The only reason there has ever been any questions raised over VGChartz numbers is because of the relationship we have with GAF and the misinformation that they spread back in 2005 - 2007 when VGChartz was first launched. This is a personal issue that stems from the fact that I used to post on GAF and fell out with some of the users on there when I pointed out that a lot of the existing data was flawed and wanted to do a better job by starting VGChartz. Had none of that happened and VGChartz just came out of the blue then none of this would exist. The backlash is a direct result of the enormous rise in popularity that the site had when it first launched since it offered something that was truly unique and filled a gap in the market. The users of GAF and other related sites couldn't get their head around it.

When a representative from Nielson, Bloomberg etc gets in touch to work with us they don't bring up any issues and treat us as they treat any other data partner. It is only on the realms of internet forums, N4G etc that these issues seem to exist. Believe me, I have spent a number of years trying to explain and defend the site but at the end of the day there is no point. Each week our latest chart gets posted on at least 50 different forums, we get more than 4 million unique users each month and have more than 30 professional data partners who subscribe to and use our data - I don't have the time or indeed the inclination to keep trying to convince people who are too narrow-minded to understand and will probably never get it! Things are going just fine as it is.

I reason neogaf takes issue with vgchartz is that vgchartz numbers can be way off sometimes. The 3DS being overtracked by 0.4M in Nov in the US in a recent example. Pokemon selling 5.5M in 1 day when Nintendo shipped 4M in 2 days is another.

Let me put the ball in your court then. Tell me how you would do it. Here is some hypothetical raw data for three games:

Game 1

Week 1 - 984
Week 2 - 411
Week 3 - 219

Game 2

Week 1 - 477
Week 2 - 341
Week 3 - 356

Game 3

Week 1 - 147
Week 2 - 115
Week 3 - 99

Now assume that the data comes from a sample that represents 0.5% of the total population. Can you demonstrate to me how you would present the weekly chart for those 3 games for those 3 weeks in a way that you feel would make you happy.

Considering VGChartz has been banned before 2008, there must be some really good fortune tellers over there since they were able to predict that we would overtrack the 3DS 5 -6 years from now.

I guess those were just recent examples. I think the main point was "vgchartz numbers can be way off sometimes". But what do you mean by "VGChartz has been banned before 2008"?

Yea i know, i was just joking. Anyways, the earliest mention i found of Vgchartz being banned on Gaf was Jan 2009, and the person said it has been banned there for years, so i took it as before 2008

No, I was asking about VGChartz being banned. What does it actually mean? How can a site be banned by other site?

You're right.  I do have common sense, which is why I'd never pay for VGCPro even if I had the money to do so.  Just because it's free, doesn't mean I can't offer criticism about the methodology and the presentation however.  To me, there is large dissonance between what they think they are doing and what they actually are doing - at least in terms of how it's presented. 

And like I said, it's crazy how they publish the precise numbers as they do.  From my understanding, they collect data (if any at all) for a particular game or platform, run it through some equations to extrapolate on regional levels, and then publish whatever number they come up with.  The problem is, what is there starting data and how can they possibly estimate out to the nearest unit.  Just as example, there is no noticable difference between their reported sales of 158,346; 158,907; 159,623; 160,721; or 161,914.  None, and it likely goes further out than that.  What is the starting data they have here between these kinds of sales, and how much of the slight difference is just statistical noise?  How can they possibly say one game sold more than the other here and rank them?  I'll bring it up again because the response was not satisfactory - there should be no reason to publish to the nearest unit when you state they are estimates.  The only difference between publishing 158,346 and 160k is that one number is precise and appears correct and exact while the other is rounded off, appearing much more of an estimate (which it is) with reasonable doubt attached (which there should be).  And that's one main reason why the numbers they publish are misleading.