🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg mlwilliams <mwil...@signal.dera.gov.uk> wrote:
:> : I suppose you like to hear stats-mumbo jumbo from somebody who's just
:> : pulling it out of the air and then waste time setting them right
:> 
:> Unless you have some better, meaningful, unbiased indicators of PC games'
:> popularity to point at, you can keep your laughable philosophies on products'
:> superiority based on sales figures to yourself. Let alone those insane cons-
:> piracy theories you're hinting at.

: I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you cutting and pasting
: this from a webpage?

Good luck finding such webpage.


...somebody who's just pulling it out of the air...
...then waste time setting them right...

Here you rather explicitly claim that the chart is biased to  the views of
the chartholder. If this was the US, and the holder of the charts had any 
commercial interest in publishing them (like, say, PCData does), he could 
probably sue you ;). My apologies for reacting so strongly to this claim 
in my last post.

: Yup, it's a chart based on who can be bothered to fix it. I'm glad we
: agree.

Great, you got the idea!

You can claim that a chart based on such a mechanism isn't, from a mathema-
tical standpoint, an objective criteria to judge games' merits over some 
others. That's cool. Neither are sales numbers by the way -- sales numbers
are just what they are, sales numbers.

The chart is indeed based on subjective opinions -- the positive opinions 
of the voters. Interpretations on thereof, like whether it accordingly 
indicates hard sales figures, sizes of fanbases, popular opinion on the
game et cetera, is left for the user. Me, and a lot of other people, think
it's a pretty good representative on games' popularity, and strongheartedly
disagree to the claim that the chart is useless; far from it. It mightn't 
be useful for any particular purpose, but the chart, like magazine reviews
and word of mouth, is a good factor to base informed buying decisions from.