Now it is their Book Cover contest (you need an Amazon account to access it). I will gloss over the fact that the books largely match their "Best Books of 2009" profile in leaning to non-fiction, literary styling and so forth. Customers are able only to vote for a handful of preselected options. So these are their annointed editor's picks for the top 60 covers of the year.
As covers go, none of them are horrible. But I ask you: what is 'best of 2009' about this?--> The choice of a plain white background? The use of capital letters?
The biography covers are all a face (general front facing and centered) and a title (generally white or a pale, warm color). Actually, several of the books in other categories follow the same basic formula. Subject: centred (or largely absent). Font: white (sometimes orange). Exciting: not.
The cover for the Book of Wool cover shows... well wool. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't strike me as one of the most wonderful covers I have seen this year. Actual "art" seems to have been banished entirely.
Color me underwhelmed. I looked at all of the covers, but I didn't even bother to vote.
Some further reading on related topics:
AAR: My Reading Habits Wallow in Shame, Apparently
Project Gutenberg: Cherchez the romance?