Her Amazon Purchases Are Real, the Reviews Are Fake(buzzfeednews.com)
buzzfeednews.com
Her Amazon Purchases Are Real, the Reviews Are Fake
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/her-amazon-purchases-are-real-the-reviews-are-fake
328 comments
I totally agree. But where do we draw the line for fraud? I just ordered a $5.00 product, a pair of interesting-looking-at-first-glance earplugs for swimming, that are utter garbage. Included was something I had never seen - instructions for leaving a positive review that would allow me to receive a $10.00 Amazon gift card. This clearly appears to me to be buying positive reviews... which should not be allowed... but is not fraud... I do not think. Given that the product is cheap, I can see how people would leave positive reviews - lo and behold, the product has nearly a 5-star rating with 100+ reviews! I can guarantee nobody who swims would rate this product above 2 stars. Online reviews are a wonky and game-able system.
The problem is higher level; Amazon simply profits from fraudulent behavior.
There are several things that Amazon could correct, and it doesn't. I've tried to report other types of clear-cut frauds (e.g. "placeholder" ads with good reviews), and either I couldn't find a way, or they didn't care.
The late borderline-scammy behavior of Amazon is obvious in different ways, for example how they intentionally make opaque the shipment origin and price.
The most ridiculous allowed misbehavior I've experienced is an item sold in a number of trivial variations that took hundreds of (search) pages. It was obliterating any chance of looking similar items from other brands.
There are several things that Amazon could correct, and it doesn't. I've tried to report other types of clear-cut frauds (e.g. "placeholder" ads with good reviews), and either I couldn't find a way, or they didn't care.
The late borderline-scammy behavior of Amazon is obvious in different ways, for example how they intentionally make opaque the shipment origin and price.
The most ridiculous allowed misbehavior I've experienced is an item sold in a number of trivial variations that took hundreds of (search) pages. It was obliterating any chance of looking similar items from other brands.
It seems fraudulent in that it would evidently not be an honest review, complicated by the fact that the review would essentially be paid promotional content because you were paid for it.
I just bough a £20 Switch controller that had a card in it telling me to email them for a £20 gift certificate if I left them a positive review. Obviously this works; it’s the best rated off-brand controller.
That sounds like a pretty clear case of fraud. It would only take one report with pictures of that coupon to remove the product.
But why would they. They have your money already.
But why would they. They have your money already.
Do you really think so??? Not asked sarcastically... I just tossed it in the trash because I thought it was despicable. I have a hunch that is what most people do who do not just claim the gift-card. What a heist.
It would be very interesting to link the store in question. I'm very curious what other products they sell/what sort of store they have.
Because you're basically being paid $5 to receive the product. Basic economics says this is financially nonviable in the long term.
Something VERY interesting is happening behind the scenes with the store you stumbled upon.
I read these two articles recently that will probably resonate with your experience:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20961523/amazon-walmart-...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketpl...
Because you're basically being paid $5 to receive the product. Basic economics says this is financially nonviable in the long term.
Something VERY interesting is happening behind the scenes with the store you stumbled upon.
I read these two articles recently that will probably resonate with your experience:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/14/20961523/amazon-walmart-...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketpl...
You could leave a 1-star review explaining the product was garbage and they tried to entice you into a good review for money?
I often look at the one star reviews to see if anything is up with a product.
I often look at the one star reviews to see if anything is up with a product.
They can’t accept reports like that because the bad actors will use them to kick everyone else off.
It’s a complicated problem and I wonder if eBay’s best effort/don’t get involved strategy isn’t ultimately better because it forces everyone to pay attention.
It’s a complicated problem and I wonder if eBay’s best effort/don’t get involved strategy isn’t ultimately better because it forces everyone to pay attention.
They can accept the reports and then use data science to figure out which reports are legit.
And Ebay definitely did not have a “don’t get involved” policy (source: I worked on EBay’s fraud prevention team for years). There was a reason you could only communicate via the platform messaging and you couldn’t send email addresses through the platform.
And Ebay definitely did not have a “don’t get involved” policy (source: I worked on EBay’s fraud prevention team for years). There was a reason you could only communicate via the platform messaging and you couldn’t send email addresses through the platform.
Countdown to sellers offering Amazon giftcards in exchange for submitting fake reports about their competition offering Amazon giftcards in exchange for fake reviews.
I think it’s just not a priority. Unscrupulous sellers review-bomb competitors and even run “false flag” efforts to have other sellers banned already.
Exactly. This practice directly boosts more sales for Amazon which subsequently increases their stock price ensuring continued market domination. They could have easily blocked and prevented this but why would they do that? Until this becomes a bigger problem that lowers their market share then that's when we will see them begin targeting those fake purchases/reviews.
Amazon could root out these users rather quickly. If this "reviewer" is posting only 5-star reviews Amazon could implement a check box the user agrees to before submission. It would state that the user has not been paid or will not be paid for said review and that the review has not been influenced by the manufacturer or seller. If said user is found to be placing erroneous reviews (all 5 star reviews seems to be a dead giveaway) Amazon will remove all prior comments and ban commenting via the users account for X months. She states that she doesn't think what she's doing is wrong. It is wrong because it's a misrepresentation in many cases. Her gain is another person's loss of time and money based on what most people expect to be reasonably honest feedback. It's amazing what people will do for free junk.
Cables are notorious for this - almost every knock off type cable I've purchased from Amazon has come with an envelope asking for a review and they will provide a free gift for me. Most of those purchases go back to Amazon and I try to review them accordingly, but it's hard to judge when you've got more than 200 reviews and averaging 4.5 stars on a very specific cable you're looking for (length, color, specs, etc). In these cases Amazon eats significant shipping costs for the send and return labels - you'd think they'd want to get this under control better. But if anything I'd say returning the item is the best way to get Amazon to crack down on this since these fake reviews then cost them time and money.
Cables are notorious for this - almost every knock off type cable I've purchased from Amazon has come with an envelope asking for a review and they will provide a free gift for me. Most of those purchases go back to Amazon and I try to review them accordingly, but it's hard to judge when you've got more than 200 reviews and averaging 4.5 stars on a very specific cable you're looking for (length, color, specs, etc). In these cases Amazon eats significant shipping costs for the send and return labels - you'd think they'd want to get this under control better. But if anything I'd say returning the item is the best way to get Amazon to crack down on this since these fake reviews then cost them time and money.
Or just shadowban them. Make it so they can see their own reviews, and the seller can see them, but nobody else. After some set time like a day or a week.
That would cause a lot of problems for the business model described.
That would cause a lot of problems for the business model described.
This is a great idea. You could even turn off the shadowban for sellers big enough to hire a lawyer...
> Amazon could implement a check box the user agrees to before submission.
No need for a check box, fake reviews are already against their ToS and against the law.
Amazon can take action anytime it wants.
No need for a check box, fake reviews are already against their ToS and against the law.
Amazon can take action anytime it wants.
> Amazon can take action anytime it wants.
These new verified purchase review scams are because Amazon took action against incentivized reviews (which had disclosure rules that most reviewers obeyed).
Yeah, incentivized reviews might not have been great, but they were easy to spot and ignore. Their ban has led to something much, much worse.
These new verified purchase review scams are because Amazon took action against incentivized reviews (which had disclosure rules that most reviewers obeyed).
Yeah, incentivized reviews might not have been great, but they were easy to spot and ignore. Their ban has led to something much, much worse.
It's not hard to picture this having been a regular feature before that, though. I pretty much assume every review of 5 stars is a shill review, and 1 star is someone who's a moron and bought the wrong thing, used it wrong, what have you. The ones in the middle are where you'll find real people who often tout both the pros and the cons, acknowledging that while a product isn't perfect, it's still good, or just saying that while they see the value in it, the construction isn't up to par, etc. etc.
Consuming reviews well is a skill you learn as you shop online. Frankly I think Amazon should stay the course. You can't possibly eliminate all the fakers. If they want to improve the service, they should just stop selling knockoffs altogether and be done with it.
For example: When I was shopping for surveillance cameras for my home, I found ones of apparently good quality that I liked. The 1 star reviews were nothing but bitching about spyware and the NSA, and the 5 stars didn't mention any possible drawbacks. A long and well written 4-star review, however, described the picture quality in detail, the issues with installing, but that once it was installed it was indeed a good product. And they included the technical details needed to establish firewall rules to prevent them sending data back to Singapore.
Consuming reviews well is a skill you learn as you shop online. Frankly I think Amazon should stay the course. You can't possibly eliminate all the fakers. If they want to improve the service, they should just stop selling knockoffs altogether and be done with it.
For example: When I was shopping for surveillance cameras for my home, I found ones of apparently good quality that I liked. The 1 star reviews were nothing but bitching about spyware and the NSA, and the 5 stars didn't mention any possible drawbacks. A long and well written 4-star review, however, described the picture quality in detail, the issues with installing, but that once it was installed it was indeed a good product. And they included the technical details needed to establish firewall rules to prevent them sending data back to Singapore.
I don't disregard the 5 star ones but I take them with a grain of salt. I tend to look at the negative ones and see what they're complaining about--it's surprising how many are griping about things that aren't the fault of the product at all.
> Yeah, incentivized reviews might not have been great, but they were easy to spot and ignore. Their ban has led to something much, much worse.
Maybe, but it's hard to get a clear picture of what an appropriate rating would be for an item that's 4.7 stars with 500 reviews, and only some of the 5-star reviews claim to be incentivized.
Maybe, but it's hard to get a clear picture of what an appropriate rating would be for an item that's 4.7 stars with 500 reviews, and only some of the 5-star reviews claim to be incentivized.
Ah, but by asking the reviewer every time to confirm they are leaving an honest review, squarely puts the reviewer in the wrong if they get caught. It also put front and centre what can happen if they break the ToS.
Problem is this just puts another barrier against legitimate reviews. Amazon doesn't want to add friction to the review process, since that will discourage actual reviews and not bother the fake reviewers at all.
I've only reviewed a few items on Amazon, mostly when an item stood out as really good or absolute crap. For instance, my last review was 1 star for an esp8266 that was so poorly faked they had mounted an op-amp instead of the microcontroller (I assume because it was the cheapest thing they could find in the package size). If there are barriers to leaving a review, actual customers will leave less reviews. I certainly don't want to have to tick multiple checkboxes in order to review an item, I will just not bother leaving a review.
I've only reviewed a few items on Amazon, mostly when an item stood out as really good or absolute crap. For instance, my last review was 1 star for an esp8266 that was so poorly faked they had mounted an op-amp instead of the microcontroller (I assume because it was the cheapest thing they could find in the package size). If there are barriers to leaving a review, actual customers will leave less reviews. I certainly don't want to have to tick multiple checkboxes in order to review an item, I will just not bother leaving a review.
> Amazon doesn't want to add friction to the review process, since that will discourage actual reviews and not bother the fake reviewers at all.
Who cares about barriers to legitimate reviews? There are millions on Amazon, hundreds for any popular product. The problem is they're swamped out by the millions of fake/illegitimate ones.
Who cares about barriers to legitimate reviews? There are millions on Amazon, hundreds for any popular product. The problem is they're swamped out by the millions of fake/illegitimate ones.
They already know this.
Jessica and the rest understand it's immoral to do this. She even says so in the article.
Jessica and the rest understand it's immoral to do this. She even says so in the article.
Okay, spin me on how it's against the law?
Reviews are the opinion of the person.
Reviews are the opinion of the person.
Per the FCC, you must disclose advertisements. If a consumer's opinion of your review would be changed by the knowledge that you have a relationship with the seller (because they paid you, or sent you something for free), then your review is an advertisement and you must disclose that relationship. Not doing so is illegal.
I think if you don't stand to make any money or get free stuff and just like posting fake reviews on Amazon for fun, then that's legal (although likely against the ToS).
I think if you don't stand to make any money or get free stuff and just like posting fake reviews on Amazon for fun, then that's legal (although likely against the ToS).
You are correct, small nitpick, it's per the FTC, not FCC.
One interesting thing I learned while trying to find a link -- You may not use the exact wording provided by an advertiser unless you specifically disclose that you used their exact wording.
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-re...
One interesting thing I learned while trying to find a link -- You may not use the exact wording provided by an advertiser unless you specifically disclose that you used their exact wording.
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-re...
How are fake reviews against the law? And how do we know that they’re fake? She has the product, and tells her opinion of it. How do we judge if her opinion is fake? I know full well the circumstantial evidence argument, but from a legal point of view, I think you’d need more.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
> Suppose you meet someone who tells you about a great new product. She tells you it performs wonderfully and offers fantastic new features that nobody else has. Would that recommendation factor into your decision to buy the product? Probably.
> Now suppose the person works for the company that sells the product – or has been paid by the company to tout the product. Would you want to know that when you’re evaluating the endorser’s glowing recommendation? You bet. That common-sense premise is at the heart of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides.
And yes, they can go after you for it:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/05/ftc-a...
> Suppose you meet someone who tells you about a great new product. She tells you it performs wonderfully and offers fantastic new features that nobody else has. Would that recommendation factor into your decision to buy the product? Probably.
> Now suppose the person works for the company that sells the product – or has been paid by the company to tout the product. Would you want to know that when you’re evaluating the endorser’s glowing recommendation? You bet. That common-sense premise is at the heart of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides.
And yes, they can go after you for it:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/05/ftc-a...
The FTC thinks it's fraudulent[0]. She's paid to provide the review (always 5 stars, never anything explicitly negative), yet doesn't disclose the fact she was reimbursed for the purchase by the seller.
The intent of the scheme is to deceive other shoppers, regardless of the specific arrangement between her and the sellers.
[0]https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-b...
The intent of the scheme is to deceive other shoppers, regardless of the specific arrangement between her and the sellers.
[0]https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-b...
[deleted]
I tend to only write reviews on yelp, but they are all either 5 or 1 stars. This is because I’m not motivated to review something unless I love or hate it.
My guess is you should factor the sheer volume of purchases here as well. She’s definitely not leaning on the middle of the bell curve either way, which should prompt investigation from Amazon.
However, I’m not sure Amazon has any motivation to clear these kinds of things up. Fake reviews at least for now don’t seem to be hurting their business model.
My guess is you should factor the sheer volume of purchases here as well. She’s definitely not leaning on the middle of the bell curve either way, which should prompt investigation from Amazon.
However, I’m not sure Amazon has any motivation to clear these kinds of things up. Fake reviews at least for now don’t seem to be hurting their business model.
It's easier than that. If she's posting all 5-star reviews on products that don't get rated 5-stars by other customers, those other customers shouldn't be seeing her reviews. Preferentially weight the visibility of reviews from reviewers who match the individual customers reviews on other products. This incentivizes users posting honest reviews and makes 'gaming' the system almost impossible.
[deleted]
I wonder if she suffers from hoarding as well as she seems to be a bit in denial with her expenses. The article states:
> Almost every day, Jessica’s boyfriend of eight years begrudgingly hauls Amazon packages in from the porch. “He hates it,” she told BuzzFeed News. But Jessica proudly points to all the items she's acquired for their new house: “I got our new showerhead, shower organizer, side tables, coat rack, coat hangers. … We would have had to pay for all that stuff.”
Then it later states:
> The spreadsheet helps Jessica make sure she’s on top of due dates and getting paid on time. BuzzFeed News reviewed the document, which showed 117 open orders that hadn’t been refunded yet. A column titled “Total currently out of pocket” — or what she’s still owed — amounted to $2,282.01.
So she isn't _REALLY_ getting everything for free. According to her own records she is down $2,282.01 and it's quite possible she wont see that money. If this continues, that number will either grow into serious debt or "Jessica" will move on to something else.
Sounds like an addiction.
> Almost every day, Jessica’s boyfriend of eight years begrudgingly hauls Amazon packages in from the porch. “He hates it,” she told BuzzFeed News. But Jessica proudly points to all the items she's acquired for their new house: “I got our new showerhead, shower organizer, side tables, coat rack, coat hangers. … We would have had to pay for all that stuff.”
Then it later states:
> The spreadsheet helps Jessica make sure she’s on top of due dates and getting paid on time. BuzzFeed News reviewed the document, which showed 117 open orders that hadn’t been refunded yet. A column titled “Total currently out of pocket” — or what she’s still owed — amounted to $2,282.01.
So she isn't _REALLY_ getting everything for free. According to her own records she is down $2,282.01 and it's quite possible she wont see that money. If this continues, that number will either grow into serious debt or "Jessica" will move on to something else.
Sounds like an addiction.
She's currently owed $2,282, meaning accounts receivable in accounting terms. This doesn't tell us anything about her overall profit.
That said, you're right in that there's definitely a discrepancy in the value of what she's getting, and the real dollar cost of what she has to pay for them. If she pays $100 for a shower head she didn't need and gets stiffed on the refund, she's out (almost) $100 even if she gets to keep the product.
That said, you're right in that there's definitely a discrepancy in the value of what she's getting, and the real dollar cost of what she has to pay for them. If she pays $100 for a shower head she didn't need and gets stiffed on the refund, she's out (almost) $100 even if she gets to keep the product.
She should be charging a fixed fee for the review itself. She has a whole bunch of things she clearly doesn't need and isn't even paid for her labour...
> isn't even paid for her labour...
The IRS considers payment in kind (goods in exchange for services) to be taxable income. [0] So, I’d say she’s getting paid.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420
The IRS considers payment in kind (goods in exchange for services) to be taxable income. [0] So, I’d say she’s getting paid.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420
Unless I'm misunderstanding it's more straightforward. The article says she is reimbursed, so the steps are (based on my Aus understanding, US tax law may vary):
1) Buy product - taxable expense for business/work purposes 2) Write review 3) Get sent money equal to purchase price - taxable income
Net, the money cancels out to no taxable income but she has the product. It was bought with her own money and still belongs to her.
It's like if I run a blog, I bought a new PC to do my blogging (business expense), wrote about how nice it was, then the company sent me some money or a gift as thanks. I wouldn't have to pay tax on the PC if this happened.
1) Buy product - taxable expense for business/work purposes 2) Write review 3) Get sent money equal to purchase price - taxable income
Net, the money cancels out to no taxable income but she has the product. It was bought with her own money and still belongs to her.
It's like if I run a blog, I bought a new PC to do my blogging (business expense), wrote about how nice it was, then the company sent me some money or a gift as thanks. I wouldn't have to pay tax on the PC if this happened.
In the U.S. a court would probably ignore the formality of the transactions you describe and simply look at the outcome. The outcome is that the reviewer has ended up with the property at no out-of-pocket cost, and would thus be considered income.
See also Gregory v. Helvering (U.S. 1935) for the quintessential example of this principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
See also Gregory v. Helvering (U.S. 1935) for the quintessential example of this principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
You're probably right. We often have the legal idea of "arm's length" meaning a transaction that is coincidental or purposeful will be treated differently.
I find this interesting in your link:
"if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction"
I don't see how that doesn't apply to all the shuffling we see from big corps these days, licensing things they own to companies they own just to shift profits. Though that's another tangent.
I find this interesting in your link:
"if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction"
I don't see how that doesn't apply to all the shuffling we see from big corps these days, licensing things they own to companies they own just to shift profits. Though that's another tangent.
I'd not try that in Aus without some serious financial advice, or you'll end up with even more serious tax debt.
Sure, it's a net benefit for tax purposes, and she "gets things". But what I'm saying is that it's not a real fungible, useful income.
of 99% crap they probably don't need
Not to mention the boxes. My Wife tends to purchase a fair amount from Amazon especially around the holiday time. The amount of cardboard that I have to cut down and fit into my recycling bins can be frustrating leading to a large pile of cardboard in the garage that is slowly whittled down over time. At her scale I imagine she must be dealing with a tremendous amount of cardboard - maybe she should see if she can find a 3rd party seller of cardboard balers!
She can just return those items to Amazon for her money back... as well as the ones she's been refunded for (as per the article, she's refunded via PayPal)
While true, I wonder if this would flag her account as suspicious activity and shut the scam down.
I imagine high volume returns to Amazon paired with the deletion of reviews (or seeing all her reviews on 3rd party sellers goods have only 5 stars), one may start to unravel what is occurring.
Wonder if it would just be worth it to "eat" those costs.
I imagine high volume returns to Amazon paired with the deletion of reviews (or seeing all her reviews on 3rd party sellers goods have only 5 stars), one may start to unravel what is occurring.
Wonder if it would just be worth it to "eat" those costs.
I would be terrible at this. I purchased a set of headphones that sucked and left a 1 star review. The seller contacted me and sent me a new pair. They sucked too. But, the seller asked me to change my review to 5 stars. I refused. They actually sent me 2 more sets, each time encouraging me to change my review to 5 stars. Eventually they gave up (all the headphones had problems so I refused), but I was amazed at the lengths they would go through just to get one person to give them a 5 star review.
One star is really harsh, don't you think? I guess this is just how people think though, everything is either 5 or 1 star right?
Makes one wonder why we even have 5 star systems. Habit I suppose.
Makes one wonder why we even have 5 star systems. Habit I suppose.
They didn't have just one problem. They had multiple problems to the extent that they were literally unusable. I rated them as a 1 because 0 was not available. Nobody should ever consider buying those headphones under any circumstances. They had no redeemable qualities.
I mean... if they sound bad enough that I'd never choose to listen to them, then what else should I review it as?
"Would literally never listen to these headphones due to awful audio (their whole purpose), but it seemed like it had good build quality and I liked the color. 3/5 stars."
I think there's plenty of reasons things shouldn't get 5-stars just for being "good enough", but giving a 1-star to something that literally doesn't work/is defective seems ok?
"Would literally never listen to these headphones due to awful audio (their whole purpose), but it seemed like it had good build quality and I liked the color. 3/5 stars."
I think there's plenty of reasons things shouldn't get 5-stars just for being "good enough", but giving a 1-star to something that literally doesn't work/is defective seems ok?
This is the scale I tend to use when reviewing stuff:
5 - amazing, can't think of anything to improve product
4 - great product, but has some flaws
3 - good product, happy with purchase but has some downsides
2 - poor product, gets the job done with serious flaws
1 - defective product, would not recommend and will return if possible
5 - amazing, can't think of anything to improve product
4 - great product, but has some flaws
3 - good product, happy with purchase but has some downsides
2 - poor product, gets the job done with serious flaws
1 - defective product, would not recommend and will return if possible
[deleted]
I mean if they're really busted what else are you going to give them. "Well, they're broken but they're really stylish so I guess 3 stars for fashion"
One star is the lowest possible rating. It implies that some essential feature of the product does not work at all. Parent did not say the headphones didn't work, just that they "sucked", which I can only take to mean that they did work, just not to parent's satisfaction.
> [...] which I can only take to mean that they did work, just not to parent's satisfaction.
I think you're succumbing to a moderation fallacy. It's simply not true that things must have some positive aspects to offset their negative aspects, or to use that belief to somehow interpret "sucked" as that they worked well enough to deserve better than the lowest rating (which may have increased after the replacements arrived, all we know is that the rating remained less than 5 stars.)
You can't consider having an extreme opinion on something as prima facie evidence of bias without distorting your perception of the world.
I think you're succumbing to a moderation fallacy. It's simply not true that things must have some positive aspects to offset their negative aspects, or to use that belief to somehow interpret "sucked" as that they worked well enough to deserve better than the lowest rating (which may have increased after the replacements arrived, all we know is that the rating remained less than 5 stars.)
You can't consider having an extreme opinion on something as prima facie evidence of bias without distorting your perception of the world.
> "One star is the lowest possible rating. It implies that some essential feature of the product does not work at all."
Perhaps part of the problem is that there isn't actually any standard for what these stars mean, and what they seem to imply to you is not necessarily what they imply to other people.
To me a one-star review means "I regret purchasing this and I believe many other people will too, and consequently I want to minimize the number of other people who buy it." That regret might be the result of some 'essential feature not working' or it might very well not be. A product that works but is very low quality for the price will get a 1-star review from me because I don't want other people to get ripped off.
Perhaps part of the problem is that there isn't actually any standard for what these stars mean, and what they seem to imply to you is not necessarily what they imply to other people.
To me a one-star review means "I regret purchasing this and I believe many other people will too, and consequently I want to minimize the number of other people who buy it." That regret might be the result of some 'essential feature not working' or it might very well not be. A product that works but is very low quality for the price will get a 1-star review from me because I don't want other people to get ripped off.
That's why I like Steam's thumbs up/down. Stars 2-4 are useless.
Not exactly worthless. I usually assume that 1 and 5 star reviews are by competitors and shills, respectively, and mainly ignore the star value anyway. I read 2-star reviews first, and look for text descriptions of identifiable strengths and weaknesses, and these must be corroborated by other substantial reviews.
If anyone, with any star value, says "I wasn't shipped what was advertised/listed", I just close the Amazon tab, and look at other retailers. I don't have time for counterfeiter roulette any more.
If anyone, with any star value, says "I wasn't shipped what was advertised/listed", I just close the Amazon tab, and look at other retailers. I don't have time for counterfeiter roulette any more.
They're not (all) useless.
There are a lot of Steam reviews complaining about the lack of a "neutral thumb". In this perspective, a more usable Steam system would have three evaluations, which would be a gross equivalent of 1-, 3- and 5- star Amazon ratings. I agree with the judgment, in fact, several times, positive or negative is pretty much a coin toss.
In other words, at least the 3-stars rating has a use.
There are a lot of Steam reviews complaining about the lack of a "neutral thumb". In this perspective, a more usable Steam system would have three evaluations, which would be a gross equivalent of 1-, 3- and 5- star Amazon ratings. I agree with the judgment, in fact, several times, positive or negative is pretty much a coin toss.
In other words, at least the 3-stars rating has a use.
Amazon has shown no interest in fixing this issue. I use custom emails for every service I use (e.g. amazon@<mydomain>) to manage spam. The only spam I get to my amazon address is for these scams. I've reported the issue to Amazon through a couple different channels and they always respond that it's just spam because I gave my email out.
No, it's sellers on their marketplace soliciting customers who make an initial legitimate purchase and leave a positive review.
No, it's sellers on their marketplace soliciting customers who make an initial legitimate purchase and leave a positive review.
I forgot to mention their responses usually contain a veiled threat about accepting such offers.
Amazon doesn't care, the FTC might.
> But sometimes the products are worse, and Jessica still rates them 5 stars. “I haven’t found a thermometer by doing this that works correctly — they all give me different readings,” she said. Jessica is afraid to use the electronic appliances she receives, which often come with incomprehensible instructions written in both English and Chinese. She took photos of one product, a foot spa, without adding water or plugging it in.
> Jessica also doesn’t trust health and beauty products on the site, because of her boyfriend, a chemist, who has found toxic ingredients in analyses of unregulated products.
She'll happily give them five stars, though. Gross.
> Jessica also doesn’t trust health and beauty products on the site, because of her boyfriend, a chemist, who has found toxic ingredients in analyses of unregulated products.
She'll happily give them five stars, though. Gross.
Her thought process seems to be a disgusting combination of "I'm benefiting so it's fine" and "bad stuff only happens to other people".
I hope Amazon investigates her, tracks people who contact her, and kicks the lot of them off the site. I also know that the chances of that happening are close to zero.
I hope Amazon investigates her, tracks people who contact her, and kicks the lot of them off the site. I also know that the chances of that happening are close to zero.
The pictures and names of the products she ‘reviewed’ or is ‘reviewing’ will probably make it easy to identify her.
She's an Amazon cardholder with a volume of purchases probably in some high percentile, probably an abnormally high review rate along likely near-exclusive 5-star ratings. Geographic clues aren't as narrow, since you can pretty much only rule out the far South where trees don't lose their leaves in fall. However when taking the above into account, I suppose you could filter the resulting addresses even further with map data as her house appears to be at the junction of a T-intersection. Article also mentioned an upstairs neighbor so her address might have a unit number as well.
All said and done, identifying her doesn't sound like an impossible task for a motivated person with access to the necessary data on Amazon's end. And that's before even cross-referencing with specific items shown in the photos.
All said and done, identifying her doesn't sound like an impossible task for a motivated person with access to the necessary data on Amazon's end. And that's before even cross-referencing with specific items shown in the photos.
Even if Amazon fixed this situation and the fake product stock would I wouldn't switch back to using them.
Personally the customer trust is gone since it's been years now that I've been seeing articles and hn posts on this subject with nothing being done. The "world most customer obsessed company" really sold their customers out for profit over basic service and let fraud run rampant on the platform.
At this point seeing these articles is like seeing another post about Facebook secretly being malicious with user data, it's known they're a shitty business and a risk to use.
Personally the customer trust is gone since it's been years now that I've been seeing articles and hn posts on this subject with nothing being done. The "world most customer obsessed company" really sold their customers out for profit over basic service and let fraud run rampant on the platform.
At this point seeing these articles is like seeing another post about Facebook secretly being malicious with user data, it's known they're a shitty business and a risk to use.
The problem with reviews is even though they have a name, like "Bob Seymour, from Manchester" or "Tracy Hughes, from London".
They're still impersonal.
Unlike the reviews when you go around to a friends BBQ or are at an event, and you say "Oh hey Sarah, I see you are driving the new X".
Then they proceed to tell you how great/bad or mediocre it is.
Surprised no-one has been able to engineer a more personable review mechanic, then again with all the privacy concerns. Do you really want to know what your friends are buying, and equally for them to know what you are buying too.
They're still impersonal.
Unlike the reviews when you go around to a friends BBQ or are at an event, and you say "Oh hey Sarah, I see you are driving the new X".
Then they proceed to tell you how great/bad or mediocre it is.
Surprised no-one has been able to engineer a more personable review mechanic, then again with all the privacy concerns. Do you really want to know what your friends are buying, and equally for them to know what you are buying too.
Amazon used to have a reviewing system that was a lot more social: you could follow people, chat with them on message boards, read detailed bios and an explanation of why they review a certain niche of products, etc. Then, it was easy to notice trustworthy reviewers who were reviewing things for the simple pleasure of it. (Back in the day, it was mainly books, CDs, and DVDs being reviewed, not Chinese-made products like now.)
Amazon eventually shut down the message boards, probably because it felt moderation cost more than the feature brought profit. Successive changes to the site's design obscured most of the other social aspects.
Amazon eventually shut down the message boards, probably because it felt moderation cost more than the feature brought profit. Successive changes to the site's design obscured most of the other social aspects.
And the current fix for this is something like Facebook which I'd also hate.
Maybe what we need is a Kevin-Bacon-degrees-of-separation style system. I can review something and my 'friends' can see it's me. Friends of friends can see someone just outside their circle bought it (maybe they can ask their friend for further info). And strangers get the usual 'Trent from London' with no further info.
Maybe what we need is a Kevin-Bacon-degrees-of-separation style system. I can review something and my 'friends' can see it's me. Friends of friends can see someone just outside their circle bought it (maybe they can ask their friend for further info). And strangers get the usual 'Trent from London' with no further info.
That's exactly right - this is the problem that we have with every online "social" network (I would include Amazon reviews in this label for the purposes of this comment).
It's clear from the article that she retains two separate and unequal ratings of each product: one that she provides to her "online" persona, and one that she would provide to her "authentic" persona. It's clear that she would not purchase these products herself or recommend them to friends, yet rates them 5 stars on Amazon. As many will point out, the ability to do this is not new; the ability to do it at scale and with zero consequences (where consequences would be to your own personal reputation, for example) is the innovation.
What's truly sad is that we're missing out on such a crucial piece of information that is available to her: namely, her boyfriend's expertise in chemistry. They could blow the lid off shoddy and downright dangerous products on Amazon and provide a valuable public service to boot, but hey, it's easier to run the grift, right?
It's clear from the article that she retains two separate and unequal ratings of each product: one that she provides to her "online" persona, and one that she would provide to her "authentic" persona. It's clear that she would not purchase these products herself or recommend them to friends, yet rates them 5 stars on Amazon. As many will point out, the ability to do this is not new; the ability to do it at scale and with zero consequences (where consequences would be to your own personal reputation, for example) is the innovation.
What's truly sad is that we're missing out on such a crucial piece of information that is available to her: namely, her boyfriend's expertise in chemistry. They could blow the lid off shoddy and downright dangerous products on Amazon and provide a valuable public service to boot, but hey, it's easier to run the grift, right?
I'm not sure if I think personalization would fix it. When I was on Facebook, I received one or two MLM offers. If Reddit is to be believed, this is actually a prevalent practice.
You'd go from anonymous reviews to seeing which of your "friends" are more interested in a shitty side hustle (e.g. there would still be.the kind of gaming noted in the article)
You'd go from anonymous reviews to seeing which of your "friends" are more interested in a shitty side hustle (e.g. there would still be.the kind of gaming noted in the article)
If comfortable writing a review about a product, I’m comfortable with friends knowing that I bought it.
The bigger problem seems to be critical mass of friends reviews to make it a worthwhile endeavor.
How many similar products have my friends bought? If that small group, how many have written reviews?
That subset of a subset is probably too small to be meaningful.
The bigger problem seems to be critical mass of friends reviews to make it a worthwhile endeavor.
How many similar products have my friends bought? If that small group, how many have written reviews?
That subset of a subset is probably too small to be meaningful.
> but Jessica told BuzzFeed News she doesn’t think she’s gaming the system; she’s trying to help brands grow their businesses in Amazon’s massive marketplace. “I’m just a pawn in their marketing scheme,” she said.
> Jessica’s activity, as far as Amazon is concerned, looks legitimate. She makes purchases from her own Amazon account and credit card, so her reviews are labeled as a “verified purchase.”
Don't know if Jessica or Amazon is the bigger crook here.
> Jessica’s activity, as far as Amazon is concerned, looks legitimate. She makes purchases from her own Amazon account and credit card, so her reviews are labeled as a “verified purchase.”
Don't know if Jessica or Amazon is the bigger crook here.
I can’t see how anyone could conclude that Amazon is the bigger crook from that quote. She gamed their system, as criminals do, and now they must improve.
A much larger entity actively doing nothing can have much bigger consequences than many small actors operating in bad faith. It's one thing to try and improve your system, it's another to ensure a proper system is there to begin with.
her.
there is no system in place to stop those truly dedicated to work it.
My wow moment was the claim that Amazon already had to take action on over five million seller accounts! How do you even manage that number?
still to combat buyers like her you would need to limit the number of reviews by any account, CC, and email address, to a set number per month and year. Yes they can still cheat it but no need to make it easy.
there is no system in place to stop those truly dedicated to work it.
My wow moment was the claim that Amazon already had to take action on over five million seller accounts! How do you even manage that number?
still to combat buyers like her you would need to limit the number of reviews by any account, CC, and email address, to a set number per month and year. Yes they can still cheat it but no need to make it easy.
> How do you even manage that number?
You start by not making it so easy to open a seller account. These fraudsters just open up new accounts after they've been caught.
You start by not making it so easy to open a seller account. These fraudsters just open up new accounts after they've been caught.
Or introduce some basic standards or curation of what you allow on your marketplace. I’m talking bare bones very low hurdle here, not censorship. Search for headphones on amazon and tell me that Amazon is better off with the hundreds of identical knockoffs under different oddly worded ‘brands’ like “ALIHEN” or “Picun” or “Onpie.” I think the only benefit to amazon is that each of those individual actors then has incentive to lie, cheat, and steal to con people into buying their SKU through all sorts of questionable ‘marketing’ such as this. The only winner is Amazon.
Their anti cheat system is of course automated and can easily detect the ones that only give 5-star reviews or follow other irregular patterns.
"In other words, third-party sellers aren’t the only ones paying her to leave fake reviews and superficially boost sales — Amazon is too."
Would indicate that Amazon are and if they are in effect fiscally encouraging this practice then people like Jessica would take that as some form of legalised legitimacy.
Which is not the case [edit add]
[EDIT ADD] This is just cashback from Amazon credit card, just badly worded in article
Would indicate that Amazon are and if they are in effect fiscally encouraging this practice then people like Jessica would take that as some form of legalised legitimacy.
Which is not the case [edit add]
[EDIT ADD] This is just cashback from Amazon credit card, just badly worded in article
[deleted]
The former.
> Because of Amazon’s vast scale, inscrutable algorithms, and capricious enforcement of its own rules, unscrupulous sellers and paid shills largely get away with it.
The only solution for it is regulation. Without regulations, asbestos will still be in our homes, lead paint will cover schools and pollution will fill our lungs.
Most consumers do not have the time, money and education required to look for quality products. If we let Amazon sell crap, is crap what will be only available for most of the population. And Amazon has passed a long time ago the line between low quality and fraud.
The only solution for it is regulation. Without regulations, asbestos will still be in our homes, lead paint will cover schools and pollution will fill our lungs.
Most consumers do not have the time, money and education required to look for quality products. If we let Amazon sell crap, is crap what will be only available for most of the population. And Amazon has passed a long time ago the line between low quality and fraud.
caveat emptor
Schemes like this and people with lack of morals (admitted in the article), are what makes making online purchases so hard. Either the price has to be ridiculously low so that it doesn't matter if something is total crap (aliexpress comes to mind as a store where you do it) or you have to find some recommendation that you can trust.
I usually look at reviews from the Consumer Associations of the Netherlands and Germany (Consumentenbond and Stiftung Warentest), which helps a lot. You usually end up with products of the same type of brands though (Bosch, Siemens, etc). Which isn't bad, but it makes it very hard for smaller brands to have a chance at some market share without resorting to scummy marketing techniques.
Reviews on the German Amazon store used to be fairly trustworthy, but this has changed in recent years. As it is, you are better off going to physical stores where you can at least hold the products and see what the build quality is like.
I usually look at reviews from the Consumer Associations of the Netherlands and Germany (Consumentenbond and Stiftung Warentest), which helps a lot. You usually end up with products of the same type of brands though (Bosch, Siemens, etc). Which isn't bad, but it makes it very hard for smaller brands to have a chance at some market share without resorting to scummy marketing techniques.
Reviews on the German Amazon store used to be fairly trustworthy, but this has changed in recent years. As it is, you are better off going to physical stores where you can at least hold the products and see what the build quality is like.
i pay for consumer reports for exactly this reason.
Between these “authentic” fake reviews, the usual fake reviews and counterfeit products, Amazon seems open to serious competition.
I’ve already started buying things from Target and Walmart for things that are commonly counterfeited, like batteries and SD cards. I know they have a marketplace too but I avoid them for these items.
For me, the biggest thing Amazon has going for it is the dead-simple return policy. I’m comfortable rolling the dice with many products because I can easily return it, if it ends up being garbage.
Repackaging and returning can sometimes be a pain, so I’ll be reluctant to gamble sometimes. However, I’ve been more lazily repacking items and it hasn’t been an issue.
I’ve already started buying things from Target and Walmart for things that are commonly counterfeited, like batteries and SD cards. I know they have a marketplace too but I avoid them for these items.
For me, the biggest thing Amazon has going for it is the dead-simple return policy. I’m comfortable rolling the dice with many products because I can easily return it, if it ends up being garbage.
Repackaging and returning can sometimes be a pain, so I’ll be reluctant to gamble sometimes. However, I’ve been more lazily repacking items and it hasn’t been an issue.
I stopped buying important things from Amazon for this reason. I don't want to risk getting counterfeit products.
We just got an email from Amazon that they identified that the water filter refills I bought 6 months ago were fake, so they issued a refund. But I hate the idea that they allowed it in the first place itself. And this is something that's affecting the health of my family. (Thankfully our unfiltered tap water won't kill us but still...)
We've been trying to avoid Amazon as much as possible and it's been hard. But not impossible. They've got such a head start over everyone else on their solid logistics operation.
They're actually open to competition... from ex-Amazonians. It's like all the ex-googlers that left and took those ideas to make open source versions because Google was so far ahead.
1) Retail return policies are mostly liberal. It's the smaller stores that tend to be more stingy. 2) Price Matching solves any issues with regard to lower prices 3) Returning is actually easier since you get the instant gratification of a refund, not 5 days later. Anyway with amazon we've always had to drop it off to UPS, so we don't save time making the trip.
The bigger issue is that since Amazon is so large and pervasive everywhere, it's very tough to actually boycott the company. Brands like Whole Foods, Ring, AWS etc are still important parts of our lives and careers.
We just got an email from Amazon that they identified that the water filter refills I bought 6 months ago were fake, so they issued a refund. But I hate the idea that they allowed it in the first place itself. And this is something that's affecting the health of my family. (Thankfully our unfiltered tap water won't kill us but still...)
We've been trying to avoid Amazon as much as possible and it's been hard. But not impossible. They've got such a head start over everyone else on their solid logistics operation.
They're actually open to competition... from ex-Amazonians. It's like all the ex-googlers that left and took those ideas to make open source versions because Google was so far ahead.
1) Retail return policies are mostly liberal. It's the smaller stores that tend to be more stingy. 2) Price Matching solves any issues with regard to lower prices 3) Returning is actually easier since you get the instant gratification of a refund, not 5 days later. Anyway with amazon we've always had to drop it off to UPS, so we don't save time making the trip.
The bigger issue is that since Amazon is so large and pervasive everywhere, it's very tough to actually boycott the company. Brands like Whole Foods, Ring, AWS etc are still important parts of our lives and careers.
We had constant issues with our fridge water dispenser using 'Samsung' water filters bought on Amazon. Out of desperation, I just bought a cheap off-brand one, hoping if it was at least being honest about not being an official product, it'd at least be functional as a replacement. All of the issues with our fridge have since vanished.
I've since learnt real Samsung water filters come with an authentication tag, and none of the ones I ordered on Amazon came with one. I think we've been drinking water from counterfeit filters for a year now.
https://www.samsung.com/us/home-appliances/home-appliances-a...
I've since learnt real Samsung water filters come with an authentication tag, and none of the ones I ordered on Amazon came with one. I think we've been drinking water from counterfeit filters for a year now.
https://www.samsung.com/us/home-appliances/home-appliances-a...
Fridge-based DRM to protect one business model, willful blindness to counterfeiting to protect another.
What a bleak, horrible future we live in.
What a bleak, horrible future we live in.
Wait until you hear about Keurig coffee machines or John Deer tractors...
These kinds of things have me quitting most things recently.
I don't own a TV, don't own a car, don't drink coffee anymore, don't subscribe to any streaming service, don't have a TV, don't have social media. My internet usage basically boils down to NYT, HN, Reddit and Youtube.
I can't say I miss much of what I gave up. My life is far from deprived. The caveat is that I live in western Europe, with good public transport, accessibility to plenty of nature and many things to do outside of glowing rectangles.
I don't own a TV, don't own a car, don't drink coffee anymore, don't subscribe to any streaming service, don't have a TV, don't have social media. My internet usage basically boils down to NYT, HN, Reddit and Youtube.
I can't say I miss much of what I gave up. My life is far from deprived. The caveat is that I live in western Europe, with good public transport, accessibility to plenty of nature and many things to do outside of glowing rectangles.
It’s just what happens when you mix the spirit of legal and business imperatives with tech, but there probably was never a tipping point for a world of hobbyists. Nobody accuses the lawyer or businessman of malfeasance when they secure the business moat.
F Keurig Dr Pepper
>We had constant issues with our fridge water dispenser using 'Samsung' water filters bought on Amazon. Out of desperation, I just bought a cheap off-brand one, hoping if it was at least being honest about not being an official product, it'd at least be functional as a replacement. All of the issues with our fridge have since vanished.
Another example: I recently needed new brush heads for my electric toothbrush. I hesitated before buying, because I can't be sure that the toothbrush manufacturer-branded refills on Amazon are genuine. Going with a generic, compatible refill with good reviews is preferable in this case, aside from the lower price, because presumably no one will counterfeit it.
(I ended up buying the manufacturer-branded refill ... from Best Buy, not Amazon.)
Another example: I recently needed new brush heads for my electric toothbrush. I hesitated before buying, because I can't be sure that the toothbrush manufacturer-branded refills on Amazon are genuine. Going with a generic, compatible refill with good reviews is preferable in this case, aside from the lower price, because presumably no one will counterfeit it.
(I ended up buying the manufacturer-branded refill ... from Best Buy, not Amazon.)
I used to buy pet fountain filters on Amazon, but I've changed to a policy of not buying anything health-related since reading about Amazon's counterfeit issues.
I considered buying a pet fountain filter, but checked the reviews and found lots of horror stories about build up of slime and mold on counterfeit filters. One story even had a cat dying in way plausibly connected to the filter [1].
Unfiltered tap water won't kill you, but a counterfeit filter might.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2T55842GRHFBG
I considered buying a pet fountain filter, but checked the reviews and found lots of horror stories about build up of slime and mold on counterfeit filters. One story even had a cat dying in way plausibly connected to the filter [1].
Unfiltered tap water won't kill you, but a counterfeit filter might.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2T55842GRHFBG
It's really not clear that water filters are doing anything positive (you'd have to get your water tested to know) and they do have a tendency to increase the bacterial load in the water because of the inevitable biofilm that accumulates on the filter surfaces. In addition it's just another single use plastic product
They can make your water taste a lot better. My tap water is barely palatable. If I didn't use these filters, I would drink tap anyway but the rest of my family would probably resort to bottled water.
My fear with a counterfeit water filter would be what it adds to the water. There is something in there and if it is counterfeit you don’t know what the plastic and filter material is. You could be leaching plasticizers, bpa, lead, who knows what into your drinking water.
Or indeed a non-counterfeit water filter. They're not regulated.
They may not be regulated but if you’re buying a name brand water filter from a retail store in the USA, it’s unlikely that brand is getting away with selling something full of lead or other bad things. Those filters are sometimes tested by independent labs (e.g. Consumer Reports) and retail sales are regulated by the CPSC, e.g. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/1997/cpsc-and-ecodyne-announce-...
In contrast if you are getting a counterfeit Chinese filter from amazon, it can be very hard or impossible to even figure out who to sue even if you have proof the product is bad.
In contrast if you are getting a counterfeit Chinese filter from amazon, it can be very hard or impossible to even figure out who to sue even if you have proof the product is bad.
This is a non-sequitur. Nothing to do with the point that was being made.
And in a 'fridge, it can help reduce some scale, etc, in the internal workings of the ice maker and water dispenser.
And in a 'fridge, it can help reduce some scale, etc, in the internal workings of the ice maker and water dispenser.
> (Thankfully our unfiltered tap water won't kill us but still...)
But a filter that uses toxic materials could.
But a filter that uses toxic materials could.
Or even just a filter that's poorly designed and becomes a breeding ground for harmful microorganisms.
> I stopped buying important things from Amazon for this reason. I don't want to risk getting counterfeit products.
There's nothing in my life that I buy where I would accept a counterfeit. I accept that it has absolutely happened, that it will continue to happen, but I have nearly completely retreated from Amazon since having children.
There's nothing in my life that I buy where I would accept a counterfeit. I accept that it has absolutely happened, that it will continue to happen, but I have nearly completely retreated from Amazon since having children.
Oh man, water filters. I should add that to my list.
The problem is, I want to buy a generic filter because fridge manufacturer has the typical massive markup that a manufacturer does (like printer ink) but finding a reputable generic is difficult.
The problem is, I want to buy a generic filter because fridge manufacturer has the typical massive markup that a manufacturer does (like printer ink) but finding a reputable generic is difficult.
Couldn’t you just buy from manufacturers directly on amazon?
Even if you do, that doesn't protect you from counterfeits because of commingling.
True, but sometimes I go to the manufacturer's website and order there.
Co-mingeling is exactly right. I bought a Samsung product sold and fulfilled by Amazon and still got a counterfeit. I didn't discover it was counterfeit until after the standard return warranty and when I contacted Amazon, they couldn't have cared less, and basically acted like it was being counterfeit was just another aspect of a product that should be evaluated by a customer during the return period. Amazon can FO and die!
Stupid question but what exactly is co-mingeling?
It shouldn't be that hard to find an alternative to whole foods. I also question your need to install surveillance in your own home at all.
I started buying from Walmart because it's simply better. You don't have to be a member for free shipping, and you can always pick it up from a store if you got to have it ASAP. Walmart's return policy is also dead-simple. You could return a half-eaten cheeseburger to Walmart for a full refund.
100%. Walmart has always been cutthroat but they don't let their vendors get away with anything.
I've received a counterfeit blender and only discovered it after a BBC article showing how they can catch fire. Amazon were very poor in handling that which would have left it to be sold to the next person if I followed their procedures.
When it comes to things like batteries and chargers which can catch fire, I always aim to buy direct from the manufacturer or a non-marketplace retailer.
In addition, Amazon is unable to stop sellers gaming the system by getting 5 star reviews on one product, then swapping the listing out for a different product. So when looking for an audio cable you will see reviews saying things like "Great Waffle Iron".
When it comes to things like batteries and chargers which can catch fire, I always aim to buy direct from the manufacturer or a non-marketplace retailer.
In addition, Amazon is unable to stop sellers gaming the system by getting 5 star reviews on one product, then swapping the listing out for a different product. So when looking for an audio cable you will see reviews saying things like "Great Waffle Iron".
> getting 5 star reviews on one product, then swapping the listing out for a different product.
I didn't realize that was even possible... that's a really crappy loophole to leave open. I can't imagine why Amazon would let anyone completely swap out item info that way. Edits, perhaps, but everything?
I didn't realize that was even possible... that's a really crappy loophole to leave open. I can't imagine why Amazon would let anyone completely swap out item info that way. Edits, perhaps, but everything?
Not only is it possible, it is very common and they've been doing it for at least 10 years. Sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not.
A common tactic will be selling a cheap USB cable for well below the market rate (because a cheap-to-make USB cable tends to perform identically to a more expensive one) and then swapping the product out for something similar but more expensive like a USB hub. If you go and read the reviews, you might have to read very carefully to see the difference between a USB cable and a USB hub.
Another tactic that sellers exploit is having one listing for multiple products but specifying each product as a different "color". So one "color" of the product is an SD micro-to-full adapter, another "color" is a USB SD card reader, and another "color" is an SD card, and so on. The key here is that the reviews are linked to the listing and not the separate products. So most of that 4.5 star rating could apply to only the adapter while the SD card might be garbage.
A common tactic will be selling a cheap USB cable for well below the market rate (because a cheap-to-make USB cable tends to perform identically to a more expensive one) and then swapping the product out for something similar but more expensive like a USB hub. If you go and read the reviews, you might have to read very carefully to see the difference between a USB cable and a USB hub.
Another tactic that sellers exploit is having one listing for multiple products but specifying each product as a different "color". So one "color" of the product is an SD micro-to-full adapter, another "color" is a USB SD card reader, and another "color" is an SD card, and so on. The key here is that the reviews are linked to the listing and not the separate products. So most of that 4.5 star rating could apply to only the adapter while the SD card might be garbage.
It's likely an issue with the volume of items for sale. What likely happens is they upload an item with multiple variations (think colours of a shirt). One of the variations is a completely different product. They buy some reviews for the shirt and then remove those from the listing, leaving only the other random product.
This happens on Aliexpress all the time. The idea is that they put up a super cheap item ($0.99 iPhone cables), get a ton of sales, some good reviews then swap it out for a more expensive item. Sales rank and reviews stay, and the new more expensive item gets that data. The new item will be much higher margin and/or will never arrive (they just take the money and run).
This happens on Aliexpress all the time. The idea is that they put up a super cheap item ($0.99 iPhone cables), get a ton of sales, some good reviews then swap it out for a more expensive item. Sales rank and reviews stay, and the new more expensive item gets that data. The new item will be much higher margin and/or will never arrive (they just take the money and run).
Yep, the issue has been around for longer than 18 months. It's easy to spot if you're a human. I guess Amazon can't or won't address it at scale. I spotted the issue about 2 months ago.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/amazon-rev...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/amazon-rev...
I don't know about swapping listings, but it's fairly common for mostly-unrelated products to be grouped together as "colors" or "sizes". The reviews for all the variations of the listing are grouped together, which makes sense if they're really just different colors but not if they're distinct products.
Is the issue of counterfeit products a worldwide problem with Amazon? I'm just asking because I'm in Europe and use Amazon quite often for electronics, and haven't faced issues so far. Could it be that the problem is mostly in the US?
It could be that I just avoided counterfeited goods by chance, or just didn't notice...
It could be that I just avoided counterfeited goods by chance, or just didn't notice...
I am in America and have yet to get screwed by a counterfeit. I wonder if you might be on to something though. Maybe the counterfeits are all stored in specific states and ship from there more frequently since I assume Amazon wants to ship from the closest warehouse to you. Would be good to know what state most of these people live in to see if thats just the pattern. I say this cause I have always heard you can buy counterfeits in NY of any major clothing brand or even electronics.
I have stopped buying from Amazon because I have received a few product which had something off but I could not tell what.
For example, we used to buy GE fridge filters from Amazon. Every once in a while we would receive a filter which would change taste of water in weird way. New filters usually make water taste slightly different but it was just a bit more off. But we used to ignore that until we start reading about fake products.
So next time when we experienced weird water taste with filter change, I carefully checked our old filter with the new one and sure enough there were subtle differences. Really impossible to notice accidentally.
Since then we started buying filters from Home Depot, and we have had pretty consistent experience so far.
For example, we used to buy GE fridge filters from Amazon. Every once in a while we would receive a filter which would change taste of water in weird way. New filters usually make water taste slightly different but it was just a bit more off. But we used to ignore that until we start reading about fake products.
So next time when we experienced weird water taste with filter change, I carefully checked our old filter with the new one and sure enough there were subtle differences. Really impossible to notice accidentally.
Since then we started buying filters from Home Depot, and we have had pretty consistent experience so far.
> I am in America and have yet to get screwed by a counterfeit.
Well, how do you know?
Maybe they’ve been good counterfeits?
Another possibility is that you’ve never seen the genuine version, so you don’t know what to compare the counterfeit to.
Well, how do you know?
Maybe they’ve been good counterfeits?
Another possibility is that you’ve never seen the genuine version, so you don’t know what to compare the counterfeit to.
>> I am in America and have yet to get screwed by a counterfeit.
> Well, how do you know?
> Maybe they’ve been good counterfeits?
Well, sure. I've bought SD cards (frequently mentioned as a problem category) off of Amazon without ever experiencing a problem. Maybe I've received counterfeits, but I still think it's fair to say I've never gotten screwed by a counterfeit.
> Well, how do you know?
> Maybe they’ve been good counterfeits?
Well, sure. I've bought SD cards (frequently mentioned as a problem category) off of Amazon without ever experiencing a problem. Maybe I've received counterfeits, but I still think it's fair to say I've never gotten screwed by a counterfeit.
How many people will be able to discern if they're getting screwed by a counterfeit SD card?
I mean the downside to a counterfeit card is probably that it is going to fail very quickly. I'd think even grandma would notice if she can't access her photos after a few months?
I've been screwed by a counterfeit SD card and it seems like the "manufacturer" probably took older, smaller capacity cards where the back stock had outlived demand for those specs and just reprogrammed them to identify as a higher capacity, premium SD from Samsung, reprinted the label (very well), got their packaging basically identical to Samsung's, sent them to Amazon where Amazon seemingly decided they should be co-mingled with the Samsung-supplied cards and sold off as such.
For the consumer, I only realized something was wrong when I filled the actual size of the SD card and started getting errors, but still those errors came from my phone and basically said the SD want being detected and to reformat. So it could have been a phone issue. Only after going down the internet's Amazon counterfeit rabbit hole and then finding a program that checks counterfeit cards did I find out the card was actually a 32GB card with probably some awful I/O rates and not the 128GB that it was a announcing to devices. And for all that time, energy, frustration, money, and data lost to phone reformats, Amazon didn't give two craps. They said I was outside the return window and if my item was defective I should contact the manufacturer. They probably only didn't say "seller" because they were the seller, no 3rd party. It clearly want on the CS script to consider that you can't call the legitimate manufacturer about a defective counterfeit product sold as legitimate by the same business they count on to sell their legitimate products.
For the consumer, I only realized something was wrong when I filled the actual size of the SD card and started getting errors, but still those errors came from my phone and basically said the SD want being detected and to reformat. So it could have been a phone issue. Only after going down the internet's Amazon counterfeit rabbit hole and then finding a program that checks counterfeit cards did I find out the card was actually a 32GB card with probably some awful I/O rates and not the 128GB that it was a announcing to devices. And for all that time, energy, frustration, money, and data lost to phone reformats, Amazon didn't give two craps. They said I was outside the return window and if my item was defective I should contact the manufacturer. They probably only didn't say "seller" because they were the seller, no 3rd party. It clearly want on the CS script to consider that you can't call the legitimate manufacturer about a defective counterfeit product sold as legitimate by the same business they count on to sell their legitimate products.
It could also be slower read and write speeds. Also, I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the difference in expected life of the product could be in years, such as 1 year for a counterfeit versus 10 years for a brand name.
On this website?
Maybe more on this website, but how many people test read/write speeds of SD cards, or track their lifespan.
I buy almost entirely counterfeit/knockoff goods. Quality is variable, but paying only 20% of the retail price for a similarish item works out well for me.
I don't really understand why anyone would buy originals to be honest...
I am an engineer, so claims like 'it's made in china and might explode' I can take with an appropriate sized grain of salt. One thing to watch out for is that chinese made devices are not expected to be safe if you don't follow the instructions. For example, if a device says 'do not charge for more than 2 hours', that means if you leave it on charge overnight it will catch fire. In the USA, devices need to be safe even if the instructions aren't followed.
I don't really understand why anyone would buy originals to be honest...
I am an engineer, so claims like 'it's made in china and might explode' I can take with an appropriate sized grain of salt. One thing to watch out for is that chinese made devices are not expected to be safe if you don't follow the instructions. For example, if a device says 'do not charge for more than 2 hours', that means if you leave it on charge overnight it will catch fire. In the USA, devices need to be safe even if the instructions aren't followed.
This has got to be a troll post. How could anyone think it's acceptable for something to catch fire if they accidentally leave it plugged in too long? Do you set a timer each time you plug something in? Do counterfeiter items always come with their modified counterfeit-only instructions with these new rules to follow? Do they say "Note: this is a counterfeit so we replaced the food bowl's paint with a cheaper lead-based one, thus do not eat from it, especially not your children"?
Oops, I took the bait.
Oops, I took the bait.
Only 40 years ago, this was the case in the USA.. with rechargeable AA batteries. Chargers at the time didn't have detection for the battery being full, and after a few hours on an inappropriately sized fast charger, a battery would emit steam.
China is just a little behind, and the public has quickly come to assume devices are safe even if abused.
China is just a little behind, and the public has quickly come to assume devices are safe even if abused.
Isn't there a little engineering principle called "Murphy's Law"? If I recall correctly, the gist of it is "If something can be done incorrectly, it eventually will be done incorrectly."
Designing with Murphy's Law in mind is essential for not killing your customers and burning down their cities, or downing their passenger airliners, or crashing their cars.
It doesn't even cost more, in a company that can be sued for the liabilities of their defective products.
Designing with Murphy's Law in mind is essential for not killing your customers and burning down their cities, or downing their passenger airliners, or crashing their cars.
It doesn't even cost more, in a company that can be sued for the liabilities of their defective products.
I don’t know what industry you work on where it’s ever ok for things to catch on fire if the user doesn’t follow instructions, but at least in mine even the word fire is out of bounds.
Marketing?
So the worst case scenario is all the marketing departments burn down?
Best case scenario?
I've always thought there should be a .adv TLD, and if you're caught serving anything but first party information outside of that, there would be severe penalties.
Let one TLD take all the cutthroat inhumane tracking, malware, scum adserving, all of it, and let the rest of us browse in peace.
I've always thought there should be a .adv TLD, and if you're caught serving anything but first party information outside of that, there would be severe penalties.
Let one TLD take all the cutthroat inhumane tracking, malware, scum adserving, all of it, and let the rest of us browse in peace.
Crowding movie theaters.
Either a trip or someone who buys counterfeit products on the street, where information in the market is known. If you buy a Gucci bag on the street, you know it's not really Gucci and you price accordingly. The same for DVDs, or electronics in a shady camera store. This is different. This is deception by a company that wants you to believe you're buying the real thing and charging you in accordance.
See the review on this product titled "Changed the formula?" ...
This is common, where a manufacturer will reduce costs by taking a formerly imported luxury product and re-create it with different ingredients from a different manufacturer, but all the reviews from the old product remain.
https://www.amazon.com/Its-10-Haircare-Miracle-Product/dp/B0...
This is common, where a manufacturer will reduce costs by taking a formerly imported luxury product and re-create it with different ingredients from a different manufacturer, but all the reviews from the old product remain.
https://www.amazon.com/Its-10-Haircare-Miracle-Product/dp/B0...
As a European I've definitely received fakes from amazon.DE. But I find the game reviews much more bothersome. Most products I now buy somewhere else but living abroad it's difficult to get everything I 'expect' so sometimes Amazon is the only way (eg i bought a 20l bucket on paint from a German Amazon seller that has a real store, as the branded version including shipping of the heavy thing was 30€ less than the cheapest product I could find locally.
Just want to throw in my $0.02 as a Canadian, but I haven't had any issues with counterfeit goods in the 4 years I've been buying things (mainly electronics) from Amazon. I also haven't heard anything (first hand) about others receiving counterfeit goods either.
On that note, while I have no idea how Amazon.com works, on .ca it is pretty clear on a product page whether or not the item is sold/shipped by Amazon or a 3rd party. Whether or not this has any bearing re. counterfeit goods, I generally recommended people buy the "Sold and Shipped by Amazon.ca" option even if a 3rd party's listing is cheaper.
On that note, while I have no idea how Amazon.com works, on .ca it is pretty clear on a product page whether or not the item is sold/shipped by Amazon or a 3rd party. Whether or not this has any bearing re. counterfeit goods, I generally recommended people buy the "Sold and Shipped by Amazon.ca" option even if a 3rd party's listing is cheaper.
They commingle supposedly identical items from other sellers. You could thus pay more and still get fakes.
I started to freak out a bit when people here started complaining about fake stuff and the whole story about commingled inventory. That was maybe 1 year or 2 ago.
I have continued to buy stuff from Amazon in Europe since and I have to report that I did not receive any counterfeit stuff (I believe, I checked everything as best as I can). I bought things ranging from screwdriver, SD cards (famously prone to be fake) to electronic/high tech. Costs ranging from 10€ to 1000€.
I'm starting to believe that it is indeed an US problem or like you I'm just lucky?
I have continued to buy stuff from Amazon in Europe since and I have to report that I did not receive any counterfeit stuff (I believe, I checked everything as best as I can). I bought things ranging from screwdriver, SD cards (famously prone to be fake) to electronic/high tech. Costs ranging from 10€ to 1000€.
I'm starting to believe that it is indeed an US problem or like you I'm just lucky?
I feel the big problems started with Fulfilment by Amazon, when anyone and their mother could start selling directly on Amazon through almost no barrier. From anecdata alone (reading forums on FBA, etc) this program seems less popular in Europe. Americans on FBA that are just there for the quick buck typically stick with US FBA and for some reason I haven't read tons of articles on people in Europe using that as a new revenue generator.
I would be interested in this, too. I use Amazon in France (mostly) and the UK and Germany (ocassionally) and haven’t had the problems that people speak of in relation to counterfiet goods in the US.
Same here.
Maybe it's more a marketplace issue ?
I can't see how and why Amazon would sold counterfeits goods.
I've read some reviews complaining about that but it was always from a marketplace seller.
Maybe it's more a marketplace issue ?
I can't see how and why Amazon would sold counterfeits goods.
I've read some reviews complaining about that but it was always from a marketplace seller.
Never had any issue in France or in the UK either. I got a fake SD card from Priceminister in France, but never from Amazon as far as I can tell.
I've really come full circle with online retail. I used to go to Amazon because I trusted the consumer experience: I trusted them with my credit card, and I knew I could get a refund if I needed to. But I have so little confidence in what I'm getting from Amazon, that I'm back to going to smaller, more focused online storefronts (camping store for camping stuff, music store for music stuff etc.) because it seems like someone's actually vetting the merchandise.
I think it stems from a lack of competition. Since Amazon captures so much of the market, they don't have to be that good anymore.
I think it stems from a lack of competition. Since Amazon captures so much of the market, they don't have to be that good anymore.
>Repackaging and returning can sometimes be a pain, so I’ll be reluctant to gamble sometimes. However, I’ve been more lazily repacking items and it hasn’t been an issue.
Recently they added a return option where you can drop off items at Kohls or a UPS store without repacking them. The store scans a QR code from an email and they handle packing and shipping the item back. Amazon then sends them off in bulk to a processing warehouse. According to my UPS store, most returns aren't even resold on Amazon. They just auction off lots blindly like a storage unit sale.
Recently they added a return option where you can drop off items at Kohls or a UPS store without repacking them. The store scans a QR code from an email and they handle packing and shipping the item back. Amazon then sends them off in bulk to a processing warehouse. According to my UPS store, most returns aren't even resold on Amazon. They just auction off lots blindly like a storage unit sale.
Target does not have a marketplace, so I prefer them over Walmart.
There are some invite-only third parties selling on target.com.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/26/target-like-...
https://www.target.com/p/steel-hammock-stand-10-sunnydaze-de...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/26/target-like-...
https://www.target.com/p/steel-hammock-stand-10-sunnydaze-de...
[deleted]
Terrible news. I hope manufacturers start putting Apple Pay on their websites so I can just order directly.
Why is paying by credit card a problem?
Apple Pay is paying by credit card. It's just super convenient not to have to make an account everywhere, and I trust Apple to keep info more secure than the IT team of a manufacturer.
True but it's easy to identify and avoid the Walmart marketplace, for now.
[deleted]
Amazon has a counterfeiting problem alright, but I'm not sure why you think that other places can deal any better with this type of review fraud. It's a legitimate purchase followed by a review. Seems undetectable to me.
Biggest Amazon draw for me is price. I make a concerted effort to avoid them these days.
Biggest Amazon draw for me is price. I make a concerted effort to avoid them these days.
The only additional thing I can think they they could do is start infiltrating these review faking networks, figuring out which products are having reviews bought for them, and penalize them. That kind of goes down a rabbit hole where what if a competitor buys fake reviews for your legitimate product in order to get it banned. There is no perfect solution. It seems like Amazon has tried to alleviate the lowered integrity of reviews by showing professional reviews when you search certain things (such as Wirecutter). It's a real problem, and not an easy one to solve.
I'd love to see a large e-commerce site that runs like Costco. Want a printer? Here's one, and it's probably top ranked by Consumer Reports. Want snow pants? Here are the available sizes and colors for the single set on offer.
Pay professionals to pick and vet reputable, high-quality vendors.
Pay professionals to pick and vet reputable, high-quality vendors.
> a large e-commerce site that runs like Costco. Want a printer? Here's one, and it's probably top ranked by Consumer Reports.
Costco is actually a very bad actor in this particular area; they generally order their stuff with a unique SKU (often the same product, but just a different SKU) specifically so that reviews of outside products don't apply to the (again, identical) Costco product.
Costco is actually a very bad actor in this particular area; they generally order their stuff with a unique SKU (often the same product, but just a different SKU) specifically so that reviews of outside products don't apply to the (again, identical) Costco product.
I actually think this is due to their liberal return policies and so other retailer's dont have to price-match.
I have not found it difficult to find reviews of products Costco sells - it's typically easy enough to find via the name and physical appearance of the product. I'll search "LaserJet M281cdw", not the individual SKU.
I used to work for a food company that Costco required to make special sizes in order to get into their stores. That made it impossible to price compare across stores, because the sizing was unique. Not all products are as easy to search for as printers.
costco.com? They may not list all the food items online, but they do have printers and snow pants.
Sure, but I want a middle ground between Costco and Amazon.
More product categories than Costco. Fewer options within those categories than Amazon. I can't buy an Apple Watch screen protector at Costco; at Amazon I'm presented with 8,000 Alibaba resellers, often with identical photos of the same product.
For example:
https://www.amazon.com/Lalagen-Women-Sleeve-Peplum-Blouse/dp...
https://www.amazon.com/KaleaBoutique-Womens-Sleeve-Cutout-Pe...
Two different "brands" (there are probably dozens of other sellers with the same item, but these two show up on the same page) selling the exact same shirt, with the exact same photo. I want a site that doesn't allow this, by sourcing reputable vendors.
More product categories than Costco. Fewer options within those categories than Amazon. I can't buy an Apple Watch screen protector at Costco; at Amazon I'm presented with 8,000 Alibaba resellers, often with identical photos of the same product.
For example:
https://www.amazon.com/Lalagen-Women-Sleeve-Peplum-Blouse/dp...
https://www.amazon.com/KaleaBoutique-Womens-Sleeve-Cutout-Pe...
Two different "brands" (there are probably dozens of other sellers with the same item, but these two show up on the same page) selling the exact same shirt, with the exact same photo. I want a site that doesn't allow this, by sourcing reputable vendors.
[deleted]
Couldn't Amazon start reviewing things themselves - like actually curating the products they sell.
The problem isn't fake reviews per se, the problem is products not matching the reviews. You can check a sample of products then stop people who are responsible for "fake" products from being involved in Amazon selling in any way.
Basically do "Which" style consumer reviews on products being sold.
The problem isn't fake reviews per se, the problem is products not matching the reviews. You can check a sample of products then stop people who are responsible for "fake" products from being involved in Amazon selling in any way.
Basically do "Which" style consumer reviews on products being sold.
I wouldn't trust Amazon to review products they sell. Not because I think they are dishonest but because there's a built-in confliyof interest.
Trusted reviews are better left to 3rd parties.
Trusted reviews are better left to 3rd parties.
They kind of are the third party - the point is that if Amazon review it, ie certify it in any way, then one knows that if it's still terrible you can't trust _Amazon_. It puts skin in the game for Amazon that isn't currently there. At the moment if something on Amazon sucks people just say "oh that seller is awful" and buy something else from another Amazon seller.
I guess Amazon have no reason to implement any sort of techinical checking unless it gains them customers, so people have to vote with their money first.
I guess Amazon have no reason to implement any sort of techinical checking unless it gains them customers, so people have to vote with their money first.
[deleted]
Really? Price? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a competitive price, but Amazon's real value is being able to get things that are freaking hard to find unless you go to 2 dozen different specialty online stores, which means having to trust 2 dozen different sites with your credit card information.
> unless you go to 2 dozen different specialty online stores, which means having to trust 2 dozen different sites with your credit card information.
I'd kind of expect those two dozen sites to accept PayPal...
I'd kind of expect those two dozen sites to accept PayPal...
Some do, some don't, it's hit and miss and that's part of the problem.
privacy.com lets you create a unique credit card # for every retailer for free. You can put transaction limits on them too.
Back of America just killed of it's viral credit card feature, according to them because it's getting replaced across the board with intermediary services like PayPal, Google pay, Apple pay, and the like and will eventually disappear from Chase and the other virtual credit card providers. BoA said they liked it off now because it relied on flash and they were pushing to remove that risk (and likely were getting complaints by customers who couldn't get it to work because their default browser didn't support flash natively). So this virtual credit card route is probably short for this works.
PS, BoA did an awful join and totally bungled the sunset of their virtual card program.
PS, BoA did an awful join and totally bungled the sunset of their virtual card program.
Should be relatively easy to spot this pattern and flag for secondary analysis. Things like, frequency of purchase, rate of returns, five star rating pattern, consistency in rating reviews (always with a picture, always a certain length), amount of research done before purchase.
If someone consistently leaves five-star reviews, then they should be removed. Even if genuine, as in not paid for, they are still noise as this person is indiscriminate in their praise.
> I'm not sure why you think that other places can deal any better with this type of review fraud.
I'm not sure why you think that I think that.
I'm not sure why you think that I think that.
This is a hard problem (in the CS sense). How do you filter a customer that reviews a product paid for w/ their own money, who then later gets reimbursed via PayPal?
For the reviewer in the article, how can Amazon know these reviews are purchased? Yes, she buys a lot of stuff, but from Amazon's point of view she may just be a loyal customer- especially given the fact that she mixes personal purchases in.
Amazon does a bad job curating reviews, but this is a difficult problem. I'm not sure how anyone could police the type of review fraud discussed in the article effectively.
For the reviewer in the article, how can Amazon know these reviews are purchased? Yes, she buys a lot of stuff, but from Amazon's point of view she may just be a loyal customer- especially given the fact that she mixes personal purchases in.
Amazon does a bad job curating reviews, but this is a difficult problem. I'm not sure how anyone could police the type of review fraud discussed in the article effectively.
> Between these “authentic” fake reviews, the usual fake reviews and counterfeit products, Amazon seems open to serious competition.
To me, this implied you thought that competition could do better
To me, this implied you thought that competition could do better
Ah, good point!
What I mean is that these problems make people more open to giving another company a try. It lowers the loyalty someone has to Amazon.
One of the hardest parts of starting a new company is having customers even consider buying something from you.
With all the problems Amazon is having, convincing someone to try an alternative company isn't as difficult.
In fact, some are actively looking for alternatives.
That goes for buys and sellers.
What I mean is that these problems make people more open to giving another company a try. It lowers the loyalty someone has to Amazon.
One of the hardest parts of starting a new company is having customers even consider buying something from you.
With all the problems Amazon is having, convincing someone to try an alternative company isn't as difficult.
In fact, some are actively looking for alternatives.
That goes for buys and sellers.
Repackaging is optional now. A couple of weeks ago I had to return two items and they just emailed me QR codes that I could take to the UPS Store, Whole Foods, or some other nearby business. I just bring the naked item and the QR code, and the store takes care of the rest.
If the top 50 or 100 "brands" got together and launched an on-line store where authenticity was guaranteed, and you'd have one place to order and track your orders, they might be able to compete with Amazon, reducing them to just selling cheap knockoffs, etc.
I am not sure reviews can ever be profitable business. I think you have to invest a lot of time in the review itself and in getting to know the field.
A while ago, I was looking for a wireless phone charger. A friend recommended Wirecutter for reviews. I took a look and bought their favorite charger. It's great!
I then later wanted to buy a 3D printer, so used the same strategy. I bought what The Wirecutter recommended, and as soon as I got the printer, I realized that they are completely clueless. The printer I bought doesn't even let you use gcode from an external slicer. You have to use theirs, and it is awful. It adds supports and rafts to everything. It has to be connected to a Windows computer for the entire duration of the print. And it requires you to create an account to even open up their software. It is so unbelievably bad that I was blown away that anyone could like the thing. And that's the problem with reviews; these people don't know anything about 3D printing, so they opened some software, inserted a cube, printed it out, and hey! a cube! wow! But you can't actually do anything useful with that.
I ended up extensively researching everything on my own and decided on a Prusa i3, and... yup, exactly what I wanted. I enjoyed spending a day putting it together. I enjoy hacking up the firmware and flashing my own build. I enjoy the huge community of printable add-ons. That is what I really wanted. And, of course, the prints are great. (Why did I read the Wirecutter and not something dedicated to 3D printing? The reality is, everything 3D-printing-related seems like machine-written blogspam. Writing a blog post that contains the word "filament, slicer, spaghetti, and geared hotend" 100 times and getting some ads from AliExpress equals instant wealth beyond your wildest dreams. Or at least that's what Google search rewards.)
Anyway, where I'm going with this is that you kind of have to be an expert in the field of products you're going to review. You have to develop extensive test protocols, beyond what manufacturers do internally. Remember all the bad USB Type C cables? Benson had to develop his own hardware and software to properly evaluate them. And that's for a strand of wires. Intelligently testing a 3D printer for its print quality, software quality, and long-term reliability would probably take years. By the time your review came out, the product wouldn't be on the market anymore. So nobody does it, and it will never be profitable to do it. (With the Prusa printers, what gives me hope for reliability is that they manufacturer the printers using their printers. If there is a fatal longevity problem or irritating software bug, they have to fix it, or they can't manufacture any more. That is the real review.)
I used to subscribe to Consumer Reports, who does seem to do a lot of testing. But they are too far behind and their test coverage was too limited to be useful to me. I wanted to buy a vacuum cleaner, none of the brands they tested were on the radar (it was just stuff you could buy at wal-mart, nothing high quality). Same with flat-screen TVs. And to some extent, you can never know what the reader of your review really wants. If I were buying a TV, I want it to accept HDMI and Displayport and copy the pixels out of the digital stream directly to the display panel. A pixel value of (0, 0, 0) should emit no light. A pixel value of (255, 255, 255) should blind me. When I press the power button, the TV should begin displaying the input signal the instant the button makes a clicking noise. Not 100ms later, not 500ms later, and certainly not 10 seconds later like my Samsung.
Such a product does not exist, so there is no product that would ever make me happy or get a 5 star review. After that, it's just a list of compromises you can accept. (Does anyone even make a non-smart TV? I watch TV so infrequently that I have a new firmware update available every time I turn the thing on. It annoys me greatly.)
A while ago, I was looking for a wireless phone charger. A friend recommended Wirecutter for reviews. I took a look and bought their favorite charger. It's great!
I then later wanted to buy a 3D printer, so used the same strategy. I bought what The Wirecutter recommended, and as soon as I got the printer, I realized that they are completely clueless. The printer I bought doesn't even let you use gcode from an external slicer. You have to use theirs, and it is awful. It adds supports and rafts to everything. It has to be connected to a Windows computer for the entire duration of the print. And it requires you to create an account to even open up their software. It is so unbelievably bad that I was blown away that anyone could like the thing. And that's the problem with reviews; these people don't know anything about 3D printing, so they opened some software, inserted a cube, printed it out, and hey! a cube! wow! But you can't actually do anything useful with that.
I ended up extensively researching everything on my own and decided on a Prusa i3, and... yup, exactly what I wanted. I enjoyed spending a day putting it together. I enjoy hacking up the firmware and flashing my own build. I enjoy the huge community of printable add-ons. That is what I really wanted. And, of course, the prints are great. (Why did I read the Wirecutter and not something dedicated to 3D printing? The reality is, everything 3D-printing-related seems like machine-written blogspam. Writing a blog post that contains the word "filament, slicer, spaghetti, and geared hotend" 100 times and getting some ads from AliExpress equals instant wealth beyond your wildest dreams. Or at least that's what Google search rewards.)
Anyway, where I'm going with this is that you kind of have to be an expert in the field of products you're going to review. You have to develop extensive test protocols, beyond what manufacturers do internally. Remember all the bad USB Type C cables? Benson had to develop his own hardware and software to properly evaluate them. And that's for a strand of wires. Intelligently testing a 3D printer for its print quality, software quality, and long-term reliability would probably take years. By the time your review came out, the product wouldn't be on the market anymore. So nobody does it, and it will never be profitable to do it. (With the Prusa printers, what gives me hope for reliability is that they manufacturer the printers using their printers. If there is a fatal longevity problem or irritating software bug, they have to fix it, or they can't manufacture any more. That is the real review.)
I used to subscribe to Consumer Reports, who does seem to do a lot of testing. But they are too far behind and their test coverage was too limited to be useful to me. I wanted to buy a vacuum cleaner, none of the brands they tested were on the radar (it was just stuff you could buy at wal-mart, nothing high quality). Same with flat-screen TVs. And to some extent, you can never know what the reader of your review really wants. If I were buying a TV, I want it to accept HDMI and Displayport and copy the pixels out of the digital stream directly to the display panel. A pixel value of (0, 0, 0) should emit no light. A pixel value of (255, 255, 255) should blind me. When I press the power button, the TV should begin displaying the input signal the instant the button makes a clicking noise. Not 100ms later, not 500ms later, and certainly not 10 seconds later like my Samsung.
Such a product does not exist, so there is no product that would ever make me happy or get a 5 star review. After that, it's just a list of compromises you can accept. (Does anyone even make a non-smart TV? I watch TV so infrequently that I have a new firmware update available every time I turn the thing on. It annoys me greatly.)
There are still places to look for quality reviews, at least for anything that has a hobby behind it. TVs and 3D printers are actually great examples. TVs have rtings.com, possibly the best review site I've ever seen. It's entirely objective, and has measurements for brightness, black levels, response time, and a hundred other metrics. Plus, all of those get numerical scores on a live-updated curve.
3D printers have all3dp.com, which among other things prints standardized benchmark tests that have objective measures for a lot of the things that determine print quality, like overhand and stringing. Their reviews also go over things like manufacturer history and market segment, and their top overall recommendation is in fact the Prusa i3.
There are quite a few of these niche, in-depth review sites still out there (computer power supplies is another that comes to mind), you just have to go look. If there isn't one, the next step is to check for a subreddit or community forum. Failing that, in my experience even trying to critically read Amazon reviews is better than Wirecutter. Buying the first product on the search page is better than Wirecutter. Their "measurements" are useless and they don't bother learning even a ten-minute google exploration of their product categories. Why people like them so much is beyond me. Presentation, I guess.
3D printers have all3dp.com, which among other things prints standardized benchmark tests that have objective measures for a lot of the things that determine print quality, like overhand and stringing. Their reviews also go over things like manufacturer history and market segment, and their top overall recommendation is in fact the Prusa i3.
There are quite a few of these niche, in-depth review sites still out there (computer power supplies is another that comes to mind), you just have to go look. If there isn't one, the next step is to check for a subreddit or community forum. Failing that, in my experience even trying to critically read Amazon reviews is better than Wirecutter. Buying the first product on the search page is better than Wirecutter. Their "measurements" are useless and they don't bother learning even a ten-minute google exploration of their product categories. Why people like them so much is beyond me. Presentation, I guess.
The Wirecutter has made a very successful business off of reviews and Amazon referrals, so it's doable, but it requires a lot of scale, and a company willing to pay a small %age of revenue for the referral.
I don't think the wirecutter is that good though. I think that is what I was trying to say in my 1 billion words ;)
Traditionally companies like Sears, Target and Walmart had buying agents that reviewed products. Imagine man whose job is to review curling irons and blow driers.
Those guys acted as gate keepers that determined which products got shelf space. It's harder to game that because if you're a buying agent taking kickbacks you tend to go to jail.
Those guys acted as gate keepers that determined which products got shelf space. It's harder to game that because if you're a buying agent taking kickbacks you tend to go to jail.
I don't like Amazon's return policy. I ordered a mini-fridge that arrived with a huge dent in it (that didn't _seem_ to affect functionality). I would have either had to wait THREE months for a replacement or enjoy a $20 off rebate.
Couldn't you just return it and buy from a different vendor?
Can't you avoid this issue by buying products that are shipped and sold by Amazon in the same way you buy directly from Target and Walmart?
I wish Costco would up their online presence. I always feel safe buying from them.
I wish Costco would up their online presence. I always feel safe buying from them.
No, because Amazon commingles inventory.
They should really make it obvious if it's commingled or not. I've read that some brands can block third parties and some 3rd party sellers can pay Amazon extra to stop their inventory from mixing, which seems like a scam on Amazon's part.
That only admits that the product receive may not be the same if it came from third party instead of Amazon directly.
When I want to buy something, especially low cost items, I don't want to spend time figuring out if something is commingled or not.
Whichever vendor offers me time savings in exchange for good quality products will get my business. Amazon no longer qualifies for that.
Whichever vendor offers me time savings in exchange for good quality products will get my business. Amazon no longer qualifies for that.
For batteries and other everyday items, I find the AmazonBasics brand a good way to dodge the fake items. Amazon at least stands behind the quality of their own brand. But often it's just as expensive as the other name brands.
Watch out, those have been known to explode. I think this was posted here maybe a month ago: https://onezero.medium.com/unraveling-the-secret-supply-chai...
Wow, didn't see that - thanks!
> But often it's just as expensive as the other name brands.
Sometimes it’s even more expensive. A Wyze smart outlet is $20 for 2. Amazon brand is $25 for one.
Wyze https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XZT24B8/
Amazon Smart Plug https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MZEEFNX/
Sometimes it’s even more expensive. A Wyze smart outlet is $20 for 2. Amazon brand is $25 for one.
Wyze https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XZT24B8/
Amazon Smart Plug https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MZEEFNX/
The first customer photo for the Wyze is one that caught fire, so maybe you're better off with the Amazon one.
Isn't Wyze's market placement as a low-cost alternative, anyways?
Isn't Wyze's market placement as a low-cost alternative, anyways?
Here in Canada the CBC show Marketplace showed how bold some people are at reviews some even posing as medical doctors. Many of them coming from people who work for a company called Fiverr.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/video-review-testimonial-ma...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/video-review-testimonial-ma...
Those pictures are not sufficiently anonymous; https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05314 or just neighbors could easily see where she is. And the barcodes are easily visible on some of the boxes.
Its interesting that a few years back brands were losing their power. Why buy a Sony gadget when a XYZTech gadget has great reviews and apparently works even better. Now you can't trust reviews any more and the Sony product looks more like something you can trust.
Wow, interesting read. For many years shopping on Amazon when looking for a preferred product I always a) click on the reviews, then 2) immediately jump to the 1-star reviews. For the most part they contain information that feels more authentic and relevant.
You can always tell, its pretty easy to just click the users profile and see that they have reviewed seemingly unrelated products ad-nauseum and the frequency of purchases being through the roof, with most of them being 5 star reviews. Not to mention, what do you do with all that crap?! She isnt being paid, just reimbursed which means not only does she need time to do the review but time to sell all this junk. Terrible side hustle if you ask me.
When I see a product with about ~50 reviews and they are all either GLOWING with praise, full of pictures, include videos, or otherwise clearly took more than a few minutes to write, it's a good tell the reviews are mostly paid for.
I don't know how to handle this from Amazon's angle... how about limiting how many items a buyer can review from a certain seller? Or force them to contribute a 3- or 4-star review every so often, instead of all 5's? (this one's too easy to game - you just buy a 30¢ irrelevant item every now and then and review it poorly.)
It's a hard problem to solve for Amazon, and I don't trust them to care enough to fix it. In the meantime, I stick with volume as my indicator for quality. It's very unlikely a company paid for nearly 2,000 5-star reviews, so products with LOTS of reviews are the ones I usually end up purchasing.
I don't know how to handle this from Amazon's angle... how about limiting how many items a buyer can review from a certain seller? Or force them to contribute a 3- or 4-star review every so often, instead of all 5's? (this one's too easy to game - you just buy a 30¢ irrelevant item every now and then and review it poorly.)
It's a hard problem to solve for Amazon, and I don't trust them to care enough to fix it. In the meantime, I stick with volume as my indicator for quality. It's very unlikely a company paid for nearly 2,000 5-star reviews, so products with LOTS of reviews are the ones I usually end up purchasing.
Now I'm confused. I used reviewmeta.com and www.fakespot.com for the first time on a product I'm thinking of buying (a fitness tracker). Reviewmeta gave a revised rating of 4.6, down from the Amazon rating of 4.8. Fakespot gave the product a rating of "F".
How am I expected to believe that these metareview sites, or others like them, are providing any better information than the original Amazon reviews?
How am I expected to believe that these metareview sites, or others like them, are providing any better information than the original Amazon reviews?
I use https://reviewmeta.com/, I really like all the explanations they have for each of their metrics.
I use https://www.fakespot.com/ It isn't perfect but can confirm the bad ones.
> “I definitely feel like I have to keep [the reviewing] a secret from people who have strong morals,” Jessica added.
Age old scam that works because of people like Jessica who lack any moral compass and will help to screw over anyone for a buck.
Age old scam that works because of people like Jessica who lack any moral compass and will help to screw over anyone for a buck.
>> Age old scam that works because of people like Jessica who lack any moral compass and will help to screw over anyone for a buck.
Keep in mind that this current scam has only become the norm because of the outcry over incentivized reviews, which resulted in their subsequent ban.
I used to do incentivized reviews, and I followed the rules with disclosures (most incentivized reviewers did that, but not all). After the ban, all those companies using incentivized reviews switched to the backchannel reviews with reimbursement via Paypal, just like the lady in the article.
With incentivized reviews, you could easily dismiss them at your discretion, because the disclosure had to be in the review text. But everything now is a "verified purchase", and most "normals" don't know what to believe or ignore.
I tend to think a good portion of incentivized reviews were pretty honest (fwiw, the vast majority of products I received were quite good for their selling price). When looking at what other people wrote about the same products, however, I could tell that a small percentage of people were writing reviews without even trying the products. The unfortunate part was that those people tended to have the highest rankings in the review leader board.
Keep in mind that this current scam has only become the norm because of the outcry over incentivized reviews, which resulted in their subsequent ban.
I used to do incentivized reviews, and I followed the rules with disclosures (most incentivized reviewers did that, but not all). After the ban, all those companies using incentivized reviews switched to the backchannel reviews with reimbursement via Paypal, just like the lady in the article.
With incentivized reviews, you could easily dismiss them at your discretion, because the disclosure had to be in the review text. But everything now is a "verified purchase", and most "normals" don't know what to believe or ignore.
I tend to think a good portion of incentivized reviews were pretty honest (fwiw, the vast majority of products I received were quite good for their selling price). When looking at what other people wrote about the same products, however, I could tell that a small percentage of people were writing reviews without even trying the products. The unfortunate part was that those people tended to have the highest rankings in the review leader board.
The age-old scam I'm referring to is paying people to shill your product to deceive other shoppers. Even transparently incentivized reviews have their issues since no seller wants to pay people for negative reviews.
agreed. disgustingly antisocial and immoral. I was astonished back when the poisoned chinese baby formula story hit the news, thinking "how could people knowingly perpetrate such evil?" yet here is this story about "Jessica" knowingly endorsing products that her chemist-boyfriend has identified as toxic. But she "earns" $100/month in kickbacks and gets lots of "free stuff" so I guess it's all good even if others are harmed. (Hope that sarcasm was obvious.)
Looks to me like "Jessica" might be a co-conspirator to racketeering. If I were a prosecutor, perhaps I would think that's something for a jury to sort out?
Looks to me like "Jessica" might be a co-conspirator to racketeering. If I were a prosecutor, perhaps I would think that's something for a jury to sort out?
it’s hard to have a moral compass when your stomach is empty. even if that’s not the case you will always have bad actors. always.
the question is: who has the right incentives to stop this kind of behavior?
the question is: who has the right incentives to stop this kind of behavior?
Don't excuse her behavior with a made-up "stomach is empty" sob story.
This is far from a "stealing bread to eat" situation. Jessica isn't scamming people for basic needs, she's conning people for luxury items.
If it were about simply putting food on the table, she'd be reselling everything after she reviewed them, instead of leaving them in a pile in some corner.
This is far from a "stealing bread to eat" situation. Jessica isn't scamming people for basic needs, she's conning people for luxury items.
If it were about simply putting food on the table, she'd be reselling everything after she reviewed them, instead of leaving them in a pile in some corner.
They're not even luxury items. From the article it sounds like a lot of them are really poor quality garbage. She sounds like a hoarder, honestly.
The luxury items are what she buys with the money she's paid for the fake reviews.
As opposed to buying food with the money which OP is implying by saying her stomach is empty.
As opposed to buying food with the money which OP is implying by saying her stomach is empty.
The way I read it she's not getting paid. She buys the item out of pocket and then the seller reimburses her after she writes a review. She gets a free item, but no payment. She said she's losing money (probably some sellers are even more unscrupulous and don't pay, because what is she going to do?).
She could probably resell some of the stuff for money, even at a fraction of the price she's make a little since she got it for free, but it doesn't sound like she's doing that.
She could probably resell some of the stuff for money, even at a fraction of the price she's make a little since she got it for free, but it doesn't sound like she's doing that.
the point is that if you’re buying a lot of stuff (maybe hoarding) your financials may suffer. she found a way (not excusing her behavior) to make it less impactful to her budget. morals are nice, but i think you need to be off-balance to do something like this to begin with.
Re-read the article. She's not really getting paid for the reviews. She's getting the cost of the items refunded. Net $0, and she's even in the hole a bit from companies that ghost her.
> “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
The cheap crap is the payment. She's not making much on reselling them, either:
> Jessica gives away many of the items she reviews, and she has made about $150 by selling products on Facebook Marketplace. She’s donated clothes that don’t fit and handed off the rest to family members or friends.
> “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
The cheap crap is the payment. She's not making much on reselling them, either:
> Jessica gives away many of the items she reviews, and she has made about $150 by selling products on Facebook Marketplace. She’s donated clothes that don’t fit and handed off the rest to family members or friends.
She is getting paid (in gift cards) for the purchases made. Her profit maybe zero but she earning a revenue from her scheme. From an accounting and IRS perspective it would be categorized as an income
Regarding the donations, if she takes the charitable contribution deduction it will reduce her income tax due. That may affect the calculation on whether she’s “making money” or not.
However, she should probably be paying income tax on the value of the items she receives because they are payment for her labor in writing fake reviews. If she’s actually paying taxes on the income, then she could easily be losing money.
However, she should probably be paying income tax on the value of the items she receives because they are payment for her labor in writing fake reviews. If she’s actually paying taxes on the income, then she could easily be losing money.
Charitable contributions are only deductible if you itemize deductions. Under current tax laws, only about 10% of returns are expected to itemize, generally high earners.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/impact-itemi...
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/impact-itemi...
And rebates (5% bonus) on purchased made with her Amazon credit card.
To be clear this is not an ad hominem attack on the author.
She is not doing this because she's starving. Anyone who can front-load $2800 (as she gets paid several weeks, to months, afterward from the sellers) can certainly afford to feed herself. Besides, you can't eat an outdoor plastic bird bath.
To her this is most likely a game... I get it, it's fun, and you get a bunch of random stuff that you don't pay for! As mentioned in the article, "it's Christmas every day". Who doesn't like getting packages?
She is not doing this because she's starving. Anyone who can front-load $2800 (as she gets paid several weeks, to months, afterward from the sellers) can certainly afford to feed herself. Besides, you can't eat an outdoor plastic bird bath.
To her this is most likely a game... I get it, it's fun, and you get a bunch of random stuff that you don't pay for! As mentioned in the article, "it's Christmas every day". Who doesn't like getting packages?
It's not a game. She gets paid cash, in addition to keeping the product, for helping them scam people.
She gets reimbursed cash, as far as I can tell from the article. She states she's running a loss (if you discount the free (and largely worthless, even dangerous) products) due to a percentage of her "clients" ghosting her.
You're right. It's too late to edit and correct my comment but here's the relevant part of the article.
> “I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
> “I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
To be clear, I agree that she’s scamming people. But to her she sees this as a game, nothing more.
And yet people poorer and more destitute than her avoid turning to crime. Read the article. She's not hungry, she likes getting stuff and having it be like Christmas everyday. It's simple greed.
to me it sounds like a person with some sort of addiction/mental health issue. she found a way to get her fix without starving (ie spending all her money on crap and being broke afterwards).
it’s true that good people are not resolving to this crappy behavior. it’s also true that are a lot of people that do cheat the system.
bottom line, this is a systematic issue and until the right incentives are in place this problem is not going to just fix itself.
it’s true that good people are not resolving to this crappy behavior. it’s also true that are a lot of people that do cheat the system.
bottom line, this is a systematic issue and until the right incentives are in place this problem is not going to just fix itself.
Look at her photo. Her stomach isn't empty to put it bluntly.
If she worked 15 hours/week part-time for minimum wage, she'd have more spendable income (about $6500), than the benefits she gets from $15,000/year worth of merchandise. Of course, if she turns around and ebays this for, say $5,000, she won't have to report the income and can still collect maximum food stamp and housing aid benefits, which no doubt she does.
If she worked 15 hours/week part-time for minimum wage, she'd have more spendable income (about $6500), than the benefits she gets from $15,000/year worth of merchandise. Of course, if she turns around and ebays this for, say $5,000, she won't have to report the income and can still collect maximum food stamp and housing aid benefits, which no doubt she does.
[deleted]
vfsbf(1)
I’m entertained by her characterization of herself as a “cog” in the marketing machine. It’s not her fault, it’s the system.
I bet she doesn’t leave a note when she backs into another car in the parking lot either. The parking spaces are too narrow...
I bet she doesn’t leave a note when she backs into another car in the parking lot either. The parking spaces are too narrow...
[deleted]
It’s not great, for sure, but unless any of these products impact health or safety in a significant and obvious way ... I hesitate to really call it amoral. Its really just a paid sponsorship, or paid word of mouth marketing, or something like that. Like it or not, it’s really just capitalism and the advertising industry at work.
In the article, she says she doesn't use many of the products she reviews with 5 stars because she's worried they aren't safe.
It's dishonest at best and fraudulent at worst. In most widely accepted views of morality, it is immoral.
The intent is to deceive other shoppers. Sure she's not some evil scourge upon the world, but that doesn't make it right.
The intent is to deceive other shoppers. Sure she's not some evil scourge upon the world, but that doesn't make it right.
"“I definitely feel like I have to keep [the reviewing] a secret from people who have strong morals,” Jessica added."
You'd think that would be a pretty good indication that you shouldn't be doing something...
You'd think that would be a pretty good indication that you shouldn't be doing something...
"Don't do something you'd be ashamed to tell your grandmother about"
Amazon reported that in 2018, customers spent $160 billion on items from third-party sellers — 58% of all sales on the site. More than 1 million sellers joined Amazon marketplaces around the world that year, according to e-commerce data firm Marketplace Pulse. In this year’s shareholder letter, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wrote: “Third-party sellers are kicking our first party butt. Badly.”
This tells me that Amazon is never going to fix the gamed reviews, or the counterfeit items, because doing so will impact their profits.
This tells me that Amazon is never going to fix the gamed reviews, or the counterfeit items, because doing so will impact their profits.
Honestly Walmart has gotten so much better at competing versus a couple of years ago. Most items reach my door within 2-3 days (in nyc), and their customer service is now on par with amazon prime, which is to say, amazon has gotten much worse. I did not mind paying for the convenience of a "dont ask, dont tell" return policy, however, amazon has gotten more strict. If i wanted that, i would rather stick to traditional retailers.
This is one of the limitations platforms have, it simply can't be fixed, and platforms often don't have incentives to fix it.
What's important for platforms? GMV.
Faking reviews is just the first step of gaming the platforms, next vendors will pay people to fake-buying, as what's happening on JD and Alibaba on an industrial scale. They already need the GMV and commissions generated, now that PinDuoDuo is popular for selling dirt-cheap things, they need to retain vendors now too, so they don't even pretend to punish these fakings.
Alibaba's 11.11 shopping festival is a good example, it goes out of its way to make the GMV of that single day as big as possible, tactics including forbidding buyers to pay before that day(make them to delay weeks' purchase to that day), disabling refunding on 11.11, sales tagets for vendors.
What's important for platforms? GMV.
Faking reviews is just the first step of gaming the platforms, next vendors will pay people to fake-buying, as what's happening on JD and Alibaba on an industrial scale. They already need the GMV and commissions generated, now that PinDuoDuo is popular for selling dirt-cheap things, they need to retain vendors now too, so they don't even pretend to punish these fakings.
Alibaba's 11.11 shopping festival is a good example, it goes out of its way to make the GMV of that single day as big as possible, tactics including forbidding buyers to pay before that day(make them to delay weeks' purchase to that day), disabling refunding on 11.11, sales tagets for vendors.
I recently started noticing some sellers including a little brochure/paper along with the product with something like this written:
'Write a review for this product, rate 5 stars in all categories, send us an email at <[email protected]> with the review ID, and receive a free product.'
'Write a review for this product, rate 5 stars in all categories, send us an email at <[email protected]> with the review ID, and receive a free product.'
But she doesn’t consider reviews while browsing: “When I see an off-brand product that’s Amazon’s Choice, [that label] doesn’t mean anything to me anymore,” she said.
Well I learned something new today. I didn't realize it was so easy to game that Amazon's Choice label.
Well I learned something new today. I didn't realize it was so easy to game that Amazon's Choice label.
Yeah, that label is entirely gamed.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2019/6/14/18679637/amazon-choi...
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2019/6/14/18679637/amazon-choi...
I wrote once a negative review for a product at Amazon, nothing offensive, like three sentences why I thought it was not what I expected. Amazon deleted my review and wrote me to contact the seller. Since than I do not comment at Amazon.
I purchased an item last year, found it to be unsuited to my application, and posted a mildly negative review which essentially stated that the item was not as suited for the application as the manufacturers had claimed. Since that time I have gotten 2-3 emails per day from the vendor begging me to remove the review, and offering to reimburse the purchase cost and even add a bonus payment. I've ignored them all but they keep coming. My email was not associated with the purchase, but apparently there are tools vendors can use to match a review to an email address.
Same here. Weeks' worth of emails imploring me to remove my negative review.
She's basically taking part in fraud.
How she justifies it to herself is pretty irrelevant.
How she justifies it to herself is pretty irrelevant.
I used to think for reasonably everyday items, not too expensive, that the number of real reviews and answers would overwhelm the number of fakes.
But I recently asked a question about an item that I have bought before (a small appliance that I have been forced to find to be more a consumable than a durable). I asked if the vendor had fixed the flaw that made me throw out three prior ones. Within minutes there were three answers, assuring me that there was in fact no such flaw. These items were great. Perfect!
Silly of me, I guess.
But I recently asked a question about an item that I have bought before (a small appliance that I have been forced to find to be more a consumable than a durable). I asked if the vendor had fixed the flaw that made me throw out three prior ones. Within minutes there were three answers, assuring me that there was in fact no such flaw. These items were great. Perfect!
Silly of me, I guess.
I'm not sure if that's better or worse than all of the questions that get answers of "I don't know" or "Sorry, I can't answer your question"
How about just ignoring the question then and let someone else provide a useful answer.
How about just ignoring the question then and let someone else provide a useful answer.
I've always assumed this comes from older Amazon shoppers who interpret the emails asking if they can answer questions about some item they ordered as personally asking them to answer the questions.
The fame reviews are mostly easy to spot (although of xours sits impossible to know which ones you didn't spot...) - eg that they have photos is for me a clear indicator of fakes. But even if you actually recognise them, it wastes your lifetime and makes it more difficult to find authentically good products - in particular in the areas with high competition where you have fake positive and fake negative reviews (paid for by competitors), eg robot vacuums.
Why is it fake if it has photos? I’ve included photos in my reviews.
I would think it is extremely easy to spot fake reviews statistically. The other day I was browsing a Dutch website similar to Amazon, and they show a distribution of the ratings. For a given category, there were a few products at the top that had hundreds of 5 star reviews, a wide gap, and then a few 1 star reviews. Meanwhile, the other products had a fraction of the reviews with a more natural distribution.
I don't get it. Why is Amazon cracking down on this? They offer this very service of "free-shit-for-robo-reviews" to sellers through their own damn site. https://www.sellerapp.com/blog/amazon-promotions-explained/a...
... Oh.
... Oh.
"'I definitely feel like I have to keep [the reviewing] a secret from people who have strong morals,' Jessica added."
But then she plays herself off as this cute, innocent girl who just does this for fun. She knows she's doing something immoral and unethical, she just doesn't care because she likes feeling "like its Christmas every day".
But then she plays herself off as this cute, innocent girl who just does this for fun. She knows she's doing something immoral and unethical, she just doesn't care because she likes feeling "like its Christmas every day".
We need to operate with the assumption that all vulnerabilities that can be exploited for profit, will be. People will be people. The only answer is mechanisms that make it less profitable.
Amazon will die due to phoney products and reviews.
Sometime in the future, Amazon will be held responsible for the lies and that is when the whole company will die. It will not happen today, tomorrow or next year but in a few years time either the copyright holders (Brands) will get them or other regulation.
It will be charged under RICO, it does millions of wire frauds every day.
Sometime in the future, Amazon will be held responsible for the lies and that is when the whole company will die. It will not happen today, tomorrow or next year but in a few years time either the copyright holders (Brands) will get them or other regulation.
It will be charged under RICO, it does millions of wire frauds every day.
After I read those posts, ...
Well, it's not only happen on Amazon, but on another sites too. As long as there's a seller, buyer, and medium, there's always a chance to do it.
“That’s what makes spending money on free products worth it for these blackhat sellers,”
Not only on online markets, even offline store does that. But, I apreciate for the long posts made by buzzfeeds
Well, it's not only happen on Amazon, but on another sites too. As long as there's a seller, buyer, and medium, there's always a chance to do it.
“That’s what makes spending money on free products worth it for these blackhat sellers,”
Not only on online markets, even offline store does that. But, I apreciate for the long posts made by buzzfeeds
Seems like in addition to all the other problems this is enabling people with hoarder tendencies. Amazon needs to start losing business for this to change.
Maybe all the big data collection could come in handy. Amazon could probably pay Facebook to find out all the people who are in these paid reviewer groups and ban them all, buyers and sellers.
Maybe all the big data collection could come in handy. Amazon could probably pay Facebook to find out all the people who are in these paid reviewer groups and ban them all, buyers and sellers.
This is why I almost always pay much more attention to negative reviews. How many there are, the reasons for the bad review, and so on. Positive reviews, even honest ones, are always so generic: "it's great, works as intended!"
Bad reviews usually give a lot more detail that actually describes the experience in concrete detail.
Bad reviews usually give a lot more detail that actually describes the experience in concrete detail.
> Amazon has banned giving away free products in exchange for reviews
I didn't realize they banned this practice considering they themselves operate the Vine program. I know someone who receives upwards of a dozen products a week for free to review by Amazon. Everything from robot vacuums to cutlery sets.
I didn't realize they banned this practice considering they themselves operate the Vine program. I know someone who receives upwards of a dozen products a week for free to review by Amazon. Everything from robot vacuums to cutlery sets.
Amazon isn't against paid reviews. They are against paid reviews THEY don't control.
I'm sick of seeing news pieces where they focus on some mommy blogger who made $15k (which they play up like it's a tone of money) by providing conflict of interest reviews, while Amazon does that at 1,000,000x the scale with no one bating an eye.
I'd say it's lazy if not biased and single sided bad journalism to not even mention the Vine program.
I'm sick of seeing news pieces where they focus on some mommy blogger who made $15k (which they play up like it's a tone of money) by providing conflict of interest reviews, while Amazon does that at 1,000,000x the scale with no one bating an eye.
I'd say it's lazy if not biased and single sided bad journalism to not even mention the Vine program.
Vine reviews are disclosed in the app or on the website, though. I don't really see that as malicious.
> With thousands of new sellers signing up every day,
Does this end of the business have to be so frictionless? This seems like a "simple" reputation problem (†) and they turn a blind eye to Sybil attacks?
(†) no, not really simple, but if anyone were up to the challenge it would seem Amazon is.
Does this end of the business have to be so frictionless? This seems like a "simple" reputation problem (†) and they turn a blind eye to Sybil attacks?
(†) no, not really simple, but if anyone were up to the challenge it would seem Amazon is.
Just in case anyone else hasn’t brought it up, https://www.fakespot.com/ is pretty good at catching fake reviews.
It seems plausible that Amazon could detect someone buying such a high volume of different stuff. Then examine the sellers and look for similar patterns of people who purchased same items.
Oddly enough, the Amazon 'Vine' program could be more reliable than other reviews; that program rewards critical reviews just as much as positive ones. There is no quid pro quo.
I stopped reading 5 star reviews. Using fakespot in combination with reviewing the 3 star reviews has proven pretty effective in combating the potential junk product that could show up.
Just a bad idea to let someone write an article about you. It could be possible for an Amazon employee to use clues from the photographs to identify this user.
I was thinking the same. Amazon card, rough volume of purchases and kinds of purchases... that ought to be enough to narrow down a bit? Outside shots give geographic clues too (we can assume it's not Southern Florida).
Eventually her boyfriend will get fed up with her bizarre habit and dump her. Probably sooner than later.
Who puts up with that for long?
She needs to get help before this wrecks her life.
Who puts up with that for long?
She needs to get help before this wrecks her life.
Jessica sounds like an asshole from the quotes on the page. "I like getting free stuff" and thinking this kind of marketing is honest. Jeez...
I read review for ipad cable once. The reviews had nothing to do with cable. I wanted to report it to Amazon but there was no way to do so.
I always read 10-20 authentic-look-like reviews and form an average. The more you read the better. Plus read outside reviews.
not a big fan of ML but this sounds like the perfect case for it. Amazon could catch people like this pretty easily.
> The spreadsheet helps Jessica make sure she’s on top of due dates and getting paid on time. BuzzFeed News reviewed the document, which showed 117 open orders that hadn’t been refunded yet. A column titled “Total currently out of pocket” — or what she’s still owed — amounted to $2,282.01.
So not only is she getting lots of cheap crap, and having to fake reviews for it... she's paying over $2,000 to do so?
So not only is she getting lots of cheap crap, and having to fake reviews for it... she's paying over $2,000 to do so?
Further, she loses money with these reviews. Basically, she likes getting packages full of things she doesn't use and loses money on. What a weird hobby.
“I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
“I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
No, it means she gets paid post-review, which means she tends to have an accounts receivable balance.
Presumably, if they don't pay up on time, she can change the review to 1-star and blacklist the seller from the fraud scheme?
Or would that just get her blacklisted?
Getting blacklisted by a company that doesn't pay as promised is not really a bad thing.
And I don't think they collaborate on shill management.
And I don't think they collaborate on shill management.
The brand reimburse the purchases, but only after the review. So this is money that is still due.
Is this a problem something like Plaid could help with? (Assuming she used the same credit card.)
twgrp(1)
Yes, paid reviews has been an industry since forever. What is the insight of this article?
The article shows us exactly how it’s done.
[deleted]
Of course I understand why this is wrong and unethical, so I tried to report it to Amazon.
There is no way to report this to Amazon. They have no facility for reporting a product that someone tried to pay you to review positively.
The only thing you can do is contact customer service who as far as I can tell do nothing with the report.
All they need to do is add a category to their customer service section to report fraud. It blows my mind that they do not do this. But not really. They make more money by allowing this behavior, both from the fake buyer, as well as the other customers who are duped into buying highly reviewed items.