11 ms·
Why? This source indicates that they never pretended that it was truly a literal representation of the number of books that were actually sold (https://books.go
by 9935c101ab17a66 6y ago
Why? This source indicates that they never pretended that it was truly a literal representation of the number of books that were actually sold (https://books.google.ca/books?id=PEZkkbohbtoC&pg=PA290&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=PEZkkbohbtoC&pg=PA290&redir...). And while you can argue they should reveal their methods, it's not disingenuous because it would be simply impossible to have an exact number of copies a book sold.
- m463 6y agoNo that's what they said when pressed in court. (sort of like coca-cola in court coming out with "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage") It's just ironic that the NYT has an article about the polish chart... that behaves just like their book chart.