From: David Newton
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Logic for statistics reports
Hi Paula
There was an eventually fruitless discussion about this problem last
December
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyuser
Hi Paula
There was an eventually fruitless discussion about this problem last
December
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40legacyusers.com/msg33263.html
I have to confess I did not report this as a bug because I dont' think
it is a bug. In my opinion this is a result of faulty logic i
group@LegacyUsers.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Logic for statistics reports
On 21/04/2014 00:58, Paula Ryburn wrote:
> Wondering why my average age for individuals in 1900-1999 is just 6
> years old...?!
You probably mean "Lifespan" rather than &quo
" and "after 2000"...
Etc.
Why yes, yes, I am a numbers nerd. haha
Thanks,
--Paula
From: Cathy Pinner
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Logic for statistics reports
Puzzling isn
Cathy Pinner wrote:
> Note at the top of the list is the number of people with insufficient data.
I notice that most of the people in most of my databases
fall into that category! (g)
It's one of the pitfalls of tracking one's nephews'
grandkids ...
Cheryl
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http:
Continuing with my suggestion.
I made a list of all individual born in the 19th century and with
recorded death dates, exported the list of names with Age at Death as a
csv and then calculated the average lifespan using Excel and Legacy's
own age at death calculation. To make this work I had to re
On 21 Apr 2014 02:44, Cathy Pinner wrote:
> Puzzling isn't it.
>
Not really. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
--
Regards,
Mike Fry
Johannesburg (g)
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-arch
I believe that the statistics are not calculated correctly.
For example in my database the average lifespans by century never exceed
20 years whereas the averages by gender are male: 57 yrs 2Mon, female 56
Years 4 month. These numbers are clearly inconsistent and point to a
difference in the metho
On 21/04/2014 00:58, Paula Ryburn wrote:
> Wondering why my average age for individuals in 1900-1999 is just 6
> years old...?!
You probably mean "Lifespan" rather than "age." Do you have death dates
for most of the individuals in that range? I doubt it as they are
probably mostly still alive!
Puzzling isn't it.
I think it only takes account of people with a birth and death date
in the century.
Some of the entries in the Statistics are useful to catch errors but
others are not so useful - hopefully that's "not so useful yet".
eg I have Person who lived the longest after 2000 -- 1 day
Is there a place where they explain how the stats are calculated? Wondering
why my average age for individuals in 1900-1999 is just 6 years old...?!
--Paula in Texas
Researching: Adair Baker Beasley Benson Betz Bigley Blagrave Burton Chapman
Clement Clough Coppernoll Costine Daulton Dinwiddie
11 matches
Mail list logo
