Well, if you have read Amazon CTO Werner Vogel's blog or seen any of his recent presentations, you'll definitely be (like me) inclined to "cock-up over conspiracy" as the explanation for the current shambles.
So why have things gone this desperately wrong this quickly?
The simple answer is Amazon's architecture. It's highly distributed, and there's no operations team. Each component (and over 200 go into a single page) is run by its development team, of four to five people. They are responsible for its features, its development - and for making sure it runs effectively. The result should be a company that can move quickly in response to outside events.
At least that's the theory.
I'm afraid the real world doesn't work like that. I've been a developer and I've managed developers and I can tell you that what really happens is something like this:
Someone comes up with a neat idea that they evangelise among the other developers, and it gets added to the platform. The developers become wedded to their idea, and they keep adding features. Something from the outside occurs that affects the data managed by the service, and they don't notice. After all, it's their design and it's perfect. The problem gets worse, and a few external symptoms are noted and passed on to the developers. They're too busy to pay much attention to them, and so they ignore them. Then suddenly, BANG, and everything breaks.
Oh, and it's a holiday weekend and there's no one there to actually handle the problem as the whole team's gone off on a skiing trip.
Now I can't guarantee that's what has happened with the deletion of GLBT content from the Amazon ratings system, but I suspect it's more likely than not.
So here's where my conjecture comes in:
Someone probably had the idea of reducing Amazon's exposure to bad publicity without increasing the site's legal liability. Manual censorship of the rankings would certainly make the service more liable, so the idea was probably a tool that would let the site's users do the work for it. After all, if the community doesn't like it, then, well, US community standards laws apply and you're safe. A group of developers coded it up, and it worked well - for a while.
Either a parameter wasn't quite right, or someone released a new version of a keyword file without testing - and, well, suddenly the GLBT books were off the list. Maybe someone gamed the system, too - it's impossible to tell from outside.
A separate test and operations team would have been likely to spot the underlying flaw before it got released - or at least spotted the first wave of complaints and started to triage them effectively, with a more productive response than "It's a glitch".
So now Amazon has to unwind data that's spread across its distributed application platform, which may be stored in any or all of three different kinds of database, and in at least three different geographies and many more data centres.
Ooops.
That's going to take a while to deal with.
Meanwhile their Seattle-based PR team is just about to start a very long day - and a group of developers are going to be desperately trying to explain just went wrong.
[ETA 23/4/2012. After three years of this post being targeted heavily by spammers, I have locked commenting.]
So why have things gone this desperately wrong this quickly?
The simple answer is Amazon's architecture. It's highly distributed, and there's no operations team. Each component (and over 200 go into a single page) is run by its development team, of four to five people. They are responsible for its features, its development - and for making sure it runs effectively. The result should be a company that can move quickly in response to outside events.
At least that's the theory.
I'm afraid the real world doesn't work like that. I've been a developer and I've managed developers and I can tell you that what really happens is something like this:
Someone comes up with a neat idea that they evangelise among the other developers, and it gets added to the platform. The developers become wedded to their idea, and they keep adding features. Something from the outside occurs that affects the data managed by the service, and they don't notice. After all, it's their design and it's perfect. The problem gets worse, and a few external symptoms are noted and passed on to the developers. They're too busy to pay much attention to them, and so they ignore them. Then suddenly, BANG, and everything breaks.
Oh, and it's a holiday weekend and there's no one there to actually handle the problem as the whole team's gone off on a skiing trip.
Now I can't guarantee that's what has happened with the deletion of GLBT content from the Amazon ratings system, but I suspect it's more likely than not.
So here's where my conjecture comes in:
Someone probably had the idea of reducing Amazon's exposure to bad publicity without increasing the site's legal liability. Manual censorship of the rankings would certainly make the service more liable, so the idea was probably a tool that would let the site's users do the work for it. After all, if the community doesn't like it, then, well, US community standards laws apply and you're safe. A group of developers coded it up, and it worked well - for a while.
Either a parameter wasn't quite right, or someone released a new version of a keyword file without testing - and, well, suddenly the GLBT books were off the list. Maybe someone gamed the system, too - it's impossible to tell from outside.
A separate test and operations team would have been likely to spot the underlying flaw before it got released - or at least spotted the first wave of complaints and started to triage them effectively, with a more productive response than "It's a glitch".
So now Amazon has to unwind data that's spread across its distributed application platform, which may be stored in any or all of three different kinds of database, and in at least three different geographies and many more data centres.
Ooops.
That's going to take a while to deal with.
Meanwhile their Seattle-based PR team is just about to start a very long day - and a group of developers are going to be desperately trying to explain just went wrong.
[ETA 23/4/2012. After three years of this post being targeted heavily by spammers, I have locked commenting.]
- Current Location:Putney, London
- Current Mood:
contemplative

Comments
"But fewer users will be using the system..."
*sigh*
I'm not buying "glitch". Otherwise why were pro-gay books delisted but anti-gay material still available?
It's Monday morning, and I spent way too long trying to figure out how one "cock(s) up over conpsiracy" before I realized what you'd meant.
That takes it past glitch and into the arena of fail. If Amazon wants the statistic "Amazon Rank" to mean something, it cannot be applied to only a bowdlerized portion of the database. And blocking people from being able to search in the easiest fashion for material you want to sell is just plain stupid.
Even if they aren't deliberately targeting the LGBT audience, the fact remains that the philosophy behind putting the feature to remove the sales ranks of bestselling authors, thus hurting their livelihood based on morality instead of popularity, based on being "adult" is fundamentally objectionable.
At best, a few individuals in the system of developer checks really screwed up.
I'm waiting with interest to see Amazon's official response -- with names attached, and on their website, as opposed to reported by WaPo or Publishers Weekly.
Incompetence.
Which by the way still doesn't excuse Amazon's lack of response (a simple "this is clearly not our intent, please hold on while we look into it" would have sufficed).
But most of all, the fact that the culture within Amazon is such that it is possible to implement an automated system that quietly, without informing either the public or the authors and publishers, makes books disappear from searches and rankings is A Very Bad Thing. Whether it was a management decision or a developers decision, whether the current result was intentional or not doesn't really matter.
It's not the fact that Amazon hasn't rolled back these changes yet that is worrying. It's that they've shown no intent whatsoever to do that, or even acknowledge that it might be wrong.
Exactly. It might not have made any of us happy, but at least we would not have all felt insulted by that.
It's not the fact that Amazon hasn't rolled back these changes yet that is worrying. It's that they've shown no intent whatsoever to do that, or even acknowledge that it might be wrong.
Agreed.
http://textualfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/1
http://lisybabe.blogspot.com/2009/04/ama
I've now posted the following text as a tweet. Others may please feel free to copy/paste this text as their own tweets also. It links to the above two blog posts on the disability angle of this mess. The hashtags are to help ensure that your tweet will show up more easily under certain keyword searches in twitter.com.
#amazonfail on #disability too. Please RT both http://is.gd/s5I6 and http://is.gd/s5Xr #glitchmyass #glbt #disabled
I have worked in projects like that, and yes, that is the way shit happens, and can't be stopped from rolling downhill quickly.
One item still boggles me: It seems likely that at the beginning of all this was the attitude that it's OK to fudge statistics without informing people who might use them. Of course, amazon sales rank might be more voodoo than statistics anyway...
I have some dealings with Amazon as a reviewer and there are loads of completely innocuous things their database screws up regularly.
Either there is deliberate internal censorship of some kind, or a caving-in to the book-burners because there is too much patently offensive and adult material that is still ranked: dog-fighting, Playboy centerfields, Mein Kampf....
If there were a tag logic to what has been deranked other than "standard right-wing fundamentalist agenda," it could be understood as a "glitch" of the kind you describe. Unless some mid-level designers are trying to game the rankings, from within? But that does not explain the Customer Service responses going back to February.
Sorry, your explanation does not hold up to more extensive research on the actual items being deranked.
The most likely explanation, it seems to me: after some testing going back to February, Amazon.com's content rating system was deliberately, massively gamed over western Christianity Easter weekend by one or more anti-gay rights groups.
Amazon had no reason to suddenly want to censor gay-written or gay-content books, but like script-kiddies and Russian mafia, these creeps found a software weakness to exploit.
Still waiting for Amazon to SAY SOMETHING. I don't need a complete or even technical explanation. But some kind of, "Wow, we're aware of the problem and are working to fix it as fast as we can because we value all our writers, publishers and customers a whole lot" would be good.
If it is technology, not people behind this deranking, the least I'd like to see is an apology. Can't restore trust without that. Ought to come fast, too.
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.
What a nightmare. I feel so sorry for those PR guys. The Internet was the worst thing ever to happen to that arm of corporate employ.
Amazon.co.jp has an age check page in English and Japanese if a person searches for a glbt item from their main pages (English is available).
My guess is that Amazon did do some automation without checking to see how many books would be caught in delisting glbt and erotica books.
CA&VF hadn't been included with my other books when searching on my name until this weekend after complaints from me (and probably also from my publisher. This was the case for over a month.
Which would suggest that someone at Amazon hasn't yet caught up with the idea that homo-/bi-/trans- sexuality pertains to more than copulation.