Quote: (04-30-2014 08:49 AM)Deluge Wrote:
I'm almost certain that Sydney and Melbourne should not be ranked as highly as they are. Why? Because in Australia we consider to be a city is synonymous with it's metropolitan area, we do have official city-proper's but they're incredibly small both in size and population, and no one here would be able to tell you how many people live in them without looking it up. In America and Europe however (I'm not sure about Canada), when you ask somebody the population of a city they'll usually quote the city proper. In my own experience with Google Analytics, I've noticed that a visit to one of my website's from a person living in say Levittown, New York (an NYC suburb) will be counted by Analytics as coming from Levittown, while a person visiting from Parramatta in Sydney will be counted by Analytics as coming from Sydney. So Sydney's 4.75 million and Melbourne's 4.35 million people are being compared to 2.7 million people in the city of Chicago, rather than the 9.5 million in the Chicago metro, which of course over-estimates Roosh's hits from Australian cities. The Chicago area has over twice as many people as Sydney does, it would highly unlikely that Sydneysider's are more than twice as likely to visit Roosh's blog than people from the Chicago area.
Quote: (04-28-2014 02:45 PM)Biologist Wrote:
You really need to be in the top bracket of income, looks and social status to get anything better than a 5.5 out of 10 in Sydney or Melbourne.
I hope you're not being literal.
Have you ever lived outside of Australia?