Suggestions

Some books are unavailable on Amazon. However, authors still request for Amazon reviews. I recommend that the option to request an additional Amazon review be made available only to books with valid amazon links.

I've been following the suggestions and implementations on this forum, and there are huge steps that have been made that I'm sure reviewers appreciate. There's one area I feel needs a slight improvement, though. I believe implementing a way to appeal certain warnings (and a way for the warnings to be reversed if they were given in error or there's a valid reason for reversing them) will go a long way to make OBC even better. The background for requesting this to be implemented is because I have had a recent unpleasant experience when I was wrongfully warned (I believe). Another editor had wrongfully penalized a reviewer and there was a discrepancy. Before I even responded to the discrepancy, I received an email that I had been warned for an inaccurate scorecard without any reason at all, when it was the other editor who was in fact wrong. Our scorecards were basically the same, except for the portion of adherence to guidelines, and it was only one guideline we differed in, which the reviewer didn't violate. Eventually, the other editor even agreed with me, so I wonder why the warning was even given. When I reached out through the support email, a second admin admitted that my scorecard was the correct one and referred the case to the admin who had initially given the warning. Efforts to reach the said admin have proved fruitless, as up to now there is no response, and I am still suspended from editing for something I didn't do. If there was a way to directly appeal such cases, with a set time frame for the rep or admin who had given the warning to respond, it would be so much efficient and easy, avoiding the back and forth of sending emails and support requests. I have attached a screenshot to give more context. Thanks.

1) Specification of disputes: Currently, if a reviewer has a dispute, he will see on the history tab for all of the published but not paid reviews the comments, "There are disputes in your account that may cause this review and payment to be held until the disputes are solved." For a reviewer to know what the dispute is, he has to scroll through the entire history page. This might be easy for reviewers with a small number of finished reviews, but not for reviewers with over 200 reviewed books in the history tab. To make it easier, I suggest the link to the dispute in question be added along with the above-mentioned dispute comments. 2) Limit the number of review reps on an inquiry email subject from a reviewer: When asking for help via email, I always add a subject for the email, expecting there will be an exchange of replies between me and the review representatives. Sometimes a representative who sends the first reply isn't the one who'll read my reply to it. So we even reach the point where another representative wants you to start describing your issue afresh because of a long thread. That irritates, especially when you're checking up, thinking your query is being handled. For this, I suggest a representative who replies first to an email subject should handle the query to the end or when the email is marked as solved. OR If a representative is going to reply to a reply email he should go through the thread first.

There's been a constant increase in the amount of wrongly marked PRQ dispute issues among reviewers. Make a dispute process interactive, reversible and fixable and also update info and details about books reviewers are getting to the database while setting rules based on the OBC guidelines for the authors in their PRQ as it is been found that no matter what the reviewer does or says even when they are right, only the data given by the author will be followed and marked correct; then the dispute is closed without any evidence or proof from the reviewer to state their case. I have 2 cases where my reviews have PRQ disputes and even though I've sent video evidence and proof that I am right and the dispute was closed in my favor, the rejected dispute was not reversed and the support team did not help in any way

This (1) will be faster and (2) will allow an admin to warn both editors separately if two scorecards were submitted for a review but both editors made a warning-worthy mistake.

When an author accepts an offer to receive Scott's book, "the 10 Step Plan to Promote Your Book", all staff members are currently not authorized to send the book to the author. Would it be possible to allow all staff members to do this? Here is a link to the FAQ item relate to this topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jku1LDInEbtmVDnpowdcRXjooGBVdlD-r8lCAlKpwTU/edit#heading=h.ooyh5zhclqs5

The editor scorecards shown to reviewers still contain old (and now incorrect) information that editors are shown reviews anonymously and that rejected reviews cannot be re-written and re-submitted. (I have attached a very recent editor scorecard I got this week on 9th April 2024 and highlighted the referred parts). I suggest that this information be updated to reflect the current status of these: reviews are no longer anonymous to editors because editors can view reviewers' username, Amazon display name, Facebook name, and PayPal name, and rejected reviews can be re-editted and re-resubmitted after being returned to the reviewer's Update tab.

It's very unfair, infuriating, and maddening that you rejected a review after My book review was evaluated by an editor and said I didn't made any violation. And It was published. I was already waiting for the payment. IT'S BEEN THREE WEEKS! Before I'm informed that there's a PRQ inaccuracies and I agree to it. Then you rejected ny review. That's just horrible for you to do so. You should've rejected it in the first place so my other payments are not on hold and I didn't expected a payment for that review. That's just a very dirty move for you. And you are ignoring this concern on emails.

My book review for the book 28 disastrous date was rejected. I demand an explanation and apology for this circumstances. Your editor didn't see any mistake or any violation to the rule. It even says I adhere to the guidelines. So then you published it. And my payment is pending for three weeks🙃. Then suddenly there was a so called PRQ inaccuracies which is the reason my payment is on hold. Isn't that supposed to be noticed during editor evaluation!? Before my review was even published? And now you rejected my review and I can't even dispute it. I waited three weeks for nothing. You wasted my time and made me expect to be paid when im not going to be. Please raise this to your manager. I won't let this unfairness slide. Remove that published review I made for that book. I won't allow you to use it. This is your fault in the first place. And you are not even addressing my concerns now, ignoring me🙃.

A member has suggested that we register the website at scamadvisor.com . This is a free website that allows people to check a website trust score. https://onlinebookclub.org/contact/?rl=m&scid=4861#send-message