Some Amazon Reviews Are Too Good to Be Believed – They're Paid For - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/629800775/some-amazon-reviews-are-too-good-to-be-believed-theyre-paid-for <comment><USER3> I've been burned multiple times by this; the worst was a pair of remote control off-road trucks for my sons' Christmas presents. They had hundreds of 5-star reviews and both units worked for maybe 5 minutes each. Within days of Christmas, the listing was flooded with 1-star reviews from other conned parents with very similar stories.

The number of products impacted _must_ be far over the 1% claimed. There are whole categories that have been ruined by Fake China and kids' toys is probably the worst. Headphones, as mentioned by another commenter here, are another.

This problem is quickly destroying Amazon's credibility with a lot of customers. I went to a Best Buy for the first time in a decade to buy a pair of iPhone headphones, just so I'd be assured a genuine product. I now buy my kids' toys at Target, just so I can be assured that there's a reasonable chance that they aren't crap.

<comment><USER4> I can handle getting some crappy set of headphones but a big let down for a child's Christmas is just so upsetting to a point that maybe I've got unaddressed issues. I have a toddler and I think I'll gladly pay the premium to buy Toys R Us stuff I can touch and play with in the store.

<comment><USER5> > Toys R Us

Um, I have some bad news for you.

<comment><USER4> They seem to be strong here in Canada. I hope that lasts. Walmart is the only other option and it's not really an enjoyable experience.

<comment><USER6> Hilariously, ToysRUs are still big in China. Lots of kids and parents shopping. How did the vultures only get the US stores?

<comment><USER7> They got the UK stores too. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Our approximation is that less than 1 percent of reviews are inauthentic"

Get the hell outta here. Look at literally any product and you'll see a plethora of obviously fake reviews. The worst I've noticed? Check out headphones. 500+ 5 star reviews for cheap Chinese products all over the place. In fact, anything that's around 500 5 star reviews is probably mostly fake reviews.

<comment><USER9> Worse still, Amazon will delete authentic reviews that contain information they don't like. For instance, I started working my way through all of the batteries on Amazon (top review on this product, for instance: [https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B009PPR5OU/](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B009PPR5OU/) ), and Amazon deleted them from multiple products because of the table with cost/battery data (which is extremely relevant when reviewing a commodity product like Alkaline batteries). I got pissed off and quit reviewing stuff on Amazon unless it sucked (or in rare cases where a chinagarbage product and/or seller exceeded my expectations).

<comment><USER10> Additionally they delete reviews of the same product if distinct people are deemed to be somewhat connected or deemed to be in one household.

So if you and your spouse like to keep their own opinions and review separately never connect your accounts in any way.

<comment><USER11> Unless you both have different billing and shipping addreses, your accounts are already "connected" in their system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anecdata, sample size 1.

I bought some toy for a toddler. Upon receiving it, I realized that the description was misleading; many of the "pieces" they had listed boldly were just cheap plastic pieces of crap that had no useful functionality.

So I returned it, and wrote a 1-star review.

A few weeks later, I got an email from them: they were offering $30 if I took down the review. I ignored the email.

Several weeks later, another email: this time offering $40.

And so on.

Their latest email is offering me $70 to take down the review. I still haven't.

I'd forward the email to Amazon if (a) I knew they'd do something, and, more importantly, (b) I knew WHERE to send it!

Basically, Amazon has no interest in making sure that the reviews are not being gamed. Since the email goes through Amazon servers, _they should be able to at least make an attempt at catching such people!_

<comment><USER13> >> Basically, Amazon has no interest in making sure that the reviews are not being gamed

I don't agree. First of all, these fake reviews are bad for Amazon's reputation and thus for their business. Second, these frauds lead to people returning their items to Amazon. I do not know how Amazon settles this with the original seller but I'd imagine that in the end Amazon will not make any profit on the whole transaction, or even a loss.

<comment><USER14> I still haven't found a feedback mechanism where you can say "I suspect it is fake".

I'm not buying on marketplace anymore, except if I can't find the product anywhere else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's common knowledge among most techies that the majority of Amazon reviews are fake and that counterfeit items are a big issue, but most of the general population is completely unaware. I was searching for an inexpensive pair of polarized sunglasses last week and the "Amazon Recommended" ones had an F on FakeSpot with 70%+ fake reviews.

<comment><USER16> How legitimate is FakeSpot though? I find nearly everything has an F with a high amount of fake reviews when I use it.

<comment><USER17> I checked your comment and it was an F with 83% fake on FakeSpot.

 __Edit: I was paid for writing this review.

<comment><USER18> I checked FakeSpot with FakeSpotFakeSpot, a website to check the authenticity of fake-review spotting websites, and it received an A with 99% authenticity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There will always be a desire to pay for reviews, since 70%-80% of shoppers check reviews before buying[0][1] (and growing[2]).

Amazon could help fix this problem by creating "sponsored" reviews. This way a company can pay for reviews in a non-scummy way, a reviewer (and Amazon) gets paid, and a customer can tell whether the review was paid for or not.

Or just pass laws to regulate reviews.

0\. [http://www.peopleclaim.com/blog/index.php/the-review-of- rati...](http://www.peopleclaim.com/blog/index.php/the-review-of-ratings/)

1\. [https://www.chainstoreage.com/news/study-81-research- online-...](https://www.chainstoreage.com/news/study-81-research-online- making-big-purchases/)

2\. [https://deloitte.wsj.com/cmo/2016/11/01/media-device- habits-...](https://deloitte.wsj.com/cmo/2016/11/01/media-device-habits-of- the-modern-consumer/)

<comment><USER20> Amazon has done this for years now. It's call Amazon Vine. Select Amazon customers with high review ratings are given free* products for which they have to give unbiased reviews. It's both sponsored by Amazon as well as various manufacturers.

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help](https://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help)

It has mixed results. Amazon is upfront about Vine reviewers getting free product and resulting reviews have a Vine tag on top. Customers tend to not like Vine reviews vs verified purchase reviews. While there are negative Vine reviews, most are positive. It may be due to a psychological quid pro quo, since you tend to get more products from the same manufacturer if you offer positive reviews vs negative ones. It's just really hard to be unbiased when you keep getting "free" stuff from one of your favorite companies.

*It's taxable according to Amazon's cost in most cases so you get to figure out Amazon's margins for a lot of products. If it's manufacturer sponsored, then the item isn't taxable as income. Food and similar products are also not considered taxable.

<comment><USER21> Why would companies know who's getting their products to review and why would reviewers know which products they're getting? I feel like an easy fix for this is to have the company send the product to Amazon first and then have Amazon handle the distribution to reviewers. There's no "quid pro quo" if there's no incentive to review a product favorably.

That's why Consumer Reports was so successful in the past. Their reviews were completely unbiased because the draw was in people paying to get thorough, objective reviews of products.

Now that revenue comes from ads and manufacturers all over the internet, it's hard to find reviews that aren't paid ads.

<comment><USER22> While product-for-reviews have a certain conflict of interest, I know quite a few people (including myself) who write reviews of both products we receive for free and products we pay for who give honest opinions. If I agree to let you send me a product, I'll write a review but you won't like my review if I don't like your product.

<comment> james-skemp When I first joined Vine a long time ago I think you had to have passed a certain threshold for number and quality (based upon helpful votes) before you were offered a place. That definitely changed over the last couple of years.

Once it opened up to people that had never left reviews, naturally the quality is going to drop by some amount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> And I've had issues trying to leave less than perfect reviews - seems like only _after_ I spend time typing up the review (and sometimes uploading photos) does Amazon come back and say, sorry can't publish this.

Seems like a dark pattern to encourage only positive reviews.

[http://www.netinstructions.com/amazon-dark- patterns/](http://www.netinstructions.com/amazon-dark-patterns/)

<comment> y-c-o-m-b YES! I have this happen to and notice the same patterns. I honestly think there is grounds for a lawsuit here. Whether or not that would be a successful lawsuit is another question, but the threat of one could get Amazon to change its tune.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Reviews", in general, are absurdly misleading on any site; Amazon is just prominent.

I've given real reviews on Yelp of businesses that had real problems. These negative ratings were shuffled off into their special bucket of maybe-less- reliable reviews, well under pages of HIGHLY questionable 5-star reviews. I also have a friend with a business who was plainly told that he needs to pay to ensure good reviews. Yelp is a scam, and wins by being a virtual monopoly (as Amazon reviews do).

It is also _amazingly_ hard to get reviews on the App Store from real users, for instance. I imagine you pretty much have to ask 60 friends to "help" you, or pay somebody, either of which creates a pool of fake reviews. It really changes your perspective on any other "ratings" you see.

In the end, I think society will learn that this is another example of buyer beware, and you get out of it what you put into it. Since looking over "reviews" for 30 seconds is low-effort, it is low-value. If you want _good_ results, you need to spend a good amount of time and effort researching products.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This topic keeps coming up in the news, and I've altered my shopping habits because of it. The competition has gotten tougher with Google Express, Walmart delivery and pickup, Target pickup, etc. When I order from one of them or make a trip to the store, I can at least verify the item I'm purchasing is from the manufacturer.

When looking at the reviews on Amazon, countless times I've seen reviewers mention to not buy the item from a particular seller because it was not genuine or was defective. If I'm not sure about the brand, I'll search it to see if its legitimate and if there are reviews/complaints on other sites. I'll also use buying guides when determining what to buy instead of Amazon reviews.

<comment><USER25> Makes me wonder how many of those guides have been paid for, or at least what level of influence advertisers have on them. Nevertheless, I agree that a quality guide is well appreciated, however hard to come by.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many "guides" just end up being affiliate marketing link aggregators. I appreciate The Wirecutter's About[1] page where they tell how they review products.

[1][https://thewirecutter.com/about/](https://thewirecutter.com/about/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm not really sure why there are any _real_ reviews on sites like Amazon, Yelp etc. Why do people leave reviews; what's in it for them? Is it some strange form of altruism where they're helping their fellow anonymous shopper while also helping out one of the world's most successful megacorporations?

Writing this comment has made me re-think why I'm writing this comment.

<comment><USER27> I tend to leave a review when something is better than expected or if I'm disappointed enough to do so. I'll also occasionally leave a review of something if I'm prompted, but that more depends on whim. I also am likely to leave a review on products that are occasional purchases - small kitchen appliances. This is because I personally find these helpful when sourced from multiple places.

I rarely leave a review for average products. There is rarely a good way to communicate to folks that the product simply met expectations. For example, if I buy a bag of coffee that I've purchased before and I get said coffee, there isn't much I can say. "I bought this because I find this coffee good enough to buy a second time. It isn't my favorite, but it is good and my average quality of coffee. Package was undamaged and contained the expected coffee".

That isn't exactly a 5 star review, yet if I give 3 or 4 it seems to be a ding on the company. I'd rather not, thank you.

<comment><USER28> > I tend to leave a review when something is better than expected or if I'm > disappointed enough to do so.

And that's the problem with user reviews. They emphasize the extreme ends of the spectrum. There's little incentive to leave a review for the potentially silent majority of moderate users that are simply satisfied with the product.

<comment><USER27> It is, and it is something that could be solved simply by asking the right questions instead of the overall review on a number (or star) scale. I hardly think simple satisfaction warrants a 5-star review, but I think if I just put 3-star, it might hurt the company... or waitress, or whatever. It isn't _sane_ , and I'd almost argue that there is a disincentive to leave a moderate review. It is the same for store satisfaction surveys and many more - I know folks get penalized for not having overly good results.

But if they simply asked if it was what I was expecting and had reasonable options - along with not punishing folks for simply delivering what I expect - I'd answer yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've been using [https://www.fakespot.com](https://www.fakespot.com) to flag bullshit reviews for a few months now. After many happy purchases informed by its review analysis, I believe it works.

<comment><USER30> How can we believe you?

<comment><USER29> : )

Well don't take it on trust, validate it works. And keep validating it still works, because one day it won't. Everyone seems to sell out in the end.

<comment><USER31> It's impossible to validate. Further for all we know Fakespot (which curiously has been mentioned multiple times) might itself be a fake that undermines products that are sponsored, etc. It probably isn't, I'm just saying.

<comment><USER32> But how can I trust what you're saying? What if you've been paid off by Fakespot?

<comment><USER33> That's why I'm launching my new website, SpotFakeFakeSpot, which helps spot fake fake review spotting sites. I got the idea from my time as a sales rep selling radar detector detectors to police departments.

<comment><USER34> Thanks.

I had no idea there's a full scale electronic war on the streets of my city.

<comment><USER33> You have no idea, man. Radar detectors these days even have radar detector detector detectors built in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Hmm, I had (apparently wrongly) assumed this had become common knowledge.

Now I am beginning to wonder what percentage of people are aware of this issue.

On a different note, I saw elsewhere (Axiom perhaps? I cannot remember) that amazon claimed it was only roughly 1% of all reviews that were paid for. Which based on my past experience in E-Commerce, seems significantly lower than would be estimates.

<comment><USER36> > Hmm, I had (apparently wrongly) assumed this had become common knowledge.

me too. maybe NPR is behind the times. also: Amazon is a sponsor of NPR (just sayin')

> amazon claimed it was only roughly 1% of all reviews that were paid for.

yes. that's right. the 1% figure also appears in the NPR article:

"Our approximation is that less than 1 percent of reviews are inauthentic," says Sharon Chiarella, vice president of community shopping at Amazon.

<comment><USER37> Even if we make the (dubious, imo) assumption that the low 1% figure is accurate, it can still be a huge problem.

There are 480 million products on Amazon, many in somewhat obscure categories. Seems that if the fake reviews are simply concentrated in a popular 1% slice, we've got almost 5 million popular products with ~~100% fake reviews.

Obviously oversimplified, but the likelihood is that the reviews are sufficiently concentrated to be a problem using their own figures, and the real figures are likely higher

<comment><USER38> I would not assume that. The impact of a paid review decreases as the number of reviews increases. ie it probably better to pay for reviews for a low volume or new product

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Last night I finally abandoned a book that was absolute trash, but had 83% 5-star reviews on Amazon. Looking at the reviews now, I see that most of them are written by people who only write 5-star reviews (it has an F-rating on Fakespot). Feeling like kind of a dummy right now.

<comment><USER40> Name and shame!

<comment><USER41> The Art of the Deal has an F, with 57% low quality reviews.

"Our engine has profiled the reviewer patterns and has determined that there is high deception involved."

<comment><USER41> Hmmm...can't edit, but: I just looked at this again, and it's interesting to note that the Kindle version has an A rating and the print version has an F rating, even though they appear to share the same set of reviews.

Scroll down to see the first two entries in the product list here: [https://www.fakespot.com/company/donald-j- trump](https://www.fakespot.com/company/donald-j-trump)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> One of the many reasons I let my Amazon Prime subscription expire last month.

Amazon is selling convenience. But it's not convenient to:

1\. Filter out products full of Vine program reviews, which I believe are completely skewed due to the reviewers receiving the products for free

2\. Read between the lines to filter out paid/bias reviews that are NOT part of the Vine program

3\. Research to ensure the product itself is not fake or counterfeit

Feel like I'm shopping at the shadiest flea market in town.

</comment><comment><USER43> I usually just ignore 5-star and 1-star reviews. Many of five stars are either fake or people who just bought the product and are too excited to leave an unbiased review. Many of one stars are from people who are not satisfied with the purchase process (slow delivery / fake reviews / broken item), so they leave bad review that doesn't really reflect product quality itself.

<comment><USER44> I rarely leave reviews, but there has been a case where I had to threaten to sue a company before they'd hold up their end of an agreement. And 'threatening' is not just mentioning "I'll sue you!" but actually researching applicable law, what prerequisites I needed to be able to sue (e.g. I needed to hire a debt collector first, which would have cost me money as well), applicable court, what the bailiff would cost, court fees, etc. Some fourty phone calls and a few emails and letters later, spread out over half a year, I finally got the money back on the day before I would have had grounds to sue them. That was more than half a year of stress and them having both the product and my money. To be honest it was kind of disappointing that they paid up in the end, as I was finally well-prepared and wanted them to have to pay the fees that debt collection etc. would have incurred.

You bet that after it was all over and done, I wrote that one-star review. While writing it, I noticed that other people had the same issue. One person also had to cite court fees before they paid up, and some others didn't know enough about applicable law or had amounts that were just too low to go to court over (like $50-$250). I usually don't put much stock in such reviews, but it turns out I should have read and considered them.

There are definitely legitimate cases for one-star reviews.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> _According to outside auditors like Fakespot and ReviewMeta, more than half the reviews for certain popular products are questionable. Amazon disputes those estimates.

"Our approximation is that less than 1 percent of reviews are inauthentic," says Sharon Chiarella, vice president of community shopping at Amazon. She adds that "sometimes individual products have more suspicious activity."_

The disparity in what outside services observe and users experience vs. what Amazon claims, and the increasing press coverage and online discussion of the problem, will force Amazon to take increasingly drastic measures to crack down on bogus reviews.

There is also the issue of increasing levels of returns for 5-star crap. But, while Amazon can absorb the costs of returns, Bezos truly hates negative press, and the Amazon PR machine will go to great lengths to get high-profile news orgs repeating the official Amazon line.

If they can't tamp down negative coverage, the best hope for generating positive press is to announce action - a crackdown, lawsuits against fake reviewers, or other evidence that they are "doing something" about the issue. Unfortunately for Amazon, they've done this in the past (1, 2) and the problem appears to have gotten worse.

1\. October 2015: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/18/amazon- su...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/18/amazon- sues-1000-fake-reviewers)

2\. April 2016: [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-sues- all...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-sues-alleged- providers-of-fake-reviews/)

<comment><USER46> > _Bezos truly hates negative press_

I'm not sure that's true. I think they pride themselves on not worrying about being understood, in other words, not pandering to the press or Wall Street.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> My own anecdote hints that it's even worse than just fake reviews... I actually just wrote a detailed multi paragraph 1-star review of auto parts I received from Amazon, with several photos, too.

They, Amazon, would not post it because they claim it doesn't "adhere to the guidelines".

The review was exactly as follows:

These are "SURTRACK/TRAKMOTIVE" brand axles, part numbers BM-8040 and BM-8041. I only installed the left side but since it didn't fit properly on my 2006 BMW 530xi I'm returning them. The OE part number is: 31607570275 and MFG part number is: BM-8041.

The problem was that the inner boot fits improperly and deforms/creases from being stretched when installed (see images).

Looking at the product images for this product on Amazon, as well as elsewhere online, you can tell the boot is very different from the product I received.

/end

Can anyone find anything that goes against their review guidelines in above?

</comment><comment><USER48> There was a great Planet Money podcast on the genesis of ReviewMeta which I've been using on Amazon reviews since. [https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=623988370)

<comment><USER49> Since listening to that podcast a few weeks ago I've also started checking both ReviewMeta and FakeSpot for every Amazon listing I think about buying.

It's really made shopping on Amazon a frustrating experience -- well over half the products I've checked (in a couple specific product categories) have had F or D ratings according to both sites. I've wondered if some of these are false positives (i.e. ReviewMeta flags a product's reviews as fake but they're actually legitimate), but when you look at their reasoning in the breakdown they give, it's usually pretty convincing that many/most of the reviews are indeed fake.

I feel like this might be a case where ignorance is (mostly) bliss ... when I naively thought the vast majority of reviews on Amazon were genuine, shopping was much faster and simpler, and I _mostly_ had good experiences buying well- reviewed products despite that many of those reviews were probably fake.

<comment><USER50> Consider that if you go buy an equivalent item at a box store, there aren't any reviews, the company (sometimes companies) with products on offer just happens to have enough money to get the stores to stock them over any potential competition. Similarly with fake and paid reviews, those companies happen to have money to do it (and do it better than competition, they can't all be using the same github script). A company with money to do things like that surely has some amount of money in the product itself, so what you get will probably work out as well as what you'd get from the store...

The bigger problem for Amazon I think is fake products and inventory co- mingling, rather than fake reviews per se. But while others are complaining about the 5-star system not being very good (there's a fancy Bayesian system I've seen before that's better..), at least Amazon shows you the distribution, reviewers can upload photos, and it lets you filter by star count to get a sense of the things said for various ratings.

I'll have to start trying out the fake review spotting tools. But I don't think my current behavior will change that much...

<comment><USER49> > Consider that if you go buy an equivalent item at a box store, there aren't > any reviews, the company (sometimes companies) with products on offer just > happens to have enough money to get the stores to stock them over any > potential competition.

Well, I know that there aren't any reviews in a B&M store, but (1) I've been checking online reviews (usually Amazon) for non-trivial purchases at B&M stores for a while now (either before I go or at the store on my phone), and (2) B&M stores do usually have at least one human employee in the loop signing off on a product going onto the shelves, and at the very least the "big name" ones (almost) never sell blatantly bogus/fraudulent products (fake Apple- branded MacBook chargers, etc.). Amazon has pretty much been the Wild West ever since they started allowing third party sellers, which I used to be fine with, back when I was under the impression that the reviews were generally pretty reliable, and sure that something that said "Shipped from and sold by Amazon" (or whatever) was a safe bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Reviews on sites like Amazon or Yelp are a monoculture: everyone sees the same set of reviews and the same ratings. This creates leverage that makes it worthwhile for shills to spend large amounts of effort "infecting" those sites with bad information, since once they find effective ways of doing so it affects everyone.

So the solution must be a review system that works like Twitter, where each user has a unique "view" composed of sources they've selected, directly or indirectly. This diversity would make infection much more difficult and less rewarding for shills and other attackers.

I'm still trying to figure out the best design for such a system. The requirements and usage patterns would be quite different from Twitter's, and I'm not aware of any existing attempts that I can learn from.

<comment><USER52> Yes, tie the review more personally to the reviewer. I guess this is more like the influencer culture we see a on Instagram and YouTube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Star ratings in general are just poor. In a 1 to 5 star rating, 3 is average but most people would perceive 3 stars to be above average. People tend to leave reviews only when they are displeased with the product, really pleased with the product or get something in return for making the review, in this case free products.

I tend to just filter on reviews that are 2 or 3 stars and use those to work out the cons of the product. These reviews are the most likely to be honest and can often give you the information that other reviewers forget to mention. Unfortunately, 2 and 3 star reviews are the least likely to be posted so you can only find them on products that have been reviewed hundreds of times.

<comment><USER54> Really? I think most people perceive anything less than 4 stars (or even 4.5 stars for some) as "bad". I for one won't buy anything that are "merely" 3-stars.

<comment><USER55> True, I gave a tech book 3 stars once and the author contacted me to request that I reconsider, explaining that anything less than 5 stars could doom a brand new tech book on Amazon. He offered personal support and training in return for raising the score. It didn't work, but it also convinced me that he has a good point regarding the score: Reviews are difficult ground due to their subjective nature, and a lot of reviewers are simply qualitatively bad at writing reviews. If an author just sits back and does nothing, they are risking their brand on the individuals who take the time to write reviews, and that set of individuals could be--even randomly--pretty bad.

For example: I've seen many, many 1-star "product was damaged in shipping" and similar e.g. "received wrong product" one-reviews for products that were absolutely stellar. Getting into even more tricky ground, I've seen 1-star "product is unscientific" reviews left on books containing information that is mainly intractable to science, like studies in history.

<comment><USER56> So, when you were giving the book 3 stars, how did you judge the book? Did that match what you then learned (3 stars dooms a book). Did you intend to doom the book or feel it should be doomed?

<comment><USER55> Upon reconsideration I felt that for some readers it should be doomed, while for others it was probably a worthwhile purchase, and I made that clear in my review. Book recommendation is not as straightforward as people think.

<comment><USER56> Agreed. I have no problems with books being doomed by reviews, I want to avoid dreck as much as the next reader.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm glad the media seems to finally be paying attention to a problem most people know/have suspected for a long time, though I wonder if Amazon will ever be held accountable in the same way FB has with Cambridge Analytica...seems like it will take a major crisis (someone dying or getting seriously injured buying a fake product on Amazon) for something to actually happen.

</comment><comment><USER58> The trick on Amazon is to read the two star reviews. The one star can be PEBKAC, competitor stuffing and a lot of nonsense. The real deal very often is in the two star reviews.

</comment><comment><USER59> I've actually very interested in finding a solution to this problem as well. I think the issue is that regular users who are more likely to give honest reviews currently don't have an incentive to write one as there's nothing to gain, but potentially something to lose. If everyone is rewarded instead of just the ones who give positive reviews (i.e ones who receive free stuff, getting paid for etc,), then the ratio of fake/legit reviews might balance out. And we just need a better UI to show the most relevant + recent reviews for each star rating. For example, in [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DNTWTKH#customerReviews](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DNTWTKH#customerReviews) someone mentioned "All the reviews are non verified!! 5 starts with 100+ reviews...... something is fishy!!". It also shows that 54 people found it helpful. So think that's a neat feature.

I think blockchain might be a good use case for this. Cencorship resistant, decentralized review, not controlled by a single company, and anyone can contribute, and see the reviews (i.e via browser extension). And everyone is rewarded by currency when they provide a review. Just not sure how to prevent spam, and deal with people gaming the system. Perhaps a staking system could be introduced wherein a user would lose their stake if the review proved to be inauthentic (proving it comes with its own problems). Anyway, these are just some of things I've been pondering about before.

<comment><USER60> Not sure about blockchain but contacting the odd person who has the buying pattern of a regular customer and asking them what they think might work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Text-only version:

[https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=629800775](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=629800775)

</comment><comment><USER62> I've found that it's more useful to sort by negative reviews. It's reasonable to assume that the product is what it appears to be at face value, but customers tend to speak up if they feel like they got cheated.

On the other hand, I believe I read that some fake reviews are actually negative, as a means to funnel users to competing products. So who knows?

Can't trust anything I read on the internet concerning a product or service.

<comment><USER44> > some fake reviews are actually negative, as a means to funnel users to > competing products

Oh, right. I often look for a few positive ones (to find what people thought was positive enough about this product to mention it) as well as the negative ones (to see if they complain about defect units and other one-off issues, or if there are actually real issues with a product), sorted by newest in the hopes that I don't happen to be looking right after a batch of paid reviews were added. But you're right, there is a reason why negative ones would be fake as well. Seems to be less common, though, but still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I think this issue is most interesting to look at from the other side. Imagine your goal was to create fake reviews for a product you created. How difficult do you think it would be to achieve given you expect a substantial economic reward for success?

This is why I find it difficult to blame Amazon for things like this - <USER2> that is not to say they shouldn't try, but I don't think anybody is saying they're not. It's just that this is something you might call a game of cat and mouse, but I think it may be borderline impossible to detect fake reviews if done well. Imagine I somehow get 500 confederates from geographically diverse regions, and pay them each a substantial amount of money to purchase a product and give a positive review. How do you prove those reviews are fake?

</comment><comment><USER64> I generally avoid looking at good reviews when shopping due to this. Instead I assume that whatever doohickey I want to buy works as advertised, and look for reasons not to buy. Bad reviews are much more helpful in this regard, as they pinpoint weaknesses or other issues.

<comment><USER65> It's also much easier to filter the bad reviews. There's fewer reviews to sort through, and you can dismiss the PEBKAC or DOA (except as a data point to see if there's a whole bunch of DOAs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just bought a rotating bike wheel light from Amazon Marketplace. It's a novelty item that draws images as a bike wheel rotates using persistence of vision.

I don't think anyone has every heard of the "brand" but it was sent from "the UK" allegedly.

It came with a US plug (I'm in the UK) and software on an 80mm mini-cd. That software is riddled with malware. It also has one of those comedy auto- translated user manuals.

Some of these trade offs I can forgive for the price. I can't forgive the malware at any price.

</comment><comment><USER66> This is why I am starting to do almost all of my shopping by googling "Wirecutter [product category]". Or CNET for electronics. Amazon's reviews have become so useless and corrupted that I question why anyone would even bother with a genuine review. Luckily, Wirecutter gives fantastic, detailed guidance in just about any category you can think of. I'm finding them so valuable that I believe this would be a great space for more sites to compete in.

</comment><comment><USER67> ReviewMeta has a great Chrome plugin that shows the "real" score (after removing all even slightly suspicious reviews) right in the toolbar [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/reviewmetacom- revi...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/reviewmetacom-review- anal/fjifglfkcaipnmhngbigdebkoikioend?hl=en)

<comment> y-c-o-m-b The funny thing is I think Chrome plugins suffer from a similar problem and quite dangerous too because they can steal your information. I reported a fake clone of Privacy Badger a while back - positive reviews with the only difference being the fake one had a very low number of reviews/downloads. I'm very conservative with the extensions I use now

<comment><USER68> I only use chrome extensions in a containerized fashion (i.e. on an instance where chrome is used for nothing else)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> News from Australia today: Australia's largest apartment developer Meriton fined $3 million for misleading consumers on TripAdvisor by preventing guests Meriton suspected would give negative reviews from receiving TripAdvisor's 'Review Express' prompt email.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17649912](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17649912)

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the Amazon Vine program which sends products to well-standing reviewers in order to seed reviews.

</comment><comment><USER71> On a positive note, Amazon has been wiping out thousands of reviews this month. Whether blatant manipulations or legitimate reviews, dozens of sellers have lost their reviews. Amazon has been cracking down hard this month, and erring on the better safe than sorry side as usual with their wide nets. The only problem is that Amazon can't keep up with China.

</comment><comment><USER72> Jeez, I don't think it's possible for this writer (Ryan Kailath) to be any more milquetoast if he tried. Amazon's reviews are completely bullshit. I never buy _anything_ from Amazon (or Yelp, or...) without running the product page through Fakespot.com to check for fake reviews.

</comment><comment><USER73> I'm honestly starting to believe that the "wisdom of the crowds" that so many startups and businesses rely on to reach "internet scale", is exactly the wrong approach. Between recommendation algorithms that can be gamed, content that can be paid for, and social media sentiment that can prove to be entirely manufactured, we need to come up with a new paradigm for our products (where "our" is the tech industry at large).

The days of allowing what are essentially anonymous sources to dictate what we do, where we go, what we buy, and how we think are coming to an end.

<comment><USER74> Interesting to ponder that half of the population is of below average intelligence, and that the other half is generally too busy to be writing reviews.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I hate it too but rather than just complain is it a solvable problem?

Reply All had an resent episode about it

[https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/124#episode- player](https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/124#episode-player)

first they had fake reviews. Amazobn required actual purchases so companies would pay people to purchase and return. you can't ban returns otherwise there would be no negative reviews.

how can this be solved? some kind of reputation system? how would you lose rep?

I love to hear your ideas?

<comment><USER76> Tag the review with the info if the item was returned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> How does one protect oneself from these? Are there secure / private browser extensions that might cross-reference those reviews to other sites? Is everything fake news now?

</comment><comment><USER78> "We have built a lot of technology to assess whether or not we think a review is authentic"

Really now? Has amazon considered firing those teams? Because that tech is beyond broken.

</comment><comment><USER79> I find that even books are plagued with this issue. Some obscure technical books selling for more than 80$ will come in a very poor quality print, like they had been printed from a scan. Clearly the book has ran out of original prints, and somewhere they print it cheaply just to make the sell.

<comment><USER72> Actually these books are likely counterfeit, being produced overseas and sold on Amazon as the real deal. It's easy because neither the publisher nor Amazon (nor the customer for that matter) can know that someone listing a product is shipping a fraud.

<comment><USER79> What would be the right way to check that? Perhaps sending a mail to the publisher?

<comment><USER72> That sounds reasonable, sure. You might also try contacting the author directly. Authors tend to know way more about their books than the person answering your email at the publisher, and certainly would have a good idea what their print editions are supposed to look like. I've actually found emailing book authors about their books in niche fields to be usually really easy and interesting in its own right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Simple hack to this problem is forget about buying stuff online.. go to the store and get it right away.

The Internet can not believed for much and is easily manipulated for the better of those smart or immoral enough (however you view it) to use it to line their pockets.

</comment><comment><USER81> What if you just removed the stars and only had text? Makes buying based on "reviews" harder...

Could also do something like upvotes but then that just ends up with the same problems as stars.

</comment><comment><USER82> Always always always, read the negative reviews, NOT the positive reviews. If the worst you find is "shipped broken" or something, it's probably ok. If you're reading negative product reviews instead, stay away.

</comment><comment><USER83> As a marketer I'm already familiar with fake/paid reviews. It's the way to manipulate and it will be used whenever there is an opportunity for that. On the other hand review.network works on solution for fake reviews

</comment><comment><USER84> Similar discussion about the fake Amazon review economy a few months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17022215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17022215)

</comment><comment><USER85> I have found [https://reviewmeta.com/](https://reviewmeta.com/) to be an interesting place to look at the reviews and get a bit more insight into them.

</comment><comment><USER86> [https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=629800775](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=629800775) \- plain text article (sans tracking etc.)

</comment><comment><USER87> Fakespot.com is your friend. I'm fast finding their service indispensable. Also their iOS app is super convenient - you just share a link in the Amazon app with it, and you unmask all the fake reviews.

</comment><comment><USER88> There was a great Reply All podcast on this topic. Between it and this NPR article, and recent personal experience, I'm seriously questioning whether I want to continue my Prime account.

</comment><comment><USER89> Amazon really lost me when they shadow banned me for writing a (very) negative review.

They sell me crap and I can't even complain about it?

</comment><comment><USER90> Google SEO, Amazon Reviews, AppStore Reviews, Facebook News. Fakes are everywhere. Fake it till you make it [0]. If you really think about it, everything around us has a grain of fake. Ads, startup pitch desks, TV, people relationships, politics. Everything! I almost feel like we're fighting the wrong problem.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_till_you_make_it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_it_till_you_make_it)

</comment><comment><USER91> Why don't they make a review system where the products with fewest bad reviews gets rated the best.

If the reviews have to go through Amazon's system it should be hard enough to fake. The "true" customers will make bad reviews if they didn't like the product. The "fake" reviewer can't rate their own products to make them get a better review, an they have to buy the competitors product x times to give x bad reviews.

<comment><USER91> And to further secure it, the amount of buys can be compared to amount of negative reviews. Because who will in their right mind buy a product with a lot of negative reviews, to later give a negative review?

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Providing authenticity, in whatever form, is a huge business opportunity, and it's only going to grow.

<comment><USER93> That is what VeChain is aiming at [0]. One of the better blockchain incentives around if you ask me.

[0] [https://www.vechain.org/](https://www.vechain.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> Always look for that extra gratituitous detail, a common trait in fabricated stories.

</comment><comment><USER95> Try to get a valid review on a forehead thermometer on Amazon. It can't be done.

</comment><comment><USER96> I use fakespot for analyzing Amazon reviews. It's better than nothing.

</comment><comment><USER97> Amazon should buy Fakespot and integrate into their reviews.

</comment><comment><USER98> Shocking! Next they are going to tell me the sky is blue!

</comment><comment><USER99> "Some"

</comment><comment><USER100> [http://www.thewirecuttter.com](http://www.thewirecuttter.com)

<comment><USER101> Be careful clicking the above link. Note the three 't' characters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> How are there not laws that enforce companies to verify there reviews. I understand it is a complex problem, but first it was our elections were manipulated via spam advertising and now, most of the products that we buy are going to be.

<comment><USER103> Well such moderation requirements would be massively impractical and run afoul of safe harbor. Not to mention being defacto prior restraint. Besides even if money was no object it isn't possible to always and definitively prove truth or falsehood. Even if someone posts a five star review of chalky dry chocolate they may just have crappy taste.

<comment><USER60> Don't worry. The EU will probably mandate something massively impractical anyway.</comment></comment></comment>


It's legal to download The Great Gatsby in most of the world - <AUTHOR> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2013/05/its-legal-to-download-great-gatsby.html <comment><USER2> You know, if one person, just one person clicks on that link, they may think he's really sick and they won't arrest him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both trollin and they won't hassle either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people clickin on the link. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day clickin, downloadin, and readin. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Aussie download anti-massacre movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.

<comment><AUTHOR> your version is better than mine. But I didn't have a guitar.

<comment><USER2> Your blog post is better than any comment of mine. And I stole your idea. And I haven't rehabilitated myself. I ain't moral enough to post on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> These laws seem so arcane in a modern, globalized world. I'm assuming that one's jurisdiction is determined by citizenship? Or is it geographical location? If I'm a US citizen visiting Canada, can I legally download it there? What if I've lived there for years, or my whole life? What if I'm a hold a dual citizenship? What if I'm Canadian and visiting the US? If I legally download it in Canada, can I bring it across the border? What if I use a backup service that has servers in the US? What if it's a Canadian company that is managing them? What if the servers are in Canada but it's a US corporation that manages them? What if I'm a dual citizen who is physically straddling the border? What if I copy the file onto a flash drive that's taped to a boomerang and hurl it across the border before it comes back?

You know you have shitty laws when you can apply a reductio ad absurdum.

<comment><USER4> In my limited understanding jurisdiction is generally determined based on where the act takes place. So if a US citizen kills another US citizen in New Zealand, New Zealand has jurisdiction.

In this case we are talking about the act of copying a document. So if you download a book in Canada from a Canadian server Canadian copyright applies. Imo, that is regardless of where that book was written or if you later take that copy over the border or not.

However, I also think this is just a "rule of thumb" and can be overwritten by any country as it pleases, e.g. US tax law applies to all income of US citizen around the world, subject only to international treaties.

<comment><USER3> Ok interesting. So if this interpretation is correct, what happens if I'm in the US, but I log into a Canadian server and download the document remotely? I've initiated the act of copying in the US but the bits never enter the US (Or do they? What if the IP route goes through US internet backbones? And what if they get cached somewhere along the way, in the US? Is the ISP infringing?)

If that's ok, what if I then view the Canadian server's downloaded document on my local machine without explicitly downloading it (via remote desktop or even cat'ing a text file in an SSH session). I've not explicitly copied anything, but the very act of interacting with it remotely necessarily copies it to local memory.

What about the reverse situation, where a Canadian downloads Gatsby while logged into a US server?

(Note I'm not trying to heckle you or demean your answer. I actually very much appreciate the info, but I'm just trying to point out that even simple notions such as "copying a document" aren't necessarily coherent in a modern, digital context)

<comment><USER5> Laws are not rules written in a programming language. Exploiting logic errors and corner cases does not work the same way. Don't make this mistake.

Whether a court will let your clever workaround pass or not is up to them. If what you do is not in their interest (or there are other forces present, like the government or lobbyists), you may find that the law is _very_ flexible in its application.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author doesn't understand copyright. There is a difference between Legal, and beyond prosecution.

You as an individual living in a far off land (Australia) can't be prosecuted in Australia for copying a copy you legally obtained in the US. There is no extradition that will allow for the US to come get you in Australia. So if you copied, and you never visited the US you would be Safe from prosecution. You would not be legal. (There is a difference)

If you were Amazon. You have locations in the US and Australia. You are an international entity. You can not distribute Gatsby in Australia, because you are violating the copyright of the country of the original copyright, and you have presence in that country.

So the author's headline is wrong. You aren't "Legal" you are just beyond prosecution.

This isn't to say that I think Gatsby shouldn't be public domain... Just that the author is wrong.

<comment><USER7> It's my understanding that The Great Gatsby is already in the public domain in some countries (Canada, Australia), hence _legal_ to distribute (and obtain for free), if one is subject to their copyright laws. Unless there's something that I missed, the author is not wrong.

<comment><USER8> You are correct. Australian copyright law used to be 50 years after the death of the author until the Australia-US free trade agreement a few years back. Now, thanks to our good friends at Disney it's 70 years like the US. However, stuff that had already passed into the public domain (Eg George Orwell) at the time of the agreement stayed public.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think he fails to answer whether it is legal to download it in say... my country, Denmark. And I am not even sure, but I think it might be.

Still, going through every copyright jurisdiction might be a bit over the top. But reminding ourselves that it is possible in Australia and Canada are a bit of a few choices. Oh and; his third option doesn't really seem to be much value to me either; I know which jurisdiction I am subject to, just not its exact rules.

<comment><USER10> The Great Gatsby is in the public domain in all countries but 7: the USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Samoa, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, and Ivory Coast.

All countries except the USA apply a law that states that books enter the public domain a given number of years after the death of the author. In Europe, it is 70 years, in Canada 50, in Mexico 100. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_copyright_len...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_copyright_length)

<comment><USER11> Is-it that simple? Chronicle of Narnia is from C.S. Lewis and he died the 22 November 1963, which mean that it will be legal to download it in Canada after November 22? J. R. R. Tolkien died 10 years later, which mean that we should be able to download Lord of the ring legally in 10 years?

<comment><USER10> In fact, you will have to wait until the first of january following the 50th anniversary of the death of the authors for the book to get into the public domain (that's what the "until year end" means), but yes it is that simple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What if I fly to Australia, download the Great Gatsby there, put it on my Kindle and fly back to the states -- is it legal to bring my copy into the country?

<comment><USER13> Legal. No copies were made in a jurisdiction in which it was illegal. Selling it may be another matter though

<comment><USER3> What about giving it away? What about making personal backup copies?

<comment><USER14> I'm in Australia, and I downloaded it this morning.

What if I put my copy in Dropbox so I can read it on my phone/iPad? What's the legal status of the copy Dropbox have?

Dropbox say they encrypt my data when they store it on Amazon, what's the legal status of the encrypted copy on Amazon, and who'd be held responsible for that if it happens in a different jurisdiction to me and my original copy? What if Dropbox already has a copy and uses de-dupe to not bother storing my copy? What if I try-but-don't-end-up-uploading-thanks-to-dedup my legal-in- Australia copy from my laptop, then download a copy-of-something-I-never- uploaded to my iPad? What if that happened via WiFi sync instead of downloading the files from Dropbox/Amazon? Are the hashes of the files somehow "THE PROPERTY" of the author of the book they identify?

What If I'd dropped the Gatsby .mobi file into my BoxCryptor(EncFS) folder inside my Dropbox folder? Without my key, it's just random data that happens to be called "TheGreatGatsby.mobi". What if I'd saved in in a PGPDisk image stored in Dropbox - then it's just random data without even a questionable filename - it;s mathematically no different to /dev/random, somebody's encrypted pron collection, or wikileaks upcoming nations-state-embarrassing- drop.

What if I travel through the US with encrypted copies of Gatsby but don't decrypt them while I'm there? What if I "delete" any copies from devices I travel to the US with, but my OS leaves all the data on my disk and just removed the filesystem pointers? What if I did a dd bit-for-bit copy of that disk-with-deleted-but-still-recoverable copyright-in-the-US data? What if someone else who never knew the disk contained possibly-recoverable copyright encumbered data bit-for-bit copied the disk?

If the answers to the above depend on some status or location of the passwords or decryption keys, what are the further implications of that - does storing my keys/passwords in Dropbox put them and the encrypted data the protect into some particular jurisdiction? What if I store my 1Password encrypted password file on Dropbox? Does having my head cross the border into the US with the passwords/key inside it make a difference? Does it matter whether I'm carrying a device or memorycard/stick with the encrypted potentially copyrighted data on it, or does have the encryption key in my head to data stored "in the cloud" somehow matter?

Copyright law, at least as it's developed/evolved since Gutenberg, really wasn't written with the capabilities and edgecases of modern technology in mind. Judges are called upon to interpret century-old artistic-expression-as- a-physical-object copyright laws to modern sync and cache enabled technology much of which is considered obsolete withing half a decade - and they don't always have sane/sensible interpretations available to them. They've got an army of oblivious/self-entitled Game Of Thrones torrenting kiddies on one side, and an army of Prenda Law style vexatious litigants on the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What is the difference between inheriting money and inheriting copyrighted works? One is a lump sum payment and the other is an annuity. They're viewed vastly differently, but they're essentially both just winning the lottery.

<comment><USER16> Does copyright inheritance get taxed like money?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This inspired a submission to /r/firstworldanarchists on Reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/firstworldanarchists/comments/1dzhw4...](http://www.reddit.com/r/firstworldanarchists/comments/1dzhw4/the_great_gatsby_1925_has_not_yet_entered_the/)

</comment><comment><USER18> In my country it's legal to download ANYTHING. It's only illegal to share and distribute copyrighted data. So if you torrent you can be persecuted because it's P2P and you distribute it, but if you download it without sharing you're OK.

</comment><comment><USER19> Heck, it's legal to download "1984" by George Orwell in much of the world, and that was published in 1949.

<comment><USER20> Not in the US from Amazon, though:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> you really should not be saying 'Dont click on this link'. What do you think people are gonna do ? Evil you !</comment>


How to deploy your Node.js service - <AUTHOR> http://blog.gosquadron.com/deploy-node <comment><USER2> Is it me or it seems that people have forgotten (or never learnt) bash and make?

Automatic deployment is usually 3-10 steps that need to be run in a remote server. How's this better that a simple script that sshs into the server/servers, CDs into the project dir and does `make update`, which pulls some branch, runs any migrations and does an `apache gracefully` or similar whatever needed for the update?

<comment><USER3> I'm using Flightplan ([https://github.com/pstadler/flightplan](https://github.com/pstadler/flightplan)) which was posted on HN a while ago. All it does is provides a thin layer (albeit one with liberally applied DSL) on top of SSH which helps manage production/dev automated deployments.

<comment><USER4> +1 for using Node to provision Node apps. I have messed with flightplan and think it is awesome. It inspired me to make something that is a bit more like puppet (plugin based packaging, with helpers for common provisioning tasks) but in node ([https://github.com/wesleytodd/wombat](https://github.com/wesleytodd/wombat)).

This is after two tries to get my company over to a Vagrant based setup, once using puppet and a second using bash scripts. Unfortunately neither got us off the ground fast enough to make it viable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "its easy" followed by 10 pages on how to configure it.

really though, how is this any better than ansible?

<comment><USER6> Came here to make the same exact comment, ask the same question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a git server (gitolite) with a repo and four branches: main, development, testing and production.

When im ready to run something on testing, for example, I checkout testing, merge from development and push.

In the remote server, the code it the repo is running with pm2. I use a post- receive hook to npm update everything and pm2 restart.

If everything is ok, and I want to deploy into production, I do the same thing but merging production branch instead.

When I see tools like this, I tend to think that im missing something, or that there might be something wrong with what I do.

What do you think?

<comment><USER8> The problem I have with setting up these things yourself is that I usually forget about how I set it up in the first place. Sure you might remember how you set it up 3 months down the road, but what about 3 years?

I try to use services or tools that do as much as possible out of the box. It means that I didn't have to manually configure much, which means it will be easier to understand after long periods of time. I know it isn't very hacker- like, but I personally feel there is a gray area that might create more problems than it solves, and I tend to stay on the "safe" side of things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Alternatively, this is the kind of scenario I wrote Git-deliver for : [https://github.com/arnoo/git-deliver](https://github.com/arnoo/git-deliver)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'll take rsync over a 234234 line config / external dpeendencies and a tutorial longer than most node.js tutorials themselves.

Thanks for taking the time though.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why use a python script?</comment>


The world's first blockchain-powered elections just happened in Sierra Leone - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1227050/sierra-leone-elections-powered-by-blockchain/ <comment><USER2> The problem with any publicly-verifiable voting scheme is the it opens the market to vote-selling: once a person can "prove" they voted a certain way, they can confidently sell their vote.

This is the entire reason photos are prohibited in voting booths.</comment>


Gnome cofounder: Desktop Linux is a Chernobyl of Fail - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/06/miguel_desktop_linux_chernobyl/

<comment><USER3> I use debian stable, xmonad, urxvt, vlc, and mplayer. Everything just works with my setup and never crashes. I can replace xmonad with fluxbox and say the same.

It might not be pretty, but I NEVER EVER have to change anything at all. I can leave it on (and have) for a full year and have no problems.

Of course, with xmonad I have xmobar for the time and current desktop. Nothing else, all that takes up my screen space is windows.

Personally I think it's perfect, and I don't spend time looking at some pretty desktop eye candy anyway. I've used mac before and it's nice, but the window decorations just get in the way.

Want to never have to mess with anything? Get debian stable and a non-gnome window manager. Non-gnome because I've had crashes when gnome was involved even with debian stable.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally I think this is just bad press for Linux by the Register and the article has an agenda.

I do not need to tinker with my Linux environment, my family has been using Linux on the desktop for years...

Just because some dev prefers a MAC and seems to be using a terribly broken system with bad package management and dependency issues does not mean the KDE, Gnome, Unity, Lxde, Fluxbox, E17, Openbox or Xfce... to name a few are failures on the desktop.

My E17 setup is vastly superior to any boring OSX environment... and yes it wakes up faster when I open the lid.

<comment><USER5> Miguel de Icaza is hardly "some dev" though. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza>

> Miguel de Icaza is a Mexican free software programmer, best known for > starting the >>GNOME<< and Mono projects.

<comment><USER6> Of course. He's the guy with the agenda to destroy Linux.

With this post he says: 'mission accomplished' to his Microsoft masters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you enjoy understanding how your computer works and enjoy tinkering with it then Linux is likely your dream desktop. I think there are enough people out there like that to make it viable in that capacity.

However, after spending several years in that situation myself, I eventually grew tired of it and just wanted things to work, and keep working, and now I've switched away from Linux on my desktop.

A Linux desktop isn't ever going to be like a Mac, or a Windows machine.

</comment><comment><USER8> Look at how _SLOWLY_ other desktop systems changed vs. Gnome.

For example, is OS X substantially different now than it was 10 years ago? Not that much - same menu bar, dock, etc.

Similarly, Windows isn't that different since Windows 95 - start "thing", task bar, etc.

Compare this to desktop Unix. You have lots of choices for everything, and things tend not to have a mismatch of interface metaphors, or will change each version. If it's all going to change or be tweaked, nobody has a chance to catch up.

Also, OS X tended to attract people who were using Unix on the desktop very quickly - back the early 2000's your likelyhood of having a PC laptop that would come out of sleep properly when running Linux was very hit or miss. OS X machines (PPC at the time) worked nearly flawlessly. This alone brought so many people over that it isn't even funny.

The weird thing is that Unix tends to be decently consistent on the CLI. Most of the time, a -r will get you recursive behavior, and a -v will get you verbose mode. Not so on the desktop...

<comment><USER9> Your comment reminds me of this article written 10 years ago: <http://freecode.com/articles/too-much-free-software>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think he's right, for desktops that try to do a lot, or for people who expect their desktops to do a lot. Gnome and Unity and KDE try to do too much, if you want what they're trying to do you might think of Windows or Mac and ssh to a VM or a server. That's fine.

My own view of the linux desktop is just something to give me nicely presented terminals and a very wee bit of eye candy. I use Lubuntu for that. Some urxvt terminal windows, a nice basic graphical browser and imap client, I'm good to go. I don't care if I can watch a movie or not (I can), most of the sound I want plays and never stops working (can't play midi for some reason, meh).

The tool chain he talks about is right here.

I want minimal things on the desktop, and Linux does that, minimal things, really well. Especially with something like Lubuntu or vanilla LXDE, it's a really nice implementation of the screen or tmux idea.

</comment><comment><USER11> I just switched from ubuntu (after 8years) to macosx (iMac) and I am disappointed. My Mom uses Ubuntu since 4years now btw., even her Canon printer works.

Macs don't just work.

I wanted to sftp into my servers. It took me 3 different tuts to implement a feature linux just have. The CiscoVPN still not working for me, needs a shared secret, which linux didn't.

And then the finder, wtf? I couldn't believe it - no tabs, no split view - it's 2013 apple.

iCloud is not intertwined with filesystem as Ubuntu One shows - right click files/folders and sync it.

And the keyboard-layout is borderlining ridiculous- let's just make it different than all other established OS do. Key "End" and "Pos1", instead those 4 (page)up/down keys just seem to jump to absolut end/start. @-kymbol on L - why? Pipe-symbol, lets just hide that.

<comment><USER12> I know many people use total finder instead of the native one.

Everyone I know who does serious computer work uses brew for stuff like cli sftp

iCloud is quite meh

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've run Linux exclusively for the last 10 years or more both at home and on work machines. The last 6~7 of that have been various install of Gentoo. I'll admit that I run into issues every so often with a broken upgrade or some other little thing that I need, but overall, I've found that the machine just works when I need it too. Of course, I'm not looking to change things every time I turn around either. Once I have a configuration working smoothly, keeping it that way seems much easier on Linux than just about any other platform I've used, without the Apple walled garden.

<comment><USER14> Do you run Gentoo on a laptop or a desktop?

Because my last experience with Gentoo was, to be mild, fucking frustrating. And that was on a desktop. I would be very afraid to try to run it on a laptop where thermal tolerances are tighter and battery life is a thing.

<comment><USER13> I run it on both, but I don't do much on battery on the laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I still think he's one of the primary causes of the Desktop Linux failure.

We all would have a standard based on Qt/KDE but his project destroyed that while offering nothing but another license for years.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is 2013 - these issues that the author states are very non-existent. I've used Ubuntu (before their switch to Unity and Amazon search) and Linux Mint and am happy with my experiences overall.

What the author misses is that it is unprincipled to use closed ecosystems like Apple since it helps to support them. Vote with your wallet.

</comment><comment><USER16> Your title is wrong, it's not what he said at all. Why would you write such a sensationalist title? The quote is "To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, ..., were my Three Mile Island/Chernobyl"

What he's saying is as clear as day: these are the issues (catastrophes?) that caused me to leave and not come back.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its the tile from the article. Its also The Register.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Link bait title. So, putting words in other poeple's mouth is what considered as journalism nowadays?

<comment><AUTHOR> From TFA: '"To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, the multiple incompatible distros, and the incompatibilities across versions of the same distro were my Three Mile Island/Chernobyl," he writes.'

And its from The Register, known for a certain sense of humor. Title as is from article, minus the caps shouting.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, I didn't mean to say you are putting up a bait link title. I was indeed referring to the The Register for making something sounds different from what it actually meant.

That aside, I am not familiar with The Register or its sense of humor, but I do feel that the article is filled with hyperbole. I guess I just overreacted because journalism today seems are always filled with way too much spices.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I guess I just overreacted because journalism today seems are always filled > with way too much spices.

It is. In this case I appreciate The Register's approach, taking itself none too serious. Not everyone appreciates it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm," he concludes [Xamarin CTO Miguel de Icaza]. Surely he doesn't consider Ubuntu a failure on the desktop. Sounds like FUD to me now that he has ramped up his commercial interests.

<comment><USER19> That's complicated. In one sense Ubuntu has not failed because of how user- friendly it is. It certainly is the flagship distribution nowadays.

But it's not a success in the context mentioned in the article. It's simply not as easy to use as a Mac environment.

<comment><USER18> But he concludes "Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm." Direct quote in conclusion. That's a far cry from saying Ubuntu is not as easy to use as a Mac.

<comment><USER19> Do you find Ubuntu as easy to use as a Mac?

<comment><USER18> No. But it did manage to cross "the desktop chasm" and it is usable <http://www.edubuntu.org/about>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> with ubuntu, situtation is better, one rarely need to fight with binary, almost everything just work

<comment><USER19> True - to an extent. But things bend or break still. A lot of things don't work out of the box - video, audio, etc.

And it's still an absolute _pain_ to configure webcam drivers and make audio work 100% of the time.

<comment><USER21> How do OSX manages to make make external sound devices or cameras work out of the box by the way ? i'm a musician and it is always a pain to install a new sound card on Windows , on Mac , you just plug it and it works...

<comment><USER14> OSX has a very narrow band of hardware and peripherals to worry about supporting, so they can afford to spend person-hours on device drivers and compatibility layers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is so true. GNOME came a long way for Linux, as did Ubuntu and Canonical.

But there are so many times when you suddenly hit a wall and are immediately reminded of that time you installed something you really wanted/badly needed in a few minutes...as opposed to an hour (or more). I'll admit it, I started to even miss Windows at one point. But I still use Ubuntu and before that, Debian.

It's truly a beautiful system for understanding what's "under the hood" - <USER2> it's _nowhere near_ accessible to the average user. I think every programmer should know how to work his way around at least one Linux distro though. In terms of programming (and server) functionality nothing else compares.

The bottom line is, while I've always enjoyed hacking on Linux the most for its freedom, it's infuriating to try to debug your own code when your _computer_ is having its own issues. Sometimes you just want things to work. And macs _just work_.

<comment><USER15> But the programs in mac suck - consider xcode (or x-crap). Random crashes, a stupid paranoid public-private key environment (for iphone dev and the horrors of code signing), groups that don't 1-on-1 map to source folders, etc.

Also finder sucks compared to windows explorer. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Previous discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5327247>

Looks like it was flagged down <http://hnrankings.info/5327247/></comment>