oldschoolfool said:
MaskedBandit2 said:
This is really tough to say because of how small the sample is. On one hand, something like game 1 shows a large, clear decline, and so a general estimation showing a decline I think would be fine. Just for easy calculations for show, scaled by 200, for game 1, week 1 published as ~200k, week 2 published as ~80k, and week 3 published as ~40k. The numbers imply a reasonable level of doubt while still giving actual information about the current state of the title. Game 2 on the other hand, the difference between week 2 and week 3 is so small, I have to wonder if there is just some statisical noise involved. For me, I think reporting both as ~70k would be a better bet than trying to discern a trend between the weeks.
I don't think it would be wise to publish the actual starting data, but that could also help show where the published numbers are coming from to also allow the user to make reasonable judgment about the publishings as well.
Like Torillian stated, reporting the 95% CI in addition could also help solve the problem of misrepresentation and show that there is a range of values to consider because of the small starting data.
And of course, the origin of the starting data needs to be explained, as I mentioned before. Not only is it small, but does is it actually representative of the whole market? Where and how is this data being gathered?
|
Just let it go already. You should just assume the numbers aren't %100 accurate,end of story. No tracking are rating service is %100 accurate/perfect. ioi can run this site however he wants. He's not obligated to explain anything 2 you. If your such an expert and think you can do a better job of tracking numbers,then why not come up with your own website. You should just be thankful this is a free service. If you have vgchartz pro and your paying for these numbers,then all of your points and questions are %100 valid. These numbers aren't misleading,because %99 of people are smart enough to know there not %100 accurate. There's no possible way they can be,unless you have a person tracking every sale,in every store in the world.
|
Well, he clearly asked me a question and asked for my opinion, so I gave it. Again, I never once said it had to be 100% accurate or that 100% accuracy is even possible. The goal, however, should be to strive to be as close to 100% accuracy as possible, and right now, VGC is not even close. Couple the incredibly small sales data collection and ioi saying not to take the numbers at face value, but rather consider a range, their reporting methods and format make no sense to me. That's what I'm saying.
That and to expand their methodology page (if possible) to help establish credibility.
