D&D 5E 3 Years Later: D&D's total Domination on Amazon (and Earth in General)

[KarinsDad]

It's the largest corporation in America. You're asking for their most closely guarded trade secret. Let me guess, if you don't get the answer to that question this data will somehow be in question even though it's literally the industry standard for not just books across most of the planet now, but many other product categories as well?

Like I predicted, here come the conspiracy theories. By which I mean here come the objections which, by their nature, cannot be proven or disproven (like asking for Amazon's top secret algorithm before trusting Amazon's reporting data).

Nothing of the sort.

I have no dog in this fight.

The numbers just do not make sense.

Call that conspiracy theory all you want (that's a little snarky on your part), but if you are going to talk about the subject, at least explain what you are talking about. Or is it possible that you don't know what the numbers mean?

If this is a cheerleader feel good thread with no true data or analysis, fine. I will get off it. It doesn't mean that WotC won't fold next year. Cheerleader away.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Something doesn't add up.
?

Something does, though. IcV2 shows D&D doing better than it has in a while. But, y'know, it's incomplete data, blah, blah, blah. Amazon ranking shows D&D doing better than it has in a while, but, y'know, it's incomplete data, blah, blah, blah...

...But they're both showing D&D doing better than in the relatively recent past (neither existed in the 80s when the game was at it's height).


So at least they're not contradicting eachother.

 

[Shasarak]

Like I predicted, here come the conspiracy theories. By which I mean here come the objections which, by their nature, cannot be proven or disproven (like asking for Amazon's top secret algorithm before trusting Amazon's reporting data).

To be honest I do not know what benefit, if any, the Lizard People are getting from fixing Amazon sales data so if it is a conspiracy then it is probably a minor one.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nothing of the sort.

Sure sounds like that's exactly what you're doing. The OP provided data. No reason to suspect that is false data in any way, and I think it makes sense. And yet, you immediately dismiss it like it's some sort of lie, then have the audacity to try to position yourself as a neutral party immediately proceeding to insult people as cheerleaders who are biased in favor of Amazon and can't see things objectively.

If you don't think those numbers are accurate and the data isn't "true", then I anxiously await your counter evidence.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure sounds like that's exactly what you're doing. The OP provided data. No reason to suspect that is false data in any way, and I think it makes sense. And yet, you immediately dismiss it like it's some sort of lie, then have the audacity to try to position yourself as a neutral party immediately proceeding to insult people as cheerleaders who are biased in favor of Amazon and can't see things objectively.

If you don't think those numbers are accurate and the data isn't "true", then I anxiously await your counter evidence.

Seriously dude. Do you ever read? I never once stated that the data was false. I asked what the data meant.

I then drilled down a little and saw what looks like a discrepancy. That doesn't mean that the numbers are wrong in any way. I have no doubt that PHB sales are doing fine. Year to date is #45. That is a solid metric. If people don't know what "recent sales" mean, just man up and say you don't know.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Seriously dude. Do you ever read? I never once stated that the data was false. I asked what the data meant.

I then drilled down a little and saw what looks like a discrepancy. That doesn't mean that the numbers are wrong in any way. I have no doubt that PHB sales are doing fine. Year to date is #45. That is a solid metric. If people don't know what "recent sales" mean, just man up and say you don't know.

You said you'd leave the thread to us cheerleaders with no true data. "No true data" is you calling it false. That's what those words mean. "Not true" = "false". Or should I start calling you Kelly Ann Conway from now on instead of KarinsDad? Otherwise why would you say this thread has no true data after it was already provided in the first post? And I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees you making an awfully strong attempt at dismissing it.

 

[KarinsDad]

You said you'd leave the thread to us cheerleaders with no true data. "No true data" is you calling it false. That's what those words mean. "Not true" = "false". Or should I start calling you Kelly Ann Conway from now on instead of KarinsDad? Otherwise why would you say this thread has no true data after it was already provided in the first post? And I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees you making an awfully strong attempt at dismissing it.

Go take a physics course.

If you write an answer of 5 on your test, you do not get full credit.

You need to write 5 kilograms. Without units, data means nothing.

The term "no true data or analysis" (nice cherry picking on what was written) meant "incomplete information" in that sentence. It does not have to mean that the data is false, it can mean that the data is incomplete. I'm sorry that you want to be some type of literalist and pick a fight, but sorry, I don't want to fight with you today.

 

[CM]

FAKE NEWS

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=32867]jeff[/MENTION] Alberston, you keep quoting me, but I can't see any of your posts because you have me on your ignore list. if you want me on ignore, that's fine, I don't mind. But then stop quoting me a couple times a day. This has to be at least the fourth or fifth time I've posted this in the past month. All I get is a notification you quoted me, but the post is hidden. So either keep me on ignore and ignore me, or take me off ignore so I can see what you're replying to me. Obviously you can see my posts. Choose one or the other already.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Go take a physics course.

If you write an answer of 5 on your test, you do not get full credit.

You need to write 5 kilograms. Without units, data means nothing.

The term "no true data or analysis" (nice cherry picking on what was written) meant "incomplete information" in that sentence. It does not have to mean that the data is false, it can mean that the data is incomplete. I'm sorry that you want to be some type of literalist and pick a fight, but sorry, I don't want to fight with you today.

speaking of not making sense....your analogy makes no sense at all.

The OP posted the figures. You kept replying about how you wanted all the exact details (even company secret methodology he couldn't possibly provide), implying that information can't be trusted. Then you flat out call it "not true data", which flat out means it's false. What about that data is not true? Give me specific answers. Don't try to spin or backpedal or whatever. You claimed it was not true data, so give me specifically what is not true. Words have meanings for a reason.