I just wrote a long blog entry about The Washington Post including Amazon sales and 'reading' data in it's new 'best seller' and 'most read' lists.
Hit publish. Lost the lot. I'd left the desk long to go burn some pork crackling and while I was away, I'd been logged out.
My spirit is broken. I'm not gonna bother rewriting it, but I will throw in the feature quote, from Kathryn Rusch about the difference between the lists:
Amazon Most Read lists rank titles by the average number of daily Kindle readers and Audible listeners each week. Categories not ranked on Most Read charts include dictionaries, encyclopedias, religious texts, daily devotionals and calendars. All data is supplied by Amazon Charts and not edited by The Washington Post. The Post has no editorial influence on these lists.
I love toggling back and forth between the lists. Because you can see where people are spending their money, and you can see where they’re spending their time.
Two very, very different things. The top 15 fiction reads the week I’m finishing this blog include six Harry Potter books, and a lot of titles that have been published for months—or, in some cases (besides the Potter), years.
People read books when they get to them. People buy books when they have the money.
Books live in To-Be-Read piles. Some of those piles are digital books, and some of them are paper. But many, many, many readers wait until they’re in the mood for a particular kind of book before plucking it off their TBR pile.
Best seller lists have been broken for years. Because Amazon doesnt release sales data, a huge chunk of the market goes unreported. Audio- and ebooks, which now account for maybe half the genre fiction market (closer to 90% for some genres) simply didn't get a look in.
Also I do like the way Rusch shakes the difference between sold and read. My huge and teetering stack of shame should have alreted me long ago to the fact that they're not the same.