« watchification | Main | shlomo's hands »

Comments

Do you think it might just take views of the book's Amazon page into account?! I know it shouldn't, but the behaviour of the numbers is consistent.

You're previous posts would have driven loads of views of the book on Amazon (but not orders, because people are taking up your offer). And ever since its been tailing off. And the 20 purchases would only be represented by your 1 page view.

Sounds far fetched! Maybe you could test the theory (unless there's a really obvious reason why it can't be right) by organising a sort of digital flash mob, where loads of us hit the page at a certain time?!

Makes no sense to me either - my anecdotal understanding was that their long tail was very long and very slender and an order for 20 books should make a huge difference.

I can only imagine that your order hasn't fed through to the rankings yet (would they have 20 copies in stock?) or maybe they see bulk orders as gaming the rankings and penalise you.

Do you nkow how reactive Amazon's algorithm is? I would be surprised if it were immediate - I would guess that it is working on at least 24 hour old information. But I have no information to verify my claim, so who knows...

they're on to you russell.

Also, perhaps a single customer buying 20 copies is not the valuable to its ranking system as 20 customers each buying a copy?

This article is pretty old but suggests that the lower your ranking, the less frequently it is updated. Sales history is also a factor...

http://tinyurl.com/38clb3

The comments to this entry are closed.