't required to SAY they read the book. Yeah, and I'm a carpenter--I've just never used any tools or built anything.

Harriet has posted 27,784 reviews, 45 of which were posted overnight and all of which were 4 stars or higher. This is in the last 11 years during which time she has averaged 6.5 to 7 books fake read and fake reviewed every day of the week, every week of the year. She is employed as paid staffer for the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Magazine, Baryon, Porthole Cruise Magazine, Affaire de Ceour, and I Love a Mystery; is an advance reader for Double Day, as printer editor for Painted Rock, and as resident scholar of; she is a member of many more online reviewing consortiums; she owns and operates two of her own websites. She makes an untold number of $$ from reselling her free advance copies of books back to other booksellers. She has skillfully packaged herself so that she is an invaluable marketing tool to publishers, authors, and Amazon while duping unsuspecting readers like you and I.

If you have any doubt about whether or not she reads the books she reviews, just go back to a review of a book AFTER you've read it to see how much she gets wrong and how much she leaves out. Then google her. She is a notorious fake.

Klausner is incapable of telling the truth because she is consumed with several things: Being on the top of the heap, being famous, and making lots of dishonest money.

Her reviews devalue all reader reviews and she thumbs her nose at the entire process with help from Amazon. Readers everywhere should be insulted by this fraudulent activity.

It's time for a call to arms."

I left a comment but quite frankly I think this wonderful post deserves a place of honor on the main page. I couldn't have expressed my disappointment with Amazon's support of this out and out fraud any better. BRAVO.

Malleus said...

It is a very good post. Embee, why don't you post it here as a normal entry (rather than a comment). It's good stuff. Just click on "NEW" and it'll put you into the editor here. You can simply cut/paste it in, or you can add links, pictures, and what not, all the usual net stuff. This is an articulate and logical post, exactly the stuff that should be on the main page.

Beachmama said...

Amazon is deleting comments again today. I only checked the first page of her nearly six page dumpload of reviews, all on books released this morning:

I doubt that this is one of the regulars, probably just a rookie who doesn't know how to play the game yet.

I wonder how many people Amazon pays to monitor Hattie's reviews and remove anything they can possible justify removing under their ever changing, incredibly flexible rules.

They can lock us out of voting but I think keeping up with the large number of reviews she posts and all the comments we make would keep a couple of real, live people busy full time. I wonder what the title is for that pooper scooper of a job?

buck210 said...

Embee, I found a few more, I can also give you the lik to the fake review if you like?

He walks outside onto a beach to get away from super-powered a-holes, but the object of his penis follows him

Ines, recently having found a love note in his briefcase, assumes his office emergency is for his lower head as they have not slept tighter in a month or so

Raymond rationalizes her dumping him without warning as a "penis panic" attack on her part

believes she lack a key element in obtaining the position: a penis.

buck210 said...

Here's another one "but assumes he is back in a shitload of trouble; nothing new to him"

Embee said...

Hey, Buck,

In the most recent round of reviews, I noticed that Harriet wrote it "s h * t". Fascinating. She's never pulled any punches before.

Unfortunately, though, Amazon won't let me post it even when spelled like it is above. So, they're letting her get away with stuff we aren't allow to.

They're still holding fast to their double standard.

buck210 said...

Here are the links:

I think that's all of them, if not, let me know and I'll get them for ya.

Yes, I have been kinda inactive the past week or so, I've been collecting some interesting stats that I'll post sometime later this year.

buck210 said...

When you go way back in her fake reviews and get the message saying to wait until the reviews are available, just keep hitting F5(refresh) until it comes up, it usually doesn't take too long.

I'm now all the way back to Nov 2011 and have saved all of her fake reviews to word documents.

Putting the stats together is a little more complicated as I use Excel and Word in combination with each other to get them.

buck210 said...

Embee, I know you're gonna like this one:

"In San Francisco, Alice O'Brien lost her secretarial job for failing to understand sucking her boss' penis is major duty number one.

Here's another "lower head"

"He knows to keep his distance but cannot while fearing his lower head may cost the case."

Embee said...

All I could say to that was "OMG, OMG". That's completely obscene and beyond offensive. I CANNOT BELIEVE that Amazon would allow that!

buck210 said...

Here's a couple more:

Even with the BDSM encounters preoccupying his lower head, Wade leaves some blood in his upper head as he never loses sight of his missions to win Sarah's heart (he has her vagina) and to end a predator's terrorizing of his beloved Sub

The satirical urban fantasy lampoons testosterone heroes as they get into a penis contest to determine who the female amongst them is

And Yes, Amazon will not allow anybody but Fraud Hattie to post shit like this! Amazing.

Embee said...


I came across a new one today. She's so trying to get around Amazon's policies.

"jerking off to old people porn"

I don't even want to know what "old people porn" is.

buck210 said...

Embee, good find!

I'll add Jerking off/Jerk off to my list of search criteria.

Embee said...


Try the "v" word, too. This morning, another reader pointed out the term "vagina wars".

I suspect that it's related to the women's suffrage movement, but what a vulgar and demeaning non-correlation. If you want the link, I'll get it for you.

I've reported both of these (the previous message and this one) for offensive content.


buck210 said...

I saw that one too, and, have added the "v" word to my search.

fyi, I'm all the way back to Jan of 2011 in saving her reviews. I may try to go back further than that at a later time as I have my work cut out to get stats together from these. I'll keep you posted here if I find any more fun stuff.

Embee said...

Speaking of deleting comments, Ammy just deleted an innocuous posting from The Truth, for whatever reason, I can't tell. You'll find the deletion on this webpage:

Here is most of what Truth had to say (the message was a little longer than what appeared in my e-mail, so the last part of the last sentence is missing):

Sep 7, 2012 10:25:21 PM PDT THE TRUTH says:
your comments keep getting better and better from all angles. Intellectually, grammatically, humorously, and like me, I believe the increasing bite in your comments is because of the nausea mixed with disbelief that this complete fraud is allowed to continue over and over in broad daylight, and just the integrity we have makes this farce unbearable and exponentially more unbearable with each additional counterfeit non-read review. I'm falling in love with you from afar. But don't worry I have an adverse reaction to relish and the fact I'm not part of the infinite, non-definable, constantly touted *sub-genre-fan-base* I'm probably harmless. (Note: Just like all of Klausner's reviews I have no idea what my last sentence means. But I bet if I used that sentence in a review under...

Exactly what was offensive in this I don't know. My response to Truth was far more biting in tone about the HK reverse phenomenon than his (?). I've copied that just in case Amazon deletes it, too.

Beachmama said...

I saw that. We all seem to be taking the offensive by copying and saving material that can potentially be deemed 'inappropriate' by Amazon before they can delete it away. I have avoided the dreaded 'spam' excuse for a disappearing comment/s by rewording anything I've previously posted. Can't wait to see which comment they will ding me for next and whether or not they will notify me when they removed it or give me a clue as to why. Having previously denied me posting rights for a first offensive; I suspect my next will get me banned with no appeal rights. Their 'rules' appear to be amazingly flexible and never seem to apply to Hattie. One would think the language filter alone would have gotten her in hot water. Given the lengths she goes to with tricky vulgarity I suspect she has been warned to clean it up but obviously no one is tracking her behavior the way they are following our every move.

Has anyone ever seen one of her reviews removed or edited?

buck210 said...

Great post Embee!

Back before we had you/SCL/Dona/etc posting on all the recent reviews, I would usually try to post on the first one on the list just to have something out there. Now, I smile every time I go out there and see that most or all of her fake reviews have 1, 2, 3, and sometimes a lot of times more posts on them before I even have a chance to post on them.

I agree with the strengths that we each have and that we complement each other very well! I know that I’ve been shying away from the wit department and concentrating more than a little bit on stats/ patterns/etc. Even though, I’m still going to throw out a grammar/lack of punctuation post out there now and then. Why is it that every time I use the word “still” in a sentence, I laugh to myself because I want to write it Hattie’s way: “Still I’m going to throw out a grammar/lack of punctuation post out there now and then”?.

By the way, the people with wit as one of their strengths are my favorite! L. Donner and GTG, where are you and when are you going to come back? I would love to see you and several others bring your great wit back to the table! Please come back and visit us again soon!

Here are the stats that I posted on Hattie’s fake review:

On Jan 31st, Hattie's ranking was 873, today, it's 1237. She dropped in rank 364 places. Here's a month by month breakdown:
Date-Rank-Up/Down-Down since 1/31
1/31/2012 873
2/29/2012 1053 180 180
3/31/2012 1069 16 196
4/30/2012 1077 8 204
5/31/2012 1075 -2 202
6/30/2012 1069 -6 196
7/31/2012 1106 37 233
8/31/2012 1200 94 327
9/10/2012 1237 37 364

She went down 94 places last month and 37 places already this month. Are recent votes having an effect on Frau Hattie's ranking? Here are some voting stats: Hattie's overall votes are helpful 74% and 26% unhelpful. In August, Hattie received 1189 votes, 826 (69%) helpful and 363 (31%) unhelpful. Votes for all the fake reviews she posted just in August (213 fake reviews), she received 438 helpful (54%) and 203 unhelpful (46%). That comes to only 20% of all the helpful votes cast for fake reviews just in August and 56% of all the unhelpful votes were cast on fake reviews just in August.

Are all the recent comments on Frau Hattie's fake reviews making a difference? I say YES!


Beachmama said...

Embee: Great post and right on point. I for one no longer feel I’m fighting the battle alone and there is a certain amount of strength in that!

I love the statistics that back up everything we know and say but that isn’t my strong suit despite spending my working life as an analyst. The organization gene is and I also wish we could get some of the folks back who were just as committed as we are but gave up in the face of Amazon’s effort to circle the wagons and protect their profitable little shill. There are several other current posters I would be so delighted to see here. They are there every day, every time Harriet dumps a new load, and they keep on keeping on even without the comfort of this little safe zone.

Buck: Your numbers make it real. One by one the comments alone mean nothing but the impact is measurable only when you lay them out the way you do. I know how much work that takes and appreciate the reality weapon those numbers give our little venture.

One thing I have been making an effort to do, beyond commenting, is to go in on the actual books and vote up every review written by someone other than Harriet. Since I can no longer vote her reviews ‘unhelpful’ I can reverse the process by voting other ones ‘helpful’ and reducing her numbers by comparison. Hopefully readers will choose the reviews with the higher helpful rating, thereby putting a dent in Harriet’s influence on buying decision and (hopefully) diminishing her value to Amazon. I can’t tackle them all, but as I drink my morning coffee and listen to the news it’s my new guilty pleasure.

Malleus said...

Embee, I didn't notice anything wrong with your post. If you want to contact me, btw., just send an email to the usual address (

buck210 said...

I found a few more for ya Embee, enjoy:

He knows to keep his distance and use his upper brain, but he cannot as all his blood is flowing within his lower head

While Marcus seeks swords, Cithrin dressed as a boy with his first moustache and a "swinging penis"

perhaps puking once or twice on his lower head would have brought realism to the lusty encounters

Raylene meets the brother Adrian, a former SEAL turned drag queen with no obvious place to tuck in his lower head

she wants intimacy with him and he cannot stop the blood flow to his lower head

Driving the carriage under the influence led to an accident that left Walfort a paraplegic unable to move his legs and as he informs Ainsley his penis

roxy said...

Thanks for the welcome Embee!
I look forward to future conversations as well.

I have only really noticed one of my comments being removed .. I think I mentioned it to you on AMZ comment page.
It was for the new Ringworld book by Larry Niven.
All I had done was quote a sentence from HK's review ( which was quite negative) and I added something like ' and still it gets four stars.'
I have reposted an approximation of this, and so far its still there.
So, I don't understand why some comments are just gone... it didn't even say removed by amazon either.

Beachmama said...

Dona aka Roxy:


I was delighted when I signed in and saw you made it over here where the alliance gathers to plot against the dark side of Amazon and their favorite droid.

Now we need to work on getting The Truth and some of the other regular miscasts to join our merry band of cyber saber wielding rebels.

I love the way everyone jumped on Harriet's latest dazzling dump of dreadful dung. Did anyone else notice she has cut down on telling fans/readers of whatever sub genre she’s double speaking of what they will love/enjoy/relish and went off the three paragraph menu at least once and served up an additional one full of the usual empty calories?

Dare I think Harriet is at last reading something - perhaps our comments?

Malleus said...

Haha, roxy surfaced. Glad to see you made it -- welcome aboard! Just like you say, here Amz can't bump you off suddenly, post all you want. That's why we had started this blog to begin with. They shut you up unceremoniously if you get too "vocal" about their beloved shills (with our dear Lady of Fauxreview at the helm).

As far as voting her down: keep in mind that Amazon tracks votes and if you hit a reviewer one time too many they'll remove all your votes and will not count any new votes from you forthwith (you are now a "fan" of hers, so your vote doesn't count). I vaguely remember testing this thing -- a long time ago, probably about 2008 when this was instituted -- and I seem to remember that the magic number is as low as six (or eight?).

I don't have a problem with that, btw., 'cause it appeared as a response to these legions of shills voting one another up like machines. Hell, some even voted THEMSELVES up, like one of our friends top reviewers, Grady Harp. He used to post his drivel and within a day or two get like 400 votes for every one of them. Ha. That ended in 2008, and I'm all for it, even if it impedes voting down of our beloved Harriet! Actually, it's amazing that she's going down anyway: that means that more and more new people vote no-helpful on her blurbs.

Beachmama said...

"So, I don't understand why some comments are just gone... it didn't even say removed by amazon either."

Roxy: Some of mine are missing as well with no explanation and no clue that they were ever there. None were offensive in any way except the usual ding to her lousy English, spelling, punctuation, run on sentences and smash and grab style.

I have a theory that posting immediately after Hattie puts up a new batch of reviews (usually late at night or very early in the morning) attracts more attention from the comment police than posting them late in the morning or mid afternoon.

So....I'm going to change up my strategy and confine myself to voting helpful on any other reviews over my morning coffee and then adding comments later in the day.

Amazon seems willing to go the distance to protect their prolific little shill. I sometimes wonder if she isn't actually an employee she's given so much rope but never ends up with her neck in a noose.

roxy said...

Thats great! I am glad that I have joined the collective!
We either are the Borg, or have engaged it!
I love scifi.
Embee, you will have to tell me about urban fantasy some day!. I don't know that sub sub genre. No relish yet!

Beachmama said...

"call me slow, but I just figured out to how to find the reviews I commented on but that Amazon does away with."

Embee: Well color me slower!

Can you tell me how to do this? I posted quite a few yesterday that I didn't check 'track this conversation' on because my inbox is stuffed with email from Amazon. I know several of those vanished but have no idea which ones.

Beachmama said...

Dona: You can change the way your name is displayed if you want to; I had to because my first post showed up under my real one.

Just click on the blue 'roxy' on any of your own comments, then click on the bar labeled 'Edit Profile' on the top right and scroll down to 'Identity' on the left, select 'Display Name' and type in your choice; go to the bottom and hit 'save'. VoilĂ !

Another sip of coffee and I'm off to see what Harriet has been up to while I slept.

Malleus said...

One way of deleting comments such that there aren't any traces left is to delete the review itself and then repost it. For some reason, the way Amazon software works is if you ever posted a review for a book, you can delete it and post another one, any time, even if three years later, any number of times -- and your new reviews will forever be dated as your first one. So, if you delete a review and post it again (w/o changing text) no one will notice that you deleted it, but! but this operation wipes out all comments. Maestro Harp used to deal with us in this fashion: we'd post a bunch of stuff about how his idiotic review got 400 yes votes in one day, and next morning it would all be gone.

Could you post a link to where your comment got deleted w/o being marked with "deleted by Amazon" stub?

Oh, yeah, also, I don't really insist, but I do recommend that we call each other by the names under which we're registered here. Otherwise it can be confusing I think.

Dona said...

Thanks beachmama & malleus.
I think I changed it.
I am no too techno-savy.

Beachmama said...

Dona: I checked that one out and left a comment.

Harriet went off the menu again and posted this review in one long running, endless paragraph. She also had the nerve to critique the editing and grammar. A pot meet kettle moment we can enjoy since Hattie murders grammar on a daily basis, never spell checks or edits anything, has no use for correct punctuation and sprinkles in vulgarity whenever she thinks she can sneak it by the Amazon filter.

Dona said...

BUCK 210,
Thank you so much for providing so much detail about HK! When I first got interested this this, I was amazed at how much detail you had collected! It gave me the support I was looking for to learn more.
I love that you save numbers. I don't do numbers well myself but I can understand them.

By the way, HK's "fan" voters number today is 2582.
Thats up a bit huh?
Did you ever co-ordinate her ranking (decreasing) with the fan numbers (increasing).?
I know there was a wobble today, but there always seems to be. SHe was pretty stead at 1070 - 1080 when I first noticed this weird phenomenon.

Anyway, just thanks & hello.

Beachmama said...

Dona: That's an interesting observation. I'm surprised that particular number is rising. I'm assuming that fan voters numbers = the number of helpful votes. If not; skip the rest of this post and let me what it does mean.

Anyway, when I check on her reviews, while voting helpful on others, she VERY often has only one or two helpful votes. These only appear to occur when she is the first and only review for a particular book. Given the fact that she has slowed down a bit I can't see how the total would change that much.

You don't suppose Amazon is playing Tricky Dicky with her numbers do you? Nah, they would never do that.

Beachmama said...

"I don't know what's going on with Harriet's slow posting rate this week, but something's up. I'm watching to see what happens."

Hattie seems to be trying to fly under the radar by posting in small batches on a daily basis instead of posting massive numbers all on one day.

She is also changing up her standard format.....I'm waiting for her to start trying to personalize her reviews to make them more reader friendly.

I have noticed that Harriet seldom reviews the really good books or authors -- the bestsellers. I suspect that the bigger publishing houses don't work with her but I have no numbers to back this up. Her shilling seems to be all for the mostly smaller publishers, those who handle romance, erotica, sifi, fantasy, etc. and their sub genres. Most of the books she reviews draw only a small number of reviews and for some, only a review from her.

In any event, it appears we are affecting how she does her 'job' if she's making adjustment. Running scared? Treading water? Run Hattie run. Glub, glub.

buck210 said...

Dona, you're welcome, and, thatnks for the suggestion Fan numbers "Did you ever co-ordinate her ranking (decreasing) with the fan numbers (increasing).?", I find this to be very interesting and will add that to the mix.

Does anyone else have other suggestions on the tracking of numbers, I would love to hear them? I'm always tweaking my spreadsheet with new stuff and would appreciate any suggestions!

Malleus said...

Dona wrote:
>Sorry about typos..
Don't worry about typos. Don't apologise for them, anyone. Obviously these are quick posts, typos are to be expected.

> this font size is killing me.
You can increase font, if that's what you meant. Different browsers do it differently -- for example, with Internet Explorer you can hit Control + to increase the font by a size (and Control - to decrease).

Beachmama said...

Would someone clarify for me what the expression fan numbers equates to? Is this the number of helpful votes she receives or is it something else entirely? If so, how is it calculated?

Dona said...

'fan' numbers,

I think with Harriet's numbers, the fans MUST be anti-fans and burned up there' no' votes. Maybe her family used up all the 'yes' votes. I can't imagine 2582 lovers of HK's reviews!
I think that word comes from the word fanatic... so its good either way I guess!
Amazon makes it sound like a good thing ... to have so many fans!
It would be interesting to know at what rate the fans go up while her ratings sink.

Dona said...

Thanks for the info on urban fantasy. I will have to try some (any favorites?).
I read a lot of Scifi (old & new) especially post apocalyptic, literary fiction and mysteries that take place in other countries.
No westerns though ... just like Harriet!!

buck210 said...

Backup? yup! flash drives are your freind! I have all of Hattie's fake reviews all the way back to Oct of 2010 right now and will go back further...

Dona said...

"blue blooded penis" and the "lower head" are still in Cherished by Maya Banks so she hasn't started editing past grossness out (yet)!.

Dona said...

That good to know... he isn't a drone from ammy!
Maybe he is getting interested again?

Dona said...

So... who's comment was deleted from "The other half of me" by by M. McCarthy.
Just noticed one went "missing' ... more like the disappeared.

Dona said...

There is a new and good review (useful) of the book Desire the Night by A . Ashley.

And another comment was deleted by AMMY from the thread. on this same book.

Beachmama said...

Dona: Got it covered.

I've been off the grid today after a close and nasty encounter with a wasp.

The deleted comment wasn't mine, I checked all my copies and the threads I'm following.

I wonder why Harriet is posting reviews on books that have been out for a while. Is 'most recent' a default for reviews? Just seems strange.

Embee: I saw your note to Sara, fingers crossed she sees it before some storm trooper removes it. I would be wonderful to see her here. You have been sneaking these little invitations in without attracting any attention so far!!

Dona said...

OUCH! Sorry about the wasp. Hope its better today.
And thanks for the back up!

Another quiet posting day for our dear friend.
I still think she is clearing out backlog... some must have built up!

Dona said...

SLC is a friend of mine ! He doesn't have the time to blog, but reads this one.
He will stay active on AMMY though!
Hope sara & the Truth can join us.

Embee said...


I checked out Ben Rothke last night. I so totally misspoke and I apologize. He's never been involved in a discussion thread about Harriet.

He is, however, a big time reviewer and is currently ranked, I think, 1,889. He's been reviewing since 2008. You can click on his profile:

Most of the top reviewers may be following the controversy surrounding Harriet; and, given that Ben's very familiar with the Amazon review system, he probably popped in to let us know how it works.

I thought he commented on Harriet's "Mass Effect" review and went looking there. Guess what. Without any notation, Amazon has deleted almost three weeks of comments on that review--there is a 3-week gap between the publication date and the first comment.


Dona said...

That is very interesting Re: the gap in Mass effect.
I know sometimes I vote on reviews only to come back later ... like a week and find its as if I hadn't.
Thats on places where I could tell too. Very few votes etc.
I have also read some of the comment threads of the Top Reviewers forum. Some stuff there.
Someone tried to explain AMZ's algorithm for rankings. Thats were I read that its negative based. More points are subtracted for negative votes than are gained for positive.
Who knows????
We need some fey magic!

Malleus said...

Beachmama wrote:
> Would someone clarify for me what the expression
> fan numbers equates to?
Well, first, Amazon never tell: their rules are secret. Second, from my testing a while ago it was like if you vote six times in a row, they "fan" you, meaning your six votes get disappeared and new ones no longer register. I don't know if you recover from this condition if you take a long break. And it could have changed since I tried cause that was a while ago and they constantly change and improve the site.

Dona wrote:
> I think with Harriet's numbers, the fans MUST be anti-fans
No, I don't see how this is obvious. She "reviews" a lot of books; now suppose every author assembles all his friends and all his family and they all go here and give her a "thumbs up" by voting on as many of her blurbs as they have the patience to. Like I said, it only takes like six hits, so there you immediately have a crowd of "fans". Publishers aren't above it too, I'm certain, though their numbers must be lower, 'cause it's the same people.

Dona wrote:
>Not to many new reviews today
Don't you worry, dear. The Gates of Hell will open again. She can be quiet for even as long as a week, but then in just a few bowel movements she more than compensates so that the month's total is as good as ever. With Frau Klau one must always rely on averages - montly and yearly. Last time I calculated her numbers, her lifetime average was close to six reviews a day. That was several years ago; don't know what it is today, except it's certainly not lower than it was. She started posting under this account in late November 1999. Think of it. And then, she claimed somewhere (hearsay) that she reviews only the books she liked; the ones she didn't like she doesn't review (someone asked how come all her reviews are positive; so that's what she came up with to deflect the question). So, imagine this: she says that she reads even more books than she reviews!

Embee wrote:
>What if Amazon has told her to go back and clean up her act?
Never happened before. I mean, she has never been noticed to edit anything. In fact, she never goes back to what she posts in any way. Her MO appears to be Dump And Forget. And no wonder! She has so much to unload every day, how can she be distracted by edits, comments on comments, grammar, cleaning out "lower heads", commas, etc.

buck210 wrote:
> I have all of Hattie's fake reviews all the way
> back to Oct of 2010 right now and will go back further...
When you do, my guess is, at some point you'll get an error of the following kind: "These reviews are unaccessible now, please come back and try later". When this happens, notice at what level of drilling into her history you are. In the past, (like a couple of years ago) it was actually possible to traverse anyone's reviewing history to the very beginning (that's how I know when her record started). But then they removed that possibility (stealthily) - now if you start scrolling they'll stop you at some point; in my experience, it's about a year's worth of reviews back. They don't want you to see too much, apparently.

Btw., friends, a suggestion for everyone: please quote what you're commenting on. This format here is not threaded as it is on usenet, so it's hard to keep continuity. Keep the context local, quote... not too much, just enough to connect the thoughts. You can look at this comment here for an example of how to do that. Btw., do the same on Amazon, for two reasons: first, like here, it helps to maintain continuity, and second, if Amz wipes out the comment you commented on, your quote will be awfully helpful, showing the name and message you responded to.

buck210 said...

Just to clarify a couple of things.

1) When I go way back into Hattie's reviews, I get the message "These reviews are unaccessible now, please come back and try later" all the time. With a little patience and a refresh key (F5, in my case), I'm back over two years. When I leave off, I save the link to favorites and keep going back. If there is a limit, it's more that 2 years and I'm going to keep going back until they limit me.

2) Hattie's average number of reviews per day since she started posting (Nov 1999) is just as you stated, just under 6 per day (5.96). However, in the past 3 years (since I've been tracking her, she's averaging over 7 per day (7.08).

3) Malleus makes a great point,"please quote what you're commenting on". He showed me how to do a screen shot a while ago and I found out that I don't have that ability on this computer and since it's not mine. Malleus, gave me these instuctions a while ago, try it out and see if it works for you?

1. Make sure what you want to take a "snapshot" of is displayed on screen.
2. Hit Shift-Print Screen (that memorises the picture in the OS memory buffer aka "clipboard")
3. Open you image-editing program
4. Create a new image (blank one)
5. Paste in the image from the "clipboard" (usually it's Ctrl-V, or whatever menu selection your program uses; typically the "paste" selection from the "Edit" menu).
6. Now that you got your image inside the editor, you can do what you want with it graphically.
7. When satisfied, save it to disk, preferably in the "jpg" format (this produces small files).
8. Open this blog's text editor.
9. Click on the "Add Image" button -- one of the buttons hanging over the top of the editor)
10. It'll open a dialog box, where you will be able to specify which file to upload (pick the one you saved in step 7)
11. Click on OK. Wait till the picture file gets transferred to
12. Click on Done; the image-embedding code has now been added to your post.
That's it!

buck210 said...

Ok, the geek in me made me do it...

I just went all the way back to Fraud Hattie's first review, I had to hit refresh ~15 times, but, I got it to show. Here is the link:

You may have to hit refresh a few times to get it to come up.

and, in case you haven't seen this, here's Hattie's first ever fake review (first that was posted under her name anyway).

buck210 said...

oops, posted to wrong link to her first page of reviews, here is the correst one:

Dona said...


One I remember that you may not have seen is
Crackpot Palace:stories - Jeffery Ford.

RE: upset writers:
If HK started giving 2 or 3 stars they wouldn't feel the same. Its that practical assurance of five stars that looks so good.
To them it is marketing, to me it is deception.

Malleus said...

buck210 wrote:
>1) When I go way back into Hattie's reviews,
>I get the message "These reviews are unaccessible now,
>please come back and try later" all the time.
Aha, cool, that's what I bump into invariably.

>With a little patience and a refresh key (F5,
>in my case), I'm back over two years. When I leave off,
> I save the link to favorites and keep going back.
That's something new. Myself, I was never able to move past the page where this error message greeted me at last. No matter how much later, it'd be the same, at exactly the same page -- not in an hour, not in a month, not in a year. But I haven't tried at least a year, I must say, so it may be different now. I'm glad you're more successful scrolling back. Btw, try this experiment: do it with someone else's reviews. Pick someone entirely unobnoxious and try to go back, see if you can and how far. Btw, to go all the way back, I used to use a trick: instead of scrolling page by page (might take a while with someone like our Queen here), I'd edit the link I'm about to go to: there's a target page number there, so I'd type in something preposterous, like 100,000. Even dear Harriet doesn't have that many pages, and the software would "correct" my bad number and deposit me at the last (i.e., first) page of their record. So you can (or rather could) get to the bottom of it on one shot. But I don't know if that works now, 'cause to me it's always "dun-dun-dun! reviews unavailable, please hang up and try again" and I could try till I'm blue in the face and I'd never move past this page.

>I found out that I don't have that ability on this computer
You should be able to take a screenshot on any computer (as long as it's Windows, of course). Shift - PrintScreen does it. It's not anything special, it's part of regular Windows OS since the very beginning. You could do it on Windows 3.1, I think. Anyways, yes people, always do it when you refer to something, 'cause they like to cover their traces and then raise stink like they didn't do it. So when you catch them with their pants down -- take a picture! :-)

Buck210, your links look cut-off. What I think should be done in cases like this, is check out if the links you're planning to post is too long, and if it is, don't post it in a comment, post it in a regular blog article where you can use HTML to handle links of any length. If you don't know what the codes are, look at the bottom of the blog page, there's a stack of links there with a couple to the pages with HTML codes, so you can look them up.

Alternatively, if you want to post in a comment, just cut them up in fragments that fit into a comment, and post them like that: this, of course, will require reassembly, but at least the links will be accessible. When they're cut off you can't use them, at least sometimes.

Dona wrote:
>Seems if more authors understood what is going on it might help.
They understand very well what is going on! They'll rape their grandmother to sell their crappy books -- don't assume they're somehow honest, most of them are goodfornothing turds who don't want to work for a living, their income is precarious and they will stop at no ethical boundaries to make a buck w/o having to drive truck. Especially in the genre that Harriet tends to review (rich with "lower heads" etc., housefrau porn basically). These are hacks, and they want them some five-starrage, no matter from whom, Harriet will do — in fact she has a good reputation 'cause she'll give it five stars.

Also, it's not necessarily the authors who deal with shills, it may be the publisher. And... the author may not have any say in the matter too.

Dona said...

RE: code and invite.
Thanks! I had no idea.
I hope he/she 'gets' it!

Beachmama said...

Dona: Thanks for the notification.

Consider it done, done, done, done, done, done, done and done!!!!!

Dona said...

RE; power of the positive.
Thanks... that was cool!

buck210 said...

Malleus, "I'd edit the link I'm about to go to: there's a target page number there, so I'd type in something preposterous, like 100,000." that's exactly how I got back to her first review.

I'm now back to June 2010 and still going.

One thing I've noticed is the use of the word (this is my favorite Hattie word) "relish" is being used less and less each month. I took a look at her first 3 or 4 months of fake reviews and she was about 50% relish. btw, that's another thing I'm going to track in the near future, % of fake reviews per month with "relish".

GTG, I saw your post on one of fake reviws today and I'm really glad that you are thinking of making a comeback, I'm sure it will be action-packed-adaptation-adult-alternate-amateur-America-Amish-amusing-apocalyptic-bloody-chance-character-Charming-Chinese-collection-Colonial-competitive-complex-contemporary-cowboy-cozy-cycling-dark-delightful-detective-doomsday-drama-driven-dry-engaging-enjoyable-entertaining-entry-erotic-erotica-excellent-exciting-exhilarating-extremely-fabulous-failures-fairy tale-family-fantasy-fascinating-fast-paced-fitting-freshness-fun-gothic-graphic-great-hard-boiled-heartwarming-heated-Historical-humorous-Intriguing-investigation-investigative-jocular-legal-look at-magnifique-medical-melancholy-military-Mindful-moving-mystery-old-parable-paranormal-police-powerful-pre countdown-pre-Revolutionary War-procedural-psychological-refreshing-regency-regional-reprint adult-romance-romantic-rural-satirical-science fiction-second chance at love-series-sleuth-somewhat-Southern-state-strong-super-superb-suspense-laden-swashbuckler-Swedish-tale-taut-tender-tense-terrific-tongue in cheek-tribute-unique-urban fantasy-Victorian-violent-warm-western-whodunit-witty-wonderful -young-zany-zombie!

I know that I (and I'm sure several others) would like to see you out here posting on the HKAS blog also!

Beachmama said...

GTG: I saw the same comment Buck did but the second one you posted was a true classic. I'm still giggling.

I'm guessing Harriet would have considered my late husband a stalker as well. I found it romantic that he left flowers, notes and little gifts for me to find. Poor little unsuspecting fool, only with Harriet's help do I now recognize his unhealthy habits. Flowers, in vases, gifts,, no, no. Per HK that's not wooing it's stalking. What rock is this nitwit living beneath?

I kept a snapshot of it just in case it vanishes into thin air as so many of ours do.

For those of you who haven't seen it here's the link:


Buck: That list of adjectives is awesome; I'm thinking Hattie has a program that will insert the appropriate ones on an as needed basis. 'Relish' has apparently lost favor but 'fast-paced' is still much in use and her new favorite noun is BFF. She is still assuring readers/fans they will enjoy/appreciate what she's shilling; often in a FOURTH paragraph.

She appears to be feeling a little stalked herself given the way she is changing up her standard protocol.

Anonymous said...

Hi Embee! I think that's a great idea! I'll take a leaf out of your book and start saving my comments. I think I've had two of my comments deleted by Amazon and alas, I don't remember what I wrote.

Malleus said...

buck210 wrote:
>Malleus [quoted:] "I'd edit the link I'm about to go to:
> there's a target page number there, so I'd type in
> something preposterous, like 100,000."
>[T]hat's exactly how I got back to her first review.
Oh yeah? When did you do this last time? Perhaps they changed how it works lately (?) If so, it's a good sign — easier to research.

Anonymous said...

ARGH!! Speaking of the big A, my comment just got deleted!! It's too bad I didn't save it! However, I think I remember what I wrote.

" I find it annoying how my votes never get registered, while Amazon's automated reply is always: "Thank you for your feedback." You've robbed us of our right to give any feedback.
I resent the label "fan voter." I am NOT a fan of Harriet's fake reviews. I'm sure the other 2,583 "fan voters" feel the same way I do. Harriet is a fake. This review is a fake. Her 2,7893 reviews are ALL fake. Stay away from this fake reviewer and vote NO."

Dona said...

That seems like a reasonable comment.
Its hard to tell what or when or why anything gets deleted.
Is it true that the authors of books are also allowed to delete comments?
I was sure I did the first comment of a book a couple of months ago, and when I checked it later it said 'deleted by author' I know it wasn't referring to me as I didn't delete it.

Embee said...


I think that authors can delete a certain number of comments. Two years ago, I got into a wrangle with an author when I labeled her book the worst I'd ever read. She and a large number of her friends attacked me and downvoted not only that review, but all my others until they ran out of votes.

Long story short, during one conversation, an Amazon representative told me that authors have a certain number of free passes with which they can remove reviews if they don't like them. When I repeated this to another customer rep the next day, they denied it. I think it's a closely guarded secret.

That was when they threatened to stick me in jail and throw out the key.

I don't know what they said to the author, but all the negative votes on the review disappeared and never showed back up, but they didn't do anything about the downvoting.

Anonymous said...

yes, I find my comment reasonable too. Maybe it's the part about the fan voters that got under their skin? Since Harriet is in cahoots with Amazon, there's no telling what pushes their Delete Button.

Meanwhile, I didn't know that authors can delete comments. I guess it's wishful thinking on my part to think that they might also have the power to delete HK's fake reviews into oblivion. FAT CHANCE.

Beachmama said...

Sara: This is exactly what you said:

Sara says:

Amazon: I find it annoying how my NO votes never get registered, while your automated reply is always: thank you for your feedback. You've robbed us of our right to give ANY feedback. I resent the label "fan voter." I am NOT a fan of Harriet K's notorious fake reviews. I am sure the other 2,583 "fan Voters" you have on your site feel the same way I do.

Harriet is a fake. This "review" is a fake. Her 27,893 "reviews" are ALL fake. Stay away from Harriet's "reviews" and VOTE NO.

I saved a print copy of the entire thread because I thought they might removed both of GTG's remarks and then start dinging the rest of us.

I left another comment behind your latest pointing out that the first comment there now was my response to you -- so it's easy to see who's comment got axed.

Unbelievable! Amazon's underhanded tactics still stun me.

Beachmama said...

BTW Sara, you posted that comment on September 16th.

Mine was the first response and it was posted today as were all of the following ones. There is now a total of ten, including your deleted one.

How long will it take them to delete the entire thread if your comment was deemed worth removing?

Dona said...

Correction in last post ' ammy would NOT like that they did so."

Beachmama said...

Embee’s List:
Letter from a Stranger
Temptation Rising
A Silence of Mockingbirds
Dorchester Terrace
The Long Stitch Goodnight
Hounds Abound

Dona’s List:
Foul Play at the Fair
Blood Bath & Beyond
How to Tail a Cat
If I Fall

Just finished voting ‘helpful’ on every review for these books but Harriet’s. In some cases it really helped; in others more help is needed.

Dona: I don’t believe I ever told people to “Vote no on Harriet” in one of my comments but I’ve posted so many I can’t really remember. I know it wasn’t something I said regularly. Mostly I attack the bad grammar, sentence structure, etc. or the lack of a personal point of view and often recommend that readers look for better reviews from someone who appears to actually have bothered to read the book in question. I also tell folks to Google Hattie’s name or link to what is said about her on Wikipedia.

Which reminds me; we need to update their page on Harriet with what we have discovered. Might work on that myself tomorrow over morning coffee! If I do; I’ll let all of you know so you can add your fifty cents if you feel inclined to. Maybe someone can add some of the stats you have collected.

I'm off to watch 'Revolution' as the first episode airs tonight.

Dona said...

Thanks beachmama!
sounds good.

buck210 said...

Dona wrote: "Have you or anyone kept track of HK's total number of positives votes plotted over time?" I'm doing something like that right now (I'm also tracking negative votes).

I have something right now, but it's only since the beginning of the year. Let me know what ya thing as I'm going to try and go back a couple of years with this:

These votes that I'm tracking are the ones cast on the reviews posted for that month only.

Total-Helpful-%-Hot Hepful-%
Jan 1044 506 48% 538 52%
Feb 599 423 71% 176 29%
March 730 509 70% 221 30%
April 730 514 70% 216 30%
May 733 485 66% 248 34%
June 646 374 58% 272 42%
July 617 358 58% 259 42%
August 583 310 53% 273 47%

buck210 said...

Please note that in Jan, the mass effect review had 4 of 312 helpful.

Dona said...

Do you think that the RATE at which she acquires 'helpful' votes relates to the changes in her rankings?
For instance. If there is a period of time where receives fewer helpful (than normal... what ever that is) does her ranking go down?

Only 25 new reviews today! Not bad.

Anonymous said...

Like you guys said, the best way to defeat this machine is to allocate some time to reading and voting yes on the helpful, recently released reviews.

Meanwhile, TChris is a wonderful reviewer. A far cry from the rubbish that Harriet passes off as reviews.I think Amazon no longer accepts my votes on TChris'reviews anymore.

You know what irks me? How people could possibly find Harriet's garbage remotely helpful They're nothing but poorly written summaries!

buck210 said...

My Bad! I have that too, I just wish it would format better here.

Date Fans Rank Up/Down Total Tot H % NH %
1/31/2012 2555 873 1044 506 48% 538 52%
2/29/2012 2555 1053 180 180 599 423 71% 176 29%
3/31/2012 2555 1069 16 196 730 509 70% 221 30%
4/30/2012 2555 1077 8 204 730 514 70% 216 30%
5/31/2012 2555 1075 -2 202 733 485 66% 248 34%
6/30/2012 2555 1069 -6 196 646 374 58% 272 42%
7/31/2012 2555 1106 37 233 617 358 58% 259 42%
8/31/2012 2555 1200 94 327 583 310 53% 273 47%

Beachmama said...

Sara said...

You know what irks me? How people could possibly find Harriet's garbage remotely helpful they're nothing but poorly written summaries!

Agreed. But we don't really know where those 'helpful' votes come from do we?

Considering the dishonesty of the entire practice, what we know Amazon must know about Hattie and yet be more than willing to put themselves out to protect their apparently profitable shill who knows what is going on behind the curtain.

Tracking our comments, deleting some for no discernible reason, banning or warning a lot of us is a time consuming enterprise. The little Amazon henchmen assigned this task could be the very voters attempting to keep her stats positive.

The entire idea of fan voters is certainly not to keep readers for voting in a positive manner; that would go against Amazon's better interests.

So it's the negative votes they want to minimize. Although they may want to keep other real reviewers, who are not on their payroll, from becoming well known since they can't control them.

I spent the morning posting comments. So far I have seen nothing deleted but I'm carefully screen printing everything I do. Sometime tonight I will start voting up any other reviews posted on today's dump.

Anyone find any relish today?

Dona said...

Great job today answering S. Petrucha (super man zombie detective thriller).

That was a wonderful reply & explanation. You are so good and patient at doing that! Very helpful indeed.
I know you have fielded many of these queries from authors and look forward to reading what you have learned.

Beachmama said...

Embee: I cannot adequately express how impressed I was with that skillful rebuttal to the author’s legitimate questions about how we are using the comment option on reviews. Explaining that Amazon has left us no other avenue to make our point and that the comment section is really a place to comment on specific reviews and not the book itself they was a brilliant idea. Reviews are about the book, comments on these are about the review or the reviewer. Most of us often make that distinction clear when we post.

All the detail and information you provided simply made your case without the need to rant or rave. You presented facts, Harriet’s history and pointed out Amazon’s complete refusal to address an issue that has been brought to their attention again and again over a long period of time. You were upfront about what we were doing and why.

I spent a great deal of my life working for a Fortune 500 electric provider and walking the tightrope between the needs of customer vs. the profit line of the company. We called any solution that served both needs a win/win. Well done!

Mr. Petrucha is right, we are spitting in the ocean, but if enough of us spit maybe we can alter the ocean and make it a safer place for readers to swim.

buck210 said...

The post on Ammy about getting together and hacking Hattie to bits over drinks got me to my archives of names that I collected over the past couple of years, here they are and if you can think of any others that I missed?

“Goddess of (bad) Grammar”
“The Perpetual Perpetrator of Poor Punctuation”
“The Butcheress of Grammar”
“Harriet the Great and Prolific Poobah of Frauddom”
“The Mad Hattie”
“Harriet Hogwash”
“the Diva of Deceit”
“The Cozy Queen of Crap”
”Mistress of Malarkey”
“Our Lady of Perpetual Posting”
“Harriet Hooey”
“Klausner the Quack”
“The Fraud Known as HK”
“The Butcheress of Grammar and Sentence Structure”
“Queen of Quotable Commaless Crap”

Embee said...


Ammy just deleted your comment on the "Nowhere to Run" thread. I reposted it since I got an e-mail with it.

Have they banned you again or was that just a classic case of a disappearing comment?

Anonymous said...

Embee: your comment lasted less than 5 minutes on Nowhere to Run.

Dona: I was only able to cast a positive vote on the most recent review. The other two I've already given my vote yesterday.

I can't believe 4 people already found her trash helpful. I suppose when there's a dearth of reviews, any review is viewed as helpful. Some people have cotton candy for brains. Sorry!

Beachmama said...

Embee said...


Ammy just deleted your comment on the "Nowhere to Run" thread. I reposted it since I got an e-mail with it.

Have they banned you again or was that just a classic case of a disappearing comment?

Sara said...

Embee: your comment lasted less than 5 minutes on Nowhere to Run.

Wouldn’t you know I didn’t copy that conversation because it was so long and had become pretty innocuous. Don’t remember what I said but I can’t imagine it was bad enough to get deleted twice. Obviously they were sitting on the thread or Embee’s re-post wouldn’t have disappeared so fast. Embee: If you have the text can you post it here?

None of my other comments from today have been deleted but I haven’t tried to post again. When they banned me before they removed everything I had posted that day and for several of the previous days and emailed a warning -- telling me I ‘could’ be banned for any further infractions -- when in fact I had been banned and locked out of commenting. I just checked my email and nada. Think I will wait until tomorrow to sign in and see if I’m toast....AGAIN.

Embee said...

On the book, Nowhere to Run, Beachmama says;


Glad to! Here it is, Beachmama:

Sep 19, 2012 2:33:57 PM PDT Beachmama says:
"When I suggested naming a drink for our favorite fraud I had no idea you guys could get so creative.
My personal favorite:

'Harriet of the Dog' - because anyone reading Harriet's gibberish will end up with a Hattie Hangover. Hopefully it's served in a very large glass with two aspirins on the side."

There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to Amazon's removal of the above comment.

Beachmama said...

Embee said...

Re: FTC Guidelines

I've been doing a lot of research on a number of different areas. As I spout it out, anybody is free to use the information. It's meant to be shared.

Thanks for all the information you shared in this post. I thought you might find this relative, I stumbled across it accidently:

If you scroll down there is a section titled 'Internet' that contains some legal ramifications regarding shilling. Quoting from just the second paragraph although the first is also interesting reading:

"In some jurisdictions and circumstances this type of activity may be illegal. In addition, reputable organizations may prohibit their employees and other interested parties (contractors, agents, etc.) from participating in public forums or discussion groups in which a conflict of interest might arise, or will at least insist that their employees and agents refrain from participating in any way that might create a conflict of interest. For example, the plastic surgery company Lifestyle Lift ordered their employees to post fake positive reviews on websites. As a result, they were sued, and ordered to pay $300,000 in damages by the New York Attorney General's office. Said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo: "This company’s attempt to generate business by duping consumers was cynical, manipulative, and illegal. My office has [been] and will continue to be on the forefront in protecting consumers against emerging fraud and deception, including ‘astroturfing,’ on the Internet."

Beachmama said...

"When I suggested naming a drink for our favorite fraud I had no idea you guys could get so creative.

My personal favorite:

'Harriet of the Dog' - because anyone reading Harriet's gibberish will end up with a Hattie Hangover. Hopefully it's served in a very large glass with two aspirins on the side."

Well I have certainly said much worse things than that. The only word there they could possibly have an issue with is FRAUD and every Tom, Dick and HKAS member and half the world has called HK that.

Hell when you look up the word fraud in the dictionary Harriet's picture is right next to the definition.

Amazon's trolls have no brains and no sense of humor. The second is almost more unforgivable than the first. I wonder if they realize that while Harriet is driving a Cadillac with the trunk full of money they are probably riding a bicycle and being paid a pittance.

Beachmama said...

Me again! Posted a comment on Hattie's latest early this morning; so it looks like I'm good to go. Hopefully you are too Embee.

I have no idea why they dinged us for that particular comment since we have put up much more inflammatory material and escaped with our tail feathers unsigned. Perhaps it’s just a reminder that they are watching us. Frankly I’m surprised that Amazon would still be monitoring a review from four days ago, four pages into Hattie’s list of recent ones with four pages of comments; most of them banter between posters.

buck210 said...

Posted on one of Fraud Hattie's fake reviews today

Mid Month Update:
On Jan 31st, Hattie's ranking was 873, today, it's 1242. She dropped in rank 369 places. Here's a month by month breakdown:
Date - # of Fans - Rank-Up/Dn - Rank Up/Dn since 1/31
1/31/2012 2555 873
2/29/2012 2555 1053 180 180
3/31/2012 2555 1069 16 196
4/30/2012 2555 1077 8 204
5/31/2012 2555 1075 -2 202
6/30/2012 2555 1069 -6 196
7/31/2012 2555 1106 37 233
8/31/2012 2555 1200 94 327
9/30/2012 2585 1242 42 369

She went down 94 places last month and 42 places already this month. Are recent votes having an effect on Frau Hattie's ranking? Here are some voting stats: Hattie's overall votes are helpful 74% and 26% unhelpful. So far in September, Hattie received 725 votes, 478 (66%) helpful and 247 (34%) unhelpful. Votes so far for all the fake reviews she posted just in September (133 fake reviews), she received 231 helpful (55%) and 104 unhelpful (45%). That comes to only 18% of all the helpful votes cast for fake reviews just in September and 62% of all the unhelpful votes were cast on fake reviews just in September.

Again I ask, are all the recent comments on Fraud Hattie's fake reviews making a difference? I say YES!

Anonymous said...

Please kindly cast your vote for Chels review ( Resurrection Express by Stephen Romano).

Beachmama said...

I left this comment on the new set of stats Buck posted today on Harriet’s most recent review:

“What I find interesting is that between 8/31/2012 and 9/30/2012 Harriet's number of `fans' went from 2,555 to 2,585.

We all know this means an additional 30 people can no longer vote 'unhelpful' on her reviews.

That's the bad news. The good news is that thirty more people have been downgrading her summaries passed off as reviews and are now locked out and labeled a Harriet fan; all in a month's time. Hopefully this trend will continue as more and more readers (aka customers) realize that her reviews are basically worthless when making a buying decision.”

So Amazon has blocked another thirty people who have had the nerve to hit the unhelpful button and they have the nerve to call these folks Hattie fans. In what universe does voting a review useless equate to being a fan? BUT it makes Harriet look like a popular reviewer which is just another tricky Amazon lie.

What are the chances that any significant portion of these 2,585 fans are potential readers who constantly voted HK helpful? My guess is somewhere between slim and insignificant because I doubt that a helpful vote gets you blacklisted.

Considering that this change took place only last month I’d guess that we have picked up some silent helpers with our messages to vote no -- unfortunately they probably don’t realize Amazon removes their right to just say no after very few not helpful votes. Still, it’s progress.

Sara and Dona: I must have already voted on those two because I couldn't get anything to register even when refreshing and trying twice.

Dona said...

I haven't seen a post from milleus for a bit.
! So I don't know nothing ... good English!
And thanks to buck for the numbers! again!

Anonymous said...

I, too, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Amazon is Harriet's co-conspirator. It's flat-out disgusting! I'm going to contact Amazon again ( I know it's pointless) and try to reason with them. I'd like to know who is orchestrating this. Is Jeff Bezos aware of this or is he the pupeteer to this mad orchestration.

I bet if I were to cast endless positive votes on Harriet's senseless reviews, I wouldn't be refrained from voting.

Beachmama said...



I’ll bet you a round or two of margaritas that Jeff Bezos has no idea what goes on behind the scenes at the level of the worker bees we are forced to deal with. Nor do I think he would advocate favoring a paid shill over satisfying paying customers. Maybe it’s time for a letter writing campaign via old fashion snail mail. The most current address I can find for Amazon is 440 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109. They started occupying this new campus, with plans for at least dozen buildings, in April of 2011 and will complete the move to the completed facility sometime in 2013.

I know every large corporation I’ve ever worked for goes to extraordinary lengths to keep their CEO/COO from hearing customer complaints or learning that their business model is generating negative attention which often generates bad publicity. I learned a long time ago that when dealing with the front line types nothing gets their attention faster than asking for the name of the CEO/COO and his mailing address. Jeff also founded Amazon -- so it’s his baby.



OTOH I wouldn’t wager a stale bag of Cheetos on this one!

Beachmama said...

Excellent points Embee.

I have an idea that might be worth considering as well. This site is open for anyone to view but this particular thread contains a lot of strategizing, game planning and most of us are using the names we use on Amazon. We have also posted links to it on Amazon when commenting, not often but more than a couple of times.

Perhaps we need to limit access to this thread or create one with limited access that is dedicated to the above and other issues like what books need more votes on reviews not posted by HK, worries about deleted comments and being banned – you get where I’m going with this – we are leaving ourselves open to the enemy thereby allowing them to monitoring what we’re doing or planning to do, to plot against us and/or devise countermeasures that will render us ineffective.
In other words, we need a safe zone here that Amazon can’t access before the freedom we’re allowing them gets all of us locked out, or banned and unable to do anything at all. They are very likely to change up something to diminish the roll we are now playing; we need to be a move ahead of them.

Can this even be done? Good or bad idea? Thoughts anyone?

Anonymous said...

You both raise valid points.The possibility of terminating the commenting section is unnerving. I know that we are a thorn to Amazon's side but do you really think they'd go to such extreme lengths? Especially since the commenting isn't pertained to books only. People love reading/posting comments (I sure do). Comments add a level of value to the products; it's a selling point. So for Amazon to shut the commenting would affect them, even if it is on a minuscule level. Like you guys said, I don't think they'll remain quiet for too long. The frequency and arbitrary method in which they're deleting our comments indicates that they're not liking this one bit and will in all likelihood take action against us. They'll probably penalize us by banning us from reviewing and commenting permanently. That's why I think Beachmama's idea is great.

buck210 said...

I agree with the secure site idea too.

Still, (my favorite word) I've been a software developer (computer geek) for over 30 years, you'd think I'd be able to do this kind of stuff in my sleep, but, I'm a dinosaur and have had very little to do with the web. I still (there I go with that word again) may take a stab at it though. I'm still (and again) hoping Malleus might be able to set it up.

Spreadsheets, on the other hand, are my specialty; I can process stats of any kind with very little effort.

Beachmama said...

This might help:

However I see no information on controlling just one thread.

Maybe a separate, private blog, restricted so that access is granted to only an established list of users is an easier solution. We could still post all public information and stats here and then have our private conversations on another HKAS - Members Only one.

This thread is really the only one that would need to be taken down here and moved there.

Malleus said...

Guys, I'm here but very busy with something else. A private thread is quite possible, but I have no time to set it up at the moment. Give me a few days, I'll have a bit of time then. So, for now just email each other (if you need each other emails, send me the address you want to use (or say that you want to use the registered one) and I'll send a group email to all of you with your addresses so you can reach each other).

Anonymous said...

So it looks like Amazon has ignored my email. Their representatives reply within 12 hours and it's been well over 12 hours. I'm gonna contact them again and again till I get a reply. I don't understand their allegiance to such a hack! It's beyond ridiculous! People oftn arise to infamy due to being able to do something with efficiency. Harriet can't write for shit (excuse my language)! My eleven-year-old nephew can do a better job!

Anonymous said...

Harriet's staunch bull dogs have deleted my comment on Buffalo Bill's Dead Now.

The irony is that I was merely quoting Harriet's distasteful language such as "lower head" and "blue blooded penis."

I said that I surveyed Amazon's Review Guidelines and Harriet's use of such inappropriate content violates said guidelines.

How DARE I say such a thing!

Instead of deleting her crappy reviews, they deleted my comment.


Beachmama said...

So Harriet can use crude terms like lower head (tell me what else anyone with an IQ above a single digit would think that references) and blue blooded penis (meaning that either the owner of said appendage is royal, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth or that the appendage's appearance is quite strange) with immunity but anyone else gets dinged.

Let's face it, these are not bull dogs they're serfs -- in bondage to the feudal Kingdom of Amazon where Lord Bezos rules with his favorite Vassal Hattie at his side.

From Wikipedia:

'The lord and vassal enter into a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, whilst the lord agrees to protect the vassal from external forces.'

Sound about right doesn't it? Or we can go with a more modern analogy. The Mafia where Bezos would be the Don and Klausner his Consigliere and the poor bull dogs are just expendable errand boys without a title.

Also from Wikipedia:

When a Don gives orders, he issues them in private to the Consigliere as part of the insulation between himself and operational acts.

That works too, I just hope it makes us the Untouchables.

Dona said...

HK used first person singular today!

Anonymous said...

Is there a way we could personally contact Jeff Bezos without going though Amazon's goons?

Someone should tell him that this hack is making a mockery out of his organization.

The guidelines apply to everyone BUT Harriet. It's a joke!

Beachmama said...




This is part of a post of mine from a couple of days ago:

"The most current address I can find for Amazon is 440 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109. They started occupying this new campus, with plans for at least dozen buildings, in April of 2011 and will complete the move to the completed facility sometime in 2013."

Granted a letter sent to Jeff may be opened, read and discarded by someone else but my experience is that CEO's do pay attention to such letters because they are so rare. One of the companies I worked for assumed one such customer letter equaled a problem that a larger number of customers probably were complaining about to their friends. These days such complaints end up going viral on the internet, land on blogs or become the topic of an exposé on television.

If say three of us wrote to Jeff, spacing the letters out and covering different approaches -- stats, websites where Harriet's name is mud, The NT Times' article, links to comment threads, copies of written complaint to Amazon's joke of a customer service department, etc. -- we might get heard.

It's a shot we haven't taken yet and only costs the price of a stamp and a bit of pulling together research we've already done. I would cc: The NY Times just for the hell of it.

Malleus said...

Sara wrote:
> Someone should tell [Jeff Bezos] that this hack is making
> a mockery out of his organization.
C'mon. Jeff knows exactly what's going on. He's a brilliant businessman. You don't grow a huge business out of nothing in ten years by not knowing what your hacks are doing.

>The guidelines apply to everyone BUT Harriet. It's a joke!
You mean the disclaimer? Or is it something else? Nobody posts these disclaimers... with very rare exceptions. Why bother? The FTC isn't gonna do anything if they catch you, they'll wave their finger at you, that's all.

Anonymous said...

Beachmama, I think Malleus is right. How could Jeff NOT know what's going on, especially since Harriet has been perpetuating her charade for over a decade?

The Truth kindly responded to my question on a thread:

"Bezos absolutely knows. A few years ago a great and enthusiastic member of the Klausner The World's Largest Literary Fraud Debunkers Society (I believe his name was Tepper) actually sent an email directly to him. Back in the day (I have no idea if he still does) Bezos had a profile just like you and I and he had his email address posted (he actually had written a couple of non-exciting reviews on some products). Not too long after that (pure coincidence??) Tepper was completely removed from Amazon.

Like I have said over and over, what adds insult to injury, like pouring lemon juice into a large razor cut on your face, is that Amazon allows and participates in this fraud in absolute broad daylight and at night 24 hours a day. I still remain dumbfounded that a billion dollar publicly traded company not only allows this fraud to continue year after year, but they participate in it.

By the way-- don't you think blatantly rewarding this illiterate plagiarizing fraud with banner headlines everywhere her name is that she is A HALL OF FAME REVIEWER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR is Amazon's way of spitting in our face? That says as much as Fraud Klausner never responding to all our comments. This scam is totally orchestrated and synergistically blended from top to bottom.

So to repeat your question: Does Bezos know. Absolutely, positively, unequivocally. Don't even doubt it for a microsecond.

Knowing that, how can you even expect some low level third world 158th down further in the chain of command hourly Amazon employee whose birth name was Abhishek but signs your boiler plate #'s 1-9 email response to you with the name *JOEEEEE-THE-G.* -- well I would hope you get the point by now that despite what Dylan once said: "The times they are a'changing". Sara, that song was not about the Fraud Klausner and Amazon."

Anonymous said...

I sent them an email yesterday (again).

"In previous emails (upon informing you of a fake, veteran reviewer by the name of Harriet klausner and providing evidence of her deception), you informed me that Harriet doesn't violate your review guidelines.

There's a book by the name of, Beyond the Storm, Quilts of Love Series by Carolyn Zane. Its publication date is October 2012.

In typical fashion, Harriet reviews a book that hasn't been released to the masses without disclosing the fact that she received an ARC. She does this in countless reviews!

I perused your Review Guidelines. It states: "Full disclosure: If you received a free product in exchange for your review, please clearly and conspicuously disclose that that you received the product free of charge. Reviews from the Amazon Vine™ program are already labeled, so additional disclosure is not necessary."

So I am deeply confused. How does Harriet not violate your guidelines? I'd appreciate an answer please.

This was their (infuriating, useless) reply:

Thanks for bringing this review to our attention. We'll investigate the situation by looking into the customers reviews. We will remove any that violate our guidelines.

We appreciate that you took the time to point this review out to us. Due to the sheer volume of reviews that we receive daily, we aren't always able to catch everything right away. We rely on our Community to help notify us of any inappropriate or abusive reviews by using the "report abuse" feature. This will help us know where to focus our efforts.

If you'd like it for reference, here is a link to our participation guidelines:

I hope this helps. We look forward to seeing you again soon and have a great day.

WTH!! People have been clicking on the damn report abuse button for years now without any success!!

Investigating/deleting Harriet's 27,000+ reviews should be made top priority!

Beachmama, I think you're right; I'm starting to believe that Harriet is none other than Jeff himself, or his mother.

Harriet is a paid reviewer; she's no different than the other professional reviewers (except for the undisputed fact that they can write coherently and this hack can't). So why the fierce loyalty toward Harriet? She is garnering a lot of negative publicity, so I am truly beginning to suspect that she is one of the higher-ups at Amazon. On that note, our comments on Amazon are causing quite a stir because I've noticed the number of unhelpful votes on our comments has systematically increased.

Beachmama said...



This is something that boggles my mind.

First of all, if you are not interested in making a comment yourself why are you even there? You have to bother to sign in for a vote to register and you are doing that just to vote unhelpful on a damn comment without saying a word? Not one of these unhelpful voters has defended the review the comments they are voting down are attached to.

Second, who cares? Is anyone really tracking how popular comments on reviews are? Is there a one of us whose feeling are hurt if our comment isn’t popular? Does anyone reading the comment care how many helpful votes are there? ‘Eight of eleven people think this post adds to the discussion’ – three people didn’t but also didn’t bother to say why – alert the media. Notice that the number of dissenters is usually three.

Third, who is doing this? The average customer could care less so it’s someone with an axe to grind or some vague point to make. Either one of Harriet third world trolls or an Amazon minion has been assigned this thankless task. Talk about a dead end job.

Still the biggest question is why and I think the answer is that we are having an impact. Harriet has either been reading comments, proving that she will read something if it’s about her, or Amazon has issued new orders to their favorite shill. Interesting that ‘I’ has appeared and ‘relish’ has vanished. No ‘lower heads’ or ‘blue blooded penises’ have been sighted lately. We are seeing one, two and four paragraph version. Reviews are being doled out in smaller numbers, sometimes only two or three a day. Granted the gibberish has increased but maybe the pressure has as well.

The only portion of her standard format that has remained stable is her four/five star rating. Will she change that up as well? Stay tuned, but for me there is no doubt that we are making someone (Harriet or Amazon) uncomfortable enough to alter their previous behavior.

Beachmama said...

Hattie posted the following review this morning on 'The Greatcoat: A Ghost Story':

"In 1952, Great Britain still digs out of the horrors of WWII. Newlyweds Isabel and Philip Carey move to rural Yorkshire where he takes over a medical practice. Philip dives into his work as a country doctor while Isabel suffers from loneliness and a sense she does not belong here rusticating.

On a lonely night, Isabel finds an RAF greatcoat buried in the top of a cupboard by apparently their landlady Mrs. Elizabeth Atkinson. To keep warm on this freezing evening, Isabel puts on the coat and falls asleep. Not long afterward, the ghost of the owner of the coat Alec, a late RAF officer, taps from the outside on the flat's window. The isolated woman and the dead pilot begin a tryst.

This is an exciting 1950s ghost story that switches between the "present" (1952) and WWII as Isabel obsesses over her new "friend". Although none of the triangle protagonists are fully developed beyond their prime role, fans will appreciate the tale of the Greatcoat.

Harriet Klausner"

I just put up the following comment on her review which will probably vanish before I finish typing this:

"Beachmama says:

This is the book description provided by either the publisher or the author and posted on Amazon right below the format choices and various prices:

"Book Description

Publication Date: October 2, 2012

Bestselling novelist Helen Dunmore's historical novels have earned her comparisons in the press to Tolstoy and Emily Bronte. In her newest book, Dunmore mines the past to chilling effect in this evocative and sophisticated ghost story about a love affair between a neglected wife and a mysterious soldier.

It is the winter of 1952 when Isabel Carey moves to the East Riding of Yorkshire with her new husband, Philip, a medical doctor. While Philip spends long hours working away from home, Isabel finds herself lonely and vulnerable as she adjusts to the realities of being a housewife in the country.

One evening, while Philip is on call, Isabel is woken by intense cold. When she hunts for extra blankets, she discovers an old RAF greatcoat hidden in the back of a cupboard. Sleeping under the coat for warmth, she starts to dream and is soon startled by a knock at her window. Outside is a young RAF pilot wearing a familiar coat. His name is Alec and his powerful presence disturbs and excites her as they begin an intense affair. Nothing though has prepared her for the truth about Alec's life, nor the impact it will have on her own."

Does Harriet also write these descriptions or did she just crib from this one and call it a review? Also note that the book will be released on October 2, 2012. So where did Harriet get her copy?"

I wonder how, or if, Amazon will deal with Hattie's latest on their dime faux pas?

Link to the book description:

Dona said...

I just posted the 201 of 200 posts, but its not showing up here???

Dona said...

O/K/ Thanks!

Malleus said...

About neg increase: voting on comments does not require a valid posting account (an account that was used to make at least one purchase, as Amazon wants you to have before they let you post reviews and vote on them). To vote on comments you can set up a complete BS account, and not just that, but any number of them. At least it was that way last time I checked, which was, um... well, maybe like a year ago. We've blogged about that phenomenon, so if you want more detail, juse search this blog.

Iow., an increase in negging doesn't mean there's a lot of people gunning after you, it may be a single cretin with a lot of time on his hands and a handful of bullshit accounts (that aren't difficult to set up).

Beachmama said...

We seem to have picked up a few new folks making comments. Sandra Carter, N. Brett, Nat O'Leary, Go Flash Go, and Patricia Gallagher to name a few. I think responding directly to them is a good way to encourage their participation. The more varied the participation is, the bigger the impact. Our names are well known and probably flagged by Amazon so attracting the attention of other customers who are just now catching on to Hattie’s antics is a plus for us.

Malleus said...

N.Brett isn't new by any means. Perhaps he's a well-forgotten old :-) He's a veteran there.

Beachmama said...

Embee said...



No. Although I thought we needed one I had no idea one had been created so quickly.

IMO, this entire thread should be moved or copied there and then deleted. We should be doing our planning and plotting inside our secret clubhouse with or without the decoder rings.

Beachmama said...

Embee: I just changed my email address from the one I used to sign up as it is a throw away one I seldom (really never) visit.

The other contains my real name as both Buck and Malleus know as we traded a number of emails before I came over here. Can someone send an invitation to me using that one?

Anonymous said...

We've certainly gotten the attention of Harriet's Cavalry. They've underestimated the power of public opinion.

It seems to me that Amazon's goons are patrolling our comments on an hourly basis. Within an hour of posting a comment, Harriet's Defenders cast a negative vote.

I agree with you, Embee. Personally, whenever I read comments, the number of people who vote helpful plays a role in gauging how valid/useful the comment is. So like you said, let's all cast postive votes to our comments in order to counteract the Cavalry's dastardly intentions.

I really hope the newcomers continue to comment and hopefully join this blog.

Did someone invite MNJ76, GTG, The Truth to join this blog?

Anonymous said...

And Strong Coffe lover?

Malleus said...

Beachmama wrote:
>I just changed my email address from the one I used to sign
>up as it is a throw away one I seldom (really never) visit.
>The other contains my real name as both Buck and Malleus
> know as we traded a number of emails before I came
> over here. Can someone send an invitation to me using
> that one?
Absolutely. The invite went to the registration address. I can send another one, but send me the email address you want to receive it at (as usual, send it to I only have your registered address, at least at the moment. Alternatively, simply check your throwaway mailbox — you do not have to use this address to register there, it'll let you use any address for registration. Btw, I'd suggest you use the same address to register in both places. 'cause if we need to send a group email, I don't want to have to remember multiple addresses for every participant.

As to moving the thread — pick whatever you think is needed there and re-post it there in some form (as a comment, or maybe as a blog article)... maybe just take the whole thing and cut/paste it into a blog post. See how you like it). Once you're done, let me know and I'll blow this thread away. Actually, I think the author of the post can blow the post away and that'll delete all comments, of course. Either select one of you to do the transfer, or transfer each of you your own posts. I'm not sure how to do it better, do whatever you like.

Beachmama said...



Malleus: Thanks! Just sent you an email.



Sara: I’ve been doing this on and off all day!

Anonymous said...

So my latest comment on Ama$on got deleted:

"What do you get if you cross Harriet Klausner's 28224 fake reviews and an English lit Professor: A suicide note, detailing the demise of the English language.