Ephemerand – GPS-based random number generator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/hoytech/ephemerand <comment><USER2> So if I understand the source data correctly, it doesn't seem to be super random. These are the last 5 TLE entries for one of the GPS satellites:

        40105 54.5777 194.6697 0011887 101.0084 259.0886 2.00557623 33631
        40105 54.5775 194.5700 0011842 101.1165 258.9939 2.00557745 33682
        40105 54.5775 194.5700 0011842 101.1165 258.9939 2.00557745 33682
        40105 54.5775 194.5700 0011842 101.1165 258.9939 2.00557745 33682
        40105 54.5775 194.5700 0011842 101.1165 258.9939 2.00557745 32827

It looks like you can't really predict them, but you can certainly generate likely candidates.

The values have expected cycles as well: [https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30735/why-do- gps-s...](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30735/why-do-gps- satellites-have-increasing-eccentricity-over-time)

Am I missing something here?

</comment><comment><USER3> If I understand correctly the data is updated once a day, so everyone who does this will have the same random number. It is even described in the linked slides: they were able to generate the same random number, without communication. What use can this have?

<comment><USER4> I can't think of a situation where two parties would want to generate the same sequence of random numbers without communication, however, if I ever need it, this seems like a really interesting solution.

<comment><USER5> Generating a shared sequence of random numbers is the basis of zero knowledge proofs, hence it could be useful for authentication. I can think of one interesting feature this scheme would have, if we assume the numbers from GPS are truly random. If you know the shared secret then you can predict the output as far back in time as you want, but you can't predict more than a day ahead.

<comment><USER2> > Generating a shared sequence of random numbers is the basis of zero > knowledge proofs

Could you give an example? The zero knowledge proofs I know are of the type: here's an X, tell me f(secret, X) - which doesn't require any shared information (apart from the secret you're verifying).

<comment><USER5> It'd be more correct to say _pseudo_ random. The way I was taught ZKPs was in terms comparing the output of pseudorandom number generators seeded by a challenge and a shared secret, but you can also explain it in terms of hash functions instead.

What I was thinking was that the random number from GPS (or some sequence derived from it) could serve as the challenge, basically akin to a 2FA scheme like HOTP. Or a variety of other schemes, hinging on the trait that you can't predict the next output of the random number from GPS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Take block-chain insanity out of this, and a distributed reliable consistent unpredictable random value feels like a socially useful thing.

Put signed public ledger (which is block chain shed of the economic games to ICO) back on the table, and It feels like this, alongside a trusted third party time stamp, would become enabling technology for a non-repudiation 'happened on this day' service.

I would prefer to use GPS than NIST. If this is combined with mix-in from Glonass and Galileo, Does it get stronger or weaker?

<comment><USER7> _signed public ledger ... alongside a trusted third party time stamp, would become enabling technology for a non-repudiation 'happened on this day' service._

Indeed. [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5nzx4/what- was-t...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5nzx4/what-was-the- first-blockchain)</comment></comment>


Show HN: a slightly smart dotfiles installer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jm3/dotfiles

<comment><AUTHOR> "Smart" in the sense that:

* it keeps itself current by simply running `dots`

* it installs / uninstalls vim plugins from git

* it cleans up after itself with `dots remove`

"Slightly" in the sense that it doesn't require a lot of external dependencies like other ruby gems, homebrew, etc. to bootstrap.

Feedback + suggestions welcome!</comment>


Show HN: Secure & Smart sharing on Android (no signup, no account needed) - <AUTHOR>

joindrops.com is a secure and easy way for you share images in a secure and easy way. No account needed, and no sign-up required. Tap or Shake to share with your friends.
Would appreciate if you can review the app and mail us at email@example.com to provide any feedback, suggestions, problems..
Look forward to hearing from you. <comment><AUTHOR> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joindrops>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the cool ideas you shared with us.

We are working to bring these features to our apps. Let the ideas keep pouring in at firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


A man who paves India's roads with old plastic - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/09/the-man-who-paves-indias-roads-with-old-plastic <comment><USER2> Lignin from hemp could be a possible bitumen replacement:

[https://gizmodo.com/a-compound-from-plants-could-replace- bit...](https://gizmodo.com/a-compound-from-plants-could-replace-bitumen-to- make-ro-1693050702)

Looks like hemp is 5-30% lignin depending on the type, with female hemp having roughly double the lignin content by dry weight:

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S223878541...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2238785414000982)

[https://www.hempbasics.com/hhusb/hh3fiber.htm](https://www.hempbasics.com/hhusb/hh3fiber.htm)

Also algae oil can be converted to a bitumen-like tar with roughly 55% efficiency, so if we assume the best algae is 50% oil by weight then we end up with about 25% tar by weight (I can't find confirmation of this, so they might mean 55% tar from algae directly):

[http://news.algaeworld.org/2015/04/algae-bitumen-could- soon-...](http://news.algaeworld.org/2015/04/algae-bitumen-could-soon-pave- roads/)

Perhaps these could be combined with recycled plastic to make an asphalt derived purely from biomass and recycled materials.

<comment><USER3> The best genetically engineered algae is over 90% oil by weight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I applaud the change in perspective into looking at plastic as a resource, not a curse, this article smells of BS:

> He received a patent for the process in 2006. Since then, almost 10,000km of > Indian roads have been paved using his technique.

This sounds like random stats thrown around by government officials, particularly because later in the terribly-written article, it mentions:

> Nonetheless, at least 16,000km of road have subsequently been paved in the > state of Tamil Nadu. The national government has since approved the idea and > sanctioned at least 13,000km across the country to be paved in the material > as well. Of this, 8,600km have already been completed, says Dr IK Pateriya > of the rural development ministry in Delhi.

The numbers simply don't add up.

> Shredded plastic below 70 microns (including the multi-layer plastic shreds) > is then sprinkled over it.

A shredder capable to shredding materials down to 70 microns is absurdly impressive, and would likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unless the article means that some of the plastic films being used have a thickness of 70 microns. Honestly, it just looks like the author read 70 microns in the source material and threw it in to impress without knowing what it means.

> A stone tile measuring one square metre has a manufacturing cost of Rs 100, > approximately £1.. 60 plates would be sufficient to construct an eco- > friendly bathroom, says Dr Vasudevan.

£60 to build a toilet in India, plus labor, construction, etc? This is a very bad idea. The median household income per capita in the poorest states in India is under $1000/year. Just the cost of the toilet is much higher than the median monthly household income of one person.

That's before we get into the issue of using cement and concrete in the "plastone", which are very carbon-intensive (concrete generates about 400kg of CO2 per cubic meter). It would be much cheaper, simpler and greener to use wood to build it, which can be carbon net-negative.

<comment><USER5> You might be surprised to know that the govt. spends around 220$ to build a single toilet in small towns / villages in India under the Swachh Bharat's sanitary division.

I even have a friend who found it super lucrative to build toilets around his factory for the govt. and hence took it up to build a few toilets every day to add a stable revenue source.

This may not add up given the per capita, but that's how it is, welcome to India.

Rural toiled fund allocation raised to Rs. 15000 per toilet:- [https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/rural- to...](https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/rural-toilet-fund- allocation-raised-to-rs-15000-per-unit/article23125148.ece)

<comment><USER6> "The problem [in India] isn't just a lack of toilets -- it's a lack of toilets that people want to use."

National Geographic's deep-dive on the issue: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/toilet-d...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/toilet- defecate-outdoors-stunting-sanitation/)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I'm quite aware of that being an Indian and living here all my life.

Bill gates has written about this problem as well. Heck we've even got comedy movies surrounding this issue.

However, the toilet building programs are isolated from these facts, they don't even have proper maintenance programs in place to make sure their usable. Every infrastructural spend in India has leakage of money towards those who have power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Blinks- I found an interesting article that breaks down some of the potential problems with this process and the risks involved with heating plastics and trying to differentiate between plastic and PVC (they release different compounds when heated, both potentially problematic). [https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/heard-about-miracle- pl...](https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/heard-about-miracle-plastic- roads-heres-why-its-not-solution-our-plastic-problem-36927)

<comment><USER7> > the risks involved with heating plastics ... (they release different > compounds when heated, both potentially problematic)

The article makes this claim:

> Studies reveal that even heating plastics such as PP, PE and PS releases > moderate to highly toxic emissions – carbon monoxide, acrolein, formic acid, > acetone, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene and ethylbenzene.

Citing this[1] paper. But the paper only shows toxic emissions from _recycling plants operating at 200-300 degrees Celsius_ , not at 165 degrees Celsius (ie the peak temperature of asphalt).

[1] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653508...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653508013532)

edit: btw the article's broken vimeo link was the trailer to Chris Jordan's incredibly powerful film _Albatross_ (then titled _Midway_ ): [https://www.albatrossthefilm.com/](https://www.albatrossthefilm.com/), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLkTTJW4xZs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLkTTJW4xZs)

<comment><USER8> From the OP's article:

> Asphalt is heated to a temperature of 170C (338F). Shredded plastic below 70 > microns (including the multi-layer plastic shreds) is then sprinkled over > it. The bits of plastic seemingly disappear, melting into the red heat.

<comment><USER9> "seemingly" disappear. How is this any different than, say, the banned "microbeads"? This just puts tiny fragments of plastic into the environment, which is even more difficult to collect/recycle/sequester than plastic bags and bottles. I think this is a well-intentioned, but overall terrible idea and I hope they are forced to find a better solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I may not be fully understanding this, but isn't this process just going to make the Ocean plastic pollution a lot worse?

i.e.

Indian Monsoon Rains wear away the plastic from the road over few months, years....

The plastic particles drain and make it to the rivers.... eventually to the indian ocean...

... few years later, we now have large scale plastic particle pollution in the indian ocean thanks to this ingenious technique of mixing plastic with bitumen.

<comment><USER11> I doubt it.

Unless the paved roads are physically close to the Ocean it's unlikely the plastic will be washed away to ocean water. (BTW: Plastic decomposes much faster in sea water than on land - again that doesn't make it ok to dump it in sea water though )

Furthermore the plastic is "heat treated" and then mixed/layered with Bitumen. While the chemical reactions have not been explained it's likely that some form of chemical binding is happening at those temperatures i.e. Plastic is undergoing chemical conversion - at least at amalgam level.

<comment><USER12> It doesn't have to drain to the ocean, just to the nearest body of water, which will take care of the rest of the journey, no?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Little bit disappointing. Instead of 10 parts of bitumen, it requires use 9 parts of bitumen and 1 part of plastic. Add to that the heating of plastic to a tight upper bound lest it releases toxic fumes.

<comment><USER7> > Add to that the heating of plastic to a tight upper bound lest it releases > toxic fumes.

165 degrees Celsius is the maximum temperature for asphalt itself[1][2], so conventional spreading equipment is designed not to exceed that. The plastic is melted by the hot asphalt, not separately.

[1] [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/reviews/revhma01.pdf](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/reviews/revhma01.pdf)

[2] "Hot mixed asphalt is manufactured at temperatures between 270°F and 325°F." (that's 132-163 degrees Celsius) [https://www.forconstructionpros.com/asphalt/article/10297263...](https://www.forconstructionpros.com/asphalt/article/10297263/why- tracking-temperatures-is-key-to-successful-asphalt-paving)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> >> Plastic wouldn't clog our oceans or our landfills if we didn't throw it there in the first place.

The big worry isn't so much the oceans being "clogged." It's the microplastics. It's the tiny bits of plastic that bio-accumulate. The turtle choking on a plastic bag is one problem, the repercussions of plankton absorbing tiny beads of plastic into their cells another. Making roads out of bulk plastic doesn't help the microplastics issue. Spreading it out over thousands of miles of road may actually be worse than landfill it in a single place.

</comment><comment><USER15> I seem to recall that asphalt may be ripped up and recycled -- I wonder if this stuff can be recycled the same way.

</comment><comment><USER16> If anyone could help, I'm working with a company led by a young woman in Kenya who is actively creating paving bricks out of used plastic bottles. They need about $25k-$50k for machinery to help scale out the operation, and we're trying to find some people who can help secure this funding. Contact me if you'd like to help with doing something good with them.

Her company website: [https://gjengemakers.wixsite.com/mysite](https://gjengemakers.wixsite.com/mysite)

<comment><USER17> Looks scammish

<comment><USER18> I suppose that is probably true that a lot of very early stage startups may appear that way. That said, I've worked directly with them in Kenya and can attest to the fact that it's not and they are doing good work pushing this concept forward. If you have suggestions for other things that would help establish the veracity of things, do let me know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For this to work, the roads need to be better or same quality, and the usage of plastic needs to be more economically efficient.

Road quality being the same, the addition of plastic, including the labor, additional equipment costs of spreading it, storing it, producing it, must be cheaper than the cost of using just the bitumen.

Additionally, processing the recycled plastic has to be cheaper than just making new plastic for this process in the first place.

If this works out, it would be a good use of some waste materials.

</comment><comment><USER20> > Since plastic coats the stone and interacts with the hot bitumen, it's > properties change and it doesn't break down when exposed to light and heat.

This is a tall claim that needs substantiation. I'm no chemist, but I think most organic compounds, plastics included, break down with heat and light exposure.

Perhaps he thinks his process makes the plastic break down more slowly, but again, evidence needed.

</comment><comment><USER21> I read recently about children getting cancer from sports fields made from recycled car tyres.

<comment><USER22> Source?

<comment><USER21> References abound but here's the top one [https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/27/h...](https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/27/health/artificial- turf-cancer-study-profile/index.html)

I'd think twice before making roads from (even more) toxic chemicals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Do we not get to see a picture of such a road, or am I missing it?

</comment><comment><USER24> plastic is disgusting. no matter however we disguise it.

<comment><USER25> Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

<comment><USER26> Literally half of your posts are unsubstantive and tell other people what to do, like a control freak. Hypocrisy, thy name is dang.

<comment><USER25> That's true of course, except that it's my job and, alas, the community doesn't solve this problem without effort. Some medicines are toxic and one uses them when the alternative is worse. I wish we knew a better way.

In case it helps, moderation comments are even more tedious to write than they are to read.

<comment><USER26> How about simply allowing conversation to just happen? Would you like it if I told you how you were to speak out in public?

It's the GOLDEN RULE. Something you seem to have forgotten in its entirety. You're literally trying to treat someone as if you were their parent. You shouldn't be surprised to find people like me stepping up since you've already coerced people into cowering down.

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately all our experience with internet forums is that "allowing conversation to just happen" leads to the death of the forum. At least once the forum gets beyond a certain size.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Idx: Easily access deeply nested nullable fields in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://facebook.github.io/react-native/blog/2017/03/13/idx-the-existential-function.html <comment><USER2> As much as Coffeescript gets maligned, its best feature (that hasn't been replicated, not even here) was the existential operator:

      friends = user?.friends?[0]?.friends

It would even work properly with functions:

      friends = getFriends?()

Which compiles to:

      friends = typeof getFriends === "function" ? getFriends() : void 0;

`idx` is not quite the existential operator, but it seems cleaner then `_.get`'s string representation of your path.

<comment><USER3> The existential operator has been introduced as an ECMAScript proposal[1], so it will probably be included in future versions of JavaScript. The `idx` function is just a temporary workaround.

When it gets added to the language, we can codemod away all usage of `idx` to use the question-mark syntax.

[1] [https://github.com/claudepache/es-optional- chaining](https://github.com/claudepache/es-optional-chaining)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't quite get this, maybe someone can help. There's already a proposal for adding the existential operator in ECMAScript, if you're going to require babel transpilation why not simply write a babel plugin for the existential operator and use that?

If the argument is "because the proposal is immature and could be withdrawn" then the counter argument is that you have basically extended the language already by providing a built in "idx" global much like, say, parseFloat, with the difference that your function does not have any chance of actually being in the spec at any point, unlike the existential operator, thus you're basically masquerading the fact that using idx and the current proposal is the exact same thing just with different syntax.

<comment><USER5> At Facebook, we use Flow for type safety. We didn't want to have to introduce support for the existential operator until all of the details were more finalized.

Until then, we needed to have something that required minimal work (e.g. changes to the parser) that could tie us over until the language had proper support.

Also, we've been using this before the existential operator was formally proposed. (I should've probably got off my lazy butt to publish this sooner, but oh well.)

The plan is indeed to codemod this to the existential operator when it becomes available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Relevant discussion of the existential operator on ESDiscuss: [https://esdiscuss.org/topic/existential-operator-null- propag...](https://esdiscuss.org/topic/existential-operator-null-propagation- operator)

</comment><comment><USER7> As usual, coffeescript had it first.

</comment><comment><USER8> For context, this is a special case of Haskell's monads, which was also adopted by languages like Swift.

<comment> aaron-santos Reminiscent of Clojure's get-in function as well. [1]

[1] [https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/get- in](https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/get-in)

<comment><USER9> This is more like a clojure macro in that it runs via a compiler extension to avoid the runtime call overhead of something like get-in.

Seeing how verbose and painful it looks, it's also an interesting commentary on macros in JS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How does this differ from lodash's get method?

<comment><USER11> \- Flow understands the semantics of it.

\- The path can only be given as a static function literal and there is no function call overhead at runtime because of the bundled babel transform that transforms the code to a bunch of ternary operators.

<comment><USER10> Is the FN call overhead really that horrible in lodash? I didn't see any side by side comps.

Also, the transformed code (like all transformed babel) is most likely ugly and more verbose than using lodash's get, no?

<comment><USER12> > Is the FN call overhead really that horrible in lodash?

The overall size overhead is what is horrible.

> Also, the transformed code (like all transformed babel) is most likely ugly > and more verbose than using lodash's get, no?

Yes, but it also performs at what is probably as-close-to-optimal as possible. The resulting ternaries are extremely easy to work with for even the most basic of JS compilers. Source maps work well - I don't see this as a downside at all.

<comment><USER13> Naw, Lodash is modular. You can cherry-pick its modules. It's less than 716 bytes (with lodash-webpack-plugin).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon's Fake Review Problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.brianbien.com/amazons-fake-review-problem/ <comment><USER3> The fake review problem on Amazon is much bigger than people think. Here are my two anecdotes:

1\. I got bluetooth headphones on amazon (~$65). They had great reviews, but were very disappointing. I returned them and gave 2 star review. Representative from the manufacturer contacted me and offered me a pair for free. After I got them, they asked for positive review. I refused. That manipulation technique wasn't enough for them though. They might have merged the listing with some other item. Even though the item was released this year, it has reviews from 2014.

2\. When I need a cable or something similar, I go to a page like vipon.com . They offer huge discounts on some items on amazon (sometimes even -80%). They of course "suggest" leaving a review.

The more I look at reviews, the less I trust them. I see similar patterns for most products on amazon.

<comment><USER4> Huh. I've never really had an issue because I chalked it up more to people buying cheap crap and expecting it to be good. But $65 for a pair of headphones isn't exactly cheap. Was it a familiar brand but maybe a counterfeit? Or was it a brand you've never heard of, but the price is justified by very positive reviews? I'm curious.

<comment><USER5> Headphones seem to be a very strange category in general. You can get exceptional good value for money if you know what to buy and on the other hand pay a lot for utter crap.

<comment><USER6> Listening is extremely subjective though. Headphone types can be better / worse for certain listening habits (there are people out there who don't think great bass makes great music, folks), and for different ears. Music taste itself is extremely subjective. Best thing is still to get to a trusted hifi store nearby with your own, known music in best quality and your current best headphone model and test through candidate models yourself. (Admittedly, I'd still read some reviews before investing a few hundred dollars into headphones.)

<comment><USER7> My current earbud benchmark is the Panasonic ErgoFit line. [1]

To be fair, I don't use an external DAC or source high quality sound on the road.

But for $10 and tolerable, good enough for travel.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00E4LGVUO/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00E4LGVUO/)

<comment><USER6> Can confirm - for everyday in-ears, these Panasonic in-ears are indeed good and durable.

Cheap but surprisingly good end: Superlux HD668B (20-40$, as they got popular you may need to watch out for counterfeits). IMHO they are on par with some popular 200$ - 300$ Beyerdynamic / Sennheiser / AKG models. You may want to follow one of the online guides to replace the ear cup plastic with velour.

Fakespot: A (90%)

Expensive end: AudioQuest Nighthawk, 1st model. Their sound is unique and "purist audiophiles" may not like it, but they work pretty well with my listening habits; the experience has been pure joy so far and they are very comfortable.

Fakespot: A (90%)

Listening habits: Metal (symphonic-, power-, progressive-, i.e. complex and with classical music elements; e.g. Blind Guardian) and some Depeche Mode

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazon is starting to feel more and more like eBay. The same product sold by multiple vendors under different names, questionable reviews, clearly fraudulent sellers and so on.

I used to love Amazon but now when I look for something I dread to do so on Amazon because I don't feel I can trust anything there.

<comment><USER9> I wish that Amazon could split the market place off. I disliked it from the first day they introduced it. I want to buy from Amazon not some company I've never heard of.

It's if course never gonna happen. It's too convenient for Amazon and most users probably don't even understand that they aren't buying from Amazon.

<comment><USER10> > It's if course never gonna happen. It's too convenient for Amazon and most > users probably don't even understand that they aren't buying from Amazon.

Out of curiosity, why do you assume people don't realize they aren't buying from Amazon?

<comment><USER11> Why would people think they're _not_ buying from Amazon when they're on the Amazon web site and their credit card gets billed to Amazon?

(Can't remember, but do the parcels come in Amazon packaging too?)

<comment><USER10> > Why would people think they're not buying from Amazon when they're on the > Amazon web site and their credit card gets billed to Amazon?

Because Amazon tells them when they're looking at the item that it's sold by a third party? And then again when they're checking out. And the items sold by third parties include an invoice and receipt from the third party? It's not a difficult technical issue - it only requires basic reading comprehension, which I'd expect most people using Amazon to posses.

Obviously everybody commenting here has figured out what's going on, and most people I've talked to about it (technical and non-technical) have also figured it out, so I just can't see it as Amazon tricking everybody.

My assumption is that _most_ people buying from Amazon _do_ know about and understand third party sellers, but aren't bothered by them enough to do anything.

<comment><USER8> I think most people assume that there is some level of quality control of third party suppliers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well the situation does seem quite bad when you see people who leave fake reviews become brazen enough to actually advertise their services on Amazon itself [1]. I reported this review about 10 days ago and it's still up. The email address provided appears on hundreds of product listings [2]. When they can't even filter out nonsense like this I can only assume they put zero effort into tackling fake reviews.

[1] [https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer- reviews/R7J38CTD1MNT0](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer- reviews/R7J38CTD1MNT0)

[2] [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:amazon.co.uk+sohant85...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:amazon.co.uk+sohant855%40gmail.com)

<comment><USER13> ...this is sad in the instance you describe because the actual seller did not request that 'advert for reviews' and it now marks their product as 'fake'. Yet the actual seller is legit and doing a great job according to 'fakespot'. Sample listing:

[https://www.fakespot.com/company/ketdirect](https://www.fakespot.com/company/ketdirect)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's my anecdote: my wife is an author on Amazon and personally knows most of the people who review her books. FakeSpot gave her most popular book an F grade because people were "suspiciously positive".

Most people leaving reviews only leave reviews for things they absolutely love, so saying that it's "suspiciously positive" is not an indicator of it being fake.

In her case, she knows these people personally and they're not fake scripts. Yet FakeSpot, who OP holds up as doing the great job that Amazon is not, is completely wrong.

tldr; spotting fake reviews is harder than it seems apparently.

EDIT: the other thing is that she has lost quite a bit of legitimate reviews from Amazon deleting them. Amazon is actually doing more than the end user sees about this problem.

EDIT 2: Another thing Amazon completely ignores are reviewers who get an early copy of the product in exchange for an honest review. This is how a lot of people kickstart reviews on their products and Amazon completely ignores that valid use case. In fact, they hurt it because they don't mark those reviews as "Verified Purchase" since the reviewer got the product outside of the Amazon channels. They need to come up with a system for this.

<comment><USER15> > my wife is an author on Amazon and personally knows most of the people who > review her books.

So your wife has people she knows leave positive reviews in order to bump her book's review score and you're upset that Fakespot gave it an F due to them being non-organic reviews?

As a consumer it sounds like Fakespot is doing a great job, and exactly what it states on the tin. What your wife is doing is at best dishonest and I'm glad they're exposed as sham reviews. Hopefully these people are putting a disclaimer in the reviews stating the conflict but I highly doubt it.

> Yet FakeSpot, who OP holds up as doing the great job that Amazon is not, is > completely wrong.

Except according to your own anecdote they were completely right?

<comment><USER16> I would also call this dishonesty, but I wouldn't be too hard on someone for this. Asking someone to not do this is like asking someone to do honest advertisements. It's asking someone to uphold an ethical standard that the majority neglects.

A little bit of moderated moral pushback has its place, but I think the main solution at societal-scale must be structural.

<comment><USER15> I actually agree, I'd be lying if I wouldn't leave a positive review if my spouse or friend wrote a book. Problem is the person above said "Yet FakeSpot [...] is completely wrong." and criticized Fakespot for pointing out the problematic reviews.

They say that everyone is a hero in their own story, and I think that applies here, you have good personal motivations (help a friend/spouse/family, etc) but ultimately what you're doing is no different from the consumer's perspective than the people that do this stuff professionally. It is just as immoral/misleading/dishonest.

They get upset with a service (Fakespot) which points out the bad behavior because it contrasts with their moral motivations for doing so. I think they need to re-examine right and wrong in this situation, Fakespot may not be the bad guy here.

<comment><USER17> I mean, I'm just suspicious. Fakespot seems to say the reviews are dishonest, fake, overly positive for.. well, a lot of things, including my favorite pair of headphones.

They're positive because the headphones are utterly fantastic. They beat the crap out of the better-reviewed (on Amazon) Bose version. Which Fakespot gives a better grade to.

<comment><USER18> Got curious. Could you share the brand and model? Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't care much about the reviews, but I care a lot about the fake / phony / not-as-described merchandise: [http://seliger.com/2017/01/09/tools-continued- careful-buy-am...](http://seliger.com/2017/01/09/tools-continued-careful-buy- amazon/) . I've actually changed behavior and tried harder to buy from the original maker, if possible.

<comment><USER20> That's the behavior that I would like to see Amazon encourage as a solution.

Tracking the product back to it's actual origin of manufacturer (and showing us the consumer).

Where, exactly, was the factory? The lot number and date of manufacturer? Official model and revision number?

Requiring these things will give buyers better hard data to detect and exclude middle-level-marking shenanigans as well as combat 'bait and switch' (even if not intentional) changes to product configurations sold under the same general marketing moniker.

<comment><USER21> How would you go about tracing the steps? Are there some large database of OEM factories where you can contact them in English (assuming China).

I too would love to know _exactly_ where and who made it, how many middle-men have stepped in with their own markup to finally Amazon.

Because it's clear that Amazon doesn't give two shit about who and what gets sold, they just care about volume. Fixing reviews is not part of that strategy.

<comment><USER22> With great difficulty.

Most major brands never even touch their products. They design them and have them built by contract manufacturers. They then get sent through distributors, shippers, brokers, etc. Each of which has terribly old systems which may or may not track each individual item.

Most links in this chain are also disinterested in any third party knowing what and how many products they move, including and especially the brand itself.

<comment><USER23> I think your last paragraph is absolutely key - many players treat that information as strictly proprietary. A big reason is because oftentimes a supplier makes identical (other than the packaging) products for two different customers, one sold as generic, one name brand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am much more wary about buying from Amazon than most of my peers, who easily click and buy on a whim or out of habit. I went to buy a toy at a brick and mortar, and compared the price to Amazon while there - $12.99 in the store and $27.xx at Amazon! I think they've marketed them to be the low price leaders but that's definitely not the case.

I'm also concerned about counterfeit products - I don't care as much about reviews because I'll usually have researched beforehand or already know what I want. However with brand name items, I always wonder if it's the real thing and as a result have stopped buying shoes, etc from Amazon. I also don't buy anything from Amazon that goes in my body or on my body (supplements, cosmetics/hygiene, etc). I stick with brick & mortar or the online storefront.

It's unfortunate, because Amazon is fantastic as a concept, unfortunately my trust in them does not extend to most items. I'd rather pay more and be confident in the product. I think whatever they are doing is working for them and they have no incentive to change because the vast majority of customers are not so discerning.

<comment><USER25> This is happening because people now _assume_ Amazon's prices are the best - always. But, that is not the case. There are times where people are knowingly listing a product about market prices to catch people who are caught unaware.

Once upon a time, I bought two boxes of Ener-G. It was only later I found out I have paid 100% markup on those boxes. I felt stupid that I hadn't verified the prices on the manufacturer's site.

<comment><USER26> People also do this with drop shipping.

They'll scrape products from X and list them on Y for cost+markup then drop ship. Even if they use thin margins coupon codes and promotions from a customer rewards program do a lot of offset the occasional return that you can't pass up the line or order that happens after a price hike but before your scraping software can catch up.

If you have a discount you can use that to undercut your competition and appear high up when people sort by price. You get a X% coupon code for some product from Y then scrape Y's online store and relist it on Z for retail less X plus your margin and costs. Fraudulently purchased gift cards can also be monetized through web scraping and drop shipping.

When the cost difference is negligible I prefer to buy from drop shippers rather than have my payment info and PII sitting around in yet another database waiting to be stolen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The problem is massive. Most people haven't noticed yet but it's only a matter of time. Eventually everyone gets burned at least once and Amazon becomes the new ebay.

They need to get a handle on their supply chain and stop outsourcing so much of their product listings to shady third party sellers. Shady third party sellers go hand-in-hand with fake reviews. Most reputable brands don't want to get their hands dirty with that stuff. It's guys making margin on reselling that have all the skin in the game and most of the incentive to manipulate the system.

I've never gotten a fake from any brick and mortar or online merchant that sells direct. Only places I've gotten fakes and been duped by rampant fake reviews are eBay and Amazon. Once a competitor gets their shit together (I'm betting on Walmart) and has an equally convenient online store, Amazon will be the Myspace of online sales.

People have loyatly to brands but not the company that sells them. If something better comes along I'll switch immediately just like I did years ago with ebay

<comment><USER28> I've actually recently gotten a fake from Macys.com, so it seems to me that sites like Amazon and eBay are saturated with fakes, and the scammers are infiltrating supply chains in general. (They refused to accept the return, however, so I don't think the problem is that widespread, or maybe they're just not aware of the issue yet.)

This might be brick & mortar's last laugh. How do you protect against fake merchandise? Don't worry about it, customers simply won't buy the obviously incorrect items, and you can identify and deal with them when you take inventory.

<comment><USER23> What was the product, if you don't mind sharing.

<comment><USER28> Clothing item. I received a really cheap item by the same manufacturer, with a tag jammed into it identifying it as the higher-priced item.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Social proof via reviews (of products, restaurants, anything) is a great idea if you can assume good intent. Back in the good ol' days of the Internet this seemed plausible for some reason, but now there's real money to be made and that's out the window.

Amazon and Yelp and the like may be better or worse at stemming the tide of fakery, but asking them to be better isn't going to fundamentally help. The whole idea is broken.

<comment><USER30> I wonder if it will come back to a more distributed CR type of system. Also branding and maintaining the integrity of a brand.

Currently you have a bevvy of brands for China sourced goods. The brands are obviously made up without much thought. Something like "Scarvast" trekking pole. "Vargus" flashlights, "Zukil" wireless speakers. "Brikor" dehumidifiers.

And often times the same seller will have multiple "brands". This is what makes it unreliable and untrustworthy. It's like they live A/B test products on AMZ.

<comment><USER31> I highly recommend a 30 Day trial subscription on Consumer Reports (CR) online if you're looking to buy a big ticket item. You can put in your CC# & other details and get free 30 day access to CR testing of a lot of products. Then cancel before the 30 days are up. You may end up paying a little more for a top notch product, but you can be assured if CR reviewed it, you're getting what you pay for.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe there's a market for verified customer reviews of popular items - <USER2> ones that aren't big ticket. Consumer Reports might grow to cover additional items and perhaps develop a browser extension for subscribers who gain access to trusted reviews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I usually look at the 1 star reviews first and see if the complaints are user error, unreal expectations or really a poorly designed product.

<comment><USER33> I don't know that this solves the problem, since competitors can just start leaving fake negative reviews on competing products.

<comment><USER32> While that is true, if it's a low effort 1 star review, E.g. "It's crap", with no explanation of why it's crap, I ignore that. If there's a lengthy 1 star review with details, then I factor that in to "Was that one just bad, or all them are like that". I don't just look at the 1 stars, I work my way up. More details for me equal a higher weighted review. Pictures, video and stuff help too, but of course those can be faked. Lately I've been looking at audio equipment for S&Gs (Microphones, audio interfaces, phantom power injection, etc...).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is not just Amazon's problem. App store ratings, Reddit comments, Twitter/FB feeds, and Net Neutrality comments are all gamed. We are living in the age of human controlled bots looking to manipulate other humans through what we read.

<comment><USER35> Yeah, these are all "message passing" algorithms, like belief propagation. The whole financial system itself is another good example of this.

<comment><USER34> I hope Hacker News will be the last bastion for fake comments. At least, I have never seen bots lurking around on Hacker News.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Generally I always go to review sites first like wire cutter to see what are the best stuff, then I would see the little details, mostly what bad reviews say about it to contradict. A lot good reviews I can sniff out as fluff with a 5 star label. The bad thing is that when I see an avg of 4.5 stars with 100+ reviews, there is a slight bias inside me for this product. Amazon could do a better job to weight the avg stars.

<comment><USER37> Well, you even have to take the Wirecutter with a grain of salt. IIRC, there was some heated debate over whether they were pay to play from some standing desk co that didn't sell through Amazon (Wirecutter makes a portion of their revenue from amazon referral links).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> If Amazon starts penalizing products for fake reviews then it's probably just a matter of time until that's weaponized by competitors to tank competing products. Then I imagine Amazon will have to come out with a "disavow review" tool similar to Google's disavow backlinks (to counteract targeted negative SEO).

<comment><USER39> What's to say that isn't happening now? Seen quite a lot of pseudo positive reviews that are simply advising reader that "another product is better"

<comment> j-c-hewitt It is happening now in fairly large quantities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I tried to buy my son a remote control car on Amazon a few weeks ago. I gave up after wading through 2 pages of 5 star reviewed products where the reviews all looked the same, all had the same structure. Many referenced "my 11 year old son", or the name of the company. This seems like something that can be weeded out using ML sentiment analysis. If too many reviews have the same structure, your posting gets demoted. If I could have found one legit looking review I would have bought that car, instead I gave up and went to The hobby store.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing like the good old trusted hobby store. And yes, this repetition of phrase or structure should be a clear signal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Fake reviews? I received a firkin fake Bose QC-35 II Headphone! Check out the fake product and read the reviews, and this listing is still active even after Amazon verified and refunded me the cost of the product.

[https://www.amazon.com/Bose-QuietComfort-headphones- Bluetoot...](https://www.amazon.com/Bose-QuietComfort-headphones-Bluetooth- NFC-Black/dp/B01L92BERK#customerReviews)

Infact one of the reviewers did a detail comparison between the fake product and the real QC-35.

<comment><USER42> This is very different issue. Amazon, unlike eBay, has single product page for product. And multiple sellers can sell under that page. Including sellers of counterfeit. This does not make original product bad (so reviews are incorrect) - but rather seller should be reported.

Granted - that concept is very complicated for typical amazon shopper and that's how you end up with bunch of "fake" 1-star reviews under brand-names products...

<comment><USER28> That isn't the issue mentioned by OP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> [https://reviewmeta.com/](https://reviewmeta.com/) and [https://www.fakespot.com/](https://www.fakespot.com/) can help.

</comment><comment><USER44> There are groups that do both: buying the first batches of products and writing nice reviews, then the seller will pay for what they have done, it's a mature business these days: you hire a team to market you at Amazon by faking reviews after "real" purchases(will be compensated or rewarded under the counter afterwards). This is very hard to detect indeed.

Maybe Amazon can have some AI algorithm, that is for any newly arrived products with non-sales yet, monitoring the activities on them closely,the fake purchase and review must have some common pattern(same address, same ID, same IP,etc).

But then, why does Amazon want to do that? it will decrease its own profit.

So yes, customers will be the one got screwed up no matter what.

<comment><USER45>
      But then, why does Amazon want to do that? it will decrease its own profit.

Why would policing fake reviews decrease Amazon's profits?

<comment><USER46> Presumably because positive reviews cause people to buy products, they don't necessarily blame Amazon if they turn out to be bad, nor do they return them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> >> Amazon – who has some of the world's most advanced ML – really needs to step up its review fraud detection game.

It's not in the interests of Amazon to be on a crusade against fake reviews. Mass fake reviews are the driving force of revenues.

AMZN will always maintain the balance between public outcry and absolute minimal effort to show that they're doing something against spammers.

From my side I maintain the right to buy the product and then write "not as described" as a reason for free return for full refund with free pickup.

Quite often vendor/seller will give you refund without requiring you to return merchandise.

I don't feel like I been abused too much by fake reviews as long as I can "abuse back" with my free return.

<comment><USER48> I don't understand your argument. How do reviews drive revenues? If all fake reviews were taken down, wouldn't buy less stuff from Amazon.

<comment><USER49> Many people look at # of reviews and average review as "social proof" about the quality of a product. The reason we do this is because it can be a useful short-cut to performing an intellectually rigorous evaluation. If Amazon removes a bunch of reviews they're removing incentives that users use to buy products.

<comment><USER50> No. You're at Amazon.com, you will make a purchase.

Reviews affect which purchase.

The incentive that matters is the sentiment or belief you should go to amazon.com in the first place. That's what's at risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Amazon has a habit of removing reviews if they contain words like counterfeit. This is likely due to the issue of counterfeit items on Amazon and intermingling of goods between vendors including Amazon itself.

</comment><comment><USER52> I briefly considered offering a curated review service for Amazon many years back (I know it's unethical and it was just posturing) and was not surprised to find many services already offering that.

I thought Millennials had become desensitized to all 5 star over the top, big flashy sounding reviews so a service that carefully curates reviews for top items seemed like a decent idea. Sprinkle a few 1 star reviews for the wrong item sent or a fault of Amazon, a few 4 stars raving about the product but complaining about some minor aspect irrelevant to the average buyer to make it sound authentic. Many people compare a few products and when they make a purchase, they do so feeling really proud of themselves that they picked the perfect product for the best price. The "it's too good to be true" doesn't really seem to work anymore. This honestly seems to be the case for every Amazon product these days. We'll probabzky get desensitized to this soon too and something else will come up.

That said, fake products are ridiculous and there are a few sites I've bookmarked that do a pretty decent job of spotting a fake product and I do admit it's becoming harder to differentiate lately but the too good to be true adage still stands.

</comment><comment><USER53> I got scammed on some hdmi cables and iPhone charging cables a few months back. They all broke within a month, which I thought was weird, definitely the worst purchases I've made on amazon but they were top reviewed products on the front page of a search.

I just checked them on fakespot and they were both rated at 98% fake reviews. This is pretty confidence shattering for me; how do I pay $80 a year for prime if amazon is in cahoots with such obvious scams...

</comment><comment><USER54> Reminds me of Goodhart's Law:

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)

<comment><USER55> When you see this start to happen to Bitcoin, that's when you sell and buy ethereum (or other secondary crypto!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Amazon's solution to fake reviews is Amazon Basics, a "verified good" version of whatever you were looking for. Thus, they have little incentive to combat fake reviews for products not directly sold by them, since that bad experience, they hope, will cause you to run back to them for the product next time.

They also get to avoid being called a monopoly by selling products of various qualities and from various sellers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly, Amazon might have a secondary payoff here: they actually get some good ground truth (honest review data) since these reviews - at least the positive ones - aren't tainted by the same incentives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I am finding myself more and more suspicious of buying from Amazon. I have had issues with fake reviews, disclarity over the actual vendor/source of an item, particularly due to their mixed logistics system. It's scary how many 1-Star reviews are clearly from people who've gotten a fake / different product than what's listed. I am close to done with buying from Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER58> The fake review problem is clearly bad, but if it's going to take some fancy machine learning algorithm to solve it, why not start with a simpler improvement to user reviews: Weighting the Top Rated scores so it doesn't show an item with a single 5-star review above an item with 5000 reviews and a 4.9 star average.

<comment><USER59> Amen to that. It's a solved problem in statistics, too:

[https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average- rating...](https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Should we conclude that Amazon does not have sufficient incentive to remove these fake reviews? Surely they could, when third-party sites easily detect them...

<comment><USER60> Third-party sites are not "easily" detecting them. They have no idea what the performance of their "detection" is, in either direction (false +, false -).

<comment><AUTHOR> One problem is getting "ground truth." I think Amazon has a pretty good idea of a lot of near-certain true positives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I worked at Amazon as an intern in 2005 and recall a talk on fake reviews. There were groups of people who wrote fake positive reviews for each other's books. Today I have friends who sell on Amazon and they write fake reviews for each other's products.

<comment><USER60> People give fake reviews all the time in other circumstances (e.g. at work, reviewing papers). Human nature really can't be changed. You just have to keep your skepticism and read critically.

<comment><USER62> I don't know anyone who has given a fake review on a paper. Could happen. I do know that reviewing papers can be a royal time suck on people who don't really have a lot of time to spare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Amazon reviews system is broken. It seems to favor the cheapest functional product but not everyone wants to buy the cheapest thing. Sometimes they want the best quality item and it's hard to interpolate this from the review system. Reviews really need to be weighted to the kinds of purchases people make. Someone buying the top of the line OLED TV is going to have a different set of preferences than someone who is buying a no-name 65" LCD.

<comment><USER64> With TVs and computer parts it becomes impossible to read the reviews because they are merged with every other variation of that product from the same brand, with wildly different features and quality levels. Look up LG monitors or eVGA power supplies for instance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I try to do my purchase's based on scientific research methods. There needs to be benchmarks that you can use to compare the products. That is however problematic for some products, such as books.

What's even worse then fake reviews is fake bad reviews where competitors give your products a low rating. If your first review ends up bad you are screwed, unless you get 100 good reviews to compensate.

</comment><comment><USER66> If they're not going to do anything about fake stuff, why should they care about fake reviews? As it is, they're trying to make it so you don't know what you're buying or who you're buying it from, or even be entirely sure what the price is going to be, or who is going to be delivering to your door, so why should they care about reviews?

<comment><USER60> You have a problem they'll shower $ on you. As long as Amazon does that, people seem to accept it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I rated a book poorly (1-2 stars). This book only had 3 reviews after one year since it was published.

Crazily enough, after my review appeared, two days later this book had over TWELVE glowing reviews, all of them Five-stars

...

</comment><comment><USER68> It's not perfect, but I've been using Fakespot [0] for all my Amazon purchases. It helps filter down the info a bit, which makes it easier to make decisions.

Honestly, I think what we need is a Consumer Report reboot. I signed up for a subscription recently, and was very disappointed with their service, although I still like idea behind it.

I'm often overwhelmed by the huge number of options, and it can be incredibly challenging to narrow the number down, even for everyday purchases. Heck, sometimes you have two options and no easy way of differentiating between em, like with generic vs brand over-the-counter medicine. Unfortunately, now-a- days trying to do any kind of research is most likely to pull up fake or questionable info from paid shills. I wonder how feasible it would be to create a decentralized chain of trust for product and service reviews.

[0] [https://www.fakespot.com](https://www.fakespot.com)

<comment><USER21> what did you find disappointing about it? First time I heard about it, what is it they do that's worth subscribing?

On researching, yeah it's honestly a _chore_ everytime because so much disinformation/misinformation.

I'm not sure what decentralization would look like or even make sense. It seems like you just need some central guy like CR to vet and test out all the products. I go to Youtube for that tho.

<comment><USER68> Well, I'd had access to their physical catalogues when I was younger through my parents' subscription, so I had good memories of their reviews.

Their site has TONS of tracking and marketing scripts, which I consider anti- user. Furthermore, if you block or disable any, the site breaks. For a service claiming to be pro-user they seem to be engaging in a lot of dark patterns.

Aside from that, I found their reviews lacking in detail. For many categories they have dozens of options marked as recommended, with prices ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, but no explanation of why one might prefer certain models. I subscribed because I wanted help narrowing down my options.

I wouldn't suggest subscribing for more than a single month. They have some useful information, but not enough to justify a long-term subscription.

<comment><USER21> What would the perfect thing look like for helping you narrow down your options?

And if it was successful in helping you make informed consumer decisions, would it be something you'd come back for again and again?

Lately, I'm super passionate and vocal about protecting consumers rights. I've been disenfranchised and powerless to act against shady business practices. I've been threatened for leaving negative reviews on purchases. Lawyers only go after high profile high payout cases. Local media seems to be in bed with corporate sponsors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> They don't try to solve this problem at all. I was looking for a cheap macbook charger, and ran across two very different products with identical reviews, spelling mistakes and all. I'm sure this is common, even. How hard would it be to automatically detect this behavior?

</comment><comment><USER70> Solving the fake review problem might be possible if Amazon takes steps to make it economically unfeasible for the bad actors to do it at scale.

For example, let's say that each product is shipped with a unique review_id and that review_id is tied to the product. When posting reviews about said product, you need to provide a picture of the card that contains the review_id. This would need to be verified server-side before the review is accepted.

IMO this would make it too difficult for vendors to buy fake reviews at volume, since each fake review now must go through the extra step of taking a picture of the review_id card and uploading it along with the review. Since that step would take place in the analog world it would defeat most automated review posting methods.

</comment><comment><USER71> Recently I've avoided buying certain things just because I didn't want to put in the time to do my own research on it.

I would rather not buy it than take the risk of getting ripped off buy a fake review.

Some things are worth the money but not the time.

</comment><comment><USER72> I encountered this problem while trying to do Christmas shopping on Amazon. An example is this (parachute hammocks): [https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search- alias...](https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search- alias%3Daps&field-keywords=parachute+hammock)

I don't know anything about them, I'm not familiar with manufacturers, but this search result brings up very similar items from "different" companies. What's even more suspicious is that there are MULTIPLE results that have 1-2 thousand reviews and are at a perfect 5*.

<comment><USER73> Try this: [https://www.fakespot.com/](https://www.fakespot.com/)

<comment><USER74> This looks really cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> How much of this problem would be eliminated if Amazon only allowed reviews from accounts that purchased that item?

<comment><USER37> Zero. Because the workaround is that reviewers are asked to buy the products with their own money and then reimbursed via Paypal.

Source: I used to do incentivized reviews but stopped after the rule changes. I still get asked to do the Paypal workaround.

In fact, the old system was better. At least the incentivized review disclosures let you know to take a review with a grain of salt. Now, it's even shadier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I'm starting to think that amazon might be in trouble, because of

A. Fake reviews, see above

B. Fake products [1]

C. A growing organization, which will be slower and less like on "day 1" [2]

So far, all of this has not affected their top line, but maybe will change soon.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12743316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12743316)

[2] [https://www.geekwire.com/2017/amazon-soars-340k-employees- ad...](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/amazon-soars-340k-employees- adding-110k-people-single-year/)

</comment><comment><USER77> For me, I only look at a review if it states at least one or two non-trivial _negative_ aspects of the product. That alone weeds out a lot of fake reviews.

Most honest reviews are never 100% positive.

<comment> alok-g Yes. Even if it mentions some "non-trivial" positive aspects, it still helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Amazon has the power to fix this. They don't seem to care. Simple logic and heuristics would be enough.

Amazon allows anyone to post a review. You don't even have to buy the product. That is fundamentally wrong.

That's the first easy step: If you did not buy the product on Amazon you cannot post a review.

Amazon allows people who receive deep discounts to post reviews. That is ripe for manipulation.

And so, the second filter is simple: If someone doesn't pay at least N%, say 50%, for a product they don't get to post a review.

Amazon allows people to post a review at any time, even before the product ships. You can post a review for toothpaste before you actually use it.

The third filter would include a variable purchase-to-review period. The length of this period is different depending on the type of product. Maybe someone who buys a USB cable can post a review a couple of weeks after actually receiving it --but not sooner. Someone buying weight loss pills might need to wait 60 days.

In other words, introduce some common sense into a process that would only allow actual retail buyers of a product to experience the product for a reasonable amount of time before allowing them to post a review, positive or negative.

It goes beyond that. Negative reviews need to be routed to the vendor before they appear publicly on Amazon. Why? Amazon needs to give vendors a first shot at solving the problem. The current system is moronic. People can give a USB cable a bad review because they don't like the color. The thing might work just fine but the person wanted a different shade of green and can give the product a 1 star review. This is nonsense.

In general terms, Amazon reviews, due to Amazon's own incompetence, are pretty much worthless these days.

</comment><comment><USER79> i had a friend who worked at a place whose owners had a forum board(or perhaps many) and the employees working there were supposed to

1\. search shit up the internet. this could be any random stuff. electronics to politics to plain BS. 2\. start a thread by logging into one of the board accounts by literally copy pasting the stuff they chose to select based on some criteria. 3\. reply the question from different accounts(all taken from a pool), usually more copy pasted shit. 4\. copy-paste all that into some document and submit it as a worklog to the management.

i think the source of income was advertisement(what else could support such a thing?). what i found fascinating was that this cottage industry somehow managed to pay middle-class salaries to about 20 odd employees in a place like suburban mumbai by siphoning money from a burgeoning advertising industry and doing nothing of any value whatsoever. i guess this is what Friedman really meant by a free market. stupidity begets stupidity!

the point being, it's become really difficult to figure what's of value in this weird weird world!

</comment><comment><USER80> I was surprised to see that possibly the best vb6 book ever written, which has 96 reviews on amazon.com, is scored an F by fakespot

[https://www.fakespot.com/product/programming-microsoft- visua...](https://www.fakespot.com/product/programming-microsoft-visual- basic-6-0-80322ea5-2da7-410c-9777-704d5f97695a)

<comment><USER81> I searched a few more well known and popular books (ones that HN would recommend) and they all come back with nothing better than a C. This doesn't instill much confidence in me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It seems Amazon is in a bind. While we will like to believe the extensions which can sniff out fake reviews, they don't have the burden of false positives - reviews which are genuine but marked as fake.

Imagine, what happens if Amazon does incorporate a stricter review guideline and lot of the reviews get tossed. It will be Youtube demonistation debate all over again.

</comment><comment> j-c-hewitt Amazon does do a lot to detect bribed reviews automatically. However, in the long run, this may be an arms race that Amazon will lose.

One issue with detecting fakes with identical phrases is that many real reviewers will take phrases from the product description or from other peoples' reviews either consciously or unconsciously.

This also matches up with a common bribed review technique of giving people canned phrases to repeat in their reviews or hundreds of prewritten reviews to be distributed out to people who are part of the review program.

Top reviewers are also not a good brake on this process because the best way for them to profit from their reviews is to take bribes. Just going after people who only leave positive reviews also doesn't really work because smart reviewers salt their reviews with the occasional negative one (generally for people who aren't bribing them).

User generated reviews emerged because many surveys across many different product categories have shown that shoppers tend to trust peer reviews more than they trust expert reviews. Part of this is because so many expert reviews have been corrupted to an even greater degree, with PR departments basically being bribery and party-throwing departments whose jobs are to manipulate journalists and place articles in supposedly unbiased publications.

The issue from the seller side is that shoppers are absurd perfectionists. A product can go from a 4.24 star to a 4.26 star average and have its conversion rate double. The difference between 4 and 4.5 stars is the difference between losses on the product and profits in many competitive categories. Also many people just give 1 star reviews to products when they have minor nitpicks. That'd be fine if that 1 star review didn't tank a product average and suddenly mean the budget that was there for an employee suddenly isn't there anymore.

In real terms the main difference in most categories between the reliably 4.5-5 star product and the 4 star product is that one seller spams harder than the other one. Considering that nice guys finish last in that particular competition, it rapidly becomes a triumph or the worst.

Long-run what will happen is that the reaction against user reviews will be as severe as the reaction against critics has been. Part of this is also just a scale issue: with so many products and brands constantly popping up globally, there isn't enough time and editorial attention available to review everything.

<comment><USER82> > smart reviewers salt their reviews with the occasional negative one > (generally for people who aren't bribing them)

This is exactly the problem with the "consumer protection" racket--companies like Consumer Affairs will curate a negative presentation of your company or product, then call you up offering a $2,500/month subscription which basically allows you to remove old negative reviews and prevent new ones from appearing on their site.

<comment><USER83> Agreed, Yelp does the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I can say from personal experience that I used to seek out reviews on Amazon even when buying goods from a brick and mortar store.

Now it's almost the opposite. I'm hesitant to trust any reviews on the site and buy goods from other vendors whenever possible.

It's unfortunate; I hope they can implement some measures to prevent fraudulent reviews.

</comment><comment><USER85> An even bigger problem they have is with the fake 2 Day shipping. Tried to order a Prime 2 Day shipping item today (Sat 12/16) and delivery was 2 day guaranteed for Thursday 12/21\. And recently, I'm getting zero weekend delivery. Oddly, recent Ebay orders were delivered on Sunday.

</comment><comment><USER86> The fake-review problem was amusingly exposed for TripAdvisor by a journalist who with, the aid of five people, had his garden shed rated as five stars:

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

At the end of the TRASHFUTURE podcast (14 Dec 2017 "The Shed Chronicles ft. Oobah Butler, ca. 36 minutes in [http://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/feed/](http://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/feed/) ) people are still calling for what he describes as "frozen dinners with the sort of things that wankers like on them, like microherbs".

</comment><comment><USER87> fake reviews are an issue, but so are low-quality reviews.

for example i've seen quite a few books with a modest handful of reviews have their stars tanked by some terrible bad-faith reviews by people who take an issue with the book that isn't directly about the quality or merit of the content. (this really shows up in political and philosophy areas.)

this isn't the end of the world if i take the time to carefully survey reviews, but i just don't have time to give every book due process. few people really do.

i really wish i had some way to ignore individual reviews as well as everything from a reviewer - 'ignore' meaning that the site discounts their contribution to scoring when rendered for me.

</comment><comment><USER31> I left this comment on the site's comment section (apologies if others have already posted these suggestions - I didn't read through all the comments):

Try using fakespot.com or reviewmeta.com. They're both sites setup to try & check the validity of Amazon comments using different methodology - such as how many times a reviewer has left a review, certain trigger keywords known to be used by bots & how many reviews Amazon has deleted from a review by request of the merchant (yes, Amazon will do this!). This will leave you with a much better sense of whether or not a product has been 'review-bombed' or if the company is up to shady practices.

<comment><USER88> To be clear, Amazon will remove reviews at merchant request when the review is about FBA shipping. Generally, these are bad reviews. A merchant would not want to remove a good review when the subject is shipping.

"This came really fast!" 5 Stars is not a product review, however a merchant would not want to remove it. "The box was completely damaged and destroyed the product!!" 1 Star - will be removed by request if shipped via FBA. As with anything for selling on Amazon, they are not exactly consistent with this policy.

<comment><USER31> Sorry, FBA = ?

<comment><USER89> Fulfillment By Amazon

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> This is why I subscribe to an independent review and consumer advice service / magazine. Money, even in small amounts, seems to distort reviews. Before I trust a review I want to know where the money that paid for it came from.

</comment><comment><USER91> Lately people will receive a message, email, or letter requesting a review from the vendor in exchange for a free product or heavily discounted one. It is hard to trust one thousand 5-star reviews.

<comment><AUTHOR> similar to a lot of apartments incentivizing positive reviews from their tenants

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I really like Aliexpress even tho it's more like eBay and not Amazon (but on the other hand Amazon is starting to feel like eBay nowdays)

1\. You can sort the product search page by order number (who many people bought the same product). That alone is a big help to dodge fake products.

2\. People are encouraged to make reviews with photos. The seller usually gives you a coupon if you make a review with photo which feels like a grey area (am I being bribed?) but as a potential buyer it helpes me a lot to make my decision.

</comment><comment><USER93> This may seem off topic but what do we do when bots catch up to our state of the art for keeping them out?

Do we milk the concept of captchas until they turn into some kind of Turing test? Can we even automate a Turing test in a way that machines can't bypass?

Do we basically ditch the concept of privacy and require some kind of systematic provable identity in most places?

Or do we accept the fact that consensus can be faked by bots and try to mitigate the noise by removing the spam as it appears?

</comment><comment><USER94> Fake reviews on Amazon (or internet e-commerce sites at large) is a significant problem.

I have had a previous employer use my personal information to manually create and post fake reviews of his own products under my name. Nothing surprises me anymore. I only found out because I received a notification email asking me to confirm my review (which I had not written). Needless to say, I quit.

</comment><comment><USER95> The open review system (anyone can review any item) maybe made some sense when it was just book reviews, but makes much less sense for all items. A good start would be to only allow reviews on verified purchases. At least then it would be much harder for bad actors to up stakes on a listing and clone to a new one once the authentic negative reviews piled up.

Verified reviews can be faked and gamed as well, but it is harder, more costly and time consuming.

<comment><USER96> It seems insanely obvious to me that only people who have purchased the item through Amazon should get to review the product.

<comment><USER95> Yes. I'm trying to remember back to early amazon, circa the bubble burst... my vague recollection is that reviews were more in the vein of a platform for book reviews, not review of books as products... a fine difference, maybe one wothout distinction when it comes to books, but an either way an open platform for book reviews has very different trust and reliabilty requirements than reviews attached to products being sold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> And there are also the poison pill reviews from competing vendors. They are usually easy to spot because they are just a bunch of vitriol without any substance.

</comment><comment><USER98> Amazon will never do something to fix this problem. Fake goods and garbage products that break almost immediately after delivery are their bread and butter. They need those fake reviews to sell a huge percentage of their merchandise. They would much rather just close accounts of the people who complain or whose shopping habits their algorithms don't like.

</comment><comment><USER99> Could somebody explain the mechanism for creating "verified purchase" fake reviews? Somebody actually bothers to go through trouble of doing a purchase and creating a fake review? Anybody has any factual examples? Any pay for services that can be used? Seems like an area just waiting to be investigated by a media outlet...

<comment><USER100> As long as the item isn't prohibitively expensive the company paying for the review could just provide you the money to purchase the product.

<comment><USER99> Is this really practical for small time items? Does this happen at scale, or there's some other mechanism to create fake reviews? Seems like the practice is widespread, all real purchases?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Amazon allows people known to sell reviews for money or product into their special review program (I forget what it's called, but it highlights someone as a good reviewer). I know this because a family member got caught and effectively nothing happened.

</comment><comment><USER101> fake review is relative. the primary problem for consumers now is fake products from commingled inventory.

</comment><comment><USER102> I don't really bother reading the reviews anymore. They're invariably useless promotional crap

</comment><comment><USER103> I mostly look at the 1 and 2 star reviews. It saves me a huge amount of money -- I will see something interesting and think I want to buy it but then I read the reviews and realize it is a bunch of crap.

<comment><USER104> The negative reviews could be fake as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Anecdotally, on WeChat 微信, top Chinese social media app, I know some friends have received solicitations for good reviews in exchange for free goods.

</comment><comment><USER106> Fakespot is not so great. It assumes anyone who doesn't have multiple reviews is a bot, which is not a great heuristic in practice.

</comment><comment><USER107> ... And not speaking of all the 1-star reviews that just relate to some "horrible" delivery problems with the carrier.

<comment><USER108> Even the good reviews can be bad. "5 stars..looks great can't wait to actually use it"

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> Give people power and it will be corrupted.

</comment><comment><USER110> Friend of mine hada huge problem with this recently

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/amazon- me...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/amazon-merchants- still-find-new-ways-to-cheat-in-shopping-frenzy)

</comment><comment><USER111> This old phrase is still relevant today: "caveat emptor"

</comment><comment><USER112> Do any companies offer you some kind of incentive to write reviews or rate all the products you bought? I would have thought some variation of this would be a good way to drown out fake reviews. Maybe this is too expensive to do well.

</comment><comment><USER113> It's not the same 23 word sentence. It's the same 23 word run-on. The first comma should be either a semi-colon, colon or stop.

<comment><USER113> Point being that plagiarism/copying might be easier to spot via mistakes. I understand that this is how scholars do it for ancient texts.

<comment><AUTHOR> In other words, repetition of the same mistakes implies higher probability of copying

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> The key is to never buy from an FBA seller. Only buy from Amazon.com as the seller.</comment>


Close approach of 15-30 meters at 14.7 km/s between decommissioned satellites - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/leolabs_space/status/1221908253627412480 <comment><USER2> Would like to see those painted in a black-white pattern and have the calculated point of contact lighted up and filmed with high-speed cameras. And while someone is up there painting them, they might as well update the orbits to increase the chances of contact.

Knowing fully well that this might have detrimental effects on other satellites nearby, I am still curious to see the effect of two rather fragile objects meeting at such speeds.

</comment><comment><USER3> It looks like IRAS was a telescope that lasted about 10 months. This seems like it was by design as it apparently needs to be cooled with liquid helium and that lasted just 10 months.

Not much information on what GGSE-4 was other than "experimental".</comment>


Open Source Security Software Hackathon – Luxembourg 2-3 May 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://hackathon.hack.lu/ <comment><USER2> It's an interesting thing I think. People that are truly passionate about open source don't have the cash to go to Luxembourg; so will you get the best outcome?</comment>


Why 'resilient dyslexics' have good reading comprehension - <AUTHOR> https://www.israel21c.org/why-resilient-dyslexics-have-good-reading-comprehension/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure what I've got. I can read _very well_ , I can express myself through speech and the typed word well also.

What I can't do, is write with my hands. I've never been able to (I'm in my 40's now). It's like I don't have fine motor control over my fingers to form letters, even though I can build and make tiny things with my hands and fingers. I have to grip the pen or pencil with a vice-like grip just to be able to move it in small movements.

Additionally, letters get written in the wrong order or back to front. The frequency of this happening is every other word or so. Even short words like 'and' or 'to' can get screwed up.

To combat the problem I switched to all-caps in my handwriting during secondary (high) school. To this day I avoid writing anything by hand if I can help it. I've never been able to actually pin down whats wrong with me, so the best I settle on, 'is some kind of dyslexia'.

I'm also left handed, but I'm not sure that's a factor.

EDIT: Thanks guys! It's definitely 'dyslexic dysgraphia' as per the Wikipedia article. Like RobertRoberts said in a comment below, _this_ is why I frequent HN more than any other forum. You won't believe how much better I suddenly feel about this.

<comment><USER3> I can write correctly, but never neatly, no matter how hard I try. I have been an artist my entire life, and professional artist for a while.

But also, I transpose numbers in memory. I can read a number, a price, and phone number. And minutes later, I have to try really hard to recall the numbers in the correct order. A day later and I am totally convinced of my memory, but the numbers are not in the right order. Most often it's a pair.

In college I learned to memorize an entire deck of cards (not in order though), and I could have a friend take out a few cards. I could then look at the remaining cards in the deck, only once each, and tell my friend which cards he had taken out. (this is all technique and training, no memory wizard here)

But still can't keep numbers straight.

Edit: At the bottom of the dysgraphia page some commenters linked to, there's other related issues. The one I found was dyscalculia [0], I had NO idea this was a thing!! Ha. This explains my entire childhood. Thanks HN for seemingly random information changing my life.

I can measure something like 10 times, and still cut the wrong length of board. I have to work really, really hard to cut and measure things correctly. I couldn't remember how the friggin denominator worked, still. I have kids and I had a hard time teaching them fractions. Yet I have thousands of lines of code clearly in my head right now...

My wife can tell me the price of an item with the sales percent automatically, and tally up a bill with the tip in an instant, (and she hates math and was never good at it!) and I would have to get out pencil/paper or concentrate incredibly hard, and still likely be off.

What a revelation. Thanks guys for this discussion.

Edit: I don't think I have dysgraphia, (nothing severe like some of the comments here) but I also write in all caps because of "general" writing problems, I wonder if there's a mix of issues that are related.

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

<comment><USER4> I work in assistive technology and was recently talking with the head of accessibility at Intuit.

He is looking for (paid) volunteers who have dyscalculia to help them with product design decisions. If you email me (my username at gmail) I can put you in touch.

<comment><USER3> I emailed you, let me know if you don't get it. (copy/paste error?) Thanks for the consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> these results aren't very surprising but i guess it's good that they did a study.

the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is essential for executive functions like working memory, as the article notes. this means that if you have a strong DLPFC, you can more easily orient your attention towards a goal, check your progress, maintain your effort, and monitor yourself in the meantime.

so basically if you are monitoring your own cognition efficiently while doing the task, you can catch dyslexic mistakes and correct them in your comprehension. that's my hypothesis at least. it's very tough to really say these things with confidence because the DLPFC is implicated in an entire smattering of learning disabilities and executive functions and so generalized lower activity/density may have an innumerable quantity of consequences.

<comment><USER6> Thoughts: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29412010](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29412010) / [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118143)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wasn't sure how to interpret the study. That is, they describe "resilient dyslexics" as individuals who have good comprehension in spite of decoding issues. How do these individuals compare to non-dyslexic readers? Do they have the same comprehension — but it just takes them longer to get there? Or does their comprehension still lag non-dyslexic peers?

If they have comparable comprehension but in a longer timeframe, then does this mean that non-resilient dyslexic readers cannot (in any amount of time) achieve the typical level of comprehension? This seems at odds with my understanding of dyslexia, and I work in the field.

<comment><USER7> I was just thinking today - I read easily, but alphabetizing is relatively difficult. I'm trying to alphabetize some things, and I'm repeating the first few letters in my mind. Words and spellings are correlated in my head, but when I read I'm not automatically working with the letters; it takes work to produce them. I also sometimes have a momentary inability to compare letters, so I have to recall part of the alphabet in sequence to locate myself. Like, say, I suddenly can't remember whether "I" or "M" comes first until I run through "IJKLM".

I don't think I am or have been dyslexic, but I have no point of comparison.</comment></comment>


Lumi (YC W15) Will Help You Customize Anything on the Cheap - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/05/yc-backed-lumi-will-help-you-customize-anything-literally-anything-on-the-cheap/

<comment><USER2> Co-founder of Lumi here! We're still working up better detail pages for each product, so feel free to ask any questions.

From a technical perspective the site is all React & Hapi JS. We've also had a lot of fun playing with SVGs. We'll be posting more about our experiences building it :)

<comment><USER3> The site looks really sharp, and your product also looks cool. Keep up the good work!</comment></comment>


This is Phil Fish - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

<comment><USER2> Pretty good analysis of micro-fame and its perils, using Phil Fish as an example. Glad I watched it.

<comment><USER3> I agree.

Also, Steve Jobs was probably even more driven, perfectionist and hurtfully direct than Phil. But Steve was just growing up in a different era, and cleverly realized that when a lot of people are looking, you should try to keep the illusion of being kinda nice.

Phil is not hated by everybody. Me, I thought Fez was kinda neat. I don't care about his demeanor, great art survives all that.</comment></comment>


Graduating from College: Starting your own business or joining an established company? - <AUTHOR> http://www.fabricegrinda.com/?p=373 <comment><USER2> I have been pondering this question myself lately...interesting thoughts.

McKinsey is a prestigious company, but I would think most people considering starting a company would be better served working at a startup, right?</comment>


Set - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/puzzles/set <comment><USER2> Damn, I'm sorry I missed this.

My girlfriend introduced me to Set, which she loves. It's humbling to play with her and her siblings. They'll play "connected set" where they have to find TWO sets that share a card, when I'm playing basic Set. I can still only barely keep up.

It's really interesting to think about the visual/cognitive training that's required to be good a it.</comment>