Democratizing, or polarising and exclusive?

Posted by Jean Adams

There seems to be a lot of discussion around at the moment about the benefit of social media to researchers. The stuff I’ve been reading isn’t really about the value of social media as a research tool, more about the value of social media as a communication tool both within the research community, and between the research and other communities.

Much of the discussion takes place on social media, but I’ve also come across some in more traditional media too - in peer-reviewed journals and a recent conference workshop.

Almost everyone is enthusiastic. Twitter apparently helps researchers keep up to date with their field, and to disseminate their findings more widely, and provides an opportunity to ‘crowd source’ ideas, research funding and even volunteer researchers.

The social media adoption curve

One blogger found that blogging and tweeting about their publications led to a massive bump in downloads of her papers – suggesting that many more people were at least aware of them, if not reading and citing them. Others have proposed that the benefits of academic blogging are so self evident that the question has now moved from “why would a researcher blog?” to “why would a researcher not blog?”.

I don’t consider myself particularly ahead of (or even riding the crest of) the social media curve. In fact, I’m quite a social media laggard. I opened my Twitter account about two years ago, but have only been actively using it for around 12 months. I’ve been reading blogs for two or three years. But I follow less than twenty and hardly any of them are work-related. I’ve left fewer than half a dozen comments on other people’s blogs.

And yet I think I am a convert. In the last week I have used Twitter to share ideas with researchers I have never met, sound off about the boring bits of my job (and get a little support back), ‘speak’ to a journalist, and source references for this post. I have been alerted to research I will use in my teaching and been kept up to date with public health and university politics. Twitter provides the possibility of engaging with almost anyone (who is on Twitter) and in this way it is democratizing.

But I am increasingly starting to worry about the sentiment in parentheses in that last sentence. What sort of people are not on Twitter? Perhaps these people are also worth engaging with. Even amongst the Tweeps, I am not shy of the ‘unfollow’ button and rarely put up with people who I disagree with, of find too dull, for long. And in these ways, Twitter can be polarising and exclusive.

As we have developed the Fuse blog and @Fuse_online twitter feed, we have encountered the usual institutional angst about the risks that these media pose to our ‘reputation’. Much of this reflects our collective uncertainty and inexperience of how these avenues might develop. Some of us are not too far removed from previous social media horror-stories that, unsurprising, have put a few people off for good.

My, now almost reflexive, response to these issues is to turn to the internet, to Google, to Twitter and to other people’s blogs. What do others say about the balance of risks to benefits? What exactly might go wrong? How can we mitigate the risks? Good advice often boils down to: think before you act, and don’t do it when you’re drunk.

What is missing, is the other side of the argument. There does not seem to be any coherent discussion about why researchers shouldn’t engage with social media. Perhaps there is no such thing. Perhaps I have ‘unfollowed’ myself into isolation from such points of view.

Konrath Posts Fake Amazon Reviews!

I was recently asked in an email, "Joe, I don't get why you aren't angry about fake Amazon reviews. All they do is cause harm."

Fake reviews, like sock puppets and trolling and flame wars, will always be part of the Internet and are no big deal. They are better than the alternative; Amazon policing reviews and deciding which are legitimate and/or have value.

But the email question intrigued me. Is it true that all fake reviews are harmful?

I believe being able to post anonymously, or to post reviews, is an extension of free speech. I may not like what some people say, but I feel the need to protect their right to say it. Even if they use sock puppets. Even if they have agendas.

But in the case of fake reviews, am I trying to protect something with absolutely no redeeming value? Would Amazon be better if there weren't any fake reviews at all?

I don't think so. I think some fake reviews have merit.

In fact, I just spent two hours on Amazon, being wildly entertained by fake reviews.

I was so entertained, I wrote some fake reviews myself. 

Go read them now, before some pinhead complains to Amazon and they get removed.

After reading my reviews, take some time to read other reviews of those same products. Look at the pics customers have uploaded as well. You'll probably enjoy it as much as I did. Come back here when you've finished.

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

All done? Here are my thoughts.

Some of those reviews made me laugh out loud, and I wanted to add mine to their growing number. It is a uniquely Internet phenomenon for complete strangers to try to amuse one another, and one I fully support. I think it's also a fascinating, and worthwhile, by-product of the Amazon customer review system that people are using it for more than its intended purpose. As I mention previously, Amazon didn't create a system of  customer reviews to level the playing field for all products in a fair and unbiased way. They did it to sell stuff, because they are smart and understand how user aggregated content works.

But I don't think Amazon could have guessed how much reviews could amuse browsers. I think it's a very cool thing that they can be used in such a way. A weird, funny, human, cool thing.

Now I'm not comparing the intent of a satiric review with that of a shill 5 star review, or a 1 star review intended to hurt. One is meant to make a reader laugh. The other is intended to influence buying decisions. But if we start trying to eliminate all fake reviews, and if we start letting others decide what is worthwhile and what isn't, we're going to wind up worse off. Fake doesn't equal bad, especially when not a single person bitching about fake reviews can prove harm was caused.

The opinions of some shouldn't be forced upon everyone. We can, and should, be able to make up our own minds without others dictating what should and shouldn't be allowed. People aren't as stupid as the witch hunters want us to think. We don't automatically believe everything we read online. We can decide for ourselves what has merit. Amazon isn't the Kansas City Schoolboard, trying to teach Intelligent Design to our children. Stuff like that needs to be stopped. Fake reviews, not so much.

In some cases, like The Mountain Three Wolf Moon Short Sleeve Tee, the 2000+ funny reviews have obviously helped the sales. It's #154 in clothing. I just ordered one.

In other cases, like the Playmobil Security Checkpoint, the manufacturer obviously wasn't amused, because it seems like Amazon won't allow any more reviews for that item. I tried twice, and it kept denying me.

Here's the page, and my rejected review, for those interested.

So what's my point, here? Am I saying it's okay for authors to anonymously bash other authors, and buy reviews, because some fake reviews are funny?

Nope. Though I don't care if authors buy reviews or bash each other. I don't do it myself, but I don't see the harm.

Am I saying writers are taking Amazon reviews way too seriously, putting more importance on them that they deserve?

Maybe a little, but that's not my main point.

Am I saying we shouldn't judge others?

Not quite. We all judge others. That's impossible to stop. I think moral panic is a bad thing, and caution against it, but that isn't why I blogged today.

So why did I blog today?

Because I can. 

I don't want to live in a world where I wouldn't be allowed to say what I want, or where my words are censored or forbidden. And I don't like self-righteous pinheads who believe they are morally superior and want to make me abide by their ethics.

Before today, I've never written a fake review. Never even considered it.

Today, I've written ten of them. And it feels awesome.

Now let's see how long it takes for the pinheads to whine to Amazon to take them down because they're fake and unhelpful. If they do, here are the screenshots for posterity:

BTW, I expect some people won't get the joke. I expect some people to get angry at my attitude, and my fake reviews, and get on their moral high horses to soundly condemn me for my bad behavior.

Please do. That's the highest praise you can give me.

Konrath's Sales

So I'm working with an incredible woman who is an MS Office tutor. She knows Excel like she wrote it herself.

Over the past few weeks she's been compiling my sales data. ALL of my sales data.

For the very first time, I have total counts of all my sales from every platform. My legacy titles, Amazon published titles, and everything I have on KDP, Nook, Smashwords, Overdrive, Createspace, Kobo, Sony, and Apple.

And now I'm going to share those numbers with you.

These are based on my 8 legacy titles (the Jack Daniels books, Afraid, Timecaster) and my 40+ self-pubbed titles (which include 6 solo novels, 3 collaborative novels--Flee, Draculas, and Serial Killers Uncut, and the rest shorts and compilations and collaborations).

So what are these numbers? (For fun, compare them to my numbers from 2009.)

EBOOKS

Since 2004, I've sold 126,366 legacy ebooks, earning me $130,916 (prior to 15% to my agent.)

Since 2009, I've sold 632,501 self-pubbed ebooks, earning me $912,138. Some of that is shared with my collaborators, but not the lion's share by a longshot.

The majority of the money I've made on ebooks are on six of my novels, The List, Origin, Disturb, Shot of Tequila, Endurance, and Trapped. These six novels--all rejected by legacy publishers, have sold 362,783 copies, earning me $600,501.

I'm not at liberty to discuss the sales of my Amazon published books, Shaken and Stirred, because Amazon prefers I don't. But I'll say that I've sold more ebook copies of Shaken and Stirred in less than three years than my eight legacy titles of sold in ebooks in eight years.

PAPER

My eight legacy titles have sold 60,993 hardcovers, 190,213 paperbacks, and 9828 trade paper since 2004, earning me a total of $264,527.

I've used Createspace to make my self-pubbed books available in print. Since 2010 I've sold 12,711 self-pubbed paper books and made $37,519.

Again, can't talk about Shaken and Stirred. Shaken, released first, did pretty well in print, as this was when Borders and B&N carried copies. Now Borders is gone, and no brick and mortar bookstore will touch Amazon pubbed paper books, so Stirred didn't do as well.

TOTALS

Since 2004, I've sold a combined ebook/paper total of 387,400 legacy books, earning $395,443, or $336,126 after my agent's commission. This includes all advances. That's $42,015 per year. Not bad, but anyone who is a longtime reader of this blog knows how much I busted my ass to sell that many, and how much I spent on promotion and travel. If I took home $30k any given year, I'd be very surprised. It was usually less than that.

Since 2009, I've sold a combined ebook.paper total of 645,212 self-pubbed legacy books, earning $949,657. That's $730,282 on my own, and another $109,687 for my share of my collaborations, for a total of  $839,969. That's $210,000 a year, average.

Stirred has made a little more money than Shaken, due to Blake Crouch's brand, but I had to split that money with him. Again, I'm not disclosing how much I've made, but I've made more on Shaken than I have on any one of my legacy titles. This is the reason I continue to sign with Amazon publishing, and why at the end of this year I'll release three books with them, co-written with Ann Voss Peterson, Flee, Spree, and Three.

However...

Some of my self-pubbed novels have made more money than Shaken.

Now my calculations don't take certain things into account, including:

1. I don't have 2012 legacy sales figures yet, thanks to publishing's reporting system being back-asswards and archaic.
2. I'm counting 2012 as a full year, even though it is only September.
3. My averages aren't fully accurate. For my first year of legacy pubbing I only had one book out, and my first year of self-pubbing I had less than ten. Obviously I didn't sell many legacy ebooks before 2007, when the Kindle was invented.
4. The vast majority of my sales have been in the last 22 months, as ebooks have really taken off, so averaging out over four years isn't accurate. In 2011 and the first months of 2012 I've made $791k, or an average of $37,000 a month. To put this in perspective, I got a $33,000 advance for Whiskey Sour, and a $20k advance for Afraid.
5. My legacy paper sales have dwindled dramatically, partially because of bookstores closing, partly because bookstores hate me and won't carry me, partly because I haven't had a new legacy book in years. So again, averages aren't the best way to view the data.

Because this isn't a true science experiment with a control, any conclusions I draw will be speculative. But my data is solid, and I'm confident enough to make a few observations.

1. Ebooks are the future.

I've been saying this for years, but my data bears it out. I'm betting, when I get my next legacy royalty statement, my ebooks will have outsold my mass market paperbacks. Paper sales are dwindling, ebooks are taking over, in a big way.

2. Amazon is the big dog.

Not only is Amazon Publishing (Encore, Thomas & Mercer, etc.) a smart and lucrative way to diversify from self-pubbing, but Amazon is where most of the money is made.

I hear some of you asking: Joe, can you break down the numbers?

Absolutely. One of the wonderful things about my new spreadsheet is it uses pivot tables. In other words, I can sort my data however I wish. If I want to know how many $2.99 titles I sold on Nook in June 2011, I can sort it. If I want to know how many Kindle Owner Lends I've had, I can to it in a few clicks.

And yes, in an upcoming blog I will be interviewing the woman who did this for me. So if you're like me, and have too much data to compile into one spreadsheet, let alone analyze, you'll be able to hire her.

Let's look at my numbers broken down by platform:

Apple (via Smashwords) 6356 sold, $10,446 earned
Kobo (via Smashwords) 2229 sold, $3040 earned. But I recently signed on with Kobo directly, and in August 2012 made $1033. So Kobo is shaping up to be a player.
Sony (via Smashwords) 3882 sold, $6047 earned.
Nook (via Smashwords) 5769 sold, $7524 earned
Nook Pubit 16,727 sold $29,300 earned
Amazon KOLL 20,179 shared, $35,015 earned

According to my numbers, my Amazon titles have earned $885,452 and other platforms combined have earned just $64,204. Amazon is the clear winner by almost 14 to 1 against its competition.

But what interests me most is KOLL. I made $35,015 KOLL on select titles, for a three month period. I currently have a handful of titles in KOLL for another three months, but I'd opted out the majority of my work in order to make it available on other platforms.

Granted, the majority of my KOLL profits came around the holidays, and I had to opt out of the other platforms to do so. Perhaps I could have made good money on Apple and Nook during the holidays if I'd been live, but would it have been comparable to what I made via KOLL? It doesn't seem likely.

I've been urging Amazon at every opportunity to make KDP Select non-exclusive. I've also been urging them to sell epub format, something I've been urging since 2009.

Amazon still demands KDP Select be exclusive, and recently offered a 70% royalty in India for KDP Select titles. They seem to like the exclusivity of it, even though their customers get fewer titles, and Amazon scares away many authors from the Select program.

Kobo is on the rise. Nook seems to be holding steady. The same with Apple.

So what is an author to do? Pull all titles and go all-in with Amazon, to hopefully make more money? Or self-publish on multiple platforms, encouraging competition, and perhaps earning less?

I want to hear from writers on this issue. Do you go with Amazon Select or not, and why?

I'm going to remain on multiple platforms for the time being. But come the holidays, I'm not sure what I'll do. A lot of my KOLL earnings, and KDP earnings, were the result of the Select freebie program and resulting bounceback to the paid bestseller lists. But all signs point to the bounceback being not as effective as it once was. I want to hear from writers on this issue as well.

3. Amazon and Createspace have impressed me.

I've made over $37k on my self pubbed paper books. Since 2010, that's $12,500 a year. My legacy books have averaged $33,065 a year.

In other words, even with major publishers behind me, four book tours where I went to 42 states, and signing at over 1200 bookstores, I only made $33k a year selling legacy-pubbed paper. Doing absolutely nothing, with a minimal investment per title (cover art, formatting) I'm making $12,500 a year selling self-pubbed paper.

Obviously, as with all of my numbers, your mileage may vary. But this shows me what an utter failure legacy publishers have been with me, and I bet my data can be extrapolated to dozens, if not hundreds, of other midlist authors. I may be among the better selling indie writers, but as more and more midlist authors leave legacy, more and more of them will have success that mirrors mine.

Paper isn't going away. But it isn't going to be the preferred method of reading in the future. For millions of people, it is already passe.

I just got a blurb request from a Big 6 author whose novel is being released ebook-only.

WTF?!? Publishers are actually signing authors and not even putting out a paper version? Why would any author take 14.9% of a legacy pubbed ebook that sells for $9.99 (hint: by "sells" I mean "won't sell") instead of 70% (or 80% via Kobo) of a self-pubbed ebook where they control the price and the rights?

Publishing can survive using this strategy, if authors are gullible enough to keep signing these one-sided contracts. Here's how.

On a $6.99 paperback, the author makes about 56 cents. That's close to what the publisher makes, after all expenses. While it is possible for publishers to get into the black before an author earns out her advance, earning out the advance is usually a good indicator the book is making money.

On a $6.99 legacy ebook, the author makes $1.04 after agent commission. The publisher makes $3.67. So let's play the advance game.

A publisher pays an author $20,000 advance. Author keeps $17,000 after the agent is paid. There is no paper version. The ebook, priced at $6.99, sells 12,000 ebooks in five years, which is what my legacy ebook Dirty Martini has sold.

The author would still owe $7520 on the advance before earning another nickel. In the meantime, the publisher has made $44,000. Minus the $20k advance, the publisher has pocketed $24,000, and still will make money for a few more years without paying the author any more.

If the author self-pubbed his own book at $6.99, and sold 12,000 copies, he would have made $58,880.

If publishers keep signing authors for ebook-only deals, at the current royalty rates, they'll get richer than they ever have, at the expense of authors. Authors will still be living advance to advance, never earning out, and publishers will be printing money by doing nothing more than providing cover art, proofreading, and editing services--all jobs that can be freelanced for fixed costs.

If you are thinking about signing an ebook-only deal with a publisher, crunch the numbers first.

CONCLUSION

As I've said ad nauseum, ebooks are forever. And they are going global. We're going to be able to reach readers worldwide, with a combination of POD, ebook retailers, and libraries. But in order to exploit this market, we need to hold onto our rights and get the highest royalties possible.

As always, I encourage authors to figure out what they want out of their career, and set appropriate goals. Experiment, share your results with others, and keep trying new things. Before you sign any contract, understand what it means, what you're getting, and what you're giving up.

There are no sure things. I've never said there were. No path you take in publishing is a quick-rich scheme. Talent and hard work can help you get lucky, but it still all comes down to luck. Keep at it until luck strikes.

If you want to take a legacy deal, know what it means. I was recently talking with a peer--the first time we ever spoke--who has done just as well as I have with self-pubbing. She told me she was interested in pursuing a legacy contract, and I agreed that for her it made sense. She has a lot of titles, and this could be a chance for her to make a seven figure advance while still controlling the majority of her self-pub empire. She has nothing to lose by trying. But I do want to share part of our conversation, because I think it's telling.

Author: I was recently in a Barnes & Noble, my first time in years, and I saw huge display tables for EL James and Amanda Hocking. Legacy publishers really are good at getting the books they push onto the bookstore shelves.

Joe: For certain titles, yes they are. But how many customers in the bookstore did you see buying those books? How many customers were in the bookstore at all?

Ask yourself that. When was the last time you were in a bookstore? How many customers were there, buying books?

I've heard that 7 out of 10 books shipped get returned. I've seen bookstores close, and I've noticed space within the bookstores increasingly devoted to non-book items. And now publishers aren't even printing books anymore, they're signing ebook-only deals.

Tread lightly. There's a big difference between taking $1,000,000 because a publisher thinks you're the next James or Hocking, and taking $20,000 that you'll never earn out. If you're holding out for that million dollar deal without a track record to back it up, you might as well go buy a bunch of lottery tickets. And if you do have the track record to back it up, you have the power to negotiate a better deal, or to walk away and keep your rights.

A few weeks ago, I declared myself independent of legacy publishers. I'm reposting that here, for newbie authors to read, because whenever I post my numbers I get a whole bunch of new readers, and they need to see this.

The Declaration of Independence for Writers

When in the Course of publishing events, it becomes necessary for writers to sever their ties with the industry that is supposed to have "nurtured" them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel those writers to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all writers should have an equal chance to find readers. That their successes or failures should be dependent upon their own actions and their own choices. That they should be paid fairly for their work. That they should have control over the works they produce. That they should have immediate and accurate access to their sales data. That they should be paid promptly. That they should not be restricted from reaching those who may enjoy their work. That whenever a publisher becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of Authors to abolish all connections with the offending parties.

The history of the legacy publishing industry is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over writers. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have given us take-it-or-leave-it, one-sided, unconscionable contracts.
They have failed to adequately market works they have acquired.
They have artificially inflated the price of ebooks.
They have refused to negotiate better ebook royalties for authors.
They have forced unnecessary editing changes on authors.
They have forced unnecessary title changes on authors.
They have forced crappy covers on authors.
They have refused to exploit rights they own.
They have refused to return rights they aren't properly exploiting.
They take far too long to bring acquired works to market.
They take far too long to pay writers advances and royalties.
Their royalty statements are opaque, out-of-date, and inaccurate.
They orphan authors.
They orphan books.
They refuse to treat authors as equals, let alone with a reasonable measure of fairness.
They make mistakes and take no responsibility for those mistakes.
For every hope they nurture, they unnecessarily neglect and destroy countless others.
They have made accessories of the authors' ostensible representative organization, the quisling Authors Guild, and are served, too, by the misleadingly named Association of Authors' Representatives.
They have failed to honor promises made.
They have failed to honor their own onerous contract terms.
They've failed the vast majority of authors, period.

This blog has documented nearly every stage of these Oppressions, and in many cases offered solutions to publishers, and has been answered with only silence and derision.

But that's okay. Because now authors have a choice.

I don't need legacy publishing, and I will never be taken advantage of again. I declare myself independent of the entire archaic, broken, corrupt system.

And I won't be the last to do so.

Making the connection

Guest post by Kathryn Oliver

About 2 years ago, I had one of those ‘Eureka’ moments that totally changed my life. Genuinely. It was right up there with finding out about Oyster cards, or washing machines, or something.

At the time, I was a PhD student in my first year, working on a fairly standard project about developing health indicators. As a project, it was fine – about the use of evidence by policy makers, one of my main interests, and I was getting lots of experience in survey design. But for years, I’d been kicking round ideas in my head about the importance of personal relations. Didn’t they really explain nearly all human behaviour? Weren’t peer effects important for the spread of obesity or smoking? Wasn’t social capital important for mental health?

I’d been living on my own in London for a year or two and had found myself pondering the role of human relationships more and more. Of course, I had friends and relations, but I also liked being known by the man in the newsagents and the end of the road, and saying 'hi' to the neighbours. Did they count, I wondered? Would these relationships be enough to protect me from isolation, or going ballistic on the tube?

Imagine my delight when, attending a Social Network Analysis seminar day, run by the Mitchell Centre at the University of Manchester, I discovered an entire body of research – methods, philosophy, approaches – which looked at connections between individuals using formal statistical methods. Finding out that other people had had similar ideas to me, and had developed dedicated research methods to investigating these ideas was probably one of the best research moments I’ve ever had.

Unlike traditional statistics, network analysis does not treat individuals (whether bridges, policy makers, or swingers) as independent. Instead, any ties between actors are identified, described quantitatively and/or qualitatively and mapped. The statistics used are based on graph theory, but you don’t have to understand it to admire the elegance and usefulness of network analysis. Depending on the relationship collected, people’s attitudes, behaviours, health outcomes and more can be predicted.

For me, this is really the missing element from a lot of public health research. It can be used to identify good targets for research, or opinion leaders in secondary schools, so more targeted messages can be produced and sent out. It allows us to understand, describe, and analyse the social context within which individuals live. And, of course, make beautiful pictures. 

Example of Social Network Analysis diagram.

People have used network analysis to study all kinds of things – it’s very popular in the business world to identify ‘future leaders’ or ‘people who make things happen within my business’. Researchers have compared US senators voting patterns to cows who lick one another.

My PhD changed quite a lot after this seminar. I ended up using a combination of social network analysis and ethnography to study where public health policy makers found evidence, who the main sources of evidence were and how evidence was incorporated in the policy process. For years, academics in my field have been talking about the importance of interpersonal knowledge translation and how policy makers prefer to get their info from real people. Now I’ve been able to add my own tiny part of the story, come up with new research ideas on the basis of my findings, and learn a niche method (always useful).

My boyfriend still calls them snog webs though.

Criticism is your friend. I mean it. Really.

Guest post from Emily Murray

Ah, criticism. It is the architecture of the scientific process. Manuscripts are written describing hypothesis of the way we think the world works. But before our hypothesis can be transmitted to the world, we must submit these little pieces of ourselves to others to rip to shreds.

After we’ve re-written the manuscript a few times until it vaguely resembles the work of art we created before, we must submit it to a whole new group of ‘criticizers’, aka reviewers.

Where they commence to rip it to shreds as well.

If we’re lucky, when writing this manuscript (and hopefully 10 others) we discover a hole in the literature. And some twisted part of our brain thinks it would be a fantastic idea to spend six months, weekends and evenings included, turning that ‘hole in the literature’ into a 100-page document of why you are the best researcher ever and will cure all of the world’s ills with this one research project, aka a ‘grant proposal’.

Where they won’t even bother to rip it to shreds. They will only tell you that it did not score high enough to be ripped to shreds.

As you may or may not be able to tell…I hate criticism.

During my student days, I used to loath the days I would receive feedback from my mentor; praying that at least one page wouldn’t be covered in red track changes. Sometimes I would have day dreams where papers were returned to me in their original black-and-white pristine condition with only a note on top saying, “This is fantastic! You must submit this to the Lancet at once!”

But then something happened. My dream came true! (Well, minus the Lancet comment.) I sent out a paper to co-authors and most were returned with nary a comment. I started to think that maybe all of those hours of writing and re-writing and re-re-writing were starting to pay off. Maybe something had clicked in my brain over the last fortnight to push me from a ‘so-so writer’ into a ‘fantastic writer’. Malcolm Gladwell, eat your heart out.

Well, you can guess what happened when I submitted the paper to a journal.

It was rejected. 

*cue copious weeping* 

But seriously, there was definitely a lesson here: Lots and lots of criticism and feedback from mentor and co-authors equaled acceptance. Little to no criticism from mentor and co-authors equaled rejection.

No, the lesson is not that I suck as a writer and should take up a profession in travel photography instead (although this does sound quite attractive in the middle of a second revise and resubmit).

What I drew from this is that sometimes *wait for it* criticism can be a good thing. That criticism is an opportunity in disguise. A way for others to point out the weaknesses in our work, not because they hate us or think our work is appalling, but because they want to help us make it better. Or at least that’s the way I like to think about it.

For those new to this way of thinking, I present both my ‘old’ and ‘present’ way of reacting to certain criticisms:

1. The Grammar Police have gone through my paper with a vengeance. Commas, active verbs, plurals, and future conditional tenses are apparently problems for me.

‘Old’ reaction: Obviously, all previous English Teachers were lacking. I suck.

‘Present’ reaction: Find colleague who is also ‘Grammar Police’ and bribe them to read all future papers.

2. “I don’t understand why you XXX…”

‘Old’ reaction: Obviously, my ability to express my thoughts in plain English is lacking. I suck.

‘Present’ reaction: Realize that I didn’t do a good job of explaining that section. Read it out loud to myself. Or have someone read the section who has never read it before. Like my mother. Oh wait, she has heard it like 50 times before…on to the next guinea pig… 

3. “Have you thought about this? Or tried this? What happens?” 

‘Old’ reaction: Great, there goes my weekend running all of this analysis over again. They suck.

‘Present’ reaction: Ah, I didn’t think of that. Doing this extra work will help me better understand the patterns in my data.

4. “… [no comments]”

‘Old’ reaction: I am a genius.

‘Present’ reaction: Hm, I need to find someone to read this who is willing to rip me to shreds. My paper will be much better for it.

Interview with Marcus Sakey

Joe sez: I've known Marcus Sakey for years. He's a great guy, a great writer, and is currently doing something very worthwhile with his re-release of his ebook short story collection, Scar Tissue, now available on Kindle for $2.99.

One of the reasons I still blog is for occasions like this. A terrific book, and a terrific cause.

Joe Konrath: Scar Tissue contains some stellar short stories--stuff that really sticks with the reader months later. How did it come about?

Marcus Sakey:  It came about because I find writing short stories brutal.  They need to be so damn perfect.

With a novel, there’s a certain freedom to play.  You can try things: flirt with a style, dance with a quirk, toy with a notion.  Now, understand, I’m tenured faculty in the Kill Your Darlings School of Writing, so I believe that ultimately an experiment has to succeed to survive, and that failed attempts should be shot in the head and dumped in the garbage.  It’s just that the breadth of a novel gives you room to maneuver.

Short stories, on the other hand, are themselves an experiment.  By definition they are almost certain to leave a reader wanting.  They’re one night stands.  And so they have to be stellar, or all you’ll be left with is annoyance and regret and in the worst cases, blue balls.

I’ve written dozens of short stories.  There are exactly seven that I’m satisfied with.

And that’s ScarTissue.

Joe:  You’re doing something unusual with this release.  What is the Team Julian Foundation?

Marcus:  In 2010, two of the best people I know got unimaginable news: their four-year-old son had an incurable brain tumor. 

Julian Boivin was a superhero in training.  He was sweet and bright and joyful and incredibly tough.  He and his parents fought an epic battle: surgery, radiation, chemo, things no child should have to experience.  But in the end, cancer stole this beautiful boy.

Founded in his honor, the Team Julian Foundation is trying to give other kids a fighting chance. To help, I’m donating 50% of the proceeds from every copy of Scar Tissue sold to pediatric cancer research. 

Joe:  But that’s not all…

Marcus:  No.  For the next two weeks, I’m going to donate 100% of the profit.  Every cent from every sale.  The reason is simple: your blog.

I’ve been reading A Newbie’s Guide for six years.  I know how many readers you have, and how influential they are.  If we all pitch in, we’ll not only raise a lot of desperately needed funds, but hopefully build momentum that will encourage others to help.

So please,  if you’re reading this, consider buying the anthology.  It’s $3.  It’s not even a latte.  But every bit of the profit will go to helping kids like Julian.

Joe: And besides doing good, you get the book.  I’ve read it, and it gets my highest recommendation.  And others agree.

Marcus:  First off, thanks.  I’d say the check was in the mail, but I know you prefer payment in beer.  Which I admire.

The stories have been well-received, with a lot of critical praise and some Hollywood interest.  The most successful, “The Desert Here and the Desert Far Away,” was nominated for the Macavity and the Lovey, as well as being shortlisted as the best short story of 2009 by the International Thriller Writers.

But I think one of the most memorable honors I’ve received was for my shortest story ever, the 25-word tale “The Time Before the Last.”  The anthology that published it was used as source material for an artists’ competition, with individual painters choosing the story that moved them most.

Several people selected my story, and it was just the coolest thing to see artists take inspiration from a story I wrote and then go on to create something completely different. 

I tried to buy one the pieces, but they’d sold the opening night.  Which is pretty cool too.

Joe: What's your writing background?

Marcus:  Lying to people. 

For me specifically, it was advertising.  There’s no better way to prepare for writing about criminals and thieves than a job in advertising.

I enjoyed it for awhile, but the business eats its young, and one day I realized I was at best an appetizer.  So I decided to quit, and the next morning, I went to see my boss.  Before I could get a word in edgewise, he fired me.  With severance. 

Talk about a karmic kick in the pants.

Anyway, I threw myself into writing short stories—the fact that they need to be perfect is the exact reason you should start with them; you’ll miss more than you hit, but you’ll learn from the swing, and you can swing a lot—while taking classes towards an MFA.  My plan being that if I failed as a writer, I could become a teacher.

Then this hot-shit newcomer spoke to my class.  He was all fire and energy and system-breaking, and he laid some serious business on us: how the industry worked, the truth about money, the need for focus, the idea that you can either talk about wanting to be a writer or you can write.  After class, I asked if I could buy him a beer. 

Our bar tab, five hours later, was $96.  Joe let me pay.  Bastard. 

It was worth it.  I dropped out of my program and wrote my first novel.  The Blade Itself sold at auction, won some awards, and was bought for film by Ben Affleck.

Joe: I hope you wrote that off on your taxes. :)

Besides buying Scar Tissue, how can people contribute to the Team Julian Foundation?

There are a hundred ways.  For a checkbook liberal like me, the easiest is just that: write a check.  Team Julian is completely volunteer managed—Julian’s parents Brad and Nettie, along with their amazing friends, handle everything—so your money goes pretty much directly to pediatric cancer research.

But there are lots of other things you can do to help as well.  Check out TeamJulianFoundation.comfor more details.

Joe: I already have the ebook (hell, I wrote the foreword for it) so I just donated directly to Team Julian. If you have Scar Tissue, I invite you to do the same. If you don't have Scar Tissue, get it for $2.99 and as previously stated, Marcus will donate all profits to the foundation for two weeks, and after that half the profits, forever. Marcus's short fiction is every bit as good as his novels, which is to say it's spectacular.

Spread the word.

This is what evidence is made of

Posted by Jean Adams

I recently re-joined the systematic review club. I did a systematic review once. It was fine. I learnt how to do it, I did it, I published it. It was a good learning experience. Certainly good enough to learn that I didn’t need to do another one in a hurry. Or at least I didn’t need to do the nitty-gritty reviewing myself. But things happen and before you know it you’re second reviewer on a systematic review that you just can’t pass on to anyone else. 

I love a good (and sometimes not so good) radio drama

There are some jobs that were designed to be Friday afternoon jobs. Jobs that clearly need to be done, but that you don’t need to think too hard about. Jobs that you can do whilst catching up on BBC Radio 4 drama serials on the iPlayer. Reformatting the tables in your latest rejected manuscript to meet the exact, esoteric, requirements for the next journal in your list. Adding references from Endnote into Word.

I love a little pile of Friday afternoon jobs. As they don’t require much brain input, I find them easy to churn through and they make me feel unusually productive. Productive, unthinking, with added radio stories. Just what I need to end the week.

In contrast, other jobs are very clearly Tuesday morning jobs. Jobs that need sustained, un-interrupted thought. Jobs where even Radio 3 is intrusive. Drafting the justification section of grant applications. Deciding what exactly is the key message in your latest paper. Working out the analysis plan for the 3MB of data you’ve just received.

I don’t mind Tuesday morning jobs. If I have the time, the space, the right environment and am making progress, I really like the satisfaction of biting off big chunks of Tuesday morning jobs. In fact, high quality Tuesday mornings jobs are what keep me in the job.

I know some people don’t mind systematic reviewing. I know some people even positively enjoy systematic reviewing. These are wonderful people. We need systematic reviews and we need systematic reviewers. I am pleased to count systematic reviewers among my friends. But, really, I am not a systematic reviewer. I’m always happy to come up with the idea and justification for a systematic review on a quiet Tuesday morning. But the real-life screening and data extraction, bread and butter of systematic reviewing are not my bag at all.

The problem, I have decided, with systematic reviewing, is that it is neither a Friday afternoon job, nor a Tuesday morning job. You need to concentrate to decide if the paper you’re reading meets all of the inclusion criteria you’ve set. You can’t possibly listen to radio stories whilst you’re systematic reviewing. But you don’t really have to come up with any great new ideas. The ideas happened way back on a Tuesday morning in November when you drafted the protocol.

I procrastinate outrageously when I am systematic reviewing. I check Twitter. I make a cup of tea. I decide I’m procrastinating too much and that I must not do anything but review until I have reviewed 10 more papers. I wonder what’s happening in the tennis and convince myself that I’ll review much better if I just check the scores and get it out of my system. I think of blog posts I could write.

But, as I am slogging my way through and slowly passing papers from the ‘to screen’ to the ‘screened’ pile, I try and remember that it is systematic reviews that we hope might guide decisions; that this pain is what evidence is made of.

How To Keep Healthy Gums

Besides the teeth, gums also plays a very important role in terms of oral health as a whole. Dental hygiene is the best way to prevent gum disease and maintain healthy gums. Annual dental examination is important, but daily maintenance should also be considered to reduce the buildup of plaque and prevent gingivitis.







Gum problems most frequently experienced by patients was swollen and

Healthy Habits For Healthy Teeth

Healthy habits can prevent tooth decay. Damage to the teeth is usually associated with the habit of eating foods that contain sugar, such as candy and similar. In fact, any foods that contain carbohydrates can create cavities. How to get rid of it? Therefore, you must diligently perform dental care and make healthy habits to maintain healthy teeth. 







Here are the tips:



1. Eating a

On evidence

Posted by Simon Howard

In my first week at medical school, one of the professors warned that most of what we were to be taught was factually wrong. It was an arresting statement, but it may have been true: Studies have shown that textbooks and experts frequently lag behind evidence, sometimes recommending “treatments” that are actually known to be harmful.

Do Primary Care Trusts do the same? PCTs, like the one I work in, currently commission the majority of NHS services provided to patients in their catchment areas (though not for much longer). Sometimes, academics get frustrated with PCTs for seemingly doing things that either have little evidence, or appear to contradict it altogether. Given that evidence is the bedrock of public health, and given the potential for decisions to affect whole populations, this might seem worrying.

In defence of PCTs, a lot of evidence based work does happen. Most major pieces of work include a review of academic literature at an early stage, and follow the findings. The annual Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and regular detailed Health Needs Assessments also take into account published literature and local and national data in a fairly systematic way.

But there are lots of barriers to following the evidence. Books and books could be written on this topic, from the applicability of evidence in the real-world to deciding if research is really relevant to a particular population. But I’m no expert, and I’m not going to try and describe anything technical, complicated, or even remotely clever. These are just a few examples of practical barriers to following the letter of the academic evidence in public health.

One huge barrier is – as with most things in life – money. In a world of ever-tightening budgets, an academic’s seemingly reasonable intervention can be unaffordable. As an extreme example, research by the FAA and CAA suggests that three or four lives would be saved in an average aircraft fire if all passengers were provided with smoke hoods. However, the vanishing rarity of in-flight fires, the enormous cost of supplying and maintaining smoke hoods, and the cost of the fuel required to propel them around the world, all make this proposal financially unjustifiable.

Not all examples are quite so clear-cut. Sometimes, instead of choosing not to do something, PCTs try to cherry-pick the best bits of interventions in a way that is almost certainly infuriating to the academics who pioneered them, and possibly less effective in practice. But, sometimes, doing something is better than doing nothing.

Often, there can be a big lag between publication of evidence and its implementation. One reason is the complex contractual nature of commissioning: it’s often difficult to make small changes to services that have already been commissioned. The constant pressure to reduce costs incentivises longer contracts which spread the financial risk, but which also increase the evidence-practice lag. I’m sure it’s deeply frustrating to be an academic shouting “there’s a better way to do this” while services continue unchanged.

There’s also a political element to public health. Decisions to cut services that are no longer supported by evidence are particularly tricky. In England and Northern Ireland, the evidence that cervical screening in women under the age of 25 causes more harm than good has led to a withdrawal of the service in this age group. The clear evidence, combined with clear recommendations from the World Health Organisation and National Screening Committee hasn’t stopped this becoming a topic for political debate and petition, and hasn’t (yet) changed policy in Wales or Scotland. It seems likely that this political element will play a bigger part in decision making as public health moves to the overtly politicised world of local authorities.

To me personally, the most frustrating barrier to following the evidence is an inability to access it. It continues to baffle me that the NHS doesn’t have anything like the level of straightforward desktop access to literature that university colleagues have. In the 21st century, it seems crazy that I sometimes have to ask the BMA to take a paper journal off a physical shelf, scan it in, and email it to me as the only practical cost-effective way to access a paper that’s of general interest, rather than something specific to any individual project.

I think a latent awareness of what’s going on in academia is important in public health. It might not matter so much when someone’s doing a big literature review prior to introducing a new service, but it can help with horizon-scanning, and with those little every day decisions that aren’t worthy of a trawl though the literature, and with planning for the future. This is something we can all play a part in: public health professionals probably need to broaden their awareness of the academic things going on around them, and academics probably need to shout louder about the latest developments in their fields. As an associate member, I’m probably biased, but I think FUSE is great at helping both groups.

The Principle of Choosing Good Food For Babies

Food is very determine in growth and in the form of baby immune system. Babies grow faster than adults, and in any growth requires adequate nutrition. Rapid growth requires extra nutrition and good food. Food should be healthy, fresh and rich in nutrients that can form the baby's body to be perfect.







One should keep in mind that what is good for adults is not always good for the baby.

Tips on Choosing Healthy Carbs

Healthy Carbs, also called carbs with a low glycemic index because the process of changing into glucose more slowly. Excess healthy carb provide energy longer and do not cause sudden increases in blood sugar, contain fiber, vitamins, minerals higher. Healthy carbs is a source of good food for the body, both are in the process of dieting or not.







Healthy Carbs sources:

Brown rice, wheat,

Healthy Habits French People

France recognized having healthy habits that make citizens can enjoy life. The French are famous for its a slim body, skin face that fresh and smooth and easy to enjoy life. What is the secret of healthy French? Here are 7 tips on healthy habits French people:







1. Reduce the size of your portions



Compared to the Americans, the French have a size smaller portions. Style dining, the

Research, personal information, information governance etc.

Posted by Rose Watson

So, we all know about the Data Protection Act. 

We all know that if we want personal information about people (e.g. research participants) then we have to get ethical approval to obtain that information and that this  requires us to state how and where that information will be stored; who will have access to it; and what we will do with it. We have to promise to keep it confidential. We also have to inform our participants of the same details. This is particularly true if we require access to NHS patients or staff for our research. 

Firstly a favourable ethical opinion must be sought and there is a national system for this: the Integrated Research Application System. Secondly, each NHS Trust who will be involved in the research must validate something called a Research Passport, another national system (invented by Mr Bureaucracy, as written about by Bronia Arnott a short while ago). It basically boils down to this – if you are employed by a Higher Education Institute (HEI) you fill in some forms about yourself, you get a criminal records bureau (CRB) check to check that it is OK for you to work with children and/or vulnerable adults and you undertake an occupational health assessment. This is all signed off by the HEI human resources department and then sent off to the lead NHS Trust Research and Development Department to be validated. 

This protection of people is all good. I hope my personal details held by others are well guarded too. Nobody wants to think that the people and organisations we have trusted with our personal details will just go around giving them to anyone willy nilly. 

However, as researchers, we are expected to hand out our personal details on a regular basis, often in duplicate, without any information given to us about how it will be stored, who will have access, what it will be used for (although, it is implied that it will only be used to check you are suitable to work with children and/or vulnerable adults). This is all fine, I expect to give a certain amount of information about myself, I understand the need to safeguard people (and of course to not bring research into disrepute). 

It does worry me though. These are my personal details after all. Of course there are the issues with the system not being entirely followed and NHS Trusts obviously feel the need to cover their backs in case anything should go wrong, hence all of the duplication. Risk averse society and all that jazz. 

However, in the spirit of being risk averse, I would ask that my personal details are also treated carefully. With the same due respect I give to my research participants’ personal details. Unfortunately my details have now twice been lost in the post in this system. I would ask that people let me know why they are collecting information (especially details which are extra to the national Research Passport system); where they will store it (and please, a bit more information than ‘electronically’: what on earth does that mean?); and who will have access to it. These are simply the same questions that researchers must answer (and rightly so) when they ask people for personal details.

In short, it is perhaps time we were all a bit more conscious of the personal details that people are collecting about us as researchers. Do they really need ALL of that information? Why? What about how it is transported?

Rules for the perfect supervisor

Posted by Lynne Forrest

We’ve previously had two blog posts explaining what makes a perfect research student. It was hard to disagree with any of it really, but, it’s a two-way relationship and in the interests of fairness, we students now get to respond and say what we require in the perfect supervisor.

Disclaimer: these traits are desirable in a generic ideal supervisor and any resemblance to any actual Fuse/IHS supervisor should not be implied. The views and experiences reported here reflect a consensus of opinion derived from the student body and are not necessarily mine (I’d really like a reference and a job at the end of my PhD…)

So, assuming that we’ve now all become the perfect research student, what can be done to further improve the research experience? Although comments ranged from ‘my supervisors are brilliant’ to ‘my supervisors constantly have me in tears!’ some common themes did emerge.

These are the things we think you should do to become the perfect supervisor:

1. Set ground rules at the first supervision meeting so that everyone knows what is expected of them.

2. Don’t spread yourself too thinly. Although having a ‘big name’ supervisor can be useful to students in terms of being able to utilise your experience, knowledge and connections, if you are always too busy to deal with us then this is somewhat negated. Possibly appoint a more junior colleague as the main supervisor.

3. Prepare for meetings and actually read the documents that the student sends you. If we follow the rules and send a document well in advance but you still don’t read it then this is a hugely frustrating issue. There is a power imbalance in the PhD/supervisor relationship that needs to be acknowledged, but not exploited. If we keep to our side of the agreement, then please can you do the same?

4. Be supportive, approachable and understanding.

5. Be constructive and remind the student that your comments shouldn’t be taken personally. Criticism is fine as long as it is directed at the work rather than the person. A supervisory meeting is not an episode of ‘The Sweeney’ and you need never adopt the ‘bad cop’ role…(unless, of course, this has been agreed in 1.)

6. Promote a healthy work/life balance. 

Promote a healthy work/life balance

7. Forward any opportunities that you think might be relevant to the student. Please don’t just assume that we’ll know what is possible. For example, it was suggested that students should offer to supervise an undergraduate dissertation but I don’t think anyone knew that was even an option for PhDs. It’s hard to be proactive with things you know nothing about. Similarly with teaching opportunities.

8. Deal with each student as an individual. As one student eloquently put it ‘we’re like unique little snowflakes’! A one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work here. A mature student may need different handling to a younger one. However, on saying that you also need to…

9. Ensure equality of opportunities. Make sure that ALL students know what is available.

10. If you are not the main supervisor you still need to turn up for meetings occasionally. It’s very embarrassing when a student says hello to you in passing and you have no idea who they are. If you really aren’t interested in doing it then please hand the role to someone else.

11. Give lots of clear feedback. And if possible always try to end a supervisory meeting on a positive note. If your student constantly exits in tears then something has gone very wrong somewhere…

12. Sort out any supervisory disagreements outside the meeting. And don’t talk about other stuff over your student’s head. We only get an hour a month so let’s talk about us and our lovely project…

And I could go on and on….there was lots more! Do you agree? Please feel free to comment.

8 Tips For a Healthy Baby

Healthy baby is every mother's dream. A healthy baby will grow strong and active in the future. In order to keep your baby healthy, as parents need to pay attention to specific things that are useful for the growth and development of baby.







Here are tips for a healthy baby:



1. Give of exclusive breastfeeding



Breast milk contains many substances that can enhance antibody immunity of

7 Healthy Snack Foods For Kids

There are lots of snacks which are favored by children, but select the healthy snacks for their growth. Your parents must be observant and watch out for kids snacks, as some snacks contain substances harmful to the body as well as for the development of children.



The first thing parents should consider is a snack food manufacturer, because a lot of snack food manufacturers, especially the

Get Over Yourselves

Updated below.

I had a long talk with a friend last night, and we realized something obvious.

Amazon allows one star reviews. 

In other words, the existing system allows and encourages people to publicly trash books. 

Reread that sentence. Just about every book has one star reviews. So there are, quite literally, MILLIONS of one star reviews.

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. Someone yelling to the world "Don't buy this!"

This is why I don't leave one star reviews. I think it is a shitty, mean thing to do.

But it's allowed.

If it was wrong to trash a book, it wouldn't be allowed. Like murder isn't allowed. Our society doesn't allow murder.

But society does allow people freedom of speech. And that includes the right for people to offer their opinions. Even anonymously. Even stupid opinions. Even biased opinions. Even opinions with agendas.

Recently, three authors were exposed using an existing system--one built upon the very principle of people voicing their opinions--to their advantage, and they're branded immoral and beyond reproach.

Sorry, no.

Ellory did a shitty thing, and because he didn't sign his name to his reviews he was also cowardly, but what he did wasn't any different than what millions of other one star reviewers did and continue to do.

Ellory didn't want people to buy his rivals' books. He wanted them to buy his books. That was his agenda.

He's allowed his agenda. And I'll defend his right to do things like that, even if I wouldn't do it.

If I have a bad meal at a restaurant, I'd warn my friends not to go there. I'm deliberately preventing that restaurant from making money. That is my agenda.

And if I warned my friends to avoid a restaurant I never ate at, I'd be doing the same thing, except I'd be a dick.

And if I owned a restaurant, and publicly denounced other restaurants, I'd also be a dick. (Or an advertiser using Pepsi Challenge rules.)

There are dicks on the Internet! Gasp! Circle the wagons, Pa!

As I said, I don't leave one star reviews. I think trashing books is shitty. That's my personal opinion.

But if you want to throw Ellory under the bus, you need to condemn the millions of others who give malicious one star reviews, and then condemn the system for allowing it.

If you want to throw Locke under the bus, you need to condemn the millions of others who give unsubstantiated five star reviews, and then condemn the system for allowing it.

If you want to throw Leather under the bus, you need to condemn the millions of others who use sock puppets and post anonymously, and then condemn the system for allowing it.

And if that's what you're trying to do, condemn the entire system, then you are a pinhead condemning what comes down to personal freedoms, and showing you have zero faith in writers or readers.

No reader automatically believes every review they come across. Before all this uproar, there have always been fishy one star and suspect five star reviews. Reviews are a tool readers use, and Amazon has done all it can to give readers more tools to judge their veracity--comments, likes, verified purchases, etc.

We may not approve of an author leaving one star reviews, or buying reviews, or using fake names. Personally, I don't approve of authors trashing me on Twitter, posting anonymously on my blog, or getting a ton of coop money and front page NYT ads while I get none.

I don't think it's fair.

Boo hoo, poor me.

That's the sum total of this scandal. Some authors bitching that other authors aren't playing fair.

GET OVER IT.

Let's all gather together in self-righteous solidarity and change Amazon, then change the whole Internet, then change the behavior of every single person on the planet, so everyone plays fair!

Good luck with that. Especially since everyone's definition of "fair" is different.

It is my opinion that 95% of one star reviews are shitty. But because I don't like something, or because I wouldn't personally do something, doesn't mean I need to go on a holy quest to punish those who displease me, and gather up a lynch mob of like-minded hysterics.

Reviews and the reviewing system have never been some sacred act beyond reproach.

Pinheads have dumb opinions, and the Internet lets them shout their dumb opinions without any fear of repercussion. We're all free to condemn whoever we want to condemn, and be outraged by whatever gets us off.

Right now I'm outraged at all the unwarranted outrage.

Locke didn't hold the world hostage by threatening it with nuclear annihilation to get people to buy his books. He bought reviews which MAY have lead more people to buy his books.

Leather didn't put on a mask to hide his identity and then go on a bank robbing spree. He used a fake identity to make fun of people who were making fun of him.

Ellory didn't go into a rival's house and beat him to death with a hammer. He left one star reviews, which MILLIONS OF OTHERS DO.

But Joe! If this kind of behavior is allowed, the system will devolve into chaos and madness! Madness I say! MADNESS!!!!

Don't be a pinhead. This kind of behavior IS ALLOWED RIGHT NOW, and has been allowed for decades. Every book has one star reviews. There are millions of one star reviews. I'd bet there are also millions of fake reviews. And millions using sock puppets. Just because three authors were discovered doing what millions already do, within a few days of each other, doesn't mean the system is going to hell.

The system works fine. We're all able to sell books, even when some pinhead gives us one star reviews.

We're all not in danger of losing our morals. But we are in danger of losing our perspective.

Amazon, and the Internet, and the Bill Of Rights, allow free speech. Even anonymous free speech. Even speech we don't like.

That petition was stupid. This whole issue is stupid. The hysteria is unwarranted. This is just a self-righteous mob who feels the need to jerk off in public by pointing fingers and declaring themselves superior.

This sums it up:

Addendum

I published an earlier version of this blog inadvertently while I was still tweaking it. The previous opening was:

Buying reviews isn't wrong. Using sock puppets isn't wrong. Leaving fake one star reviews isn't wrong.

It's shitty, and I wouldn't do it. And that's how I'm able to prove I'm right.

Amazon allows one star reviews. In other words, the existing system allows and encourages people to publicly trash books. 

Here's a snapshot of that earlier version.

I don't believe that was as strong an opening as my current one, but I still stand by those words.

You either believe in freedom of speech, and allow people to say things within a system where freedom is allowed, or you try to police the system, which is impossible and also very wrong.

Get it? It isn't wrong to speak your mind. It's wrong to not allow people to speak their mind.

That's the problem with democracy. People do things we don't like them doing. But it beats the alternative, doesn't it?

Calling an action wrong because you wouldn't do it is bad logic. There are certain legal sex acts I wouldn't do. I don't condemn them as being wrong. It just isn't my thing.

In the comments, people are trying to say that fraud was involved.

They're wrong.

Fraud involves damages. No one was damaged here. Amazon allows one star reviews, so that doesn't count as damage. Amazon allows book returns for full refunds. So again, no damage. People call each other names all the time on the internet. That's allowed.

Show me every paid review is a lie. Hint: they aren't.

Show me people bought books based on lies. Hint: people buy books for lots of reasons.

Show me that people who felt duped were prevented from getting full refunds and then leaving negative reviews of their own. Hint: Anyone can do this.

Show me one star reviews harm authors. Hint: Amazon allows one star reviews.

In the comments one of the authors who created the petition is insisting it isn't a mob action. Here is my reply:

When there is a call for many to condemn the behavior of three, I am comfortable calling that a mob.

When that call for action has media coverage, it makes me even more suspect.

When that call to action involves moral superiority, it clinches the deal.

You're part of a mob, whether you intended it or not.

You're signaling out three people for scorn and ridicule and humiliation, whether you intended it or not.

The wording of your petition sucks, whether you intended it or not.

I pick on groups. Big groups who do authors harm.

I don't pick on authors behaving badly.

I'm fine with going against a mob of 400 even though it is an incredibly unfair, one-sided fight. (Hint: you'll need at least 500 more signatures before I'd consider us evenly matched.)

But I'm not okay picking on individual writers.

Say I took every negative thing you've ever said on the Internet, strung it all together in a blog post, then rallied my large readership to publicly condemn you, then called my vast media contacts to join in the excoriation.

That's what your mob is doing. And it doesn't matter if that wasn't your intent.

Update #2

So let me sum this up, because I seem to be getting misunderstood a lot.

If someone buys reviews, I don't care. I don't value reviews enough to pay for them, so I wouldn't do this. I see a very thin line between asking for honest reviews with the reviewer disclosing they'd been paid, and a review where the reviewer discloses nothing, doesn't even read the book, and gives it five stars. I believe readers are savvy enough to figure out which reviews are worth listening to, and how much they affect their buying decision. Considering that readers can download free samples, return the book for a refund, and post reviews of their own (along with comments and like/dislike buttons), I think Amazon is doing all it can to make the system fair. They don't police reviews, and that's a good thing.

If someone gives me a one star review, I don't care. Doesn't matter if they read the book or not, or use a fake name or not. All one star reviews intend to hurt sales. Amazon allows them, and there are millions of them, yet people still buy books.

If someone posts anonymously or uses false names, I don't care. Anyone who has been on the Internet for more than ten minutes soon learns to distrust everyone and everything. The web, by its very nature, is much different than communicating face to face. People say and do things on the net they'd never do in person. Reasonable people understand this, and are automatically wary.

I don't give one star reviews, use sock puppets, or pay for reviews. I understand how my peers might think these things are unfair. They may be unfair. But they aren't serious, and they aren't automatically morally wrong, because they are a by product of free speech. Just because I wouldn't do them doesn't mean I have the right to prevent all others form doing them. That road is a dangerous one to walk, because it leads to sanctimony, witch hunts, censorship, overreacting, hate groups, and mobbing.

Everyone is allowed to be upset about whatever they want to be upset about. But publicly humiliating these three for their minor transgressions is silly. The press covering this is no different than the tabloids printing pictures of drunk celebrities.

I think witch hunters and muck rakers are scum. Humiliating a peer so you can get your name in the paper is pathetic. Exposing author dishonesty, when dishonesty abounds in the publishing industry, is hypocritical. My previous posts have shown that there is no such thing as universal morality, and we all do various questionable things in our careers.

Last, and certainly least, I do finally understand why some authors are so pissed off. Someone just emailed me Nielsen Bookscan number scans of several authors who signed the petition. Wow. I've sold more books in a week than they've sold in years. No wonder they're upset at me, Locke, and Leather.

I'm sorry, guys. I really am. I'm sure your books are good, and I say that with utmost sincerity even though (full disclosure) I haven't read them. But maybe you guys should stop spending so much time on social networks spewing hateful nonsense, and more time on your careers.

I've heard that self-publishing pays 70% royalties and you can set your own prices. If you need pointers, I have a lot of them on my blog. If you have any specific questions, email me. I get a lot of email, but I am being completely honest when I say I'll help you if I can. Seriously. The legacy system is screwing you, just like it screwed me, and you have my sympathy. And you can go right on hating me even though I'll help you.

Ebooks aren't a zero sum game. I wish you nothing but success.