I get your point, but I do have to point out that the title is misleading in that it mentions that "the internet crushed Clinton's book" but does not quite mention "how".

Are the methods for determining position on both lists published? It could simply come down to knowing how to game the system.

It could also come down to foot in mouth disease which Hillary and crew had displayed in recent weeks, if there were a top ten for political gaffes, then her claims of being broke might garner a win.

This post makes assertions based on a paucity of evidence or sound argument. "Her book fought the web and the web won". How did it "fight" the web? By ignoring it? Is my car "fighting the web" every morning?

This is basically content free - so he used the web to advertise? What, did he post it on reddit or something? And what point are they trying to make? That the internet advertising model is better than the traditional model? Kind of hard to prove that with a sample size of two. As I understand it, both the internet ad model and the traditional ad model can work, and each has advantages and disadvantages, to wit:

If you would rather spend your time writing books and focussing on your real career than on advertising, and have the money to do it, the traditional model works.

If you like doing things yourself and are on the bleeding edge of internet hipness (which, btw, is a full time job on its own), the internet ad model works.

Both models are subject to failure if they aren't executed properly, and, far more likely, if the whim of the masses decides not to favor them for reasons totally beyond their control.

The new advertising model isn't a replacement for the old one, it's just another tool in a toolbox. Sometimes its right for the job, sometimes it isn't.