Are RIAA certifications about album sales accurate?

[WildRanger]

Do you believe or doubt RIAA?

I really doubt them.
For example, according to RIAA Iron Maiden's The Number of the Beast went only one Platinum in the US, and I don't believe it's true because that album has sold over 14 million copies worldwide, so it's hard to believe that it hasn't sold at least 2 million copies in such a big market as America to this day, since it was a very popular and hyped album at the time.
Also according to RIAA Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust" went only Gold in the US and I think it's impossible since I know it was a huge album at the time.

And I think it's hardly possible that George Strait has outsold The Rolling Stones in the US.

[Stadler]

Well, don't confuse the two issues. I think it is entirely plausible that Strait has outsold the Stones, but as I said elsewhere, the RIAA certifications are potentially sketchy.

To repeat from the other thread:It's my understanding that bands have to resubmit their records for "recalculation" (that's not the right word, but I can't remember the correct word); it's not done automatically.  There were rumblings not too long ago that Peter Criss and Ace Frehley were going to sue (now that they have been bought out of the Kiss organization) to, among other things, get some of the early albums recertified.  The first three records are "only" gold, Alive! is "only" gold, and Creatures is "only" gold.   Especially Alive!, wildly named as one of the best live albums of all time, it strains credulity that it is only gold.  I don't know what the legal agreement is - and that's very important - but the rumor is that Gene and Paul aren't interested in recertifying because it would mean additional payments to Ace and Pete. 

[425]

And I think it's hardly possible that George Strait has outsold The Rolling Stones in the US.

Do you admit that George Strait has had a bigger single concert audience in the US than The Rolling Stones have ever had? Because that is a fact that can be documented without relying on RIAA.

It's only worth talking about the reliability of RIAA if we make sure that first we aren't operating on our preconceived assumptions of popularity and engaging in motivated reasoning to deny any data that disagrees with those assumptions. And it's very obvious in the other thread that you have a preconceived assumption that rock music is more popular in the US than country music, and are willing to engage in motivated reasoning to deny documented facts about the popularity of country.

[bosk1]

This isn't really a "discussion" topic.  Whether anyone subjectively feels the RIAA's numbers are correct is irrelevant to anything.  If you have any evidence to support that they are not, you could have presented that and that could potentially be discussed.  But that is a different topic.