🚀 go-pugleaf

who...@wherever.com wrote:
> 

> 
> Don't know where all your negativity comes from. 

Mainly because the rankings are wildly at odds with what I see on the
shelves and with charts compiled based on _sales_ rather than voting
rings.




> Any chart is repre-
> sentative of only a fraction of gamers' opinion, because there is no way
> to force *everybody* to express their opinion on a subject.

Since the only test of opinion retailers are really interested in is
sales the above statement is plain wrong. You 'force' people to express
their opinion on which games they are prepared to buy by measuring which
games they buy. It's simple. No amount of argument from a
'would-you-like-to-vote' chart maker will convince sensible opinion that
their chart has anything like the validity of a 'what-have-they-bought'
chart.

> On the other
> hand, this chart is hands down the most accurate indicator of games'
> popularity *available*, because unlike anything published in magazines
> it is unbiased (feel free to prove otherwise!)

It is as easy for me to prove this chart is biased as it is for you to
prove a magazine's chart is biased. I.e its a matter of opinion. You
might argue the magazine's chart is biased through a desire on their
part to please the advertisers, I would argue this chart is biased by
organised voting.


>, it's longevity,

Please explain why this is in any way relevent?
 

> number
> of vote(r)s

Why should I believe these figures?

> and the fact that voting is open for anybody.

This is a positive disadvantage and that you would argue it as a
strength shows you have a very poor understanding of census-taking.


Mark
-- 
Saturnalia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5676/sat.html

I'm sorry, I can't argue unless you've paid.