Slashdot Mirror
Ebooks Finally Included On the NYT BestSeller List
destinyland writes "The New York Times' site just published their first best-seller list which includes ebooks. 'To give the fullest and most accurate possible snapshot of what books are being read at a given moment you have to include as many different formats as possible,' a book editor explained in November, 'and e-books have really grown, there's no question about it.' Interestingly, the rankings of the top 7 best-selling ebooks are unchanged if you also include their print sales."
So people who use ebooks are normal people just like you and me. Who'd have thunk?
Not at all. Normal people don't read. If you read dead-tree books or ebooks, you are ipso facto not normal.
Similarly if you read and respond to /. articles. However, if you reply without reading them, you just might be normal.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Isn't the NY Times Best Seller list also the one who changed its definitions because the Harry Potter books kept dominating it? I could've sworn that at one point books 1 through 5 were all on there and they decided that childrens books were no longer welcome.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
One of the issues with the best sellers lists is that it's subject to manipulation, nobody really knows how many copies of a given book are out there at any given times. Ebooks for the portion they make up, should be a lot more accurate in that respect.