Sorry if double posted, or if in wrong forum. But I was just doing a bit of morning pre-gaming news reading on the good old internet and came across this column about vgchartz. Now I have read quite a few that have dissed us till no tomorrow but this one was rather interesting. Claiming to have spoken to Brett through a variety of emails, which is more than likely true, but then goes about how someone from our community accussed him of writing this without Bretts consent, odd dont you think? Without further adou here is the link

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/06/analysis_what_vgchartz_does_and.php/

"

Conclusion

Let's be clear. I think the concept behind VGChartz is a wonderful one - freely available data to let everyone see how well games are selling. And it's absolutely true that all data is an estimate - not even major services such as Media Create and NPD get it exactly right.

But VGChartz is staffed by amateurs working in their spare time to estimate sales, and while they are perfectly smart, they are much closer to the SimExchange model of estimation than the Media Create method.

What I'd like to see is some clear labeling of what is estimated data, and what is extrapolated or changed from companies that have greater access to retail sales. And not only does VGChartz have no intention of doing this, it is starting to claim major scoops based on data which, in some cases, estimates entire territories without any real data.

"

That is the writers conclusion. Fair enough I would say. But I do not at all think this site is staffed by amateurs. Sure we all have are strengths and weaknesses but none are amateurs or we would not have such accurate information on a weekly basis. Click the link to read the full article as it is a good read. Gives insight to our beloved site and gives thought to why we are so loathed. I just do not understand how people can hate on us for being off on the numbers, even though no one is 100% accurate, then change them to a closer estimate and be ragged on. Who else does this? Who else admits they were off be a margin and adjusts them to a more suitable number? vgchartz, thats who!

That article is one and a half year old. VGChartz has progressed since then. And I do remember discussions about that article when it was released, though my memory never really serves me all that well.

I read this a long time ago and I think this is the guy who has bashed ioi on forums before.

Yes yes it is an old article and without a doubt vg has progressed since then but the fact still remains every other game site uses this arguement against us. No matter how well we progress this is how it is going to be.

It's true that vgchartz is not as accurate as those other trackers, it's only to be expected when you consider their resources.

However, the important point is that vgchartz is, like Wii graphics, GOOD ENOUGH. And instead of giving high end customers more reliable data, it gives low end customers such values as accessibility, in built graph making software, weekly updates, revisions when wrong and increased transparency. As vgchartz improves, it will be good enough for more people (like good enough for Square Enix financial reports...)

When have we ever said that the numbers weren't an estimate.

Meh, let them talk. Keeps the trolls away.

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=30508

already was a discussion for this

i read something like that like yesterday on n4g or somewhere was very similar to it