Amazon criticized for deranking 'adult' books

Updated at 7:15 p.m. PDT with comment from Amazon.com.

Amazon.com recently delisted from its sales ranking system gay and lesbian book titles that it deemed "adult," raising the ire of some who characterize the move as online censorship.

Author Mark R. Probst wrote on his blog Sunday that he noticed the change a few days ago:

On Amazon.com two days ago, mysteriously, the sales rankings disappeared from two newly-released high profile gay romance books: "Transgressions" by Erastes and "False Colors" by Alex Beecroft. Everybody was perplexed. Was it a glitch of some sort? The very next day HUNDREDS of gay and lesbian books simultaneously lost their sales rankings, including my book "The Filly." There was buzz, What's going on? Does Amazon have some sort of campaign to suppress the visibility of gay books?

Probst, the author of a novel with gay characters in the Old West, said he was perplexed by the move and used his status as a publisher to contact Amazon for an explanation. He said he received the following response from an Amazon Advantage service representative:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Of course, being delisted from the rankings doesn't mean that the book giant has stopped selling the title; it just means that the title won't show up with a public sales ranking or in the best-seller lists--often a factor in how shoppers make their purchases.

An Amazon representative characterized the move as a mistake but declined to elaborate.

"Essentially, there's a glitch in our system and it's being fixed," Amazon spokesperson Patty Smith told CNET News.

Certainly, one could make an argument that deranking titles with "adult" themes would make a reasonable policy for a site that attracts a wide range of the Internet population. But as demonstrated by an online petition that has already attracted more than 4,000 signatures, the policy appears to be biased against books with gay, lesbian, and transgendered characters.

Here's a sampling of books titles that the petition's backers noted are still ranked in the listing system (all notes and descriptions on the titles are supplied by the petition supporters):

• "Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds" by Chronicle Books (pictures of over 600 naked women)
• Rosemary Rogers' "Sweet Savage Love" (explicit heterosexual romance)
• Kathleen Woodiwiss' "The Wolf and the Dove" (explicit heterosexual romance)
• Bertrice Smal's "Skye o'Malley," (which are all explicit heterosexual romances)
• Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" (which is a very explicit sexual graphic novel)

The petition supporters note that the following titles with gay and lesbian themes are no longer ranked on Amazon:

• Radclyffe Hill's classic novel about lesbians in Victorian times, The Well of Loneliness, and which contains not one sentence of sexual description;
• Mark R. Probst's YA novel "The Filly" about a young man in the wild West discovering that he's gay (gay romance, no sex);
• Charlie Cochrane's "Lessons in Love" (gay romance with no sex)
• "The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience," edited by Louis-George Tin (non-fiction, history and social issues)
• "Homophobia: A History" by Bryan Fone (nonfiction, focus on history and the forms prejudice against homosexuality has taken over the years)

The move has raised the ire of heterosexuals, including Kassia Krozser, who wrote an open letter to the online retailer:

Somehow, the brain trust of your company has decided to protect the "entire" Amazon customer base by restricting access to content that someone (who?) decided was offensive. In your zeal to protect me from myself, of course, you managed to leave content that I find singularly repulsive online (really, exploring the human condition is bad, but Mein Kampf is just fine?).

As a heterosexual, happily married adult female, I am deeply offended by this decision. As a customer, I am angered enough to take my business elsewhere, and I'd like a refund on my Kindle since, despite reports that your database sweep was not complete, you have decided to limit my ability to purchase books -- from literary classics like Lady Chatterley's Lover to newesque titles like Tipping The Velvet and Running With Scissors.

It's unclear what--if any--impact this backlash will have on Amazon, but certainly many are troubled (and should be) that the bookseller is apparently trying to make certain books harder to find.

[scottdelgado]

Interesting how a political book about why gay people should be allowed to serve in the military is de-listed as "adult," while all the right-wing christian books about "curing homosexuality" are still ranked. This is not a desire to protect people from "adult" content, but rather to foster one viewpoint over another. I find this very surprising as one of the things I always liked about amazon was that they didn't appear to take sides. However, now that their true colors are showing, I will shop elsewhere.

[Lerianis3]

I have to agree. Amazon is not fooling anyone with this bunk, and the fact is that ALL books should appear in searches: adult or not.<br />If they want to filter adult things out of their searches, there is a simple way to do it: simply label a book as adult, code a "adult included or excluded" thing in their search engine..... DONE!<br /><br />There is no need to 'delist' books in the slightest, and Amazon is bucking for a lawsuit here.

[lorincpartain]

um, hello ? Amazon is not a public utility. They are a privately owned company, they can list or delist as they like. I don't get why people seem to think they can tell other people what they should be able to do with their own property. If you don't like it start your own online bookseller biz and sell all the depraved books you want to.

[gggg sssss]

let the BGLT crowd build their own store.

[ciretower34]

I will no longer shop Amazon; in addition, Amazon is a publically traded company not a privately owned company. I do own AMZN stock, which I will be selling tomorrow.

[QuetzalcoatlUSA]

Running list of books losing their sales rank: http://is.gd/s2I1

[Lysima]

There's a facebook protest, as well as the twitter discussion. <br /> <br />http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=70927484220 <br /> <br />Personally? I think it's less to do with adult content and more about not showing things they don't approve of. Whilst as a business they can sell what they want, it reeks of discrimination and double standards.

[egtalbot]

Well, I'd be the first to admit that we don't have all the information, and I do not get the impression that they made a conscious value judgment that said they don't want any references to GBLT topics to appear in rankings/All department searches. That's just my take in light of the incomplete knowledge we have so far. That said. . .<br /><br />This was not likely a "glitch". I wrote a blog post on my site about it earlier and it seems like a combination of several dumb decisions. It's not a glitch that they chose the easy way to achieve their goal of reducing access to adult titles - removing rankings rather than changing the search programming and rankings programming. A glitch is generally an accident. This was simply a dumb decision that they could easily have predicted would result in exactly what it did. A smart IT department does not put stuff out there without full tests - or with a certain amount of accepting that there could be unexpected results.<br /><br />And it's not a "glitch" that - whatever their mechanism is for categorization - they culled nearly all books flagged as GBLT. I don't ascribe anything nefarious, necessarily, but again, a minimal evaluation of the results of their actions would have avoided this problem.<br /><br />Finally, it's not a glitch that these books no longer appear in the main search across All Departments. It was a conscious decision. Whether they excluded some books they didn't mean to exclude is almost irrelevant. The exclusion of adult books (whatever gets in that category) should be one option, not the only option. That last of course is really up to them, but it's hard to see a downside to a checkbox or something similar.

[faceless128]

looks like someone at amazon is one of those right wing religious nutjobs...

[Angmarr]

ya, it only take 1 f* nutjob

[steve_paloalto]

HRC lists an e-mail address for the Amazon GLBT Liaison:<br />[e-mail]

[professionaladventurer]

There are fiction transgender books? I had no idea the T in LGBT was a viable market base in literature.

[uplander39]

Why? You don't think Transgendered people read? I'm not transgendered and I read T literature. I mean, come on.

[prince4866]

I believe that over the years we can all see the demoralization and desensitizing to any <br />people is when we as people of any nation,culture or religion come to a conclusion <br />that man knows best and says anything goes or that if it feels right to you then do it. <br />We ALL will come to an End and then what, THE JUDGEMENT. <br />When man thinks (He) is right all on his on without morality he has Deceived himself. <br />This Store or or any store Should have the right to say what it will sell or not as well <br />as ranking,rating or etc.,then the people can choose for them theirself what the indivdual wants.

[blindarroganceisbad]

sure, this store should have the right to choose what the do and do not sell. just as you have the right to believe in what you believe, no matter how ignorant your are. both of those define freedoms of our nation. yet you are missing the point. this has nothing to do with religion, spirituality, or a belief set of any kind. it is strictly a issue of capitalism. amazon has madea huge error in choosing (as their right to do so) to limit the accessibility of GLBT literature. and what we are witnessing is the consumer's outcry against that decision. sure amazon has the right legally to do what they are doing, but is it going to hurt their success as a global online retail gaint, definitely. do the masses have the right to stadn against amazon's decision? absolutely. that is the beauty of capitalism. so please keep your judging religious views to yourself, and try to educate yourself before judging others.

[navywife88]

I completely agree with you prince4866. I do not believe that any of the GBLT are morally the way people should be. I in no way will discimjinate against one for I have a family member who chooses to live his life like that. But at the same time I believe I should have the right to choose what kind of business I want to run and how to run it If I dont belive this junk is morally right then I shouldnt be forced to sell it or show it. It is no different than me being forced to see GBLT books/mags because another store carries it. You can say well then I can go somewhere else. Well it goes both ways, if you dont like it, then you go somewhere else. This country (mostly the media) is stuck in the philosaphy that we must accept anything and everything people do, their beliefs, sexual preferences, etc. I shouldnt be forced to see anything. Good Job Amazon!! I priase you for sticking up for whats right!!

[roninpenguin]

So let me get this straight, both Prince4866 and navywife88 think that a book about a Cowboy who just happens to be gay is more morally degrading then a book about explicit group orgy incest?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />And navywife88 you say you have a family member that is gay, but you do realize that Amazon is banning books that help teenagers cope discovering that fact within themselves during one of the most trying parts of their lives. <br /><br />Now you are right in saying that Amazon can make any choice in what they sell, it is a free market, but what you are seeing here is the other side of that free market. I can call Amazon bigoted and never shop there again because of it. I do not condone censorship in any way, and Amazon is showing that they are willing to partake in censorship. There are several "Christian" text out there that I find offensive, but guess what, if someone were to tell me that they need to be censored I would be just as outraged. <br /><br />If you are going to fight for freedom of speech, it needs to go both ways.

[SoundtrackLover]

I buy thousands of dollars worth of products on Amazon and I am extremely disappointed to hear about this on the net an hour ago. I am officially signing myself off of Amazon and no longer buying from them after this incident. I feel that this is NOT a glitch at all. It is a homophobic act of intolerance and it goes against everything that i believe in. I have a lot of gay family members and friends and I do not wish to continue supporting a company that supports bigotry and homophobia.

[Lerianis3]

Unfortunately, I have to agree about the 'homophobic act of intolerance' thing here. That is the ONLY thing that I can honestly catagorize this as.

[codynews]

I guess I'll have to up my buying on Amazon to make up for you.

[richpoore]

I was thinking the same thing codynews. I'm going to have to bump them up in my decisions to buy new books. I'm glad they're not jumping on board with the move to legitimize wrong. I don't know if it was a corporate decision, the decision of a programmer or a sales guy but I laud the decision to not include those kinds of books on the best sellers list. If the LGBT community wants to read it they can search for it.

[Renegade Knight]

So your quitting Amazon is what, Homomaniac act of intolerance? Grow up. Tolerance is nothing more than putting up with crap you don't like. Apparently you don't have any as part of your beliefs.

[HGVCITG]

Get your head out of the sand CODYNEWS and RICHPOORE! Amazon is supposed to be ranking the best sellers, regardless of the content of the book. If people are buying the book and it ranks as one of the 100 then it should be displayed as such. By doing so, Amazon is not endorsing the book...they are clearly reporting on the sales. It shouldn't be a "gay" issue or a "straight" issue yet some fool made the decision to make it such. Keep your head in the sand longer and hopefully you will suffocate...

[odubtaig]

Bunch of homophobic ****s.<br /><br />Most of the comments so far are encouraging but there's a couple of people here who are representative of all that's dragging the human race down. I have one rule: if it doesn't hurt anyone else then it's not their place to judge and they can take their self-righteous judgementalism and shove it.<br /><br />Yes, you last three, I mean you.

[navywife88]

ODUBTAIG- you say "I have one rule: if it doesn't hurt anyone else then it's not their place to judge and they can take their self-righteous judgementalism and shove it.<br /><br />Well Ive gotten something to say!!<br /><br />It is hurting me, it disgusts me to see two men making out on a street or two women. I dont want my children to see this kind of unnatural behavior. If men were meant to be with men and women with women then who would have the babies? You have to have men and women together as its supposed to be. <br /><br />[Editor's note: Inappropriate content removed]

[gggg sssss]

@ odubtaig If the GLBT crowd ever win, there will be NO human race. Die out in on egeneration.

[odubtaig]

navywife88: Get bent.<br /><br />gggg sssss: You're clearly not a biologist.

[odubtaig]

Actually, I'll expand on that, Navywife.<br /><br />What you're saying is exactly what has been said about interracial marriage.<br /><br />Bigotry may change it's tune but it's still plain old bigotry with no rhyme or reason behind it. It disgusts you? Does it disgust you when they use the same water fountains as straight people? So you don't complain when a man and woman are doing it but two men or two women and suddenly it's wrong? How? No, "it just is" is not good enough. "It's not natural" is also not good enough. You're typing on a computer connected to a worldwide network in a house with electric power. That's not natural. Hospitals are not natural. Epidurals are not natural. Appendectomies are not natural.<br /><br />Your other argument is also defunct. There's nothing about who's supposed to be with whom, just the freedom to choose and, as only 10% maximum of any population is gay there'll be plenty of people in the other 90% to have children.<br /><br />None of this is hurting you, you're just outraged with your bent self-righteous moralising bigotry claiming injury because if you admitted the real reason you're shouting you'd have to admit that you have no right at all to be thumping this particular tub.

[Dark_Huntress]

This may have well backfired on Amazon. I didn't know these books were out there! Had Amazon not tried to "glitch' them out of existence, I would have never known anything about them. I intend to purchase those books that were listed above. They sound extremely interesting and I can't wait to order them. <br /><br />By trying to censor these books and generate all this publicity they have helped the authors sell more. Somehow that seems like poetic justice.

[Joe_LeTester]

I'd be curious to know who made this change, what level they occupy in Amazon, and what their motivation was. If, as has been suggested, it was because of some kind of right-wing bigotry then shame on them and shame on Amazon. I've long regarded Amazon as a very well run company but this puts a bad tarnish on their reputation. I'd like to hear some explanations.

[chipotlecoyote]

Amazon has had domestic partnership benefits for years and has never, to my knowledge, shied away from gay rights issues. While I don't believe this is a "glitch" per se -- it was somebody's conscious choice -- there's quite a leap from "Amazon removed GLBT books from some best-seller lists" to "Amazon is staffed by raging fundamentalist homophobes." I'd suggest this isn't a case of "supporting bigotry and homophobia" as much as it is making a stupid business decision: they were almost certainly getting complaints from hypersensitive fundamentalists (many of whom seem convinced that merely seeing the DVD cover art for "Brokeback Mountain" may turn their children gay), and somebody figured, "Hey, we can just remove the classes of books we're getting complaints about from the aggregated best-seller lists, and that will shut up the whiny people." That's garden variety shortsightedness more than anything else. That doesn't prove Amazon is homophobic; it just proves they're a typical American corporation.

[gdod25]

Homophobic? If homosexuals have freedom to their lifestyle then I should have freedom to dissagree with it. I do not fear them. The phobic is you! Afraid to talk openly about that lifestyle being normal or abnormal from an evolutionary point of view.

[Lerianis3]

gdod25, if you are getting on someone's case for something that has NO effect on you, you are homophobic. You have NO right to disagree with what someone else is doing unless they are PHYSICALLY OR FINANCIALLY hurting you. Guess what? Lesbians and homosexuals don't meet that in the slightest.<br />Basically, shut the F up, and leave them alone.<br /><br />And guess what? Homosexuality IS normal from an evolutionary point of view. There are MANY species on this planet (mostly fish) that only HAVE one sex: FEMALE!

[BnBGobo99]

Re: Lerianis3<br /><br />And this is how the oppressed and under-dogs lose their case and sympathy from the general public. They over-react several-fold, just like the Prop.8 protesters mailing white powder to the Mormon and Knights of Columbus HQs and harassing Catholic church-goers (including the one at Mount Hope, look it up). Fundamentalism gets nasty on both sides, you'll wipe each other out and unfortunately will take the rest of us down with you.

[Jesrad]

Sorry BnBGobo99 but the social conservatives are now bearing the brunt of a richly-deserved backlash from coast to coast. Catholics and Mormons are not being harassed per your comments about prop 8. They created a political machine to suppress a segment of the population and didn't count on the degree of outrage that the public as a whole would express. I can tell you bigoted tactics back-fired on the conservatives in VT and now we have gay marriage in that state. Anything that reeks of bullying is not doing well in the US right now and Amazon intentionally or unintentionally stepped in it big time. When someone essentially states that the conservatives need to back down and get hobbies that's not partisan, it's objective. For the record, I believe the church mailed the white powder to themselves.

[BnBGobo99]

Lerianis3 said "I believe the church mailed the white powder to themselves."<br /><br />And I suppose they shot out their own windows and had members of the same sex to make out in front of the congregation too.<br /><br />May I ask an honest question, no resentment or hatred implied: If the nation issued only civil unions to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and treated them the same in the eyes of the law, and churches were left to marry how they wanted without legal recognition (meaning you would still need to get a civil union if married in the church), would you agree to such a system? I for one would.

[Jesrad]

The compromise we're seeing emerge is that gay &#38; lesbian couples can 'marry' but religious organizations are exempt from recognizing such unions or performing those marriage ceremonies. This is fair and reasonable. Civil unions create a separate class which will never be equal. I'd also like to point out that across the different religions and denominations there is not one universal position in regard to marriage, you will find the full spectrum of positions from absolute rejection to complete acceptance. We need to keep religious marriage and civil marriage separate.

[gggg sssss]

@ Lerianis3 FISH????. ok now we know where in the evolutionary scale the GLBT lie. Possibly you are even right.

[willdryden]

Lerianis3 <br />"And guess what? Homosexuality IS normal from an evolutionary point of view. There are MANY species on this planet (mostly fish) that only HAVE one sex: FEMALE!" <br /> <br />Actually, you are WRONG. There are some species (earthworms come to mind first) that are BOTH male and female and some actually change sex during their lifetimes ( like parrot fish). Only humans show the trait of homosexuality.

[roninpenguin]

Sorry wildryden, your wrong about humans being the only animal to show traits of homosexuality. There are several documented cases of other animals in both captivity and in the wild (read the "Is it true that there are homosexual penguins ?" question here http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/PenguinFAQ.html ). I tend to believe that homosexuality is a genetic trigger caused by overpopulation, because, as it was pointed out earlier, homosexuals won't reproduce.

[gdod25]

Amazon should be able to do what it wants. If it wants to block homosexual books fine. If it wants to not sell the Book of Mormon fine. Bezos is the owner not you!

[tysonbfrance]

Fun fact: we're also able to boycott a company that engages in prejudicial practices if we want. Amazon.com doesn't exist if they don't have the support of the consumer.

[richpoore]

Fun Fact: we're also able to patronize a business solely for it's choice to exercise freedom or in support of it's resistance to attempts to redefine right and wrong.

[odubtaig]

You mean 'in it's attempts to define for the rest of us what constitutes right and wrong'.<br /><br />There is no 'redefine'.

[logan102]

this is a fine and wonderful example of the homophobic american populous at work, and it disgusts me, as a bisexual male, to read about a major company being ignorant and prejudiced enough to let this happen. From their comment it seems like this was a mistake or an action that wasn't approved possibly, so I'm hoping deeply that this is reversed and the offending party/person is punished suitably.

[Akfaraci]

Personally I like what they did. I will increase my shopping there. However the rest of you that are OFFENDED by this you are to shop where ever you like. Oh and God bless

[BnBGobo99]

I'm with you, Akfaraci.

[Belinus]

Actually, you need to increase your donations to "pro-family" hate groups. Concerned "Women" for America is in financial trouble even before you take the economic down-turn into account.

[thumper_1]

I'm logging on right now and buying all the items I've been procrastinating about! BTW - Why can't they sell or rate what they want!?

[ROBSCMH]

Another judgmental "Christian" hiding behind "God". Ignorant!

[LeinhartXx]

@ROBSCMH <br /> I do not agree with what Amazon is doing. but take a good hard look at yourself. You do not even know the man you call a christian. But you are the one being judgemental. You discriminate him because of a religion? <br /> I'm all forfree rights, but please, lets not be closed minded about it.

[svk1069]

Hold Your Horses: Don't Boycott Amazon Yet - http://snurl.com/fse9u

[Lerianis3]

I read it.... don't agree with the guys conclusions. Simply put, these 'anti-adult content' policies are used as a smokescreen on NUMEROUS occasions to clamp down on discussion of some things, ranging from homosexuality to pedosexuality to various other sexualities that people think are 'abnormal' only because they don't personally like them.

[codynews]

uh, I wasn't planning on boycotting them. Neither were 99.99999999% of the population.

[Renegade Knight]

@Lerianis3 <br /> <br />"people think are 'abnormal' only because they don't personally like them." <br /> <br />Now you show some wisdom. <br />There are hundreds of fetishes that a person can have. You can call them sexulities if you like. <br />Kids, Animals, Cars, Same Sex, Older Folks, can all be the focus of folks sexual desire. There are hundreds more. <br /> <br />I personally don't like pedophelia and dozens more. Our "big list of things we don't like personally" likely would have a heck of a lot in common until we hit what you are clearly for and what I'm clearly against." Someone I was close to drove home the point with their suicide in my case. What's your reason? You should know your reasons. <br /> <br />If you don't really know your own reasons you really can't read a knee jerk list like this and see a bigger picture and where you fit within it, or why the labels you are being stuck with are just that labels imposed by the ignorant who assume they are right but don't even really know what the heck they are talking about.

[odubtaig]

I personally don't like anything that only hurts others so, yes, paedophilia is something I "don't like" given the number of people I know who were abused and have severe mental health problems as a result.<br /><br />It should never be about 'like' or 'dislike'. The only hard and fast rule is 'does anyone get hurt?'<br /><br />As it is, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone.

[akd124]

codynews: 99.99999999% of the population, huh? Take a look at the response all over the web. LGBT people and our heterosexual allies--of which there are millions--are a powerful force. We are marching toward equality and you are going to be left in the dust bin of history.

[gggg sssss]

@ Lerianis3 So, you personally like an dagree with NAMBLA men wanting to have sex with young boys before they discover girls is a good thing? Mind sharing where you keep YOUR stash of kiddie Pr0n on line? The FBI would be very interested.

[jakobsmith]

"We are marching toward equality and you are going to be left in the dust bin of history."<br />go ahead, achieve your marvelous equality, then watch as you are bred out of existence by cultures that actually propagate themselves instead of spawning from the dysfunctional rot of the global aristocracy. <br />i really don't understand conservatives that try to deny gay's their right to marry, stopping them will not turn the clock back and save western civilization from the sins of decadence.<br />and to all you who are vehemently opposed to amazon's little "glitch" - get a grip and stopping being so reactionary. if you truly believe in tolerance than people have a right to oppose you

[odubtaig]

While we're at it, let's ban interracial marriage again and start persecuting the left handed.<br /><br />Don't try to turn this around, opposing bigotry is not intolerance, it's refusing to accept intolerance.

I worked at Amazon for many years, and I can guarantee you, absolutely and unconditionally, that Amazon did not intend to de-list all GLBT material. The entire company is filled with liberals such as myself, and the checks-and-balances system would make it impossible for a "rogue" manager or executive to do this secretly (plus it would be a guaranteed career ender for that individual.) <br /> <br />I have personally worked on the problem of adult material showing up in inappropriate places (like when searching for "bambi" or "rabbit"), and the problem is more complex than anyone could possibly realize without having inside information about Amazon's systems. Amazon stocks tens of millions of books, and it would be impossible to manage all of those manually, so they write software to do it. But it's impossible to write software which flawlessly manages tens of millions of books with human-level comprehension and attention given to each one. <br /> <br />Every time Amazon makes a high-profile mistake, it seems like it launches a hundred conspiracy theories. All these conspiracy theories are wrong, because they all start with the assumption of a deliberate act. I personally have made an innocent mistake which adversely affected a certain class of books (I won't tell you which), and it sparked accusations of prejudice and censorship from that community. The accusations were of course wrong; it's just that the particular programming error I made happened to adversely affect their books far more than any others, and non-programmers have trouble understanding how this could be anything other than a deliberate act (especially when Amazon refuses to explain what really happened). <br /> <br />I really, really wish I could tell everyone why adult content has to be singled out and suppressed. It's not for the reason anyone would think; it's really more of a technical issue. But I signed an NDA. So it will have to suffice for me to say that, without manual suppression, the adult content would slowly but inexorably take over, sort of like a virus. Eventually it would reach the point where you could do a search for "violin", and the first ten pages of results would be adult content. Every adult book or video in the world with "violin" in its title or description would appear at the top of the results list (and *not* because they sell well).

[Belinus]

Then why are they not testing these things before they are implemented on live servers?

[Renegade Knight]

@Belinus <br /> <br />I'm sure they do, but not everthing works as planned when you go live. Just look at what Congress does. Laws take years to hit the books. Then the unintended consequences kick in.

[roninpenguin]

I don't think that the problem here is that the books were removed from the lists initially, I think that the problem comes in when a publisher calls to try and find out why and is told that non-explicit GLBT books were marked as "Adult" content (pretty much meaning pornography) while heterosexual books with VERY explicit content went untouched.<br /><br />If someone had said "Oh crap, that wasn't suppose to be happening! Let me check into it!" then I don't think we would be even having this discussion.

Well, someone did say "Oh crap, that wasn't suppose to be happening!", but it came too late. The problem is that at Amazon, like many companies, the first-tier customer support staff do not have good access to the technical staff (i.e. the people who actually know what's going on). And tech problems are rare at their level; the vast majority of their issues are caused by the customers themselves. Thus, they're prone to give out boilerplate responses without really understanding whether things are working the way they're supposed to work. These people are graded by response time and throughput, so quite often they don't really even read the customer's email; they just skim it and choose the most relevant boilerplate from a list, and move on as quickly as they can. <br /> <br />When a support agent does try to contact technical staff, it's in the form of a "trouble ticket" that goes into the ticket queue. It can take hours, days, or weeks (depending on the priority as assessed by the support agent) for a techie to even *look* at the ticket. And then the techie has to investigate to figure out whether the software is operating as designed, and whether that design was correct (which are two separate issues.) The fact that Amazon responded so quickly on this issue with an "Oh crap we screwed up!" response is a testament to how important this issue is to Amazon. While I was there, my group's ticket queue had customer contact issues that were months old and no one had even looked at them yet.

[hectorjones23]

There is no way this is a glitch. It is a systemized retooling of database(s0) However, some people seem to be using Amazon's tagging tech to respond<br /><br />http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2009/04/13/cheney-and-lesbians-tag-teaming-amazon-in-response-to-sales-ranking-censorship/

[codynews]

Good for Amazon!<br /><br />Sadly I'm almost 100% sure they'll cave and change it back. The gay lobby (as I'm sure will be in effect when I read the comments) is pretty vocal.

[thelemurking]

Oh bloody hell... I am sure you would be outraged if bible books were de-listed... if Amazon started removing any books that talked about Jesus in a positive and religious light, you would be absolutely furious. It's amazing how some people think that free speech only applies to their beliefs and opinions.

[odubtaig]

He'd be even more upset if they delisted the books with sewing patterns for pointy hats and how to make your own burning cross.<br /><br />If bigots like this would stop trying to force their NWO on others then the gay lobby wouldn't have to be vocal at all.

[subieNC]

I really don't understand why you feel it's OK for a few people to decide what's right for everyone else. If you don't agree with the book choices, DON'T BUY THEM!!! Simple as that.

[anotherjeffblack]

as an author whose novel "Planting Eli" (which has very little to do with sex) has been deranked, i need to be convinced this was indeed a glitch and that amazon is democratically vigilant against material it deems "adult." <br /> <br />however, a quick amazon search of "The Joy of Sex" (ranked) and "The Joy of Gay Sex" (unranked) leads me to believe that any excuse will fall short.

[gggg sssss]

possibly because there is NO JOY in gay sex, just a sordid, possibly deadly encounter between and among those with no hope in life.

[odubtaig]

just because it didn't work out for you...

[Angmarr]

Dude "odubtaig" knockout punch bro!

[LeinhartXx]

LOL....Odub...that was so wrong...but oh so....right?