Readers may be aware that I've been battling Amazon over a one-star linked review of Robert Elsmere for, um, pretty much since Robert Elsmere has existed. I mean, I'm a terribly pedantic academic and all, but I'm reasonably sure that an annotated edition (with footnotes, and introduction, and appendices, and even something resembling proofreading!) is not quite the same thing as Random Cheapo Facsimile with Lots of Typos. The one-star review comes. I yell. It goes. It comes back. I yell louder. It goes again. It comes back once more. I increase the decibel levels. Etc. This time around, I get this explanation:
So, there you have it: it's "relevant review information" even when it has nothing to do with the book under review. How does one argue with this kind of thinking? (One doesn't, apparently.) I give up.