Why Don’t JP Holding’s Apologetics books sell better?

[jpholding]

While on this subject, I checked out The Impossible Faith on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Fai...9533953&sr=1-2

Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #492,344 in Books

You were saying it was over 1 million in the OP. Where did you get that number from?

Theoretically he could be right. Those numbers change frequently; when they first came out, many of my books were in the range between 10,000-15,000.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...?nodeId=525376 indicates that the ranks change hourly, but they don't seem to explain how the system works. One such attempt is at http://www.rampant-books.com/mgt_amazon_sales_rank.htm and would indicate there's not a huge difference in sales between books ranked relatively closely (eg, within 20,000 slots of one another).

[jpholding]

Even if that's true, I don't think it's analogous to the frequency and degree of JPH's vitriol. JPH's vitriol partially characterizes his behaviour.

No, it doesn't. You're swallowing crybaby atheist rhetoric whole.

Over the years less than 10% of my articles have used such rhetoric. The vast majority of my output in various venues does not.

Today, it is limited to two places: Here, in my own section of TWeb, and the Forge blog.

Try doing some serious statistical research when you make claims, rather than listening uncritically to sources with a story to peddle.

[jpholding]

I'm unsure what your point is. I've never interacted with JPH.

Nice to know your complaints have the grounding of experience.

Numbers pulled out of thin air, eh?

No, I'm the one who provided them. The percent of items on Tekton now, though, using riposte, is down to about .05%, since I moved a great deal of material to my comics website, and edited other material to be all-purpose rather than naming critics.

In the end, I've done as much as I can to please whiners like you, particularly limiting riposte to specific places and situations such that anyone who finds it displeasing can avoid it. But no, your sort just can't do without trailing behind me until you erase every last word you find offensive.

When you're done with me, you can start on the Bible next. There's a lot of fundy atheists whining about Mal. 2:3.

[Milan]

No, it doesn't. You're swallowing crybaby atheist rhetoric whole.

Over the years less than 10% of my articles have used such rhetoric. The vast majority of my output in various venues does not.

Today, it is limited to two places: Here, in my own section of TWeb, and the Forge blog.

Try doing some serious statistical research when you make claims, rather than listening uncritically to sources with a story to peddle.

I'm unsure what 'less than 10%' is supposed to designate. It's awfully vague. But, I'm unsure how that undermines anything. After all, I said it partially characterizes your behaviour.

JPH, I'm sure your work is proper most of the time. But, those other essays leave a mark. Despite their relatively low number, they leave a greater mark than anything else. But this is true for most things: Negative responses are much more memorable and imbue our character far more easily than anything else.

[jpholding]

I'm unsure what 'less than 10%' is supposed to designate. It's awfully vague.

It isn't vague -- you're simply not very perceptive. Ask a child of five to explain to you what an "article" is. Then ask then what "10%" means.

But, I'm unsure how that undermines anything. After all, I said it partially characterizes your behaviour.

One who uses the word "partially" as opposed to an actual number then complains to me about vagueness? Have you taken your hypocrisy medication today?

JPH, I'm sure your work is proper most of the time. But, those other essays leave a mark. Despite their relatively low number, they leave a greater mark than anything else.

Yes, it is true that obsessed minds tend to harp obsessively on minor issues because they have no answer to the real issues.

But this is true for most things: Negative responses are much more memorable and imbue our character far more easily than anything else.

Yes, that is quite true of those of us who lack serious mental discipline and engage in shallow thinking. Little things engage little minds.

[Darth Executor]

You said he “attempted” to advertise it. Do you mean he not succeed in placing the ad? Or do you mean he placed it and it didn’t help sales? The way you wrote that it could be either.

Is this something he would pay for?

Yes, you pay google a certain amount per impression or click and they display your ad when someone searches for relevant results. By attempted I mean he tried to run a couple of campaigns. They must have failed miserably because he swiftly discontinued them.

He resides in both and receives significant notoriety from both.

He receives "notoriety" from the type of people who are his enemies. As does Long.

Well, dimwit, if you’d taken those remedial English classes and learned how to read, you’d have noticed in the OP that I clearly stated that it’s often ranked over 1,000,000 and has was recently ranked over 1,100,000 for about three weeks.

What? That's not what you "clearly stated". You said "for about the last 10 days, it was ranked over 1,100,000.". The day of the OP is a part of "for about the last 10 days" and shows a ranking well below your number.

If you sell even one book you move up to around 100,000 for a brief moment.

Holding, who sells 2-3 books a month suddenly sold 5-6 books in ONE DAY just to make you look bad.

Even Holding sells one of his books once in a while. Inevitably it then plummets back to the 800,000 to 1,000,000 range. Do you get it now, Mr. Internet advertising expert, or do I have to explain how it works again in simpler terms?

I don't recall asking you how it works. I asked you where you got your numbers from. Clearly you didn't get them "recently" because I checked "recently" and the number's nowhere near yours. The possibilities are:

a) There's a chart with the book's ranking over time which I missed
b) you're a dumbass using obsolete numbers because looking up the current ranking is hard
c) You're making crap up

It's not a because you haven't provided such a chart. It's either B (quite possible, your OP doesn't exactly scream "hard research" or C (your reputation here isn't exactly gold plated).

[Darth Executor]

Theoretically he could be right. Those numbers change frequently; when they first came out, many of my books were in the range between 10,000-15,000.

He could be right. He could also be making stuff up. He could have made the same point by quoting actual recent ranking instead of a ranking nobody can verify. I guess OVER 1 MILLION just sounded better to him.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...?nodeId=525376 indicates that the ranks change hourly, but they don't seem to explain how the system works. One such attempt is at http://www.rampant-books.com/mgt_amazon_sales_rank.htm and would indicate there's not a huge difference in sales between books ranked relatively closely (eg, within 20,000 slots of one another).

Most likely the system works by counting the total number sold. Best selling book goes to the top, second best in second place, etc. As book outsell each other their rank increases and decreases. It's likely that the sales are limited to a certain timeframe (for example, best selling books this month) or recent sales are weighted to be worth more than sales from, say, 2 years ago. I doubt GWB's recent book is the best selling book of all time.

[Milan]

It isn't vague -- you're simply not very perceptive. Ask a child of five to explain to you what an "article" is. Then ask then what "10%" means.

But, JPH, I did neither asked nor expressed befuddlement about what '10%' means. I said that I didn't know what 'less than 10%' was supposed to designate and that it was vague. After all, it could designate one, three, nine, and so on.

One who uses the word "partially" as opposed to an actual number then complains to me about vagueness? Have you taken your hypocrisy medication today?

Would you like a percentage, or...? Perhaps I could show the characterization of your behaviour in a pie chart?

[Augustine2004]

What argument? I asserted what might be true. That's it.

Wow! If you can do things like that, then maybe I can too. I'm going to assert what might be true: Milian is a dolt.

[Sparko]

I wouldn't put it past DJ to buy his own books off of Amazon to keep his ranks higher.

[Augustine2004]

To be frank, I'm not sure how good this point is, but I'm going to make it anyway.

Let's ask why the Harry Potter books are so much more popular than JPH's books.

[jpholding]

But, JPH, I did neither asked nor expressed befuddlement about what '10%' means.

You said my report was was "vague". You were befuddled and unaware of it.

I said that I didn't know what 'less than 10%' was supposed to designate and that it was vague. After all, it could designate one, three, nine, and so on.

Childish parsing to extricate yourself from an embarrassingly unquantified claim which you can't support does not do you much good at this point. So what's this mean? You would have complained at 10%, but not 9%?

Would you like a percentage, or...? Perhaps I could show the characterization of your behaviour in a pie chart?

Anyone with an elementary grasp of statistics would be able to do so. I can.

Anyone willing to support their arguments would do so. When do you plan to?

[jpholding]

Wow! If you can do things like that, then maybe I can too. I'm going to assert what might be true: Milian is a dolt.

I'm tending to agree now, after seeing him:

1) Recommend that someone buy a book at a "local Chapters" bookstore -- oblivious to the fact that only someone in Canada could do this.

2) Say he has no idea who Brian McLaren is (much less John Loftus).

3) Childishly parse his arguments to evade defense of his broadbrush assertions.

The hole he lives in is probably very nicely decorated, though.

[fm93]

Addressing the OP...

The issue is not with Holding, but rather the audience (after all, they are the ones who buy the books). As skeptics never cease to remind us, Holding isn't afraid to engage in hard-hitting, biting riposte. This no-holds-barred, brutal style turns off both skeptics and modern evangelicals. Consequently, they tend to avoid his material. Also, Holding takes several stances that are at odds with the modern church. Evangelicals tend to encourage emotionalism, the "personal relationship with God" paradigm, personal testimonies and dispensationalism. Holding denounces all this, so evangelicals tend to shun him.

Authors like Craig, meanwhile, don't face these barriers--Craig often appeals to his personal testimony in his debates, and holds to a Holy Spirit epistemology. He thus tends to appeal to the modern crowd.

Finally, keep in mind: Craig is affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ, a mega-evangelism organization that has chapters on pretty much every university in the US. Plenty of college students hear about him through this. Also, he travels around the world on speaking engagements. Holding doesn't do this.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I was thinking about this thread while I was out driving around today and I had this idea.

But, I'm sure of speaking out of turn, this is just so crazy....

Maybe we could judge a book instead of by how well it sells or how the author is known or how it is marketed, but rather, we could judge it by the quality of the material therein?

I'm sorry. It's a crazy suggestion. Forgive me.