Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[stephen25000]

From the updated version of Looking for Madeleine :

'
In September 2014, the day before Looking for Madeleine went on sale, a colleague let us know that members of anti- McCann Facebook groups were already labelling the book pro- McCann 'propoganda' and urging a 'fightback' . On Twitter two female anti- McCann zealots , one using the username @sweepyface- later to be identified as Brenda Leyland- the other using @portugalonline, an American maned Isabelle McFadden, discussed the notion of flooding Amazon with bad reviews. 'We need a concentrated effort on Amazon,' Leyland tweeted, 'it is really affective.'

Customer reviews on Amazon's website, which rate books by allocating stars, can have a powerful effect. Potential buyers are encouraged to say sheet a customer review of a book was helpful- or not. The more people mark a review as helpful, the more potentially that review is displayed. 'The effect of a bad review,' author Robert Groese has explained, goes far beyond the impact it gas on the author's ego.......the prominence of a book on Amazon.com is dictated by two factors: how well the book has sold and how positive the reviews are. More highly rated books are displayed more prominently, which leads to more sales.'

Brenda Leyland's and Isabelle McFadden's negative reviews, which both gave Looking for Madeleine just one star- the lowest rating- appeared rapidly on the book's Amazon sales page. Leyland also posted negative comments on some of the good reviews that had begun to appear. McFadden, who by her own admission did not have the book, based her 'review' on fifty pages she said had been emailed to her. 'I urge anyone in a position to do so,' Leyland tweeted, ' to comment on Amazon in response to the S&S ( Summers and Swann) book.......the star ratings are going down.'

It seems S and S aren't too happy.

They haven't come to terms with the fact their book had poor sales.

[John]

It seems S and S aren't too happy.

They haven't come to terms with the fact their book had poor sales.

Do you mean a flop? 

[stephen25000]

Do you mean a flop? 

As if I would say that John. 

[Matthew Wyse]

Do you mean a flop? 

out of interest how many copies have sold?

[Benice]

From the updated version of Looking for Madeleine :

'
In September 2014, the day before Looking for Madeleine went on sale, a colleague let us know that members of anti- McCann Facebook groups were already labelling the book pro- McCann 'propoganda' and urging a 'fightback' . On Twitter two female anti- McCann zealots , one using the username @sweepyface- later to be identified as Brenda Leyland- the other using @portugalonline, an American maned Isabelle McFadden, discussed the notion of flooding Amazon with bad reviews. 'We need a concentrated effort on Amazon,' Leyland tweeted, 'it is really affective.'

Customer reviews on Amazon's website, which rate books by allocating stars, can have a powerful effect. Potential buyers are encouraged to say sheet a customer review of a book was helpful- or not. The more people mark a review as helpful, the more potentially that review is displayed. 'The effect of a bad review,' author Robert Groese has explained, goes far beyond the impact it gas on the author's ego.......the prominence of a book on Amazon.com is dictated by two factors: how well the book has sold and how positive the reviews are. More highly rated books are displayed more prominently, which leads to more sales.'

Brenda Leyland's and Isabelle McFadden's negative reviews, which both gave Looking for Madeleine just one star- the lowest rating- appeared rapidly on the book's Amazon sales page. Leyland also posted negative comments on some of the good reviews that had begun to appear. McFadden, who by her own admission did not have the book, based her 'review' on fifty pages she said had been emailed to her. 'I urge anyone in a position to do so,' Leyland tweeted, ' to comment on Amazon in response to the S&S ( Summers and Swann) book.......the star ratings are going down.'

BL was quick to point out that it was her right to criticise and comment on the McCanns.   

And yet she actively incited fellow sceptics to influence the public NOT to buy the S&S book - by posting negative reviews -  with the sole aim of stifling interest and to persuade as many people as possible NOT to read someone else's comments on the case - simply because they did not concur with her own.

It seems Brenda Leyland supported Free Speech - but only for herself and her fellow sceptics..     

[Mr Gray]

Seems, according to Summers, all the negative reviews of his book was coordinated by Brenda Leyland.

I always wondered why she was specifically targeted. Now I think we know.

like most sceptics you really struggle with what is and isn't true...nowhere do S&S blame Leyland for all the bad reviews..you are making things up...

[stephen25000]

like most sceptics you really struggle with what is and isn't true...nowhere do S&S blame Leyland for all the bad reviews..you are making things up...

That's original dave.

'Sceptics'.

Face the truth, the book was 'C###'.

[Carana]

I'd be interested in Jean-Pierre's view on this attack on Amazon reviews, if he pops in here.

[Brietta]

Ignoring the dishonesty, there is something rather desperate and malign about people who organised themselves to post bad reviews about a book they have neither purchased or read, because someone has told them the content confirms the inaccuracy of much of the material they have used to construct a hostile campaign against the parents of a missing child.

Their demand allegedly for Justice and Freedom of Speech is rather at odds with the way in which they revel in the metaphorical Amazon book burning combined with their disregard for right to the presumption of innocence shows them in a rather hypocritical light.

One wonders why they fail to grasp that ... everyone else does.

[Carana]

Ignoring the dishonesty, there is something rather desperate and malign about people who organised themselves to post bad reviews about a book they have neither purchased or read, because someone has told them the content confirms the inaccuracy of much of the material they have used to construct a hostile campaign against the parents of a missing child.

Their demand allegedly for Justice and Freedom of Speech is rather at odds with the way in which they revel in the metaphorical Amazon book burning combined with their disregard for right to the presumption of innocence shows them in a rather hypocritical light.

One wonders why they fail to grasp that ... everyone else does.

It's a bit like giving a restaurant the worst review possible about the quality of the food, even if you hadn't even eaten there, because you take umbrage at the fact that a much-hated client once ate there.

[Alfred R Jones]

From the updated version of Looking for Madeleine :

'
In September 2014, the day before Looking for Madeleine went on sale, a colleague let us know that members of anti- McCann Facebook groups were already labelling the book pro- McCann 'propoganda' and urging a 'fightback' . On Twitter two female anti- McCann zealots , one using the username @sweepyface- later to be identified as Brenda Leyland- the other using @portugalonline, an American maned Isabelle McFadden, discussed the notion of flooding Amazon with bad reviews. 'We need a concentrated effort on Amazon,' Leyland tweeted, 'it is really affective.'

Customer reviews on Amazon's website, which rate books by allocating stars, can have a powerful effect. Potential buyers are encouraged to say sheet a customer review of a book was helpful- or not. The more people mark a review as helpful, the more potentially that review is displayed. 'The effect of a bad review,' author Robert Groese has explained, goes far beyond the impact it gas on the author's ego.......the prominence of a book on Amazon.com is dictated by two factors: how well the book has sold and how positive the reviews are. More highly rated books are displayed more prominently, which leads to more sales.'

Brenda Leyland's and Isabelle McFadden's negative reviews, which both gave Looking for Madeleine just one star- the lowest rating- appeared rapidly on the book's Amazon sales page. Leyland also posted negative comments on some of the good reviews that had begun to appear. McFadden, who by her own admission did not have the book, based her 'review' on fifty pages she said had been emailed to her. 'I urge anyone in a position to do so,' Leyland tweeted, ' to comment on Amazon in response to the S&S ( Summers and Swann) book.......the star ratings are going down.'

That all sounds like fair comment to me - unless you are disputing what S & S have written?  But where do you get the idea that BL was targeted by Sky News because of her malicious campaign against the authors of a book?

[Benice]

Ignoring the dishonesty, there is something rather desperate and malign about people who organised themselves to post bad reviews about a book they have neither purchased or read, because someone has told them the content confirms the inaccuracy of much of the material they have used to construct a hostile campaign against the parents of a missing child.

Their demand allegedly for Justice and Freedom of Speech is rather at odds with the way in which they revel in the metaphorical Amazon book burning combined with their disregard for right to the presumption of innocence shows them in a rather hypocritical light.

One wonders why they fail to grasp that ... everyone else does.

Indeed.

IMO - BL must have been very impressed with S&S book to actually be thinking of ways to suppress its sales.

In the end she could only come up with the promotion of a 'Dirty Trick's campaign.     'Cheating' - which IMO is what she was advocating  -  is hardly something to be proud of as it can only ever result in a hollow victory - ''and a hollow victory is not very satisfying as it means that you have reached your goal, but lost something more important along the way''

[Alfred R Jones]

It's bizarre the way that S & S are somehow being painted as the bad guys here, when all they are doing is commenting on the hate campaign against their book, and yet at the same time one of the ringleaders of the hate campaign is revered in almost saintly tones.  It's a funny old world.

[Alice Purjorick]

It's bizarre the way that S & S are somehow being painted as the bad guys here, when all they are doing is commenting on the hate campaign against their book, and yet at the same time one of the ringleaders of the hate campaign is revered in almost saintly tones.  It's a funny old world.

It ever was thus and no doubt ever more shall be so.
The bizarre thing is that you find it bizarre, it is after all merely human nature.
[do not read into my statement more than is there ]

[Alfred R Jones]

It ever was thus and no doubt ever more shall be so.
The bizarre thing is that you find it bizarre, it is after all merely human nature.
[do not read into my statement more than is there ]

What is bizarre is that you should find it bizarre that I find it bizarre that in the world of the sceptic everything is completely topsy-turvy.