Sqrl on 24 August 2007
| Erik Aston said: I'm a little sick of VGC apologists. You can torture the numbers however you want, but the fact is, there were a lot of horrible estimates 6 months ago, and a lot of horrible estimates today. For a while now, I've been mostly ignoring VGC's weekly NA figures. Almost every feature on this site is awesome, but the weekly numbers remain worthless for all but the most casual observation. |
I don't want to get into a debate, so I will just say they have to start somewhere. I think it is pretty clear how much they have improved, and while the weekly numbers may not be the epitomy of accuracy as you said they are good enough for casual observations. But I have to ask what should ioi do in your opinion then? Should he not do the weekly #'s at all? I guess I am just wondering what you think should be changed?
@Sharky,
If you want to make a guess truly without data and just a guess you should make it now. But in any case for your test to mean anything you would need to do this on a regular basis. Once proves nothing, month over month would prove something.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
