Beware: James Hong

<p>Don't be tricked by users promoting his new book: the Critical Reading Game. The 2 users promoting the book joined on the same day, and only post about the book. It may be totally legit and i could be wrong, but watch out for this suspicious rise in promotion of Hong's new book</p>

<p>3 users actually and yes, it does seem suspicious that every single on of their posts promotes the book.</p>

<p>Yeah, at first it seemed like a coincidence, but it was suspicious after a while. I almost fell for it too, just thinking “wow this book must be really good if it gets mentioned so much on here…”</p>

<p>The reviews on Amazon look “gamed” as well.</p>

<p>Okay so this James Hong guy is getting REALLY SKETCHY. I am in two minds about buying this book as well. Here are some things I would like to point out</p>

<ol>
<li>His book has just been recently released. And yet there are some people who said they had raised their scores on the second test already. If they bought it in May, the first test should be in June. So where did the “second” thing come from?</li>
<li>People promoting this book join the SAME FRIGGING DATE.</li>
<li>There are people who use the same usernames in different sites promoting this book by praising it highly.</li>
<li>Hardly anyone in Collegeconfidential has actually tried this book yet.</li>
</ol>

<p>So correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t this seem a little bit suspicious? I apologize if James Hong is actually a good dude and this book is very helpful, but I’m just stating what I have in mind right now. So can anyone clear things out for me?</p>

<p>Alright so there are finally comments on amazon.com which seem to be “real”. In the comment, Wu Chong dismisses James Hong’s book as “fluff” and “spills too much ink on creating metaphors”. Go read the comment for more information.</p>

<p>has anyone actually bought the book here?</p>

<p>@WoodenSpoon: Nope, but DON’T bother to buy it. Read the latest review on amazon.com from a verified purchaser. He gave the book 1 star for its poor content.</p>