They should just get rid of bestseller lists. They exist purely for marketing and for tricking chumps into buying mediocre books.
Discovery is challenging, how would you propose finding something new to read?
[deleted]
The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
21–30 of 97 posts
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#22Here's how "Best Sellers" become a thing:
Publishers count the number of books they sell.
This seems pretty simple, right? It is, but as a consequence, easily gamed. Publishers don't sell to you and me, they sell to book stores. So, you create some marketing to get people to preorder your book from a lots of different book stores. Book sellers inform the number of copies based, in part, on preorder numbers. There are ways that you can get book stores to order many more books than there is demand for by fraudulently (not sure if it's legally fraudulent, but maybe?) pre-ordering books, and stocking shelves with books that no one ever picks up. But boom, there you go - best seller.
If you want to cut out the middle man, and you're rich enough, you can just _be_ the middle man. Buy all the books from the publisher, and resell them. The publisher still gets their money, so they don't care. Again, now you have a best-seller.
And then, of course, there are legitimate sales that the best seller lists market themselves as measuring.
Book sellers don't want to be stuck with unsold inventory, so there's something of an arms race between book sellers and publishers/authors.
After seeing this game first-hand, I no longer believe anything on a best-seller list. As Amazon continues their vertical integration, it's not clear whether this problem will be addressed or not. The system can still be gamed, especially if it's run by algorithms.
So, basically, I'd argue that it doesn't matter whether WaPo is "right" or not because the input data is likely of poor quality anyways.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discovery is challenging, how would you propose finding something new to read?
A lot of influential figures publish their reading lists, like Bill Gates [0], Elon Musk [1], and Patrick Collision [2] [0]: https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Summer-Books-201... [1]: https://medium.com/swlh/elon-musks-reading-list-every-book-h... [2]: https://patrickcollison.com/bookshelf
Why should I care what those people are reading or think. I'm not them and they're not me and while some of my interests may overlap with them, it doesn't mean I want to, or will enjoy, reading what they read.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of influential figures publish their reading lists, like Bill Gates [0], Elon Musk [1], and Patrick Collision [2] [0]: https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Summer-Books-201... [1]: https://medium.com/swlh/elon-musks-reading-list-every-book-h... [2]: https://patrickcollison.com/bookshelf
Why ask three people when you can ask a million?
Because my taste and interests are more aligned with person X than with the general populace.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#25They should just get rid of bestseller lists. They exist purely for marketing and for tricking chumps into buying mediocre books.
Discovery is challenging, how would you propose finding something new to read?
Browse a book store is the obvious answer.
But this makes sense, because a store will generally buy items that it thinks it can sell, so it'll come down to humans making choices about what's a good book. Of course, publishers will be pushing their latest items through their marketing chains, and so new books will make it to stores based on marketability to the store owner.
In the digital realm, this is less of an issue, and can accept more books, but makes the whole shopping experience very noisy imho.
However, I personally like to read those little recommendation cards that the shop assistants make. I've bought a few books outside my normal genre that way, and haven't been let down yet.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same publication staring down a $250m libel lawsuit for their inability to fact check before publishing. You expect too much from them.
That was dismissed recently, with a handy summary from the judge: The judge who oversaw the case, William O. Bertlesman, said in his dismissal, "The Court accepts Sandmann's statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone. However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being 'blocked' and no…
It'll certainly be interesting to see where the appeal goes.
I need to read the opinion, but my initial inclination is that the judge should have let it go to trial.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#27They should just get rid of bestseller lists. They exist purely for marketing and for tricking chumps into buying mediocre books.
Discovery is challenging, how would you propose finding something new to read?
Read quality book reviews. I would especially recommend the New York Review of Books and the London Review of Books, but there are dozens of long-form journals of this kind.
Most newspapers also have book review sections, as do many academic journals.
Presumably if you're interested in someone or something, you can also simply peruse the internet to see what's out there, i.e. you can start with your interests rather than with what's popular or well-advertised.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discovery is challenging, how would you propose finding something new to read?
A lot of influential figures publish their reading lists, like Bill Gates [0], Elon Musk [1], and Patrick Collision [2] [0]: https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Summer-Books-201... [1]: https://medium.com/swlh/elon-musks-reading-list-every-book-h... [2]: https://patrickcollison.com/bookshelf
That seems like an even more questionable tool for deciding what to read than a best-seller list. Those guys are renowned for starting tech companies that made lots of money, not for their outstanding taste in books.
Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#29Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong
#30They should just get rid of bestseller lists. They exist purely for marketing and for tricking chumps into buying mediocre books.
Discovery is challenging, how would you propose finding something new to read?
browse goodreads! go to local author talks! go to a local book club ran by someone well-read! totally agree with the above supporting long form review publications like the new york/ london/ paris review of books; they typically will write about a general topic whose sources are 1-3 books that are listed. If the long form piece peaks your interest you know exactly where to dig in for more information.
Best seller lists skew towards "branded" writers typically pushing (in my opinion) a diluted version of an existing thought that is re-marketed for our time. There is nothing new under the sun, so stick to the classics. Life is much too short to read mediocre books. (: