[ktRolster]

The author is a little deceptive, it wasn't a "Best Seller", it was a best seller in its category. Each category has its own best seller, and apparently the category he chose (Transpersonal Psychology Movements) doesn't have a lot of sales.

The deception is him telling people he's a "Best Seller" when really he's "Best Seller in Category." And frankly, Amazon's styling encourages the deception.

[huxley]

Hardly, he isn't being deceptive at all, it's that Amazon's categories are so easy to game.

Categories are normal in modern bestseller lists. Take a look at NY Times' Bestseller Page:

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/overview.html

There is the Fiction and Non-Fiction list, but besides that are dozens and dozens of categories. And each of the authors in each category is a NY Times Bestselling Author.

Now, the NY Times at least has some gatekeeping done by human beings, Amazon has been easy to game for about as long as they've had bestseller lists. It's the same for all their "best selling" categories, some are just easier than others.

[EGreg]

Um, all Amazon has to do is match the time frame of the NYT, such as a week instead of an hour.

[ktRolster]

The NY Times is being deceptive, too.

[ryanholiday]

That's exactly the point no?

[caseysoftware]

It makes a ton of sense.

By owning one small, niche category with good timing and an easy push, if it drives enough sales, you can basically trade up in your other categories. If you get the right combination and self-sustaining beyond your local allies, you could get traction across the board and build a legitimate best seller in an ever widening space which just furthers the cycle. It's the same as Hacker News.

And it reminds me of another book I read last year.. ;)

[ktRolster]

In my experience, getting the "Best Seller" label isn't self-sustaining. It doesn't seem to generate a huge number of sales on its own (but it does let you call yourself a best-seller, which is kind of cool)