亞馬遜刪除希拉里·柯林頓新書的數百條一星差評

最新 09-20

正文翻譯

原創翻譯：龍騰網翻譯：卡思轉載請註明出處

論壇地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-457620-1-1.html

It』s believed many of the reviews were posted by people who hadn』t read the book, in a deliberate bid to lower its rating.

許多評論被認為是由沒有讀過這本書的人發表的，他們故意這麼做是為了降低該書的評分。

Clinton at a book signing in New York on Tuesday

本周二，柯林頓在紐約進行新書籤售

HUNDREDS OF ONE-STAR reviews of Hillary Clinton』s new book have been removed from Amazon.

亞馬遜已經刪除了希拉里·柯林頓新書的數百條一星級評論。

Published on Tuesday, What Happened is Clinton』s retelling of her US presidential election loss to Donald Trump last year.

新書《發生了什麼》(What Happened)於本周二出版，柯林頓在書中複述了她去年在美國總統大選中輸給唐納德·特朗普的事。

As of Wednesday morning, more than 1,500 reviews appeared on Amazon. Many contained little information about the book and instead offered high praise or sharp criticism of the Democratic candidate.

截至星期三上午，亞馬遜上有超過1500條評論。其中許多評論內容幾乎與這本書無關，而是對這位民主黨候選人表示了高度的讚美或尖銳的批評。

It』s believed many of the reviews were posted in a deliberate bid to lower the book』s rating. The publisher of What Happened questioned so many reviews being posted within a day of the book』s release.

據信許多評論都是為了降低這本書的評分而發表的。《What Happened》的出版商對於該書一天之內就有這麼多評論表示質疑。

Simon & Schuster publisher Jonathan Karp told the Associated Press: 「It seems highly unlikely that approximately 1,500 people read Hillary Clinton』s book overnight and came to the stark conclusion that it is either brilliant or awful.」

西蒙和舒斯特出版社的喬納森·卡普告訴美聯社：「似乎不太可能有約1500人一夜之間讀完希拉里·柯林頓的書並立馬總結出它是極好的還是糟糕的。

Unverified purchases

未經證實的購買

Quartz found that, of the 1,500 or so original reviews on Amazon, 「only 338 were from users with verified purchases of the book」.

Quartz發現，在亞馬遜的1,500多條原創評論中，「只有338條來自經過證實已購買該書的用戶」。

The website reported yesterday: 「The average rating for reviews from unverified purchases was a 2.3, while the average from a real purchase of the book was 4.9.」

該網站昨日報道：「未經證實已購書者的平均評分是2.3，而真正購買該書的用戶的平均評分為4.9。

Tommy Noonan, the owner of ReviewMeta (which analyses millions of reviews to help consumers find the most trustworthy ones) told Quartz: 「If that was happening by random chance it would be one in a trillion chance you』d see a discrepancy like that; actually much less likely than that, from a data science perspective.

ReviewMeta（一個可以分析數百萬條評論，幫助消費者找出最值得信賴的評論的網站）的所有者湯米·諾南告訴Quartz：「如果這是隨機發生的話，那麼需要一兆分之一的幾率你才能看到這樣的差異。從數據科學的角度來看，實際上不太可能會發生。」

「It』s obvious that people who didn』t buy the book are rating the book much lower.」

「很明顯，沒有購買這本書的人對這本書的評價要低得多。」

評論翻譯

原創翻譯：龍騰網翻譯：卡思轉載請註明出處

論壇地址：http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-457620-1-1.html

stephen kavanagh

Thu 12:56 PM

Maybe they just genuinely thought it was awful, self-justifying tripe?

也許他們只是真的覺得這書很糟糕，寫的是是自我辯護的廢話？

Thu 12:59 PM

@Stephen kavanagh: after one day? having not even bought / read it? Highly doubtful.

回復@stephen kavanagh: 僅僅一天之後（就有這麼多評論）？甚至都沒買過/讀過？高度懷疑。

stephen kavanagh

Thu 1:02 PM

@nf: I』d say it』s the kind of book you don』t need to read to know exactly what it contains!

回復@nf: 我想說這是一本不需要閱讀就能確切地知道它寫的是什麼的書！

John003

Thu 1:01 PM

This must be Russian hacking of Amazon and posting these one star ratings……Should be investigated by congress committee for Russian meddling…

這一定是俄羅斯黑客入侵亞馬遜並發布這些一星級的書評......應該讓國會委員會去調查俄羅斯的干涉情況...

Johnny Gunn

Thu 1:12 PM

@John003: I can already see the sequel: 「What Happened to the reviews of my book What Happened?」

回復@John003：我已經可以看到續集：《我的書的評論發生了什麼？》

Dave O Keeffe

Thu 3:06 PM

@johnny Gunn: that』s pretty funny tbf

回復@Johnny Gunn:太搞笑了

Seth Cheffetz

Thu 1:12 PM

Just because Trump is a disaster doesn』t change the fact she was a terrible candidate. Now she is saying it was ok the DNC supported her because Sanders isn』t a Democrat. It shows how delusional she is and not adverse to corruption. Sanders registered as a Democrat and followed the rules in place so he was in fact a Democrat.

川普是一個災難也不能改變她是一個糟糕的候選人這個事實。現在她說DNC（民主黨全國委員會）支持她完全沒問題，因為桑德斯不是民主黨人。這表明她是多麼妄想，不會對腐敗負責。桑德斯早就註冊為民主黨人，並遵守規則，所以他實際上是一個民主黨人。

Lisa Saputo

Thu 3:13 PM

@Seth Cheffetz: I think the fact that Trump is such a disaster just shows she was a poor choice indeed.

回復@Seth Cheffetz: 我覺得川普是個大災難的事實反而證明了她是一個糟糕的選擇。

Richard

Thu 3:26 PM

@Seth Cheffetz: The most ludicrous part of the whole book is where she seems to say the point of Orwell』s 1984 is that we need to trust the government more…

回復@Seth Cheffetz: 整本書最可笑的部分是，她似乎認為奧維爾1984年的觀點是我們需要更加信任政府...

Dr Richard DeWitt

Thu 12:55 PM

Pathetic. Would they remove a bunch of 5-star reviews for their 「Chosen One」? Doubt it.

可憐哦。他們會因為他們的「選擇一個」而刪除一批5星級評論嗎？對此感到懷疑。

Dave O Keeffe

Thu 1:09 PM

@Dr Richard DeWitt: third paragraph, seems like they did.

回復@Dr Richard DeWitt: 看第三段，他們似乎有這麼做。

Ollie Mac

Thu 1:13 PM

@Dave O Keeffe: I』m outraged that you read it ..

回復@Dave O Keeffe: 我憤怒的是你居然讀了它…

Reg

Thu 12:59 PM

The Donald』s network of 『bots』 still up and running….!!!

川普的網路水軍還在運行中……！！！

Johnny Gunn

Thu 1:15 PM

@Reg: it』s gotta be the bots no way real people could hate a sociopath like Clinton.

回復@Reg: 肯定是水軍，正常人不會討厭一個像柯林頓這樣的反社會者。

Atheos Euripides

Thu 1:19 PM

@Johnny Gunn: Considering the Alt-Right are illiterate just like Donald the Sociopath, no surprise these bogus reviews were removed #covfefe

回復@Johnny Gunn：考慮到另類右翼就跟川普這個反社會者一樣是一群文盲，這些虛假評論被刪除毫不意外#covfefe（這個是川普在twitter上創造的一個新詞，具體含義不清）

gjpb

Thu 1:37 PM

she blames Bernie for not getting behind her in the election campaign against trump. why on earth would he when she fixed the Democrat nomination against him!

她指責伯尼沒有在背後支持她在競選中擊敗特朗普。她都擊敗他成為民主黨候選人了，為什麼還有臉這麼說？！

Mark Murphy

Thu 2:48 PM

@gjpb: where did she say that in the book ? Having read it i must have skipped thar part ? And chance you can copy and paste for me ?? She actually thanks bernie for being progressive and helping her ? But hey you didnt read it so your just looking for attention.

回復@gjpb：她在書里哪個地方這麼說？我讀過這書了，我一定是跳過了那個部分？或者你可能只是在複製和粘貼？實際上她是感謝伯尼幫助她讓她進步吧？但是，嘿，你壓根沒有閱讀這書，所以你只是在吸引注意。

Chad Rockett

Thu 3:03 PM

@MarkMurphy: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-p ... book-bernie-sanders Perhaps you should read it again.

或許你應該再讀一遍。

Paul Culligan

Thu 12:57 PM

Educated readers sifting through the lies.

這是在教育讀者們要懂得從謊話中進行篩選。

Sean Gordon

Thu 1:17 PM

Hillary WHO?