Talk:Robert Stanek/Page 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

[edit] Shameful, Part III

Quoted from Talk:Robert Stanek#Shameful, Pt. 2:

"OK, how we come from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Stanek&direction=next&oldid=38296139 to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Stanek&direction=next&oldid=40148830

You guys have chopped the article." (probably posted by Sparhawk)

If you follow the deletes and reverts carefully, I think you'll find that it was the Stanekites that "chopped" the article... Synthfilker 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from Talk:Robert Stanek#Shameful, Pt. 2:

"First - your belief that Stanek lies about his success is also not fact." From his publisher's website, which, being self-published, is under his control: "RP Books, Reagent Press is proud to be the official publisher of #1 bestselling author Robert Stanek and his Ruin Mist books." No documentation of Stanek ever being a bestselling author is provided, much less a #1 bestselling author. The list on which he was supposedly a "#1" is unspecified, making it impossible to verify. No independant documentation is available. If you can provide such, I'd be glad to see it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you any proof that he is not #1 Best-selling author of any list? You accuse the publisher of lying, yet there is no proof that there isn't a list, dominated by RS. (unsigned, probably posted by Sparhawk)

That's not the way an encyclopedia works. All claims must be verified, He claims to be a #1 bestselling author, he has to prove it. The more this goes on, the more it sounds like the list is the list of Reagent's authors... which is a pretty short list, isn't it? .Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Your belief that the reviews are artificial is not fact, too." No one has claimed they're artificial - they obviously exist. However, it's odd that so many of them use exactly the same phrases and odd syntax. They read like a bunch of politicians hitting their talking points. See the Controversy Ansible Controversy.Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an opinion. Many reviews of other books also sound similar. Check various book in amazon.com and you'll see. (unsigned, probably posted by Sparhawk)

These reviews are beyond the pale, well documented in various long-running reliable sources which have already been referenced in this discussion, and are frequently timed to match the release of a new Stanek book. They also come in flurries that push unfavorable reviews off the page. Odd, innit?Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Also I claim that jealous authors organize this effort." Do you have any proof of this, or are you just parrotting Stanek's opinion? Frankly, there has been no evidence presented that un-named "jealous authors" have anything to be jealous of, much less that there is any kind of organized "anti-Stanek" effort of any kind. The postings here aren't even anti-Stanek, they're anti-astroturf. (wiki it)Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave you the forum which shows all. (unsigned, probably posted by Sparhawk)

In short, no. There has been no attempt to even present rudimentary evidence of any such 'conspiracy'. A bunch of people standing around and lamenting the Great Conspiracy isn't evidence, it's pathetic. Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"In Asimov's forum..." And that's Asimov's' forum, a place for opinion. This is Wikipedia, a place for facts. I have seen, done, or received no urging from anyone here, or in any other forum, in any form of communication. Actually, you provide a great deal of my motivation.Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And you manipulate the facts to prove your point. If it is true that I give you motivation, I quit. I can only hope that RS will overcome bashing from people like you. (unsigned, probably posted by Sparhawk)

Ah, we should be so lucky...Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Also, I choose whether or not to sign my posts. If this makes you feel more secure - OK." It's not a matter of making me or anyone else feel secure, it's good manners and makes it easier to figure out who you're talking to. And you're still not doing it right. Next time you reply, scroll down a little and read what is says right below "Your changes will be visible immediately." Synthfilker 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can sign or not sign my posts. You, basher, are not the one who would teach me to good manners. SPARHAWK

Well, obviously someone needs to... Synthfilker 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Would be a good time to remind that contrary to popular misconception, Wikipedia does have rules of conduct and manners ((Wikipedia:Wikiquette). The rule Synthfilker is referring to is Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. It's trivial to do, just hit that signature button above these edit boxes; this will insert --~~~~ which will, when you save the changes turn into username/datestamp. Have a nice day! And now I'm hitting that button thingy - watch, watch: --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppetry on Amazon - Evidence

One of the complaints the Stanekites had was that the allegations of sock pupptery and chicanery in Amazon reviews were made up - so it seemed some verification was in order.

Do we agree that most fantasy readers, even the most vociferious Stanekites, probably do read other fantasy books? I selected a Stanek book at random, and looked it up on Amazon, then started checking through the reviews. There were 162 five star reviews, 28 four star, 8 three star, 5 two star, and 45 one star reviews... an odd distribution, to be sure.

I then started looking through them, and found some interesting datapoints. It seems Stanek reviewers read little fiction of any sort but Stanek. Examples: [1], [2], [3].

Even more interesting, it seems some reviewers can't be troubled to write separate reviews for different books. Note that the plug for the deluxe edition is kept in the review for the regular edition. [4]

Examining some of the 'less enthusiastic' reviews, I found some of them VERY odd - they changed gears right in the middle, and wound up praising the book profusely! For example:[5], [6] (See the review by "A Reader"). It's remarkable that someone would start a review the way these did, and then end them in such a manner.

This data was gathered with a rather cursory examination of a single book and its associated reviews. It seems logical a more in-depth examination of all books and their reviews would provide more evidence. I'm afraid Stanek and the puppets should have read the "vanity" article - they are NOT going to like the direction the article they created is going to take from here out. Synthfilker 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)