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

51–60 of 97 posts

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

#51

Post by dlivingston »

bduerst wrote: post #50
dlivingston wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

While your question is interesting as a psychological thought experiment, it does not matter pragmatically.

If I am interested in, say, sci-fi, or futurism, and so is person X - or, person X's marketing image - then person X will bolster their brand by posting sci-fi and futurism books.

Therefore, I still get recommendations in the genres I'm interested in, and whether those recommendations are accurate portrayals of person X's interests is irrelevant.

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

#52

Post by kurtisc »

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?

If it's on a bestseller list, it's already discovered. It's also going to be pushed by every book retailer.

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

#53

Post by dlivingston »

dlp211 wrote: post #23
dlivingston wrote: post #14

Earlier 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 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.

...okay? With the exception of tailored algorithms, i.e. Pandora, every media service or list is going to be the opinions of one or more persons.

What's on cable is relegated by Neilson ratings, what's on the radio is relegated by what's popular / the DJ's favorite songs, what's in a bookstore is relegated by what sells well (or, by what doesn't sell poorly). Everything is curated.

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

#54

Post by thrwy0000p »

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…

Another technique that seems lucrative is for propagandists to write books, and have them bought by their patrons. A nice, arms-length arrangement that has the bonus of allowing the propagandist to claim to be a “best-selling author”.

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

#55

Post by pessimizer »

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.

To remainder paperbacks, instead of sending the entire book back for credit they'd rip off the covers, send those instead, and dumpster the book. I don't know if they do this anymore. When I grew up in the 80s, I read an enormous number of coverless books:)

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

#56

Post by zenexer »

huffmsa wrote: post #38
matchbok wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frivolous lawsuit, you mean. Perhaps you need to do some fact-checking.

My comments are merely opinion, fact checking not needed.

As was the claim that was made in Washington Post, according to the judge.

Edit: I initially said the claim was made by Washington Post, but it wasn’t their claim.

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

#57

Post by pessimizer »

dlp211 wrote: post #23
dlivingston wrote: post #14

Earlier 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 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.

Why should you care about the bestseller lists? This is an alternative if you want to get some insight into the thought process of these (terrible) people.

Also these three people are examples; the point is that some public people that you may care about recommend books, and that is a way to discover books.

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

#58

Post by jammygit »

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…

> As Amazon continues their vertical integration, it's not clear whether this problem will be addressed or not.

Amazon might make things a lot worse. The “recommended by amazon” windows 10 keys are mostly fake ripoffs at this point with pages of complaints in the reviews

Edit: added quote

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

#59

Post by jammygit »

trentnix wrote: post #16
hirundo wrote: post #5

Kudos to the Post for attempting to produce an objective list. The New York Times doesn't: > In other words, The New York Times best-seller list is not a best-seller list -- which even The New York Times once acknowledged. In the early 1980s, William Peter Blatty, author of the monumental best-seller "The Exorcist," sued The New York Times for only listing his novel on the list one time, even though it sold in the mi…

Does that apply to the rest of paper as well?

Not sure why the downvotes. If a news provider can’t promise to try to tell the truth in a legally binding way, but just claims to be editorializing, it’s no wonder there is so much public distrust of the news.

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

#60

Post by themattress »

pessimizer wrote: post #55
greedo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To remainder paperbacks, instead of sending the entire book back for credit they'd rip off the covers, send those instead, and dumpster the book. I don't know if they do this anymore. When I grew up in the 80s, I read an enormous number of coverless books:)

This was SOP for me when I worked as the receiver in a supermarket from ~2007-2011.

It’s a shame, I must have thrown thousands and thousands of books away, instead of donating them to a library or something.

But then again, I guess the library would only accept so many copies of the same nascar-themed trashy romance novel.

Post reply on HN