View Single Post
Old 07-08-2016, 11:25 AM   #61
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
All of that seems entirely reasonable - it's a list of what's currently selling well, not a summation of cumulative sales. The pop charts work in exactly the same way, and for the same reasons.
No, no, no.
That's not what they are doing.

The books they excluded (and are purposefully excluding) have high weekly sales *rates*, higher than the listed ones. They just happen to have been published months or years before. So if a book builds up its sales rate over time, say by word of mouth and great reviews, to 100k per week it is excluded but if it sells 50,000 in one week and everybody who actually reads it hates it,it gets listed. Because it is new and they "want to draw attention to new releases". Their words, over at Publishers Weekly.

When they kicked the Rowling books off the list they were outselling everything else, day by day, every day, not just cumulatively. So it is *not* at all like the pop music charts. (Which have their own set of issues.)

Last edited by fjtorres; 07-08-2016 at 12:09 PM.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote