this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
-7 points (38.7% liked)

PC Gaming

8299 readers
141 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

So your assertion is these numbers are faked rather than ran by an actual device then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Some of the number are faked. The only person who knows the accuracy of these one are the people who posted them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What I’m hearing from you is that because some of the numbers are faked then the entire data set is unreliable and you don’t believe this information that is coming in.

That’s fine.

I guess I thought given your assertion you had … more.

Basically it’s your feeling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The data is unreliable. If we knew how much of the data was faked we could compensate for it, but we don't. We could discard the outliers, but we don't know if we're discarding valid data, and someone who is deliberately tainting the dataset would submit a bunch of samples that are only a little bit off as well.

And while some of the numbers must be from trolls, manufacturers (and shady investors) are heavily incentvized to sway the listings.