> And the site itself is JAMMED with affiliate links disguised as pretty pictures.
Those "pretty pictures" are often illustrations from the work shown to assist in the review. That's quite the undertone you're wringing out of her rather mundane actions.
I don't think you understand - the images (at least the ones that got through my adblockers) are hosted on her website. Which is exactly what is needed to illustrated the work in the review. The part that isn't necessary for reviewing is to make the images clickable and link them to the product at amazon. If every image is clickable, why not the entire text of the review too?
I think it is a big stretch to assume that anyone who clicks an illustration from a book in a review wants to purchase the book. By making so much of the screen space clickable like that she makes it quite easy for an accidental click to end up "capturing" the affiliate revenue from any amazon purchases that user makes in the next 10 hours (or whatever the amazon affiliate cookie time-out is).
Attaching affiliate links to those images is not "mundane". It effectively them into banner ads. She's covering her site in click targets that make her money and then claiming to be ad-free on the same page.
It really is, considering the number of people who use Amazon's affiliate service. She's not sneaking in links or using a URL shortener or something. She's taking a part of her review that might entice people to buy the book— the illustrations— and adding an affiliate link to them. Pretty mundane. Personally, it just hasn't crossed that line into "shady behavior used by spammers."
Those "pretty pictures" are often illustrations from the work shown to assist in the review. That's quite the undertone you're wringing out of her rather mundane actions.