Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#41

Post by pwinnski »

huffmsa wrote: post #39
pjc50 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wins against newspapers for libel are extremely rare in First Amendment country.

But we've also never been at a point in history where a "respectable" publication can blast erroneous information out at the scale the Post did. They might not lose the in a trial, but there needs to be reconning of some sort which breaks the assumed trust we've developed with antiquated publications.

This is very, very incorrect. The term "yellow journalism" exists today because of really nasty work done in the late 1800s. Nobody at the Washington Post--or any other American newspaper today--is operating at nearly the same level of toxicity as William Randolph Hearst did then.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#42

Post by lonelappde »

peterlk wrote: post #22

Here'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…

Amazon's bestseller ranking is famously gameable by having a flash mob order the item all on the same day

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#43

Post by bduerst »

greedo wrote: post #33
peterlk wrote: post #22

Here'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…

Book sellers are rarely stuck with unsold inventory. They almost always have the ability to send unsold inventory (though not magazines) back to the publisher for full credit.

So then if you have sufficient capital, you park it into your own book for a few weeks and then return it all later once the best-selling status is achieved?

I can't imagine publishers would let this happen more than once or twice before revoking this ability for the seller. Inventory handling is expensive.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#44

Post by blondin »

dlivingston wrote: post #14
adeelk93 wrote: post #8

Earlier 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

i highly recommend this as well. have a list of people you admire and monitor/check their twitter, blog, website, etc. they usually post amazing books they have read and all you have to do is add these books to your wishlist (if possible, or bookmark them). see how long they stay there and how your interest in those books changes.

to be honest, books recommended by, say Bill Gates, are often in other spheres of influence and interest than i am currently part of and feel i can do anything about. but any technical book from John Carmack is a go for me.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#45

Post by lonelappde »

liability wrote: post #40
huffmsa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we've also never been at a point in history where a "respectable" publication can blast erroneous information out at the scale the Post did. They might not lose the in a trial, but there needs to be reconning of some sort which breaks the assumed trust we've developed with antiquated publications.

You should consider the probability that in the past when newspapers deceived the public, the deception went largely unnoticed (at least at the time.) For instance, there is the time American newspapers almost single-handedly started a war with Spain. Or, even worse, the infamous case of Pulitzer Prize winner and genocide denying communist sympathizer Walter Duranty using the New York Times to promote Soviet propagan…

FYI there is a memorial outside Union Station for visitors to Washington DC.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=39537

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#47

Post by inscionent »

pwinnski wrote: post #41
huffmsa wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we've also never been at a point in history where a "respectable" publication can blast erroneous information out at the scale the Post did. They might not lose the in a trial, but there needs to be reconning of some sort which breaks the assumed trust we've developed with antiquated publications.

This is very, very incorrect. The term "yellow journalism" exists today because of really nasty work done in the late 1800s. Nobody at the Washington Post--or any other American newspaper today--is operating at nearly the same level of toxicity as William Randolph Hearst did then.

That is what the internet is for.

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#49

Post by bduerst »

adeelk93 wrote: post #8
twerkinggumby wrote: post #4

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?

NLP text analysis by NNs to identify features that humans can't perceive but are shared across genres that are liked by the user.

(I'm only half joking - book discovery is a pain point in my life and I fantasize about this every time looking for a new read)

Re: The Washington Post's bestseller lists have been wrong

#50

Post by bduerst »

dlivingston wrote: post #24
j88439h84 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you sure it's that and not that you self-identify as being person X? Just how well do you know X apart from X's name as a brand?
Post reply on HN