Remix.run Logo
▲ AnthonyMouse a day ago

> That's a book a day (give or take), per account. No human author is publishing a book per day.

Suppose you're a 50 year old human author who has published a book a year since you were 18, and would now like to start selling them on Amazon for the first time. Should they hold you up for multiple years because you're rate limited to uploading one a month?

▲jzb 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Surely Amazon could invest in some form of support for niche case authors? Especially since there are not going to be very many legitimate "I have an enormous backlog of work" authors who aren't represented by a legit publisher.

Not saying there are zero, but if you're faced with a thousand scammers and one niche-case author... you go with blocking the scammers if you're serious about it.

▲vidarh 16 hours ago | parent [-]

The vast majority of authors are not represented by any publishers, and KDP is built around exactly those. The KDP limits does not affect anyone represented by larger publishers - only indies and small press (and genuine small press as opposed to imprints of larger publishers are few)

▲jakeydus 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the tradeoff for removing millions of false positives is one false negative then yeah, that's worth it.

▲AnthonyMouse 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Except that's not the trade off, because the slop producers would then just create more accounts instead of uploading more books on the same account. Which is probably what they're doing even with the existing rate limit.

So all you'd be doing is inconveniencing the actual human who just wants to use one account for all their books. Of which there could easily be more than one.

Moreover, trying to justify things with ratios like that proves too much, because slop can give anything a ratio like that. They can generate trillions of books, any number. If you banned everything then you'd be banning millions of pieces of slop for every one human-authored book, but you'd also be banning every human-authored book.

What you need is the thing that minimizes false positives, because the base rate of true positives is now so high that even a negligible false positive to true positive ratio would swallow most of the real books.

▲xpct a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The example is disingenuous. It's a tradeoff we have to make, and there's not many 50 year olds hoarding their masterpieces.

▲AnthonyMouse a day ago | parent [-]

It has nothing to do with hoarding. There are lots of authors who have published works using something other than Amazon, and for each one that uses Amazon there is a first time they started doing so. Amazon didn't even exist 50 years ago.

▲win311fwg 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Tell us you're a software developer without telling us you are software developer. The real world doesn't have to follow strict algorithms. The 50 year old with a long history of publishing books, who now wants to sell those books on Amazon, has provenance to justify his case for exception.

▲AnthonyMouse 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Amazon is a website that follows strict algorithms. And what "provenance" are you supposed to have that their support staff could verify over the internet? Anybody can set up a website with made up dates on it.

▲vidarh 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Good luck trying to get through to a human at Amazon KDP that has any kind of authority to override any kind of system.

▲Capricorn2481 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

That's such an unreasonably niche and unlikely situation to justify letting the rest of your customers drown in slop

That'd be like saying a forum can't have rate limits for posts because someone may write 10,000 discussion topics over a year and post them all at once.