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

What Germans Are Reading

the-american-interest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 131 posts

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#71

Post by DanielleMolloy »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #15
DanielleMolloy wrote: post #12

As far as I know the Spiegel list, which has a lot of media and book shop presence does not count Amazon. The GfK in German has an exklusive deal with Amazon for data, and they do not deliver the Spiegel list data. The Spiegel list also uses an additional voting scheme among their journalists. I have found the Spiegel list a bit weird for years, it contains a lot of highly light reading or polemic stuff like that guy…

I just compared the two lists, and there aren't many differences: only one of Amazon's top 10 didn't make it onto the SPIEGEL list ("Homo Deus"). The lists are at https://www.amazon.de/charts/2019-08-11/mostread/nonfiction?... https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/bestseller-buecher-belletristi... It's all German, obviously. And note that Spiegel has at least two different lists, for hardcover and paperback (plus a few more,…

The Amazon list (20 top items binned across hardcovers, paperbacks and audiobooks, which is correct if your goal is to identify a "zeitgeist trend") and the Spiegel lists (for an unknown reason, separate lists for paperback, hardcover and "Taschenbuch", 60 items in 3 lists [1]) have 11 books in common right now.

However if I only look at a single Spiegel list of 20 items, e.g. hardcovers there are only two items left in common.

I think you will agree that a book sales data analysis that has not made a successful effort to include one of the biggest book sellers in Germany for years can still safely be called garbage. It is baffling for me how much reputation the Spiegel lists still have.

Also, the hardcover Spiegel list has entries like the new book by Spiegel journalist Todenhöfer on rank 10 (rank 2129 on Amazon Germany right now).

[1] I ignored the Spiegel audiobooks list because this data is irrelevant without Audible.

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#72

Post by chronial »

zuuow wrote: post #70
chronial wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both statements are technically correct. One statement clearly transports the facts, the other is massively misleading. The additional use of "books" is further misleading and technically not correct. It is one single book. Is see no reason to defend this spreading of misinformation. Do you?

I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated. "Books" may not be correct in this context because it's been a single one thus far, but if another antisemitic book appears, they'd probably delete it too, so I'd argue it sounds more like a norm than a one-off event. By removing a book they didn't like, they opened a can of worms, so to say.

> I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated.

No, the reason is clearly stated. "Did not like" is a reason. I am sure there have been many books on that list that the people at spiegel didn't like. It's just that "I don not like that" is not the same as "this thing is considered by me and many others to spread antisemitic propaganda and I don want to support that".

The original statement implies that "we don't like it" is sufficient reason for the spiegel to remove a book from the list. That is just incorrect.

> ... they opened a can of worms, so to say.

Now you seem to be arguing that it is fine to spread a lie as long as you are sufficiently convinced that that lie will become truth in the future?

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#73

Post by Kaiyou »

RandomBookmarks wrote: post #51
s9w wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the Spiegel list removes books it doesn't like. https://www.welt.de/kultur/article167043384/Spiegel-verteidi...

Please be accurate. Correct would be: They removed a book they consider anti-semitic. That is quite different from what you stated. But great to include the source.

It's the same thing, isn't it?

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#74

Post by zuuow »

chronial wrote: post #72
zuuow wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated. "Books" may not be correct in this context because it's been a single one thus far, but if another antisemitic book appears, they'd probably delete it too, so I'd argue it sounds more like a norm than a one-off event. By removing a book they didn't like, they opened a can of worms, so to say.

> I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated. No, the reason is clearly stated. "Did not like" is a reason. I am sure there have been many books on that list that the people at spiegel didn't like. It's just that "I don not like that" is not the same as "this thing is considered by me and many others to spread antisemitic propaganda and I don want to support that". The original statement implie…

If they removed a book because they didn't like it because it was antisemitic, then it's clear to me that they will most likely do so again in the future for antisemitism and, maybe, for other reasons.

That's what happens with having editorial control: either you play sides (by removing stuff you don't want and maybe pumping up stuff you like[]) or you don't play sides (by publishing the rank without modifying it). And Spiegel is playing sides here.

[]I'm not saying Spiegel has done or will do this, this is just an example.

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#75

Post by chronial »

zuuow wrote: post #74
chronial wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated. No, the reason is clearly stated. "Did not like" is a reason. I am sure there have been many books on that list that the people at spiegel didn't like. It's just that "I don not like that" is not the same as "this thing is considered by me and many others to spread antisemitic propaganda and I don want to support that". The original statement implie…

If they removed a book because they didn't like it because it was antisemitic, then it's clear to me that they will most likely do so again in the future for antisemitism and, maybe, for other reasons. That's what happens with having editorial control: either you play sides (by removing stuff you don't want and maybe pumping up stuff you like[]) or you don't play sides (by publishing the rank without modifying it). A…

None of that makes the statement "the Spiegel list removes books it doesn't like" correct in a meaningful sense of the word.

But I think I argued my point as well as I can. If I couldn't convince you yet that the original statement should not be considered "correct" and should not be defended when somebody mentions the actual facts, I don't think any more of my words will.

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#76

Post by s9w »

chronial wrote: post #66
zuuow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are correct. They removed a book they didn't like because they considered it to be anti-semitic. They are not exclusive.

Both statements are technically correct. One statement clearly transports the facts, the other is massively misleading. The additional use of "books" is further misleading and technically not correct. It is one single book. Is see no reason to defend this spreading of misinformation. Do you?

They were caught with one, that's enough. I am free and confident to interpret that as: The list is 100% made up.

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#77

Post by s9w »

RandomBookmarks wrote: post #51
s9w wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the Spiegel list removes books it doesn't like. https://www.welt.de/kultur/article167043384/Spiegel-verteidi...

Please be accurate. Correct would be: They removed a book they consider anti-semitic. That is quite different from what you stated. But great to include the source.

They claim (or at least claimed) to be a bestselling list. This makes that claim obviously false.

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#78

Post by DoreenMichele »

ekianjo wrote: post #37

My German is rusty but: > Toleranz: Einfach Schwer (Tolerance Isn’t Easy) is an improper translation. That's "Tolerance: Simply Difficult" and that translates fine in English too since you can keep the same style while being accurate.

I might translate it:

Tolerance: Simply Hard

(Or Easily Hard)

It more closely mirrors the German cadence and I've generally translated schwer as hard. I always understood di­ffizil to be the correct translation of the word difficult.

Granted, I learned most of my German from my mother (plus a little self study and I lived there for nearly four years in my twenties), not in school. There are no doubt substantial gaps in my knowledge

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#79

Post by petre »

thecleaner wrote: post #62
petre wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real estate prices are insane probably partly due to ECB negative interest rates which make buying on credit very attractive. I read an article on HN last week about zero interest 20y loans in Denmark. The DKK is pegged to the Euro. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647651 Add to that all time lows (zero and below) for German bond yields which has bleak consequences for long time savers (future pensioners). Germ…

So what's a good strategy here ? Buy stuff on credit but sell to who ?

Dunno, but normally it's not a great idea to buy real estate when prices are insane and property taxes are high. Also if you buy on credit the asset is the creditor's until you pay it off, so you can't sell.

Re: What Germans Are Reading

#80

Post by Kaiyou »

ekianjo wrote: post #42

> Since then, the entire eastern half of the country has been brought into the fold of Western liberal capitalism—but not entirely successfully. Unemployment is still higher in the east, and brain drain to the west remains common. Not sure how to understand this. I have traveled to the DDR and to East Germany after the reunification many times, and by far and large life is much better than it ever was. People can act…

Depends how you measure. Some people like to think things were better when they had money, but there was nothing to buy, instead of the current state of affairs, where they have things to buy, but no money. Add to that that lots of things not measured in money were better, like education, social cohesion etc. and you get lots of people looking back with fond memories conveniently forgetting all the bad things.
Post reply on HN