I agree with you. From what I’ve heard about the authors who were found to be doing this, they targeted authors and books they believed were their competitors. Presumably, they believed there was some increased chance of a reader buying their book instead. But you are absolutely right in that there is no guarantee of that. Such deceptive reviews are, in fact, designed to hurt that author. Konrath’s argument that all negative reviews are intended to harm the author is, in my opinion, an attempt to convince us cases like these are no different. As if motives don’t matter.

Thanks for stopping by.

If you take a hard look at Konrath’s reasoning, it boils down to two questionable principles: (1) It’s okay to do unethical things because millions of others do unethical things, and (2) it’s okay to do unethical things because you can do unethical things. “If it was wrong, it wouldn’t be allowed.”

Um, yeah. It’s technically an American citizen’s right to stand outside the funeral of a serviceman with a sign that says, “God Hates Fags!” screaming obscenities at the mourners and hoping someone throws a punch so you can sue them. Nothing illegal about it. So since it’s perfectly “allowed,” it can’t be wrong. We shouldn’t be outraged when someone does it, right?

::Every one of those millions of reviewers who trashed a book deliberately did it to harm that book’s sales. That’s the whole point of a one star review.::

Note the words “Every one…”

I don’t think it’s possible to interpret “every one of those” as anything but equivalent to “all.”

But even if it were true that all 1-star reviews are malicious in intent, that doesn’t make it OK for an author to hide his identity when posting negative reviews about competing books. It’s deceitful and malicious.

I strongly disagree with Konrath’s statement that such actions by an author are fine. They’re not.

People tell other people it was one star in order so they don’t buy it. You’ve basically agreed with him. Although you’ve but a few words into what he said then quoted as fact.

From that post, alas, it seems fairly clear it’s the latter.

THIS.

The intention of these “reviews” is to deceive readers, because the only way they can appear to be legitimate is if the identity of the “reviewer” is hidden. Or, in the case of purchased reviews, if the circumstances under which the review was produced (money in exchange for a positive review) are unknown to the reader. So it’s not like someone underestimates the presence of a COI – the “review” is presented in such a way as to disguise its origins. Very different thing, objectively speaking.