I blame VGChartz: the fake accuracy accusation

[Grey Acumen]

Faxanadu said:

ioi said:
For those who were actually here when vgchartz first began you will remember that all numbers were rounded to the nearest 250 for the very reason listed here but everyone complained and I changed it a few months later.

I am kinda 50/50 on the issue but the way it is at the moment seems to work best and keeps most people happy...

Thanks ioi for clearing that up. I guess there is a difference between the few who understand and the many that want to be deceived.

If this fake accuracy makes the users happy, keep it.

It's only fake accuracy if we actually believe that it's accurate when it's not.

that would be like the ASPCA complaining about someone buying a faux leather jacket because of all the poor little fauxes that had to die to make it.

We know they're estimates. It's not that we prefer to be deceived, it's that we're already not being deceived at all, so there isn't any reason to address the issue of how we're being deceived. At least, I don't feel deceived at all, nor do many others. Why is it that you feel you are being deceived? Were you actually deceived into thinking that the numbers were at any point more accurate than they really were as estimates?

What people will get up in arms over is when the numbers get rounded and someone takes offense that their console lost 123 in the rounding process while that other guy's console only lost 20 in the rounding process. THAT is the reason why they aren't rounded.