Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by justinph 2523 days ago
The Times makes it clear what their methodology is: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/methodology

One anecdote posted on a conservative website is hardly a debunking of The Times' 75+ year history of best sellers lists.

2 comments

Seems unfair to dismiss it that way. Here is the decision, Blatty vs New York Times Company, decided December 29, 1986:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1843273.html

The Times won on First Amendment (freedom of the press / speech) grounds. Blatty couldn't win, since the list would need to be "of and concerning" him:

> "To begin with, the list does not expressly refer to Blatty or his novel. Nor does he contend otherwise. Quite the contrary: the failure of Legion to appear on the list is the very basis of his action."

Perhaps most interesting for me is that the Times survey of bookstores included a pre-written list of the books they want sales numbers for:

> "To obtain sales figures from bookstores, [the Times] sent to the bookstores forms which [it] prepared; the forms for works of fiction contain and contained a printed list of 36 ‘bestselling’ books which has and had the effect of encouraging reports as to sales of books listed on the forms and discouraging reports as to sales of books not listed on the forms”

> Institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases, if and when they are included, are at the discretion of The New York Times Best-Seller List Desk editors based on standards for inclusion that encompass proprietary vetting and audit protocols, corroborative reporting and other statistical determinations.

So basically, they use editorial discretion when ranking bulk sales. Which means they are prone to exclude books they don’t like and include books they do like. Excluding some bulk sales but not others isn’t objective. Institutional and bulk sales should all be excluded from the counts.