January 4, 2002 1:01 PM   Subscribe For the Amazon obsessed author or others interested in Amazon rankings
posted by gspira (7 comments total)
Excellent! Now I won't have to build it myself.
posted by jjg at 2:05 PM on January 4, 2002

A service of Pud (see contact info).

I don't get the metrics, though. The top "winner" is "down" 659%? I suppose that makes geek-programmer sense (I do know how that sort of mind works), but it's counter-intuitive to non-geeks. It would be helpful to show the old, new, and spread numbers themselves. I don't understand why the "highest ranked" list isn't in date order. Stuff like that. It's a start, and who can argue with something that works, but Jakob would have a field day.
posted by dhartung at 2:18 PM on January 4, 2002

I consider myself a geek-programmer, and am confused by the negative numbers too.

Either I'm not 31337 enough... or Jakob would have a field day.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:22 PM on January 4, 2002

The "winners" are falling from higher numbers to lower numbers, and therefore the change is negative, resulting in negative numbers. A title which moved from 5000 to 2500 thus gains -100%

No, I wouldn't do it this way either, but I understand it.
posted by gspira at 2:36 PM on January 4, 2002

Wouldn't that be a gain of -50%? Wouldn't a 100% drop be going from 5000 to 0?
posted by obfusciatrist at 3:52 PM on January 4, 2002

The least popular thing is "Corals and stromatoporoids from the Ordovician and Silurian of Kronprins Christian Land, Northeast Greenland". I followed the link and used copies were the only ones available. I wouldn't want a used copy of that either.
posted by vbfg at 4:12 PM on January 4, 2002

Looking under Today's Losers, I see that camera bag sales are down. Hmm.
posted by colt45 at 5:20 PM on January 4, 2002

« Older   |   Search-indexing video footage? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments