More listing tampering? Me thinks so

I think I talked about our loss of the climate friendly badge in another post. This issue has been going on since Nov with SAS escalation after SAS escalation.

Finally got someone to pay attention to me and really dig into it. Turns out the listing master category was changed from Nutritional Supplement to Herbal. What I see on my end is unchanged (Nutritional and Herbal Sleep Supplements).

We have other potencies of this product that are fine, in the correct category, and have the badge.

I don’t think all of this is happening by accident or glitch and our friends who we reported got the badge around the same time we lost ours.

I was told by SAS that there’s no way for a seller to see this master category once the listing is setup. She’s working with the catalog team to make the changes on our behalf and reopening the escalation to get the badge back.

Weird. At least this issue is seemingly resolved.

I know I’ve been poo pooed about this badge and what it means in the past by some of you but you better believe that Amazon pretends to care about the planet and more than likely rewards listings with the badge in various ways. That’s why I want it back. That and everyone else we compete head to head with has it.


I do believe exactly that. The same way they pretend to care about any number of things that seem like a good idea at the time.

Remember the warm fuzzy story about the seller couple who lived aboard and ran their Amazon store that way. Wonder how long they lasted. Amazon used them to make Amazon look warm and fuzzy. I expect they shoved them under the bus later on. Or perhaps under an oil tanker since there would be no bus handy.


As has been stated many times before, it’s Amazon’s sandbox, so whatever is important to Amazon is, by default, important to sellers. I may have to draw the line when they welcome our new alien overlords, though. :wink:

1 Like

What are you talking about, they have 1 entire FC that’s not using plastic packaging.

That’s the sting.

1 Like

I’m inclined to agree, as Rosenberg, et al. was just the tip of the rotten iceberg of insider shenanigans.

A case in point was revealed earlier today (6Jan`24) over in the NSFE, of an egregious example of violation(s) of the Creative Content requirements for Amazon Posts skating through the Creative Review Team unscathed (I broke the link which the OP posted to allow others access to the offending Seller’s Amazon Posts page):

Does Amazon allow suggestive post content? (link)

The FMT-CMT’s Michelle pledged to report this some hours ago; it will be interesting to see how (and/or when) Amazon takes action:

For those who are not aware of the Amazon Posts functionality, it should be noted that the Creative Guidelines are among the strictest of the many imposed by the Advertising Team for the multiple features it administers.

Level playing field my bloody arse.

1 Like

Wow. Most women bore holes in wood in their LINGERIE…

The rules aren’t for everyone as we all know.

To be fair, I’m not particularly adverse to seeing women doing whatever they damn well please wearing naught but their scanties, but apparently you and I run in different crowds… :smile:


Apparently there’s some scuttlebutt in the legal community that one of the prime reasons behind Amazon’s recent balking over the proposed discovery in the FTC suit is tied to DoJ’s determination to press home earlier, unsuccessful EU-litigation attempts to learn the details of Seattle’s 2012 bargain with Beijing.

Since such a goal obviously implies national security concerns specifically for These United States - which was by and large the foundering point of the EU’s attempts to gather the same data - Amazon needs more time to hide gather the data for submission to the publicly-shielded judicial hearing which are bound to proliferate in this case, in a greater degree than would likely otherwise obtain, should these rumours prove true.

1 Like

What’s egregious? That’s exactly how I vaccuum.

Seriously, I reported the one with a bare nipple.

1 Like

I was presented with this after adding a specialty awl* to my Amazon cart.

Not sure if these Sellers pay for Advertising, or if Amazon highlights any/all with badge in their upsell attempts.

*The awl is not labeled “climate pledge friendly”.

There’s likely a Chinese version of Epstein’s island where the hostages are forced to make Amazon product videos.

If you rearrange this to be bore wood in their holes it would make more sense.

Missed that one I guess. Didn’t have my glasses on. :rofl:

1 Like

Amazon Posts, by default, are displayed in sequential order, temporally (newest back to oldest); that particular one with the partially-exposed areola, which features a model wearing the same lingerie that appears in both one earlier post, and several later posts featuring another model (mayhaps even wearing the same pair of garments themselves?), seems to be the breaking point between general compliance with the guidelines, as exhibited in the earliest-made posts (with the possible exception of the afore-said 1st appearance of the black lingerie set), and the run of salacious posts which follow.

It’s entirely possible that I’m off-base in suspecting insider shenanigans, as we cannot be sure that Amazon’s Creative Review Team actually does invariably subject Posts to human review - as opposed to automated mechanisms - as it maintains is the case; it could be that the seller simply split-tested the results of various submissions, and finding one that succeeded in evading the published policies, simply ran with that.

Nonetheless, I remain skeptical that this doesn’t smack of insider involvement.

I keep reading things wrong here today.

Earlier I was wondering about wooden underwear.

Now I am wondering how on earth you do anything with your bare nipple.

1 Like