
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Paul O'Brien wrote: : While you're absolutely correct about the 10% correction, I think it's : worth stressing that historically ICV2 has always estimated low. From : what I gather, the higher figures they've produced this month are : actually MORE likely to be correct. Yes, I know. But the alternative was to go back and add the 10% to previous months, which I didn't want to do, for obvious reasons. Hopefully, they'll realize the cock-up and make up their minds about which level they want to stick to next month. If there continue to be bumps, it might be better to switch to Newsarama's estimates, which seem to be more accurate, anyway. -- Marc-Oliver Frisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Insert shallowly witty signature line here. -- [Please note: This is a Usenet message, originally posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups. If you see it in a moderated or censored forum, it was copied there without my consent.]
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |