Sandman
In article <rar2l9lnc0fagmp3pvt26rgc0ma1k13eha@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

Which would be statistically worthless even if we were only talking about one store, which we weren't.

Eric Stevens
Why would it be statistically worthless even for the one store at which the data was gathered?

Sandman
Because it is only one data point. It's like I would ask you if you're feeling good and you complain about a headache and then I use this to conclude that you suffer from headaches 100% of the time.

Tony Cooper
All statistics start with one data point.

Sandman
And no statistics consist of one data point.

Tony Cooper
The more data points that are added, the more viable the statistics are.

Sandman
And as long as it contains only one data point, it is not statistics.

Tony Cooper
The first set of data points are no more or less significant than the 50th set.

Sandman
Incorrect. As long as you have one datapoint, the data is worthless, statistically.

No, it's not just a guess. It had some hard data behind it, it's just that nospam couldn't remember the actual numbers, so based on memory, he estimated them to be something close to what they were.

Tony Cooper
He didn't even count or test some of the cameras.

Sandman
Because, as far as we know, his goal there wasn't to gather statistical data.