If you love a book, and no one is there to post about it, did it really get read?

One of my favourite things about books is their ubiquity. For most of the time they have existed, paperbacks were seen as something you could leave behind in hotels or train stations, pass to friends when you were done, or score at the neighbourhood op shop. This means that most people have had the opportunity to get their hands on at least a few of them. This has always presented an issue, though. Sales figures count only that first transaction. Library records assign only one reader to each occasion a book is borrowed. How can we ever know what books are actually being read and by how many people?

As you may have seen, I’ve been (lightly) crashing out online this week. After my productive conversations about algorithms and reading, covered in the last newsletter, there have been a few news stories about those subjects that have really annoyed me.

Elle USA thinks everyone is reading the same thing. In support of this spurious argument, they report on the frequency through which people saw the same three titles (Yesteryear, Famesick, and Strangers) in public or on their feeds. The article does not address the frequency illusion (the increased likelihood you will notice a book cover you already recognise compared to a book you’ve never seen before) or the media consumption habits of those interviewed that may lead to similar For You pages. They do make a few recommendations for finding titles off the beaten path but fail to address the algorithmic elephant in the room. At no point is it recommended that users search for the kinds of books they want to see. There is a conflation in reporting on social media trends between the experience of not being served content and that content not existing that deepens the passivity with which people use these systems. In turn, this exacerbates any of the existing issues with their biases or blind spots.