>>2884547>pointing out how they can't control for variables is "nothing of substance"lack of variable=study worthless requires an argument and demonstration, you can't just assert it. You didn't say they COULD be worthless, you said they WERE worthless.
>All of them present the same problemsAnon, we both know you didn't read all those studies. If your gonna lie, at least make it convincing...
>yes the normal venues of sales suddenly don't applymore like they didn't impose an impediment to gathering the sales data for this period, unless you want to assert publishers don't have access to their own sales data from as late as 5 years ago.
>publisher shill.LOL
>I can't actually form an argumentMore like I'm not gonna entertain someone who clearly hasn't even read the document under discussion. Seriously anon, in the amount of time you've spent dodging this study you could have easily read it thrice over
>I know how statistics workomega lol
>I had a friend who used to work on the field"My friend said so, therefore it must be true". Well, MY friend said she left the publishing industry because piracy was killing it. My other friend, who's also a statistician, says your friend is full of shit if they think every study is ipso facto bunk based on who's funding it.
>Wow, no argument.No, that was sarcasm. They explicitly stated how they accounted for each of the variables you brought up, which is why I'm rolling my eyes. Instead of saying "the way they accounted for this variable is flawed", your saying "they didn't even try to account for this variable at all". But again, we both know you didn't read the study.
>mathematical functions don't make up for that missing infoAll of economics models are bunk
>Any person learning japaneseSo just making it up, got it.
>That just tells me who's paying them. The publisher of some ongoing series.Imagine thinking the publishers of ongoing series aren't the exact same ones with completed series. My fucking sides.
