I totally agree with this and I'm shocked the NYT hasn't done this already, especially for the kids books. Books aren't like hit songs that cycle through after a matter of weeks so you always have more entrants.
Oh, yes, yes, yes to this. It serves the entire writing community, not to mention readers. And it would actually boost publishers - new authors, rising through the ranks. NYT...are you reading? Please?
Yes! It would also make those bestseller lists much more useful to booksellers/librarians (like me! I use the lists to see what types of books are popular, since I probably already have the actual bestsellers, and if it’s always the same books, it is not longer a useful data source).
EXCELLENT idea. I also grow weary of seeing the same books week after week on the list. I basically skim it to see if there's anything that's changed.
I don't think those kid-lit authors would object at all, because they keep publishing new books, which would inevitably snag some of those new open spots. It'd keep their own work and accolades feeling fresh too.
1000 percent agree! And FWIW, Rick Riordan has a whole imprint geared toward ushering other authors / underrepresented voices into the fantasy MG space. I don't think he'd object to ceding his personal NYT list slot(s). Let's get him to help lead the charge :).
I'm still unclear if sales gets a book onto the list or making the list makes more sales. How does the list editor decide placings and categories, when a ranked list can't accurately reflect very different sales cycle curves?
The list starts with sales. It's a proprietary algorithm that records sales from participating retailers, and weights some of those retailers more than others (like indies count a little more than B&N because of size differences). Then, I believe, the list editor can make a call about suspicious titles (like pundit books that get the little dagger). But I do not think the editor is like rearranging them at will. Sometimes the categories get screwy, but I also don't think that's according to capricious whims (or undue influence). Usually, getting on the list increases sales, but there's no telling for how long.
I totally agree with this and I'm shocked the NYT hasn't done this already, especially for the kids books. Books aren't like hit songs that cycle through after a matter of weeks so you always have more entrants.
I had a dream once that the NYT "retired Colleen Hoover's jersey" like sports teams do? Your plan makes way more sense.
If publishers want to print this on a banner and hang it up in the office, I'm all for it!!!!
Oh, yes, yes, yes to this. It serves the entire writing community, not to mention readers. And it would actually boost publishers - new authors, rising through the ranks. NYT...are you reading? Please?
oh my gosh YES. NYT, please call Kate (and pay her a nice consultant fee while you’re at it)
Excellent plan Shelley! Go NYT Consultant Kate!
I think this is a really good idea. Move those relentless space-takers over and open up the list for new ideas and perspectives.
Yawn!
Well then!
Makes too much sense
Yes! It would also make those bestseller lists much more useful to booksellers/librarians (like me! I use the lists to see what types of books are popular, since I probably already have the actual bestsellers, and if it’s always the same books, it is not longer a useful data source).
Brilliant!
EXCELLENT idea. I also grow weary of seeing the same books week after week on the list. I basically skim it to see if there's anything that's changed.
I don't think those kid-lit authors would object at all, because they keep publishing new books, which would inevitably snag some of those new open spots. It'd keep their own work and accolades feeling fresh too.
I do this, too! I just look for NEW THIS WEEK.
Great idea. I love this!
I agree. I have never wrote a book before. I took a writing class and was told I was good but I never did anything with it. I would like to.
What an absolutely amazing idea! Maybe we should all send letters to the editor suggesting this. :D
1000 percent agree! And FWIW, Rick Riordan has a whole imprint geared toward ushering other authors / underrepresented voices into the fantasy MG space. I don't think he'd object to ceding his personal NYT list slot(s). Let's get him to help lead the charge :).
I'm still unclear if sales gets a book onto the list or making the list makes more sales. How does the list editor decide placings and categories, when a ranked list can't accurately reflect very different sales cycle curves?
The list starts with sales. It's a proprietary algorithm that records sales from participating retailers, and weights some of those retailers more than others (like indies count a little more than B&N because of size differences). Then, I believe, the list editor can make a call about suspicious titles (like pundit books that get the little dagger). But I do not think the editor is like rearranging them at will. Sometimes the categories get screwy, but I also don't think that's according to capricious whims (or undue influence). Usually, getting on the list increases sales, but there's no telling for how long.
Brilliant!