I wonder what some of the users want? Would they be happy if ioi posted a dude in front of every game store around the world counting every game sold manually?

I think thats a good idea. It would hopefully start to stop the same things being brought up every other Week, but then youd actually need people to click on it. Maybe have it at the top of the page next to/ above/ below the "Global Weekly Chart".

I still think the quotes I posted here are great and go a long way to explaining VGChartz numbers. Something similar to them to go along with another methodology page like the barb one I feel would go a long way towards stopping the cries of adjustments and people taking the numbers here as facts, creating scenes like were seeing in this thread.

Honestly, I think a lot of the complaining from users who are actually here is simply down to a mix of taking the site too seriously and ignorance regarding the numbers themselves.

Only one dude? Not good enough 'm'fraid.

Is there any standard way to represent the standard deviation for your model?  I guess my issue is right now what's being reported is only the peak of the curve that is being modeled based on previous comparisons but I personally at least would appreciate some kind of estimation as to how the curve that peak is part of looks in general.  Would reporting the standard deviation for the bell curve be a standard practice or is there something else that's often used?  Maybe reporting the 95% confidence range or something of that nature.  

Oh, I have studied statistics somewhat.  What I'm saying is that the starting data is so small and insignificant, you cannot rationally expand it out to the nearest unit (or even 100s of units, possibly even 1000s) and rank titles.  The data is just not there to support it.  Unless I'm wrong, I have to imagine the differences in many of the reported publishings start out as miniscule.  There is too much uncertainty to say one title sold X,XXX,XXX units.  That's why the numbers are inherently misleading - because you don't have the data to support the precise findings.  If you want to make the numbers seem like an estimate, as already stated, a better publishing would be to round the numbers.  The numbers themselves would then imply doubt and imply a range of possible values.  I think it would help credibility.  Whether or not you want to keep the precise numbers in use internally for weekly additions or not, I don't know.  But to me, the data collected is too small to measure out on a global scale. 

I honestly don't know what to do with a chart like that.  You could possibly still "rank" them, but by using more general numbers, there would be a lot more "ties."  What you'd end up with is a chart with very clear estimated numbers that shows a likely, general overview of the market.  I really don't know.

The data gathering explanation page, though, I think, would go a long way in establishing credibility.  Right now, the methodology page is way too vague.  I'm just going to say right now that by reading it, I don't get a very positive impression of the methods and the numbers you're finding, and I'm probably not the only one.  How many retail partners do you have?  How many stores are you sampling data from?  Are these worldwide?  How do you represent regional differences?  Do you have a wide range of stores representing different market interests?  How many end users do you poll?  When do you poll them?  What's the demographic of these end users?  How are you controlling bias? 

My answer to all of those is negative.  Because you don't explain and answer possible questions, I automatically assume it's because it would damage your repuation.  So, I assume you don't have many retail partners.  You don't collect data from very many stores, especially many different ones on a widespread, regional level.  There aren't many end users surveyed.  The ones that are polled are likely video game enthusiasts, likely frequenting this site.  It seems very disorderly and not on a systematic level.  Whether any of that's true or not, I don't know.  But that's the impression I get.  So, I think, expanding on that page would go a long way in helping the site. 

EDIT:  This took awhile, and I got behind.  I'll answer your other post in a bit. 

Yeah I learned not to take this site seriously after a few months of seeing how off the numbers were. I used to wonder why people would say "Lol Vgchartz" I guess now I know why.

No, people say "lol VGC" largely because they are ignorant.

The numbers here can be taken as they are - Estimations. The problem arises when people/sites claim VGC numbers as factual. Theyre not factual, no numbers are from NPD or Chart-track or wherever... Theyre all estimates.

A large portion of the shit VGC gets from the "outside world" comes from GAF users spreading FUD from YEARS ago. The vast majority of it is unwarranted and bandwagoning.

Couldn't you do such a study continously? Would it be very time consuming to do it once and update it weekly? Or isn't there any reliable source that also publishes the results on a weekly basis?

To gather and summarize the info from this thread and others onto one page seems a good idea to me. And I don't see the idea of link it to every chart to be overkill. A small and sober link at the bottom of every chart wouldn't hurt anyone or anything. But that's not the only possibility either. You could place the link at the header or footer of the site (but something that could be noticed as the place where the numbers are explained and that page would be exclusively to talk about that).

Well, they must be doing something. Look at what Wikipedia says about them:

- "Media Create is a Japanese company that "gathers and analyzes data from the digital entertainment industry, specifically focusing on the Japanese console gaming market. Business operations include publishing, market research and consulting."[1] It is a popular website for people interested in learning the latest video game software and hardware sales figures from Japan [...] Media Create competes with Enterbrain's Famitsu and MediaWorks' Dengeki PlayStation in the market for providing Japanese game sales data. Because there are three different tracking firms, there will always be three different sales numbers for any software and hardware title. Which company to trust is a matter of debate, as none of the three major trackers are ever 100% accurate and whoever tracks the highest amount of sales for a given title fluctuates."

- "The Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) is the organisation that compiles audience measurement and television ratings in the United Kingdom. It was created in 1977 to replace a previous systems whereby ITV ratings were compiled by JICTAR (Joint Industry Committee for Television Audience Research), whilst the BBC did their own audience research. BARB is jointly owned by the BBC, the ITV companies, Channel 4, Channel 5, BSkyB, and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. Participating viewers have a box on top of their TV sets which tracks the programmes they watch [...] BARB's current research contracts have been awarded to three different market research companies: RSMB, Ipsos MORI, and Kantar Media. The contracts run from January 2010 to the end of 2015, with options to extend further. RSMB are responsible for survey design, quality control and calculation methodology. Ipsos MORI's role is to survey the characteristics of the television owning population, including an element of direct recruitment to the viewing panel. Kantar Media is responsible for establishing and maintaining the new BARB viewing panel. It has a separate contract covering meter panel installation, data retrieval, processing and audience reporting functions"

- "Box Office Mojo is a website that tracks box office revenue in a systematic, algorithmic way. Brandon Gray started the site in 1999. In 2002, Gray partnered with Sean Saulsbury and they grew the site to nearly two million readers when,[2] in July 2008, the company was purchased by Amazon.com through its subsidiary, the Internet Movie Database [...] The international section covers the weekly box office of 50 territories and includes historical box office information from three more, as well as provides information for box office results for individual movies from up to 107 territories. The site also creates an overall weekend chart, combining all box office returns from around the world, excluding the United States and Canada. The overall weekend chart currently tracks the Top 40 films as well as approximately fifty additional films with no ranking."

- "Famitsu is a line of Japanese video game magazines published by Enterbrain, Inc. and Tokuma. Currently, there are five Famitsū magazines: Shūkan Famitsū, Famitsū PS3 + PSP, Famitsū Xbox 360, Famitsū DS+Wii, and Famitsū Wave DVD. Shūkan Famitsū, the original Famitsū publication, is considered the most widely read and respected video game news magazine in Japan."

There isn't a single word about unreliable numbers or controversy. Now see what they say about VGChartz:

"While offering some information about their methodology through their website,[5] VGChartz does not publish any sources on how they get their data. Some sites, including Gamasutra and Wired News, have questioned the reliability of the information presented by the site.[4][6] VGChartz has defended the credibility and reliability of its sales data,[7] often comparing their numbers with the ones published by NPD Group,[8] although some charts have been retroactively adjusted to better match NPD's monthly reports."

Why do you think that happens?

No, I don't. But then my question is: are their methods as controversial as yours? They seem to be tracking numbers, you do something different.

That would definitely help, but they are just talking about Sampling Error. They also have this page - http://www.barb.co.uk/resources/reference-documents/how-we-do-what-we-do - and this FAQ - http://www.barb.co.uk/resources/reference-documents/faq

There needs to be a comprehensive explanation in my opinion and a FAQ helps too.

If that's true, I kind of understand your first reaction to the "hostile" users of this thread. I was having an impression about you that's probably far from being true. Still, you should always try to treat your community respectfully no matter what. Positive behaviour generates positive behaviour. And, after all, this is your userbase, your "baby". How do you want it to be when it "grows up"? Like in a company, the environment of a website is defined from top to bottom. You are at the top, so you are the first one responsible for the community to be what it is (regardless whether I think it's good or bad).

But, out of curiosity, why do you think the existing data at that moment was flawed and why those GAF members got mad when you said such a thing? And does IGN has anything to do with that?

Yep I undersTand and agree with most of your points. And clearness is always Better.