Krazykiwi has all the info and links in this post here. Sounds like this is pretty much what Amazon has been doing in the past - alerting authors to mistakes - but this time there might be a little more push to get them to fix it. Of course with the huge amount of spelling/grammar fun that's out there, that's a ridiculously large job, so I wouldn't think there'd be any significant difference in quality for some time (if ever).

Fun part for me - I had no idea Amazon specifically defines "disappointing content," and was amused. Read the following and ponder how broad some of these statements are as far as what can be considered disappointing. (Some I'd rate much higher than the word disappoint and more towards "rarrrr inducing.")

Guide to Kindle Quality (scroll to end):

Disappointing Content

We do not allow content that disappoints our customers, including but not limited to:

• Content that is either marketed as a subscription or redirects readers to an external source to obtain the full content
• Content that is freely available on the web (unless you are the copyright owner of that content or the content is in the public domain). For more information, you can refer to the sections titled “Illegal and Infringing Content” and “Public Domain and Other Non-Exclusive Content” in the Content Guidelines.
• Content whose primary purpose is to solicit or advertise
• Content that is not significantly differentiated from another book available in the Kindle Store
• Content that is a non-differentiated version of another book available in the Kindle Store
• Content that is too short
• Content that is poorly translated
• Content that does not provide an enjoyable reading experience

Apparently all this time I could have been complaining about all those people selling public domain works with little change from the free online ebook versions. Did not know that. Though I might have had to purchase one and return it to be able to send that message - not sure.

They repeat the idea over here:

Content Guidelines:

Poor Customer Experience
We don't accept books that provide a poor customer experience. We reserve the right to determine whether content provides a poor customer experience. See the Guide to Kindle Content Quality for examples of content that's typically disappointing to customers.

Anyway it's great to have these sorts of standards, but as usual the real problem is making sure the sellers follow them. I'm specifically thinking about having enough staff to manage all that content review and communication in a way that doesn't take years to fix each issue - because as we all know, it's usually always an issue that companies never seem to hire enough staff to do all the work.

Second in a series deconstructing a kerfluffle that wasn't.  Not the one they're claiming, anyways.

First in a series of posts examining Anne Rice's Amazon discussions that everyone seem so gaga over.  (Follow the link).

Enough's enough.

Back in Dec/Jan when all this was still going on I chalked it up to another bout of insanity from the lady who seems hell-bent on becoming the modern-day Nora Desmond, and let it lie.  But now this shit's gone too far.  Now even supposedly reputable sites like the Guardian are parroting this farce.

If you've been blissfully unaware of this latest insanity, Anne Rice- author auteur, Goddess of the Night, Mistress of Vampires, blahblahblah- went off the deep end again when she started pontificating all over the Amazon forums about the state of reviewing in general, and how everyone should have to reveal their secret identities in order to post reviews.  No more pseudonyms, aliases or screen names anywhere.  Naturally, a collection of fools, charlatans, frauds and crusaders fell over each other to be the first to pat her on the back about lending her name to the jihad against Teh Bulliez.  She was so tickled she couldn't stop sharing it on FB (here, here and here), ignoring the warnings given to her about the site in question to the point of deleting all comments about them yet left all posts from that site's contributors standing.  Because that site's history of abuse, doc-dropping and yeah- bullying, has nothing to do with nothing; what matters is they're kissing her ass here and now.  One should always focus on what's important.

You'll also notice that not only are the majority of them's talking about how happy they are about this are themselves doing so under false pretenses, the claims of Rice's victory over bullying amounts to a bunch of sound bites. All screenshots of her 'winning' posts are done so in a vacuum without context or reply; trust me when I tell you there's much more to the story.  And it doesn't make Rice look good.

I'll state with 100% certainty that any and all who run around the internet crowing about how Anne Rice showed those meanie-mean poopy-heads over on Amazon never read the entire thread.  It's pretty damn obvious TIME Magazine didn't.  Because a reading of it shows Rice getting her pop-culture intellectualism handed to her on a pretty regular basis.  For the sake of disclosure I'll admit to giving her a few lumps myself during the discussions.

The undercurrent here fools no one, least of all it's proponents who know they're full of shit.  That's why the vast majority almost never come out and say what's really on their minds: there should be no negative reviews posted.  Ever. (The article is satire but the comments are worth looking at).  And the few that do say so only highlights why the rest don't: it reveals them to be the whiny, spoiled, sniveling, entitled children they are.  After all, they're SOOPER-GENIUSES!  Everyone knows it; back when they were that sunflower in the third-grade play- even the teacher said so!!!  They've got a whole wall of participation trophies that confirms it!

Given Rice's well-documented history and complete denial of her own bullying, it was comically ironic to see this posted on her FB page to try and bolster her argument: Science Confirms Internet Trolls are Narcissistic, Psychopathic and Sadistic.

Another example of Rice's disconnect from her actions is seen in this FB exchange with one Dusty Lee.  Note how quickly Rice condescendingly changes the topic once she's been called on her previous bad behavior:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------