Tweet
Sorry I wasn't singling out the RR chart, saying it was crap. All the 60's charts were crap, simply because they didn't add up the records. It's not too difficult thing to have 50 or 60 shops to tell you what they had sold. It's common sense that no two shops were alike in what they sold and to treat any sample, especially a large sample as though the shops were all equal is plain stupid.
Much of how the charts were compiled is either based on speculation or from people doing general research on the charts. Giving overall results. Yet most of the speculation on here is down at the weekly level or at least on the year in question. In a field that I'm interested in - history. Their are lots of academic historians and they would dismiss much of the so called facts on here straight away. They would point out that a great deal of research would need to be done. It's not that hard, though limited in the current situation, to track the research down. Much of it would come from people still alive that worked on the publications. When Alan Smith did his research he wasn't interested too much in the day to day running of producing a chart, I don't think he asked about the problems that cropped up from time to time. Plus there should be lots of evidence of what shops took part. Though Alan Smith said that the different papers didn't use the same shops, I think that would be highly unlikely. It might have been true at certain times, but were the 300 shops of the BMRB also not doing returns on the others?
Due to the similarity presented on here of the charts when Mr Tibbs was doing the 70's charts, some of the stores must have been supplying the BMRB as well as the papers. Otherwise the tyin's would not be the same.
Much of the information will not have vanished as many believe it has. It might not be accessible, due to it containing personal information. But it will be out there. It's just a question of knowing where to look and who to ask.
Much of how the charts were compiled is either based on speculation or from people doing general research on the charts. Giving overall results. Yet most of the speculation on here is down at the weekly level or at least on the year in question. In a field that I'm interested in - history. Their are lots of academic historians and they would dismiss much of the so called facts on here straight away. They would point out that a great deal of research would need to be done. It's not that hard, though limited in the current situation, to track the research down. Much of it would come from people still alive that worked on the publications. When Alan Smith did his research he wasn't interested too much in the day to day running of producing a chart, I don't think he asked about the problems that cropped up from time to time. Plus there should be lots of evidence of what shops took part. Though Alan Smith said that the different papers didn't use the same shops, I think that would be highly unlikely. It might have been true at certain times, but were the 300 shops of the BMRB also not doing returns on the others?
Due to the similarity presented on here of the charts when Mr Tibbs was doing the 70's charts, some of the stores must have been supplying the BMRB as well as the papers. Otherwise the tyin's would not be the same.
Much of the information will not have vanished as many believe it has. It might not be accessible, due to it containing personal information. But it will be out there. It's just a question of knowing where to look and who to ask.
Comment