I stumble by accident on this fascinating story by Garth Hallberg first published in Slate.com last January.

In it, Mr. Hallberg goes about peeling off the veneer of Amazon's Top reviewers. A knowledge that he acquires first hand as he follows minute by minute the progress of his book's rating on Amazon,
A Field Guide To The North American Family.

I know very little about Garth Hallberg, except for the fact that I've since realized that I heard him read a fantastic story at the May 29 Literary Death Match. But that limited knowledge of him makes me trust every word HE writes.

And what he tells us is that when you read Grady Harp's review of his own book and Mr. Harp writes "Hallberg is a sensitive observer of human foibles and responses: Hallberg also just happens to be a superb writer!" -- we should in fact not really believe Mr. Harp -- or we should rather exercise a healthy level of suspicion. Why because, who knows who those reviewers really are....and to refer to eviewer #1 (who is not Mr. Harp) who has averaged 45 book reviews per week, according to Hallberg.

45 book reviews a week????? Is that even humanly possible....You tell me.

Hallberg sees in the reviewer's system a weakness of Web 2.0 in general, an absence of oversight; an excessive reliance on Algorithms; a overwhelming reverence for popularity ratings.

I think it is indeed one of the most interesting topics one can grapple with when it comes to the Net. Unfiltered opinions; 24/7 presence; and a general absence of ethics. But is not it also what makes it so exciting and refreshing? After all, Hallberg's story is published in an online magazine.....and popularity as a standard for success??? Nothing new there...really.