Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The whole bestseller rigging thing was discussed right here just a few months back, in february:
|
That quote does surprise me and supports the idea that the list is partly a promotional tool. But since a book attacking Mrs. Clinton is still number one on the non-fiction combined print and eBook bestseller list, I still find it hard to believe it is only a promotional tool.
In as much as they are trying to promote something, it isn't their ideas, but reading itself. One thing I have noticed is that their book reviews, compared against, say, their film reviews, are more positive. Rather than picking books to review at random, they seem to assign ones where there is a good chance their reviewer will like it.
Since you apparently accept
Publishers Weekly as a genuine news source, do you like their list better than that of the Times:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/nielsen/top100.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
The NYT list is useless. I think nearly every book I have (had) that is not a classic has printed "#1 New York Times Best Selling Author" printed on the cover.
|
I don't have that experience. The list is, to me, only a way to find out what others are reading. But your post mystifies me. If you actually like the #1 bestsellers (or, at least, those authors), then it would seem to me that the list not only is news for you, but also gives an idea of what you like.