4 ms·

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 cat

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.

ryanholiday 11y ago
That's exactly the point no?
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
huxley 11y ago
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 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.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  The NY Times is being deceptive, too.
- EGreg 11y ago
  Um, all Amazon has to do is match the time frame of the NYT, such as a week instead of an hour.

ryanholiday 11y ago

That's exactly the point no?

caseysoftware 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

huxley 11y ago

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 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.

ktRolster 11y ago
The NY Times is being deceptive, too.
EGreg 11y ago
Um, all Amazon has to do is match the time frame of the NYT, such as a week instead of an hour.