From the Amazon.com page for the book Google Analytics by Mary E. Tyler and Jerri Ledford
“…very useful.” (dave.org.uk, October 2006)
Which is extracted somewhat carefully from the review I wrote
In summary, the descriptions of the Google Analytics reports are very useful if you can ignore the over-familiar language, but the sections that contain deep techical detail are patchy at best.
I know I told them they could do what they wanted with the review, but doesn’t it seem like they’re clutching at straws a bit if the best they can come up with is to cherry-pick phrases from an almost completely negative review?
See, I thought I was being kind to them when I didn’t publish my review on Amazon. but if they’re going to abuse my review like that, perhaps I should change my mind.
Update: Ooh. First time I’ve ever been Dugg.
I wouldn’t worry about it: the fact that it is the only review and is so short really stands out, and it’s labelled with your domain name so it isn’t hard to discover the full-length review from which it was extracted.It is really hard though. If writing an unfavourable review I go through it and look for overly-positive phrases that could be taken out of context and try to reword them.Amusingly it’s also happened to me t’other way round: when reviewing Advanced Perl Programming (2nd ed) for The Perl Review I tweaked the sentence breaks and carefully placed the title of the book to make it easy to extract “Advanced Perl Programming covers the technologies that all right-thinking Perl programmers are using these days … so you can quickly get up to speed with them.” But O’Reilly instead chose to use a descriptive sentence from the beginning of the review which barely had an opinion in it.