>>7150
And that's just the Sunday Times list - the Amazon book charts are even easier to game. I know, because I wrote most of the algorithms behind them.

>>7151
Can you bump my book up a bit? So far it has two sales.

>>7152
I can't do that as I don't have enough money to buy a load of your books, and I don't work there anymore so can't freak the system for you.

But study this graph, it's about as much a clue as I'll give.

>>7153

I think you're telling us there's a secret code that disproportionately weights sales in favour of books about snails?

>>7154
Exactly that lad - you need to create L'Escargot Colouring Book and you'll be a millionaire by next week.

Get on telly for a bit, get someone to ghost write any old shite for you, have a teary on This Morning. Bestselling status in no time.

>>7153
So I'm assuming these book charts are daily/hourly say, not an assessment of total volume for a particular year.

So something like you're using the fibonacci sequence to weight books based on how long they've been out.

I'd have to think about it some more. Say new releases get a 21x multiplier, releases from last week 13, and so on down to 1.

Brent Underwood made a picture of his foot a bestseller.

https://observer.com/2016/02/behind-the-scam-what-does-it-takes-to-be-a-bestselling-author-3-and-5-minutes/

>>7157
Or more precisely by not using just the discrete whole-number values, but actually mapping time-since-release on to the continuous interpolated Fibonacci plot.

>>7159
I sold those two over the course of three years so I reckon that's my chances fucked.