BAD AMAZON [wacks over nose with newspaper]

Apr 13, 2009 09:38

You'll have read all this by now, but since we have the likes of Lady Chatterly's Lover being ranked, I'd say that this is such decades step back in the wrong direction it needs to be cross posted and people need to see this. I have found stuff on the first page of a google search that is defending amazon, we need to knock that shit off the front ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 6

el_staplador April 13 2009, 08:53:55 UTC
No more Amazon for me. *is furious*

Reply


doylefan22 April 13 2009, 10:26:49 UTC
From what I can gather it's not just GLBT material that's being hit exclusively, but a lot of what they consider to have adult or erotic content. Except there's plenty of stuff that's slipping through the net and there's plenty that isn't actually 'adult'. Looks to me like they've been basically indiscriminately stripping the ranking off anything with certain keywords without and actual human making the decision ( ... )

Reply

steviesun April 13 2009, 11:15:07 UTC
Yes, it seems as though many of the stripped books are back in searches no. Certainly the one I double checked a minute ago is back.

As my database tutor said about computers - garbage in, garbage out.

This should have been something that they tested better. They, and hopefully others, should hopefully have learnt by now that the internet is 24/7, and people will notice mistakes.

Reply


__kali__ April 13 2009, 15:41:19 UTC
From what I've been reading Amazon is on damage control and is trying to fix their 'glitch'. Thankfully a lot of people have screencaps proving what a complete cock-up they've made.

Reply

steviesun April 13 2009, 16:00:28 UTC
Yes I do love the
amazon: it's a "glitch"
interwebz folk: but we has screen caps, you said it was part of policy.

And too right they should be doing damage control, this is apparently already affecting the value of the company.

Reply

ladyfox7oaks April 13 2009, 16:37:25 UTC
"Glitch"... YEah- RIGHT, after the E-mail they sent to Mark P. in the first link? I don't THINK so!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up