We live and we learn

[Robert_R]

You can't throw up a graph of a website's traffic over the past few years and say it relates to free trade/wilderness mainly. There are limitless other factors that contribute to that graph. Almost every major update ends up having some people quit and some people coming back. Not just free trade/old wilderness.

 

And this is how google trends works:

 

"Google Trends analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. We then show you a graph with the results – our Search Volume Index graph. "

Source

 

That doesn't necessarily mean less or more players. It just means either less or more players are using google to go to runescape.

 

I couldn't find a website that gave actual page views over that long of a time. The farthest I could find was only one year so that's of no help....

[bothworlds]

You can't throw up a graph of a website's traffic over the past few years and say it relates to free trade/wilderness mainly. There are limitless other factors that contribute to that graph. Almost every major update ends up having some people quit and some people coming back. Not just free trade/old wilderness.

 

And this is how google trends works:

 

"Google Trends analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. We then show you a graph with the results our Search Volume Index graph. "

Source

 

That doesn't necessarily mean less or more players. It just means either less or more players are using google to go to runescape.

 

I couldn't find a website that gave actual page views over that long of a time. The farthest I could find was only one year so that's of no help....

 

Second part of your post is true, but as I said find something better. And as of first, frankly everyone knows the only update that was big enough to cause massive population change was the trade/wildy. I know numerous people with hundreds of millions in their accounts and professional stakers all quit after playing for many years. Sure it doesn't mean that that's the trend but realistically yes it it. Nothing else matters nearly as much.

[Robert_R]

Second part of your post is true, but as I said find something better. And as of first, frankly everyone knows the only update that was big enough to cause massive population change was the trade/wildy. I know numerous people with hundreds of millions in their accounts and professional stakers all quit after playing for many years. Sure it doesn't mean that that's the trend but realistically yes it it. Nothing else matters nearly as much.

That's a matter of opinion. Unless you produce actual proof of that statement it can't be called fact. And no, that graph is not proof of anything but how many times people google search runescape. And I still have no idea what you're trying to say with this topic. Are you against it? For it? Or just throwing out numbers to speculate the way people feel about free trade/wild.

[Wessan]

Translation of OP's post:

 

"HAY GUIS CORRELATION = CAUSATION RIGHT?

 

You fail logic forever, good day.

 

^This made my day.

 

On the subject though, I think it can be said that the graph is pointless to the argument (or lack thereof) being made.

 

The probability that Jagex brings free trade and wilderness back is high. The probability that traffic to Runscape.com, whether it be through Google or not, if the update is released is more certain than the actual update. The trend will rise for a time and settle like the price of a new item on the GE (the GE we have come to know anyway). It might even go down if some people dont like the return of old-world RS.

 

Maybe your argument was if it wasnt broke dont fix it, or dont go back on major updates youve put too much effort into. Whatever it is, I think that Jagex has finally take a step in the right direction by truly asking the players about something like this.

 

We will just have to watch the execution of it all.

[Sir_Kurity]

That's a graph of either google searches or unique users over time, it's not really relevent.

 

it's a graph of unique visits of rs.com it's relevant because every time someone wants to play runescape they must visit the site.

 

skit

[compfreak847]

The phrase 'correllation does not imply causation', said before by other posters, does not really apply - in this case, we're arguing about whether or not there's an association between two variables: google search trends and overall players. Since we have very limited data on the latter variable, it's hard to point to the first and say that it dictates the second when we have no markers by which to gauge its past performance, and we are forced to assume that the two are closely related with little evidence to go on and a plethora of confounding variables.

It does apply. The OP is drawing a correlation between old wild going away and search terms for RS declining. He's then implying a causation based on that. We're calling bull [cabbage].

 

The OP says that the graph is of the "runescape population over time", and goes on to state that the wilderness removal is what caused the decline. However, I'm not arguing about the second part of that statement - the first part is fundamentally flawed. After I pointed out that the graph was of search terms, not RS players, the OP decided that search terms were indicative of population, and continued on into the second part about the wilderness. I disagree with the first part - I don't think search trends accurately reflect population for reasons indicated in my previous post. I'm arguing that there is not a direct, linear association - we've never even gotten to the 'correlation' part.

 

Additionally, using the term 'correlation' between the old wild going away and search terms for RS declining is still wrong. Correlation requires two quantitative variables in direct comparison; the removal of the wilde4rnes is an event, not a quantitative datum. As such, he is trying to promote a cause and effect relationship, not correlation. The overused phrase "Correlation does not imply causation" is irreleveant in this thread; at no point has anyone yet arguged about the causation of two quantitative variables. In my case, I'm arguing against the association of two variables, search terms and players; however, I've yet to hear anyone, including the OP, insinuate a causation (in which the number of searches for RS would, in and of themselves, cause a change in population).