sinha said:
Wow, naznatips and some of the rest of you need a serious lesson in chart-reading. What is the average age here, 15? Take a statistics course or two, folks. "If that graph were true, the Wii would have less games of every review score, including the bad ones." LOL! To make a self-evident comment that is a borderline tautology: EVERY ONE of the six consoles has... 100% of games... on that console. The actual number of games per console is irrelevant (as long as it's a decent number and not just a few games, in that case there would be sample size problems). And it's looking at every game with a review score rating, not a cherry-picked list (speaking of the first chart). The bottom is percentile. Kind of like, say, a ranking by percentile for exam grades ("leoj's SAT score was in the 35th percentile"), or Gini coefficient, or many other graphs that are "true"... Not surprisingly, it's explained right in the original post: "1% of games increments across the bottom" There are currently 200 Wii games with ratings, so if going by whole percentiles, "100%", or the 100th percentile, would be Super Mario Galaxy (97) and Zelda (95), so a score of 96. 0% would be Balls of Fury (19) and Anubis II (19), so a score of 19. Wii is 96 at 100%, check, 19 at 0%, check again. Well then, that settles that. "Seriously do you people just look at any graph and assume it as meaning?" Unfortunately, the only "seriously" here is that you are seriously embarrassing yourself. That other folks such as Mr"stat"ball were able to look at the graph and find its meaning should have been a clue... |
Considering several folks, myself included, asked him to give a better explanation of the X-axis and received none I don't see why you feel the need to be an ass about the issue, particularly when the point does nothing to counter the major problem the graph has. Insulting and laughing at other members, especially mods, isn't the smartest thing to do.
There is a reason you're supposed to label a graph, I hardly see how anyone is to be blamed for not immediately understanding what was there when it wasn't properly labeled.
In regards to this comment:
"That other folks such as Mr"stat"ball were able to look at the graph and find its meaning should have been a clue..."
I couldn't care what other people say about it, if I don't understand it I'm going to ask. I seriously hope you're not silly enough to just believe what someone posts because MrStickBall (or anyone) seems to agree with it. Aside from that silliness I actually have a solid stats background and I didn't get what he was doing, which is why I asked. Considering nobody, MrStickBall included, responded to the questions until now I'm pretty sure nobody actually got it and that most of the folks were just jumping on the "haha wii sucks" bandwagon. But I'm sure we'll get some folks claiming they got it the whole time but just chose not to explain it to the folks who asked...yeah sure..uh huh....
As I've said several times in this thread, even when the graph is properly explained it doesn't negate the fact that it is 100% subjective and that the sampling for those subjective opinions is horribly biased. It would be like taking a group of movie reviews from a Yoga school and then marveling that the Lethal Weapon movies didn't get good scores.
PS - A graph that only 3 or 4 people can read is in fact worthless to the 10 who can't. Hence the reason why you're supposed to clearly label graphs.
The way you wrote your responce it sounds like you had to double check that you were correct, why would you have to do that if it was so obvious?
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
