From: steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Subject: Re: MC group traffic -- velly interesting
Reply-To: steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:22:20 GMT

jlp@blink.att.com (Jon Peticolas(x7058)) writes:
>steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:
>>jlp@blink.att.com (Jon Peticolas(x7058)) writes:
>>>As for the accuracy of your estimate? I place it right up there with the 
>>>statement: 
>>>"On average every human has one ovary and one testicle."
>>Amusing, but inaccurate.  There are more people born missing one or more 
>>ovaries/testicles than those born with a surplus.  Also take into account
>>the fact that such appurtenances may be lost due to injury.  [ :-) or :-( 
>>as the reader feels appropriate. ]  Therefore, the sum of the 
>>ovaries/testicles per person *must* be less than two.
>You miss the point. I never claimed that it was an accurate statement. 
>My claim was that your estimate, based on a particularly small sample 
>and ignoring any difference between the populations measured and those 
>projected, was no more accurate. It's clearly possible to do some stupid
>things with numbers. My contribution is at least amusing.

Jon, apparently you've missed the humor in my previous response, and you
respond with an article so boorish that it cancels out your previous amusing
contribution!  So sad....

I didn't miss *your* point.  But apparently *you* missed reading mine wherein
I stated:
 `I make no claim about the "goodness" or "badness" of an alleged 16% increase.
  I merely provided what I believe to be the best possible estimate based on
  the data provided within Paul Blumstein's (I believe) post, since he put 
  forth the idea we should speculate on the increase in readership.  I used
  the data he put forth, and based my assumptions on the same figures that
  USENET uses.  Assuming that the USENET statistical approach is accurate/valid,
  I have yet to see any claim which refutes my estimate, where the challenging
  author uses an argument based on the provided statistics.'

By stating 
 "My claim was that your estimate, based on a particularly small sample
  and ignoring any difference between the populations measured and those
  projected, was no more accurate."
you have indirectly attacked the data gathering techniques used by USENET
authorities.  All I did was make a simple extrapolation, similar to what
USENET has done.

Since both rec.motorcycle.{dirt|racing} have 58% distribution, their
is no statistical basis to believe that any other RM subgroup would have
otherwise.  Since alt.motorcycles.harley presently has a 50% distribution,
there is no statistical basis to argue that the harley distribution would
not grow from the present 50% to a future RMH distribution of 58% of sites.
Again, the allegedly "particularly small sample" you refer to was garnered
by USENET authorities.  I must assume that you disagree with the published
USENET data.  That isn't my problem, Jon.  Perhaps you should take your
complaint to those who gather the data.

At least I have shown an acceptable rationale behind my estimate, and in
so doing perhaps curbed any desire for unwarranted speculation.  In this
way I have performed a service, and have done so without bias.  You, on 
the other hand, have offered absolutely *NOTHING* with respect to projected
readership quantities.  Jon, perhaps you should honor us with a reasonable
METHODOLOGY and some ACCURATE ESTIMATES based on the presented USENET data.  
Please, enlighten us!  Give us *your* best estimate!  Enrapture us with
your great knowledge!!

Steve Garnier - DoD #00000005 - '79 XS1100SF w/ 157K+ miles and *climbing*
KotF (Flame),  KotAM (Anecdotal Motorcycle),  The Daemon's Byte
steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu       "Ineluctably Prolix" - John Norman Sims, Jr.
Come an' get it!  Served up nice an' *hot*!!  Get yer FREEEEE *logorhea*!!!
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles