Live data from Hacker News

The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

fastcompany.com

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#81
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that he's on the news the patent trolls will get to him. Wait and see...

The article is from 2013. We've already waited and seen. They're still around, and no reports of them being sued.

Yeah... I guess you're right.

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#82
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anker instantly offers free replacements to anyone who posts a bad review.

It seems that policy could backfire? Eventually, they're basically subsidizing the production of bad reviews.

Possibly, depending on what rate this is happening. I'd wager that this gets them brownie points with the public, similar to a "connect with fans" approach. Chalk it up to a form of marketing and budget it that way.

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#83
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

au contraire: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00TQ5TDLC

Note that the most helpful review is someone who did not buy one. Same with the second. And the third. > Sample provided for review. > Got this at no cost for unbiased review. > *I received a sample product from Ivation. Reviews are much more scattered if you filter by "Verified purchase only". It's interesting that this drops the number of reviews from 165 to 104 for a product which is designed for and presumably so…

From what I can remember, Amazon has always been full of mostly useless reviews. Disclosing that products were provided for free does little to change that. About the only thing that does is let the parties involved "white wash" their hands of ethical issues.

Occasionally, there will be a shining star. Recently I ordered an AIO printer and a reviewer had a fairly comprehensive reviews on multiple models, almost at a short article length.

Music seems to be one category where I sometimes find value in the reviews. It seems like people are more forthcoming about their music tastes, even though subjective, than what they think about utilitarian products.

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually both. Religious nepotism often requires discrimination based on religion.

Jewish isn't a race. It isn't necessarily racial discrimination to just hire Jewish people (a Jewish person can be white, black, whatever). Is it discrimination based on religion? Obviously.

I'm not sure it is though. If you have a tight nit community, and you tend to hire those you know best... In that case the filter isn't religion, it's social familiarity.

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#85

Now this is a capitalist. This guy is what happens when you make it easy for someone to go make a new-and-improved product.

I say Amazon is the real capitalist in this story.

Perhaps entrepreneur is a better word for what this guy's doing, but capitalism at its best encourages people to make what people need.

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#86
post #24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely ignore amazon reviews. They are mostly bogus these days. Unless you can find 3 star reviews, I usually read those.

If you think a review is bogus you could always click the "no" button to indicate that the review is not helpful. You can also report the review and tell Amazon that you think the review is bogus. Do you have any data to back up the claim that most of the recent reviews are bogus?

"Do you have any data to back up the claim that most of the recent reviews are bogus?"

Yes, after buying numerous products with great ratings and discovering that the people who rated the product negatively were often right about their complains.

From what I have seen people don't put to much effort to praise products, however they take the time to complain when they feel unsatisfied or burnt by a product.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone but this methods has worked rather well for me.

Re: The Amazon Whisperer (2013)

#87
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a race as we contemplate race in its current definition, it would be on the government form I posted. It isn't. It's not a race like that (nor, really, in any other way). Yes, some Jews have a common genetic pattern. Many don't. Either you're talking about the religion, which is clearly not a race (as you said). Or you're talking about a group that generally shares the same religion, that descended from a f…

Finally, a comment with some specific counterpoints. I appreciate it. So, you're saying that many works just wrongly conflate concepts of a group and race to the point that there's a misconception about the existence of a Jewish race? Also, given the form, that there are only 5 races in existence?

Sorry for taking forever to reply.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I think the 5 races on the form conform to my understanding of race, so I think that part is right as well.

I guess fundamentally I can't wrap my head around the idea of identifying a religious group and calling that a race. As I mention, we don't do it with any other religious group, so why Jews?

Post reply on HN