You're not showing the full picture, though. The data isn't just based from the UK, although it is true that it largely is. The formula isn't "UK sales times 3.7" or anything like that. If it was, UK-heavy games would be constantly overtracked, and non-UK heavy games would be constantly undertracked. That's not in any way the case.

Furthermore, this site does weekly adjustments to their sales. At once (reliable) data is gathered, they change their old estimates. If you look at lifetime sales of titles, that's rather precise for most of them. And if you compare the first week sales of titles in EMEAA to the later "actual" numbers, it's nearly always within 10% of the correct number, which is what VGChartz has always claimed.

Finally, the reason for the difference between Sony's Ps3 software numbers (or actually to a larger extent Microsoft's X360 ones, as it released earlier) and Vgchartz numbers is that VGChartz EMEAA tracking before 2007 was practically non-existant, and 2007 was somewhat shoddy too. As such, it's not that software is constantly heavily undertracked in EMEAA, but rather that it used to be heavily undertracked (or even not tracked at all) in EMEAA.

It's true, though, that EMEAA has no data for plenty of minor titles. Titles that sell less than 20,000 in EMEAA often lack data, mainly because there are no to lacking numbers from financial numbers. That becomes a relatively large number over time, whiich means that while the individual sales of titles in EMEAA is usually relatively spot on, the "overall" EMEAA software sale numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.

So while what you said isn't actually wrong, it's pointing out only the negative side of the tracking.

Oh, and finally, all PC games VGChartz data is still very preliminary (before 2011, there was no tracking of PC games at all). You can't really trust any of it.

this

Ok, I gather that you have experience with the site's tracking so I'll take your word. I wasn't trying to say that EMEAA=UKx3 or anything, I guessed that there were some formulas depending on genre, etc. I heard that was the case (and seeing cases like PES, Australian NPD, etc. it seemed true).

Not making shit up to suit an agenda, please believe me when I tell you that I have none. I heard this was the case and there were some cases that seemed to point out that way, as I told Pineapple above. I also told him I'll take your word for it that this isn't the case. I just want to make clear that I have absolutely nothing against the site. But we know the numbers in EMEAA are not the most accurate and there is no reason why people should think otherwise, I don't see a harm on letting people know of this.

If anything, X360 sales shouldn't be trusted; M$ doesn't provide SW numbers, while Nintendo and SON¥ do. The site is as accurate as it can reasonably be.

I don't think anyone's calling out VG chartz over this , just talking about how extrapolating UK data to workout the rest of EMEAA makes it susceptible to Under tracking , To your it's free and one of a kind comment , Advertising propelled by you and me helps pay for the non fee paying access and if you want more data you have to pay for it, so people discussing how it plays out is a good thing and any critique favourable or unfavourable if done in the right spirit should be seen as a way to motivate the site to improve and expand the way it does business.

I would have thought that as far as 360 numbers go they would be just as susceptable to distortion as Sony, just that with 360 it's overtracked while Sony's it's undertracked .

Not unless I'm missunderstanding the sites sources.  The majority of 360 HW and SW is in US and UK which are the two areas easiest to track with good soruces.  Therefore the margin of error for 360 should be less overall worldwide because a bigger chunk of its sales are from easy to track markets.  The PS3 and Wii have more sales percentage wise in EMEAA which is harder to track and check therefore a bigger chunk of their worldwide total is more suceptible to error and hence there is more liklihood of error - whether over or under.

Calling the numbers "a joke" is a bit unnessecary though and imo is a bash on the site.

The site is open about its inaccuracies, and i assume most users are fully aware of the shortcomings, especially long time users.

So if anyone here presumes the numbers are 100% and then gets upset when they find out that its not...well thats their own stupidity for not reading.

I was unaware that some people actually thought of Vgchartz numbers as 100%...

 I misread you and thought you where talking about 360 from just the EMEAA perspective and I agree, In the end we just have to realise these are good figures  that are subject to change as more data comes in what I would like and have mentioned it to ioi with out reply  is for the site to increase it's endeavours to gather more reliable data from outside the UK , there is a real need for this and it could further establish VG chartz as a reliable site and set it a part  because it's the data and quality of the data that you have and your competitors don't that makes a difference, finishing off I still stand by what I said from an EMEAA perspective.