Thanks for the update, Anita.

But it makes me wonder exactly WHO pays attention to NYT bestseller lists and is anyone influenced by any "bestseller" list? I won't argue and say that being on a bestseller list doesn't bring attention to your book because it does. But I rarely look at any bestseller lists. I'll either browse around or see what my friends have been reading.

As an indie author and publisher, I hear people referring more and more to Amazon's list or AllRomance eBooks, or some of the more popular review sites. It seems to me that people who rank high on any of Amazon's lists really get jazzed because those lists change every hour and to be ranked in the top 100 out of the millions of titles is something to crow about. IMO, and people may agree or disagree, but it seems to me that Amazon's listing is more credible because it doesn't matter how the book is published--they are looking at the genre/classification and sales.

But, yeah, I see what you mean. This is just another "controlled" environment where instead of getting info from across the board, they take a tiny sample and proclaim it gospel.

From what Publishers Marketplace had to say about The New York Times's list, I think you're right, Zetta. Here's a snippet from PM: >>Print and e format sales are "reported by venues offering a wide range of general interest titles" but specifically exclude "self-published books including single-vendor self-published titles" as well as these genres: "perennial sellers, required classroom reading, textbooks, reference and test preparation guides, journals, workbooks, calorie counters, shopping guides, comics, crossword puzzles."<< PM compared The NYT ebook bestseller list against Amazon's own. NYT left off some Kindle bestsellers and included some of Kindle's non-bestsellers. While Amazon isn't the only retailer for ebooks, it's certainly the major vendor. PM also compared NYT's list one created by Publishing Trends, which showed several ebooks by self-pubbed author Amanda Hocking. Those weren't on NYT's list, either. The explanation appears to be that the Times is using sales reports directly from traditional publishers, because what else can "venues offering a wide range of general interest titles" mean, if Amazon's figures aren't being used? Sales of print books have always been calculated, as I understand it, from retail sources, not publisher sources. So, this is a break from standard procedures, and there doesn't appear to be a solid reason for the break.

Time will tell Zetta :-)