Premise: I won't name names, I could even be referring to a different thread.

____________________

There's something that doesn't persuade me: some people say VGC numbers are totally unreliable, but at the same time they imply that if ioi revealed his methods, his numbers would suddenly become more reliable. As ioi actually reveals his methods, but keeps his data processing algorithms secret (just like other tracking sites and firms do), I suspect somebody is trying to challenge him in quite a harsh way to exploit his temper not very patient about this and make him reveal more than he'd actually want.

i thought you said 2000 earlier in this thread. im on my phone though so its hardto go back and check. 

Just to chime in briefly:

VGChartz isn't perfect, but it's alright for what we gaming fans want. You get a feel for it, and if there's any problems they're corrected as you'd expect.

But people on this site who voice their opinions as though they're fact, stating things are "UNDERTRACKED" or "over tracked", what are you going to gain from that? Where's your proof? If it irks you that much, do it yourself and show people how it's supposed to be done, or you're merely showing yourself up for no good reason. These numbers are the best we have, and perfectly fine for the most part. If you don't like it, don't come here, and that should be all there is to it.

I haven't read through the thread, but I apologise if this has already been said. I just think it's unfair for users in general to criticise VGC, ioi etc. when they're getting information for free, as though they're entitled.

You said it Conegamer! I think the numbers are good for what we pay.

Which is nothing by the way.

If we assume a reasonably unbiased sampling for those 2000 data points, then you would expect a margin of error at 95% confidence of 2.2%, assuming an infinite population. Smaller for the real population. That is, 95% of the time you would expect the random sample's mean to be within 2.2% of the real mean.

Seriously, if you don't understand basic statistics, don't get involved in this discussion, you're in over your head.

I don't care how you try to justify it with statistics - 2000 data points will not give you anywhere near accurate enough data - but we've seen that already.

I must have been incorrect with the 2000 data points. I thought ioi said that figure earlier in the thread but he is saying he didnt. Still, I take SW sales with a grain of salt on this site and I started to when Sven said those things in 2009. I started seeing a lot of things when I looked that didn't make sense.

It's not that I don't care for the figures and think no one should. Thats not it. I just cant stand the people who take them as gosspel and try to use it to prove points. When it becomes a focal point in an arguement it gets kinda annoying. 

aside from a simple jab at armchair analysts which imo is ridiculous in itself, that fellow underestimates work willing people on the web

i still think you misinterpret sven due to him being vague,
im not saying vgc is 100% or even 90% of the times but i support the idea that numbers since the xbox360, wii and ps3 lauched are more reliable then the database on ps2 and xbox games. which as far as i can see were part of the issue he mentions

Good job flushing your already spotty credibility in this thread down the toilet. o_0

So what you're basically saying is "I don't care if mathematics and statistics says otherwise, my gut feeling is that 2000 data points isn't enough, therefore it isn't"?

You're clearly in over your head.