Jump to content

Talk:VGChartz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)
 
(147 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{vgproj}}
{{Talk header}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 18 November 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = VG Chartz }}
<div class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center">This page is being discussed on an external forum http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=23950</div>
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=low}}
We are in the process of making this an encyclopedic entry. I am alright with it being marked for moderation for now, but please do not delete the entry. We are actively editing this entry. Thank you for your cooperation. [[User:Loadedstatement|Loadedstatement]] ([[User talk:Loadedstatement|talk]]) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
}}

{{onlinesource |year=2008 |section=June|author=Simon Carless
== VG Chartz not Vgchartz ==
|title=Analysis: What VGChartz Does (and Doesn't) Do for the Game Biz |org=[[Gamasutra]] |url=http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18919 |date=June 23, 2008}}

The name of the site is VG Chartz or VGChartz. I am, however, unaware of how to alter article names. Could someone advise on this and/or make the change? [[User:Strunkenwhite|Strunkenwhite]] ([[User talk:Strunkenwhite|talk]]) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== Deleted History material ==

I'm not sure I agree with the deletion of the site's domain history; it's hardly vital information, but then the History section is not exactly bloated. Anyway, I'm not going to put it back in if more experienced editors took it out but I thought I'd put it here where it can be easily discovered by those looking a little more deeply. It's information ''I'd'' be interested in, anyway...

"The site was launched as www.everythingandnothing.org.uk<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060217061518/www.everythingandnothing.org.uk/vg/vgsales.php</ref>, later changing to www.vgcharts.org, and finally becoming www.vgchartz.com."
[[Special:Contributions/24.118.231.159|24.118.231.159]] ([[User talk:24.118.231.159|talk]]) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

==lack of credibility==
This website is well-known within the gaming community for fabricating sales numbers. It is not known by what method the site's operators conduct their sales research, or indeed whether they even conduct any research at all. Their numbers are just as likely to be right as anyone else's guess. However, large media outlets such as the New York Times apparently have quoted their numbers in the absence of credible sources of information, leading to the impression that they are a legitimate market research organization. The fact that most video game enthusiasts do not believe their numbers carry any weight at all should be reflected in the article. Let me clarify that I believe that although the site claims to perform research such as tracking sales data at retailers, these claims are just false. Their numbers are often off by huge margins (i.e. 100% or more). Only one person is known to be responsible for the site's numbers - its owner - and he has no credentials except being a gamer who follows sales numbers. [[User:Piddle|Piddle]] ([[User talk:Piddle|talk]]) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:Let's use arguments instead of opinions. Here's a link to [http://vgchartz.com/methodology.php VG Chartz Methodology]. You claim their numbers to be extremely wrong, yet give no examples. Since NPD has just released it's March numbers I'll use those.
:Hardware
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Console
! NPD
! VG Chartz
|-
| Wii
| 720,000
| 659,709
|-
| DS
| 698,000
| 677,229
|-
| PSP
| 297,000
| 382,141
|-
| Xbox 360
| 262,000
| 354,797
|-
| PS3
| 257,000
| 353,615
|-
| PS2
| 216,000
| 420,090
|}
:The NPD numbers don't include Canada. While there are differences they're not as bad as you say.
:Software
:NPD

:Game Platform Publisher NPD Sales
:1 Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii Nintendo 2,700,000
:2 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 Xbox 360 Ubisoft 752,300
:3 Army of Two Xbox 360 EA 606,100
:4 Wii Play Wii Nintendo 409,800
:5 God of War: Chains of Olympus PSP Sony 340,500
:6 Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII PSP Square Enix 301,600
:7 Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Wii Activision 264,100
:8 Major League Baseball 2k8 Xbox 360 Take 2 237,100
:9 Call of Duty 4 Xbox 360 Activision 237,000
:10 Army of Two PS3 EA 224,900

:VG Chartz
:Game Platform Publisher VGC Sales
:1 Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii Nintendo 2,346,010
:2 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 Xbox 360 Ubisoft 635,607
:3 Army of Two Xbox 360 EA 426,149
:4 Call of Duty 4 Xbox 360 Activision 423,142
:5 Wii Play Wii Nintendo 400,822
:6 God of War: Chains of Olympus PSP Sony 317,974
:7 Major League Baseball 2k8 Xbox 360 Take 2 261,014
:8 Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII PSP Square Enix 271,928
:9 Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Wii Activision 262,309
:10 Army of Two PS3 EA 240,246

:One more example: when Capcom announced that Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles shipped a million units to retailers[http://wii.ign.com/articles/856/856582p1.html], VG Chartz had it at 992,310 units sold to consumers[http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly.php?date=39509&console=Wii&maker=&boxartz=1]. That's pretty close for a "guess". [[User:Rhonin the wizard|Rhonin the wizard]] ([[User talk:Rhonin the wizard|talk]]) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::OK. let's use those March numbers that you just posted. what are their margins relative to NPD? Wii: 9% under, DS: 3% under, PSP: 29% over, 360: 35% over, PS3: 38% over, PS2: 94% over. it seems obvious that vgchartz numbers are, for the most part, just educated guesses, and Canada is a poor excuse. As for resident evil, if they really just shipped a million to retailers and were at 992,000 sold to consumers, that would indicate a sell-through of 99.2%, which unheard of for any game that's still selling. 70% is more likely, putting the real figure closer to 700,000 sold to consumers. [[User:Piddle|Piddle]] ([[User talk:Piddle|talk]]) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Have to agree with Piddle - amongst the wider video-games community and analysts in general VG Chartz is considered unreliable and the data posted above by Rhonin - a member of the site proves this! Data tends to be altered after the fact on the site so may now be closer to the NPD data than the numbers archived here. [[User:Nli10|Nli10]] ([[User talk:Nli10|talk]]) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::::If by "wider video-games community" you mean forums, they are not a valid source. Where can I find the statements of these analysts you speak of? Because I haven't heard of any and recently Reuters has cited VG Chartz in this [http://thenewsroom.com/details/2208543 video]. Can you prove that they altered the data because of NPD? [[User:Rhonin the wizard|Rhonin the wizard]] ([[User talk:Rhonin the wizard|talk]]) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Why do you remove references and links from the article to the site's own data that disproves your points? Why do you keep undoing the grammatically incorrect first paragraph? Please - feel free to post info about VGChartz sources. One feels that the 'original research' you speak of is done on their site and not by me.
VGChartz looks like a site that knows it's stuff, thats why many non-gaming sites post their figures, it's why i first went there for data. As a professional analyst it takes minutes to find data that does not match to accepted public sources and so is discredited and rendered useless. The very fact that this is possible using data '''you yourself''' posted on the talk page shows how easy it is. Why do you find this hard to believe?
I know that you are a member of the site's forum and have posted in a thread talking about the creation of this very article (which is indeed linked from this talk page) and would thank you not to add bias to one of the articles that might stop the press from using such inaccurate data! I have no interest in the site succeeding or failing, and yes I post on forums where the data is banned (NeoGAF for one) but if the data is accurate I would not care what a forum would say. The data is never within acceptable tolerances and this needs to be pointed out in the article. It's kind of the point of Wikipedia don't you think?
If you want to use your energy to make the site more popular then stop defending it and help them to improve their data collection and forecasting. [[User:Nli10|Nli10]] ([[User talk:Nli10|talk]]) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

==NPOV issues==
Nli10, the version you just reverted to is no better. In fact, this version is much farther from meeting Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV]] policy. I'll go through a few points with you just to make it clear.

*''VG Chartz is a [[video game]] sales tracking [[website]] that provides '''unsourced''' weekly sales figures of [[Video game console|console]] software and hardware by region.''

First point, they do have sources and data samples. Second point, you have provided no source that contradicts the fact that they do have sources/data for their numbers, which constitutes original research. Third point, you inserted a [[WP:WEASEL|weasel word]] to give the sentence a negative tone, when the previous version was neutral as it merely stated they provide sales data, whether or not this data is sourced or unsourced.

*''They state that "Because the number of retailers selling videogames is quite large, it is possible to attain statistically valid results from a small sample." '''but offer no details into the [[stratified sampling]] or statistical methodology that enables this'''''

For the bold part to stay in the article, you would need to find at least one [[WP:RS|reliable source]] (and no, forums such as NeoGAF are not reliable sources, especially by Wikipedia's standards) that talks about how vgchartz gives no details into it's sampling. Otherwise, yes, it is unencyclopedic, [[WP:OR|original research]], and is only there to discredit the website. It should either be well sourced and written in a neutral manner, or it should be removed completely.

*''This statement has been proven by members of the site's own investigations into the validity of the data, which found that the data was proven to be 14% different for hardware data on average in the month preceding this statement as compared to NPD''

Again, unsourced original research. And given that the actual statement says that before adjustment they are "within 10 - 15%", it seems foolish to be complaining about this 14% "inaccuracy".

*''March 2008 had discrepancies varying from 9% under to 94% over compared to NPD data - an average of a 34.6% difference - showing an increase in the discrepancies between the published data and that produced by the sites methods.''
*''April 2008 had a 51.35% average difference to the published NPD numbers, the highest being the PS3 which was 96% higher than the NPD data. This directly contradicts the stated aim of the site to gradually refine the methodology and to reduce the percentage difference to the published data.''

For both these statements to stay, you must provide reliable sources. Otherwise, yet again, you have inserted [[WP:NPOV|POV]] [[WP:OR|original research]]. You used vgchartz as a source for this information - and you cannot use the webiste from the article's subject as a source in this regard, because you are not merely stating the information provided in it, but instead you are interpreting it yourself and writing up your own commentary on it, which is original research.

*Wikipedia's policy on [[WP:CRITICISM|criticism]] is quite clear. Summarised, it means that criticism/controversy sections are not permitted in articles, as they are a POV troll magnet, and encourage bias and/or original research. Any legitimate criticism should be integrated into the article itself in the appropriate section. Therefore, this section should be removed. And when you find reliable sources to back up you statements, then you must integrate it into the article, rather than create a criticism section.



Overall, the article has a very negative tone, does not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV]] standards, and is riddled with [[WP:OR|original research]]. Now, it's not the most accurate website in the world, but that does not mean that people can come to this article and write up their own commentary on the website. Any original research or biased additions to the article will promptly and rightly be removed. [[User:Frvernchanezzz|Frvernchanezzz]] ([[User talk:Frvernchanezzz|talk]]) 04:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)




My most recent edit only fixes the grammatical error in the first sentence that I have fixed twice previously already. Please don't revert this.

I have followed VGC since the days that all their data ended in multiples of '250' up to the present state which is much better but still inaccurate.

'''Would pointing out the massive differences between the game sales on VGC and Capcom's recent shipped figures (VGC has games that have sold more than have been shipped to date...) with links to the official sources be classed as original research? Do you find the NPD public data not a reliable source - or do you just mean that I didn't link to a news site with the official comparator data, only the thread with the VGC data?'''

Why is it OK to source VGC's forum in the existing links but not the ones I added.
I fail to see how linking to discussions on said forum that point out the inaccuracies dated way before I saw the wiki page are original research, but I agree I should have sourced the comparator data.

I haven't used any forum other than VGCs own forum as a source. I mentioned NeoGAF in the interests of disclosure. VGC own forum has posts questioning the accuracy of the data, but my scepticism is based on my own experience of comparing published data against there own. Does having two sets of directly comparable data and noting the difference count as original research? I will have to read those links and check.

I hope a few of the high profile non-games sites that use the data off whichever site their Google search hits first check the talk page to understand that corroboration before publication is a wise idea. [[User:Nli10|Nli10]] ([[User talk:Nli10|talk]]) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:If you, yourself, "point out the massive differences" then that is not acceptable because yet again, it is original research. As for using VG Chartz as a source in this article, it is acceptable for areas such as this - "''VG Chartz earns money from advertising banners and programs''" - as that information is explicitly stated on the website and is stated as such here. However, when you start to interpret the data yourself, and cross reference it with other data, and then write up a commentary on it, that is original research, and cannot be done. If you can find a third party website that can be considered reliable, and it does explicitly state these "discrepancy's" that you so eagerly want to include, then yes you can include it. But until you do, anything you add about it is original research - and not just original research, but you write in in a [[WP:NPOV|negative]] tone.

Please read up on Wikipedia's core policies before blindly reverting again. [[User:Frvernchanezzz|Frvernchanezzz]] ([[User talk:Frvernchanezzz|talk]]) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protection ==

Because of the recent vandalism, I have requested semi-protection of the article. [[User:Rhonin the wizard|Rhonin the wizard]] ([[User talk:Rhonin the wizard|talk]]) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:The "NeoGAF thing" is a matter of historic record (I didn't bother sourcing it because NeoGAF archives are only available to members), possibly relevant to VG Chartz today, and people occasionally ask about it, not slander/opinion/vandalism. You're going to have to deal with it someday. I tried to present the situation clearly and objectively. [[User:Randomgaffer|Randomgaffer]] ([[User talk:Randomgaffer|talk]]) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

::Mmmm, thanks for your wonderful contributions to the article. Frankly, we have no need of your help. So please, leave this article. [[User:MontanaHatchet|MontanaHatchet]] ([[User talk:MontanaHatchet|talk]]) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Maybe you made the edits in good faith. However, there were no sources and it was original research, and the opinion of forum posters is not noteworthy. Also, there were other edits as well. [[User:Rhonin the wizard|Rhonin the wizard]] ([[User talk:Rhonin the wizard|talk]]) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Not even when the forum poster is the site founder and he's openly explaining his own methodology? Also, bad data being added to the (foundation of the) site and later being removed under threats of legal action seems like a noteworthy controversy to me, particularly since Ioi doesn't draw a distinct line between those past practices and current ones, but you obviously have more time to spend shaping this article than I do, so knock yourselves out.[[User:Randomgaffer|Randomgaffer]] ([[User talk:Randomgaffer|talk]]) 23:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just leave.

[[User:MontanaHatchet|MontanaHatchet]] ([[User talk:MontanaHatchet|talk]]) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

== Finally ==

Finally, a well-written article, written by an established game industry analyst (he works for two major industry websites) that confirms what nearly everybody who follows this stuff already knew: VGChartz numbers are guesses, are not based on real data, are frequently changed retroactively after the 'real' data has been made publicly available, and although we can expect them to be close in certain situations, in many cases there is no reason to believe that they are at all accurate. Here is the [http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/06/analysis_what_vgchartz_does_and.php/ link].
[[Special:Contributions/209.6.170.96|209.6.170.96]] ([[User talk:209.6.170.96|talk]]) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:08, 29 January 2024

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:VGChartz&oldid=1200568069"