Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ebooks Finally Included On the NYT BestSeller List

Posted by timothy on from the say-hank-have-you-see-the-intern's-kindle? dept.

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."

9 of 32 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting?? by Meshach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
    Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Interesting?? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Interesting?? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  2. Books Read? by ko7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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,'

    Methinks included also should be books being read without being 'sold', if the aim is indeed to reflect 'books read', and not 'books sold'.

  3. Harry Potter... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:Harry Potter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep, here it is:

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E0DD1730F937A15755C0A9669C8B63

  4. Wouldn't it make more sense? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wouldn't it make more sense to only use the combined figures? If the goal of the best seller list is to show what people are purchasing (buying a book doesn't mean it's actually being read), then why still have separate print and non-print lists?

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Re:You could always get my book on the list.... by SpectreHiro · · Score: 2

    Sir, I am shocked and dismayed at your baldfaced self-promotion. Have you no shame, sir? Have you no tact? Is nothing in this world too sacred, too hallowed to be plastered with your wanton advertising? May the Lord have mercy upon your black, greed infested soul.

    --
    You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.