On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:04:33 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:12:48 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:02:35 -0400, "Dan \(the Man\)"
>><blueskyfox@comR3MMM0V3cast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
>>>news:NLKdnQOyCvFkbyLfRVn-1A@giganews.com...
>>>> There is a book out about Hillary Clinton by reporter Ed Klein. The book
>>>> does not present a very favorable view of Shrillary and has become an
>>>> immediate best-seller.
>>>
>>>Just curious, but what are you basing this on? I've yet to see a best
>>>seller list of the week in which the book places in the top ten.
>>>
>>>Dan (the Man)
>>>
>># Amazon.com Sales Rank: #7 in Books
>
>That hardly makes it a best seller. Best sellers are defined by
>number of copies sold absolutely, not "most copies sold through
>Amazon".
>
Then is Amazon not representative of the sales numbers at other
distributors? Is it no#400 at Barnes and Noble? I doubt it.
Amazon is probably as good an indicator as any bookseller.
-Rich
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|