Give it up man, this one is done.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Carter Schoffer wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
To chime in late:
I don’t like what he did. If he didn’t think it was such a morally iffy thing, why not just start a thread here to all readers of this site? Why the personal PM’s or e-mails? Why, because I think he knew that, at the very least, he was way pushing the envelope.
The email was sent out to a list of individuals that either have the book or have indicated some form familiarity with the book’s material (meaning they’ve signed up for S2B related material we’ve put out). What you’re seemingly failing to realize is that this (the list that was emailed) is the specific target audience that should be spoken to as they’re, once again, the individuals that are familiar with the material and not just John’s name / other works. Therefore, these are the individuals, the only individuals that is, that can speak to whether the book is quality or not.
This is the imperative point that once again is seemingly missed time and time again on this thread and others. The goal of the email was not to boost John’s ego or overwhelm Amazon (or any other site) with positive subjective appraisal. On the contrary, the point was to motivate those who liked the book to post their objective reviews so others wouldn’t be discouraged from picking up S2B b/c of the clearly unfounded negative claims that had been made. These claims being
“This book suggests doing dangerous and advanced powerlifting moves” - 1 star given
“It is mainly for someone who can survive on supplements or soup” - 2 stars given
“the routines and guidelines are very hard to do and you would look silly doing them anywhere people are present” - 2 stars
Clearly these claims reside deeply within the realm of absurdity and yet they were going unchecked because people aren’t intrinsically motivated to post positive reviews the same way they are to post negative reviews. When you purchase something and you’re happy with it, you feel satisfied. Conversely, when you purchase something and it isn’t up to standard, you get pissed. When someone is pissed, they make a whole lot more noise than they do when they’re satisfied.
Furthermore, we’ve received hundreds of positive reviews via email (from the list that was then emailed the message nonetheless) which falls in line with the psychology. When individuals are pissed they want to tell the world; when they’re pleased, they want to express their appreciation personally. Personal expressions of gratitude are great for the author (or whomever is being praised) but they do nothing for the masses. Amazon is for the masses and thus, the point of the email was to get the positive feedback we’ve received via email out to, again, the masses.
Finally, it needs to be made clear that the offering of a book chapter was not to sway opinion (I’m dismayed on several levels how one could interpret this as the goal) but rather to thank individuals for their time in going out of their way to post their objective thoughts (by objective I mean that they’re basing their reviews specifically on the merits of the book and not personal opinion of the authors). The bottom line is that the intent was not to quiet intelligent negative reviews or to change negative views to positive ones. It rather was to simply to give a spark to those that were left satisfied by the material to say so.
To get back to your incorrect assertion, had we posted the message to the general public, the effect of what we were trying to achieve would’ve been undermined by mass appeal rather than critical analysis of the material. Let’s face it, given John’s following here on t-mag, the positive reviews would’ve likely been in the thousands instead of a hundred or so. This would’ve been awesome for book sales but a number of the people posting wouldn’t be posting informed reviews (positive or otherwise) given their unfamiliarity with the material. We only want individuals with informed (meaning they read the book) opinions to comment on it.
Let me state that again because it seems to be the point where people are getting lost between what’s a bribe and what’s a token of appreciation. Had we posted on a public forum such as t-mag we undoubtedly would’ve been soliciting reviews from those that hadn’t purchased the book. Had they gone ahead and posted reviews they would’ve done so either to “help Dr. Berardi out” (remember, we didn’t start this thread) or to cash in on the book chapter, or both. In this scenario, assuming the latter case was the motivation, yes one could argue the book chapter was motivation to form an opinion. This isn’t what we did however. What we did was appeal to those that we knew already had opinions on the material and a book chapter isn’t going to change their opinion. What it does is motivate them to share their thoughts. Again a big difference between giving someone something so that they’ll form an opinion and giving them something for sharing an opinion they already had.
Carter Schoffer
Head of Sports Nutrition and Performance
Science Link Inc
But, BUT, you offered to reward them for a positive review.
You show three poor references and that is suppose to make it ok. Fine. Good. You obviously have no problem with what you did.
Had you come on to the site and asked a group if they read it and liked it to respond in kind–no problem. That’s not what you did.
Your claim that those poor reviews were unfounded is classless. They, just like the people you bribed to answer your way, are entitled to their opinion. Many great works of art have gotten poor reviews and stillstood the test of time. Maybe it’s a common practice. To that I can not speak.
This is my opinion and I’m quite entitled to it.[/quote]
Ok–enough already?..your ridiculous little opinion has been noted…Happy now??..
By now it’s not about making sense, debate a point of view in an adult manner or even be willing to see anybody else’s point of view, now is it?!..You want to be right!!..Come hell or high water you will stick to your righteous guns, even though it got pretty pathetic by now and your points of discussion lost all fundament…Geez, get yourself a popsticle, and stop wasting peoples time who do have something better to do…Most appreciated!
[quote]pimparealwoman wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Carter Schoffer wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
To chime in late:
I don’t like what he did. If he didn’t think it was such a morally iffy thing, why not just start a thread here to all readers of this site? Why the personal PM’s or e-mails? Why, because I think he knew that, at the very least, he was way pushing the envelope.
The email was sent out to a list of individuals that either have the book or have indicated some form familiarity with the book’s material (meaning they’ve signed up for S2B related material we’ve put out). What you’re seemingly failing to realize is that this (the list that was emailed) is the specific target audience that should be spoken to as they’re, once again, the individuals that are familiar with the material and not just John’s name / other works. Therefore, these are the individuals, the only individuals that is, that can speak to whether the book is quality or not.
This is the imperative point that once again is seemingly missed time and time again on this thread and others. The goal of the email was not to boost John’s ego or overwhelm Amazon (or any other site) with positive subjective appraisal. On the contrary, the point was to motivate those who liked the book to post their objective reviews so others wouldn’t be discouraged from picking up S2B b/c of the clearly unfounded negative claims that had been made. These claims being
“This book suggests doing dangerous and advanced powerlifting moves” - 1 star given
“It is mainly for someone who can survive on supplements or soup” - 2 stars given
“the routines and guidelines are very hard to do and you would look silly doing them anywhere people are present” - 2 stars
Clearly these claims reside deeply within the realm of absurdity and yet they were going unchecked because people aren’t intrinsically motivated to post positive reviews the same way they are to post negative reviews. When you purchase something and you’re happy with it, you feel satisfied. Conversely, when you purchase something and it isn’t up to standard, you get pissed. When someone is pissed, they make a whole lot more noise than they do when they’re satisfied.
Furthermore, we’ve received hundreds of positive reviews via email (from the list that was then emailed the message nonetheless) which falls in line with the psychology. When individuals are pissed they want to tell the world; when they’re pleased, they want to express their appreciation personally. Personal expressions of gratitude are great for the author (or whomever is being praised) but they do nothing for the masses. Amazon is for the masses and thus, the point of the email was to get the positive feedback we’ve received via email out to, again, the masses.
Finally, it needs to be made clear that the offering of a book chapter was not to sway opinion (I’m dismayed on several levels how one could interpret this as the goal) but rather to thank individuals for their time in going out of their way to post their objective thoughts (by objective I mean that they’re basing their reviews specifically on the merits of the book and not personal opinion of the authors). The bottom line is that the intent was not to quiet intelligent negative reviews or to change negative views to positive ones. It rather was to simply to give a spark to those that were left satisfied by the material to say so.
To get back to your incorrect assertion, had we posted the message to the general public, the effect of what we were trying to achieve would’ve been undermined by mass appeal rather than critical analysis of the material. Let’s face it, given John’s following here on t-mag, the positive reviews would’ve likely been in the thousands instead of a hundred or so. This would’ve been awesome for book sales but a number of the people posting wouldn’t be posting informed reviews (positive or otherwise) given their unfamiliarity with the material. We only want individuals with informed (meaning they read the book) opinions to comment on it.
Let me state that again because it seems to be the point where people are getting lost between what’s a bribe and what’s a token of appreciation. Had we posted on a public forum such as t-mag we undoubtedly would’ve been soliciting reviews from those that hadn’t purchased the book. Had they gone ahead and posted reviews they would’ve done so either to “help Dr. Berardi out” (remember, we didn’t start this thread) or to cash in on the book chapter, or both. In this scenario, assuming the latter case was the motivation, yes one could argue the book chapter was motivation to form an opinion. This isn’t what we did however. What we did was appeal to those that we knew already had opinions on the material and a book chapter isn’t going to change their opinion. What it does is motivate them to share their thoughts. Again a big difference between giving someone something so that they’ll form an opinion and giving them something for sharing an opinion they already had.
Carter Schoffer
Head of Sports Nutrition and Performance
Science Link Inc
But, BUT, you offered to reward them for a positive review.
You show three poor references and that is suppose to make it ok. Fine. Good. You obviously have no problem with what you did.
Had you come on to the site and asked a group if they read it and liked it to respond in kind–no problem. That’s not what you did.
Your claim that those poor reviews were unfounded is classless. They, just like the people you bribed to answer your way, are entitled to their opinion. Many great works of art have gotten poor reviews and stillstood the test of time. Maybe it’s a common practice. To that I can not speak.
This is my opinion and I’m quite entitled to it.
Ok–enough already?..your ridiculous little opinion has been noted…Happy now??..
By now it’s not about making sense, debate a point of view in an adult manner or even be willing to see anybody else’s point of view, now is it?!..You want to be right!!..Come hell or high water you will stick to your righteous guns, even though it got pretty pathetic by now and your points of discussion lost all fundament…Geez, get yourself a popsticle, and stop wasting peoples time who do have something better to do…Most appreciated!
[/quote]
Obviously, YOU have nothing better to do. And explain to me whose time is being wasted. Interesting and adult way to try and divert attention from the thread. I can only go from your lack of spelling and grammatical execution, but I’m not all that concerned with your assertion of my position.