By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - I blame VGChartz: the fake accuracy accusation

Faxanadu on 21 February 2008
Grey Acumen said:
Faxanadu said:
ioi said:
For those who were actually here when vgchartz first began you will remember that all numbers were rounded to the nearest 250 for the very reason listed here but everyone complained and I changed it a few months later.

I am kinda 50/50 on the issue but the way it is at the moment seems to work best and keeps most people happy...

Thanks ioi for clearing that up. I guess there is a difference between the few who understand and the many that want to be deceived.

If this fake accuracy makes the users happy, keep it.

It's only fake accuracy if we actually believe that it's accurate when it's not.

that would be like the ASPCA complaining about someone buying a faux leather jacket because of all the poor little fauxes that had to die to make it.

We know they're estimates. It's not that we prefer to be deluded, it's that we're already not being deluded at all, so there isn't any reason to address the issue of how we're being deluded. What people will get up in arms over is when the numbers get rounded and someone takes offense that their console lost 123 in the rounding process while that other guy's console only lost 20 in the rounding process. THAT is the reason why they aren't rounded.


yes, but now think about "casual" users of vgchartz and those who visit for the first time. this might give the wrong impression. 



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Around the Network
bigjon on 21 February 2008

it really does not matter as long as you know that it is not exact, it is just easier to look at the numbers not rounded off. Even though I know they are not exact... They feel exact.



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

superchunk on 21 February 2008

I agree with the rounding. To the average Joe this site seems to protray the exact count vs a well educated guess.

It would make more sense and definitely get people to realize that like all tracking firms, NPD, etc, they are all estimates and no one is actually right.



elgefe02 on 21 February 2008

I blame wii fit...

that joke is old...



SSBB FC: 5155 2671 4071 elgefe02: "VGChartz's Resident Raving Rabbit"   MKWii:5155-3729-0989

John_Doe on 21 February 2008

so the number is set exactly as it is estimated but is shown rounded?



Around the Network
Viper1 on 21 February 2008

If Ioi were to round, then what is the accepted numerical column for rounding? 1's, 10's, 100's, higher? Because the sales figures here reach as low as 100 units, what value is there in rounding anything but the 1's column? At that point, you may as well type that 4 or 7 at the end anyway.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

hihihi on 21 February 2008

this site is the most acturate



Sullla on 21 February 2008

Others have already explained why "fake accuracy" is an extremely poor choice of words, so I'll leave that alone.

All of the numbers here are estimates. For the most part, they're pretty accurate, but they're still estimates. Every retail tracking service in existance (not just gaming) uses estimates. So do all polling services, television ratings, research studies, and anything else using sampling methods. Even the most basic familiarity with how these things work will tell you that. If anyone thinks that the numbers getting posted on this website are "exact", when the VGChartz methodology is prominently displayed on the front page, that's their own ignorance speaking.

Rounding off numbers would simply result in LESS accurate estimates. Why in the world would we want that? Sure, it's kind of irrelevant when we're talking about consoles that sell in the hundreds of thousands each week. But that's not the case for all software; software on the third and fourth pages of the weekly charts often have trouble breaking 2,000 or 3,000 units. Rounding off to the nearest 250 units would introduce serious errors into these numbers, not to mention every week that rounding takes place compounds the problems by introducing more and more errors.

ioi should report the most accurate information he has, period.



My Website

End of 2008 totals: Wii 42m, 360 24m, PS3 18.5m (made Jan. 4, 2008)

tarheel91 on 21 February 2008
Faxanadu said:
ioi said:
For those who were actually here when vgchartz first began you will remember that all numbers were rounded to the nearest 250 for the very reason listed here but everyone complained and I changed it a few months later.

I am kinda 50/50 on the issue but the way it is at the moment seems to work best and keeps most people happy...

Thanks ioi for clearing that up. I guess there is a difference between the few who understand and the many that want to be deceived.

If this fake accuracy makes the users happy, keep it. 


You are confusing two very different things: preciseness and accuracy.  Preciseness has to do with how detailed a number is, or the number of signficant digits.  You are complaining about preciseness, but then relating it to accuracy?  You're not making much sense.  Rounding would actually make it less precise, that's it.  It wouldn't affect accuracy at all.



Username2324 on 21 February 2008

That's exactly right, they estimate based on a small sample group, so there is an extremely large chance of miscalculations, so the numbers can be innacurate, as we have all seen with recounts, undertracking, overtracking.

Most here put too much faith in these numbers, they are good to measure the rough playing field of things, but they cannot and will not give you the clear picture.