Ian Loome's Blog
April 24, 2021
Goodbye to a Mensch
Yesterday, my brother-in-law, Israel Gencher, was buried in Ottawa. I sat and watched the funeral online, from across the country, seeing his children and my sister grieve, seeing his mother so upset.
He passed away from pancreatic cancer, a few weeks shy of his sixtieth birthday.
A line of people, in the Jewish tradition, shoveled the back of a spade of dirt onto his coffin.
It seemed odd, at first, watching people -- not just metaphorically or administratively but actually literally -- bury their kin.
It felt somber and insufficient when it began, but as it progressed and more dirt was shoveled into the hole, it was a moment of inherent decency in an otherwise bleak occasion: this notion that right until someone's very last moment of existence, loved ones will be there to take care of them.
Sruli was a Hell of a human being, one of the most impressive people I've ever met, let alone known. And I say that after twenty-five years as a print journalist in which I interviewed basically everybody and the horse they rode in on.
He worked as a defense lawyer. He didn't defend the big corporate types, he didn't chase the big money so often grounded in the amoral or immoral. Instead, he represented mostly down-on-their-luck everymen, people who'd made a terrible mistake or three -- or, more often than people might expect, hadn't done anything all, but had no one on their side.
He worked ungodly hours, he took calls from prisoners at Remand when the rest of us were sleeping with what seemed alarmingly regularity. He took on pro bono and charity cases. He did it because he knew that without that work, the system couldn't even be seen to be fair, let alone achieve it. He did it because unless every one of us has a good defense, a system of justice cannot truly be just.
And when he wasn't fighting the good fight? He was an even better person. He was a family man, with three great kids and a wife who -- I can say this, she's my sister -- can be as challenging as any bright, engaged person. He saw everyone's foibles, and forgave them because he recognized his own. He had great humility, sometimes too great to be as happy as he deserved. He has a large extended family including brothers and parents who were as close as family can get, truly adoring each other.
More than anything, he embodied a character I saw in my father and grandfather: humility. The notion that every person is worthy in their own way, that everyone is worth fighting for. That not one of us will get through life unjudged or without error. That we are all worth forgiveness, love, chances to do better.
Sometimes, it seems we live in a world now that is bereft of dignity. It's easy to look at a world that, due to living online, seems to be reverting to a base sense of tribalism and selfishness, and to think somehow that we are becoming less humane, less decent. That only those who make the most noise and attract the most attention really matter.
I don't think that's true. But we are tribal, and we believe in each other, and, as great as that can be, it can also lead to us being easily misled, often for long periods of time and about each other. Suspicion, fear, distrust -- they're all fodder for the greedy and the selfish, all division for the gain of a very few.
But those most fractious and negative elements, ultimately, miss something essential to this life. They miss what it means to be truly loved.
When decent people die, they achieve a sort of immortality that can only be measured when a person's time has come and gone: they are remembered with love and respect, and cared for until the very end, until they return to the world from whence they came.
The best people I've known, and Sruli was most assuredly one of those, have the emotional resiliency to live and love in a world that is so full of fear, judgement and selfishness it astounds me.
That they rise above it and bring others with them -- which in many ways Israel did with my entire family -- is a mitzvah, a blessing as the Hebrew folks say.
It is the character that makes humanity worth fighting for. It is an inherent and admirable decency that Israel Gencher had in spades.
Anyone who knew him was luckier for it. I would like him to know that I loved him, and admired him. That when times are dark, there will always be a light that those who knew him can see, and it will help them find their way.
He passed away from pancreatic cancer, a few weeks shy of his sixtieth birthday.
A line of people, in the Jewish tradition, shoveled the back of a spade of dirt onto his coffin.
It seemed odd, at first, watching people -- not just metaphorically or administratively but actually literally -- bury their kin.
It felt somber and insufficient when it began, but as it progressed and more dirt was shoveled into the hole, it was a moment of inherent decency in an otherwise bleak occasion: this notion that right until someone's very last moment of existence, loved ones will be there to take care of them.
Sruli was a Hell of a human being, one of the most impressive people I've ever met, let alone known. And I say that after twenty-five years as a print journalist in which I interviewed basically everybody and the horse they rode in on.
He worked as a defense lawyer. He didn't defend the big corporate types, he didn't chase the big money so often grounded in the amoral or immoral. Instead, he represented mostly down-on-their-luck everymen, people who'd made a terrible mistake or three -- or, more often than people might expect, hadn't done anything all, but had no one on their side.
He worked ungodly hours, he took calls from prisoners at Remand when the rest of us were sleeping with what seemed alarmingly regularity. He took on pro bono and charity cases. He did it because he knew that without that work, the system couldn't even be seen to be fair, let alone achieve it. He did it because unless every one of us has a good defense, a system of justice cannot truly be just.
And when he wasn't fighting the good fight? He was an even better person. He was a family man, with three great kids and a wife who -- I can say this, she's my sister -- can be as challenging as any bright, engaged person. He saw everyone's foibles, and forgave them because he recognized his own. He had great humility, sometimes too great to be as happy as he deserved. He has a large extended family including brothers and parents who were as close as family can get, truly adoring each other.
More than anything, he embodied a character I saw in my father and grandfather: humility. The notion that every person is worthy in their own way, that everyone is worth fighting for. That not one of us will get through life unjudged or without error. That we are all worth forgiveness, love, chances to do better.
Sometimes, it seems we live in a world now that is bereft of dignity. It's easy to look at a world that, due to living online, seems to be reverting to a base sense of tribalism and selfishness, and to think somehow that we are becoming less humane, less decent. That only those who make the most noise and attract the most attention really matter.
I don't think that's true. But we are tribal, and we believe in each other, and, as great as that can be, it can also lead to us being easily misled, often for long periods of time and about each other. Suspicion, fear, distrust -- they're all fodder for the greedy and the selfish, all division for the gain of a very few.
But those most fractious and negative elements, ultimately, miss something essential to this life. They miss what it means to be truly loved.
When decent people die, they achieve a sort of immortality that can only be measured when a person's time has come and gone: they are remembered with love and respect, and cared for until the very end, until they return to the world from whence they came.
The best people I've known, and Sruli was most assuredly one of those, have the emotional resiliency to live and love in a world that is so full of fear, judgement and selfishness it astounds me.
That they rise above it and bring others with them -- which in many ways Israel did with my entire family -- is a mitzvah, a blessing as the Hebrew folks say.
It is the character that makes humanity worth fighting for. It is an inherent and admirable decency that Israel Gencher had in spades.
Anyone who knew him was luckier for it. I would like him to know that I loved him, and admired him. That when times are dark, there will always be a light that those who knew him can see, and it will help them find their way.
April 18, 2021
No news is good news, apparently
I was once a voracious consumer of news.
As a print reporter, I took great pride in being part of an industry that could right wrongs. It wasn't the game of dragging details out of people that I enjoyed, it was knowing newspapers had the power to make the greedy and selfish behave themselves, and to help out the powerless.
As I aged, my perspectives on the industry changed.
Once you're in a culture and see how it works -- and doesn't -- holding a singular perspective, good or bad, becomes facile. It's easy to see where things don't work than when they do.
It's much harder to justify and facilitate the latter than to complain about the former.
That's true of societies, generally. It's easier to bitch and whine than make things work.
Problematically, most of the media exist to make money, not to improve society. And bitching and whining, while constantly negatively influencing perspectives and behavior, makes the media a lot of money.
The financial interests of investors and advertisers always take precedent over the social interests of readers and writers.
But the end result is a culture that satisfies, generally, nobody. A culture of constant negativity, these days generally used as a blunt ideological enforcement arm (from both sides; if you think your beliefs are all right and someone else's are all wrong, you're an idiot, end of story).
The problem with media negativity when eveyone is siloed is that we never hear the good side; people stick to their protective 'tribes' online and never have to interact with other groups; they don't get their negative influence... but there's also no cross-pollination of good ideas.
There's no reason to start considering the perspectives of others when we rarely hear them outside of a warring or conflicting context.
The further media strays in the disconnected internet age from having defied social values and purpose beyond warnings and fear-- a mission to serve and inform the broad, inter-related interests of the public, not just highlight divisions and problems-- the easier it is to see the flimsy packaging.
How? Well, turn to any north American news site and look for positive reflections of the society in which we live.
I subscribe -- for a short while longer, anyway -- to the Washington Post. It has a history of breaking important stories about American politics and governance, and those things affect all of us.
Its front page today featured:
* A story about Trump
* A story about managing the U.S. senate during the era of Trump
* Former veterans trying to convince current veterans to take vaccines
* The Republic Party (the GOP) buying politicians' books in bulk to make phony best-sellers out of them.
* The gunman in a mass shooting had legal rifles
* Transit may never recover from the pandemic
* Alexi Novelny's daughter pleading for his life
* Twitter activism is impacting the fight against Boko Haram terrorists
* Why don't politicians tend to their mental health
* Why is society always adding things instead of subtracting
* Get used to booster shots, the wave of the future
* What to do if you lose your vaccine card
* Warnings about Afghan internal security after a withdrawal
* White privilege is a thing
* A rural Virginia county took 50 years to celebrate winning by black high school athletes
* Three dead after gunfire in a Wisconsin Bar
* U.S. and China still working on climate change despite diplomacy issues
* Employee dies at a migrant shelter
* Being black in America is exhausting.
One rather imagines being anything in America is exhausting, with that list.
Compare that with, say, The Guardian from London, England. Don't get me wrong: English political ideologues seem intent on drawing the same divisions into every aspect of life there.
But in a nation where everyone lives so close to each other, that hasn't happened yet.
Its front page featured lots of doom and gloom as well. But also:
* Cheer up! A happiness guru on how to feel better.
* The wisdom of water, 12 ways to use blue spaces to improve your health and happiness;
* TV presenter Nadiya Hussein discusses the 20th anniversary of Observer Food Monthly and the Great British bakeoff.
* Tributes to the late actress Helen McRory and the choreographer Liam Scarlett.
* A feature on affordable social housing;
* a business feature on the new owner of ASDA stores;
* How protected hedgerows in Yorkshire are in turn protecting Dormice.
* A history piece on how a cheque from Lord Byron helped to create modern Greece.
* A profile of rap artist Little Simz; a preview of a Royal Shakespeare Company production;
* How physicians will start giving financial advice where relevant to patients with long-term conditions that can be costly.
* A feature on how laser printing is changing manufacturing;
* A feature on how rumors of drone 'packs' became a multi-agency investigation in the U.S.
* A breakout of international stories, including how Icelanders are rushing to wed at a volcano site.
* A full sports breakout box with teasers for stories in gymnastics, football, motor-racing and TV punditry;
* A full opinion section teaser on everything from patent waivers for covid vaccines, to the legacy of Prince Philip, to the comparative reactions of countries to the pandemic.
* Items from their culture and lifestyle sections, sections that exist to explore the human condition... not just figure out how to sell it something.
We all have things we love about life, elements that are affirming, non-competitive, non stress-inducing. Try finding any of that on a North American website or newspaper front page.
In North America, where social competitiveness and social insincerity are taught to children at the earliest age, people seem to always be looking for two things: an advantage, and something to complain about online.
Everyone is taught to compete, battle and fight for eight hours a day, but that no one should utter a word that is remotely insensitive or hold a personal opinion... unless it's online and anonymous.
It's an unhealthy way to live, without compromise or humility, without friendly debate or curiosity beyond what terrifies us.
Compare that to news sites in Europe, where older cultures have taken steps in both government and business to continue to support and promote positive media messages.
First of all, you can still pick up items in print: newspapers and books are still made, sold and read by people who see value in things being less disposable, kicking around for a few days. It promotes attention spans, among other things.
Second, they still kowtow to the non-electronic reality in which we live: they have recipe pages, they have book reviews, they have essays about life, they promote domestic tourism and history.
They exhibit a sense of cultural pride.
In North America, cultural pride seems to involve being frightened of someone else's culture or overcoming injustice, and little else.
Cultural pride isn't protecting heritage buildings here; it's living in a postage-stamp neighborhood with other families who hold the same political beliefs.
It isn't promoting lesser-played sports because they're fun and have history; it's getting season's tickets that cost more that surgery in most parts of the world and hyping the loudest, richest athletes on TV.
It isn't discussing museums and performance art; it's fighting over how much tickets to those items cost.
The news here reflects our selfishness, but it also amplifies it, endorses it, demands more to feed the beast. That's a problem in other developed parts of the world, too. But the balance hasn't been so lost in England, and France, and Germany, and Sweden. The cult of selfishness does not yet dominate all discourse.
The news isn't all bad.
It isn't all here, either.
But you'd have a hard time knowing it.
As a print reporter, I took great pride in being part of an industry that could right wrongs. It wasn't the game of dragging details out of people that I enjoyed, it was knowing newspapers had the power to make the greedy and selfish behave themselves, and to help out the powerless.
As I aged, my perspectives on the industry changed.
Once you're in a culture and see how it works -- and doesn't -- holding a singular perspective, good or bad, becomes facile. It's easy to see where things don't work than when they do.
It's much harder to justify and facilitate the latter than to complain about the former.
That's true of societies, generally. It's easier to bitch and whine than make things work.
Problematically, most of the media exist to make money, not to improve society. And bitching and whining, while constantly negatively influencing perspectives and behavior, makes the media a lot of money.
The financial interests of investors and advertisers always take precedent over the social interests of readers and writers.
But the end result is a culture that satisfies, generally, nobody. A culture of constant negativity, these days generally used as a blunt ideological enforcement arm (from both sides; if you think your beliefs are all right and someone else's are all wrong, you're an idiot, end of story).
The problem with media negativity when eveyone is siloed is that we never hear the good side; people stick to their protective 'tribes' online and never have to interact with other groups; they don't get their negative influence... but there's also no cross-pollination of good ideas.
There's no reason to start considering the perspectives of others when we rarely hear them outside of a warring or conflicting context.
The further media strays in the disconnected internet age from having defied social values and purpose beyond warnings and fear-- a mission to serve and inform the broad, inter-related interests of the public, not just highlight divisions and problems-- the easier it is to see the flimsy packaging.
How? Well, turn to any north American news site and look for positive reflections of the society in which we live.
I subscribe -- for a short while longer, anyway -- to the Washington Post. It has a history of breaking important stories about American politics and governance, and those things affect all of us.
Its front page today featured:
* A story about Trump
* A story about managing the U.S. senate during the era of Trump
* Former veterans trying to convince current veterans to take vaccines
* The Republic Party (the GOP) buying politicians' books in bulk to make phony best-sellers out of them.
* The gunman in a mass shooting had legal rifles
* Transit may never recover from the pandemic
* Alexi Novelny's daughter pleading for his life
* Twitter activism is impacting the fight against Boko Haram terrorists
* Why don't politicians tend to their mental health
* Why is society always adding things instead of subtracting
* Get used to booster shots, the wave of the future
* What to do if you lose your vaccine card
* Warnings about Afghan internal security after a withdrawal
* White privilege is a thing
* A rural Virginia county took 50 years to celebrate winning by black high school athletes
* Three dead after gunfire in a Wisconsin Bar
* U.S. and China still working on climate change despite diplomacy issues
* Employee dies at a migrant shelter
* Being black in America is exhausting.
One rather imagines being anything in America is exhausting, with that list.
Compare that with, say, The Guardian from London, England. Don't get me wrong: English political ideologues seem intent on drawing the same divisions into every aspect of life there.
But in a nation where everyone lives so close to each other, that hasn't happened yet.
Its front page featured lots of doom and gloom as well. But also:
* Cheer up! A happiness guru on how to feel better.
* The wisdom of water, 12 ways to use blue spaces to improve your health and happiness;
* TV presenter Nadiya Hussein discusses the 20th anniversary of Observer Food Monthly and the Great British bakeoff.
* Tributes to the late actress Helen McRory and the choreographer Liam Scarlett.
* A feature on affordable social housing;
* a business feature on the new owner of ASDA stores;
* How protected hedgerows in Yorkshire are in turn protecting Dormice.
* A history piece on how a cheque from Lord Byron helped to create modern Greece.
* A profile of rap artist Little Simz; a preview of a Royal Shakespeare Company production;
* How physicians will start giving financial advice where relevant to patients with long-term conditions that can be costly.
* A feature on how laser printing is changing manufacturing;
* A feature on how rumors of drone 'packs' became a multi-agency investigation in the U.S.
* A breakout of international stories, including how Icelanders are rushing to wed at a volcano site.
* A full sports breakout box with teasers for stories in gymnastics, football, motor-racing and TV punditry;
* A full opinion section teaser on everything from patent waivers for covid vaccines, to the legacy of Prince Philip, to the comparative reactions of countries to the pandemic.
* Items from their culture and lifestyle sections, sections that exist to explore the human condition... not just figure out how to sell it something.
We all have things we love about life, elements that are affirming, non-competitive, non stress-inducing. Try finding any of that on a North American website or newspaper front page.
In North America, where social competitiveness and social insincerity are taught to children at the earliest age, people seem to always be looking for two things: an advantage, and something to complain about online.
Everyone is taught to compete, battle and fight for eight hours a day, but that no one should utter a word that is remotely insensitive or hold a personal opinion... unless it's online and anonymous.
It's an unhealthy way to live, without compromise or humility, without friendly debate or curiosity beyond what terrifies us.
Compare that to news sites in Europe, where older cultures have taken steps in both government and business to continue to support and promote positive media messages.
First of all, you can still pick up items in print: newspapers and books are still made, sold and read by people who see value in things being less disposable, kicking around for a few days. It promotes attention spans, among other things.
Second, they still kowtow to the non-electronic reality in which we live: they have recipe pages, they have book reviews, they have essays about life, they promote domestic tourism and history.
They exhibit a sense of cultural pride.
In North America, cultural pride seems to involve being frightened of someone else's culture or overcoming injustice, and little else.
Cultural pride isn't protecting heritage buildings here; it's living in a postage-stamp neighborhood with other families who hold the same political beliefs.
It isn't promoting lesser-played sports because they're fun and have history; it's getting season's tickets that cost more that surgery in most parts of the world and hyping the loudest, richest athletes on TV.
It isn't discussing museums and performance art; it's fighting over how much tickets to those items cost.
The news here reflects our selfishness, but it also amplifies it, endorses it, demands more to feed the beast. That's a problem in other developed parts of the world, too. But the balance hasn't been so lost in England, and France, and Germany, and Sweden. The cult of selfishness does not yet dominate all discourse.
The news isn't all bad.
It isn't all here, either.
But you'd have a hard time knowing it.
April 10, 2021
THE SATURDAY REPORT, VOL. 1, NO 4, April 10, 2021
The internet is the Wal-Mart of information. There's a lot of value there, but also an overwhelming amount of junk and plenty of things that can really harm you.
If there is an antidote, an antithesis if you will, of everything truly crappy about the internet, it is Maple Creek sausage.
Maple Creek, which is a local farm product in Alberta, Canada, is to mass-market breakfast sausage as a great bookstore is to the internet: there's way more of the latter, but that's usually a bad thing; and the former never lets you down.
Zero filler, spiced with a delicate, subtle touch regardless of which type of sausage. Short, fat links of deliciousness that baste in their own juices when slow-cooked. Made by a family-owned operation in Claresholm, Alberta with a limited reach and production output, and yet the same price as the comparatively awful chub you get from the big meat companies. The smell of it cooking will make you drift across the room, toes dangling an inch above the ground, elevated Fred-Flinstone-like by the trailing bouquet of fried delight.
I'm not sure you could produce Maple Creek sausage in the quantities that would make it truly "mass market." It'll never be huge and trying to capture every inch of shelf in the deli section. But... that's probably why it's good.
No one has decided to try to make it as cheaply as possible yet. No mega corporation has "loss led" its higher quality competitors into dissolution so it can grab as much prime eye space for a crappy, chemically plumped version.
I look for more products like Maple Creek these days: made locally, with care, with little concern for the yammering of the internet and shopping by mail.
Listen to computer algorithm suggestions for long enough and we learn to accept the lump of overspiced gristle we're being fed. Over time, as they dominate market share with inferior products but exceptional marketing, the price goes up, but the quality remains awful.
We forget how good sausage actually tastes.
Part of the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that there are no enforceable standards on the internet, no personal responsiblity. It makes manipulating public opinion much easier.
It was good news this week when Facebook banned 16,000 accounts used for selling reviews, mostly on Amazon. The stakes for internet companies are fairly high: eventually, if they allow unchecked behavior, the consequences to customers lead to complaints to politicians, which leads to more regulation.
But in the meantime, it becomes impossible to rely on reviews from other 'customers' when no one knows who they are. With online sites using direct-order fulfillment, with little kept in immediate stock for immediate supply, there is less requirement for careful measurement of local needs and preferences, less discerning supply, more reliance on a mass selection that buries quality, needle-like, in a haystack of mediocrity and ripoffs.
I'd like to think the arch-capitalists are right and the market will always correct itself eventually. It's not reality; it ignores the impact of politics, mass media manipulation, crony capitalism and the aforementioned internet disinformation. But it's a nice thought.
In the meantime, I have my excellent sausage. And increasingly high cholesterol.
If there is an antidote, an antithesis if you will, of everything truly crappy about the internet, it is Maple Creek sausage.
Maple Creek, which is a local farm product in Alberta, Canada, is to mass-market breakfast sausage as a great bookstore is to the internet: there's way more of the latter, but that's usually a bad thing; and the former never lets you down.
Zero filler, spiced with a delicate, subtle touch regardless of which type of sausage. Short, fat links of deliciousness that baste in their own juices when slow-cooked. Made by a family-owned operation in Claresholm, Alberta with a limited reach and production output, and yet the same price as the comparatively awful chub you get from the big meat companies. The smell of it cooking will make you drift across the room, toes dangling an inch above the ground, elevated Fred-Flinstone-like by the trailing bouquet of fried delight.
I'm not sure you could produce Maple Creek sausage in the quantities that would make it truly "mass market." It'll never be huge and trying to capture every inch of shelf in the deli section. But... that's probably why it's good.
No one has decided to try to make it as cheaply as possible yet. No mega corporation has "loss led" its higher quality competitors into dissolution so it can grab as much prime eye space for a crappy, chemically plumped version.
I look for more products like Maple Creek these days: made locally, with care, with little concern for the yammering of the internet and shopping by mail.
Listen to computer algorithm suggestions for long enough and we learn to accept the lump of overspiced gristle we're being fed. Over time, as they dominate market share with inferior products but exceptional marketing, the price goes up, but the quality remains awful.
We forget how good sausage actually tastes.
Part of the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that there are no enforceable standards on the internet, no personal responsiblity. It makes manipulating public opinion much easier.
It was good news this week when Facebook banned 16,000 accounts used for selling reviews, mostly on Amazon. The stakes for internet companies are fairly high: eventually, if they allow unchecked behavior, the consequences to customers lead to complaints to politicians, which leads to more regulation.
But in the meantime, it becomes impossible to rely on reviews from other 'customers' when no one knows who they are. With online sites using direct-order fulfillment, with little kept in immediate stock for immediate supply, there is less requirement for careful measurement of local needs and preferences, less discerning supply, more reliance on a mass selection that buries quality, needle-like, in a haystack of mediocrity and ripoffs.
I'd like to think the arch-capitalists are right and the market will always correct itself eventually. It's not reality; it ignores the impact of politics, mass media manipulation, crony capitalism and the aforementioned internet disinformation. But it's a nice thought.
In the meantime, I have my excellent sausage. And increasingly high cholesterol.
April 3, 2021
THE SATURDAY REPORT, VOL. 1, NO 3, April 3, 2021
I don't know about the rest of you, but lately my train of thought has been pretty manic. It's been leaping around like a squirrel on a hot plate.
I have a sick family member. It's tax season. I have two books out this month. Right there, that's usually enough to toss me for a loop.
As usual, I have not done enough to publicize the new books. I've bought a few ads, rounded up some reviews from my ever-helpful ARC team.
But I was a reporter for a long time and realize the insane push of schmoozing, demanding, pleading and general self-flagellation required to build buzz around something. It's not that I don't have it in me; it's more that I have ADHD, and the organizational skills and attention span of a gnat.
Hyperfocus on one thing -- like writing or playing guitar -- is aces, easy. Juggling and tracking multiple important tasks AND being sociable?
Good grief, as Charlie Brown said to the football.
I think maybe what I need is a good ol' fashion demonic pact; nothing fancy, no stage and lightshow with dancing succubi and blazing inferno backdrop. Just a good ol' 'meet-you-at-the-crossroads annnnd.... sign here," sort of deal. Ol' Scratch.
Maybe even a back-end rider to let me play guitar for my soul against a Jack Butler-style metal God.
What would I ask for? Oh, easy. Perennial best-seller status. Money can't buy happiness but it sure can take out a lease for a few years.
In the meantime, I console myself with the fact that said books (this one AND this one) will be around for years and someday will make me enough to buy at least -- at least -- a round of beer for the vaguely sulfuric dude at the end of the bar, the one with the prehensile tail and tiny little horns.
---
Today, instead of begging for reviews from bloggers and journalists, I am learning how to 'retarget' past Facebook customers.
That's the downside. The upside is I'm working on a client's action novel and it's loads of fun so far; and I'm still tweaking a vigilante tale about some of the hardships some in America face these days, anticipating a note back in a month or three from a literary guru type who is reading it.
I take improving my writing and storytelling quite seriously. Probably too seriously. My computer is becoming overloaded with unreleased books, stories that are probably okay but just aren't where I want them yet. My project list keeps growing, even as my years grow shorter.
---
When I'm not working, I've become somewhat obsessed with English panels hows. It started with a QI fixation, as just about every episode is on Youtube. It has grown from there; a surprising number of English comedians in their prime are around my age and have the same odd late seventies/early eighties perspectives. Plus, I can usually beat them at Richard Osman's House of Games.
If I had to guess, I'd say the fascination stems from these shows being largely repeatable, disposable, amorphous -- a string of facts, factoids and jokes.
It's remarkably relaxing to not have to concentrate at all on entertainment, yet also not have to worry about things like plot and character development. Remarkably, Bill Bailey, Alan Davies and David Mitchell are pretty much always Bill Bailey, Alan Davies and David Mitchell. If you like Sandy Toksvig's measured and mirthful tones on QI, you'll probably like her VoXTox series of video blogs. Or vlogs. Or whatever they're called. I'm sure it'll be on QI some night.
I have a sick family member. It's tax season. I have two books out this month. Right there, that's usually enough to toss me for a loop.
As usual, I have not done enough to publicize the new books. I've bought a few ads, rounded up some reviews from my ever-helpful ARC team.
But I was a reporter for a long time and realize the insane push of schmoozing, demanding, pleading and general self-flagellation required to build buzz around something. It's not that I don't have it in me; it's more that I have ADHD, and the organizational skills and attention span of a gnat.
Hyperfocus on one thing -- like writing or playing guitar -- is aces, easy. Juggling and tracking multiple important tasks AND being sociable?
Good grief, as Charlie Brown said to the football.
I think maybe what I need is a good ol' fashion demonic pact; nothing fancy, no stage and lightshow with dancing succubi and blazing inferno backdrop. Just a good ol' 'meet-you-at-the-crossroads annnnd.... sign here," sort of deal. Ol' Scratch.
Maybe even a back-end rider to let me play guitar for my soul against a Jack Butler-style metal God.
What would I ask for? Oh, easy. Perennial best-seller status. Money can't buy happiness but it sure can take out a lease for a few years.
In the meantime, I console myself with the fact that said books (this one AND this one) will be around for years and someday will make me enough to buy at least -- at least -- a round of beer for the vaguely sulfuric dude at the end of the bar, the one with the prehensile tail and tiny little horns.
---
Today, instead of begging for reviews from bloggers and journalists, I am learning how to 'retarget' past Facebook customers.
That's the downside. The upside is I'm working on a client's action novel and it's loads of fun so far; and I'm still tweaking a vigilante tale about some of the hardships some in America face these days, anticipating a note back in a month or three from a literary guru type who is reading it.
I take improving my writing and storytelling quite seriously. Probably too seriously. My computer is becoming overloaded with unreleased books, stories that are probably okay but just aren't where I want them yet. My project list keeps growing, even as my years grow shorter.
---
When I'm not working, I've become somewhat obsessed with English panels hows. It started with a QI fixation, as just about every episode is on Youtube. It has grown from there; a surprising number of English comedians in their prime are around my age and have the same odd late seventies/early eighties perspectives. Plus, I can usually beat them at Richard Osman's House of Games.
If I had to guess, I'd say the fascination stems from these shows being largely repeatable, disposable, amorphous -- a string of facts, factoids and jokes.
It's remarkably relaxing to not have to concentrate at all on entertainment, yet also not have to worry about things like plot and character development. Remarkably, Bill Bailey, Alan Davies and David Mitchell are pretty much always Bill Bailey, Alan Davies and David Mitchell. If you like Sandy Toksvig's measured and mirthful tones on QI, you'll probably like her VoXTox series of video blogs. Or vlogs. Or whatever they're called. I'm sure it'll be on QI some night.
March 26, 2021
A (fairly) DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO SPOTTING EBOOK REVIEW CHEATS
THE SATURDAY REPORT, VOL. 1, NO 2, March 27, 2021
Ever pick up a quick read on Amazon, Apple, Nook or Kobo and, as you read it, think to yourself, "Wait a minute: am I drunk?"
You look back at the website and... yeah, you read that right. It has a 4.4/5 average review score on 1,200 reviews. And yet, the writer has the literacy of a toadstool.
"This can't be right," you might think. Then the anger sets in, the sense that you're being played for a sucker. That feeling that there's noooo way those scores are legit...
I've amassed a pretty good system for spotting book cheats. It takes a few minutes to use, but considered against the time we waste browsing generally, that's not much to protect your purchase. Share with others, and we can all make their scheming lives a little more difficult.
A quick caveat: It's much easier to spot cheats after a book has been out long enough to accumulate at least a hundred reviews (NOT the combined ratings and reviews, just reviews). And a second: if the book is from a series, check the first in series. It will be the most heavily papered with bogus praise.
You may have one or more anti-cheat systems of your own. Most I've heard from readers won't work, which I'll also explain.
There are several commonly applied strategies, each a variation on the same theme: that there's one score you can look at that tells you more.
For some, it's "I only read the one stars"; for others it's "I discount all the five stars". For yet a third group, it's "I only read the three stars."
These are all natural attempts to rely on cynicism as more intrinsically accurate, honest or representative than enthusiasm.
But taste is so subjective that relying on someone else's dislike -- or assuming THAT review isn't dishonest -- is fraught with error. For one, cheating authors use fake reviews to attack their competitors and drag their scores down, knowing most won't know who they are or be able to retaliate. (This is one area of methodology I'm not going to break down further, as I don't want to encourage it.)
Once you know how cheating works, it's easy to see why "one rating" quality control notions don't.
Come with me now, book fans, as we navigate the perilous world of a marketplace where, somehow, 80% of all books are typically rated four-stars or better. A strange and magical place where one new writer is brilliant, the next unable to write a convincing letter to Santa, and yet both have phenomenal scores.
Before I get too glib or sarcastic, it's worth noting that there is actually a lot less cheating on the 'Zon than there used to be. It has an exceedingly heavy handed internal anti-cheat system. But... there is still way too much. The site still relies on one basic premise: people with active, shopping accounts aren't being paid for reviews or lying.
Heh... hehheh... yes, I realize that's remarkably quaint. Of course, that's the nice way of saying there isn't an online customer review system that hasn't been compromised, because companies can really only do so much.
That's the big challenge of the internet.
Here are some workarounds, in the order you should try them.
They're followed by a long note about the accompanying logic. PLEASE try them out; you'll be doing honest writers a favor and help them keep writing.
1. READ THE SAMPLE.
Click the book cover on any product page and it will take you to a sample of the book. If you find that terrible, the rest will be.
It's the ONLY quick way to avoid being ripped off. Every other reasonably accurate check on quality takes a few minutes and a little patience. This doesn't. Yet few people do it.
Trust your own opinion! Don't let other people you don't know make your mind up for you!
If you value your money and good writing, don't buy authors you haven't read at all, just based on reviews. It's like trusting TV commercials to be 100% true; it's just not wise.
Cheats notwithstanding, a big problem on ebook stores is that the low price seems throwaway, so when people are ripped off, they just forget about it in short order.
But that drags down the quality of everything over time.
Reading the sample will tell you far more than ANY review. Above all, cheats tend to be poor writers with lousy turn-of-phrase.
Do this first, and the other ideas here will likely confirm your initial suspicion.
2. COMPARE 'VERIFIED REVIEWS' to 'UNVERIFIED.'
What you're looking for is a book with more verified, ideally. Unverified reviews are UNPOLICEABLE. They're just called "all readers" on the site, but they are unverified and easily faked.
To do this, you'll want to click on the review score menu at the bottom left of the page, by the reviews.
Click on any score -- five-star, one star, doesn't matter -- to open up a submenu breaking down the scores numerically, along with pull-down menus to narrow your search.
First, under 'filter by' on the drop down menu change the star count to 'all stars'. Then, switch the drop down menu from "all reviewers' to "verified" reviews.
If the number of VERIFIED reviews (not ratings, which is a bit more nebulous) drops to a figure where it represents less than half the total, on a book with more than 100 reviews, you should be suspicious.
If the number of unverified reviews is dramatically higher after 200 reviews, the person is buying reviews. (Again I'll explain why and exceptions at the end of this, but for clarity, stick with me here.)
3. SHAPE OF THE REVIEW CURVE
Check out the little box of aggregate reviews in the bottom left-hand corner of the page, the bar graph.
On a cheat, over time, the one-star reviews will often accumulate. The overall score won't go down from 41/2, because they'll counter the ones with purchased fives.
But what WILL happen is the number of one-star reviews will, over time, usually surpass the two- and three-star reviews, and usually substantially.
On a book that is hiding its true nature, the bar graph's right edge will resemble a tilted 'c' -- considerably more fives and ones than threes.
Of course, there may be so few ones, twos and threes overall that this doesn't help much, which is why it's check number three, not the first thing to look at.
If the ones, twos and threes are all single-digit, or under a few dozen reviews, okay. That could just be poor proofing, people's sensibilities, those offended by language.
But if it has double-digit more one-star reviews than three? They're probably cheating.
DON'T assume that a book with all fours and fives is cheating.
How do I know this? Because I have a couple. Typically as in my case this only happens when there aren't many reviews overall, so only hardcore fans have reviewed the book, and they tend to be more forgiving.
Don't punish a writer for doing well and serving his readers, that's an awful thought.
BUT if it also doesn't pass the other checks in this list? Yeah, those fives were probably purchased.
4. SOME VERIFIED ACCOUNTS ARE BOGUS, BUT ITS RARE
I mention this one last, and in passing, because it's quite rare but does happen: verified accounts can be used to cheat. They are much rarer, because of the cost associated, but many are likely legacy accounts from before cheating crackdowns.
The only way really to spot these is by pattern. The books either obtain too many verified reviews too quickly or the reviewers themselves demonstrate strange review patterns.
It's been studied extensively academically, and online shoppers review at a rate of one review per 500-to-1,000 purchasers per product, depending on the ecosystem and other factors.
If a new release goes up and has a hundred 'verified' reviews in its first month, that suggests it has been downloaded around 50,000 times.
In a month.
And yet, the best-selling books -- and I mean the top 10 in a category, not 100 -- on these sites generally don't go average over that month much beyond a thousand books sold a day.
You'd basically have to hold the number one or two spot all month to hit 2,000 a day.
So the math doesn't add up.
Those below them? They sell the mid-to-low hundreds daily.
A book that is #60 on the thriller best-seller list generally shouldn't be able to get more than one or two new verified reviews each day, if that.
That's why even the best reviewed, best-selling authors usually have more unverified reviews in the first 50-to-1oo posted (the exception to rule two); it takes at least a month after release for verified reviews (purchases) to catch up to those they've given to fans for advance reviews.
Another pattern to check is the reviewer themselves. Click on the reviewer's name to bring up their reviewing history. If they have nine reviews and seven are the same author and NOTHING else for years, they're probably a sock puppet account. (More notes and explanation at the end). People who review online don't review just one thing, to benefit someone else.
Equally, if the reviews are mostly one- and two-star attacks, it's probably an account being used to lower competitors' scores.
It's worth checking out reviews for another reason: even if they aren't cheats, some reviewers are far more objective and useful than others. Click on a few; you'll be surprised how many review everything they buy as either "one star" or "five star", making their opinion subjectively worthless.
----
OKAY, deeper explanation time.
1) There are two principle categories of cheat: those who supplement a low number of decent reviews, out of a sense they can't obtain enough to be competitive; and those who paper their books with false reviews to offset bad scores that drag down their average.
The first ain't great, as they gain competitive advantage unfairly. But it's also not the problem for shoppers, just other authors. A good book is a good book.
The second is the problem in terms of purchasing.
It's important to understand that books that visually have a 41/2 star rating (a 4.3/5 or above) sell hundreds of times, generally, those with a visual four or below.
When prices are low, shoppers are less discerning and pay less attention to small details, more to the visual cues.
But... here's the rub: there are in-house stats available by several methods that show you not only how many ebooks are available in a certain subcategory... but how many rate above or below those scores.
And on the biggest site, 70-80%, depending on category, are above 4-stars.
If that sounds a little suspicious, I would note that it's easy to be too cynical; most authors don't cheat.
It's just that for the most part, they aren't as visible or easy to find as those who do, because the system is designed to more often present you not only the best-reviewed books, but those that amass those reviews more quickly... making it prime territory for cheats.
Over time, as people read the cheating book, they increase its one-star review count dramatically.
They are then forced to buy that attention via ads, because books with high scores but unverified reviews have to bid higher, generally, to win per-click bids in ad auctions.
And they need unverified reviews, which are easily faked, to counteract all the lousy, genuine reviews their book has attracted.
So the more they cheat, the more they "hold position" in the sales chart... but the more they need to spend on ads to keep it that way, which benefits the site selling the books.
And while the system has safeguards to prevent cheats, it also favors them when they get past that system. It is a "if you don't get caught you're not cheating" ecosystem, in effect.
2) There are good reasons for a new book to have slightly more unverified reviews WHEN THE BOOK IS NEW and has less than a hundred reviews total.
Authors mail out unpurchased, unofficial copies to their Advance Readers.
That's so they have a decent score as soon as the book comes out.
But by the time a book has over a hundred reviews, you should see the ones that are "verified" -- i.e. based on a purchase and labelled 'verified' at the top of the review -- becoming the more prominent number (and usually before then, based on review speed. More in a minute.) or at least very close to the number of unverified.
Some measures -- such as drastically limiting the popularity and exposure of free books -- are now more harmful than helpful.
When the 'Zon took that step, it was because legitimately popular free books, with good scores, could be used by "verified", real accounts -- set up in fake names for the purpose but with no real spending behind them -- to bolster their credibility.
A 'sock puppet' account that has one verified book and a bunch of unverifieds or other products looks suspicious. One with other 'verified' authors costs them nothing if the verified authors were downloaded for free, but appears legitimate.
But sock puppet accounts now cost serious money to make an impact, as reviewing is limited to people with $50 in purchases or more. That's a hell of price considering each account can only review a book once.
That's why they now buy 'unverified' reviews, because any of the website's millions (billions?) of regular customers can use their existing shopping account and just be paid to cheat.
What they CAN'T do is use that system for "verified purchases".... because then the customers would actually have to buy the product, and they make their money by selling fake reviews online in bulk. They would lose their profit pretty quickly if each review cost $3-9.
And authors have no way to provide 'verified' copies; only the website can do that.
Limiting freebies -- while probably beneficial to overall quality as many were awful -- also limits promotion for legitimate authors... forcing them to turn more to the internal ad system for exposure.
Okay, there you have it. That's how to spot ebook review cheats; I hope you employ it to avoid getting ripped off and to support authors who don't buy reviews.
-----
Okay, some fun stuff: As mentioned last week I have two books coming out next month: "Snitches Get Stitches" is the latest Liam Quinn mystery. It centers on the death of a political aide in Quinn's beloved Philadelphia, and the ne'er do well brother who wants Quinn to provide some answers.
I've had a couple of advance readers who were offended for religious reasons to the unashamedly pro-LGBTQ stuff in it. My job is not to pander to every reader's beliefs, it's to write the story I want to write.
I was a journalist for years, I try to base my opinions in science, reason and fact. If they get in the way of beliefs that make others feel secure, that's unfortunate. It's not going to change how I write, and if it costs me support and sales, it costs me support and sales.
The second book out, if that sounds offputting, is unashamedly anti-Nazi, which I figure is safe ground for most of us.
"Master of the Reich" sees former CIA clandestine operative Joe Brennan become embroiled in a decades-long international fascist conspiracy, involving a terror attack and a U.S. election.
As some have noted, the Brennan books are jumping around a bit in style. This one is well shorter than "Shadow Agenda" but still about 380 pages. About half of it is a historical back narrative. It's different. I hope people like it.
Quinn is out April 2 and can be pre-ordered ; Brennan is out April 10 and can be pre-ordered .
I am not making hardcopy paper books available right now. There's considerable work and complexity to doing that, I have limited time and ability to multi-task due to ADHD, and the demand is low. If I'm wrong about that, let me know.
I hope to get Vellum and a Mac later this year, which allegedly will make the bookmaking process much easier. Vellum is sort of do-it-all book software. But until then, it's ebook only.
----
And... that's the blog for this week. As always, if you want to try my work for free, sign up and I'll send you a couple of books. As always, comments and questions below are most welcome.
Cheers all,
Ian
Ever pick up a quick read on Amazon, Apple, Nook or Kobo and, as you read it, think to yourself, "Wait a minute: am I drunk?"
You look back at the website and... yeah, you read that right. It has a 4.4/5 average review score on 1,200 reviews. And yet, the writer has the literacy of a toadstool.
"This can't be right," you might think. Then the anger sets in, the sense that you're being played for a sucker. That feeling that there's noooo way those scores are legit...
I've amassed a pretty good system for spotting book cheats. It takes a few minutes to use, but considered against the time we waste browsing generally, that's not much to protect your purchase. Share with others, and we can all make their scheming lives a little more difficult.
A quick caveat: It's much easier to spot cheats after a book has been out long enough to accumulate at least a hundred reviews (NOT the combined ratings and reviews, just reviews). And a second: if the book is from a series, check the first in series. It will be the most heavily papered with bogus praise.
You may have one or more anti-cheat systems of your own. Most I've heard from readers won't work, which I'll also explain.
There are several commonly applied strategies, each a variation on the same theme: that there's one score you can look at that tells you more.
For some, it's "I only read the one stars"; for others it's "I discount all the five stars". For yet a third group, it's "I only read the three stars."
These are all natural attempts to rely on cynicism as more intrinsically accurate, honest or representative than enthusiasm.
But taste is so subjective that relying on someone else's dislike -- or assuming THAT review isn't dishonest -- is fraught with error. For one, cheating authors use fake reviews to attack their competitors and drag their scores down, knowing most won't know who they are or be able to retaliate. (This is one area of methodology I'm not going to break down further, as I don't want to encourage it.)
Once you know how cheating works, it's easy to see why "one rating" quality control notions don't.
Come with me now, book fans, as we navigate the perilous world of a marketplace where, somehow, 80% of all books are typically rated four-stars or better. A strange and magical place where one new writer is brilliant, the next unable to write a convincing letter to Santa, and yet both have phenomenal scores.
Before I get too glib or sarcastic, it's worth noting that there is actually a lot less cheating on the 'Zon than there used to be. It has an exceedingly heavy handed internal anti-cheat system. But... there is still way too much. The site still relies on one basic premise: people with active, shopping accounts aren't being paid for reviews or lying.
Heh... hehheh... yes, I realize that's remarkably quaint. Of course, that's the nice way of saying there isn't an online customer review system that hasn't been compromised, because companies can really only do so much.
That's the big challenge of the internet.
Here are some workarounds, in the order you should try them.
They're followed by a long note about the accompanying logic. PLEASE try them out; you'll be doing honest writers a favor and help them keep writing.
1. READ THE SAMPLE.
Click the book cover on any product page and it will take you to a sample of the book. If you find that terrible, the rest will be.
It's the ONLY quick way to avoid being ripped off. Every other reasonably accurate check on quality takes a few minutes and a little patience. This doesn't. Yet few people do it.
Trust your own opinion! Don't let other people you don't know make your mind up for you!
If you value your money and good writing, don't buy authors you haven't read at all, just based on reviews. It's like trusting TV commercials to be 100% true; it's just not wise.
Cheats notwithstanding, a big problem on ebook stores is that the low price seems throwaway, so when people are ripped off, they just forget about it in short order.
But that drags down the quality of everything over time.
Reading the sample will tell you far more than ANY review. Above all, cheats tend to be poor writers with lousy turn-of-phrase.
Do this first, and the other ideas here will likely confirm your initial suspicion.
2. COMPARE 'VERIFIED REVIEWS' to 'UNVERIFIED.'
What you're looking for is a book with more verified, ideally. Unverified reviews are UNPOLICEABLE. They're just called "all readers" on the site, but they are unverified and easily faked.
To do this, you'll want to click on the review score menu at the bottom left of the page, by the reviews.
Click on any score -- five-star, one star, doesn't matter -- to open up a submenu breaking down the scores numerically, along with pull-down menus to narrow your search.
First, under 'filter by' on the drop down menu change the star count to 'all stars'. Then, switch the drop down menu from "all reviewers' to "verified" reviews.
If the number of VERIFIED reviews (not ratings, which is a bit more nebulous) drops to a figure where it represents less than half the total, on a book with more than 100 reviews, you should be suspicious.
If the number of unverified reviews is dramatically higher after 200 reviews, the person is buying reviews. (Again I'll explain why and exceptions at the end of this, but for clarity, stick with me here.)
3. SHAPE OF THE REVIEW CURVE
Check out the little box of aggregate reviews in the bottom left-hand corner of the page, the bar graph.
On a cheat, over time, the one-star reviews will often accumulate. The overall score won't go down from 41/2, because they'll counter the ones with purchased fives.
But what WILL happen is the number of one-star reviews will, over time, usually surpass the two- and three-star reviews, and usually substantially.
On a book that is hiding its true nature, the bar graph's right edge will resemble a tilted 'c' -- considerably more fives and ones than threes.
Of course, there may be so few ones, twos and threes overall that this doesn't help much, which is why it's check number three, not the first thing to look at.
If the ones, twos and threes are all single-digit, or under a few dozen reviews, okay. That could just be poor proofing, people's sensibilities, those offended by language.
But if it has double-digit more one-star reviews than three? They're probably cheating.
DON'T assume that a book with all fours and fives is cheating.
How do I know this? Because I have a couple. Typically as in my case this only happens when there aren't many reviews overall, so only hardcore fans have reviewed the book, and they tend to be more forgiving.
Don't punish a writer for doing well and serving his readers, that's an awful thought.
BUT if it also doesn't pass the other checks in this list? Yeah, those fives were probably purchased.
4. SOME VERIFIED ACCOUNTS ARE BOGUS, BUT ITS RARE
I mention this one last, and in passing, because it's quite rare but does happen: verified accounts can be used to cheat. They are much rarer, because of the cost associated, but many are likely legacy accounts from before cheating crackdowns.
The only way really to spot these is by pattern. The books either obtain too many verified reviews too quickly or the reviewers themselves demonstrate strange review patterns.
It's been studied extensively academically, and online shoppers review at a rate of one review per 500-to-1,000 purchasers per product, depending on the ecosystem and other factors.
If a new release goes up and has a hundred 'verified' reviews in its first month, that suggests it has been downloaded around 50,000 times.
In a month.
And yet, the best-selling books -- and I mean the top 10 in a category, not 100 -- on these sites generally don't go average over that month much beyond a thousand books sold a day.
You'd basically have to hold the number one or two spot all month to hit 2,000 a day.
So the math doesn't add up.
Those below them? They sell the mid-to-low hundreds daily.
A book that is #60 on the thriller best-seller list generally shouldn't be able to get more than one or two new verified reviews each day, if that.
That's why even the best reviewed, best-selling authors usually have more unverified reviews in the first 50-to-1oo posted (the exception to rule two); it takes at least a month after release for verified reviews (purchases) to catch up to those they've given to fans for advance reviews.
Another pattern to check is the reviewer themselves. Click on the reviewer's name to bring up their reviewing history. If they have nine reviews and seven are the same author and NOTHING else for years, they're probably a sock puppet account. (More notes and explanation at the end). People who review online don't review just one thing, to benefit someone else.
Equally, if the reviews are mostly one- and two-star attacks, it's probably an account being used to lower competitors' scores.
It's worth checking out reviews for another reason: even if they aren't cheats, some reviewers are far more objective and useful than others. Click on a few; you'll be surprised how many review everything they buy as either "one star" or "five star", making their opinion subjectively worthless.
----
OKAY, deeper explanation time.
1) There are two principle categories of cheat: those who supplement a low number of decent reviews, out of a sense they can't obtain enough to be competitive; and those who paper their books with false reviews to offset bad scores that drag down their average.
The first ain't great, as they gain competitive advantage unfairly. But it's also not the problem for shoppers, just other authors. A good book is a good book.
The second is the problem in terms of purchasing.
It's important to understand that books that visually have a 41/2 star rating (a 4.3/5 or above) sell hundreds of times, generally, those with a visual four or below.
When prices are low, shoppers are less discerning and pay less attention to small details, more to the visual cues.
But... here's the rub: there are in-house stats available by several methods that show you not only how many ebooks are available in a certain subcategory... but how many rate above or below those scores.
And on the biggest site, 70-80%, depending on category, are above 4-stars.
If that sounds a little suspicious, I would note that it's easy to be too cynical; most authors don't cheat.
It's just that for the most part, they aren't as visible or easy to find as those who do, because the system is designed to more often present you not only the best-reviewed books, but those that amass those reviews more quickly... making it prime territory for cheats.
Over time, as people read the cheating book, they increase its one-star review count dramatically.
They are then forced to buy that attention via ads, because books with high scores but unverified reviews have to bid higher, generally, to win per-click bids in ad auctions.
And they need unverified reviews, which are easily faked, to counteract all the lousy, genuine reviews their book has attracted.
So the more they cheat, the more they "hold position" in the sales chart... but the more they need to spend on ads to keep it that way, which benefits the site selling the books.
And while the system has safeguards to prevent cheats, it also favors them when they get past that system. It is a "if you don't get caught you're not cheating" ecosystem, in effect.
2) There are good reasons for a new book to have slightly more unverified reviews WHEN THE BOOK IS NEW and has less than a hundred reviews total.
Authors mail out unpurchased, unofficial copies to their Advance Readers.
That's so they have a decent score as soon as the book comes out.
But by the time a book has over a hundred reviews, you should see the ones that are "verified" -- i.e. based on a purchase and labelled 'verified' at the top of the review -- becoming the more prominent number (and usually before then, based on review speed. More in a minute.) or at least very close to the number of unverified.
Some measures -- such as drastically limiting the popularity and exposure of free books -- are now more harmful than helpful.
When the 'Zon took that step, it was because legitimately popular free books, with good scores, could be used by "verified", real accounts -- set up in fake names for the purpose but with no real spending behind them -- to bolster their credibility.
A 'sock puppet' account that has one verified book and a bunch of unverifieds or other products looks suspicious. One with other 'verified' authors costs them nothing if the verified authors were downloaded for free, but appears legitimate.
But sock puppet accounts now cost serious money to make an impact, as reviewing is limited to people with $50 in purchases or more. That's a hell of price considering each account can only review a book once.
That's why they now buy 'unverified' reviews, because any of the website's millions (billions?) of regular customers can use their existing shopping account and just be paid to cheat.
What they CAN'T do is use that system for "verified purchases".... because then the customers would actually have to buy the product, and they make their money by selling fake reviews online in bulk. They would lose their profit pretty quickly if each review cost $3-9.
And authors have no way to provide 'verified' copies; only the website can do that.
Limiting freebies -- while probably beneficial to overall quality as many were awful -- also limits promotion for legitimate authors... forcing them to turn more to the internal ad system for exposure.
Okay, there you have it. That's how to spot ebook review cheats; I hope you employ it to avoid getting ripped off and to support authors who don't buy reviews.
-----
Okay, some fun stuff: As mentioned last week I have two books coming out next month: "Snitches Get Stitches" is the latest Liam Quinn mystery. It centers on the death of a political aide in Quinn's beloved Philadelphia, and the ne'er do well brother who wants Quinn to provide some answers.
I've had a couple of advance readers who were offended for religious reasons to the unashamedly pro-LGBTQ stuff in it. My job is not to pander to every reader's beliefs, it's to write the story I want to write.
I was a journalist for years, I try to base my opinions in science, reason and fact. If they get in the way of beliefs that make others feel secure, that's unfortunate. It's not going to change how I write, and if it costs me support and sales, it costs me support and sales.
The second book out, if that sounds offputting, is unashamedly anti-Nazi, which I figure is safe ground for most of us.
"Master of the Reich" sees former CIA clandestine operative Joe Brennan become embroiled in a decades-long international fascist conspiracy, involving a terror attack and a U.S. election.
As some have noted, the Brennan books are jumping around a bit in style. This one is well shorter than "Shadow Agenda" but still about 380 pages. About half of it is a historical back narrative. It's different. I hope people like it.
Quinn is out April 2 and can be pre-ordered ; Brennan is out April 10 and can be pre-ordered .
I am not making hardcopy paper books available right now. There's considerable work and complexity to doing that, I have limited time and ability to multi-task due to ADHD, and the demand is low. If I'm wrong about that, let me know.
I hope to get Vellum and a Mac later this year, which allegedly will make the bookmaking process much easier. Vellum is sort of do-it-all book software. But until then, it's ebook only.
----
And... that's the blog for this week. As always, if you want to try my work for free, sign up and I'll send you a couple of books. As always, comments and questions below are most welcome.
Cheers all,
Ian
March 20, 2021
THE SATURDAY REPORT, VOL. 1, NO 1, March 20, 2021
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going a wee bit stir crazy.
Now, having been shut in for most of a year, like everyone, I highly doubt that's surprising.
So, I'm going to write a blog, for now (and probably later) titled "The Saturday Report." You can read and follow it on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, or my website.
(For those of you unsure how you came to be following "Ian Loome", I used to write under the pennames 'L.H. Thomson' and 'Sam Powers'. It was making life exceedingly complicated. So now I use my middle name, Ian, and my actual surname, Loome.)
Yeah, I know blogs are old hat, that reading in general seems passé compared with youtube channels or tweets. But... I like things that take time to read and absorb. I see value in that. I tend to believe most fiction fans do, too.
I'm not going to write about myself much, because my life is as boring as most people's, most of the time. I'm 51, and most of the things that interest me are either intangible social concepts and discussions or things far bigger and more interesting than anything I can offer: history, neuroscience, entertainment, politics, sports. I like to talk about "things" not "personal drudgery."
I will, however, talk a little about my work, because people ask a lot, relatively speaking. I may also post the odd short story, as an outlet for an exercise in craft.
But mostly, it's going to be a weird, eclectic hodgepodge of observations, ideas, rants and ephemera. I like lists. I like trivia. I think QI and Jeopardy! should both be mandatory viewing for school kids. I play blues guitar. I read historical fiction as well as mysteries, thrillers and non-fiction. I enjoy video games but feel too guilty about the time sink to play them. I'm exceedingly English, despite having lived in Canada since my teens (and, having accepted that in the last year, mostly consume English news and television).
I hope you'll join me and chime in using the comments. I'm not goign to get into debates or arguments with people, so anything vitriolic or pissy will be duly ignored, as I'd expect any of us to be allowed to do online.
So... why now, eight years into a fiction career?
Okay, well... this will be the one notable exception when it comes to yapping about me.
What might surprise you is that for eight years prior to COVID, I went out just as little as we all have this year.
Perhaps less.
Unfortunately, autism spectrum disorder (asd-1, Asperger's) and ADHD contribute to a barely manageable depression and social anxiety, which I've combatted my entire life. I also had an extremely traumatic childhood marred by physical abuse. All of these combine to produce low self-worth, a sense of nihilism about human behavior. I am afflicted by an inability to see value or quality in my own work, and a malaise with respect to trying... anything, really.
By 2012, my mental state had deteriorated badly, to the point of being largely non-functional outside my home. After five years, in 2017, I got help, medication and began regaining some sanity and stability.
One of the first things you recognize when you begin to address early childhood trauma and mental illness is that nearly all of your fond memories involve other people. For most normal folks, being sociable on some level is sort of essential. It is for me, too, but my brain doesn't send out the right signals to remind me do so, or to pay attention: to my needs, to their needs, to being a part of communities.
And I miss it. I miss meeting new people, finding interesting people to talk to. I miss the realization that I have an interest or history in common with someone else.
I can't be sociable day-in, day-out, because my lack of focus due to ADHD makes quite a bit of day-to-day function challenging. Lump in the judgements of others and it's a recipe for burnout.
So I suspect I won't be posting more than once a week, at least for now. If my blather proves interesting enough and people want more, I'm sure they'll let me know.
In the meantime, thank you for supporting my writing and staying in touch. Comments below always welcome and encouraged!
Cheers,
Ian
P.S. Two new books out next month! More on that next week.
Now, having been shut in for most of a year, like everyone, I highly doubt that's surprising.
So, I'm going to write a blog, for now (and probably later) titled "The Saturday Report." You can read and follow it on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, or my website.
(For those of you unsure how you came to be following "Ian Loome", I used to write under the pennames 'L.H. Thomson' and 'Sam Powers'. It was making life exceedingly complicated. So now I use my middle name, Ian, and my actual surname, Loome.)
Yeah, I know blogs are old hat, that reading in general seems passé compared with youtube channels or tweets. But... I like things that take time to read and absorb. I see value in that. I tend to believe most fiction fans do, too.
I'm not going to write about myself much, because my life is as boring as most people's, most of the time. I'm 51, and most of the things that interest me are either intangible social concepts and discussions or things far bigger and more interesting than anything I can offer: history, neuroscience, entertainment, politics, sports. I like to talk about "things" not "personal drudgery."
I will, however, talk a little about my work, because people ask a lot, relatively speaking. I may also post the odd short story, as an outlet for an exercise in craft.
But mostly, it's going to be a weird, eclectic hodgepodge of observations, ideas, rants and ephemera. I like lists. I like trivia. I think QI and Jeopardy! should both be mandatory viewing for school kids. I play blues guitar. I read historical fiction as well as mysteries, thrillers and non-fiction. I enjoy video games but feel too guilty about the time sink to play them. I'm exceedingly English, despite having lived in Canada since my teens (and, having accepted that in the last year, mostly consume English news and television).
I hope you'll join me and chime in using the comments. I'm not goign to get into debates or arguments with people, so anything vitriolic or pissy will be duly ignored, as I'd expect any of us to be allowed to do online.
So... why now, eight years into a fiction career?
Okay, well... this will be the one notable exception when it comes to yapping about me.
What might surprise you is that for eight years prior to COVID, I went out just as little as we all have this year.
Perhaps less.
Unfortunately, autism spectrum disorder (asd-1, Asperger's) and ADHD contribute to a barely manageable depression and social anxiety, which I've combatted my entire life. I also had an extremely traumatic childhood marred by physical abuse. All of these combine to produce low self-worth, a sense of nihilism about human behavior. I am afflicted by an inability to see value or quality in my own work, and a malaise with respect to trying... anything, really.
By 2012, my mental state had deteriorated badly, to the point of being largely non-functional outside my home. After five years, in 2017, I got help, medication and began regaining some sanity and stability.
One of the first things you recognize when you begin to address early childhood trauma and mental illness is that nearly all of your fond memories involve other people. For most normal folks, being sociable on some level is sort of essential. It is for me, too, but my brain doesn't send out the right signals to remind me do so, or to pay attention: to my needs, to their needs, to being a part of communities.
And I miss it. I miss meeting new people, finding interesting people to talk to. I miss the realization that I have an interest or history in common with someone else.
I can't be sociable day-in, day-out, because my lack of focus due to ADHD makes quite a bit of day-to-day function challenging. Lump in the judgements of others and it's a recipe for burnout.
So I suspect I won't be posting more than once a week, at least for now. If my blather proves interesting enough and people want more, I'm sure they'll let me know.
In the meantime, thank you for supporting my writing and staying in touch. Comments below always welcome and encouraged!
Cheers,
Ian
P.S. Two new books out next month! More on that next week.
