4 ms·
If what's claimed in this article is true (and obviously it's difficult to check as it's one person's word against another, although a lot of the evidence does
by djaychela 9y ago
If what's claimed in this article is true (and obviously it's difficult to check as it's one person's word against another, although a lot of the evidence does point against Krasr), then it illustrates another time when something as large as Amazon - which clearly relies a great deal on automated systems - is totally incapable of handling the situations it finds itself in. If it was run solely on humans (and they took their job seriously), then it would have been resolved much quicker, in the same way the handling of cases on YouTube and so on will always lag behind the application of intelligence to the problem.
For 99% of situations, I'm sure the automated systems that have been set up work OK, but they can clearly be gamed when there are loopholes (and there have been loads of them - whether it's marking an item as 'fake' on eBay, and getting refunded for it and getting to keep it, or lying about your item's location, or spurious copyright claims at a crucial time on YouTube), but the problem is that 1% gamification can mean the ruin of people who've worked hard to create a business, and they have no way to recover the damage caused. There are no meaningful consequences for those who have gamed the system to destroy their competition; the worst case scenario is that they'll start up with another name.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to view those who are running marketplaces such as Amazon, YouTube and eBay with positivity because of these issues; the way that they are addressed is with a generic "We work to keep up with these situations" type response, but I don't think they really do, as it doesn't effect their bottom line in any significant way, so there's no reason for them to take it seriously or devote any worthwhile resources to solving the problem. I know it's a small fraction of their total business, but to me it's how unusual situations are dealt with that show the real sentiment behind any business.
- merb 9y agowell I think the article is fishy. especially because of the headline. It says: $400k lost, yeah thats a ton of money, but than it says: "built revenues in his skin care business to more than $10 million annually in seven years" I mean if I have a REVENUE of $10 million annually I would have savings of more than $400k dollar?! Also if the product did not have had a trademark its just fine that somebody could clone the product. what is not so fine are of course fake reviews and other stuff, but thats illegal and every sane person would actually use a lawyer. Also amazon actually suspended his account for infridgement cases and I highly doubt that their system is so bad that it does that automatically. Because that would be more than insane. every story has his two sides and this story looks fishy on both ends.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago> I mean if I have a REVENUE of $10 million annually I would have savings of more than $400k dollar?! You might perhaps google the difference between "revenue" and "net income". > Also amazon actually suspended his account for infridgement cases and I highly doubt that their system is so bad that it does that automatically. Have you missed the last several years of tech news?