filkertom: (Default)
filkertom ([personal profile] filkertom) wrote2009-04-13 02:42 pm
Entry tags:

Amazon Fail: Another Update

Interesting stuff. No public statement yet from Amazon, and they really could use one. One guy claims responsibility. Another guy calls bullshit.

Much more important, I have received a message from someone who works for Amazon (who wants to remain anonymous), saying on good authority that it really actually was a glitch. Somebody did something stupid, and the problem is that the sheer scale of what happened means it will take awhile to sort out. But they are on it.

I don't know any of this for sure myself (although I'm inclined to believe the Amazon employee); we'll see what goes on. However, I did have to tell you guys about one thing. Last night, I was speaking with [livejournal.com profile] sazettel, who suggested a possible way of affecting Amazon directly if it did turn out to be their fault and deliberate: Everyone who has one return their Kindle.

At which point I started laughing like a loon, and created these:


I probably should get the domain putthekindleback.com or something, but I don't care all that much. And, who knows, they may fix everything up this afternoon. But I at least wanted to share the joke. If you use 'em, please credit me and tomsmithonline.com.

ETA: the info from the Amazon employee.

[identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 07:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Somebody did something stupid, all righty. However... A "glitch" would be a computer error, this was deliberate. How could it not be? The "blacklisted" books were carefully chosen on account of content.

The roots of Proposition H8 run deeply.
jenk: Faye (Default)

[personal profile] jenk 2009-04-13 07:46 pm (UTC)(link)
The "blacklisted" books were carefully chosen on account of content.

Off the top of my head?

Badly-coded search algorithim. See also Yahoo groups trying to stop "adult" discussion by banning words like "breast", without thinking of breast cancer, breast feeding, and so on.

A list of "adult" books purchased from a vendor which claimed to be assembled according to one set of standards but was actually assembled according to another. The last software test conference I went to had a hilarious set of examples from the Google Maps group on how they've learned to QA the data they import for Maps. If an import suddenly doubles the number of airports, for example, it probably means they weren't picked up as duplicates. Or the bus stop that appeared in the middle of Antarctica, no where near a road... ;)

[identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:03 pm (UTC)(link)
"Brokeback Mountain" is banned, but "Can Homosexuality be Healed?" isn't? Which one has the no-no topic in the title? I find this "glitch" theory mighty suspicious.
jenk: Faye (Default)

[personal profile] jenk 2009-04-13 08:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Depends on what they're searching - description, title, etc. Note also "Essential Dykes To Watch Out For" retains its rank of #1 in Lesbian Studies.

That said, I'm leaning more toward a misrepresented list myself.

ETA: Also interesting that the "Women En Large" book of fat nudes is not ranked but Leonard Nimoy’s much more recent book of fat nudes is ranked.

Edited 2009-04-13 20:31 (UTC)

[identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:35 pm (UTC)(link)
So, basically it's the ones they have heard of. Books with some notoriety and recognition value. If I were Misty Lackey, I'd be a bit miffed about now. ;-)
kshandra: A cross-stitch sampler in a gilt frame, plainly stating "FUCK CANCER" (Mo & Sydney)

[personal profile] kshandra 2009-04-13 08:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Note also "Essential Dykes To Watch Out For" retains its rank of #1 in Lesbian Studies.

...but Fun Home had its rank removed. (It's back, now, and I'm sorry I didn't think to check the rest of Alison Bechdel's titles when I saw that it had been added to the list at [livejournal.com profile] meta_writer.)
jenk: Faye (Anal-Retentive)

[personal profile] jenk 2009-04-13 08:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Interesting - Fun Home was one of the first I checked yesterday, and it had its rank then. (Of course when a site is in flux, it's in flux... ;)
Edited 2009-04-13 20:49 (UTC)

[identity profile] starcat-jewel.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:36 pm (UTC)(link)
"Dear Author" has a post up showing how it might indeed be a fubar'd search algoritm using Amazon metadata tags which are inconsistently applied.

I spent 20 years as a computer programmer. Believe me, it's not necessary to impute malice even to something like this when there are so many ways for inconsistency, incompetence, and the "it's not working the way you think it's working" bug to combine to create the same results.

None of which is to say that the effect isn't bad, and I'm not happy that Amazon is still stonewalling about the fact that it happened at all. "We messed something up, and we're working as fast as we can to fix it without making matters even worse" would have gone a long way.
jenk: Faye (Testers)

[personal profile] jenk 2009-04-13 08:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Indeed - on all your points :)
ext_68422: (cookie yes)

[identity profile] mimiheart.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Watch me play devil's advocate...

For whatever reason, the coding that was previously in place was causing things like Brokeback Mountain to come up as suggested if you liked Harry Potter. No big deal, but we must think of the innocent children buying Harry Potter with Daddy's credit card unsupervised, so let's put in a script that will prevent certain types of things from being cross-referenced when suggesting other titles one might enjoy. Kind of makes sense *cough* if you're homophobic *cough*... especially if you don't really know what's inside the other books...

Except something goes wrong with this bit of programming, human error or something of that matter. Instead of just preventing it from cross-referencing on the "suggested" section, it stops you from searching for it altogether *AND* removes the ratings. A bit much.

[identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:04 pm (UTC)(link)
"For whatever reason, the coding that was previously in place was causing things like Brokeback Mountain to come up as suggested if you liked Harry Potter. "

I've never figured that one out. Pretty funny though... unless you actually have to explain to your ten year old that NO, you're not going to buy him Brokeback Mountain.
ext_68422: (South Park Snarry Icon)

[identity profile] mimiheart.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Probably because of the adults who like slash. A simpler solution would be for parents to parent. *gasp*

[identity profile] selenesue.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Yesss.

Also, checking the F/SF genre: I took a look at the pages on Mercedes Lackey's "The Last Herald Mage" trilogy, whose protagonist is openly gay, and those still appear to have their stars. Things that make you say Hmmm.
ext_68422: (reality)

[identity profile] mimiheart.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, Vanyel's angst... I don't think I could handle it right now.

From what I've been able to see, it has to do with what the publisher's put in their data about the books. Heather Has Two Mommies was pulled, but Emma and Meesha My Boy: A Two Mom Story wasn't.
jenrose: (Default)

[personal profile] jenrose 2009-04-14 01:33 am (UTC)(link)
They ALL have their stars. It's the line below that, rankings, that's disappeared.

[identity profile] hiddenriver.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 09:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Good point - that's the only 'glitch' possibility so far that strikes me as a reasonable possibility. I absolutely do not buy a simple "keyword" problem here - there was clearly (very poor) human judgment at work somewhere in this mess.

The confirmation of an actual policy change that some authors received a while back makes it very, very difficult to believe that Amazon is entirely innocent in this matter.

[identity profile] darthparadox.livejournal.com 2009-04-13 08:09 pm (UTC)(link)
You're assuming that there's no possible way a glitch can affect a certain category of books while leaving the rest alone. Also, do you have a complete list of the books affected? If not, I don't see how your "carefully chosen" claim can stand up.

Finally, Proposition 8 was a deliberate denial of fundamental rights to a class of people. This is an inadvertent removal of books from a certain set of search results - they still showed up on others, and they still were present on the Amazon site. Linking the two is ridiculous.